Tuesday, 14 November 2017

TUESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2017

TUESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Rt Hon David Carter was presented to the Speaker, took the Oath of Allegiance required by law, and took his seat in the House.

Hon David Parker was presented to the Speaker, made the Affirmation of Allegiance required by law, and took his seat in the House.

Motions

Earthquake, Kaikōura—First Anniversary

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice regarding the anniversary of the Kaikōura earthquakes.

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That this House mark the first anniversary of the Kaikōura earthquakes, acknowledge the resilience of the people of the region, and commit to continue our support for the repair and recovery process.

I tēnei rā kotahi tau i mua kua rū te whenua, kua wiriwiri te whenua, kua korikori te whenua. I taua wā anō e tokorua ngā tangata kua mate. Nā reira, tuatahi māku, e mihi kau ana ki a rāua. Nā rāua i takahi atu te ara ki Te Rerenga Wairua i tāua wā anō. Nā reira, e ngā mate huhua, ko taua tokorua me ngā mate nā mātou i pīkaungia mai i tēnei rangi, ka mihi atu: haere atu rā koutou, haere atu rā, haere atu rā. Ki ō rāua whānau hoki, kei te mihi ki a rātou.

Ki te hunga ora, rātou e noho tonu ana kei terā takiwā, kei te tuku hoki i ngā mihi ki a rātou i tēnei wā anō. E manakohia ana e whiwhi ana i te ora o aua hapori. Nā reira, tēnā rā koutou.

[On this day a year ago, the land shook, trembled, and moved. At that time, two people died as well. Therefore, the first thing for me is to pay a tribute to both of them. At the same time, they have walked the path to Te Rerenga Wairua. Therefore, to the numerous deaths, those two and the ones we carry on our backs today and acknowledge: go forth, depart, and farewell. Indeed, condolences to their families as well.

To the living ones, to them living over there, I extend my sympathies to them at this point in time, as well. Hopefully, they are being treated well by those communities. Therefore, my appreciation to you collectively.]

Today marks one year since the 7.8 magnitude earthquake, which ruptured 21 fault lines, generated a tsunami, and devastated a number of communities. Today is a time to reflect on the enormous impact this earthquake has had on many people, whānau, and communities and businesses across Kaikōura, Hurunui, Marlborough, and Wellington. In the year since the quake, we have seen communities, local rūnanga and the volunteer sector, businesses, and local and central government all make a huge contribution to the response, pulling together to help and support each other.

The Kaikōura harbour opening today is a major milestone in the rebuild and recovery journey. The harbour was badly damaged in the quake. This was a hard blow, as the harbour is critical for the marine tourism industry, which is one of the largest sources of income for the region. An expanded harbour will be the catalyst for longer-term regional economic development of Kaikōura and the surrounding region. We can also look forward to the reopening of State Highway 1, north of Kaikōura, for traffic on Friday, 15 December, restoring the coastal highway link between Picton and Christchurch.

While there is much to celebrate in terms of how much progress we have made—and I have to acknowledge the previous Government for their efforts as well—the Government recognises that it is still tough going for many people and there is still work to do. The psychosocial impacts of an event like this are long lasting. Some businesses are still suffering from the isolation of the road being closed and the impact of the quake itself. This Government will continue to support the recovery, both through our commitment to completing the existing programme and by working closely with communities, organisations, and sectors affected. This Government is committed to doing everything we can to support communities, organisations, and sectors affected to ensure a full recovery.

I would like to recognise the remarkable efforts of everyone who has contributed to this recovery. We can be truly proud of how New Zealanders band together in times of disaster and look after each other. I would also like to recognise the efforts of the previous Government, as I have said, towards this recovery, and the commitment across this House to passing the recovery legislation that was pivotal to these efforts.

Today, I ask the House to join with me in reflecting on the devastating effects of 14 November 2016. This will be a difficult day for many people, but it is also a day to recognise how far we have come, together as a nation. I ask New Zealanders to join with the people of Kaikōura, Hurunui, Marlborough, and Wellington as we take time to remember what happened one year ago to this day.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support the motion by the Government and, in particular, to note the resilience of the community in Kaikōura in adapting to what were very demanding circumstances. I want to particularly acknowledge all of those workers who spent time away from their families, clearing possibly the largest slips that we’ve seen in New Zealand—a huge task that just one year ago looked almost impossible, and now it seems likely that they will hit the deadline, set back then, to have it open by Christmas. That has been a mighty effort—not without its tensions, but it is moving to a successful conclusion.

Can I also just note the resilience with which the people of the area, but also the New Zealand economy, adapted to the shutdown of the main arterial route from Blenheim through to Christchurch. It’s amazing how the South Island continued to be served by a transport system that adapted almost immediately, again handling the pressures that went with that, on the inland route.

Finally, on the point of resilience, it’s great to be in a country that could write out a cheque for somewhere between $2 billion to $3 billion because the Government’s balance sheet was in such good shape, which meant that everyone applying their resources to repairing after the earthquake was able to get on and do it without so much concern about whether it could be afforded. Also, this one-year anniversary is a time to acknowledge the local mayors there, who showed outstanding leadership, and also former Ministers Gerry Brownlee and Simon Bridges, and local MP Stuart Smith, who worked assiduously to support the community in achieving the turn-round they have.

Hon RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to join with the Acting Prime Minister in sending our best wishes and support to the people of Kaikōura on this, the first anniversary of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake that caused such devastating damage in the region. Can I pass on our deepest condolences to the families of the two Kaikōura people who died in the quake and to the dozens who were injured and who lost their homes or had their homes severely damaged. The shock of losing a loved one living in their home is an unimaginable tragedy that none of us would ever want visited on ourselves—our deepest, deepest condolences.

Also, I’d particularly like to send a tribute to all the first responders and emergency service personnel who were on the ground so rapidly, and the countless volunteers who put their backs into assisting in whatever way they could, and I especially want to mention the hundreds of volunteers that flooded into the marae to help support those people who were caught and stranded there until they could be evacuated. As the Minister of Defence, I take particular pride in and wish to thank our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who assisted in the response, and particularly those of our close military partners whose naval forces just happened to be in New Zealand to assist with the commemoration of our 75th anniversary of the Royal New Zealand Navy—how they responded and sailed south to lend assistance to the responders in situ.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank and pay tribute to people like David and Carol Mullany, who, along with their foster daughter Emily, went to huge lengths to gather up hundreds and hundreds of soft toys, which they then parcelled up and which we—various members of Parliament—enabled to get down to children to in some way offer some comfort to children who were distressed in a very uncertain time.

The people of Kaikōura are the people who deserve all the credit in the world for their resilience, their spirit, and the doggedness in which they went about assisting each other and trying to rebuild and re-establish themselves. As I mentioned at the time, unfortunately—well, fortunately—disasters like this bring out the very best in people, and we’ve just spoken of some of those people. But, sadly, it can also bring out the very worst, and it was with great sadness—and I thank the former Government for organising the opportunity for Clayton Mitchell and myself to go down to Kaikōura and witness what was happening on the ground, but we were saddened and disappointed to learn that there were people who were opportunists who took advantage of others’ misery. We would simply, from New Zealand First, remind the House that there is some legislation that needs to be passed to deal with those people who seem to think that—looting people’s homes and other people’s properties at a time such as this is thoroughly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of all New Zealanders.

Motion agreed to.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Conduct

Mr SPEAKER: We come now to questions, but before I ask for the first question, I want to make a small change to the way we’re doing questions. Last week, I advised the House how I would manage question time to ensure a freer flow of questions and answers, without the Speaker being so involved. Having reflected on last Thursday’s question time, I intend to make a small change to assist those listening to proceedings. Once a member has asked a primary question, I will now call on the Minister to answer it.

The feedback I had was that members of the public listening on the radio couldn’t tell who it was who was answering the questions, especially when a Minister was answering on behalf of another Minister. The requirement for members not to interject during the asking of questions will apply until after I have called the Minister to answer.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Statements on Targets

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement made on her behalf in the House on Thursday, 9 November that the Government “will make decisions on appropriate targets in due course”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is it her Government’s policy to target “building 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years”, as stated by the Minister of Housing and Urban Development in the House?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]—does the Prime Minister, therefore, also stand by—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bridges just lost his side a supplementary question.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister also stand by the statements made by the housing Minister that there are three ways the Government would implement KiwiBuild: first, by stepping into already under way building developments, like Hobsonville Point, and securing a large number of new residences there; secondly, by buying off-the-plan units in planned developments, like new high-rise CBD apartment blocks; and, thirdly, by creating its own development sites?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, and no.

Rt Hon Bill English: So does that mean the Prime Minister does not stand by the statements made by the housing Minister that part of KiwiBuild is not building new houses but to buy existing houses?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. I stand by the Minister’s statement, to build 100,000 affordable homes.

Rt Hon Bill English: With respect to the setting of appropriate targets, will the Government be counting, as part of the 100,000, buying units that are bought off the plan or already planned new residences in Hobsonville Point that are purchased by the Government?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Decisions on interim targets to achieve these housing policies will be made in due course.

Rt Hon Bill English: In the statements made by the Government, does the word “build” mean “build” or does it mean “buy”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It means “build”.

Rt Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister then correct the housing Minister, who has said publicly that one of the ways they will achieve 100,000 houses is not to build some of those houses but to buy off-the-plan units in high-rise CBD apartment blocks already planned, or to buy houses already under way, being built at Hobsonville Point and other places?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Off-the-plan houses haven’t been built.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister, therefore, agree with the statement by the Reserve Bank indicating that, in their view, about half of the 100,000 houses will be offset by reduced private sector development, and, therefore, not only will the Government not be building 100,000 new houses, but there will be a net gain of maybe 50,000?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, we respectfully disagree.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does the same kind of tricky wording apply to the goal of 1,800 extra sworn-in police, or is it simply an aspirational goal, as stated by the police Minister?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Decisions on targets such as the 1,800 new police will be made in due course, but we will work towards that goal over the three years.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement on 24 October that the additional police resource will cost “an extra $40 million”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, those costs have been finalised.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware that the likely cost is around $200 million, and does that affect the likelihood of achieving 1,800 sworn-in police, as the Government said is its target?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I would have to check the member’s figures.

Women, Minister—Quotas for Women on Boards

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her statement regarding quotas for women on boards that “I think that there’s evidence that it’s effective, and if we can’t achieve it otherwise, then I think that we should be exploring it”; if so, why?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Yes, I do stand by my statement, and I can share with that member that evidence from countries that have introduced quotas on boards has shown a significant increase in women’s representation, and also improved quality and transparency of board appointment processes. I agree with that member on her prior press release, in which she stated, on 8 May 2017: “Research shows the benefits of gender diversity on boards. … The boards of NZX-listed companies still only have 17 per cent women and that’s quite frankly not good enough.”

Hon Paula Bennett: How will she continue to increase the number of women on State sector boards, given the record increase under the previous Government from 43.4 percent in 2015 to 45.3 percent in 2016?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very ambitious for what we can achieve. I note that the previous Government dropped the target on public sector boards from 50 percent to 45 percent, and perhaps that made it easier to achieve the target. But I think that we should be quite ambitious. We will continue to work towards a target of 45 percent or more, and we do that, quite simply, by using the information that’s available from the Ministry for Women. There are a large number of high-quality, competent, capable women who are willing to and able to serve on boards, and we’ll be appointing them.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of her beliefs that quotas are effective and that she’ll “start with a conversation”, will that conversation include discussions with Jacinda Ardern on how she can increase the number of women in her Government’s Cabinet from 35 percent, down from a record high of 40 percent under Bill English?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I believe that question is best directed to the Prime Minister, who I am quite—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, I’m trying to answer, and they’re interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER: I can hear the Minister, so she can just keep going.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: OK, great—great. I’m quite pleased to note that we do, again, have a female Prime Minister, and I’m sure she will be a considerable ally to all women in New Zealand.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does she believe that an organisation with 45 percent of women in its caucus but only 33 percent of women in their executive is one that is demonstrating leadership in increasing the number of women on boards and—as the Minister herself was just previously saying—is great gender diversity that leads to better decision-making?

Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to rule out—this Minister does not have responsibility for percentages in the Labour Party caucus.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order—one crack at convincing me.

Hon Paula Bennett: Yep. I think I was very clear in saying: does she believe that an organisation that has a certain membership then has representation in their executive? I could reword that for you, sir, if it would make you feel more comfortable.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll be kind to the member and ask the Minister to answer.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: For the sake of the member, I would say that what we’re focused on is increasing female representation on private sector boards, and the way that I will address that is by opening up a conversation. The representation on private sector boards is less than 20 percent—17 percent—and so there’s considerable room for improvement in that, and I’m going to be opening up a conversation about women’s representations with private sector leaders later today.

Jan Logie: Is the Minister satisfied with progress towards gender equality on State boards and committees?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No. I believe the previous Government let women and the State sector down when they dropped the target for State boards from 50 percent down to 45 percent, and I believe they’ve failed to seize the opportunity to lead the conversation with New Zealanders about the effectiveness of specific policies to increase female representation in governance.

Jan Logie: Has she seen any reports on progress towards gender equality and leadership in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, I have. The New Zealand Census of Women on Boards published this year, in 2017, says, and I quote, “… a quarter of the top 100 companies still have no women on their boards despite decades of political, business and public concern about women’s representation.” Unlike the previous Government, I don’t believe this is a cause for celebration. I’ll be a champion of women to change this.

Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions

3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: When does he plan to restart contributions to the New Zealand Super Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As indicated during the Speech from the Throne, this Government intends to resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to help safeguard the provision of universal superannuation at age 65. These contributions will be starting in this calendar year, as part of the Government’s 100-day plan. This will be a welcome change after nine years of no Government contributions.

Kiritapu Allan: What estimates has he received of the cost of the fund—of withholding contributions over the past nine years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As at 30 June 2017, the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation estimated that the fund was $21.3 billion smaller than it would otherwise have been. After allowing for borrowing costs, the fund would’ve been $8.3 billion higher if contributions had been retained—the equivalent of $4,800 per household.

David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that the past performance of investment funds always guarantees their future performance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One can never make such guarantees, but the super fund is one of the best-performing sovereign wealth funds in the world.

Kiritapu Allan: Over the next three years, what is the value of the contributions that the Minister proposes to make to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government is proposing that in addition to the zero dollars that the previous administration provided for in the pre-election fiscal update, we will be providing $3 billion of additional capital to be invested with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This Government believes that making investments for the long term is in the interests of the shared prosperity of New Zealanders.

Government Financial Position—Crown Debt and Natural Disaster Preparedness

4. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the cost to date and the expected total cost, including EQC costs, to the Government and taxpayers of the relief and reconstruction efforts following the Kaikōura earthquake one year ago today?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am advised that the cost to date of Government expenditure on the relief and reconstruction efforts is $705 million. The expected cost to the Government is still to be determined. However, I am advised that the total estimated cost of relief and reconstruction efforts, including insurance payments and other non-core Crown expenses, is likely to be in the order of $2 billion.

Hon Steven Joyce: What has been the cost of the Canterbury earthquakes to the Government, including Earthquake Commission costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information with me today.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Minister, could I please table the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2015, which shows about $17 billion—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member can’t. It’s already been tabled. It’s a publicly available document.

Hon Steven Joyce: As a result of the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis, what was the Government’s net debt, in dollar terms, as at 30 June 2017?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have the exact information with me, but I recall that it was around about the $60 billion mark.

Hon Steven Joyce: Given that number and the unfortunate regularity of natural disasters in New Zealand, and also the potential for other shocks, would the Minister not think it would be prudent at this stage of the economic cycle for the Government to be reducing net debt so that we are ready for the next rainy day, as we’ve been able to be ready for Christchurch and for Kaikōura?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is the policy of this Government to reduce net debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office.

Hon Steven Joyce: Under what circumstances would he consider reducing the Government’s debt in dollar terms, given that he has inherited a growing economy, record levels of employment—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Those are unnecessary additions to the question. If the member wants to look at Speakers’ rulings very carefully and ask only what is necessary—you don’t need a pile of givens.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. These are descriptions of the stage of the economic cycle that we’re in, and—

Mr SPEAKER: And are unnecessary for answering the question.

Hon Steven Joyce: Well, OK. Under what circumstances would he ever consider reducing the Government debt, in dollar terms, given that he still wants to increase borrowing by at least $11 billion compared to the pre-election fiscal update over the next five years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’d be very wary of that member’s use of the phrase “$11 billion”, but what I can say to the House is that this Government wants to continue to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP, but what we’re not prepared to put up with is a situation where we do not have enough affordable homes, where we have not made contributions to the super fund, and where an enormous social deficit is growing. In those circumstances, a slower debt repayment track is totally appropriate.

Regional Economic Development—Trade Agreements

5. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Has he received any reports on the benefit of market access to economic growth in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes. I’ve received a host of reports dealing with market access and the benefits of improved market access for economic growth in the regions.

Hon Simon Bridges: How beneficial does he believe the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) agreement would be for regional economic development?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, whilst it’s not directly in my province of responsibility, the reality is that an approved set of trade arrangements, which themselves are still in a state of flux, will inevitably bring upside to the provinces, especially those in the business of agricultural products.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, can I ask the Minister straight: does he support the signing of the CPTPP agreement?

Mr SPEAKER: That’s not the Minister’s responsibility. There is another Minister—

Hon Simon Bridges: Given its—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member’s had his question and I’ve ruled it out.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you can have another question—if the member wants it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, it’s a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: You see the primary question, which is clearly about trade access and regional development. That’s because regional development, which this Minister is responsible for, and trade access are intrinsically linked. So I think implicit in my question is—

Mr SPEAKER: The member might think the link’s intrinsic, but this Minister is in charge of regional economic development. He is not in charge of trade negotiations, and while there might be some advantages, as I think members agree, to the regions, of that sort of arrangement, whether or not this Minister supports it is not within his responsibilities in that ministerial portfolio. Does the member want to have another crack?

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, it’s a new question; I take it I’ve lost that one.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, you have.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: But you’ve just got it back, all right?

Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of regional development, does the Minister think there are any regions of New Zealand that would not benefit from the kind of agreement we may well see, in terms of the CPTPP agreement in New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Without knowing what the final outcome would be, obviously those who are in the business of exporting from the regions’ forestry resources, beef resources, and fish resources—you’d have to imagine there is considerable upside.

Hon Simon Bridges: So does he accept the upside from trade agreements and disagree with the comments made in this House about what a bad deal the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is?

Hon SHANE JONES: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have no idea what he is talking about. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was struggling a little myself and I thought it might be a fine point that I didn’t understand. I’ll ask the member to repeat his question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, to the Minister: in light of his answers about the benefits, in the regions, of trade, does he disagree with comments made in this House about what a bad deal the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is and what it would mean for the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: Given that it is probably a historical remark unlikely to relate to what I concede to be a new deal still in flux, but unless he puts more specific context, I think there is considerable upside in the regions for an imaginative and clever trade deal.

Young People—Numbers Held in Police Cells

6. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Children: What information has she received about the number of young people being held in police cells?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): The latest reports I have seen show that the number of young people detained in police cells for more than 24 hours in the September quarter has reduced by 40 percent. While we will continue to work to reduce these numbers further, it is an excellent start. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member just needs to get started, and then I can control the other side. So away you go.

Jenny Marcroft: What factors are behind this reduction?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Since Oranga Tamariki was created there has been an enormous amount of work to create more options for those young people on remand, with both Oranga Tamariki and the police working collaboratively on this issue, and I acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley. Oranga Tamariki has opened four new community-based remand homes over the six months of its existence, in recognition that keeping young people connected to their communities has the downstream effect of helping them to become more resilient and less likely to reoffend. As mentioned in the primary answer, our target is to reduce the number of young people held in cells for longer than 24 hours, to zero. This will take time and investment, but this is an excellent beginning.

Health, Minister—Policies and Targets

7. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What quantifiable health service improvements, if any, will his policies deliver?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government is committed to providing affordable access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. This will happen in many ways; there are too many examples to list. However, to pick just one, I can tell the member that more people will be able to access affordable primary healthcare.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: By exactly how much will he lift the number of elective surgeries above the 174,000 delivered in the past year, given his commitment to increase access to elective surgery?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will not be rushed into committing to specific targets. I want a health system that is honest and transparent with targets not like the previous Government’s one, which was pumping statistics by performing Avastin injections and skin lesions removals that could have been done in primary care.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question. If he doesn’t have an answer, he should just say so.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I probably was a bit slack letting him go on after he answered the question in the first sentence.

Matt Doocey: By how much will he reduce the suicide rate over the next three years now that his Government has taken responsibility for the rate, as reported in the New Zealand Herald yesterday in the article entitled “… New Health Minister pledges change on youth suicide”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: One suicide is one suicide too many. I do not believe it will be possible to eliminate suicide in the first term of this Government, but we are committed to lowering the rate of suicide in New Zealand, and I am looking forward to beginning the mental health inquiry.

Dr Shane Reti: What did he mean exactly by his statement to the New Zealand Herald yesterday that addressing colonisation will be an important part of his mental health inquiry?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is one factor that I said to the New Zealand Herald I expect will come up in the inquiry.

Jo Luxton: What advice has the Minister—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, point of—

Hon Simon Bridges: He was asked a very clear question as to what he meant. He hasn’t answered that, remotely.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I beg to differ.

Jo Luxton: What advice has the Minister received on the financial state and viability of the health sector he has inherited?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Bad news: as the incoming health Minister I’ve been advised that, a third of the way into the current financial year, not one district health board (DHB) annual plan has been signed off. Furthermore, I’ve learned that under the previous Government’s watch, DHB deficits have been increasing at an unsustainable rate.

Mr SPEAKER: All right. Order! Again, I probably should’ve stopped the member earlier. The supplementary question might be an interesting one, and it could be a very good primary question, but its relationship to the first question, or even to the subsequent answers, is too tenuous and we’re not going to continue with it.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Can he explain the improvements his policies will have on the link that he believes exists between colonisation and youth suicide?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government will commit to a mental health review—an inquiry, a ministerial inquiry—and that inquiry I have asked to be broad. It will cover a variety of topics, including the one the former Minister has raised, and I expect it to provide answers that will help us to provide mental health services that New Zealanders need.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald dated 13 November entitled—

Mr SPEAKER: Not a chance. Stop now. Sit down.

Education, National Standards—Removal

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Will National Standards be scrapped within the next 12 months, and will he guarantee that any new replacement system will be in place for all schools prior to removing National Standards?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The new Government intends to honour the commitments made by the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party to scrap national standards and replace them with a requirement for schools to report progress to parents against all levels of the New Zealand curriculum. The timetable for that is yet to be confirmed by Cabinet.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will schools that want to keep national standards rather than shift to a new system be forced to remove them by the Government; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, no.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he commit to ensuring the current national standards requirement of at least twice-yearly reporting to parents will remain?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve been clear that we won’t be proceeding with national standards, but we will still require regular reporting to parents—I would think at least twice a year.

Hon Nikki Kaye: How can New Zealanders have confidence in this Minister when he said that national standards will be gone quickly, he has no time line, he doesn’t know the costs according to other comments that he’s made, he hasn’t developed the detailed system—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! To the question, please.

Hon Nikki Kaye: So why can New Zealanders have confidence, given that he doesn’t know the detail of what he’s replacing national standards with?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do have a time line. The member didn’t listen to my answer. Cabinet is yet to sign it off.

Raymond Huo: Why does the Government intend to abolish national standards?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because they are neither national nor standard. Analysis by the Ministry of Education found that they incorrectly measure the achievements of four out of every 10 students. Less than a third of children who were judged to have met the maths standard for their age had actually met that standard.

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the answer that we’ve just had by the Minister, we had a constant barrage coming over here from your left-hand side, and it didn’t get picked up by the Speaker. I was just wondering what the ruling is with regards to that barraging from the Opposition side.

Mr SPEAKER: People are allowed to interject during answers. That’s OK, you know, and I thought it wasn’t nearly as loud as some other times that I might’ve been involved myself.

Hon Tracey Martin: Can he confirm that prior to the introduction of national standards in 2009, parents received report cards at least twice a year based on the curriculum and the educational advancement of their children?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can confirm that. In fact, schools have had a range of resources and tools available to them over an extended period of time to report progress to parents that were significantly more reliable than national standards.

Housing, Rental—Minimum Standards

9. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps has he taken to improve the quality of rental properties?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I’m advised that around 1,600 mainly older New Zealanders are dying prematurely each winter, and around 40,000 New Zealand children are hospitalised with illnesses linked to cold, damp homes. The Government intends to set modern minimum standards for heating and ventilation, draught stopping, drainage, and moisture for rental properties, to help reduce the negative health effects of living in cold, damp homes.

Greg O’Connor: Will these measures place a burden on landlords and put up rents?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government will support landlords to make sure their properties are up to scratch, with grants of up to $2,000 per property for retrofitting, and will embark on a comprehensive consultation process with landlords next year, alongside other stakeholders and the public, in this designing of the new standards. Many factors influence private sector rents, not least supply and demand. The Government will work with landlords to ensure that providing warm, dry homes is both cost-effective and practical, and, at the same time, deals with the shocking health effects of substandard housing.

Greg O’Connor: How long will it take to implement these changes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Once the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) is passed, there will be an 18-month period during which time the standards will be met. There will be—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Continue.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There will be an additional grace period, so that landlords have the time to prepare to meet the new standards. Then, every time a new tenancy turns over, it must meet the standards, and after five years, every rental property must comply.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he intend to table draft regulations in advance of the consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House, as is customary when primary legislation prescribes for secondary legislation?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Education, Minister—Free Fees for Australians

10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his statements?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his answer to my oral question last Thursday: “Will Australians have access to free fees in 2018?”

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister telling the House that in the next six weeks, he will unilaterally change the trans-Tasman arrangements currently in place that treat Australians as domestic students for the purposes of fees from the time they arrive?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just need to clarify or get some—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. You can’t clarify anything by way of point of order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Right. Well, so under Speaker’s ruling 183/5, I thought the practice was that if a Minister makes an incorrect statement to the House, he has the opportunity to clear it—

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll just make it very clear: if a Minister makes an incorrect statement to the House, he has an obligation to come back and correct it. It is not a matter to be raised by the member in the House. If the member is very concerned about it, he might want to write me a note.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he say—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The National Party just lost a supplementary.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he say Australians would have to meet a three-year residence requirement before they have access to free fees?

Mr SPEAKER: I’m assuming you mean “Why did the Minister”, but we’ll go with that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because those are the rules that already apply to the forms of student support such as access to interest-free student loans and student allowances.

Prisons—Prison Population

11. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by the comments reported that he is looking at ways to exit a deal under which the Government is to build a 1,500 bed facility at Waikeria; if so, how does he intend to accommodate the forecast increase in prisoners?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): My preferred option is not to have to build more prisons. I’m aware that the previous Government had committed to the build, but this Government will be looking at all the options available before making a decision.

Simon O’Connor: What specific and measurable targets for prison capacity reduction has he set for the next three years, given the forecast growing prison population?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Any decisions around targets will be made in due course.

Simon O’Connor: In light of that answer, is the Minister signalling that he will be releasing violent offenders into the community, given that over 75 percent of all those in prison are there for violent offences, and the Minister has been quoted as talking about reducing the prison population by 30 percent?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that’s just ridiculous.

Simon O’Connor: Is the Minister saying that his previous quotes are ridiculous?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, I’m saying that the member’s previous question was ridiculous.

Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If quoting a member’s, in this case, a Minister’s, own comments back at him are then being reflected back at the member—it seems to be an inconsistency.

Mr SPEAKER: I think it probably doesn’t add much to the tone of the place, especially when the member’s maths are being questioned like that. But I think it’s not a point of order.

Barbara Kuriger: What advice has he received about the impact any exit plan would have on the rural communities of Ōtorohanga and Waipā, in particular related to any commitments made by the local councils to the project?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We haven’t made any decisions, but, when we do, we’ll take all of those interests into account.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if the Minister had received any advice.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Trade Agreements—Protection of the Rights of New Zealanders

12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How has the Government protected the rights of New Zealanders in international trade negotiations?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, which member made that noise? Which member made that noise? It was sort of a guffaw-type noise. Well, a member on my left made it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I might have made a noise.

Mr SPEAKER: Right, well that’s another—

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, let me rule first, and then you might want to take your point of order. That is another question from the National Party, and I must say, given the time that was taken for the member to own up, I was tempted to make it a more serious punishment. Is there a further point of order?

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suppose the issue is, Mr Speaker, that one man’s “guffaw” may simply be an “ahem”, and it’s very difficult to know who had caused that. We do know—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. I’ve pleaded guilty to being slightly deaf in my left ear, and if it was a quiet “ahem” I wouldn’t have heard it.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the time delay, because of that point of order, for listeners, it would be helpful, I suggest, for the question to be asked again.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, I think people can stay with it. I am sure the member could include it in his answer. He is nimble enough to get the facts in.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): The new Government believes that if you’ve got the right to live in New Zealand, you’ve got the right to buy a home here. Overseas wealthy people should not be able to outbid New Zealanders for our homes. The new Government will be bringing legislation before this House to ban foreign buyers of existing New Zealand homes. If done swiftly, our ban on foreign house buyers is fully compatible with the Korean free-trade agreement, the China free-trade agreement, and the renegotiated—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you’ve rightly pulled people up on the length of their answers today—and some of the questions, in fact. This is turning into a speech, I would suggest.

Mr SPEAKER: I think it’s an enthusiastic reply, but I think the Minister might just have, at long last, got to answering the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If done swiftly, our ban on foreign buyers is fully compatible with the Korean free-trade agreement, the China free-trade agreement, and the renegotiated Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). New Zealanders were at risk of losing that right to ban foreign buyers, under the process that the last Government had set forth.

Willow-Jean Prime: What gains has he made for New Zealanders on the CPTPP?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The new Government has worked hard to improve the agreement whilst protecting access to several important markets, including the third-largest economy in the world, Japan. Although we didn’t get everything we want, we have not just protected the land issue; we have also made gains on investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses and the protection of Pharmac from increased costs of medicines, and it shows what a good Government can do in just three weeks if they work hard.

Willow-Jean Prime: Has he seen any reports that it is not possible to ban the sale of existing homes to foreigners because of existing free-trade agreements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I have. I have seen, for example, the report that says a ban on foreign buyers would rip up trade deals and cost thousands of jobs that New Zealand relies upon, would cut across a range of existing free-trade agreements like those with Australia and Korea, and would cause difficulty with China. This has proven to be wholly incorrect. Of course, those comments came from the National Party, and were wrong.

Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister tell the House, when the Prime Minister has claimed to have made significant changes over just three weeks to a 5,000-page agreement—the TPP—with just two pages of amendments, how many of these changes were discussed or agreed by officials or Ministers in the six TPP meetings held in Chile, Australia, Japan, Canada, and Vietnam since March of this year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister—sorry—the member and former Minister is wrong that there are just two pages of amendments. It is true that some of the amendments to the CPTPP were negotiated by officials and Ministers, including that Minister, before the recent round. It is also true that it is the efforts of this Government that have further narrowed the effect of ISDS clauses, including further bilateral agreements with other countries, the total effect of which is that of the foreign direct investment coming into New Zealand from Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 countries, more than 80 percent of that foreign direct investment is no longer covered by ISDS clauses.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I am granting the National Party a further supplementary question because of an interjection from Tracey Martin during the last one.

Hon Todd McClay: Did the Minister inform the Prime Minister, when she claimed that the rebranded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was better because 80 percent of foreign direct investment into New Zealand was now not covered by ISDS because of a side letter agreed last week with Australia, that, in fact, we already have a side letter with Australia, signed in 2016, that exempts all Australian investment from ISDS under TPP?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member is referring to the side letter in respect of the former TPP agreement, not the current one. I am advised that a new side agreement was required because this is a new and better agreement. Secondly, other side letters have been sought with a range of other countries, and they are in play, and it is something that the gormless former Government didn’t even try to achieve.

Hon Todd McClay: I seek leave to table copies of the side letters exchanged between New Zealand and Australia signed in Auckland on 4 February 2016, exempting ISDS under TPP between our two countries—in case the Minister needs to copy them for the rebranded agreement.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They may be tabled.

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

Mr SPEAKER: That concludes—

Hon Todd McClay: Are there more supplementaries? You gave one back to us.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m informed that the one you just had was your last one.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 9 November.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): We heard time and time again, when New Zealand was unfortunate enough to have that crowd on this side, that it couldn’t be done—it couldn’t be done. They told us that a ban on the foreign buyers of New Zealand homes would breach our existing free-trade agreements. Were they correct? No, they were not. They said it would breach the China free-trade agreement. Would it have? No, it would not have. In fact, that agreement was so well drafted by the prior Labour Government that we always protected the right of a future Government to ban buyers of New Zealand homes, as China has the right to do in respect of New Zealand buyers of homes in their country, and as China has, in fact, done in respect of some of their big cities—putting aside the fact that you actually can’t buy freehold land in China generally anyway.

They said it couldn’t be done because of the South Korea free-trade agreement. Were they right? No, they were wrong. Again, they were spinning. They were misrepresenting the situation. They told us, and they told New Zealanders, that it couldn’t be done in respect of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement or the renegotiated, improved agreement. Were they right? No, they were wrong. That’s three out of three so far, and the list goes on. There is only one free-trade agreement where there is a slight complication, and that is the Singapore closer economic partnership. The proposed ban on the sale of existing homes to foreign buyers is consistent with all of our other agreements.

Now, what would have happened if National if had been re-elected and had signed the TPP? Would that have prevented policy space for a future Government to ban it? Yes, it would. So what that Government was doing was unnecessarily trading away the sovereign rights of a future New Zealand Government to stand up for New Zealanders and say, “Look, there are some problems with the excesses of global capitalism in the world. There is this enormous transfer of wealth compounding every year, which means that the world’s wealth—not just in New Zealand but even more so overseas—is increasingly intensively held by the 1 percent.” Indeed, it’s a fraction of 1 percent and that fraction of 1 percent of the world owns more and more of the world every year.

The National Party say, “Well, it’s OK. We think those 1 percenters from overseas should be able to come into New Zealand and outbid a New Zealander for our homes.” On this side of the House, we reject that. We think that is abhorrent. We think that one of the ways you have to protect a liberal, open democracy connected to the rest of the world is you have to protect your local citizens. And in the Labour Party we are proud to stand up for New Zealanders. In fact, we are proud to put New Zealanders first—proud to put New Zealanders first.

We have fought hard on the international stage to protect the interests of New Zealand. We have advanced the interests of New Zealand. The other side said, “Oh, look. You don’t need a ban. You need a stamp duty. A stamp duty will work.” They said, “A stamp duty’s the answer.” Were they right? Could that be done? No, they were wrong. The advice that we’ve had from officials is that a stamp duty would breach the agreement that the National Government negotiated with South Korea just a couple of years ago. I mean, that agreement was an example of the ineptitude of the National Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, do you know—and congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment—that under that agreement Korea retained the right to ban New Zealand buyers of their homes but the New Zealand Government said that they were giving it away? They pretended they had. They actually got that wrong. They didn’t even understand their own free-trade agreement. Then the nonsense of that was further shown by the fact that Australia negotiated that right for themselves in their agreement the year before.

Hon Phil Twyford: So why didn’t National?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Look, National’s incompetence in respect of trade has been shown up. They never landed a decent multilateral trade agreement while they were in power. It’s taken Labour, with the support of New Zealand First and the Greens, to actually protect the interests of New Zealand in respect of land. Other provisions that are protected—and the prior Minister and the prior Government do need credit for some of this. There is a good Treaty clause, which the Waitangi Tribunal has been happy enough with, that protects the rights of a New Zealand Government to do anything in the name of the Treaty—except post high tariffs, but anything in the name of the Treaty. It is a subjective clause. It is not subject to investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions. It’s a very good clause.

The prior Government did protect the model of Pharmac. We acknowledged that before the election. They did that well. This further agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), further improves upon that by suspending some of the patent provisions that would have put up medicine costs to the New Zealand Government—not by an unaffordable amount, but by some tens of millions of dollars every year. Those provisions, which were extending data exclusivity for biologic drugs, have been suspended.

We have narrowed ISDS clauses in a number of ways. The most easily understood is the example of the Waterview tunnel. If that was built in the future by one of the original TPP12 countries, as negotiated by National, and they had a dispute with the New Zealand Government over the building of Waterview tunnel, they could have taken them to an international investor panel, an ISDS panel, and, effectively, litigated their complaint there. This agreement narrows the effect of the ISDS clause—and there was objection to this from another country in particular right to the end of the negotiations, so we were arguing hard for this. That is no longer allowed, so if you’ve got a contractual dispute from an investor in a contract with the New Zealand Government, they’ve got to litigate that dispute in the New Zealand court system, rather than go to an ISDS panel.

As the Prime Minister noted, we have got a longstanding agreement with Australia that we do not need these things between each other, so we’ve renewed that earlier provision so that the exempting from ISDS for the Australia - New Zealand relationships continues. Further than that, we sought side letters to similar effect with a number of other countries. I can’t name them, nor the number, because those are still in negotiation.

The negotiations themselves were somewhat interesting—actually, before I go into the negotiations, the highest ever labour and labour enforcement standards are in the agreement. It’s been a matter of record that a transitional period has been agreed for Vietnam before the enforcement provisions take effect, which gives them time to update their labour laws so as to allow freedom of association and prevent child labour and the like.

The environmental space to regulate is very wide, and we are confident that the Government has got full ability to regulate for the environment, for health and safety, for labour laws, and for taxation. Public health and education are absolutely protected. There is no risk to them. One of the things we’re going to do to take that message out to the country is to better consult with civil society, because one of the reasons there’s been a bit of a backlash against trade agreements is that Governments have, (1), allowed the investment protocols to go too far, and we, as a Government, are pushing against that, and, (2), failed to properly explain the effect of these agreements.

The negotiations were, at times, derailed. It looked like it was completely off. It is now back on the rails. We now have a stabilised legal text. There will be gains for our exporters, which builds competitive advantage for New Zealand, which will mean more high-value jobs, especially, as Minister Jones has already said, in the regions that grow and produce agricultural products.

This shows what a good Government can do in three weeks. We’ve got three years. By the end of three years, New Zealand is going to be a better country than it is now. We are going to be more prosperous, we’re going to be fairer, and we’re going to knock the rough edges off the extremes of global capitalism so that we protect the interests of New Zealanders and are a fairer, as well as more prosperous, society.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Madam Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment to high office. You were an outstanding Minister of the Crown, and you’ve had a wonderful career in this place, including as junior and senior whip. I’m sure you’re going to do a very fine job as Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate the Assistant Speakers on their appointments and wish them all the very best. I have praised the Speaker enough, and I’ve used my three-year quota of praise on him, so I’m not going to say anything further about him. I congratulate my successor as Attorney-General on his reassumption of that office. I wish him all the very best. I think he should take silk, notwithstanding what would probably be Charles Chauvel’s sniping about it. It’s entirely appropriate for an Attorney-General to take silk. You’re not appointing yourself, but it can be done under the royal prerogative, and I think it’s probably overdue in relation to him.

I do want to comment a little bit on the campaign. I normally stand up and say here that it’s great to be back, but it’s kind of good to be back. I would much rather be on the other side than where I am here, but I have to say I’m in that category in the National Party that said we dodged a bullet, because while I have some regard for some of my New Zealand First parliamentary colleagues, I have absolutely no regard for the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I have had no regard for him from the time I acted for the National Party caucus in the early 1990s, when he was removed from the caucus for disloyalty. Old habits don’t change very quickly. He has made absolutely no contribution to New Zealand, in my view, and it is becoming abundantly clear, as Judith Collins said recently, that the negotiations after the general election were essentially a fraud. So I believe we’ve dodged a bullet, and I’m very happy that the National Party conducted itself with propriety and dignity.

I want to say something about the Leader of the Opposition, who fought the campaign of his life. He is a friend of mine, and I know what it was like to be there in 2002. He copped the backlash of some years of taking things for granted in the National Party and did not have a good campaign there, but in 2017 he fought the campaign of his life and can be incredibly proud of what he did for the National Party and the country. I tend to take the view that he should treat it as a three-year sabbatical, something like Keith Holyoake did between 1957 and 1960. Mr English is a man of great integrity and ability, easily the best Minister of Finance this country’s ever seen. He ran an excellent campaign, and the results are here for all to see.

Never has there been a stronger Opposition, never has there been a more united Opposition, and the commitment of the National Party to being unified and working together to deal with the many issues that this Government is going to leave us is something, quite frankly, I am deeply, deeply proud of. So I say to Mr English and to Ms Bennett—and to Mr Joyce, who was such an excellent campaign chair—that they can be really proud of their efforts, and I, for one, am very proud of them.

The campaign in Rongotai was an interesting campaign. I always say that it’s a marginal seat, and I’m always having to recalibrate when exactly there will be a triumphal win for the National Party in Rongotai; I think, on current figures, it’s probably now 2060. But I have to say, Mr Eagle was an excellent competitor, a fine man, and I wish him all the very best during his term as the MP for Rongotai. In fact, I think it’s fair to say the campaign in Rongotai was quite a good advertisement for democracy. I say to the Green Party that their candidate, Teall Crossen, was an excellent candidate who stayed totally on message, and I think we’ll see more of her in the future. She was—myself excluded—the star of the show.

But there were two things that came out of the campaign that I want to share with members this afternoon. The first is that at every meeting we candidates attended, there wasn’t one question about income production; it was all about income redistribution, and nowhere was that more apparent than in the most inappropriately named area of New Zealand, Happy Valley. We had an interesting campaign meeting there, and everyone wanted to know what could be done for them and clearly never would have understood JFK’s great statement: “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” I say to members of the Government and their support party that this country will never progress if there is that kind of attitude—the attitude of redistribution—and there is no focus on wealth production.

The second thing I want to talk about is a very interesting meeting I had with Weta Digital. Weta Digital is a very important company in both Wellington and New Zealand—one of the largest non-governmental employers in Wellington. It has five employees and 1,800 contractors, and they are very worried about possible changes to what has become known as the “Hobbit law”. I was there in 2010 when I received a phone call from Richard Taylor saying how worried he was that The Hobbit would be going overseas, and that Peter Jackson was very worried. The former Prime Minister, John Key, met with Peter Jackson immediately, and the law was changed to reflect what was an understanding of existing industry practice. Then he was masterly in his dealings with Warner Bros, and The Hobbit was saved for Wellington. Then, as the result of further changes that were made, the Avatar films and other films have come to Wellington, and Wellington is indeed the centre, in New Zealand, of major film productions.

I say this to the Government: if the motivation in changing that law is utu, to get back at Peter Jackson and the National Party after the events of 2010, think again. They will destroy the film industry in Wellington, and I’ll be very interested to see what Greg O’Connor from Ōhāriu and Paul Eagle from Rongotai are going to be able to say about that, because their constituents will be affected. Utu and nastiness is not a proper basis for lawmaking. The “Hobbit law” in 2010 was necessary to protect the film industry in New Zealand, and it would be a very sad day if that legislation was passed. It would cause immeasurable harm to the film industry in Wellington.

So these are the sorts of issues that we’re going to be debating over the next period. I don’t intend to talk about my own ministerial record; I see no need to defend it, because most people say it was outstanding. But I will say how much I am looking forward—and I say this to Mr Henare—to seeing how the Government deals with Ngāpuhi, because every aspect of Ngāpuhi, every corner of Ngāpuhi, is represented in the House today. We have Kotahitanga represented by Willow-Jean Prime, I think Shane Jones would be the resident Tūhoronuku person, and then we’ve got some of the sensible middle-roaders represented by Mr Henare. But I do say this—I do say this: until Sonny Tau learns to stand by what he says—he promised me there’d be no politburo and bullying—until he learns that that is absolutely necessary if we are going to achieve an agreement, nothing will happen in Ngāpuhi. Unless Mr Tau—I’ve said this to Willow-Jean Prime; I am in the Kotahitanga camp, basically, on this—changes his ways, unless he adopts a generosity of spirit in his negotiations, nothing will happen up there. We are all agreed that if ever there is a settlement that is required in this country, it is the Ngāpuhi settlement. I hope that everyone will be able to work together to achieve that end, and I’ll do whatever I can to assist.

I’ve run out of time, so I won’t be able to talk about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, but please don’t throw it out. It’s a brilliant piece of work undertaken by me over the last six years.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Finlayson is surely the definition of a self-made man who worships his creator, but I do have a lot of respect for the former Minister. He did a fantastic job, and I wish him the best when he leaves this place in not too many months and finds a new law job.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you as well. It is fantastic to have a former Deputy Mayor of Napier sitting in the Chair. Well done! Great things grow here, there’s no doubt about that.

I would like to talk about Labour and New Zealand First’s plan for policing: 1,800 more police. This is the first time there has been an increase in police numbers since 2008. The last time this happened—

Chris Bishop: That’s not true.

Hon STUART NASH: The last time this happened, Mr Bishop, was as a result of a New Zealand First - Labour coalition Government.

Chris Bishop: Oh, rubbish!

Hon STUART NASH: Oh no, no. Actually, Mr Bishop is right: what happened was these troops actually hit the ground in 2009, because they were in training college—but that was as a result of a Labour - New Zealand First coalition deal. Then what happened? Nine years of no more police. No more police, and what happened during that time? What happened during that time? Crime increased, methamphetamine supply flourished, 8 percent of burglaries were solved, and 38 percent of crimes against a person were solved—totally unacceptable. But almost what’s worse—almost what’s worse—is that the morale in the New Zealand police service dropped.

The interesting thing, the interesting message, about the latest New Zealand Police Workplace Survey, the last one undertaken under that Government, is that—so, 80 percent of men and women who serve in our New Zealand Police service, or over 80 percent, actually, said they were committed to the communities they serve and committed to the New Zealand Police service. Good, hard-working men and women, who know what has to be done. But then, what the survey shows is that 60 percent of these people—of the good, hard-working men and women who are out there keeping our communities safe, putting the bad guys behind bars—said they were simply not delivering on the promises that they were making to their communities. These are the men and women who know how to keep our communities safe, they have fantastic ideas, they’re out there, often putting their lives on the line, keeping us safe, and they themselves said they were breaking the promises they were making. And what’s worse is that 60 percent of these men and women said that they had an undue level of workplace stress.

Well, what was the Government’s response to this? Nothing. The Government did nothing. In fact, in April 2016 the then police Minister signed off on a four-year plan that said, “No more police until at least 2020.” So yet again—yet again—it has taken a Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government to listen to the communities that we serve.

I undertake street-corner meetings nearly every Sunday in my community, and the biggest issue—it doesn’t matter where I am, what demographic—is policing in our communities. We all know that our communities are concerned about our safety. We all know that our communities are worried about the lack of police resource. We’ve listened, and that is why, in our coalition agreement, we have said, “1,800 more police.”

But the interesting thing is that this is an aspirational target. I’m the first to admit that. It is an aspirational target. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition talked about this as an aspirational target. But he talked about it as if it is a bad thing. Well, we are an aspirational Government. We are an aspirational Government who is going to set aspirational targets and work incredibly hard to meet them. So don’t talk to me about aspiration as being a bad thing, because I think it’s a fantastic thing. The aspiration that we have for the New Zealand Police service is to once again build it into a service that our communities can have confidence in, in which the men and women who work there develop fantastic work stories and know that they can meet the promises they are going to make to their communities.

The question that I am often asked by the media and by colleagues and by people in my electorate is where are these officers going to go. And it is a very good question. What I can say is that the Commissioner of Police and I are coming up with a really robust plan of where we think the resources are needed. But the thing is, you don’t have to have pips and swords on your shoulder to have good ideas. So what we’re going to do when we come up with a draft plan is we’re going to travel up and down this country and talk to the men and women of the New Zealand Police service, and ask them for their feedback, what their great ideas are, and how they would like to see their 21st century police service run. Once we do this consultation, this engagement, and get these ideas in, we’re going to modify the plan. What we’re going to do is craft a 21st century service that represents the values of the men and women who serve and the communities they represent.

This is a very exciting time for the New Zealand Police. One thing I will say is, it’s not going to happen overnight. You can’t simply train a thousand men and women a year and get them into our communities. But what I can say is that in three years’ time, policing is going to look a lot different in New Zealand than it does now.

Chris Bishop: Oh, OK. Righto, big talker.

Hon STUART NASH: When I hear the Opposition spokesperson for police rubbish this, I say to him, “Are you really rubbishing the fact that we want to put 1,800 more men and women on the streets in your electorate?” If that member did not hear what his community was telling him during the election, then he simply wasn’t listening, because all of us over here heard it. Ron Mark heard it. New Zealand First heard it. Labour heard it. And we’re doing something about it. We’re doing something about it. So keep up the criticism, Mr Bishop, keep it up—because while he criticises, we’re going to be doing. We’ve got a plan, we’ve got an action, and the commissioner has said to me, “Mr Nash, we can deliver for you.”—we can deliver for you. So we are going to deliver for our communities, because our communities have told us this is what they want to see. And believe me, we’re going to deliver.

In the last two minutes, there is one other area in a portfolio of mine that I’d just like to elaborate on, which is small business. There’s about 500,000 Kiwis, just under 500,000 Kiwis, that count as small business. This is the small to medium sized enterprise sector—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment definition is 19 employees or less—and it makes up 97 percent of the workforce. It’s a really important part of our economy—in fact, you could argue, the backbone of the New Zealand economy.

There was this group that was set up in 2002, and it was called the Small Business Development Group. What it consisted of was some really engaged men and women in the sector who gave up their time to sort of consult on policy—to give the Government advice on what worked and what wasn’t working and what the community was saying. In fact, you could argue that these were tentacles of small business into the Government. It was a fantastic initiative, and it survived Labour and it went into National.

But the sad thing about this is, the last Minister for Small Business decided to can it. She decided to get rid of the Small Business Development Group. It’s astounding, isn’t it? It’s astounding to the point where Government ministries themselves are actually saying, “Well, where do we go for a reference? Who do we run our policies past? Who can we talk to if we want to know what the mood of the small business network is?”

This is the thing: I’m going to get this small business development network up and running, as a priority. In fact, I’d like to expand it, and I’ve got a whole lot of plans that I want to do for small businesses and the way they engage with Government, in a really proactive way.

But if I look across my whole range of portfolios, the thing is, I think that after nine years the Government just stopped listening. They just stopped listening. They lost touch. They didn’t listen to the community about what the police were saying. They didn’t listen to small businesses and the voice that they wanted to have around Government. It’s just disconnected.

The thing that’s so exciting about what we’ve now got in Parliament, about what we’ve now got in Government, about the people who are creating policies and are going to drive them forward, is it’s transformational. It’s exciting. It’s about what this country needs, and it’s going to take it forward. I often say, whether it’s in Napier or giving speeches, that we live in paradise. We absolutely do. In fact, we have won, by and large, the lottery of life, living here. We really have. But we can do things so much better. We can do things so much better. We have a plan. We have a plan around policing. We have a plan around small business. We have a plan around education, around housing, around corrections, and what you’re going to see here is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. We come now to a series of maiden speeches. Fifteen minutes is allocated for each. The first is Mark Patterson.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Mr Speaker, can I start by congratulating you on your appointment and fulfilling your long-held ambition.

It is with a great sense of honour and a slight sense of awe that I stand here, in this House of Representatives, for the very first time and take my place alongside 119 exceptional New Zealanders. I would like to begin by thanking my New Zealand First colleagues for their warm welcome into the fold. I am proud to stand here as a New Zealand First MP, putting my shoulder to the wheel of this Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government, a springtime Government, with a little help from our new friends, the Greens.

Of course, no mention of New Zealand First is complete without acknowledging the Rt Hon Winston Peters. His career spans nearly 40 years in this House. He has served under 10 Prime Ministers, and over the last 24 years he has created and sustained a political movement. It was his victory in the Northland by-election, with the underlying truth that he spoke about the neglect of New Zealand’s regions, that led me to joining New Zealand First. Little could I comprehend that some 2½ years later I would be sitting behind him in Parliament. The harsh reality of this place is that despite our best endeavours, most of us will come and go from here as mere footnotes in history. Only some of us will leave as truly significant parliamentarians. Winston Peters is one of those few.

I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern on her ascent to the prime ministership. In her short time as leader, she has demonstrated a rare gift and has captured the imagination of the people of New Zealand. I look forward to serving under her leadership. I believe she can be the human face of capitalism.

I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Bill English. It is no secret that I was a member of his flock in Clutha-Southland. Actually, my regard for him comes not so much for his great deeds in this House but from what I witnessed of him as our local constituency MP in our small town of Lawrence. As a an avid follower of politics, his annual visits to our annual gathering at the Marama Lodge or his regular guest appearances at the New Zealand Century Farm Awards were eagerly awaited. It was the total ease with which he mixed with the locals, his humility, and total lack of pretence despite his lofty station in life that impressed me greatly. It was a revelation to me that politicians could be normal people. There is no doubt that those interactions were an important part of the thread that led me here today.

Of course, no member reaches this place by themselves. I would like to thank my campaign committee, Charmaine Broderick, David and Ailsa Mackie, Mark Copeland, Peter Hargest, John Kirkman, and Basil Walker for their dedication, hard work, and encouragement, and the oversight of John Thorn. To Peter McDonald and Paul Hewlitt, thank you for your astute analysis and advice. I would like to thank the board of New Zealand First for the confidence they have shown in me and party supporters throughout the country. I would like to especially mention those many talented candidates who were not successful this time around but who had the courage to put their head above the parapet for what they believed and campaigned hard for the party vote. I stand here on your shoulders.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my wife, Jude, who also doubled as my campaign manager. At the start of this process, she had absolutely no interest in politics whatsoever. However, she is one of those people who doesn’t do anything by halves, and she was soon devouring every piece of media. She had memorised the New Zealand First manifesto, and woe betide me on the way home from a candidate’s meetings if I got a detail wrong. I might say she also developed a slightly unhealthy obsession with stalking Hamish Walker on Facebook. Jude, I love you very much. I’m a far better man for your influence in my life, and you’re a wonderful mother to our children. Amelia and Annabelle, I love you both dearly, and although you will now have to share me with this strange new family, I hope that me being here expands your horizons and demonstrates to you that absolutely anything is possible with your lives. Thank you to my family and friends who have travelled from far and wide to share this milestone day with me.

To Hamish Walker: congratulations on winning the seat of Clutha-Southland. I look forward to working constructively with you to advance the interests of the South.

I am a descendant of the Patterson, Jones, McIlraith, and Greenwood families who arrived in the Ellesmere district of Canterbury and settled around the towns of Leeston and Southbridge in the 1860s. Mostly from farming stock, they soon took up land around the district, some of which is still in the extended family today. Writing home to his family in Northern Ireland, James Logan McIlraith described farming “land of the richest kind”. The Pattersons took up Springbrook Farm in Lakeside, near the shores of Lake Ellesmere, in 1905, which I would eventually be the fourth generation to farm. We were also a family of small-business people, and my mother and her family, the Jones’, were the butchers and bakers.

I recall a happy childhood growing up with my three dear sisters, Susan, Heather, and Sharon. They were much simpler times. When we weren’t attending Southbridge School, we were helping on the farm, and at weekends we were playing sport; for me, rugby in the winter, and cricket and swimming in the summer. I also followed the family tradition of playing the bagpipes in the Ellesmere Pipe Band.

I first became politically aware during my high school years, which coincided with the election of the fourth Labour Government and the ushering in of the Rogernomics reforms of the mid-1980s. While few could argue in hindsight that they were not to some extent necessary, the sheer pace and scope of those reforms left rural communities like ours devastated. Many local farms and businesses went to the wall as banks sought to recoup their capital and Government services were retrenched to the cities. It was the total lack of regard for the human cost that resonates. Decisions made in this House matter.

Our farm was not immune from this pressure. Some years later, the local bank manager told Dad that out of all the farms in the district, ours was the only one for which extra credit was extended. Apparently, the bank simply could not believe that Mum and Dad could bring up a family of four on such meagre drawings. It never felt like we, as children, were missing out, but it was Mum and Dad who sacrificed their luxuries. Social activities, meals out, and holidays were few and far between. Thank you, Mum and Dad, for all you’ve done and the values that you have instilled in us.

While Mum and Dad were not overtly political, there was certainly politics in our extended family. My dad’s sister, Margaret Baylis—Auntie Margaret—was a stalwart of the National Party in the Selwyn electorate and she became a close friend and confidante of Ruth Richardson, who gave the eulogy at my Auntie’s recent funeral. I’m sure Auntie Margaret would have been proud of me here today, but I’m sure she would’ve preferred me in the blue team. I might add, the family link to Ruth Richardson is something I have thus far negated to mention to Winston.

I come here not from an ivory tower background but with dirt under my nails. The wisdom I bring to this house is hewn from a lifetime living in rural communities, from working the land for 30 years, from woolsheds, saleyards, cricket grounds and rugby clubrooms, and serving the community on local organisations.

That said, I do bring one academic experience that no other member of this House can boast. I am indeed the protégé of New Zealand’s pre-eminent woodwork teacher, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, from my days at Ellesmere College, and it probably does explain a few things.

As a teenager, a train trip to visit my sister Susan, who was a freshly qualified teacher on her first posting, proved a life-changing event. I was simply blown away by the magnificent green rolling hills of the South and the stark contrast with the dry, arid Canterbury Plains. It was to become an itch that was impossible to scratch, and it eventually led to us selling Springbrook and me heading south, firstly to Ngāpara in North Otago and eventually to the magnificent community of Lawrence. It was an agonising decision to sell a property that had been in our family for 97 years, and especially hard for Dad. However, his advice at the time was “while history is important, it is the future that really matters”.

The start of my journey here can be linked to a single event. I received a phone call one evening from a farmer in a neighbouring district, Richard Young, who was hitherto unknown to me, who was setting up a meeting of sheep and beef farmers to discuss the dire state of the red meat sector. One meeting led to two, and, soon after, a public rally was called in Gore, which attracted 1,000 farmers, said to be the single biggest gathering since the wool acquisition debates of the 1970s. This was soon followed by several other large meetings as we rallied farmers throughout the country. The Meat Industry Excellence group was born, and for the next three years I was thrust head first into a place where angels fear to tread: the world of farmer politics.

It saddens me that what started out as an attempt to find a “New Zealand Inc.” solution built around our two farmer-owned cooperatives, Alliance Group and Silver Fern Farms, for me ended as one of the shareholders forlornly holding out against Silver Fern Farms, our second-biggest exporter, got sold into the control of the Chinese Government. This didn’t seem in any way to concern the New Zealand Government. It was only New Zealand First that was prepared to question the wisdom of such a transaction, hence why I stand here. I salute those farmers and associates who gave so much time and dedication to this cause, who are too numerous to name, but I will single out John McCarthy. John, from you I learnt courage of one’s convictions, at times a damn-the-torpedoes sort of courage, but courage nevertheless.

I contend that New Zealand’s most consistently profitable primary industries have been the ones that’ve fashioned a coordinated approach, recognising that the real prize lies in the international market place, not battling each other to the death at home. I welcome this new Government’s intent of working more strategically with industry.

KPMG estimate that the $38 billion in revenue from our primary exports last year was valued at $220 billion by the time it reached the consumer. We are capturing but $1 in every $6. Capturing even a portion of that difference would be transformative to our economy. That’s why I’m an unashamed proponent of New Zealand ownership and of the cooperative model in particular. I believe it is in farmers, growers, and the country’s best long-term interest to own the value chain well beyond the farm or orchard gate, to be price-makers reaching deep into the international market place and bringing those profits back to New Zealand, not price-takers sitting at the end of supply chains at the mercy of foreign multinationals or Governments. I salute this Government’s commitment to eliminating foreign speculators from our housing market, and I look forward to this being extended to the sale of farmland.

Historically, New Zealand is the only predominantly agrarian economy to have achieved and maintained First World status. The foundation stone on which this sits is the family farm. We must strive to keep the pathway open for young New Zealanders to pick up a handpiece and put on a set of cups and still be able to work their way into the pinnacle that is farm ownership. I see no value in inflating the value of farmland beyond its productive value by way of having it for sale on the international market.

I will be a strong voice for farmers in this House. Equally, I have not come here to tell farmers what they want to hear; I will always be prepared to tell farmers what I believe they need to hear. I’ve been incredibly frustrated by the debate around fresh water quality, and the narrative of the rural-urban divide. I believe there is but a tissue paper between what farmers and urban people aspire to in regard to water quality. I genuinely do not believe that urban New Zealanders realise the enormous effort that is going into lifting our environmental performance. Equally, I believe some of our farming leadership have been far too defensive and slow to acknowledge that in some areas much more needs to be done.

We are now at an inflection point. There are dark clouds brewing on the horizon in the form of the emergence of highly sophisticated, plant-based synthetic proteins. Unless we can absolutely demonstrate the quality, provenance, and environmental integrity of our products, we risk following the strong wool industry towards an uncertain future. The flow-on ramifications for our economy would be significant.

Of course, this situation also presents opportunity. If we get this right, it positions our products at the very apex of international markets. Future generations will prosper. Business as usual will not get us there, but I have total belief that farmers will rise to this challenge, just as our fathers’ generation did in the 1980s.

Can I finish by reflecting on the joyous scenes I witnessed in front of this Parliament some two weeks ago as the new Government was received by the people. This example of the peaceful transition of power does us great credit as a nation. In many countries of the world there would’ve been tear gas and riot police in the streets, and in many more they’re not even privileged enough to exercise a vote at all. The wreaths that adorn this Chamber represent the young men and women who gave their lives to protect this freedom. It is our role to guard it jealously, lest we forget.

[Applause]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are going to be quite time-constrained, and so can I ask that in future if we are beyond the 15 minutes prescribed, as we are now, that members who have made their maiden speeches move into the lobby and have a discussion there with members who want to congratulate them, or wait until afterwards. Can I ask whips on both sides to work with their teams to make sure that that happens.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa, e tau nei tētahi pīrere nō Tikapa Moana, nā, ka kopangia maitia e te aroha o Maungakiekie, o Maungarei hoki. Ka irihia ki te wai tapu o Tāmaki Herenga waka. Ka irihia ki te wai tapu o Te Mānukanuka Hoturoa. Nā, ka tonohia mai nei ahau, hei māngai, he taringa, he kanohi mō te hunga rā. Nō reira, aroha ki a rātou kei te tūpou o te tini. Ka mihi ki a tātou, kia ora mai tātou katoa!

[Greetings to you all. A fledging bird from the Coromandel has alighted here, enfolded by the compassion of Maungakiekie and also of Maungarei, christened with the sacred water of Tāmaki Herenga waka and of Te Mānukanuka Hoturoa. Now then, I was sent here as a representative ear and face for those ones there. Therefore, empathy to those the innumerable who have gone before. I acknowledge and thank all of us.]

Greetings to you all. A bird, fledgling from the Coromandel, has alighted here, enfolded by the mana of Maungakiekie and Maungarei, christened with the sacred water of Tāmaki, christened with the sacred water of Manukau, and sent here as the mouthpiece, the ears, and the eyes for the people there. Therefore, I acknowledge those who have gone before. I mihi to us, Mr Speaker; greetings to us all, and congratulations on your new role. You are one of seven members here in the 52nd Parliament who sat with my father back in the 1980s and the 1990s.

Many of us have had family precede us here—fathers, grandfathers, cousins—but, unusually, two of my colleagues’ fathers taught me in primary school, one of them moving on to become an MP; the other—my favourite teacher of all time—well, he happens to be up there in the gallery because his son is about to deliver a maiden speech. No matter where you are in New Zealand, we’re all somehow connected, somehow local, and we inevitably know each other.

I drove into the local petrol station after the election to return yet another hired trailer used for signs, and the station attendant approached me and remarked, “Hey, are you that lady from the signs—the one that won? I’ve been watching you. If you know how to back a trailer like that, you deserve to win.” I laughed. I introduced myself to Lester, and he told me that he was a regular middle New Zealander working hard to make a living, and now that I was elected, “Miss lady from the signs”, he said, “don’t forget about us.” Pressing a little further about what he meant, I discovered it meant that he felt OK about working hard as long as he had enough to take his family on a holiday. He didn’t want lawmakers to take away that opportunity. It wasn’t complicated; he was outgoing and optimistic, and he felt strongly that he wanted to keep more of what he earned so he could choose how to spend it.

Lester is indicative of many others in my electorate of Maungakiekie. I’m honoured to have been the Auckland city councillor for the hard-working area, and now their member of Parliament, and I thank them for the faith that they have placed in me to continue as an elected representative. May I acknowledge the immediate and highly regarded past member of Parliament, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who joins me here in support today. Fa’afetai lava, Sam.

I’ve learnt a few things about Maungakiekie along the way. When we’re told the Manukau Harbour is the poor cousin to the Waitematā, we don’t accept it—we straddle both. When we know we’ve got New Zealand’s largest regeneration project because some of our social indicators are poor, we embrace it and we stick together to face change. When we’ve got the nation’s largest industrial area contributing to GDP, we value it and we punch above our weight. We’re highly diverse in age and culture and income. The level of investment and activity in our part of New Zealand is unprecedented. Between the scale of Housing New Zealand’s build in Ōranga, the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative transport project, and the huge, long planned for and yet controversial East-West Link, we are a very busy part of New Zealand. Maungakiekie contains the lifeblood of our nation.

While the scale of these projects values into the billions, the true value of any electorate is always back at the local level. Panmure, Ellerslie, and Onehunga, the three main village centres—Mount Wellington, let’s work on one—have a distinct community feel that is hard to find in a fast-paced, busy city. Intent on keeping and fostering that village feel, before I ran for office—among other things—I co-created a charitable trust that brokered local residents and business owners to pull off social projects for good, a far cry from a former role that I had working with high - net worth clients at Morgan Stanley in Philadelphia. We were highly motivated to model to our own city kids the importance of service. Town clean-ups, small-business makeovers, teen mum support, and community gardens—we did it all. We were organic, responsive, innovative, and frugal—everything the local government - employed community staff weren’t, and a big reason why I am thoroughly committed to the principle of allowing community to produce the answers.

When I was awarded a New Zealander of the Year local hero award, I had someone approach me after the medal ceremony and say, “Is this because of your dad?” I come from a long line of civic duty family commitment. It appears there really is something in the blood. Grandad lied about his age to serve in World War I, as a 16 year old, alongside his five older brothers. He came back after being gassed in the trenches, built much of Paeroa, and became the mayor. His son, my father, became the mayor after him.

Provincial life was unhurried and, at times, quaint. I recall our girls’ Brownie pack having to parade past Dad, standing in front of the council chambers dressed in all his mayoral chains, as part of annual town commemorations. Each year, we were taught to acknowledge the mayor with the usual two-finger Brownie salute. I figure there’s no better time than my maiden speech—a mere 40 or so years later, Dad—to let you know that, one parade, my youngest sister, Angela, and I decided, in jest, to momentarily turn the fingers around. Lucky for us, your dubious eyesight didn’t catch our sleight of hand, Dad. Even more lucky, our 75-year-old head Brown Owl, well known for her paralysing death stare, didn’t catch it either.

I was 11 when Dad went to Parliament as the MP for Coromandel. I was fascinated right from the start, in large part due to the interesting people that politics attracted. Unlike today, it was often the biggest, most dynamic membership-based show in town.

Ross Miller, a long-term electorate chair for my dad and an unfailing advocate for my own journey, will recall with clarity a certain Miss Elsie Wylde. This woman deserves to be immortalised in Hansard. At the tender age of 80, she would fill every room with her presence, boom out interjections, always be right with political predictions, and, should anyone dare to object, she would loudly and publicly remind them that she taught both them and their children, recalling with clarity their lack of academic abilities. I’d like to say it was her political discourse that grabbed my attention most, but, in all honesty, it was hard to go past the time that she ate beetroot at the pot-luck event and, without knowing it, the beetroot juice slipped from the corners of her mouth, down her deeply engrained wrinkles, producing a red tributary stream effect—thoroughly memorable.

Although I’d observed and participated in politics and studied it and sat at the feet of political icons like Rob Eady and enjoyed party membership life all along the way, at some point it needed to become my own journey. And that it did, in the form of the unexpected, the inexplicable, and, as official records still record today, the unexplainable.

One night, I woke, as a young parent, and decided to check on my two-year-old son Riley, to discover that he had died in his sleep. What ensued was a series of random interactions with a cold-hearted, function-driven system. The failure of police inquest officers, pathologists, and coroners to sensitively inform and communicate their process to two shell-shocked parents still mystifies me today.

Loss comes in all forms, not just death but loss of careers, loss of confidence, and loss of relationships and marriage—my own succumbing to the high percentage of those that end upon the death of a child. With all our collective legislative wisdom, there shouldn’t also have to be loss of faith in a system supposedly designed to protect those that need it at precisely the time that they need it.

Trying to keep up with where Riley’s body had gone, what they were doing to it, and what they were retaining from it, receiving an abruptly worded police letter informing us of our Coroner’s Court hearing date—it was all too much. No explanations, no frequently asked questions brochure—just a summons. You’ll understand, I thought that we were being put on trial for the death of our son. Walking through the valley of the shadow of death, trying to understand the legalities, and desperately wanting to just stay away from the world to get on with grieving, my sense of indignance grew. I was the one who had to ask to meet with the police and the pathologist and others to get a handle on who else might face what we did. The indignance formed a seed that merged into a big part of the driving force that sees me standing here today.

I’m subsequently relieved that the coronial system has improved for people. The 2006 Coroners Act and later reviews better protect the interests of grieving families. Politics really did become personal for me then. A flick of the pen, the wording of an amendment, an exchange in this debating chamber—Parliament’s processes affect everyday lives.

I’ve had the pleasure of being in Auckland Council’s Cabinet as the deputy chair for planning, covering Auckland’s housing, transport, and infrastructure—$45 billion of assets to make your eyes water. But what is the reality for residents? Fixing the broken kerbs so car tyres don’t get scraped, speeding up consents so the house extension can just get built, going to the park expecting to see the lawns mowed. The settings are wider here, but however you measure it, the expectation is that we will make a difference in the everyday lives of New Zealanders. We will foster the right economy for jobs and income, which, in turn, fosters hope and the fruition of dreams. I’m immensely proud to stand with the National Party, who have overseen substantial growth in their recent term of Government despite international trends to the contrary—10,000 new jobs each month for the last 18 months is extraordinary.

I’m surrounded by a host of incredible supporters, who appear to have decided I’m a good investment of their time, energy, and unfailing commitment, and I can only hope to return the favour. To the National Party, thank you for backing me to back Lester and backing people to choose their own future. What I most appreciate about you and our leader, the Rt Hon Bill English, is the relentless commitment to the politics of hope. It should always outweigh the politics of fear, even when the latter sells more media space.

To my core local volunteer team: you are everything I’d wish for. As chance would have it, we’re dominated by females. Dr Leigh Mathias, how you have time to run boards, run a business, and back women like me, I do not know. Sue White, politics is obviously in your blood, but for all the right reasons. Your friendship and that of your daughter Ainsley, I hold dear. Louise Millar, my chair: our kids went to school together, you always say yes, and no one can sport a pair of Red Bands in the city like you can. Josh Bedell, the lone male voice—we all know you love it.

To my personal friends outside of politics: let’s keep it that way. You don’t like the policy detail, and I like the escape. You also remind me this place is a bubble, so if I ever get out of touch, pop me.

And to my funny, often irreverent, and close-knit family, I adore you. To my two sisters, Rochelle and Angela, and your clans: we have many more adventures ahead, and I am proud of our strong and fun-filled bond. Remember the time when we ran around the Beehive as teenagers, and I fell on Robert Muldoon when he opened his secret, private elevator door? Well, it’s time for the next generation of kids to let loose on parliamentary security.

Mum and Dad, your rock-solid presence and commitment to our family is a very large reason I am here today. In an age of transience and relativity, you have been present for us. You’ve stuck to your convictions, the greatest and most admirable of which is that you love and you serve others before yourself. When we’ve hit hard times as a family—and there’s been plenty—you’ve adapted. I cannot thank you enough for the way in which your character has forged our family destiny and that you’ve supported me in the pursuit of mine.

Finally, to my own precious children. My son, Riley, who, as the Good Book says, lives beyond the veil—you are a gift. My daughters, Sydnee and Makenna, your world is not the one I grew up in. I spent weekends rat-shooting at the Paeroa dump; you navigate the virtual world, streaming mass international content 24/7 under the watchful eye of Google and Facebook empires. It is your world that will rapidly change what we do here in these halls, and I am proud to have two incredibly talented young women to guide me in how to think ahead. I love you.

In closing, I wish us well, and Godspeed to the 52nd Parliament of the world’s most attractive nation.

[Applause]

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Picture the mighty Waikato: beautiful scenery, well-managed and successful farms, thriving and vibrant provincial towns, diverse but united communities, and continual opportunity. As the new member of Parliament for the Waikato, I want to start by saying it’s an absolute privilege to have been elected to this role, and in such a magnificent part of country—a role that holds great opportunity and responsibility.

As a new MP, listening is a key part of the role. My grandfather once said, “You have two ears and one mouth. Use them in that proportion.”

Congratulations also to my fellow new MPs on both sides of the House. I’m excited about the path ahead, and I’m sure you are too. I’m looking forward to working with you all.

The journey to be here was an exciting and rewarding one, a journey shared by so many people in the Waikato and beyond—by family and friends, by party members, by the public who believe in our vision. Thank you all sincerely for your support.

Today I want to share a bit about my background—my family, my upbringing, and my experiences, and why I am who I am—to touch on what brings me to this position. I want to highlight some of the wonderful aspects of the Waikato, and I want to outline some of my aspirations for the Waikato and for New Zealand.

Firstly, I’d like to share that I felt, on entering this building, the mana, the prestige, the history of our nation. The decisions made by those who have come before—decisions that have shaped our great country. One of those people was my great-great-grandfather John Stevens, a former member of this House, who spent a number of years through the 1880s, 1890s, and early 1900s representing Rangitikei and then Manawatu. For me, though, Waikato has always been home. I was raised there, I have worked and played there, and now I have the privilege of raising my family there, too.

As one of five children, I grew up in a competitive family-focused home, where strong values were instilled in us—values such as hard work and enterprise, and fair reward for it; taking responsibility for your actions; the strength and importance of family; equal opportunity; and standing up for what we believe in. We were encouraged to use our initiative, to try new things, and to ask questions. We had a very rural upbringing, although my parents are teachers, and we were constantly interacting with the outdoors, generally racing around the countryside with skinned knees and bare feet. Hunting, camping, and fishing were all regular activities.

I remember that when we’d go fishing on the wharf, Dad needed to concentrate on the fish, of course, so he’d tie a rope around my chest and tie the other end to a pole on the wharf. Easy retrieval in case I should fall in—yes, health and safety in action, even back then. That’s what I chose to believe, anyway, and not that I was simply the berley pot in case the fish weren’t biting.

We would spend long summer days exploring on family farms or, in later years, helping with the chores once we became useful, or on crisp winter mornings breaking the ice on the water troughs to use as a frisbee, or watching the horses’ breath steaming as they were galloped around the track. Those early years on the farm were some of my best memories, and developed into a true passion for the primary industries—a passion that continues today. I believe we were very lucky to grow up in such an environment, but then, really, it’s a typical Kiwi upbringing that so many of us are lucky to have had.

I’m proud to be Kiwi, and I’m proud of the diversity that often reflects in each of us. For me, on my mother’s side, our ancestors arrived in New Zealand in the 1860s from the United Kingdom, and my father’s parents arrived in the 1950s from the Netherlands. I’m proud of my heritage, and I believe that the success of New Zealand is due to embracing such diversity.

My home town of Matamata is now—as it was—a jewel in the Waikato crown, one of those great provincial New Zealand towns that we all know. I enjoyed my schooling at Matamata College before heading to the University of Waikato, where I obtained a social science degree, majoring in psychology. During this time, I also trained as a scuba diving instructor, as you do when you live in the most inland city in the country. This degree and diving combination, as I’m sure you’d expect, naturally led to me becoming a dairy farmer. Yes, my journey has been somewhat varied.

The New Zealand Young Farmers organisation was a key part of my life for 13 years. It was through this organisation that I got my first experience of governance. Young Farmers was indeed a key contributor to my desire to want to become a member of Parliament. It developed that knowledge that the decisions we made could positively, or negatively, influence the experience had by the grassroots members—making those calls with the best interests of others in mind, guided by our values. I get great satisfaction from helping people. I love supporting them to learn, to grow, and to succeed—acknowledging, of course, that success can look different for each and every one of us.

Over the years, my primary industries involvement has also led to opportunities to visit Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. I can confidently say that we are, indeed, global leaders in this space, but with the increasingly disruptive technologies that we’re now seeing emerging, and the changing expectations of consumers, we must be more nimble, more innovative, and more united as an industry, and as a country, if we are to continue experiencing that success.

Winning the FMG Young Farmer of the Year contest was a highlight of my time in the industry. It had long been a dream for me, but achieving it was a reflection of the team of people helping me: their skills, their knowledge, their enthusiasm, and, of course, their willingness to impart that to me. As in so many pursuits, a great team will accomplish great things.

Working as a rural bank manager was a role I loved: building an understanding of someone’s business and helping them to achieve their dreams and aspirations. It was hugely rewarding. I learnt so much from them too—there is always another perspective. Alongside this, I was able to achieve my own dream of getting into farm ownership. Having a background across dairy, sheep and beef, horticulture, and agribusiness is very important in a strong rural area like the Waikato. Having said that, there’s also more to the Waikato than cows and crops, and that’s where my experience as a small-business owner, my time working in the tourism sector, service in the New Zealand Army Territorials, and voluntary roles like with the St John Ambulance enable me to better relate to and understand the diverse range of people in our electorate—and the Waikato is incredibly diverse.

For anyone who has served in the military, I’m sure you can appreciate the physical and mental adversity you are frequently presented with. For example, being tasked with sentry duty: sitting out in the beautiful Waiōuru tussock in a hole in the ground at 2 o’clock in the morning with the sleet driving horizontally, not having slept in three days. And in the distance, you can make out the Desert Road, with the occasional twinkling of headlights moving along through the sleet, and you wonder if the driver of that vehicle faces the same challenges that you do. Or, perhaps, rather than the biting cold, they’re biting into a hot pie; and rather than sitting in a hole, they’re sitting in a leather seat with a seat warmer. Character building moments.

I share these experiences and memories because they have shaped me. It’s the “why” of who I am. It’s also the basis from which my own motto comes: “If it is to be, it is up to me”. Simple two-letter words. It’s about taking responsibility for your own journey, driving yourself onward, challenging yourself, and thirsting for more. Education is a lifelong experience. You can always learn something from the people around you. Each day we can wake up and be a better version of ourselves than we were the day before, but it requires courage, determination, a focused plan, and hard work. It doesn’t mean being on your own, though. Just make sure that the people around you are those that you need. I get a real buzz from working in a great team environment and succeeding in that, and I see that opportunity presented to me in this role.

Speaking of teams, the most important team of all is my family. Thanks to my wife, Hilary; to my parents, Ron and Sue, who are all present today. Thanks to my siblings, present, and watching from afar. It’s a blessing to have the opportunity with my amazing wife, Hilary, to now raise our own family. We have two wonderful children: our beautiful daughter Isobella, who’s nearly two; and sturdy wee Arthur, who arrived only a month ago, shortly after the election. An election with a young family is not easy. Clearly, I have an amazing wife. I would like to acknowledge Hilary: it’s an honour to be your husband. I love your strength, compassion, intelligence, and beauty. You inspire me to be better every day. Actually, it’s our third wedding anniversary today. Ha, ha! What more romantic setting could one aspire to?

I love innovation and I thrive on a challenge and in politics the job is never done. There is always something more that can be achieved: some competing need. I’d like to acknowledge Lindsay Tisch for his dedication as the member of Parliament for the Waikato over the last 18 years. His contribution to the National Party extends well before the time he spent as an MP, and I would like to extend my thanks for all that he and his wife Leonie have done. I wish you both the best for the future, and I look forward to picking up the mantle.

In the Waikato, we have some exciting opportunities in front of us. We need to continue to capture the growth potential with ongoing significant investment in infrastructure. The Waikato is of great strategic importance given our location in the “golden triangle” as well as the diversity of economic potential within the region. I will help the newly minted Minister for Regional Economic Development to keep this front of mind when looking for projects to support.

We have an opportunity to further empower our communities. I believe that education is the foundation of opportunity. Our communities are diverse, but we are all different, which makes us all unique. But we are all equal, and we can all succeed—although, of course, that success can look different for each of us. Those that aren’t currently succeeding need help and encouragement to do so, and I am committing to helping achieve that.

We also have an opportunity to strengthen the relationships between rural and urban New Zealanders. The strength of the Waikato, and New Zealand, has historically been underpinned by the success of the primary industries. And although we now have more diversity than that, the sector remains a significant contributor to our success. Farming continues to evolve. How we farm now is not how we farmed 10, 20, or 50 years ago, and it won’t be how we farm 10, 20, or 50 years in the future. Primary producers are typically great at adapting to their changing landscape, but they need a supportive structure to facilitate this. The ongoing negative agenda being pushed by some groups is counter-productive and divisive. Let’s work together.

We must be sustainable, but not just environmentally; it has to be socially and economically sustainable too.

We have an opportunity to improve our tourism offering. There’s so many amazing places in our region: places like Wairere Falls, Port Waikato, the Hākarimata track, Hobbiton, and Nikau Caves. I ran the Athens Marathon in Greece some years ago—a wonderful experience, but very commercialised. Likewise, climbing Mount Fuji, Japan’s highest mountain—a powerful, spiritual experience when you summit and go through that shrine right at the top, only to see a Coke vending machine straight in front of you. Look, that’s fine for them, but it’s not the Kiwi way. So many tourists come to New Zealand for our relatively unspoilt and raw beauty. Let’s showcase it more.

As I draw to a close, I am confident that my vision and values, my skills and experience, my enthusiasm and determination will ensure that I am able to contribute to the success of the Waikato and to all of New Zealand. To my Waikato constituents, I look forward to justifying the confidence you placed in me when you voted. It is my hope that I will add to the mana of this House and that after I am gone, some new, fresh-faced MP will experience that same sense of awe, and be further inspired to make our great country greater still.

That picture of the Waikato I shared at the start of this address: the scenery, the successful farms, the vibrant towns, the united communities, and the continual opportunity—this can and should relate to all of New Zealand. I am committing to making this picture our reality. I look forward to serving New Zealand, and remember that every day we can be better than we were the day before. Thank you.

[Applause]

Mr SPEAKER: You do “Mr Speaker.”, and I do “Erica Stanford.”, all right?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Can I congratulate you, sir, on your successful election to the role of Speaker. I look forward to your rigorous application of the rules of this House, and, of course, your great leniency when dealing with this freshly minted member from the East Coast Bays—please.

Under your stewardship, sir, I can see that this House is moving with the times. I was so very pleased to see you bouncing one of the beautiful babies of the House on your knee during a debate last week; the member for Pakuranga certainly seemed to enjoy his time up in the big chair! In all seriousness, sir, your commitment to making this a family-friendly workplace is admirable, and to see you leading from the front, literally, was a very special moment.

I would like to start today by acknowledging and thanking the people of the East Coast Bays for their trust and their confidence in electing me as their representative to this Parliament. I am deeply humbled by the support that I’ve received from my community, and I am especially proud to be the first female MP for the East Coast Bays.

This is my first rodeo and, as a rookie, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to a great many people for supporting me on this ride into Parliament. In particular, I’d like to thank my electorate chair, Scott Browne; my high school buddy, good friend, and campaign chair, Vernon Tava; and my dear friend and right-hand man / partner in crime, Tony Hannifin.

Today I must also acknowledge and thank my predecessor and former boss of four years, as well, the Hon Murray McCully. Murray was first elected as MP for the East Coast Bays in 1987—a day after my 9th birthday—with a slim majority of 311 votes. For 30 years, he was a hard-working and well-respected member for the East Coast Bays, evident in the fact that he left this Parliament with a majority of over 15,000, which is a monumental effort—and just shy of my first majority of 16,000. I jest, but I am well aware that I am fortunate to ride on the shoulders of this political giant. Of course, he will go down in history as our finest Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I am who I am because of my family, and I owe them so much for their part in getting me here today. To my parents: thank you so very much for making me watch the 6 o’clock news every single night growing up. Thank you for coaching me through all of those debates and speeches, and for encouraging me every step of the way.

To my incredible husband, Kane, partner of 21 years: our names on the Rangitoto College 5th form speech trophy a year apart sum us up so well. While I pontificated over the relevance of the United Nations and the challenges and changes that I believed were required for a more effective organisation for 10—probably insufferable—minutes, he talked about bus drivers. You are the yin to my yang. We make a great team. Thank you for supporting me on this journey and taking charge while I’m away.

To my children, Holly and Alex: you guys rock. I am so very proud of you. Holly, you changed my world, and I am so very proud of all the accomplishments that you have made. Alex, my special little guy, you make my heart sing.

My journey to Parliament has been a rather windy road, with many deviations along the way. My first job was stacking shelves on the night shift at The Warehouse for $4.50 an hour. A job as a telephone market researcher helped support me through my political science degree at Auckland University. From there, I had three very distinct careers, and a short stint as a stay-at-home mother, the combination of which has provided me with many insights across the private and public sectors.

I worked as an export manager for two iconic New Zealand manufacturers. I spent a great deal of my 20s travelling through Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, promoting unique and innovative Kiwi products, from placemats to acoustic insulation. I know first-hand that the incredible reputation of our country and our people overseas is invaluable, and that we must continue reducing trade barriers to create a level playing field for our exporters and access much larger markets. I stand for a confident, ambitious, and outward-looking New Zealand that sees the world as a field of opportunities, not a vast unknown to be regarded with fear and suspicion. We should be open to the world, not fearful of it.

After a short break to start a family, I took on a new career as a television producer of everyone’s favourite genre, reality TV. I worked on a number of shows involving noise control officers, dog control teams, and the lifeguards of Piha Rescue. I put it to you that my skills in reality television will hold me in good stead for my time in this House, whether that be for the Neighbours at War across the floor, the explosive drama of Married at First Sight between the Greens and New Zealand First, or this Parliament’s special edition of Survivor, with the member from Epsom.

From there, I worked for Murray McCully in the East Coast Bays electorate office, helping thousands of locals, businesses, and organisations navigate their way through the various Government departments. This really was the pointy end of policy, and reinforced my passion for my community and for solving problems.

The East Coast Bays is a very special place, and it has always been my home. Kane and I raise our family a stone’s throw from where I grew up, swimming at Long Bay beach and traipsing through the Ōkura Bush. I was born and raised there, Kane and I met at Rangitoto College, and we were married on the bank of the Long Bay - Okura Marine Reserve. I play in a local hockey team, I chaired the local business association, and I have worked in the electorate for eight years. The East Coast Bays reaches from the majestic Ōkura estuary in the north—a pristine marine reserve and breeding ground for the Hauraki Gulf—to Murrays Bay in the south, where kids do sweet bombs off the new wharf in summer, and out west to Albany, once orchards and strawberry fields, and now the bustling business hub of the North Shore.

We are home to Rangitoto College, the largest high school in New Zealand; High Performance Sport New Zealand; Massey University’s Albany campus; and Business North Harbour, the largest business association in the country. About half of the electorate was born overseas. We have thriving communities of South Africans, Koreans, Chinese, British, Dutch, and others. Our ethnic diversity makes the Bays a unique, culturally rich, and interesting place to live. It’s a beautiful, busy, thriving place, and it’s growing at a rate of knots.

There are many things that I want to achieve for the East Coast Bays, and my priority is to ensure that we accommodate for the growth; that we continue to deliver more classrooms for our local schools, some of which are at capacity. I’ll be advocating for better transport solutions for the somewhat overlooked Shore. I’ll be applying pressure to clean up our waterways that feed into the beaches that our kids swim in, to help protect our marine reserve for future generations, and to preserve those precious green spaces that the Rural Urban Boundary has, up until now, been safeguarding.

And it is my community from which I draw my inspiration. I am inspired by parents in the electorate, who make great sacrifice for their children to ensure that the next generation have opportunities that they did not. I’m inspired by businesses like Rex Bionics and Sealegs marine in Albany, who are taking on the world and punching above their weight in typical Kiwi style; people who get together to preserve and protect our environment, like Restore Deep Creek, Friends of Okura Bush, and the Long Bay - Okura Great Park Society; and by people who go above and beyond the call of duty, like our local high school principals and our famous bird lady, Sylvia.

In my electorate, every day I see people working hard to do great things, to protect our place, and to provide for future generations. I want to work in a Parliament that gives these Kiwis—all Kiwis—opportunities to succeed. Where you’re brought up influences your values and so, too, does how you’re brought up.

My parents have played a huge part in shaping the values that have guided me through life and will, indeed, guide me in this Parliament. My father arrived in New Zealand from the Netherlands as a five-year-old, with his parents and three brothers. Like so many immigrants, they came to this country in search of a better life, willing to work hard, to embrace their new country, and to make sacrifices to achieve their dreams. Despite having very little and losing his father at a young age, Dad worked really hard at school and later took a job at the local freezing works to support himself through flight school, so that he could achieve his dream of flying for his new nation’s airline. His 40 years of service and elevation to 747 captain at Air New Zealand are testament to the fact that there is no substitute for hard work and the fruits of your labour are a direct result of the effort that you put in.

My mum worked in our family business, growing hothouse grapes for export. Those long hours she spent in that intolerably hot glasshouse were to pay for the school fees for my brother, sister, and me to give us the best start in life. Thank you, Mum, for your sacrifice, for your hard work, and for making me the kind of mother that sacrifices everything for my kids.

Perhaps one of the most valuable things I inherited from my dad is that famous Dutch pragmatism. I come to this House with an open mind. My outlook is not restricted by the blinkers of inflexible political ideology. Rather, I am a firm believer in the importance of constantly scanning for those great ideas that can so often lie in the periphery of your vision. I am interested in what works.

An example of something that works, and one of the great success stories in my electorate, is the Vanguard Military School. Vanguard is a partnership school that has been incredibly successful in helping young people who have not done well in the mainstream education system. Not only were many of these young people not succeeding academically, they told me they had lost any belief in their own ability to succeed. This school, quite simply, has turned their lives around. I sat down with the students from Vanguard and I have seen for myself the confidence and the hope in the eyes of these young people who now have futures that they can look forward to for the first time. That is why I find it very troubling indeed that this Government has plans to shut down these schools, purely on the basis of rigid political ideology. If we are serious about helping young people with dramatically different backgrounds and experiences, then we cannot continue to rely on the same old approaches done in the same old way.

The backdrop to my childhood was sausage sizzles, cake stalls, and garage sales to raise money for one community project or another. But it was my parents’ work to protect the Ōkura Estuary from a proposed tip site in the 1980s that had the greatest impact on me. Ōkura is officially recognised as a jewel in our backyard, part of a pristine marine reserve bordered by a protected native forest and a walking track visited by over 70,000 people a year. But had it not been for a group of passionate locals and environmentalists who fought for over a decade, this would be an environmental disaster zone. The battle was one of the defining moments for the electorate. It led to the protection of the Ōkura native forest and the establishment of the Long Bay - Okura Marine Reserve.

I’d like to pay tribute to the many different local conservation groups who fought and continue to battle to protect this very special place. I’m sad to say that the potential removal of the rural urban boundary will likely mean that your work is far from over. I am committed to continuing work with the many environmental groups in the East Coast Bays, to muck in with you, to help you, and to promote the work that you do, because our greatest treasure is this beautiful land. In the immortal words of Neil and Tim Finn, “we glisten like a pearl at the bottom of the world”, but we can’t take this for granted. It is a priority for us to restore and preserve this great treasure.

It’s always bothered me that environmental protection is cast as somehow a left-wing issue. Conservation—the care and the protection of nature—is part and parcel of the conservative political tradition to which my party belongs. I, for one, don’t believe that capitalism and environmental protection can’t sit together. The reality is that environmental protection is a priority for all of us. To solve the challenges that we face in our generation and the ones to follow, we need to go beyond conventional political boundaries. I’m interested in what works. We need a successful economy to pay for the choices we make to protect our environment. We need a diverse economy to add value to our world-class primary produce and to tread more lightly on the land. We need to cooperate across sectors and across parties, so that the good work of one Government is not undone by the next.

I come to this House believing in freedom, personal responsibility, and achievement through hard work and determination. And I believe that, as a society, it is our duty to help those most in need. If we are to improve the lives of all Kiwis, we need a society that fosters these values. We must be ambitious in our thinking and aspirational about what we can achieve, open to the world, not fearful of it, flexible in our approach and focused on what works, no matter where the idea comes from.

I love seeing the world through my children’s eyes. I love seeing how “normal” can change so much from one generation to the next. It will be normal for my children to have a young female Prime Minister. It’ll be normal for them to have their marriages defined by love and not by gender. It’ll be normal for them to think about sustainability in every aspect of their lives. I relish the challenge of working on policy that will continue to place us on the right side of history.

[Applause]

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Ki te iwi o Ngāti Kahungunu, tēnā koutou. To all the people of Ngāti Kahungunu, greetings. Ki ngā hapū whanui o Heretaunga, tēnā koutou. To all the hapū of Heretaunga, greetings. Ki ngā kaumātua o Heretaunga, tēnā koutou. To all the elders and leaders of Heretaunga, greetings. Kia ora mō te aroha, me te manaaki ki au mai ra no. Thank you for the love and support you have given me over the years. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you the tribe of Ngāti Kahungunu and the subtribes at large and the elders of Hastings. Thank you for your empathy and respect towards me and so, accolades and acknowledgments to you collectively, my appreciation to us all.]

It is a tremendous honour to speak for the first time at the beginning of the 52nd Parliament. It is a privilege to represent the people of Tukituki in this House and I thank them for voting and bringing me here. Mr Speaker, I acknowledge you and congratulate you on your appointment, as I acknowledge the appointment of former Hawke’s Bay resident the Hon Anne Tolley as Deputy Speaker, and the other presiding officers. I acknowledge all leaders of this House and all political parties, and respect their seniority and mana.

Congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern; Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters; and to all Ministers. I acknowledge the Rt Hon Bill English and the Hon Paula Bennett as leader and deputy leader of the National Party. On behalf of all of us National MPs, I wish to thank both of you for your outstanding performance across the nation in the recent election campaign. I am incredibly proud to be elected as a National MP and I thank you both for your time in Tukituki during that campaign.

I acknowledge the party president, Peter Goodfellow, the board and National Party staff led by Greg Hamilton. I offer a particular vote of thanks to central regional chair, Bernard Cleary, for his support, advice, and personal help. It is an honour also to join my fellow Hawke’s Bay MPs, the Hon Stuart Nash and the Hon Meka Whaitiri, who, although across the political divide, I regard as friends after working with them for many years on many issues. I also welcome the opportunity and the working relationship with my National Wairarapa colleague Alastair Scott as we work together to help the people of Central Hawke’s Bay.

I acknowledge and thank my predecessor, the Hon Craig Foss, for his dedication and commitment to the people of Tukituki. And, whether they are watching or not, I also greet our community leaders in Hawke’s Bay: Hawkes’ Bay Regional Council Chair Rex Graham, Hastings Acting Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst, and Central Hawke’s Bay Mayor Alex Walker.

Honourable members, can I also thank you for the courtesy already shown to me by many of you of this House whom I have worked with in my former role as President of Local Government New Zealand. I look forward to these respectful relationships continuing.

As the member of Parliament for Tukituki, I want to share a little about myself. I’m married to a wonderful wife, Kerryn, who’s with me today, whom I love and who has been a tower of strength since we met, and who was a superstar in this campaign. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that not many wives or husbands or partners in this Chamber would actually enjoy door knocking. She does, and thank you for it. I am a father of four wonderful adult children from a previous marriage who are doing incredibly well. Emma, Thomas, Henry, and Charles continue to give me a huge sense of pride, with their achievements and success in life. I love them and acknowledge them. I also thank their mother for what she did in bringing them to this world.

My mum, who’s in the gallery, and my late father gave myself and my siblings an idyllic life, surrounded with love in a Christian household. We never wanted for anything, but we had modest means. My brother Andrew and sister Jeanette have both been a supportive part of my nuclear family, and as siblings we have all supported each other through life’s rough patches. I thank Kerryn’s parents, although they are unable to be here today, for their love and support, complete with free-flowing political advice and a bit of alcohol, to boot.

My dearest friends Michael Hindmarsh and Peter Roil have supported all my political campaigns and are hoarding professionals to die for. They have heard on countless occasions that this would be my last time—probably about five—and when this campaign started they stuck with me again, only the task was 100 percent larger. We met through board of trustees elections at Sherenden and Districts School, and they have been my friends, and lifelong friends, ever since.

To Trevor Helson, Tukituki electorate and campaign chair, who sits with us today: thank you for your full-time voluntary role during the campaign. You were supported by a wonderful and energetic team, and we achieved a wonderful result. Thank you to all of you who have continued to support me today, who helped during the campaign, and who helped financially.

Members, I am proud to say I represent the people of Hastings, Flaxmere, Havelock North, Whakatū, Clive, Haumoana, Ōtāne, Ongaonga, Tikokino, the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains, and rural hinterland places the likes of Ōtamauri, where I was brought up. I also represent the people of Ngāti Kahungunu, more than 25 maraes. I specifically acknowledge my good friend Ngāti Kahungunu chair Ngāhiwi Tomoana, and his wife Mere. I thank the Hon Chris Finlayson for the great work in settling all the claims in the areas I represent. We are in post-settlement positive mode now, and the benefits are quickly flowing with investments and confidence.

It is no accident I am here, as my father was a political and National Party stalwart and supported former Speaker of the House Sir Richard Harrison and Waikaremoana MP the Hon Roger McClay. From the earliest of memories I can remember him always being at meetings, and the rituals of election night parties. They weren’t raucous affairs but were full of stern study, opinion, predictions, and either elation or gloom. The gloom quickly subsided, however, as planning began for the next three years—just exactly what this side of the House has already done. There is a certain tinge of sadness, knowing that he died too young to see me enter this House. He would, however, be very proud.

I come here as the oldest member of the National “class of 2017”. I prefer the nickname “Uncle” to “Dad”, but what a great group of National MPs I have joined. I also acknowledge Nicola Willis, who I’m very hopeful will join us very shortly. We’ve all come here to make a difference to a positive New Zealand. While I’ve been a mayor of Hastings, president of Local Government New Zealand, and chair of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum, I start this new journey with great optimism for both a change in the environment and for New Zealand. I have been out of National Party politics for decades, but I am excited to rejoin.

Unlike many, I’m fortunate to have enjoyed a good life. I still have good health, I’ve come from a loving, stable family, I have a university education, and I’ve had an enjoyable career. Despite this, though, my work, my faith, and my Christian upbringing have shown me that many people are not so fortunate. I enter this place to make a difference for those who have not enjoyed what I have. I enter this Parliament to improve things for my people and all New Zealanders. I do so, however, from a philosophical viewpoint that we need to empower people to succeed, not fund them to do so.

I also have a fundamental mantra that people can spend their own money more efficiently than any form of government, whether it’s central or local. This does not mean I do not support the State or local councils as collective ways of doing things more efficiently. I support both, but we should always remember that neither actually has any money. The money and support people receive in health, education, or welfare is our money. As we ration services or build infrastructure, we should constantly assess what makes sense, even if the approaches need to be very different from the past.

My life has been a journey made all the richer for my growing understanding of what is important to Māori. In the last 20 years, I have grown huge respect for the long-term relationship - driven perspective that comes from our Treaty partners. I have learnt a great deal about patience and have a very real understanding of land, water, and cultural assets.

New Zealand is a blessed nation at the bottom of the Pacific, surrounded by a pristine ocean. We enjoy a quality of life that is the envy of the world. I am incredibly optimistic about our future, and the issues we face are all solvable. We punch well beyond our weight on the global stage, and in relative terms our poorest are well supported. I joined the National Party because I believe in free enterprise, in rewarding hard work and risk, and in personal responsibility. A strong economy gives us options to address challenges. We need to constantly remind ourselves that our wealth is created by what we export, whether it is food, wine, manufactured product, or intellectual property. There is no free lunch, and as a nation we have to earn it before we can spend it. Every effort should be made to support our export base.

I have come to this House to try to make a difference in the following areas. Firstly, the home and the family: the work done by the Rt Hon Sir John Key and the Rt Hon Bill English’s last Government and outlined by the new Government in the Speech from the Throne is to be applauded. Both sides of this House want better for our families in health, housing, and education for those that are most vulnerable; the real difference is in the “how”. We do, however, have an ingrained level of poverty that is hard to fix. In my view, most of this stems from a lack of work and low incomes. This leads to boredom, a lack of motivation, often the abuse of alcohol and drugs, and a slow unwinding away from productive society. A loving family can do so much but only so much, if there isn’t enough money to cover the basics.

In Hastings, the most recent living example of that was the closure of the Whakatū and Tōmoana freezing works. Four thousand people lost their jobs over an eight-year period, and we are only just recovering. Recently, for the first time in decades, I can see the opportunity for our young people in the region. The economy in Hawke’s Bay has never been so good. We cannot squander this opportunity, and we need to back the next generation into work, into challenges, into skills, and into life experiences. We need to take some risks.

Two recent phenomena are adding to the new challenge in many homes: the proliferation of P and the dramatic increase in reported domestic violence impact on thousands of women and vulnerable children. I am appalled that in Hawke’s Bay police were called to over 6,000 domestic violence cases last year—one of the highest rates in the country. It is great that it’s being reported, but it’s sobering in scale. We will not arrest our way out of this, and it requires an attitudinal and home-based shift. Equally, methamphetamine is a scourge of society like I have not witnessed before. Its availability, widespread use, and mind-altering behaviour are fundamentally damaging families. We can have conversations around cannabis and the legalisation of it, but we must take a much stronger stance on P. It is a drug on its own, and its impact on health stats is not even measured in many parts of New Zealand. In simple terms, I want it gone from society.

I am a strong believer in climate change, and from international travel I know that we are well placed to manage it. Our deep blue ocean surrounds will temper its impacts on New Zealand, but not entirely. It is my simple view that the sooner we take action, the better we will support future generations. I have watched the painful Ruataniwha Dam project come to its knees. While some members of this House will be pleased about this outcome, I strongly caution members that doing nothing is not an option. Climate change will have a profound impact on water distribution on the eastern edge of New Zealand, and water storage of winter flows will be vital to support production in areas such as Canterbury and the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains. Unfortunately, many New Zealanders have formed the view that irrigation and water storage is a bad thing. In reality, the real issue is around nutrient pollution. I would encourage members of this House to take a long-term view about water storage. There will be no escaping from it in the long term.

I’m also a strong advocate for the environment, from a pragmatic perspective. I have watched people’s anxiety around the state of the environment increase. I have watched a largely urban electorate show less and less tolerance to our rural friends. So while we are quick to point to cows wading in a lake in the South Island on a hot summer’s day, or shots of pollution in rivers, the bulk of urban pollution goes unnoticed. Our urban estuarine environments are being polluted by rubber tyres, brake linings, and heavy metals. All these things are difficult to fix, are expensive, and will take a long time. These challenges are for urban and rural people alike.

In closing, it’s also important that this House is also aware that the good people of Tukituki are looking for some Government support for some projects, and I particularly put this to the Labour side, now that you’re in charge. A new main hospital block for the Fallen Soldiers Memorial Hospital in Hasting is likely to cost between $150 million and $200 million; there was a promise before this election for the four-laning of the Napier-Hastings Expressway; and there needs to be assistance given, where possible, to dealing with the Three Waters issues in central Hawke’s Bay and, as has been identified in this campaign, an assessment and possible construction of a new school in Havelock North.

In closing, I’m incredibly grateful to the people of Tukituki for placing me in this Chamber. I will represent them with all my knowledge, skill, and humbleness. I have a faith, and stand by my Christian values of honesty, tolerance, love, and care for human beings. To this end, I am completely accepting of gender diversity, racial diversity, culture, and sexual orientation. I enter this Parliament comfortable in my own skin, confident in my ability to deliver for Tukituki with an open mind to listen to others. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It is the greatest privilege to be standing before you today as a member of Parliament elected by the people of Clutha-Southland to represent their views, hopes, and dreams for their region and for New Zealand.

People in Clutha-Southland are pioneering, hard-working, and community focused. The rest of New Zealand can learn a lot from Clutha-Southlanders. It’s a place where people still look out for each other, people still know each other, and, most importantly, people still talk to each other, whether it be across the fence or in the supermarket aisle. It’s where I regularly see carefree kids riding their bikes around their neighbourhood, and where local people still rally together to support a good cause.

I intend to be a strong voice in Parliament for Clutha-Southland. I believe in the core National Party values of strong families, caring communities, personal responsibility, individual freedom, and choice. These values form the basis of my own philosophy. I was motivated to stand for Parliament by a desire to uphold these values. I believe the Government’s role is to get out of the way and let our people get ahead and be rewarded for effort. My experience in life has shown me that it is attitude and hard work that is key to succeeding.

The Clutha-Southland electorate, and previous forms, has an extremely proud history of leadership and contribution to New Zealand over the years. It has included the Hon Adam Hamilton, the Rt Hon Peter Gordon, Sir Brian Talboys, Sir Robin Gray, and, of course, our leader and former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Bill English. I want to take this opportunity to thank Bill for his leadership, and to congratulate him on the policy development that he has led throughout his years in Parliament. His social investment approach to complex social problems and its long-term dividends for New Zealand make him the most gutsy politician of his generation.

I’d also like to acknowledge current mayors in the region: Jim Boult, Bryan Cadogan, Tracy Hicks, and Gary Tong. These individuals stitch together the fabric of our Clutha-Southland communities and provide excellent leadership. I look forward to working with them to progress the interests of our people.

Clutha-Southland doesn’t just produce some great people; it’s one of the most productive regions in New Zealand. It is the largest general electorate in the country. It runs from just south of Dunedin to the north of Invercargill, and spans from the Pacific Ocean to the Tasman Sea.

I have learnt that many people in Clutha-Southland are not afraid to call a spade a spade. You cannot pull the wool over the eyes of a Clutha-Southlander, even if it was grown and shorn there. It is an honour to represent an area that is part of my heritage and my identity. I am proud of my established family history in Clutha-Southland. My great, great, great grandfather John Barr was a Balclutha businessman who leased the Government ferry across the Clutha river and built the first store and bakery in the township. Today, I have family members throughout Clutha-Southland.

My late grandfather Ronald Walker often spoke of how it is ultimately up to the individual to determine the path they take in life. The seeds of working hard and taking personal responsibility for oneself were sown early in my childhood by my grandfather. He helped put hundreds of Southlanders through university, running the Otago University extension programme for a number of years, and also helped establish the Young Nats in Southland in the 1940s. And I better not forget to say hello to my nana, who is watching from Invercargill.

My urban-raised father Alan and my rural-raised mother Barbara taught me that everyone deserved a chance, and that we should all contribute back to our community. I’d like to thank my father, who continues to dedicate his life to helping others. Thank you, Dad. I’d also like to thank my mother, who has sacrificed so much to raise me and my siblings. Thank you for all that you do, Mum. If you were a taxi driver you’d be a millionaire by now, given the fetching and carrying that you’ve done over the years. I’m sure you would have done almost as many kilometres in your car 20 years ago as the Clutha-Southland MP at the time.

I respect my urban heritage. This will hold me accountable to the needs and concerns of the urban areas within the electorate. Encouraging growth in small towns and responding to challenges of growth in larger towns will be one of the many issues I face. I have an obligation to my rural heritage, which will hold me accountable to the needs and concerns of the farming communities within the electorate. I have many fond memories working on my grandparents’ farm during my teenage years.

Coming from a family with four siblings, I learnt early to listen to those around me and to respect their views. I also learnt that working with others achieves more than working independently—a lesson that I’ve put into practice throughout my life. I was born and raised in Dunedin and attended Māori Hill Primary School and John McGlashan College. Like many young people, I wasn’t too interested in learning. To complicate things, I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 14. Going from leading a normal life to half a dozen injections a day was tough. I eventually left school early to get a job. I understand first-hand that some people may not achieve on a typical educational time line, but they still can succeed in education and contribute to their community.

My early education and health experiences has made me passionate about these areas, especially in regard to our youth. I didn’t experience typical school success for many reasons. Perhaps an alternative learning environment may have suited my learning style—that’s why charter schools are vitally important, and yet another achievement of our previous National-led Government. I was the kid who some might argue slipped through the cracks, but I still managed to experience success and I want to help ensure youth have meaningful education options with relevance to the real world.

My first role after leaving school was as a commercial fisherman. I look back on my time as a fisherman with pride. It was my first real experience of what hard work is all about. Long hours on the boat were challenging. I also learnt the importance of the primary sector to New Zealand. It’s important we give these producers every possible chance of success.

In addition to my fishing days, I’ve worked as a voluntary community patrol member, and later as a police jailer. I always had a desire to become a police officer but was unable to apply to Police College because of my diabetes. This was a huge disappointment to me but it taught me that when one door closes, another opens and you need to be willing to move on and learn from life’s lessons.

After a few other jobs, I decided to study for an accounting degree. Instead of incurring a significant amount of debt by taking out a student loan, I decided to work in the mines in Western Australia to save some money. Six months of hard work allowed me to save enough to pay for the fees. It was during this time I also took up refereeing rugby. A few years later I made my first-class debut, which is achieved by less than 1 percent of rugby referees. Rugby refereeing is a lot like life. To learn, you need to listen. To succeed, you need to simplify your processes and focus on just one or two key issues that have the greatest effect. In business, you also need to focus on the one or two things that matter. Rugby refereeing was the perfect training ground for politics.

Graduating with an accounting degree was a huge confidence builder for me. I had come a long way from dropping out of school. Looking back, I know I wouldn’t have gained the skills I now have if I’d gone straight to university from school. I needed those years to mature. Since then, I’ve set up, franchised, and sold my own business, worked at a “big four” accounting firm, have been a business adviser to others, and served on the boards of the Otago Rugby Football Union and the local lottery distribution committee.

As someone who has benefited from our public health system, I am a firm believer in primary care being easily available close to where people live. Travel times can impact on primary care in rural areas. Failure to gain early treatment or intervention from primary-care providers can add huge costs for the New Zealand taxpayer. I will fight hard to maintain services in the electorate and fight for fair funding of rural health.

I first joined the National Party several years ago, after advice from John Key to stand in a red seat, cut my teeth, and learn. I’ve always been inspired by others to do something significant, to make a difference, because life is short. I was fortunate to have known Jonathan Keogh, who was tragically killed by a repeat drink-driver. Jono’s legacy inspires me to make a difference, and his name will never be forgotten. I commend Jono’s sister Megan MacPherson and his family for directly helping to change the drink-driving laws. I, like many others, miss Jono and he is often in my thoughts.

There are multiple challenges ahead. Right now in Clutha-Southland we should not be cutting off the hands that literally feed us, from farmers in Gore to hospitality workers in Queenstown. The Government must ensure immigration settings allow business owners in Queenstown and primary producers across Otago and Southland to have the workforce to process goods. Clutha-Southland has around 2 percent of the population and produces over 15 percent of the country’s GDP. We need to keep our workers to process the goods from the region and to keep the people flowing through our small towns like Lawrence, Lumsden, and Nightcaps. Our immigrant workforce contributes to our diversity and keeps our towns afloat.

I recently visited a rest home in Tapanui and asked a 96-year-old gentleman and returned serviceman for advice. He told me to continue to learn. Learning indeed is for life, and is lifelong. My biggest hope is to make Clutha-Southland proud of the contributions I can make to our country. I hope that by taking this gentleman’s advice I can achieve this. I promise to listen to my constituents, and I thank them for the advice they have given me to date.

There are many people I would like to pay tribute to for being in my life, and although I cannot name them all, you know who you are. I want to thank the people who have enabled me to stand here before you today. To the more than 1,200 Clutha-Southland National Party members, thank you for placing trust and confidence in me. To Bridgette Smith, Margo Hishon, Rachel Bird, Tim Shiels, Richard Soper and the rest of the executive and campaign team, your dedication to the party is energising and the sheer distances you have to drive for meetings is remarkable. The electorate is in safe hands in your care.

To Mark Patterson, great to see you here as a list MP. To Kate Hazlett, Andrew Hunt, Roger Bridge, Alastair Bell, president Peter Goodfellow, and the rest of the regional executive and National Party board, thank you for your hard work. To the Young Nats, for the weekend campaigning in Queenstown, you all rock. I learnt a good lesson that weekend—not to start days that involve the Young Nats in Queenstown before 11 a.m. Grant McCullum, for the phone calls offering advice, thank you. Michelle Boag, your wise words are really appreciated. Eric Roy, thank you for the good solid advice in your Southland manner and way. National’s strong result is a tribute to you all.

To the ladies who run my offices, and life—Rebecca, Paula, and Alison, thank you for keeping me going. Sarah Dowie, Mike Woodhouse, and Jacqui Dean, “Team Southern”, let’s go. To David, thank you for being here today, and to Donna, you’ve been a tower of strength in my life since I met you 18 months ago. Penny, you’re an inspiration to me, and words cannot express how much your support for me throughout this election process, campaign, and since being elected has meant. I wouldn’t be able to do this without your support. I admire the contribution you make to society in your role as a clinical psychologist, and, yes, you often remind me you did beat me to Parliament as you were Eric Roy’s Youth MP.

The privilege of serving this Parliament is one that comes to very few. I didn’t come here to eat my lunch, nor to “be” a member of Parliament. I came here to do things as a member of Parliament—to help make change that benefits all New Zealanders and to help to enhance the lives of the people of Clutha-Southland. I will probably make mistakes in this House, as I have made many already in my short life. But my respect for the institution, my loyalty, and my commitment are solid. My philosophy is honest and true, and my compassion is infinite. I hope that everything I do in this Parliament and in my time as a member of this Parliament is a tribute to those who have gone before me, those who have helped me, and those whom I love and who love me. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Applause]

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As this is my first time speaking in this House, let me congratulate you for your election as the Speaker of this House, and your team, the Deputy Speaker and two Assistant Speakers. Thank you for your service in presiding over this House of Representatives and this debating chamber.

While I am thanking parliamentary figures, I would also like to acknowledge Her Excellency the Governor-General, Dame Patsy Reddy, for her role in opening Parliament last week. I’m also grateful for the service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand, and for the service she has given to New Zealand over the past 66 years. We have the finest constitutional framework anywhere in the world. It has served our country well, and I am sure will continue to do so for many years to come.

With that in mind, I’m particularly humbled to find myself in this room and incredibly honoured to be standing here as the new member of Parliament for Pakuranga. I would like to acknowledge and thank the people of Pakuranga for the faith they have placed in me as their member of Parliament and representative in this House. I’m conscious that it is my responsibility to represent the views and values of my constituents, and I’m eager to do that because I share their values. The values of Pakuranga are the values that have made New Zealand great—a commitment to hard work, fair reward, personal responsibility, equal opportunity, and common sense. These time-honoured values are cherished by Kiwis across the country and are instilled in children by their mums and dads every day.

I’m the second of five children born to Ivan and Sarah Brown, who are here in the gallery this evening. I was born in Rotorua but my family moved to Auckland when I was 12, and I’ve lived there ever since. I was not brought up in a wealthy family. We were comfortable but there were challenging times. My parents were able to provide me and my siblings with what we needed, but I know it wasn’t always easy. However, when I look back I see the truly important things they provided in great abundance. I was raised by two loving parents. I was taught discipline, the importance of working hard to get ahead, and taking responsibility for my actions. Their love and commitment to each other has been their greatest strength and has been the best example I could ask for.

I married my wife, Rebecca, at the beginning of 2016. I want to thank her for all her love and support that she has given me in my journey to this place. She is my rock and I could not have come this far without her unconditional love, encouragement, and wisdom. Rebecca is from Sydney and is the daughter of Lebanese parents whose families moved to Australia to find a better life for their families. Rebecca then met me and moved to New Zealand for what I hope is an even better one. Thank you for your love, Rebecca.

I graduated from the University of Auckland, where I studied law and commerce. I went on to work as a commercial banker with the Bank of New Zealand, working with a range of small and medium sized businesses in Auckland. This experience has given me an insight into the engine room of New Zealand’s economy and the fact that this country is built on the backs of men and women who take risks, who mortgage their homes, and go out to try and achieve their dreams. A Government is at its best when it backs its citizens and trusts them to pursue their dreams. Too many Governments in the past have obstructed those who want to get ahead. I believe that Kiwis can fly if they are not tied up in red tape.

I’ve been involved in politics for a good part of my life now. My first experience in this field was attending my local residents association, the Clendon Residents Group, and being elected as the secretary at my first meeting as there was the need for some fresh young blood. From there I chaired the inaugural Manurewa Youth Council, was elected to the Manurewa Local Board in 2013, and served as its deputy chair. I was thrilled to help progress a number of key projects and initiatives along the way.

One issue that I was particularly proud to be involved with during this time was the passing of the Psychoactive Substances Act. That Act, effectively, banned the sale and supply of these dangerous drugs. I’m grateful that this Parliament passed that legislation, and I was proud to have played a part in getting policy put through Auckland Council and then through this House. There is more to do on this important issue and the issue of protecting our young people from the harm of these products and other harmful drugs. It will always be an issue that I care deeply about.

I would like to acknowledge Angela Dalton, councillor Daniel Newman, and the Hon George Hawkins, who I worked alongside during my time in local government. Thank you for the opportunities you provided me and the advice you gave. You taught me that actions speak louder than words—a maxim I will always honour.

Being elected as the MP for Pakuranga has been the biggest honour of my career, but winning could not have been done without the help of an excellent team of supporters and electorate team. I’m pleased to have so many good people to work alongside, and I look forward to continuing that work into the future. My electorate chairman, Peter Martin, epitomises Kiwi commitment. My electorate and campaign teams include John Slater, Simon Williamson, Hadyn Padfield, Jenny Gibson, Chloe Masters, Katrina Bungard, Sarah Fenwick, Rahul Sirigiri, Nathan Wilson, Daniel Church, Carla Mikkleson, Te Haua Taua, Cedric Jordan, Michael Baker, Gaylene and Evan Whetton, Bill and Maggie Burrill, Erin Dillimore-Muir, Lynn Kidd, and Josh Beddell. I will also acknowledge Sean Palmer for his advice. Their support has been fantastic and their advice has always been flawless. I’m proud to be their member of Parliament, and I want them to know that I know I would not be here without their help and support. My appreciation also goes to the National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, our board members, regional chair Andrew Hunt, and the staff at regional HQ.

It would take me about 10 hours to properly thank all those who have helped me in my campaign, and I don’t believe this House will grant me the opportunity to do that. Instead, I’ll ask the forgiveness of those I can’t mention by name and hope they know how much their support has been appreciated. They should all be proud of the excellent result they achieved at the last election: significantly increasing National’s party vote in Pakuranga, to the third highest in the country. Of course, I cannot fail to mention my predecessor in Pakuranga, Maurice. Maurice, if you’re watching this, and you probably are, thank you for all the work you have done for this electorate and the nation. As you can see, we’ve built on your success. I think a pool party in Los Angeles is definitely in order.

As I stand here today making my maiden speech, I am conscious that we are standing inside a war memorial commemorating the brave men and women who have fought for the freedoms and peace that we enjoy as a nation. When I contemplate their sacrifice, I realise that I’m fortunate to be standing here. Because of the heroic deeds and selfless actions of the generations who have gone before me, a new generation, my generation, is free to shape its destiny. The traditional values previous generations have fought to uphold are what have brought me here and are what I will be fighting for. We are fortunate that today we do not have to defend these values by force of arms, like previous generations did, but that does not mean they are secure. Today we fight to maintain the democratic principles upon which our nation was founded: preserving the right to speak and think according to our conscience, and the protection of the vulnerable and disenfranchised in public debate. Unfortunately, these principles were so well protected by previous generations that many today do not appreciate what life is like without them, and so do not value them as they should.

Freedom is not simply doing what we want to do to satisfy our individual desires and needs. We are not ships in the night but he iwi tahi tātou—we are one people. We must use our freedoms to serve the common good for all in our society. Moreover, the future security of our democracy and the health of our community are grounded in the past, out of which they grew. We must look back in order to move forward. G K Chesterton called tradition the democracy of the dead, and this place, Parliament, with its traditions, is underpinned by the freedoms won for us by the ANZACs, the suffragettes, the civil rights leaders, and those who throughout our history have fought for this country and its values—freedom informed by truth and all that is just, the willingness to do the right thing no matter the cost, irrespective of contemporary fashion or whim.

As I look forward to my time in this place, I will also be looking back, conscious that I stand here on the shoulders of those who have gone before me in seeking, by the grace of God, to help make our country an even better place for the future generations. Like so many others, it is that desire to make this country a better place that has driven me to stand for Parliament and to serve in this House. I’m fortunate to have many friends precede me into Parliament. I’ve known people like Judith Collins and Simon O’Connor for many years, and am glad to be taking a seat alongside them. I’m also delighted to see my good friend Christopher Penk beginning his career, and I look forward to learning the ins and outs of Parliament alongside him. I’m also looking forward to hearing what kinds of flattering things you’ve got to say about me in your maiden speech!

I joined the National Party because I share its values and believe that those values are what create a prosperous and successful country where all New Zealanders are valued and have the opportunity to succeed. I’m proud of the National Party’s conservative tradition, and I look forward to advancing the wisdom of those values across the House. I’m proud of this tradition because I care about people. I believe that Parliament is there to help make a difference in people’s lives but not to run their lives. The role of Government is to help create the conditions where people are able to thrive from their own hard work and to succeed based upon their own skills. I believe that people succeed when the Government allows people to thrive and make decisions for themselves.

I also believe in good governance. When Governments are forced to intervene in people’s lives, it must be for the right reasons, based on a desire to improve their lives, and any intrusion must be as small as possible. Too often decisions are hastily made, or laws are quickly passed with little thought about the unintended consequences they have. Good laws are made through good process, through sound reasoning, and proper consultation. I hope we will see principled actions and well-reasoned policies from this Government, not merely politically expedient propaganda. I won’t be holding my breath, and I hope you don’t either, because they say it’ll cause brain damage.

I believe that the crucial role of Government is to protect its citizens and the nation. The protection of the citizens of the country is central to the role of Government. Maintaining law and order and national security are areas deserving of more investment and will be welcomed by the people of Pakuranga. We need more investment in tackling gangs and continuing to crack down on the illegal supply of drugs flowing into our country.

The Pakuranga electorate is full of entrepreneurs, business owners, and investors. The Government’s role in business must be to provide opportunities for businesses to grow and succeed. This means opening up new trade links, reducing red tape and regulation, and investing in much-needed infrastructure projects. Two such projects close to my electorate’s heart are the East-West Link and the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative. I am tremendously disappointed to hear that the new Government intends to put the brakes on this kind of growth, and I will do everything I can to encourage them away from this myopic decision. Traffic congestion is a huge issue in Pakuranga for the people who live there and businesses that operate in East Auckland. These transport projects must be progressed, and I will champion them and others like them during my time in this House.

One of the other values that I will be a staunch advocate for during my time here will be the importance of freedom of expression. As members of Parliament, we are fortunate to work in an environment where freedom of expression is generally protected. But we must ensure that freedom of speech is not merely a parliamentary privilege but something people everywhere can enjoy. All New Zealanders should enjoy freedom of expression, as that underpins a strong democracy.

Of course, with every freedom comes responsibility, and at times limitations. However, those limitations should be rare and a matter of last resort. I’m opposed to the idea that Governments should stop people saying things that offend or annoy others. Governments should not be in the business of protecting people’s feelings and affirming every person’s sense of self. A safe society is one where we debate ideas rather than suppress them. A tolerant society welcomes all ideas and debates them on their merits, rather than determining what ideas are allowed and which aren’t.

We who work in this Chamber must always remember that the Government wields tremendous power. Too often private individuals are trampled by Governments rather than protected by them. This applies to freedom of speech, of course, but in other ways as well. It is often the case in society that the weak can be neglected in favour of the strong, and those who shout the loudest get the most attention from the Government. I believe that it is the role of this Parliament to protect the most vulnerable and to ensure that their rights are safeguarded. It is to our shame that New Zealand has a rising epidemic of elder abuse in our country. We must address this and other disturbing trends.

I worry that our society is becoming harsher, less caring, and less compassionate. It is not sufficient to merely spread these words throughout society; they must be backed up with actions. I believe that many of society’s problems are rooted in poverty. However, unlike some, I am not solely focused on material poverty. There is a growing poverty of compassion, a poverty of respect, and a poverty of understanding between communities and generations. This must be stopped, and I will do everything I can to help. This is a far better way to build a kinder society than the redistribution of wealth, because making New Zealand more caring, tolerant, and compassionate will enrich us all.

In conclusion, just as we acknowledge God at the opening of every parliamentary day, I acknowledge Him now as I start my parliamentary career. I humbly acknowledge my need for His guidance during my time here and pray that my time would be to the betterment of the welfare, peace, and tranquillity of the people of Pakuranga and New Zealand. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Congratulations on your election and congratulations to your fellow presiding officers—in particular, my colleague the Hon Anne Tolley.

I acknowledge our strong party leadership, the Rt Hon Bill English and the Hon Paula Bennett, our strong and united caucus, and, in particular, the “class of 2017”. It’s wonderful to see our friend Nicola Willis here in the gallery this afternoon. We look forward to welcoming you at some point in the future.

I stand here today the proud son of Shirley and John, and grandson of Ron and Joan, Arthur and Eva. My family have sacrificed much for me to be here. My paternal grandfather contracted polio as a child, making farming a struggle for my father’s family on their farm just outside of Waimate. My maternal grandfather passed away at a young age, leaving my grandmother to raise three daughters on her own. Gender equality was borne out of necessity—she did the work of two men on her own and raised three strong and independent women. She was a formidable woman and had a huge impact on me growing up.

My father spent much of my childhood growing his small business, so much of the heavy lifting of raising my sister Anna and me was left to my mother. On top of looking after two kids, holding down a job, and being involved in a variety of worthy causes, she made the time to go to night school. She’s been an example to me of the awesome impact and importance of education, and of lifelong learning. I’m a firm believer that we are products of our environment—that the people we meet and the experiences we have shape who we become. In that sense, I recognise my privilege. I come from a loving family, with two parents still together.

I was born and raised in Ashburton, at the northern end of the Rangitata electorate, the sort of place you wouldn’t think twice about letting your kids go off at all hours, kicking a ball around the park until sunset. The Rangitata electorate, I’m proud to represent, spans much of mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury. Unlike the 20 or so Auckland MPs who have to share a pretty mediocre rugby team, I’m spoilt with two strong heartland teams.

In the west, we have the Southern Alps and Mt Hutt, rising high above the Canterbury Plains below, with picturesque communities like Methven, Mt Somers, Staveley, and Mayfield not far away. Travelling south, the electorate cuts to the east when you reach the Rangitata River, tracing the outskirts of distinct and diverse communities like Temuka, Ōrari, Winchester, and Pleasant Point. Timaru, where my wife and I live, lies at the southern boundary, home to a thriving port, major food processing and manufacturing plants, artisan cheese, craft beer, excellent coffee, and, of course, Caroline Bay—the Riviera of the South. If you haven’t visited yet, to quote a questionable Australian marketing campaign, “Where the bloody hell are ya?”

Further north, the coastline turns rugged, with hut settlements looking out over the ferocious South Pacific Ocean. You’ll often find me at the Rangitata Huts, outside of mobile phone coverage—my apologies in advance to the senior whip—hiking the coastal trails, or trying to catch some dinner. Further inland are the towns and settlements of Fairton, Hinds, Wakanui, Winchmore, and Ashburton Forks, all surrounded by rich and fertile soils, which help make mid- and South Canterbury a food basket for the world. In all of these communities you’ll find the friendliest and most welcoming people you’re ever likely to meet. I am honoured and humbled to be their servant in our House of Representatives.

I went to my local primary, Allenton School, where my mother worked in the office for 20 years. After being sent to the principal’s office just once, I quickly learnt that the growling I’d get would pale in comparison to what was waiting for me at home. While I was at Ashburton Intermediate, I became a keen rugby player for my local club, Allenton, and with dreams of becoming an All Black, I enrolled as a boarder at Christchurch Boys’ High School. Known as one of the most prolific producers of All Blacks, Christchurch Boys’ has produced 46 at last count. Sadly, my talent and training went unrecognised, and I made it only as far as the mighty third XV. By that time, my attention had turned elsewhere.

I started studying economics in year 10—20 years ago—and haven’t stopped since then. I credit this, and some exceptional teachers, with encouraging an early interest in politics. More than anyone, I thank Dr Bruce Harding, my year 13 English teacher, for fostering debate, treating us like adults, and goading me into arguing with him daily. He was a staunch Alliance supporter, so I’m not sure he’ll appreciate my thanks or the fact that I’ve gone on to become a National Party MP.

I had a year off, pulling pints in London and backpacking around Europe, and came home to study political science and economics at the University of Canterbury. Coming from Ashburton, these years in Christchurch and stints in London and, later, in Wellington were quite a shock. I’m still not entirely comfortable in big cities. Throughout high school and university, I spent every chance I had in Ashburton working on Dad’s cousin’s pig farm. There I learnt more than anywhere else the value of hard work, and an entirely new and colourful vocabulary—I’m still trying to unlearn it. But, above all, it’s given me an understanding of the huge importance of our primary sector for jobs, for exports, and for what we eat and drink.

Following university, I came to work in this place, never expecting I would be here nearly a decade. I worked on some fascinating issues: Auckland governance reforms, foreign charter vessels, the International Convention Centre, and Novopay. I visited some incredible places: Indonesia, Colombia, and India. But what I remember most are the people: my colleagues I worked with, all of whom were here because they wanted to make New Zealand a better place.

Traditionally, maiden speeches are a time for new MPs to talk about what they want to achieve during their time in Parliament. I recall once reading a speech by Roger Douglas, the architect of free-market reform in the fourth Labour Government. In it, he called for the State-backed construction of carpet manufacturing plants across the length and breadth of New Zealand. I can only hope my vision for our country stands the test of time a little bit better.

New Zealand is a wonderful country, but I believe our best days are ahead of us. I’m here because I want to contribute to make that a reality. I want to see New Zealand continue to develop into a small, confident, outwardly focused country—a country that remembers its history but looks to the future; a country that overcomes challenges rather than becoming consumed by them. As the world grows smaller and as technology advances, the things that once held us back, like our distance, become less important, and biosecurity and the environment become our strengths.

Our population, too small for a sizable domestic market, means that we have to trade. To quote one of my colleagues: “New Zealand companies are barely out of nappies before they have to start selling offshore.” That’s why I’m a strong supporter of free trade. We cannot hope to become prosperous and successful, as a country of 4.7 million people, by trading with ourselves and turning our backs on the world. The benefits of trade are enormous, but where it’s most felt isn’t Ponsonby or Panmure, Khandallah or Karori; it’s in regional New Zealand. On the back of the China free-trade agreement, trade with China has tripled in the last decade. Half the pizzas in China are now topped with mozzarella from Fonterra’s Clandeboye plant, in my electorate. We now need to redouble our efforts in new and growing markets like South America and the Middle East and do much more in Africa.

I’m incredibly nervous about talk of cutting migrant numbers. The local economy is growing strongly in my area. We simply don’t have enough people to do the jobs that are available. A large cut to work visas would stall growth in the regions. We have to move away from blaming migration for the social ills of the day.

The world is changing rapidly. It’s important that we continue to offer an education to our young people that will help them prepare for a future we cannot today imagine. We have world-class schools and universities. But I am concerned there is a notion prevalent in too many of our high schools that their role is solely to train kids to go to university. Farming and the trades have to be given a far more equal weighting when educating young kids about their career opportunities.

We do have much to be proud of. We are a vibrant multicultural society. We are addressing past injustices. But we can’t rest. In the last year, more than 600 New Zealanders have taken their own lives. There is no single answer, no silver bullet to fix that. I was pleased that the last Government set aside $100 million as part of Budget 2017 to investigate new approaches. We have to accept what we’re doing now isn’t working. When 600 of our fellow Kiwis are dying at their own hands, we have to say that this is unacceptable.

When I was in my late teens and early 20s, three of my best friends took their own lives in tragic circumstances. I’m sorry that I couldn’t do more for them. It’s a feeling that doesn’t go away. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to deal with, and still is. I was fortunate that about this time, when I was at university, I met someone who helped me through it. I wouldn’t be here without her. Her name is Rose; she’s here today, and the best moment of my life was when she agreed to marry me.

Before I end, I have a few people to acknowledge. No campaign is run by one person, and the most successful campaigns have too many people to thank, but there are a number of people without whom this couldn’t have been possible. My family are here in the gallery today, and they’ve been nothing but supportive, despite, I think, a fairly healthy degree of scepticism for politics and politicians. Thank you for your support and for listening to me prattle on for many years about stuff that you couldn’t care less about. To the three Ministers I worked for—Rodney Hide, Phil Heatley, and Steven Joyce—thank you for your guidance, your patience, the opportunity, and your friendship. Thank you to my campaign team—Jess Letham, Mark Oldfield, John Hunt, Colin Truman, John Driscoll, and Alan Booth. My campaign chair, who, I’m sure, will be watching in the office, Alison Driscoll—still not a single disagreement in seven months, a pretty remarkable achievement, particularly for me—and to Roger Bridge and Angus McKay, thank you for your advice and encouragement.

Fellow Rangitata candidates—Olly, Jo, Tom, and Mojo—thank you for a good-natured campaign. I learnt something from all of you. It’s great to see Jo here as a Labour list MP, but I’m incredibly saddened that Mojo Mathers wasn’t high enough on the Greens list to return. To my predecessor, the Hon Jo Goodhew, thank you for being a constant source of advice and guidance and for the job you did as our MP for many years.

Finally, to my wonderful wife Rose: thank you for joining me on another journey.

[Applause]

MATT KING (National—Northland): Ko Matt King taku ingoa, nō Te Nota ahau nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Matt King is my name, I’m from the North and so, salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, and to us all.]

Mr Speaker, I’d like to start by congratulating you on your election to the prestigious role of Speaker. I look forward to your positive rulings over the next three years—in our favour.

Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, friends and family, I stand before you filled with pride as the representative of the people of Northland. I’m proud to be a National Party MP in the most powerful and united Opposition this Parliament has ever seen. Today is my opportunity to introduce myself and to share my journey and what I hope to achieve while I’m here.

I come from the mighty Northland, a truly beautiful place steeped in history. I live a short distance from the harbour where Kupe landed on the shores, a short distance from the site of the first Māori settlement, and in the region with the largest iwi, Ngāpuhi. Our electorate’s largest town is Kerikeri, and it’s also the site of our first permanent European settlement and New Zealand’s oldest surviving building: the Stone Store. In the beautiful coastal town of Russell, we had New Zealand’s first capital, and across the water at Waitangi are the grounds where the Treaty was signed. These factors, taken together, make us the birthplace of the nation.

The vast Northland electorate stretches from Cape Reinga and Ninety Mile Beach in the North, across to the beautiful Whangaroa and Bay of Islands harbours in the East, to Dargaville and the mighty Tane Mahuta kauri in the West, and then wrapping around Whangarei and extending past Wellsford and Mangawhai in the South. We have 1,700 kilometres of coastline and the best scenery in the country, despite what my colleague Tamati Coffey might try and tell you. We enjoy the country’s highest average temperatures and we have 3.6 percent of the population and just over 5 percent of the land. We are a region with many challenges, but I am incredibly positive and optimistic about our future. It’s a true honour to be voted in by the people of Northland to represent them, and it’s a real privilege to be one of 120 people tasked with the responsibility of ensuring this country is governed well.

I want to acknowledge our leader, Bill English, and our senior management team, both past and present, for their leadership and guidance of our country over the past nine years, through the global financial crisis, the Christchurch earthquakes, and several other major challenges that we have faced as a nation. I would like to acknowledge our party president, Peter Goodfellow, and the National Party board, which he leads. I want to acknowledge Northland regional chair, Andrew Hunt, and his executive, and, finally, our general manager, Greg Hamilton, and the crew from the service centre, who I am told are possibly the best team we’ve ever had.

I’d also like to acknowledge my predecessors and the work they have put into the Northland electorate.

I’d like to acknowledge my National Party colleagues, especially from the 2017 intake, and my colleagues from across the House for their success in getting here. I’d also like to mention at least three people that didn’t make it, but they’re knocking on the door: Nicola Willis—up there—Agnes Loheni, and Paulo Garcia. I hope to see them in the House in the next term, hopefully. We enjoyed some time during the induction period before the games began, and I look forward to working with you all in the various select committees and duties.

I’d also like to mention and acknowledge my two main opponents in Northland: Labour’s Willow-Jean Prime, for showing the same determination and perseverance that I have to make it here, and Winston Peters, for being unrivalled in his longevity as New Zealand’s longest-serving and possibly best-known politician.

It’s important to me that, as one of the front men, we never forget the team behind us working away to ensure our success. To my superb Northland electorate team: a huge thankyou to you all. I am nothing without you. I appreciate every bit of time, every effort, and every bit of encouragement that you’ve all put in. I want you to enjoy our success, because it is our success.

I want to make special mention of our electorate chair, Rose Ellis. Rose is a massive asset to Northland. In the 2015 by-election, she drove over 10,000 kilometres in one month and put in countless hours of work, all at her own cost, to support the National campaign in Northland. And in our 2017 campaign, Rose didn’t let up. She led from the front and she really did make a huge difference, and I will never forget that.

I’d like to single out for special mention my campaign chair, Grant McCallum. Grant is a former National Party board member and a man with a mountain of knowledge, who was and is a huge help to me. Grant’s guidance and advice was critical to our success.

I want to offer my thanks to all Northlanders who supported me through the campaign and put their faith in me to be their representative. My political career began in 2010, when I entered the rather prolonged race to be the Northland candidate for the 2011 election. I made the short list on that occasion, but I didn’t make the podium. Having no desire to be an MP anywhere but Northland, I essentially shelved my political dreams and got on with what was a pretty good life. Then, rather unexpectedly, along came round two in 2015. This was a mad dash to the finish and a greatly shortened selection process, and this time I made the podium, but I didn’t get the gold.

Finally, in late 2016, in round three, I made it across the line and was selected as the National Party candidate for Northland. On that day my campaign began, and it did not stop until late on 22 September, with my electorate chair, Rose Ellis, balancing on my shoulders, pulling out the last nail of our last hoarding. I credit this long and onerous campaign and my team for our ultimate success in winning back Northland.

A little bit about my early history and my journey here. I want to thank my family, starting with my wonderful parents, who gave me the best start in life that anyone could wish for. If everyone experienced the upbringing that I’ve had, there’d be no need for policemen or judges, lawyers or prisons—you wouldn’t need locks on your doors.

I’m the eldest son of Joe and Jenny King, who this year celebrated 52 years of marriage. My father is a well-respected chiropractor and farmer, and my mother is a schoolteacher and fantastic provider. My parents worked really hard for what they have and made many sacrifices to give us the life we enjoyed. My father’s word is his bond—a handshake seals the deal. He leads by example, and he set the bar high. Words cannot describe how proud I am of them.

I was also blessed to briefly know my older sister, Joanna, who was taken from us at a young age. I have one younger sister, Tara, and one younger brother, Patrick, whom I admire greatly. I’m the proud father of three amazing children, Jake, Robbie, and Jasmine, and the husband to an incredible woman and mother, my wife, Sarah.

I was born 50 years ago in Auckland and moved north at age nine. We grew up on a picturesque hill country farm in the mid-north, which we now own. We had an amazing life on that farm: swimming in and drinking water from the two rivers that flow through it, riding our horses and dirt bikes across the hills, hiking through the bush, eeling in the creeks, scaling the cliffs, and climbing deep into the glow-worm caves. Our farm has it all. Well, it’s 40 years later, and nothing has changed. We can still do all that, but these days I prefer to sit on the riverbank and watch my kids do the action stuff.

After leaving school and scraping together some cash, I left on my big OE. I bought an old American Ford station wagon in San Francisco, and for a year it was my home whilst I travelled the length and breadth of North America, clocking up over 20,000 miles and covering many parts of Mexico, the US, and Canada. This was a huge adventure filled with incredible memories, and I recommend it to all.

On returning to New Zealand, I completed three years of study, graduating from Auckland University with a Bachelor of Science, and after graduating, I followed in my grandfather’s footsteps and joined the police. During my 14-year police career, I got to experience the human race in all its glory. I dealt with the sad, the mad, and the bad. I saw and experienced things that cannot be unseen, and I came out of it at the other end with a heightened level of compassion for people that has never left me. I learnt many of my most valuable life lessons during that period of my life.

I’d like to share with you a story about my grandfather—also named Joe—who was a policeman for 30 years. He ended up on the North Shore in Auckland before the harbour bridge was built. He was the sole policeman from Campbells Bay to Waiwera. I recall him telling me many stories from his policing days, and these have stuck with me.

I recall a story where my grandfather received a call to a bad car accident on the Ōrewa hill, north of Auckland. At that time, a new cop had just been stationed in Ōrewa, and my grandfather headed north to assist him. He learnt that the car had rolled, that the three occupants had been thrown out and the car had landed on one of them, that the injuries were life-threatening head injuries, and that it was pretty grim. My grandfather was told that the injured passenger was his son, my father. En route to the scene, my grandfather passed the ambulance going the other way, heading to hospital. He knew his son was in it. He continued on to the scene to help his mate, the new cop, and did his job, because that’s the kind of man he was. My grandfather has long since passed away, but if I’m half the man he was and my father is, then I’ll be doing all right.

By far, the biggest and most proud achievement of my university days was the discovery of my soulmate and the love of my life, Sarah. Sarah has been by my side for the past 27 years, and is one out of the box. I can honestly tell you I could not have made it here without her love and ongoing support. My dad always said to me, “The secret of a long and successful marriage is to listen to your wife.” You’ve got to listen to your wife. I can hear her now, and her words are: “Harden up, you big girl’s blouse.” Never has there been a truer word spoken, that beside every successful man stands a great and equally successful woman.

I want to close with my dream for Northland. I want a region where all of our children can grow up, get educated, have a career, and raise a family here in Northland. I want a region where all of our children are raised in the strong, stable, and loving environment that I enjoyed, and that we can stem the flow of our young people out of Northland. It’s especially personal to me, as my son Jake is chasing his dream and training to be an airline pilot in Hamilton. I would dearly love it if we grew the North to the stage where he could do his training up in Northland so I could get to enjoy having him around more often.

How do we grow and prosper? Well, it starts with investing in our infrastructure: our roads, our bridges, our digital and energy networks, our schools, our hospitals, and our people—especially our people. I want to encourage our many talented people to step up, take leadership roles in our community, become mentors, and lead by example. I want us to stop talking about the potential that Northland has; I want to realise it. I am committed to keeping Northland on the map, to keeping us front and centre.

To Northlanders, I give you this promise: I will work the hardest and the smartest that I can to achieve our dreams and our aspirations. I’m proud to be a Northlander. I’m proud to be your MP. Thank you.

[Applause]

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you for this opportunity to address the Parliament, Mr Speaker. I do so with great expectations and great excitement. I congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers on your respective appointments.

Let me begin by recording my gratitude to all who voted in Helensville, including, but not limited to, those who did so for my party and me. I acknowledge and thank my opponents for a campaign that was frank but fair, and robust but reasonable. I also acknowledge all fellow members of this House, including, in particular, the “class of 2017” on both sides of the aisle, not least of all my colleague Simeon Brown, who was generous enough to mention me in his own remarks, and all my National Party colleagues under the strong and principled leadership of Bill English.

It’s well known that my predecessor in Helensville as MP was John Key. I’m grateful for the advice that he has generously given me. During the election campaign it was observed by many that I have large shoes to fill if I am—extending the metaphor—to follow in his footsteps. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to tread the path that appears to me, exercising my own judgment in accordance with my own experience and world view, to represent the surest path to health and happiness for the people of Helensville.

The Helensville electorate, within Auckland’s North West, is magnificent. I may be biased—and, indeed, it would be strange if I were not—but in my view it represents the very best of our nation, comprising as it does, fertile farmland, commanding coastlines, bountiful bush, secure suburbs, flourishing forests, and beautiful beaches.

My journey to Parliament has been at once atypical—including many voyages over and under the oceans of the world, on which more later—and in other ways somewhat typical, including a career in the law. I completed a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature and Linguistics at 19 years of age, having already by then commenced a lifelong love of language. I find a happy home here in Parliament—an institution whose words are powerful enough to be known as Acts. Along with my BA, I had started a law degree but, in a victory for adventure over academia, decided instead to run away to sea, so to speak, rather than face classes in jurisprudence. More specifically, I served in the Royal New Zealand Navy as an officer of the watch on HMNZS Te Kaha, an Anzac class frigate.

I was also privileged to serve in the role of aide-de-camp to Her Excellency the Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright, travelling around New Zealand and abroad as a member of the vice-regal household. At 22 years of age, I was, at least, at that time, the youngest person in New Zealand to have the privilege of holding that role. Already by then a keen student of public law, at Government House I had the considerable privilege of witnessing Royal assent being given to legislation. In a strict constitutional and historical sense, it is lawmaking power beyond even that enjoyed by this House.

In 2004, I joined the Royal Australian Navy to fulfil my dream of driving submarines. The genesis of that dream is unclear to me, but may have been my boyhood enjoyment of the Jules Verne classic Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. As navigating officer of a diesel-electric submarine, I was driving a hybrid vehicle long before most Green Party MPs ever did. Every submariner knows that the best stories of the silent service are seldom told: those of hard times and good times alike. Through the looking glass known as a periscope, I saw things over a decade ago that are still as clear in my mind’s eye today as though I’d viewed them only yesterday.

My service with the Australian Defence Force was completed with Operation Iraqi Freedom, when I was stationed on a shell-scarred oil terminal. And so it was that I spent Christmas of one particular year a metaphorical stone’s throw away from where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers of ancient Mesopotamia still meet and flow together into the northern Arabian Gulf, in turn not far from the little town of Bethlehem. To the men and women of the Defence Force, I say, “Victor, Mike, Tango”, along with “over” rather than “out”.

It was then time to return to NZ, where I completed my law degree. On admission to the bar, I practised law, eventually in a firm that I established with a business partner, Ong & Penk Lawyers. My experiences on the long and winding road to Parliament have shaped me for good and, almost without exception, for the better.

Next, my heartfelt thanks to the National Party campaign team and executive committee of the Helensville electorate. I owe my place here to each one of you. Our leader, Stephen Franklin, is a great New Zealander who has served with the SAS, the police force, St John, and, of course, Sir John. To all National Party members, supporters, and, of course, our voters: thank you too. I acknowledge the party president, Peter Goodfellow and his fellow board directors, including Andrew Hunt, who is also to be thanked in his capacity as northern regional chair. Others who have supported me strongly and kindly in various ways are too many to name, but they know who they are. I also know, and it is my solemn resolution never to forget.

It’s my belief that family members of politicians should not generally be mentioned in Parliament, for a number of reasons. The exceptions that prove this rule for me are maiden and valedictory speeches, being rare opportunities to thank those who are nearest and dearest. First, my eternal gratitude to the best parents a son could wish to have, Debbie and Stephen Penk. Both are teachers by instinct and, indeed, also profession: my mother at various levels in the schooling system and my father as a lecturer at the law school of the Auckland University.

They raised five boys in a household that was not wealthy in a material sense—far from it—but one rich in love. They taught me the overriding importance of fidelity, family, and faith. We were raised in West Auckland and I attended the local State schools, of which Kelston Boys High School deserves particular mention as a favourable, formative influence. I’m also grateful for the love and support of all my brothers, and my sisters-in-law too, and I acknowledge the presence of Alex and George in the gallery today.

There is much that I could say about my grandparents, but I’ll focus briefly on the experience of each during World War II. This is because the self-sacrificial ethos of that generation—quite rightly called the greatest by many—is typified by such service. My grandmother Joan Penk joined the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. As a “WAAF”, I hope that she would be pleased that I’m now able to represent an area that includes the RNZAF airbase at Whenuapai. Her husband, my grandfather Harold Penk, served as a medic in the New Zealand Army. A brave and devoted man, he was mentioned in dispatches at the time, and it’s my pleasure to be able to mention him in Parliament now as well.

My maternal grandfather, Professor Forrest Scott PhD, was a naval officer in the Second World War, who bequeathed us a diary in which he describes the torpedoing and loss of his ship, HMS Springbank, by a U-boat. His wife, and my grandmother Helen Scott, was a schoolgirl evacuated from Dover during the Nazi bombings. Her determination was amply demonstrated by obtaining a degree in mathematics at Cambridge University in the 1940s, an era in which women were actively discouraged from studying such subjects. I’m delighted that she will be watching on Parliament TV today, provided that the Silver Ferns are not playing a netball test on another channel at the same time.

I will also always be grateful to my dear parents-in-law, Ken and Tjoe Choe. They are invariably supportive and generous, not least of all because they allowed me to marry their eldest daughter. I met my beautiful wife, Kim, at law school. An excellent journalist specialising in online news, she has recently, at least temporarily, exchanged the fourth estate for first-time motherhood, a role she handles wonderfully well. Our son was born just two days prior to the recent general election. Jokes about her being in labour and me being in National were not made in her hearing at the time. Some might say that I will be spending my days here sitting on the backbenches of the Opposition side of Parliament in much the same way that a newborn baby does: making unreasonable demands and unintelligible cries, often due to an excess of hot air from the other side of a room. I could not possibly comment.

I move now from the personal to the political. I joined the National Party immediately on my return to New Zealand in early 2008. For several years, I served on the electorate committee of Paula Bennett, twice as electorate chair. In 2011, I represented her in a judicial recount of the Waitakere election result. That was under my mentor and friend Peter Kiely, chair of the National Party Rules Committee, whom I thank now for many years of help and encouragement. I recall walking into that room with our candidate behind by 11 votes, and we emerged several days later with her ahead and, accordingly, the victor by nine votes. I will never forget that fascinating intersection of law and politics.

My values are closely aligned to those of the National Party, as you might well expect, in particular our emphasis on providing equality of opportunity and the strong belief in the value of personal responsibility. Beyond that, I would like to offer some thoughts on an aspect of lawmaking that is seldom considered and understood properly even less. It concerns a paradox of choice and freedom. Every person has rights that are limited by reference to rights enjoyed by others. That much is generally acknowledged as a matter of principle, although in practice we do not always protect every heart that beats.

But perhaps more complex and interesting is the paradox of making laws that ostensibly offer choice and freedom to a person but have the actual opposite effect. By way of example, a person who is offered by the law, and accepts, the choice of taking an addictive substance will suffer from a lack of choice as a result of doing so. Much more could be said, and, indeed, I’m sure will be said, in the coming months along these lines.

I also wish to comment briefly on the present electoral constitutional arrangements of this country. It has become clear that MMP Governments are now invariably formed in three stages, one of which involves the voting public and two of which do not. First, there is an election of MPs to seats by the people; second, a selection of the Government by politicians; and, third, a collection of some, but not all, of the relevant parties’ policies, again by politicians alone. Given such democratic deficit inherent in the rules of the MMP game, it is unfortunate that the people are given so little opportunity to view the way in which the game is played at the second and third stages.

In my hope that this speech will be watched at least once on YouTube, by someone other than me, I have, effectively, created a game of maiden speech bingo. In these 15 minutes I have referred to three Beatles song titles, three Charles Dickens novels, three books of the Bible, and three famous naval ships. Each is significant to me in some way. You may recall that I began addressing the House with “great expectations”, one of the Dickens novels’ titles, of course, but the rest I will leave to anyone interested in looking.

I conclude my remarks with the motto of the submarine on which I served, HMAS Sheean, which was, simply, “Fight On”. I emphasise those words for two reasons. First, I do not resile from the adversarial nature of parliamentary democracy, but I will fight fairly. A contest of ideas provides the least unsafe way of making the least dangerous laws. In Opposition, we have not only the right but also the responsibility, more significantly, to oppose bad Government policy, even as we do support any good policy that they may propose. A legislative Chamber that is fiery is not a bleak House but a bright one. Second, that motto, “Fight On”, also speaks to the high value that I place on resilience, persistence, and determination. Even as I finish now, I promise that I will always, at all times, fight on.

[Applause]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.05 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to come into force on 1 July 2018

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Oh, what an opportunity!

David Seymour: I’m sure she’ll take it with both hands.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I always think this place is a land full of opportunity, and I think I will take it too. Thank you so much, MP for Epsom. This is a bill that the National Party fully supports. We certainly campaigned on the same provisions during the last election. But there are a couple of amendments that we would like to have made. The first is in the name of my colleague the Hon Amy Adams, which is that a person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously, and that they will be able to decide between themselves how they take that parental leave—concurrently or in overlapping periods. I think that this is a very, very good suggested amendment, and I have no understanding at all as to why the Labour Government is so set against it.

We’ve had the Hon Kelvin Davis say that the Labour Government does not support the ability for parents of a child to be able to decide how they take that leave and whether or not both of them take it together for a shorter period of time or one takes it for the full period. Well, I can’t understand why, in this day and age, we can’t acknowledge that the parent who is not actually the person who has given birth can contribute towards the care of that child. I would have thought that in a Government that should be for the 21st century—not the 19th—there should be an acknowledgment of the role of fathers, or other parents, should it not be a heterosexual relationship. I think it is very important that each parent be able to contribute towards the upbringing of a child. As a mother, I think that one of those things in life where there’s great joy is when both parents are intimately involved in bringing up their child.

In this particular case, what it doesn’t take into account—which is what this side of the Chamber wants to take into account—is that the circumstances of parents may be quite different. For instance, we could well have a parent who is, for instance, overseas for a period of time and they come back and the mother of the child, for instance, may want them to take up more of a primary role with that child. Why can’t they be able to do that? For a Government that says that it’s for children—well, actually, isn’t the right of every child to have their parents intimately involved in their upbringing, and isn’t that what paid parental leave is all about? So I don’t understand why it is that Labour, in particular, has been so against this.

I would expect that the Green Party would want to support this provision, because it’s actually about giving people choice. I don’t know about the New Zealand First Party—if they believe that fathers should be involved in the upbringing of their children. I would have thought that they did, but, look, I’ve been surprised by quite a lot of what they’ve done over the years—particularly lately, I have to say. But I would have thought that they would want to do this.

When we’re looking at people who want to be able to use this, why can’t they do it? We’ve got this very good amendment ready to go, easily slotted in. It won’t cost anybody anything, by the way. It will, however, give choice to parents to make conscious decisions for the betterment of their child or children, and it also accepts that not everybody works in exactly the same circumstances—in a 9 to 5 job, working in various offices, or anything like that. People work shift work. All sorts of different things are going on. And why can’t they do this?

It might well be that someone who has given birth—a mother—may well have had twins and wants her partner to be able to stay home with her. She may have had a caesarean and not be able to drive to the doctor or anything else, or go and get groceries, or do anything that people who are mothers do. The fact is: why can’t they have someone home with them? If they’re willing to have that person home and they want to do it, why can’t we do this? This is a very simple but very good amendment, and I would really urge the Government to understand that not every good idea has to come from that side of the House. Some of them come from this side of the House.

Clayton Mitchell: Well, we’ve had nine years of it coming from that side of the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, we’ve had this opportunity—and I see that Clayton Mitchell doesn’t believe in fathers having an active role in the upbringing of their children, but I do. I’m one of those mothers who congratulate and champion fathers who look after, and are involved in, the rights of their child. This is a good Supplementary Order Paper. We should support it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I appreciate the contribution by the Hon Judith Collins. It’s always a joy to listen to the Hon Judith Collins, because very often she makes sense. Sometimes she’s outrageous, but very often she makes sense. But you do have to be wary of the National Party using the word “choice”. It actually makes one prick up one’s ears.

Can I say there absolutely is some validity to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Amy Adams has put forward. Unfortunately, New Zealand First will not be supporting it at this time. We would like to revisit this in the future, because we understand that there are some complexities that should actually go through select committee. I would have welcomed the opportunity for this to go through select committee when the National Party actually put through their paid parental leave legislation in 2016. I’m not quite sure where this epiphany from the Hon Amy Adams suddenly came from—that she can put the Supplementary Order Paper forward only now. But we would like to revisit this sometime in the future, because, from a New Zealand First perspective, we would like to traverse the opportunity, in the future, of fathers having a tagged set of funding and a tagged set of time in the future so that they can be part of and have a higher pick-up—say, 25 percent of pick-up—going forward. So we can appreciate Amy Adams’ idea. Also, having had a sister with twins, I certainly can appreciate that the Hon Judith Collins has traversed some of the other ways that families might need to support each other going forward—but, as we say, not at this time, because there are complexities that need to be worked through.

However, I have good news for Ms Dowie. With regard to Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper—again, it’s a shame it hasn’t been here since 2016, when that party had an opportunity to just put it straight into their legislation, without it having to be a Supplementary Order Paper—New Zealand First will actually be supporting Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper. We recognise that keeping-in-touch provisions—that’s proportionality, as we actually extend paid parental leave—is a very sensible, practical solution, and we all know that New Zealand First is a very sensible and practical party. So we will be supporting that particular Supplementary Order Paper.

Overall, we will be supporting the bill. We will be making sure that this bill passes through as quickly as possible, so that our parents and our families can go forward with some certainty, as of 1 July 2018. We think it’s wonderful that we’ve finally got to this place after some years of listening to the National Party say that it was unaffordable, and so on and so forth. It’s really lovely to have the National Party finally recognise that this is not only affordable; it’s of great value to the nation with regard to the opportunity for us to extend the amount of time that parents can be at home with their newborns, and I do think that allowing women—predominantly—to be able to stay in touch with their workplaces is a very good idea.

So overall, apart from Ms Adams Supplementary Order Paper, which we hope we’ll be able to revisit at some time in the future—and we would look forward to the National Party’s support for any opportunity to revisit this in the future based on their arguments that I’m sure we’re about to hear again and again and again tonight—that would be New Zealand First’s contribution. We will support the bill, we will support Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper, but, unfortunately, not Ms Adams’ at this time.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a great pleasure to speak in the committee of the whole House on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, a bill that we will be supporting. Before I go into the substantive parts of Part 1, I want to address a couple of the things that the Hon Tracey Martin has raised—in particular, this belief that once they finally get their head around the very sensible Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Amy Adams has put up to this bill, they can kind of just bring it back to the House, bring another bill, and have it done.

Well, I have some news for the new Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. There might be tumbleweed blowing through the Parliamentary Counsel Office now and the Government may be scrambling to try and find some legislation that it can debate in the first 100 days while it gets its momentum going—and I look forward to that—but I have news for the Minister: it is going to be a once-only offer. It is almost certain that the Minister in the chair will not have the opportunity to bring back a further amendment to this bill in the 52nd Parliament, unless they intend to run the 52nd Parliament the way they began, and that is by ramming through legislation under urgency without select committee scrutiny.

I don’t intend to relitigate the very sound and cogent arguments that this side of the House made against this process, and the irony that this is not only a bill but a process that is being supported by the Green Party, whose members lined up for nine years to rail against the use of urgency, and the former member for Hutt South in his debate on the Standing Orders for the 51st Parliament made it very clear in his view that urgency should be taken only for emergencies and with, effectively, a supermajority in the House of 75 percent or more.

I think what we are seeing here is a degree of naivety by Ms Martin that somehow we can just magic up another bill and bring it back through the House, because there’s always so much time—well, the former Ministers on this side of the Chamber know how very, very difficult that can be—but also that somehow the select committee process isn’t important; it’s rubber-stamping. Well, I think we’ve got two very good examples of how a bill that we support could have been made better by the select committee scrutiny. It is true the argument was made—but not accepted—that this was a member’s bill that was considered a couple of years ago and that’s enough; that’s all it needs. Well, I can just imagine the hue and cry that would have emanated from the other side had the National-led Government previously done that.

But I will give the Minister a bouquet—and I hope that that is indicative of the engagement that he intends to take in fair, flexible, and safe industrial relations in this country—because of the careful consideration and, I understand, acceptance of the very good suggestion by Sarah Dowie in respect of keeping-in-touch extensions, which are the subject of both Part 1 and Part 2 of this bill. I encourage, nay, challenge, the Minister to continue in that spirit. It is a comment made more in hope than confidence, given my understanding of the Labour Party’s manifesto for industrial relations, but we’ll see how that goes.

With that, though, comes a brickbat, and that is that, effectively, what we’ve heard from both the Minister and the Hon Tracey Martin is that the Government would like to consider Amy Adams’ ideas, which, actually, the National Party campaigned on in the 2017 election campaign, as an extension of the very flexible arrangements that we put in place in the last Parliament to paid parental leave. No, it wasn’t 26 weeks, because that was unaffordable at the time, but we did go to 14 weeks, to 16 weeks, and then to 18 weeks. More than that, we broadened the nature of the paid parental leave to extend it to people who would not otherwise have got it: whāngai arrangements, casual employment, being entitled after just six months’ work in a 12-month period, all qualified people for paid parental leave who weren’t previously eligible for it.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is with huge, huge pride that I stand on behalf of the Greens to show our massive support and gratitude for this bill.

I’m quickly going to address the ongoing accusations in this House, particularly pointed at the Green Party, about the use of urgency, and be very clear: this bill has been through the House and select committee twice already—twice already. It got thousands of submissions in the select committee stages, with overwhelming support, and so, yes, the Greens actually do hold strong to our principle of using urgency for special cases. It is very clear to the Green Party that this bill has been through due process, and so it is a pleasure to stand and support us finally actually getting it somewhere: increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

This is a short call. I wanted to put on the record my personal support for this bill. I remember, going right back—I think it was a good seven years ago, perhaps, when my youngest daughter and I were part of the fantastic community campaign 26 for Babies. I remember us all hopping on a train in Auckland, mammas and babies, with our big yellow T-shirts and balloons—26 for Babies—and it’s quite surreal to be able to stand in this Chamber after all those years and finally arrive here, finally arrive to a Government that is showing exactly how much we value supporting parenting, and mothers and babies being able to stay home together. The Greens, of course, eventually want to aim for 13 months. This is a fantastic step in the right direction.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! Can I just remind members that we’re actually on Part 1, which is quite specific. I’ve let the member go on, but can she bring the debate back to Part 1, which is quite a specific clause.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. You’re right: Part 1 is specifically where it extends the leave out to the 26 weeks and in the two phases—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 22 weeks.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: It is 22 weeks, and then 26 in Part 2—my apologies. So that’s the first phase of extending it out to 26: firstly, I think, taking it to 22 weeks in July next year.

I just will finally end with having our support put on the Hansard record that that 22 weeks is absolutely important. It was having three children within three years and being in full-time paid employment myself—and this wasn’t around then; those children are in primary school now—but remembering back to the incredible stress and what a massive help those extra weeks would have been.

Just to close, while I agree with the spirit, on the face of it, of the Part 1 Supplementary Order Papers, particularly from Amy Adams, which would make an amendment so that parents can take that leave together, it is a little strange, because where was that overwhelming support for extending paid parental leave in the very first place, before it was vetoed?

So thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak tonight and to show our support for increasing paid parental leave. Kia ora.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I’m pleased to speak on this piece of legislation, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, and on this part, Part 1. The first thing I’d like to just acknowledge is the fact that it is a good thing that this legislation is going to go through this committee, but some of the questions that the members on this side are asking are legitimate in terms of timing.

We have previously, when we were in Government, extended paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks, and this part, coming back to this part of the bill, is about a two-stage process to increase it to 22 weeks next year and then 26 weeks. The question that I have for Minister Lees-Galloway, is one that everybody on this side of the Chamber is asking. I don’t think I’ve actually ever, in my nine years as a member of Parliament, seen something quite as extraordinary as this. We’ve got members, including Willow-Jean Prime and even Tracey Martin, saying that the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment is a good thing, “But maybe we’ll look at it later.” They’re pushing it through in urgency, but it doesn’t actually kick in until 1 July.

So my question—a very simple question that New Zealanders are asking members of Parliament in this committee—is: why is the Government not supporting the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment tonight? It’s not too late. You could put this to the select committee. This bill does not need to go through tonight. Given that you’ve got members such as Willow-Jean, but also partners such as Tracey Martin, saying this is a very good amendment, why will the Government not support it?

The other thing I want to acknowledge is the Hon Sarah Dowie’s amendment—[Interruption] Oh, sorry, I’ve just elevated her, and that is a sign of good things to come—very good things come. She’s a very, very good member of Parliament. It’s great that the Government is supporting Sarah’s amendment, but just coming back to this legislation, you’ve got a scenario whereby members of Parliament across the Chamber—and, again, we always said that when it was fiscally possible we would continue to extend paid parental leave. We’ve done it from 14 to 18 weeks. We campaigned on 22 weeks. We are here in this committee, we are with you, but for the core issue of a brilliant amendment by the Hon Amy Adams, which is supported by members across the committee.

Let’s talk about the personal situations of people that may actually want to use this scenario. Potentially you’ve got health issues of one partner. You may have premature babies. This is all really sensible stuff, and so the core question that we have for the Minister is: why? We would understand if there was some reason, such as this legislation was kicking in six weeks’ time, but it’s not. The first stage of paid parental leave doesn’t kick in till next year. Why will the Government not support this amendment? I ask the question to the Minister.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank members for their contributions, and thank the Hon Nikki Kaye for her questions. I would just like to clear up a few misunderstandings, I think, that members of the Opposition may have about the way paid parental leave operates. The Hon Judith Collins asked why the person who did not give birth to the child should not be able to contribute, and then made the comment that fathers should be involved. Well, the way that the paid parental leave legislation works right now is that, actually, both parents can take leave from work at the same time; one on paid parental leave, one can be unpaid.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, unpaid.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, that’s correct. You heard me right—well done. Also, it is possible to transfer. The member asks, rightly, what about fathers. If the mother has the primary entitlement to paid parental leave, it is possible to transfer, and it’s actually the transfer that the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment relies on, and I’ll come back to that in a second. So it is actually incorrect to suggest that the second parent, the father or somebody other than the parent that gave birth to the child, is not entitled to paid parental leave and does not have the opportunity to contribute to the raising of the child through that system of paid parental leave. So let’s just get that cleared up right away.

Nikki Kaye asked, rightly, why are we not supporting Supplementary Order Paper 3 this evening. Well, the problem—and this is often the case with an Opposition Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dealing with something that is reasonably complex—is that the Supplementary Order Paper is somewhat flawed. Now, we have had only a few hours to consider this. The Supplementary Order Paper was only tabled at 4.15 this afternoon, which did not give our caucus an opportunity to consider it, but it also means that we have had only a few hours to consider the Supplementary Order Paper.

However, in the little bit of time that we have had to consider it, this is what we have discovered. The clauses that are drafted all leverage off the transfer provisions in section 71E of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act in a way that is incompatible with the preconditions for transfer contained in that section. In particular, section 71E(2)(a) requires that the proposed transferee “has or intends to have primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child;”. However, it is incompatible with the concept of primary responsibility for there to be two people with primary responsibility for the same child at the same time. In legal terms, the primary responsibility qualification in section 71E(2) is the key point. It falls over there, because while the SOP’s new section 7(4) says there can be two primary carers at the same time by virtue of a transfer, that would only work if you actually transfer, and since you can’t have two people with primary responsibility at the same time, you can’t transfer.

So the SOP that has been brought to the committee tonight, at the last minute, is flawed. That doesn’t mean that the issue that it seeks to address is not one that is worth considering. This is why on the Government side we have said we do want to consider this, because—

Brett Hudson: Put it in select committee right now.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’ll get to that, Mr Hudson. I will get to why we’re not going to select committee in a moment. So we do want to consider this, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the National Party to come up with an amendment to the legislation that actually works, because this one doesn’t.

Some members—Brett Hudson, I heard—said why not take it to select committee. This bill that the Government introduced is a bill that extends paid parental leave. That is a matter that has been to select committee twice before, and that is why we are supporting the very good Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Sarah Dowie, because it supports the purpose of this legislation, which is to extend paid parental leave. Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper extends the keeping-in-touch hours. That supports the purpose of the bill that the Government introduced. Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper addresses an entirely different policy matter that needs more consideration than we can give it at the committee of the whole House tonight. It is a different policy that is not addressed in the bill that was introduced by the Government. It would be inappropriate to decide to take this bill to select committee to address a policy matter that actually stands outside of the bill as it was introduced.

I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie for finding a way to improve the bill and support the purpose of the bill. It’s a very good Supplementary Order Paper from Sarah Dowie, and I’m sad that the National Party haven’t talked about it more today, because that was a good amendment that we had an opportunity to work together on, and I’m looking forward to Sarah Dowie having the opportunity to present that Supplementary Order Paper to the committee. I thank members for their questions. That is why the Government has taken the position that we have.

That’s why, unfortunately, we cannot support Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper this evening, but I want to extend once again the offer to the National Party. This is an interesting policy idea. We do think there are fish-hooks in it. We have raised concern about the fact that the impact would be to reduce the overall amount of paid leave that is available to spend time with baby, and, of course, spending time with baby is what this is all about. We recognise the fish-hooks, but we do want to have a conversation; this is not the bill to progress that policy.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, talking about, in particular, Part 1, which extends paid parental leave from 18 to 22 weeks. It is a pleasure to rise because, of course, this was a policy that National campaigned on, and there seems to be, of course, agreement across the committee about the extension of paid parental leave and the benefits of it. So there’s no point talking about those benefits directly, but what I do want to talk about is, of course, my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which the Government has decided to adopt. In talking about its application in Part 1—extending the keeping-in-touch days from 40 hours to 52—I do want to address some of the statements raised by the Government members, in that keeping-in-touch days were fully explored at select committee.

Now, it is true that it was the National Government who brought in keeping-in-touch days through its bill in 2016, and keeping-in-touch days were explored under that reference. But, in my mind, I think they need to be fully explored, and this is where the process at select committee is very valuable. I do think that we would have benefited from more discussion about keeping-in-touch days, looking at the balance of incrementally increasing keeping-in-touch days with the increase in paid parental leave—looking at the benefits of it and making sure that that balance is in touch with what we’re doing with achieving all of the goals that paid parental leave is setting out to achieve in our society.

So, look, keeping-in-touch days are really important. My SOP extends the keeping-in-touch hours available from 40 to 52—as I said in the first tranche under Part 1—and that is in a proportional manner as paid parental leave is moving forward and is being extended. Keeping-in-touch days, as I’ve said in my first and second reading speeches, are really important tools in the tool kit to make paid parental leave fit for purpose. We need to make sure that, when we’re increasing paid parental leave and dealing with this bill, paid parental leave is workable for a number of different situations that families find themselves in. Later, in a contribution, I’ll talk about the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper, which I think is an extremely good idea and adds to the flexibility of paid parental leave.

But extending the keeping-in-touch days is also important because it combats that isolation factor that some women can experience while on paid parental leave. Yes, of course, it’s wonderful to have a baby, and you would never be without them once you have them, but it’s often not always a box of fluffies. There are things that go wrong, and sometimes having that time to go back to work, with the agreement of your employer, to keep in touch—as the terminology says—to undertake a little bit of project work, to upskill, or to stay in touch with your employment is really good. It makes the primary caregiver feel worthwhile; it keeps them in touch with their career; it makes things flow more easily with regards to them coming back to work; and, of course, there’s the camaraderie factor of going back to work. Plus, of course, paid parental leave gives that financial security to people to go out into the community and get involved in community initiatives that also contribute to their well-being and keep them connected.

So this SOP, with regards to Part 1, obviously extends the keeping-in-touch days to 52 hours, which I think is extremely worthwhile. It’s going to give people more time to use those hours throughout their paid parental leave, stay in touch with their employment, keep their skills evolving, and I think that this will be really well received out in the community in New Zealand.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. Of course, I have to start by saying, on behalf of the Green Party, I am very proud to be supporting a Government that has so clearly signalled their priorities by making the first piece of legislation to pass in this House—when it does—an extension to paid parental leave that families have been waiting for for such a long time.

In Part 1, which extends it to 22 weeks, I want to address the issues raised both around the urgency and around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was proposed by Amy Adams—so Supplementary Order Paper 3. But let’s just state right up front that it’s clear what this Government’s priorities are: it’s looking after families in Aotearoa; it’s ensuring that we’re investing in enabling families. Moreover, the policy objective, which is very relevant, is extending the amount of time that a parent, any parent, is able to spend with the baby to maximise the amount of time that babies, during their development, will eventually have—first 22 weeks, and then 26 weeks—with one of their primary parents, whoever that is. That’s a policy objective.

I know that the Opposition struggles with this, because it was never clear that they thought that Governments should be trying to achieve things for people in New Zealand. They certainly questioned the ability of Government to deliver. But there’s a clear policy objective here, which is maximising the amount of time that babies have with their primary caregivers, any of them.

So what is addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper 2, proposed by Sarah Dowie, I think is excellent. It was a great contribution, and I think the Government has shown clearly that when there’s a good suggestion and it can be incorporated, we will support that.

When it comes to the Supplementary Order Paper raised by Amy Adams, I think it’s an interesting proposal. I think that, as Minister for Women and with a primary goal of closing the gender pay gap, it is incredibly important that we find ways to incentivise fathers and other parents taking more of the parental leave. But we don’t want to do that at the expense of the time that babies have with the caregiver, and of course if two people are taking paid parental leave at the same time, then it reduces the amount of time that babies have with one of their primary caregivers at home.

I think that the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway explained very clearly why this is out of scope, this particular Supplementary Order Paper, and I do think that it’s a bit disingenuous for Opposition members to suddenly claim to be so passionate about this when they had nine years to do it, and obviously they didn’t. So this Government is getting on with it. We’re not going to allow our ambitious agenda for Aotearoa to be hampered by slowing down something that’s already been through select committee twice. We can go ahead and pass the bill because we know that most New Zealanders support it. It’s a good bill. It extends parental leave, and that’s what we care about.

I think Opposition members should not worry, because this is just the beginning—it’s just the beginning. We’ve got heaps of time to introduce more and better policies, and I, for one, as Minister for Women, welcome the National Party coming out in a strong campaign for extending parental leave to 13 months, including incentives for fathers and other parents. I’m really looking forward to hearing that from the National Party during this term of Government. You could join the Green Party in campaigning for extensions to paid parental leave to 13 months, because, clearly, they’re very supportive of such a thing.

So thank you Madam Chair—very happy to be supporting this bill tonight, and one of the SOPs proposed by the National Party members. We look forward to further contributions from the National Party Opposition to policy making throughout this term of Government and beyond.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to stand in the debate on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. One of the things that I just want to start with is the record of the previous Government around incremental increases to extending paid parental leave. But not only that; it was taking the opportunity to improve it, to make it more flexible, and to be more workable for Kiwi families in their variety of shapes and sizes. So this is a massive lost opportunity.

I’m very bothered by the fact that we have a Minister who purports to be wanting to introduce legislation that supports families, and won’t even take a month, two months, to stop to consider what he’s already admitted is a good suggestion. I think it’s a simple demonstration of just a dogmatic position. I want to correct the record actually, because I know for a fact that the Hon Amy Adams initiated discussions around the content of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), not just at 4.15 today but yesterday. The fact that the Acting Prime Minister made a view on it this morning that was a completely contradictory view to the Minister in the chair says that they know about it. They knew about it this morning. They made a decision about it. They couldn’t agree on it. I guess you can kind of see why. One thought it was a good idea; the other one just probably didn’t know the bill itself.

But the reality is that this is an extension—like we extended, from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. This is the logical extension in Part 1, from 18 weeks to 22 weeks, but it is absolutely a lost opportunity to ensure we have legislation that is fit for purpose for Kiwi families, and the opportunity for both parents—as I said, whatever size, shape, or formation—to have really important time together and to make those choices. Why should a Kiwi family be penalised because the current Government is too narrow-minded and not willing to pause for a month or two months or whatever? We absolutely want it, on this side of the Chamber, to come in on 1 July. We are supporting the bill, but we do think there is an opportunity for the Government to make a decision to say, “Right, well, actually there might be some issues that the Minister in the chair spoke to.” Take a breather. Take some time. We want to support the legislation.

As I said in my earlier reading, the select committee process is absolutely the opportunity to get Kiwis to provide input that adds value and creates the opportunity and makes sure we have legislation that works for the citizens that we represent. So, in terms of the Hon Amy Adams’ amendments in SOP No. 3, I do think the Minister in the chair should be able to consider the fact that this is not just about extending; it is about improving. It’s about making it easier for Kiwi families. Whether it’s the first child, whether it’s the second, whatever the parental arrangements are, whoever the primary caregiver is should have absolutely no say by the Government. It shouldn’t be the Government’s decision about what works best for Kiwi families. Those are decisions that each and every Kiwi family should be making. The legislation before us, given that it is the very first one of this Government—I would have thought you had the commitment, that the Government had the commitment, to make sure it worked for Kiwi families up and down this country and recognise that they have different circumstances, different needs, and different requirements.

The other part I want to move to is Sarah Dowie’s amendment on SOP No. 2—the keeping-in-touch days. I think this is an example of a Government that was in haste and missed a really obvious piece of the legislation that is a fundamental part of women and their return to work, which, surely, is also an equal part of this. The Minister for Women today was talking about New Zealand’s record in the number of women participating in the workforce, which I agree is a great thing. But if the Government hadn’t included it—Sarah Dowie, my able colleague, was the one that spotted the gap—because you were in haste, that would have affected the ability for New Zealand women to ease their process to return to work. I would hate to think what the consequences are. The Minister for Women might have a view on whether or not actually that was ripping women off and their chances to stay connected to their workforce. Again, when we extended paid parental leave, not once but twice, this was an important part of adding flexibility and adding the opportunity to ensure that women were connected to work. It made it easier for them to return. So this has got to be an opportunity that the Government shouldn’t be wasting. Take a breath. Minister in the chair, I really—[Time expired]

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to take a call on this. I just want to take this opportunity as we are looking at Part 1, at what is going to happen, what is proposed. It is important that we also think, within that, about what it means is not proposed.

I’ve heard members from the other side, and the Minister for Women, comment that this is about a policy of leave. I actually think they’re confusing mechanisms with policy. The policy might be expressed as giving a child a better start in their life. It might be expressed as improving bonding between the infant and the primary caregiver. The fact of doing it by extending a number of weeks of leave is a mechanism that gives effect to the policy. It’s not actually the policy itself.

We all support that, and support that intent, and are voting for that, but by taking the approach that that mechanism was the policy, the Government has chosen to introduce and progress this in a way that means that other parts, very valid parts, to what is truly the policy have been overlooked. Members of this Parliament but also the public have been denied the opportunity to make submissions in those areas.

By its agreement with Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), the Government is admitting that there is at least one flaw in the bill as they have introduced it under urgency. It is a flaw that, had it been progressed through a select committee, would have been able to have been investigated, and instead of talking in Part 1 simply about the increase of a number of weeks of paid parental leave, we could be talking at the same time about other improvements to that fundamental policy of the early weeks and months of a child’s life and their bonding with their caregiver, particular the primary caregiver.

So Ms Dowie spotted that piece, and I’d just like to acknowledge, if I may, that that idea was introduced by a National Government. But I’d just like to acknowledge the former National list MP based in Ōhāriu, Katrina Shanks. It was a policy idea that she brought to the National caucus. It is wonderful to see not only that it was passed by a National Government but that, through another National member, it looks like a very good possibility that that will be extended, along with the extension to the paid parental leave.

I think also that Amy Adams’ SOP shows another flaw in the way that that policy can be delivered, by denying parents the choice to take leave together and to parent together not only the newborn but obviously the entire family circumstances. There’s actually more, because there are other elements that could, and should, have been traversed in a select committee.

Now, in its last term in Government, the National Government, amongst other things as extending parental leave, also made changes to the parental tax credit. The parental tax credit is used by those families in circumstances where they feel that work is a part of what they need to do in that early part after the birth. So the Government provides support, through that parental tax credit, for families in that situation. The National Government increased the value of it by $70 a week, to $220, but also—and I think this is where it’s absolutely relevant to Part 1—the National Government extended the duration of that tax credit. When it extended paid parental leave to 18 weeks, it extended the duration, from 8 weeks’ to 10 weeks’ eligibility, for the parental tax credit. So here we have a bill in the House, introduced under urgency, all about a fundamental policy about a child’s early life and bonding and a good start to life, and we’ve overlooked certain elements because we skipped an important part of our parliamentary process.

We should be debating, we should be discussing—because different families have different circumstances—the idea that the parental tax credit should also be extended in its duration by an amount. That amount may not be the same as the amount of paid parental leave extension in either part, but there’s absolutely an argument to suggest it for families in those circumstances where the use of the parental tax credit is preferable or better for them than paid parental leave, and this bill, under urgency, without a select committee, has denied members of Parliament and the public the opportunity to explore these and actually put through Parliament and enact a better piece of legislation that will more fully deliver the actual policy intent.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Judith Collins: Why do you want to close down debate on such an important issue?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I thought we would let that be heard—important. Look, I’m very pleased to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As my colleagues on this side have already indicated, we are pleased to support it, particularly in the elements around Part 1, which has seen the extension of paid parental leave beginning, importantly, on 1 July next year. I think it’s important to note that, because an element of the debate is why this has been done under urgency and why this has not been done in select committee. I think that remains an important element.

First and foremost, there is no rush. There is no need to rush, particularly when there really is a concord or a consensus across the House, and we do need to ask that. I think we also need to take a little bit of a query that we don’t need to go to select committee. In fact, I think when you look at the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in front of us—one from Amy Adams, one from Sarah Dowie—they’re actually indicating, arguably, flaws in what’s being proposed, but perhaps if you wish to be more charitable, these are opportunities. And while my colleagues are incredibly smart, I think they’d also acknowledge that the general public has the smarts as well, and I’m disappointed the Government hasn’t taken the opportunity to engage with the public, and that’s a question I’d like the Minister in the chair to answer.

I think, too, we’ve already had the argument that somehow it’s already been to select committee. Well, I might just point out to the Greens that when I was chair of the Health Committee we dealt with the marijuana question several times in the committee, so that’s bloody stupid. So I suspect they’re going to withdraw their bill, are they? Of course they’re not. So let’s be consistent around this. No consistency. It’s what I call convenient democracy.

So the next part, though, when we look at Part 1, it was raised by the coalition partner, Tracey Martin—talking about complexities. There are complexities, particularly with the suggestion that’s been put forward by the Hon Amy Adams to allow parents to, effectively, share the entitlement. So they have 22 weeks. In theory, each could take 11. I suppose in many ways we’ve actually traversed some of the arguments for that, going right to the core of what the Hon Amy Adams is suggesting. The entitlement, quite rightly, as this House is supporting, is 22 weeks. What is wrong with parents choosing to divvy that up and do it jointly, to do that together? There are no reasons that we have heard from the Government side, and again I’d like the Minister to answer this: what are the complexities that his coalition partner pointed to? Because I can’t really think of the complexities. I suppose the Minister in the chair could suggest that’s a lack on my part, and I’m willing to accept that to a point, but I don’t see what the legal complexities are.

We’ve also heard that the support from the Government side for Sarah Dowie’s SOP is because it’s proportionate, and I think that’s quite right. It is a proportionate response. But the same support, for reasons of proportionality, also applies in this case to the Hon Amy Adams’ SOP. It is proportionate that parents who choose to divide up the entitlement is proportionate to their decisions. If they want some time as just the mother and/or the father separate, that’s fine. If they want to do it together at the same time, that is fine. It’s up to them to choose how the apportionment or the proportionate nature of those 22 and eventually 26 weeks—so I’m conscious that’s Part 2—is done.

In terms that might help particularly those to the far left in the Green Party, when you start trying to avoid terms of mother and father, when you start trying to talk about primary entitlements, when you’re saying that only one parent is allowed to be with the child—well, paid to be—it’s what they call discrimination. I know a lot of talk comes up about human rights at times, but as a human rights theorist I have to say it’s funny how we’re having a discussion today that is actually saying to one parent—it doesn’t matter if they’re the mother or the father—that they are not able to be at home and be paid in the same way as the primary caregiver. That makes very little sense in a whole array of avenues. One is choice, which is often put out strongly in this House, and the other is in terms of discrimination.

Hon Nikki Kaye: And equality.

SIMON O’CONNOR: And equality. As you rightly point out, how did I forget equality? Because at the end of the day, if Part 1, and particularly the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Amy Adams is to stand—as it rightly should—the Government should allow parents to make the decision of how to use that 22 weeks, and if they choose to parent together then that is a positive. If they choose not to, that’s a positive as well.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair, and again I thank Simon O’Connor for his direct questions. Unfortunately, I feel I will be repeating myself a little, because the questions that he raised—I did address most of those in my previous contribution. However, Simon O’Connor asked: why do we not want to hear from the public? We’ve heard from the public time and time again about this. The member has been in the House for some time. He will recall exactly this bill being considered by two select committees already, thousands of submissions—over 97 percent of the public in favour of doing what this bill does. I think we’ve heard from the public.

In terms of complexity, I did outline in my previous contribution some of the complexities that we have identified. I can go further. We’ve not had time really yet to work through all the consequential issues with this proposal, as there are many of them, but here are some of our concerns in terms of consequential issues that arise from Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper 3. Section 71EA of the Act, “Effect of transfer of entitlement to spouse or partner”, would need to be reconsidered in light of this Supplementary Order Paper. The Act uses the primary carer concept—I know it is one Mr O’Connor does not seem to very much like—to work out entitlements for the spouse or partner in relation to the partner’s leave. Having two primary carers means section 17 would need to be rewritten to take this into account. There would—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Sorry, could you just clarify?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Section 17. There would be consequences on who could, and how the two carers could, take their keeping-in-touch hours, and restrictions would need to be placed on this, and thought should be given to whether this could be divided up or if each carer had an entitlement in their own right. Thought would need to be given to how pre-term baby payments would work and whether these could also be shared, in which case amendments and consequential amendments would need to be made to the Act.

So I’m sure it seemed very straightforward to the National Party when they were doing the drafting, but the fact is this is complex and we cannot, in good conscience, pass Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper this evening without dealing with those consequential amendments that would come from it.

The final point I want to make is that Mr O’Connor suggested that the Government is supporting Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper 2 because it is proportionate. That’s not why we are supporting it. We’re supporting it because it fits with the purpose of the bill. It supports the purpose of the bill. It is proportionate. It is a proportionate change to make, but that’s not why the Government is supporting it. We’re supporting it because it supports the aims of the bill. It fits within the policy intent of the bill. The policy intent, as I said earlier, of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper is actually quite different from the policy intent of the bill. So I apologise to the committee for repeating myself, but I do want to answer members’ questions and I hope that has clarified the matter for Mr O’Connor.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, which he claims was a repeat of what he’d said in his first speech. I just want to test that in respect of his reasons for not being able to accept as good improvement the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Hon Amy Adams.

Now, I would firstly point out that it is not an argument to say that they only received the SOP at 4.15 p.m. today and didn’t have time to analyse it, for two reasons. One is: we got the bill with only about two minutes’ notice, and we had to analyse it. So, frankly, what’s good for the goose. But, secondly, I find that a rather pyrrhic response when both the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister in the chair had ruled out the improvement without even seeing it. And I think that goes to an attitude that says we weren’t even going to have a look at it.

To be fair to the Minister, he did give Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper 2 the green light before he’d seen it, I have to say. He didn’t need to see the SOP to approve that in principle, but it does seem rather inconsistent that he would rule Amy Adams’ SOP out before he had even seen it.

Now, the key to this, I think—and I’ve heard the Minister say two things. One is that because we have a framework under section 7 that introduces the concept of a primary carer and the Act does not provide for two primary carers, therefore this can’t be done. And there was some reference to section 17 and the need to amend section 17. I still can’t see it. I would point out to the Minister that Amy Adams has actually addressed that in her amendment by putting in, at subsection 4 of section 7, that a person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously. It’s as simple as that. It’s understood that if only one person could take the paid leave at a time, then it would be necessary to identify who that was and to name that person the primary carer. It’s necessary then, because the Act already allows the transfer of parental leave from one to the other, under section 71E, and I think section 17 is also engaged there. So there are already mechanisms and machineries for employers to already account for that transfer of those weeks. All we are doing is a simple change to say that that can happen at the same time.

Hon Member: Simple.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Maybe I am a simpleton; I was a Minister for three years. I know some of these things can be pretty hard in machinery, but the obligation that is on the employers already to account for the weeks that have been taken between the primary carer and someone else already need to be in place, and so I fail to see how this is too complex or too technical.

Now, the Minister also said—and it’s difficult to know, because of the way of his intervention, whether or not this was both technical and out of scope, because he used both of those terms. And I understand, as a former Minister, when an SOP is out of the scope of the bill and indeed—well, we’ve had some precedent on this. It is still open for debate. We may not get to a vote. But there has been no suggestion tonight that this SOP is out of scope, nor should it be when we read the general policy statement and the goals of the bill to be more generous, to recognise that “… parental leave and monetary support—greatly assists a mother, father, or other primary carer to develop those close bonds with the child;”. And what Amy Adams’ SOP is saying is if we are serious about assisting parents, whatever their configuration, whatever their situation, to develop those close bonds, we have the opportunity now that we are increasing the number, the quantum, of the weeks of paid parental leave that is in the bill—this is the perfect time to say both parents can take paid leave simultaneously, to be at home with their new child or children, caring for them together. The SOP in Amy Adams’ name makes that provision absolutely clear: section 7(4) “A person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call—the Hon David Seymour? No—David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Oh, not quite, Madam Chair. No—far too much of a renegade to gain a title like that. But I look forward to you voting very soon on the member’s bill that I turned down becoming a Minister over in order to put it in the ballot. And I hope the people of Gisborne have been giving you their feedback on that particular issue.

I rise to take a call on Part 1, in particular on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). But I think it’s worth revisiting a little bit of the procedure around the committee stage of a bill, because we’ve been all over the show tonight. It is possible to be completely opposed to a bill, as I clearly stated at the first reading that ACT is. It is possible to have taken a range of positions on a bill in previous readings, and even previous bills of a similar nature, and still come to the committee stage to debate the clauses and seek to improve the bill in the form of Supplementary Order Papers—amendments—to the bill. There is nothing illegitimate whatsoever about doing that. In fact, it is a welcome procedure and part of the parliamentary process.

So to all of those opposite who have been saying, “Why wasn’t this idea or amendment of Amy Adams in previous bills?”, what do they think the point of the committee stage is if not to improve upon where bills have been so far? Perfectly legitimate. And I’ve said, and put on record in this House, that this bill is an expansion of the entitlement culture that has destroyed just about every democracy since Roman times. And here we are again: constant expansions of entitlement, purely in order to buy votes—not for any legitimate public policy purpose, but purely to buy votes—thinking, “There’s a group of people here that we can take some money off, and if we give it to another group of people, we’ll get more votes.” And I think it’s a real pity for New Zealand that a party founded on the values of thrift, enterprise, property rights, some classical liberalism—being the National Party—has fallen into that trap tonight. If only the kinds of speeches we heard in the Address in Reply debate—from David Bennett, for instance—was how the National Party actually thought.

Nevertheless, I digress. We are here to discuss specific aspects of the bill, and, in particular, Supplementary Order Paper 3—and a most excellent one, I have to say—which has been put up by Amy Adams. It’s not often that I come here to this House representing the ACT Party to champion an idea that had its genesis in the National Party. I have to say, it’s normally the other way around. Nevertheless, here we are tonight, and I can’t tell you—and I hope you’ll give me another five minutes, because it’s going to take a while—how many ways, let me count them, that I agree with Amy Adams’ amendment. It is a superb amendment and a profound amendment, and I will try to put forward the case for it in ways that previous speakers have tried and come fairly close to succeeding at doing so far.

And another aspect of this amendment is that I can’t believe that the governing parties didn’t think of it and didn’t put it up. What is at the heart of this bill is something that we heard about at some length during question time today from the Minister for Women. It was about the idea that men and women should get paid the same amount for doing the same job, and that is something that the ACT Party wholeheartedly believes in. The question is: how do we as a society actually get there? This becomes very relevant to Amy Adams’ SOP when you consider the work of Claudia Goldin. Claudia Goldin is probably the top labour economist in the United States. She is a high-ranking professor of labour economics at Harvard University, and she recently published an excellent paper that all people interested in the topic of the gender pay gap should be studying, and it is called—Madam Chair, this is very relevant to the topic of Amy Adams’ amendment—[Time expired]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair; good choice, might I say. There’s a couple of issues that have been raised by the Government that I want to address. The first is that the Hon Tracey Martin—one of her major issues with the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3 is that it has choice. It provides choice to parents, which, apparently, is a bad thing and needs to be looked at with a great deal of scepticism.

In addition to that, I’ve heard all of the speakers for the Government say that the National Party didn’t do it in their nine years of Government. Well, by the way, the Labour Party didn’t do it in its nine years of Government before either, and I’m sure it won’t in its next 18 months of Government either, again. So when I look at that particular argument, I think that’s just completely specious. It’s ridiculous to be able to say that we have to come together in Parliament to put forward bills that we’ve already progressed. What would be the point of this debate? What would be the point of any debate?

We’ve also had the answer from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, that parents can have unpaid leave at home. Well, I just put this to the committee: it is not at all unusual for a mother to experience post-natal depression. This is not an unusual thing. It is a hormonal thing, and it is something that many mothers have gone through, and are going through. Is it right to say that, at a time of life where people are often the poorest that they have ever been, because the costs associated with babies, whether it’s prams, whether it’s bassinets, whether it’s clothes—everything—are immense for most families? When people are often young—because those, after all, are childbearing years—have mortgages, or are paying large rentals, it’s that time when they need their income. And why shouldn’t two parents who are able to decide to have a baby also be able to decide that they can take their paid parental leave together for a lesser amount of time because it works for both of them and for their child? Why can’t they? We trust people to have their children and we trust people to bring them up; why can’t they make decisions, like adults, about their own circumstances?

I almost couldn’t believe what the Minister for Women, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, was saying. I think her experience of this is clearly completely different from mine, which is that it is really tough at home with a baby by yourself when you’re used to being in the paid workforce, making decisions, and having discussions with adults—actually hearing something back that’s not a cry. It is really tough. And for some people, they are able, because of their situation, to be able to have a partner at home for a period of time. Well, why not other people? Why can’t they?

This is an opportunity that we’re putting forward tonight, and we’re doing it in good faith. We’ve had Mr Iain Lees-Galloway say, “Well, you know, we’ve looked at it. It’s too difficult. We can’t make it work. Sorry.” He ruled it out before he’d seen the Supplementary Order Paper, so how disingenuous is that? How can you say, for the moment, “Oh, well, it’s too hard; oh, but we haven’t read it.”? Then we’ve had the Hon Tracey Martin, who said she hadn’t had time to read it. It’s two and a half pages, with lots of great big gaps and big font. Well, frankly, she’s supposed to be a Minister of the Crown; I think she can probably read that within a few minutes. It takes about two minutes to read it.

David Seymour: She’s living proof that anyone can do anything in this country.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, she is living proof, frankly. Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has said his excuse is, “Well, National didn’t do it.” No, but National is trying to do it. We’re actually trying to help you.

This is a matter under urgency. Why is it under urgency? Because this Government has no other legislation ready, and they’ve had to pull up Sue Moroney’s old bill, stick Iain Lees-Galloway’s name on it, and shove it through under urgency. Why is that? Because they don’t want any other bill having to be debated, because they haven’t got any. Why does it need to be in urgency? It doesn’t come into effect until 1 July next year, which, actually, is—what’s that?—7½ months, and he can’t get it right. This is an opportunity for the Minister to show some leadership, to stand up and say, “Just because it’s a National SOP, just because it’s the Hon Amy Adams—it can still be a good amendment.”

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am pleased to take another call in the committee stage. Again, I just want to acknowledge, actually, the comments that the Hon Judith Collins has just made. Let’s remind ourselves of the fact that we are supporting this bill. Overall, we think this is a good thing. We campaigned on going to 22 weeks and we are supporting this bill to take it to the two-stage process of 26 weeks.

But one of the core issues on this side of the Chamber—and we’ve heard many arguments as to why this is too hard—is: why can’t the Government support the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment? I asked the question of the Minister, and we heard that it was too complex. Well, the message that I have back to the Minister is, again, that he is putting this legislation through in urgency when it doesn’t kick in until July. Please—we will support taking this to select committee to work through that complexity.

On this side, we may be slightly simple, but we cannot understand why this is complex. He hasn’t explained to us the detail of that. I can say to the Minister, I’ve been looking up other jurisdictions as to whether this is too much of a complex issue. I can see that in Nordic countries—in Sweden—this has been around for a very long time. I don’t think this is going to be difficult for officials.

At the very premise of this amendment by the Hon Amy Adams is actually what members opposite claim that they care about so much, which is equality. You may have—and I say this as someone who’s been through a pretty tough health scenario—a parent that may have post-natal depression, or a situation such a caesarean, or premature babies. Why wouldn’t you let two parents take this leave together? We don’t feel, on this side, that we have heard compelling arguments against that. What we’ve heard is that it’s too complex, or that certain members support it, or that it was thought about previously.

Well, the reality is that members opposite are in Government. There is an opportunity now to not waste the House’s time in the future—if what the Minister is saying is that they may look at it later—and put this through a select committee. Support the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment; don’t cost the taxpayer a whole lot of money.

We all support, on this side, that valuable proposition that parents can take that leave together. I really ask the question of the Minister again, because we don’t feel that we’ve had the answers that we need. Why won’t he do the right thing rather than the rushed thing? He can put this through select committee if he thinks it’s too complex, or just support the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment. It’s been around—this whole concept—in many other nations for a long period of time. It’s not a complex thing; it’s the right thing to do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Jan Logie.

Jan Logie: I don’t think so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No; just Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I’m liking the elevation; thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be able to take a short call in this debate tonight and to acknowledge the previous Labour member Sue Moroney, who so valiantly spent hours and hours and hours trying to progress this legislation. I’ve been listening to the speeches from that side of the House tonight, and I’ve got to say it’s hurting a little bit because I sat through those hundreds of hours of submissions and debates within the select committee and it was a very, very protracted process—twice. Was I hearing the National Party arguing for that shared care through that process? I don’t remember it. So it’s not like they just didn’t do it. It’s like when they had the chance to have the discussion and see whether we could explore this, did they take up that chance? No, they did not.

I do want to say—they’re arguing the point around the technicalities of whether this is a technical change or not. Actually, so many of the submissions we heard were about the six months. It was about the value and the importance of the six months. So what is being proposed in terms of shared care—and the changes to this may sound like it’s a good thing, and I absolutely support provision and increased provision and, for me, almost a requirement of parental leave for the other parent. But does it fit with this legislation and the requirement for six months and the benefits of that? Would that deliver the benefits of the six months the way that it’s being proposed? No. It would undermine those benefits.

For that side of the House, which I typically hear being characterised as the champion for business, I would have thought, actually, they would want to go back to business and ask business whether what they are proposing would be helpful for business, because we heard very clearly in select committee that business felt that six months was easier to manage than the lower level of parental leave, as it was at the moment.

I’m speaking very much to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been brought up around the shared care. So, actually, what is being proposed through that SOP undermines what business was telling us they wanted. They felt that six months—the 26 weeks that this will bring in—was easier for business to manage. We also heard from multiple—around 3,000—submitters, not all on the point about the value of attachment to the baby that kicks in at six months, the 26 weeks that this legislation will bring in.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! I’m sorry; I know the member is trying, but, actually, we’re on Part 1, which is an extension from 18 to 22 weeks. It’s not about a previous select committee process. I have tried to signal that, so if the member could come back to Part 1 of the bill.

David Seymour: Learn the rules, Jan.

JAN LOGIE: I’ll try and play by the rules, Mr Seymour. I will do my best. The importance of this legislation; this is the realisation. We’ve heard the argument: why do this under urgency? To me, the obvious answer is that we’ve done it already, except that the previous Government vetoed it. We had the support of this House, and now we are just getting it finally across that line, because it should’ve been—and, in fact, it did get—across the line earlier.

I have got to say that for me, in the first week of consideration of legislation—the symbolism of this House committing to supporting families and babies, and workplaces to support them, is a thing to be proud of. It is not something to be messing with and to be contesting. In the Green Party, we are stoked to be able to support this.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If I may, I’d like to draw your attention to the appendices—Appendix A of the Standing Orders—which say that a member is entitled to multiple speeches but not more than two consecutive speeches. It seems that the Standing Orders Committee anticipated that sometimes running two of the four calls that a member is entitled to together might actually lead to better debate. Now, in the previous Parliament, I often found—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): What’s the point of order? Can you get to the point of order?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, we’re getting to that. In the previous Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you get to it quickly, please.

DAVID SEYMOUR: This is as quick as you’re going to get—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is not a speech. It’s a point of order.

DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s not a speech; it is a point of order. I say that in the previous Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I ask the member to give me the point of order.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —the Chair often allowed a member to run two five-minute calls in the committee stage together. As far as I can tell, you’re not doing that, and I just humbly put it to you that we’d actually get a better standard of debate if sometimes members who were developing an argument—as I was in my last call—were able to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand the member’s point of order. However, the decisions are entirely in the hands of the Chair.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Sarah Dowie to insert new clause 11A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 3 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 61

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to come into force on 1 July 2020

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We come now to the debate on Part 2, which is clauses 15 to 24 and Part 2 of schedule 2.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on Part 2, and I am going to continue the theme of the merits or otherwise, as articulated by the Minister, of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3, which is an amendment to both Part 1 and Part 2. But the defence by the Minister of why this was too complicated is that it somehow intersects with section 17 of the Act, which is a section in Part 2 of the Act. Now, section 17 talks about the entitlement of the spouse or partner of the primary carer to the partner’s leave, and indeed the SOP by the Hon Amy Adams sets out the scenario by which section 17 in Part 2 actually enables that to occur. In the example on page 2 of her SOP, she talks about Abby, who is “entitled to 22 weeks of primary carer leave. Abby transfers 6 weeks of her entitlement to a parental leave payment to her partner … under section 71E”—and indeed section 71E is relevant, but so too are sections 17 to 19.

Now, in that scenario—there are three. One is that those six weeks of parental leave could be taken by Abby’s partner after Abby takes her leave. That’s what the Act prescribes right now. But, equally, the amendment could enable—and section 17 does not inhibit in any way, under my reading of that section—the other two scenarios in the SOP. They are that there could be an overlapping period of time where the last two weeks of Abby’s 16 weeks are taken by the partner, and then the partner takes the next four weeks on his or her own, or—and I think this is the most likely scenario for a couple with a newborn, particularly if it’s their first child—it is to take those six weeks together, so that for the first six weeks of the child’s life, the child has both parents at home, directly investing in and nurturing their loved one, their new baby.

Now, as far as I can tell—and I’m very happy to hear from the Minister, because he himself mentioned section 17 in Part 2 as a barrier to this occurring. Indeed, if he can better articulate that, I’m very happy to pen the SOP that would remove that barrier forthwith in order for the Government, who have expressed an interest in the amendment but an opposition to it because somehow it’s all a bit complex and a bit hard to get one’s head around—I would be very happy to write a further SOP to clarify and correct any perceived impediments. But I have looked very hard at both section 17 and section 71E, and I can find no such impediment to this SOP not only being passed but being given sensible effect to, given that in the very scenario that the SOP describes, it’s already allowed under law for adjacent leave being taken by the primary carer and then the partner. But by an amendment that this makes—defining joint primary oversight care, with both being primary carers—it could enable overlapping and/or simultaneous care.

I think it would be a shame, given that this is probably the only time in this Parliament that we will get an opportunity to amend this leave—because, of course, we’re increasing it now in Part 2, from 22 weeks on 1 July 2019 to 26 weeks after that, that it’s almost inconceivable that this Act is going to be back before this House, despite what the Hon Tracey Martin said. We have a unique opportunity to make the bill better, despite the fact that it didn’t go to select committee.

I’m interested in the Minister’s views about elaborating on why he believes section 17 is actually an impediment to this sensible change being made. Despite the scramble by the officials in Part 1 of this bill, we didn’t get an answer to my question about the combined effects of this SOP on section 7 in Part 1. So we wait with bated breath, actually, for a positive outcome—any sort of feedback—on whether I’ve actually misunderstood the legislation or the amendment, because as far as I can tell, the only reason that we’ve heard tonight is that they didn’t think of it.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, and it’s a pleasure to rise in support of Part 2 of this bill, but also in support of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper—in particular, her clause 17A, which talks about adding more flexibility to the taking of paid parental leave, in that the primary carer leave may be taken consecutively or concurrently with the primary carer leave taken by the partner.

I wanted to highlight the importance of this and the importance of making sure that—when we have opportunities like these, we need to make sure that the concept of paid parental leave is evolved, that it’s fit for purpose, and that it applies to the many situations that families find themselves in, and that the law is not wedded to a particular ideology that really has no meaning to everybody concerned. So I’m going to get quite personal, and the reason I’m going to do that is because the example highlights why the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper is so vital and should be considered—or at least this bill referred back to select committee so that it can be investigated more fully.

I’ve talked in this House before about me being the mother of two premature babies, and my first-born, Christabel, was born at 35 weeks. In the first two weeks, being in neonatal, well, things were hunky-dory. She was a great baby. She did particularly well for a “premmie”, but things weren’t to transpire so well as soon as I got Christabel home. For those mums and dads that know what colic is, I wouldn’t wish colic on my worst enemy. Colic is where the baby cannot actively bring up wind, and it creates all sorts of pains in their stomachs, and it means that they are, quite frankly, a nightmare to deal with. They don’t sleep. These children do not sleep; they’re in agonising pain, and there is nothing you can do for that baby, apart from put that baby on your shoulder, make sure that their diaphragm is lifted up, and walk them around the house.

So, with respect to clause 17A of the Supplementary Order Paper which Amy Adams has brought to this House, what I found was that it was very, very important to have my husband at home for me to bond with baby. I was one of the lucky ones; I had a hands-on father of my daughter to come home and help. I can assure this House that after two days of looking after my baby I was in need, dire need, to hand the child over to my husband. And so, to have that flexibility in the paid parental leave system, to be able to take paid parental leave with your spouse or partner, and share that responsibility, would be a fantastic help to families that find themselves in that predicament.

I understand that research in the benefits of paid parental leave point to bonding over a longer period of time, but that’s with all things equal, and it’s not in real life. The Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Amy Adams has suggested is a practical amendment to make sure that paid parental leave—in all of its nuances—is fit for purpose in modern New Zealand. We are dealing with these issues day in, day out, and it is our responsibility in this House to make sure that this legislation is nuanced, that it has sections within it that will fit to all sorts of family situations. And so, at the very least, I would love the Minister to stand up and talk about what he intends to do with respect to this Supplementary Order Paper to make it workable, because he stood up and said that it isn’t workable—to make it workable and make sure that New Zealanders are getting the very best out of their representatives with respect to paid parental leave.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I take another call, like with Part 1, in opposition to Part 2 but in support of the fabulous amendment put forward by Amy Adams. And the exclusion of this amendment, as the Government decided to vote against it in Part 1, is illiberal. The liberal thing to do—that I would have expected many members on the Government side of the House to believe in—is to continue their tradition and continue the process of breaking down the walls and barriers between the different roles that an individual can play in the world. And I’m sure that that great liberal, Iain Lees-Galloway, is sitting there thinking, “Bugger. If only I had thought of Amy Adams’ amendment that would allow two parents to share the paid parental leave and come to their own arrangement about how they look after children, under the provisions of this bill.” Now, I think this is a terrible and hopeless bill altogether, but if one thing could make it better, it would be a little touch of liberalism and allowing families and individuals to come to their own arrangements about how they look after their children.

I can see Michael Wood over there, and he’s looking and he’s nodding internally—in fact he’s trying not to nod physically—because he knows, and he agrees, that the Labour Party should be, in alignment with its long held traditions, supporting Amy Adams’ amendment. But the other argument that I was starting to develop in my previous contribution—that I hope that I’ll be able to develop this time—is that many people on this side of the House want pay equity amongst genders. If you go to the best scholars in the world, the best labour economists, like Claudia Goldin from Harvard University, who have crunched the data on a major scale to investigate why there remains a stubborn difference between pay for men and women—if you were to take Goldin’s paper, her final chapter, in a grand convergence between genders—then the answer is actually, ultimately, pretty simple: that with traditional gender roles in place, men find themselves doing more work because it’s harder for them to enter the home, and women find themselves struggling to advance their careers because those rigid traditional gender roles remain in place, and it’s harder for them to get men to take a wider role in the home. That is the academic forefront from the best labour economists in the world right now. And what this amendment from Amy Adams would do—allowing different people within a relationship to make up their own way of sharing the labour, of going out to earn market income in the workplace, and staying home to look after children is the most powerful thing that this committee could do tonight to close the gender pay gap.

So that’s my challenge to this side of the House: if you really believe in a more liberal, more equal society, where men and women, and people involved in every kind of relationship bringing up children, have the flexibility to chart their own course—to actually make us a more equal people—then swallow your pride, accept that Amy Adams thought of it first, and vote for her amendment, which would allow two people in a relationship to decide how they share out the paid parental leave that this bill provides for. And if you’re not prepared to do that, not only are you failing to advance gender equity when it comes to payment and employment—not only are you failing to make this a more liberal and equal society but the other side of the House are telling us something else about what sort of Government they are. They’re telling us that they are the kind of Government who are not prepared to put the better interests of New Zealanders ahead and who are not prepared to say, “We’re sorry we didn’t think of this, but we welcome good ideas from wherever they come.” They are saying, “We will be a group of partisan hacks, and if an idea doesn’t have our name on it, then it’s not good enough.” What a shame.

Hon Phil Twyford: That hurt!

DAVID SEYMOUR: What a shame. Phil Twyford is saying it hurt, and he’s trying to jest but he knows it’s true. On the other hand, members on this side of the House could come forward and make a positive statement for the future of this country by supporting Amy Adams’ amendment.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I am really keen to just explore further with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety the offer that this side of the House—the Hon Michael Woodhouse—has given, in terms of, you know, working through any issues that his officials have not been able to resolve, or he hasn’t been able to resolve, in terms of accepting the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

I want to raise a couple of points that haven’t been raised in this debate before by looking specifically at the explanatory note that the Hon Amy Adams has put forward, in terms of her SOP to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. The point that I think has been missed in this debate is that it is “an important … part”, she says, “of building strong families that where … one parent or other carer [is] involved in raising the child, both parents … should have [the] opportunity to bond with the child, and support each other,”. I think that is the fundamental part of this particular SOP that’s been put on the Table by the Hon Amy Adams and provided yesterday for the Minister to consider and to be able to work through any issues.

A lot of the discussion in this debate has kind of talked about the first baby and the first child, and everybody recognises that that comes with particular challenges. But what about when there’s already a child in the family? Can I tell you that is particularly challenging. When you come home with a newborn and there’s another one, or two, or three, or four littlies around, bonding with the family—i.e., both parents—I think is absolutely critical.

One of the things that we did in Budget 2017 as a Government was to commit to a $100 million investment into mental health. One of the biggest challenges facing new mothers, which paid parental leave absolutely is a significant step forward in, is supporting their mental health. For many of those new parents—mums or dads—some of the challenges are not just from the newborn but from the other children in the family. So I think it’s very sensible and very practical, and actually very logical, to accept this SOP. I accept that the Government didn’t vote for it in the first part, and I would really encourage them, particularly those who have had new babies—we’ve seen on that side of the House, Willow-Jean and Kiri, and two new babies on our side of the House in the maiden speeches today, and two of the National MPs with new babies in their households—just to think about the practicalities. I mean, I think one of the things that the new Government could do is actually make sure that the first piece of legislation they champion in this House actually does the real thing that it is intended to do, and that’s about supporting parents. It’s about supporting families. It’s about supporting bonding, and that’s not just one parent to one child. I mean, the reality for someone who, for a range of circumstances, had to return to work much earlier than anticipated after child number two, is it is incredibly challenging.

The opportunity for this SOP, and I implore members opposite—I implore you to consider it from the very practical experience of new parents, not just with child number one, but with child number two or three or four. The Green member who spoke before talked about three children in three years, and I think this particular amendment—this Supplementary Order Paper—actually would make the world of difference to families being able to make choices.

We’ve also heard members talk about, you know, issues around premature babies or other health issues, or the fact that the mother might have had a caesarean section. But sometimes some of the biggest challenges are actually at week 10 or week 12 or week 14. So why would members opposite want to deny the opportunity for a mother and for families to work through whatever challenges they face in a very practical, sensible way, and to be able to deal with whatever circumstances were thrown up? So I really do want to implore members opposite to consider this wonderful SOP that would make the world of difference for Kiwi families.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next speaker, can I just ask people to consider that Part 2 is quite specific. It is talking about extending the leave from 22 weeks to 26 weeks and, accordingly, the Supplementary Order Paper forms part of that. So I would expect, somewhere in the members’ five minutes, that they are not going to just continue to repeat the arguments for Part 1.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to take a call on Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill in the committee stage, with respect to the further extension of paid parental leave in 2020 out to the 26-week period. I really want to add my voice to the plea for the Government to take a modern view of families, which is so well illustrated in the amendments to Part 2 that have been tabled by my very capable colleague Amy Adams.

What disappoints me is that in this age, when we are seeing men taking a greater role in the parenting of children, when it comes to paid parental leave why would it be that the Government wants to take a 1960s view of families and not a 21st century view of families. Why is it that members of the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties want to lock fathers out of being able to flexibly access the new paid parental leave provisions? It’s just beyond me as to why.

The only explanation that I could reasonably take from Government members’ opposition is that it’s a National proposition. In fact, I was quite moved in my electorate in Nelson, during the election campaign, when former Prime Minister Bill English pointed out that he’d taken a full year for the care of their first child, reflecting a very modern perspective from the National Party of families, where fathers do take a lot more of an active role in the parenting of children and, particularly, of very young children.

My colleagues have outlined, you know, the special situations that go where children have disabilities, where they’re premature, and where there are instances of colic, and the sorts of pressures that there are on families at that time when, actually, we should give families the flexibility, as proposed in Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper.

The only—the only—response that we’ve had against this provision from Government members is, “Oh, it makes it a bit complicated.” Well, I’m sorry—the amendments that have been provided by Amy Adams specifically to this part address those issues. But here it is: these provisions are not proposed to come into effect until 2020. None of these provisions have been to a select committee. If I had to list every lecture I’ve been given by members opposite about the importance of bills going to select committees, I’d be here all night. I could assign over 100 speeches from members now on the Government benches on their first week in the Parliament going back on what they have lectured us for the last nine years: that is, bills of this sort should go to select committee.

Hon Tracey Martin: Concentrate on Part 2.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hear Tracey Martin interjecting. What’s Tracey Martin got against dads? What has Tracey Martin, the new Minister for Children, got against dads? Why won’t she take a call and explain to this Parliament why we won’t have modern—modern—paid parental leave that allows dads to be able to flexibly access these new arrangements?

What this debate on Part 2 reinforces is why this bill needs to go to a select committee. There’s absolutely no reason why these detailed provisions—the first batch in Part 1; these in Part 2—don’t come into effect for three and a half years. So the right thing—the right thing—if we really are committed to the very best of parenting and arrangements for our children and support for families is for this bill to go back to a select committee and get the detail right. Why do we need to do that? It is because the Minister in the chair has not put up a coherent argument as to why we shouldn’t provide this flexibility—this flexibility that will principally help fathers—and so, on that basis, the right thing is to get it right.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that the bill be referred and be recommitted back to the select committee so that these details that the Minister has not been able to adequately answer can be corrected.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Unfortunately, I cannot accept that motion. You cannot do it in the committee stage.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I sought specific advice from the Clerk earlier today, and I was advised by the chief Clerk that, actually, there is a precedent that at any stage during the committee stage, a member is able to move a motion without debate for a bill to be referred back to the select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The advice that I have—and my ruling is—that you cannot do it during the actual committee of the whole House. You could do it when progress has been reported back to the Speaker. That is in the Standing Orders.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you seeking another point of order to challenge that ruling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): No. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. On this very specific point—and I am happy for you to take another call—but I would request that the Clerk take advice, because the very specific advice, when I raised this issue with the Clerk of the House, was that at any stage during the committee stage—and there was a precedent set during the course of the last Parliament, where members were able to move that a bill be referred back to select committee. I checked with the Clerk as to whether that could occur. The specific advice from the Clerk was that it could occur at any stage during the committee consideration.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So, under Speaker’s ruling 110/5, it states quite clearly that referring anything back to select committees is beyond the competence of the committee of the whole House. The advice that you received was that you would have to move that we report progress and then you could move that once the committee has reported back to the Speaker. But it is very clear: you cannot do that in committee. I’m sorry if you got the wrong advice. I’m sorry if you misunderstood the advice from the Clerk. However, I am ruling that you cannot do it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hope it is a new one.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m then taking from your ruling that the correct procedure would be for me to move that the House report progress. So then, if it’s possible, for the House to then consider my motion to refer the bill back to select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is correct.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I move, That progress be reported.

A party vote was called for on the question, That progress be reported.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 62

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I want to turn my attention now to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 2 in the name of Invercargill MP Sarah Dowie. This has been mentioned before, but I don’t think it’s quite been given the attention that it deserves, nor, might I add, has the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety been given, I think, the credit that he deserves for taking what was a sensible idea to improve this bill and supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. It does affect both Part 1 and Part 2, and I think I should record, actually, that the improvements—the increases in the keeping-in-touch days—are very generous, and I just want to go through a little bit of the genesis of this and explain why this is so important and, as I say, pay the Minister a bit of kudos for his acceptance of this.

This was an idea that first had some profile when our former colleague Katrina Shanks raised it some years ago—probably nine or 10 years ago—and it didn’t really see the light of day until after Budget 2014 increased the amount, the quantum, of paid parental leave, and I brought to the House, I think two years ago, the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, which, among other things, actually set out an ability for parents to keep in touch with their workplaces. Up until that point, whether the leave was paid or unpaid, the return to work would result in the forfeiture of any outstanding paid parental leave—and the parental leave was to have been taken in a single block. I think it’s a very good example of the way in which the legislation has now had so much more flexibility added to it that we did a number of things, not the least of which was enabling parents to keep in touch with their workplaces. I should add also, though, that those precious first four weeks of the child’s life were exempted from that opportunity; that the parent should not—or is not able to by law—use the keeping-in-touch provisions until after the child has reached the age of four weeks.

So why is that important? Well, there are a number of reasons. But in a modern workplace, where systems and processes are changing at such a great speed, it is necessary and appropriate, for example, simply for workers to be able to keep up with staff training or changes in technology, new IT systems being brought in, or new markets emerging. We are now talking about a period of between 26 and 52 weeks of parental leave—26 of them, obviously, would be paid, but up to 52 weeks of parental leave overall. An enormous amount can happen in a year; in fact, an enormous amount can happen in a week. And I think it is an entirely appropriate example of the flexibility that’s being built into the legislation—thanks both to the previous National Government and to the willingness of the Minister in the chair to look at a good idea from Sarah Dowie and say yes to it—that we increase those opportunities. Twenty-six weeks of paid leave is a long time—that is great; 52 weeks of leave overall is also a very long time.

So in my second intervention on Part 2, I just want to thank the committee, and the Minister for his careful consideration of the SOP. I think it’s a credit to Sarah Dowie that she saw this—well, potentially a loophole. I don’t want to go back and labour the point about the fact that we did first and second readings together without the opportunity for select committee, but it is a risk that legislation not be as good as it could have been without that sort of scrutiny. Thank goodness that Sarah Dowie was alert to it, and thank you to the Minister.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Sarah Dowie to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 3 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 are out of order, as they are inconsistent with the committee’s previous decision to reject the Hon Amy Adams’ amendments to Part 1.

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

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 56; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We come now to clause 4. The debate is on clause 4 and schedule 1. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): We are debating the title and commencement, are we not, and clause 4—is it clause 4?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 4.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We are now on the title and commencement—

Hon Member: No, Part 4.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I didn’t think there was a Part 4. In fact, it was introduced as clause 4.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you seeking the call?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, I am, but I was—on the understanding that we were debating the title and commencement and schedule 1AA. If I’ve jumped the gun, I will pause.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I’ve got in front of me: “Debate on clause 4 and schedule 1.” We’ll do schedule 1.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Clause—no, I won’t. I’ll hold my water there, Madam Chair.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 4

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that clause 1 stand part—oh, sorry. We are now on clauses 1 to 4—I’m learning quickly.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And the question is that it stand part, Madam Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will take a call on clauses 1 to 4 of the legislation, and in particular the commencement of the various improvements to parental leave and employment protection and, now, to keeping-in-touch days. I note that Part 1 will come into force on 1 July next year, in 7½ months’ time, which, without wanting to belabour the point, really does beg the question of why the public didn’t get the chance to have its say on that.

I will accept that the Green Party’s rather unusual reason for putting aside their noble commitment to open and fair democracy was that the bill had already been considered by a select committee a couple of years ago, and there were a number of submissions. However, I add to that that it was very clear from the Minister of Finance at the time that the bill would not pass—that the best estimates of the costs of the legislation, when it was a member’s bill in Sue Moroney’s name, were in the region of $240 million over 4 years. In fact, it was probably twice that—not, however, what the Minister of Finance at the time said; $250 million per annum. It was not quite that much, but certainly what we now know—and this is relevant to the commencement—is that it is, effectively, around $60 million per annum per increase.

So there were a number of submitters, and David Seymour mentioned this in his intervention in the first reading debate, who were absent from the bill submission process and who did not submit to select committee, simply because they knew the bill would not pass. So it is not appropriate to say that it doesn’t matter that we didn’t put it to a select committee, which we had time to do. We still have time to do that—we have another 7½ months before the straightforward increase from 18 to 22 weeks comes into effect on 1 July next year—but we simply did not take that opportunity.

The other purpose of the scrutiny of that legislation was actually the costs, and the timing of the implementation of the legislation no doubt influences the Crown costs. I accept—in fact, we haven’t made too much of this—that while the reason for vetoing this as a member’s bill was because the fiscal impacts were more than minor, it is entirely, now, the Government’s prerogative to decide, amongst the other priorities that it has within its gambit of policies and laws that it wants to pass, that it sees this as affordable. That’s understood. But I remain concerned that the amount of financial scrutiny that is influenced by the commencement dates of this legislation is still poor. It has a disclosure statement—that’s not a regulatory impact statement—which goes through, I think, a woefully inadequate assessment of the fiscal costs of this change.

Again, it’s entirely appropriate that the Government’s able to pass the legislation, but we are doing it without the normal scrutiny. It hasn’t even gone to a Cabinet committee, much less a select committee. I would advise the Ministers—who are relatively new, and they will know this soon enough—that the Cabinet committees are the dragon’s den of Government policy. Before they even get to the select committee they will be scrutinised, they will be worked over by officials, they will be challenged by Ministers of other parties, and that is an appropriate thing to do. None of this has happened, and yet the timing of the implementation of this bill would certainly enable that to have occurred.

It’s very disappointing that the first bill that the Government will pass—because it has the support of the overwhelming majority of the members of this House—is done so in a manner and in a time frame that really is the antithesis of good democracy. We had the time. The commencement dates are here. They do not come into force at first blush until 1 July 2018—the second stanza four years later.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. It’s my first opportunity, with you in the Chair, to congratulate you on your appointment as a presiding officer.

I just want to speak to the title and commencement clauses, and to build on some of the comments that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse made around the start date. I would understand the requirement for the lack of scrutiny had this been coming in on 1 January 2018, for example. But, no, it states clearly that Part 1 is coming into force on 1 July 2018, and I know Sue Moroney will be very pleased in terms of that commencement date—extending it to 22 weeks.

But what does concern me is the fact that there is a substantial amount of time between now and then when some of this additional scrutiny could have taken place, and that opportunity then has been missed to really pull apart some of the fiscal impacts, as well as one of the issues that I think, really, a full Cabinet process and a full select committee process, rather than urgency, would have made a difference to. That is on the impact, for example—the unintended consequences stated here on women’s employability.

Part of that is relevant to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was brought by Sarah Dowie around keeping in touch, because one of the challenges when you have an extended duration—by the time we get to Part 2 on 1 July 2020, it’ll be an extension to 26 weeks. That’s a long time for an employee to be away from a workforce, and I know in earlier times that women taking paid parental leave were quite scared about making contact with their employer. I had one case, for example, that someone brought to my electorate office, where they had thought that attending the retirement function of someone they’d worked for for 20 years would have had an impact on—basically, the cancelling of their paid parental leave.

So I do think that in terms of the commencement, the Government had the choice of starting it on 1 January next year, which I guess would have made sense in terms of why this is being rammed through the Parliament. But because they have chosen commencement on 1 July 2018, I’m still somewhat confused in terms of why there hasn’t been the opportunity to work through the issues—both, perhaps, unintended, in terms of the SOP around return to work that we’ve fixed in this process, but also the opportunity to enable greater flexibility for families to design a leave that works for them and their family.

So the commencement, particularly of the extension to 22 weeks—clearly that’s what we campaigned on—to come into force on 1 July next year, 2018, is important. But it does provide a huge gap both in terms of the scrutiny that I think this Parliament deserves—the New Zealand public deserves—and also, I think, for the 52nd Parliament. As I look around the House, we’ve got a large number of new members from every party, and I think we’ve denied them the opportunity to actually see how a select committee process works, particularly on a bill that is actually unanimously supported. So in terms of the commencement being 1 July 2018, there was sufficient time to do that.

There’s definitely more than 26 weeks, actually—which is what you want to extend the paid parental leave to finally. So if you think about that 26 weeks, there’s more than enough time to have given it the scrutiny it required. Perhaps if the Government had taken it even to a Cabinet committee, the collective wisdom of your Cabinet colleagues could have meant some of these issues had been traversed. As I’ve said, the offer was on the table from the Hon Michael Woodhouse to make it workable, to increase the flexibility.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. First of all, Madam Chair, can I just acknowledge you, both as a parliamentary colleague but also as a fellow Cook Islander, on your appointment. I think it’s a great thing that many of us will be very proud of, and I just want to acknowledge the opportunity that you have, and also your role in the House as well.

Can I also too just acknowledge Sue Moroney, who’s in the gallery. The truth is that when Sue Moroney put the bill forward, we did not actually contest the intent. In fact, if anything, it was the process and it was the time framing of how that would happen. If you look through the debates, that was what the process was—so, the intent.

I do want to acknowledge Sue, and I just want to say that it’s her tenacity—in fact, the word that the Hon Tracey Martin used in the House actually was “tenacity”. Do you remember that? You actually said that in your speech. You talked about the fact of her tenacity, and I want to acknowledge Sue Moroney in that.

I suppose the point of my contribution to this is particularly in regard to the flexibility that we talk about. Also, as a father of four children, and two grandchildren, I know the importance of the flexibility that that could have. In fact, in that flexibility—I just want to quote, because I do remember that speech. I was in the House when Tracey Martin made the speech. It was in regard to paid parental leave. The Hon Tracey Martin, you do remember that when you talked about this, you talked about the importance of the role of fathers—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Excuse me, I would remind the member not to bring me into the debate.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Apologies, Madam Chair. The point I want to make is that the Hon Tracey Martin talked about the role of fathers in her speech—

Hon Tracey Martin: Very important.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —and it was really important. So that’s the point, I suppose, of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by the Hon Amy Adams. It was the ability to say “Let the people, let the families themselves, choose.” Let them have the flexibility to say “Look, maybe we can alter that.”

I know that the Minister has talked about the fact that it would remove the ability for the primary caregiver to have that full, allocated period of time. But in actual fact what the SOP was designed to do was to say “Let there be some flexibility.” There are some mothers that may choose that they would like to go back to work, and so forth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could I ask the member to come back to the title and commencement.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes, so the intent of what I’m trying to say is this. This title is the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill but inside that title, what I would also add is: but where are the dads? Where are the fathers? Where is the flexibility that would allow dads to have their place? The honourable member over there said it in her speech. Tenacity is not just for one; it is for all. Flexibility does allow for that. If this title’s going to be true to its intent, parental means two, OK? It’s the two parents that are there—not singular, not one. It’s not just for the mother; actually, it’s for two parents. In fact, in these modern days we have many fathers—and I have been a stay-at-home dad to one of my children. I know the power that it has—the transformation.

So in this title can we truly say it’s parental leave? Or should we say it’s for one parent? One-parent leave, potentially, for mothers. I know that Tracey Martin would also be a bit aware of this title, and that it doesn’t truly reflect the true sense of parents. She said it in her speech. She knows the importance of that. We think that’s really important.

You know, there is something in a title and in a name. It says parents. It says the parental aspect of being able to have that choice. That’s what the SOP was about. If the title is to truly reflect its intent for all parents, then why wouldn’t we allow that through the flexibility of the SOP by the Hon Amy Adams—to allow for parents to choose?

I know that, for instance, I’ve received an email from Bob McCroskie, who’s been talking about the whole thing around fathers and the roles that fathers should play. As they’ve surveyed out and throughout our communities, mums and dads, which make parents, also want to have a choice. Fathers want to be acknowledged that they are just as much a part of their children’s lives as their mothers. So what they’re trying to say here, and what Bob McCroskie and others out there are trying to say—Kiwi dads that are out there, and all those organisations—is “Give us a voice. Give us a chance.”

If this title is to say “Parental”, as in the plural, two, OK, and maybe even more, then why could the Minister not—and I’d like the Minister maybe to answer the question why he could not see it within himself. It’s not a big change. It’s not actually something that’s going to make some sort of catastrophic change. All it is—it will add flexibility. If it doesn’t, then I would beg to say that maybe we need to think about this title. Maybe it just shouldn’t say “Parental”.

Hon Simon Bridges: We need to do more than think about it; we need to change it.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: It should change, and I think that’s really important, to reflect the duality of two parents, the mother and the father, or two mums that are together, or two dads. There is a multiplicity of ways, but parental means parental.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams, and can I join with colleagues in congratulating you on your Assistant Speaker role and wish you well, as I take this call on clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this bill.

Can I, firstly, come to the issue of the short title. The issue here is whether the title fairly reflects the content of the bill.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, it doesn’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point, and I agree with my learned colleague Simon Bridges, is that, actually—having heard the committee debate—this bill takes a very Victorian view of the New Zealand family. We’ve just had a week in which—actually, I can remember as early as colleagues like Ruth Richardson and Katherine Rich; it’s actually been a long time that we’ve celebrated in this Parliament the greater diversity, the number of women, and even babies in the Chamber. Equally, I am supportive of the greater role that women play today in this Parliament and around board tables. That is a good thing, but, equally, we should celebrate the fact that an increasing number of fathers are taking an increased role with their children. So if we’re going to have a title that fairly reflects this bill, perhaps we should include the amendment of a “Victorian View of Families Amendment Bill”, because the content of this bill undervalues the role that fathers should in New Zealand, in 2017 and beyond, play in the lives of young children and babies. I’m saying that the title of this bill should reflect that.

Alternatively, I’d be happy to accept if we had the phrase the “Paid Parental Inflexible Bill” in amending the legislation. Or, if we wanted to be really blunt, we could just call it the “Paid Parental Leave (Labour Nanny State) Bill”, in the sense that what Labour members are, effectively, saying to New Zealand families is that you can only do it this way, that we’re not going to give you the flexibility for you to be able to choose how you can use the provisions of this bill that provide for paid parental leave in the way that best works for your family. And, given the complete vacuum of arguments either from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety or from the Labour, New Zealand First, or Green parties as to why they oppose the greater flexibility that would support the increasing role that fathers play in parenting, that would be a better title for the bill.

Then can I come to the issue of commencement. I’ve heard these impassioned arguments from new members of the Government saying, “Money shouldn’t come into it; it should just be about supporting parents.” So I’d love a member opposite to explain—if money’s nothing to do with it and you do believe in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, why does Part 2 get delayed? There’s a contradiction there. Actually, members on this side of the House have consistently supported paid parental leave. We’ve consistently supported it being extended, but we’ve also said that you need to live within your means and it needs to be grown at the pace that the country can afford.

The problem I have is that with not going to a Cabinet committee, with no regulatory impact statement, and with no select committee process, how can this Parliament know that the timetable set down in clause 2 of this bill is affordable?

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, well it’s a “Complete Lack of Democracy Bill”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, as my colleague Simon Bridges said, we have not seen—it’s quite clear, absolutely clear, that the reason we are staggering the introduction of paid parental leave is fiscal. That’s reasonable, but where are the numbers? Where are the finances? During the Cabinet committee process, Mr Minister, did we have the numbers and the comparison and the trade-offs around the commencement dates? No. Did we hear it in the committee stages? No. So how can I take Government members at their word that when it comes to children—and I see the Minister for Children sitting opposite; we’ve heard the impassioned pleas—that children have got to come first and that money should have nothing to do with it. Well, if that is the case, why are you deferring the 26 weeks? If you want to be consistent and say money’s got nothing to do with it, then you wouldn’t have a staggered entry, and so what we see in this bill is just a reinforcement.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Simon Upton.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Simon Bridges.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Sorry.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, I’m going to start taking this personally, Madam Chair! I don’t think there’s a Speaker in this House who’s got it right so far this term. Madam Chair, I was about to congratulate you, but I’m not sure I want to any more, but let me do it anyway. Let me say, Madam Chair, that it is deeply regrettable that the time when I first speak before you and I get to congratulate you is also the time when we are debating actually what is an appallingly inept, inapt, inelegant—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and no progress on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.