Tuesday, 28 November 2017

TUESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2017

TUESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Congratulatory Message—Engagement of His Royal Highness Prince Harry of Wales and Meghan Markle

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating Prince Harry on his engagement to Meghan Markle.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That the House congratulate Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement and wish them many years of happiness together.

I’m delighted to stand on behalf, in particular, of the New Zealand Labour Party and congratulate Prince Harry and Ms Markle on the announcement of their engagement. Today, I had the privilege of writing to the couple to offer them the warmest congratulations, on behalf of the New Zealand Government but also on behalf of the New Zealand people. You would be hard-pressed to find someone, I’m sure, who wouldn’t delight in the happiness of a newly engaged couple, but more than that, by virtue of Prince Harry’s unique affinity with New Zealand, this union is even more special. Many of us will remember his visit to New Zealand in 2015. He’s always shown an understanding of and connection with our corner of the world, and I’m sure we all look forward to welcoming the happy couple to New Zealand sometime in the future. Till then, we offer them our heartiest congratulations.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I join with the Prime Minister in extending my warmest congratulations, and those of the National Party, to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement. Many New Zealanders are ardent followers of the royal family, and they will simply be delighted with this fantastic news.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, Prince Harry came to New Zealand in 2015 on his first official visit. He went to Stewart Island, met the Christchurch Student Volunteer Army, learnt our own army’s haka, and took in the atmosphere of a Hurricanes game in Wellington. He made headlines at the time with his comments at Stewart Island’s Oban pub about his search for the right woman. No doubt, many are today disappointed.

The monarchy is a very important institution for New Zealand, and the level of public interest in this event underlines the widespread public interest. We want to congratulate the pair and wish them a happy and enduring relationship, and we agree with the Prime Minister that we should take the opportunity to invite them to New Zealand.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We do not think in New Zealand First that these happy occasions should be politicised, and so we support entirely what the Prime Minister has said.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to acknowledge the longstanding and shared histories and constitutional ties between Aotearoa New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The bonds are deep and genuine, and a critical part of our collective identity as New Zealanders and the development of our society, our legal systems, and our institutions. The Green Party, and I personally, would like to send our best wishes to His Royal Highness Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and to their families and to the people of the United Kingdom as they celebrate this news.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party, I’d like to say that we also congratulate the happy couple, wish them all the best, and in great Kiwi spirit, we’d like to send them a happy “good on you, mate”.

Motion agreed to.

World Rugby Awards 2017—Black Ferns’ Success

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the Black Ferns being named world rugby team of the year.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That the House congratulate our winners at the World Rugby Awards 2017, in particular the world-champion Black Ferns, team of the year, and first ever women’s team to take out that title.

I also take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to congratulate Portia Woodman, women’s player of the year; Rieko Ioane, breakthrough player of the year; Michaella Blyde, women’s sevens player of the year; and Beauden Barrett, Hurricane, men’s player of the year.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I think the member took a liberty with the leave.

Motion agreed to.

New Zealand Women’s Suffrage—124th Anniversary

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave that the House mark the 124th anniversary, today, of the first time women voted in a New Zealand general election, following the signing—

Mr SPEAKER: Ah, ah! I think you’re seeking leave first. Right?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry.

Hon Member: Without debate?

Mr SPEAKER: Without debate—is that right?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

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

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you. Sorry, sir. I move, That the House mark the 124th anniversary, today, of the first time women voted in a New Zealand general election, following the signing by Lord Glasgow of the Electoral Act 1893 into law in September that year, making this country the first in the world to give all adult women the vote.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Leave for Introduction and Setting Down as Members’ Order of the Day No. 1—Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in my name, and for that bill to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 1.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her Government’s policy that they will “strengthen New Zealand’s democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In fact, later today the Government will be releasing the Cabinet paper on the changed negotiating mandate for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to ensure greater transparency for New Zealanders around that deal—transparency that, I have to say, they didn’t have under the last Government.

Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen references by the Deputy Prime Minister to a 38- or 33-page document as containing “[directions] to ministers with accountability and media strategies to ensure … the coalition works.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. The coalition document has been released and is publicly available, but, as the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, when it comes to other ideas that were discussed, if they are found to be workable and are likely to be progressed, then details will of course be released and made public.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is there a document including content she described yesterday in answer to a question about the previously mentioned document: “Every government has a work programme—things … they look in to. [At] The moment … we see some benefit and that it’s something that will progress, that’s the point at which it will be made public.”, and does that mean there is such a document with policies in it that have not yet been made public?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve always been very clear that in the course of a negotiation, a range of documents are exchanged. The question is whether or not all of them will be progressed and whether or not they are official. Nothing has been given to Ministers; nothing has been given to Government departments or officials. Those issues that are progressed and become Government policy will be made public.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is there a 33-page documented draft arrangement between Labour and New Zealand First that you are working from when determining—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’m not working from any such document. The Leader of the Opposition will try again.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is there a 33-page documented draft arrangement between Labour and New Zealand First that the Government is working from when determining the Government programme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The coalition agreement that we are working to has been released and is publicly available. Those are the policy and programme items that we are committed to. As for any other documentation through the course of negotiation, we’ve been open that they have existed. That does not mean that those are the firm commitments that we have signed up to, nor that they will ever be progressed. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just want to ask Dr Smith to, if he is going to interject, interject using the proper form of a member’s name.

Rt Hon Bill English: What, then, does she believe the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to in his description of a 38-page document as “a document of precision on various areas of policy commitment and development”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, there were other documents exchanged during the course of the negotiation, but the one that we are committed to and working to is in the public domain. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, if any of those other policies or ideas that we discussed are pursued, they will be publicly released and they will be made available.

Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the document includes policy issues such as the measurement of unemployment “[We’re actually] agreed to work on”, and that that might mean policy commitments have been made, similar to those in the public coalition document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I was actually standing next to him as he said it.

Rt Hon Bill English: So what is the difference between policies agreed on in the already published coalition document and policies referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister that are agreed in this 33-page document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You can hardly argue that that particular item was secret given that the Deputy Prime Minister said it out loud yesterday while I was standing next to him. The point is that, as we’ve said, if there are policy items or agenda items that we choose to pursue, we will make them public at that time. The only items that we have officially committed to have become part of our coalition agreement and are made publicly available already.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is it the case that the document that has been referred to doesn’t exist or is it the case that it exists but she is withholding it under the Official Information Act because she believes it not to be official information?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve acknowledged that there are documents that were exchanged during the negotiations, as there will have been by the Opposition. I welcome the Ombudsman looking at this issue. I welcome him making a decision on whether or not we’ve made the right classification of this documentation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee, very close.

Rt Hon Bill English: Given her description that documents were exchanged, is it the case that one of those documents was a 33- or 38-page document including directives to Ministers, policy items that were agreed, policy items that would be worked on, but she is withholding it because she does not regard it as official information?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have never denied the existence of these documents. The question is whether or not everything that was enclosed in them were agenda items that we will pursue, and some of them we will not. That does speak to the heart of whether it is an official document. As I say, I welcome the Ombudsman looking at this issue. I welcome him giving his consideration to the question.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): In their context and totality, and with subtlety of meaning, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the 38- or 33-page secret coalition agreement that—and I quote—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! There was unnecessary comment within the question. The member is to keep it absolutely to what the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for as Deputy Prime Minister, and contain no other unnecessary comments.

Hon Paula Bennett: I’ll start again if that’s all right, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the 38- or 33-page coalition agreement document that “Yes, it’s going to be released at some point.”?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the Deputy Prime Minister answers the question, I want an assurance that that was a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sure that you will find in the Hansard a reference from the Prime Minister that says the statement was made while Mr Peters was standing next to her. You would assume that when he’s standing next to her, he stands as her deputy.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and the question that I was checking, because obviously one does a little bit of research into this, because we’re trying to differentiate between the role of the leader of New Zealand First and the role of the Deputy Prime Minister—it’s a question of whether that statement was made by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On that, then, can I get clarification—I would have to check, actually, the timing of it—that we cannot quote back any quotes from during our campaign period, or previously, or at any time, to a Minister on things that they have said. Is that the kind of ruling that you have made?

Mr SPEAKER: Well, it’s fine if it’s in their portfolio of responsibility area, and the member can link it, but, unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister has no responsibility for that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I could help the honourable member. I did say when I was the Deputy Prime Minister that it was 38 pages, but, of course, under a different font it got down to 33.

Hon Paula Bennett: Who has abbreviated that 38-page document down to 33 pages?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A staff member, aware of modern technology, changed the font.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the staff member work for Ministerial Services?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the member needs to understand what the Official Information Act is about. It’s not—

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member can just let the member finish. If he’s not satisfied with the answer at that point, then he might want to raise a point of order, or I might even beat him to it. All right? So, we’ll let the Deputy Prime Minister finish his answer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To continue, it is strictly about information that’s official. It’s not about it being pretty legal; it’s got to be either legal or not legal.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the deputy leader of the National Party to ask her question again. The question was a pretty specific one around whether the person was a Ministerial Services employee. That should be answered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is no. At the time, that person was working for New Zealand First—yet to be in the new coalition Government.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he has made comments in recent days that a 38-page document has, within the last two weeks, been abbreviated to 33 pages?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the second part of the member’s question is a fact. The first part, though, relates to the fact that, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, we released an eight-page comprehensive coalition document, on which we are working—

Hon Amy Adams: It’s not the question she asked.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I’ll get to it, but she asked two questions, all right? Amy, if you take it slowly, you might learn it. My real answer is this: just because we’ve got an eight-page document does not mean that we’re not forward-thinking and visionary and have a dynamic plan for the future on which we’re working.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no answer to my question in that, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m absolutely certain there was.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that this document should be released to the public, when he speaks so often about the importance of transparency and openness in Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Transparency and openness is the middle name of this Government. [Interruption] No, no. If this is what a dynamic Opposition looks like, then we’ve got a long way to wait now. Can I just make it very, very clear that we have programmes that we’re working on—two items that I outlined yesterday—that make sense to most fair-thinking New Zealanders. One’s to do with how we measure unemployment; the other is how we measure growth against people’s personal incomes for the per capita for GDP. There’s nothing secret about that—we’re working on it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Deputy Prime Minister given a copy of the coalition agreement document to any of his ministerial colleagues?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is no, because they would have had it before they were even a Minister.

Government Financial Position—Infrastructure Deficit and Capital Spending Pressures

3. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has the Government received on capital spending pressures?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury has advised that, ahead of the 2015 Budget, the capital allowance was oversubscribed by 313 percent. At the equivalent point ahead of Budget 2017, this over-subscription rate had grown to 448 percent. This unmet capital spending represents the state of disrepair in our hospitals and schools, and the failure to invest in our regions. It is an infrastructure deficit that is the legacy of the previous Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Right. That’s two questions that the Opposition has lost, Mr Brownlee and Mr Bridges.

Dr Deborah Russell: What is the dollar figure impact of this—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the issue is—it’s very difficult to calibrate because you’ve taken, in my view, a very lenient position in relation to the Government on that issue. There’s been a number of times where they’ve interjected while there’ve been questions on this side, and now, suddenly, we’ve lost two. I think there’s a need for some evenness in relation to that.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you for your advice.

Dr Deborah Russell: What is the dollar figure impact of this infrastructure deficit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In dollar terms, ahead of the 2017 Budget, the value of unfunded bids was $10.4 billion. This is almost twice the available future new capital spending allowance for the entire forecast period. This new Government is committed to meeting the infrastructure needs of future generations, unlike the previous Government.

Dr Deborah Russell: How does this Government plan to reduce this infrastructure deficit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has adopted a long-term view, and by cancelling the previous Government’s tax cuts and adopting a slightly slower debt repayment track, we have given ourselves the room for a significantly higher future capital spending plan, including investing in our regions. In addition, the Government is committed to investigating further ways of responsibly financing infrastructure with measures such as infrastructure bonds and other innovative financing mechanisms. We will not leave such a big capital expenditure hole.

Hon Steven Joyce: Hasn’t the Government simply caused its own capital pressures by ruling out funding via public-private partnerships, which were provided for by the previous Government, which would have funded additional infrastructure across the education, transport, and health portfolios, for example?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we are committed to services such as Dunedin Hospital being funded from the public purse because we think public hospitals are part of the responsibilities of a Government. What we won’t do is leave a $10 billion capital hole, as that member did.

Government Financial Position—Cost of New Government Policies

4. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the estimates of the operating expenditure impacts on the Government, by year over the next four years, of implementing the policies contained in the coalition agreement between the Labour Party and New Zealand First?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I’m just going to remind members to try to read it as on the question sheet.

Hon Steven Joyce: I just said “party” for Labour, yeah.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, that’s right.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The operating expenditure impacts are currently being worked through as part of the Budget process. I can assure the member that they will be met within the Budget responsibility rules as outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. Surely the finance Minister must have some idea of those costings, and he must have had them, actually, before he signed up to them. It really is stretching credibility to not be able to come down to the House and provide that information.

Mr SPEAKER: I have had some experience in these areas, as the Minister has, and know that they’re often a bit of a moving feast until final decisions are made.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister telling the House that he had no work done, and had officials do no work, on the costs of the various coalition agreement proposals before the Government signed up to them?

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll let the member have another crack without ruling that one out, but I think he’s got to focus on things that are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and, by definition, Mr Robertson wasn’t at that time.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister concerned that it’s possible that the then finance spokesperson of the Labour Party had no work done, and had the officials do no work, on the costs of the coalition agreements before that said finance spokesperson signed up to them?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Steven Joyce: So how does the finance Minister explain that Treasury responded to an Official Information Act request on 20 November, saying that—and I quote—“the Treasury can confirm that its staff worked on costing policies for the Labour Party during the recent Government formation negotiations”; and given that he is the finance Minister in charge of Treasury, perhaps he could enlighten us on the content of that work?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I and the Prime Minister said to media on 30 October, we did access Treasury for a handful of specific policy ideas.

Hon Steven Joyce: If the costings prepared by Treasury were good enough to choose a Government for New Zealand for the next three years, then why isn’t it good enough for the finance Minister, who is in charge of Treasury, to release that information and provide it to the Parliament and to the people of New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The release of that information will be handled by the relevant agency, which I think is the State Services Commission, in accordance with the Official Information Act.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Manus Island Refugees and Russia Free-trade Agreement

5. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What reports has he received on the effects on New Zealand of Australia’s major political, economic, and strategic relationships?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): As the member might understand, you would expect the Foreign Minister to receive a variety of reports of official nature from countries all around the world and weekly, and that’s exactly what I’ve got.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister concur with the view of the Australian Government that its relationship with New Zealand is its most comprehensive and that deepening bilateral links will help support regional security in a time of change?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I most certainly agree that when the Australians apprised themselves of the shape and the character of the new Government, they came to that conclusion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he seen any reporting suggesting that the New Zealand Government is causing strain in the relationship with Australia over the Manus Island refugee issue?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, all I can say is that when I met the Foreign Minister for Australia, she seemed delighted to meet me and to talk to me, and she seemed terribly relaxed about cancelling the order for the sedan chair. But on the matter of Manus Island, I can say that she did not raise with me the National Party commitment of 2013.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask about the way Mr Peters was received in Australia, or whether he was treated to a sedan chair or whether or not the Australians were happy with the National Government policy. I asked him about whether or not he had received reports about whether or not the Manus Island refugee position and public statements made by the New Zealand Government were causing strain in the relationship with Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: We’ll have another crack. Ask it again. I think the Minister came quite close at the end, but it might have been lost in translation.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he seen any reporting suggesting that the New Zealand Government is causing strain in the relationship with Australia over the Manus Island refugee issue?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If by “reports” the questioner means media reports, yes, I’ve seen a variety of misinterpretations. But I can say, having met the Foreign Minister for Australia, and, indeed, at his behest, the Prime Minister of Australia, that was not raised with me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he assure the House that New Zealand will be joining Australia in working with partners to resist Russia’s conduct when it is inimical to global security when it engages in destabilising activities?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, this is a wide-ranging trip around the world, but let me say that it was the previous Government that was engrossed in negotiations with the Russians on the question of a clean free-trade deal that would be with respect to the customs union. Some of us perceived the wisdom of that, while bearing in mind the view of the European Union and others about recent Russian international activity.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that as Foreign Minister he agrees with the Prime Minister that a free-trade agreement with the European Union is a higher priority than a free-trade agreement with Russia? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No. I’m going to deal with it. It doesn’t actually come close to the original question of the original answer. [Interruption] Order! Who said that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We got one back.

Mr SPEAKER: Yeah, we will give one back, because we are partway through a point of order. But it’s not helpful, especially from a whip.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue of a free-trade agreement was not raised by me; it was raised by Mr Peters in his answer to my previous question, and I think that it’s quite reasonable, then, that I ask for further clarification on that.

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to Mr Gerry Brownlee talking about his previous question—where you also, sir, were very lenient—but that also was very far from the primary, because it was referring to Russia.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I haven’t been here for some time—for the necessity of travelling overseas—but I want to make it very clear that from my point of view, I seriously welcome any challenge from Mr Brownlee, or the rest of them. And I’d like for you to be a bit more open in giving them a chance to show their performance here, because I like a good joke and I like a good story.

Mr SPEAKER: Has the member got the question written down? Maybe he could remind us all what it is, given the willingness.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that as Foreign Minister he agrees with the Prime Minister that a free-trade agreement with the European Union is a much higher priority than a free-trade agreement with Russia?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The free-trade agreement aspirations we have with the European Union are to be aligned with a much bigger set of economies—in fact, the biggest economy in the world, if you see it that way. In that sense, I agree with the Prime Minister. But, of course, we are not only aspirational but visionary, and we want to have free-trade agreements wherever we can get them, and as quickly as possible, that are fair to New Zealanders and where we see every boat rise as a consequence.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If that is the case, then why has he instructed his ministry not to give him any information or advice that puts a free-trade agreement with the European Union ahead of, or as a priority over, a free-trade agreement with Russia?

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to give the member another chance to reword it in a way that is consistent with the Standing Orders because I can see the eagerness of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—you can’t make the assumption is what I’m saying. “Has he given advice?”—the member might want to ask it that way.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I asked if he could confirm.

Mr SPEAKER: If you do that—yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So can he confirm that he has required of his department, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that they do not give him any information or advice that suggests the EU is a priority for a free-trade agreement over Russia?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, I am not the Minister for trade, and, second, I have given no such idiotic instruction—that was the behaviour of the former Government.

Metro Sports Facility—Overspend, Progress, and Consultation

6. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: When was she first informed about a $75 million budget blow-out on the proposed Metro Sports Facility, and what steps is she taking to get this project back on track?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I was first informed about arising issues with this project during my initial briefings with officials. It was disappointing to hear about a $75 million budget blowout during my first week. However, following this, I took immediate steps to get this project back on track. Ōtākaro Ltd has now cancelled the Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) process and is working to complete the design of the project along the existing timeline. Parallel to this process, I have directed officials to investigate alternative options for Christchurch, such as combining the Metro Sports Facility with the multi-use arena.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why is it important to the Minister to consider alternative options?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because we can’t keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. I am keen to ensure that we get the best facilities for Christchurch while also protecting the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers. This work has been progressed with urgency, because this is also about speeding things up. The reality is that we’ve seen far too many delays to date. People need certainty, and this is a Government demonstrating that we have a plan to deliver that.

Dr Duncan Webb: What engagement has the Minister had with people in Canterbury about her announcement?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve engaged with various organisations and people in Canterbury about this announcement, such as the interested sporting codes, who’ve expressed gratitude for being consulted for the first time. The Mayor of Christchurch and I have had a conversation, and she has welcomed the decision. And I also engaged in a panel discussion on Friday where another participant said, “I think she’s done the right thing.” That participant was the Hon Nicky Wagner from the National Party.

Paid Parental Leave—Flexibility

7. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements on paid parental leave?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I sure do, and, in particular, I stand by my statement that it’s exciting for parents and babies that they’re finally going to get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

Hon Amy Adams: How can he stand by his statement from last night that he hadn’t yet seen my bill, given that his office was notified at 2.30 p.m. yesterday how to access the bill and that it is the same in substance as my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which he’s had for two weeks?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because when I made that statement, I was responding to the member’s press release, which came out before she tabled the bill.

Hon Amy Adams: Check your email.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’ll invite the member to ask her question, but this member was watching his email on that subject yesterday.

Hon Amy Adams: Isn’t his stated proposal to restrict the amount of time parents could share their paid parental leave to just the first four weeks just a continuation of his Government knows best, nanny State attempts to control parents’ right to choose what best suits their circumstances?

Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to let the member get away with it this time, but I gave Paula Bennett some advice about shortening questions to take out unnecessary—I’m not even going to say facts—comments.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I obviously totally accept that ruling, but I think the issue is—I mean, if you take the Rt Hon Winston Peters earlier, his answers were long digressions that weren’t remotely addressing the question, and you let them go. So, again, I think we need to see equality between question and answer.

Mr SPEAKER: And again, I thank the member for his advice.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member is inaccurate. No decision has been made about exactly what form of sharing will be proposed. All options are still on the table.

Hon Amy Adams: Can the Minister confirm that by vetoing my member’s bill going to first reading, the Government has just guaranteed that parents will not have the flexibility to share their parental leave by the time the planned extension to paid parental leave comes into force on 1 July next year?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government did not veto a member’s bill; the House vetoed it.

Mr SPEAKER: I just felt like I’ve been stopping people too often for making mistakes. The Parliament did—but as long as the member can adjust his answer to that correction.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If the member was so concerned about parents having to wait for more flexibility with paid parental leave, why didn’t she raise this matter in her nine years in Government?

Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government decide to adopt the member for Invercargill’s Supplementary Order Paper to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member answers, we will be adding another question back on to the Opposition for the interjection that happened during that question. Even interjections that are meant to be supportive are not allowed.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Government decided to adopt Sarah Dowie’s amendment because it was a good idea that supported the purpose of the bill, and that member worked constructively with the Government to ensure that her SOP was properly drafted. I would suggest to Amy Adams that she could take a leaf out of Sarah Dowie’s book.

Hon Amy Adams: Which of the following three statements the Minister has so far given is the real reason for today having this Parliament block parents’ right to choose: that the primary caregiver must have the full period to bond with their baby, as he said two weeks ago; that it’s a good idea but too hard to implement, as he said yesterday; or because he now wishes that he had come up with the idea and will do his own bill once he gets around to it?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’ve never made a statement that I wished it was my own idea.

Health Services—Mental Health Services and National Bowel Screening Programme

8. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What measureable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Improved health for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What did he mean when he said that his promised $8 billion for health had been “pretty much spent”; and how, then, is he planning to deliver on his Government’s additional new-funding promises, including extra pharmaceutical spending, more affordable dental care, and the Prime Minister’s promise of more funding for palliative care?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I meant exactly what I said.

Matt Doocey: How will the Government’s mental health inquiry actually improve the mental health of individual New Zealanders and their families?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I thank the member for that question. I invite him and others to participate in the inquiry; it looks to get to the bottom of that very question.

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister, “How will the Government’s mental health inquiry actually improve the mental health outcomes of New Zealanders?”

Mr SPEAKER: And I think it was—yeah, have another go, Dr Clark.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The inquiry will report back with suggestions for improving our mental health response and will look at a wide range of concerns, and I invite the member and others and members of the public to submit to it.

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked how it will improve mental health, not how it will report back.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think the second answer was certainly adequate.

Matt Doocey: Why does he not agree with the country’s expert independent Mental Health Commissioner, Kevin Allan, that there is no need for a mental health inquiry?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have campaigned on having a mental health inquiry. All parties in the Government sought to have a mental health inquiry, because it is the view of many New Zealanders that our system is not responding adequately. After nine years of that Government, the number of people seeking mental health support had risen significantly and the responses had not changed, and there are many statistics that, unfortunately, reflect badly on our country. We must do better, and we think this is one way of getting to the bottom of that problem.

Angie Warren-Clark: Which district health boards (DHBs), if any, has the Minister visited since he because Minister of Health to discuss the Government’s agenda in health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m committed to visiting as many DHBs as I can ahead of Christmas, and I am delighted to advise the member that I have already visited seven DHBs. To date, I have visited Canterbury, Hutt Valley, Southern, Wairarapa, MidCentral, Whanganui, and Auckland in my capacity as the Minister of Health. I value relationships with the health sector.

Mr SPEAKER: Yeah, and I am going to warn the Minister that he’s going to have to stick a bit more closely in his answers to things that are relevant to the original question. While the Minister might enjoy visiting DHBs, I think he’d be hard pushed to say that that helps the healthcare at those DHBs.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What exactly is the impediment to delivery of the national bowel-screening programme that he was referring to when he told the House on Thursday, 16 November that “… the programme as laid out by the previous Government is unlikely to be able to be delivered.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have had concerns raised with me by clinicians, and I am seeking further advice before I make any more announcements on this programme.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How will he deliver gains in health when he’s not setting outcome goals, when he’s ignoring expert advice, and when he promises more than his budget will allow?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I refute the premise of that member’s question.

Children in State Care—Report on Harm in 2015-16

9. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Children: What reports has she received on the safety of children in care?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Today, Oranga Tamariki released a research report on the harm experienced by children and young people in care in the 2015-16 year. The report took a much wider view of harm than has previously been reported—something that was asked for by the expert panel behind the establishment of the ministry—so, not surprisingly, it showed a higher number of incidents of harm. Out of a total sample of 698 children, 85 had experienced some sort of harm. Clearly, that number is too high, but it is important that we have a clearer picture of what is happening so that improvements can be made. This Government is committed to building on the system changes that were introduced by the Hon Anne Tolley earlier this year and improving the outcomes for all our children.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What actions have been taken to deal with the issues identified in the report?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: This was also the first question I asked. The ministry did check on all of the children who experienced an incident of harm, to ensure that they are now safe. However, there have also been a number of important system changes made since these incidents occurred in 2015 and 2016. Oranga Tamariki was established in April this year to ensure that we do better for our children, and a number of steps have already been taken to improve the protections for children. For example, the criteria for assessing whānau caregivers are stronger, and these now match the same standard for non-whānau caregivers. There is improved checking and assessment of regular visitors to caregivers’ households, and the ministry has started a dedicated caregiver helpline. The new practice framework for social workers will also introduce new, formal processes for documenting and following up on any report of concern, and focuses on social workers spending more time with tamariki. That is what the children have told us, and that means there is a greater chance to catch any sign of things going wrong, earlier.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Supply and KiwiBuild

10. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he agree that the best measure of the success of the Labour-led Government in increasing housing supply is to ensure that more houses are built on their watch than would otherwise have been built; if not, what is the best measure?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, that is an important measure. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) projections show that without KiwiBuild, the number of houses built would start falling, but with KiwiBuild it will keep on increasing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is a fair three-year target for the Government 118,000 residential dwellings, given his commitment to 16,000 KiwiBuild dwellings over the next three years and MBIE’s reported 102,000 dwellings already forecast?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our plan is to build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, over and above what the private market is producing. I would point out that the past Government planned to build only 4,555. The KiwiBuild houses will be built alongside thousands of extra State houses and many open market houses, many of them built in large-scale urban development projects. I expect that will deliver much more than the 100,000 in additional supply over 10 years.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a long and interesting answer, but it did not address the question, and that was simply this: does he agree that an appropriate target would be 118,000 extra dwellings from now, given his answer to the primary question?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister did, in a long way and in a slightly circular way, address the question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is KiwiBuild actually “KiwiBuy”, given he has admitted that he is going to purchase already consented dwellings off the plans in special housing areas and sell them to KiwiBuild customers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are currently dozens of projects around the country that could deliver affordable housing, but they’re in limbo right now due to uncertain access to capital. Building companies and developers are excited that KiwiBuild buying off the plan will get affordable homes built that otherwise would not be.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the advice he’s getting from the same source as Shane Jones received advice from, given the house target and the tree target that they committed to are now half what they were?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the question.

Kiritapu Allan: Has he seen any reports claiming there is no housing crisis, and that “If a house is purchased, it’s certainly affordable for someone.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I did hear someone on television yesterday making those statements, but I wouldn’t regard them as a credible source.

Tertiary Education—Fees-free Policy

11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: How can he stand by his statement, “We will make sure they [tertiary providers] will get the information they need in a timely way” when, five weeks before his free fees policy takes effect, those providers still have no idea of the mechanism for how it works?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I reject the assertion in the last part of the member’s question. Our commitment to introducing free post-school education and training is the biggest increase in student financial support in a generation. We are working hard with the providers to make sure that it is going to be delivered on time on 1 January.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question on notice, and the opening statement was “when”.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member had tried listening, he would have heard that the substantive part of the question was rejected—the assertion at the end was rejected—by the Minister.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the point that’s being made here is that this is on notice; therefore, you can have two parts to a question, and they do need to be answered. The first part—the most important part—wasn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. If the member looks at it really carefully, it’s: how can he stand by something, given something else. If the “given something else” is rejected, then the “how can he stand by” is clearly unreasonable.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s no “given” in this answer. There’s no “given”, at all. It’s a statement by the Minister, and then the question goes on to follow it.

Mr SPEAKER: OK, let’s take it really slow: “how can he stand by something, when something else” at the end of it. When the “when something else” is rejected, clearly the first part doesn’t have to be answered.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I’m not having this one again. I might have explanation skills, and I’m happy to talk—[Interruption] No, I’m happy to talk about it to members in my office later. I’m wording this really carefully, given my history. I’m happy to talk about it to members later, but not to go over it for a fourth time. Now, Mr Goldsmith, do you want another supplementary?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he be confident he has thought through all the potential consequences of the many detailed decisions he has to make about eligibility for free fees, when he has allowed no time for any meaningful consultation with the sector and Parliament?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion in the last part of the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does that mean that the Minister rejects the assertion that there are any detailed questions to be made about eligibility for the free fees?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I couldn’t hear the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, there was a bit of on-and-off with the speakers. Could the member have another go, and if he points his head a little bit more towards me he’ll catch the speaker.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does that mean he rejects the idea that there are many detailed decisions to be made about eligibility for free fees?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, just for clarity, I’m going to ask the member to ask that question again and have the answer again, because I think we’ve just had two inconsistent answers.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he thereby saying that he disagrees with the notion that there are many detailed decisions that have yet to be made about the eligibility for free fees?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. The question the member asked me before had two parts. One was about the detailed consideration, and the second was about the consultation. I answered the second part of his question.

Jan Tinetti: Has the Government’s plan to bring in a year of fees-free tertiary education and training been well received?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Generally, it’s been very well received by prospective students and by trainees, who are overjoyed with this. However, I have heard concerns that people who currently feel locked out of post-school education and training because of the costs might be encouraged to take it up, and they might gain some valuable education and skills that might improve their employment prospects. This Government is going to back them to do just that, and I’m sure that one day the National Party will rediscover their aspiration.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement to the House on Thursday, 9 November, that Australians will have to meet a three-year residence requirement to access free tertiary fees, with his statement to the House the following week that he will not 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: In answer to the second part of the question: because I absolutely agree with that. I don’t intend to unilaterally change the relationship.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said, “In answer to the second part of the question”—it was properly understood as only one. It was: how does he reconcile his two statements? He needs to give a clear answer to that.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll ask Mr Goldsmith to ask the question again and Mr Hipkins to have another go.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his statement to the House on Thursday, 9 November, that Australians will have to meet a three-year residence requirement to access free tertiary fees, with his statement to the House the following week that he will not 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: Because in order to do the first, you don’t have to do the second.

Climate Change Policy—Carbon-neutral Goal

12. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: Why did he announce that New Zealand would aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050 at the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bonn?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. As a Pacific Island nation, whose closest neighbours are, of course, at the forefront of the risks of climate change, New Zealand has a responsibility to do what we can to help. The Paris Agreement, which was signed up to by the previous Government, says that all countries—all countries—must achieve carbon-neutrality this century but that developed countries have a responsibility to take the lead. The Vivid Economics report that was commissioned by the cross-Parliament, all-party group GLOBE-NZ indicated that New Zealand could achieve carbon-neutrality by 2050. My belief is that because we can, we should, and if we do, we will be able to reap the benefits of the greatest economic opportunity in at least a generation.

Gareth Hughes: What advantages are there to becoming carbon-neutral sooner than most countries? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: And that’s another supplementary to the Opposition.

Hon JAMES SHAW: The evidence is clear that the sooner we take action to protect our environment and our natural resources from the impacts of the changing climate, the easier and more cost-effective it will be. Pure Advantage’s 2012 report Green growth: opportunities for New Zealand highlighted that the sooner we move, the greater the economic opportunities, and, I quote, “a huge opportunity for New Zealand to improve our international competitive position.” New technology and intellectual property will need to be developed in order to solve our own challenges, and if we do so, those can be exported to the rest of the world too.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can coalmining on the West Coast of the South Island be consistent with being carbon-neutral by 2050?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Ultimately, the coal industry is phasing out. While I was at the Climate Change Conference in Bonn, I signed us up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which is a UK-Canadian group with 20 other countries that are committed to phasing out coal from electricity generation by the year 2030.

Gareth Hughes: What’s the plan to help lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy?

Hon JAMES SHAW: New Zealand’s challenge, and our opportunity, is to transform our economy in partnership with industry so that it works with the planet, not against it, and lifts our living standards at the same time. We are intending to introduce a zero-carbon Act and set up an independent climate commission, and we’re currently working through that with officials and we’ll have some announcements coming soon. We will establish a green investment fund to direct investment towards low-emission industries. We’ll work alongside communities and working people for a just transition from carbon-intensive industries to clean, sustainable jobs. We aim to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 and for the Government’s own car fleet to become electric by 2025. We aim to plant—

Hon Shane Jones: A billion trees!

Hon JAMES SHAW: —in the next 10 years, and we will continue to invest in research and technology that can continue to reduce our agricultural emissions while increasing productivity.

Gareth Hughes: What actions has the Minister taken, to date, consistent with the carbon-neutral goal?

Hon JAMES SHAW: In addition to the initiative that I described before, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, I also made another commitment to the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, which is committed to improving air quality and protecting the climate through actions to reduce short-lived climate pollutants.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 16 November.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Five weeks ago, the Government was sworn in, on 26 October. Since then, there have been hectic weeks of briefings, requesting papers, and changing policy directions. We in this Government are committed to governing for the many, not the few, and to ensuring economic programmes uplift the mass majority and not a small elite. We are resolved to ensure that economic plans come with a responsible, human face.

What we’ve seen in contrast, of course, is a bitter party imploding on itself, knowing full well that when the fights start, many people in the backbench will not have seen anything like it in the past. That’s what’s going to happen. When you look at the front bench of the National Party, you can see why they’re no longer in Government. They, singularly to collectively, lack the talent and the ability, and it shows when they make claims of being a dynamic Opposition. We have seen dynamic Oppositions in the past, led by people like Muldoon and Lange and others, but we have not seen a replication of that in this House since Parliament has come back post the election.

The fact that you’ve got to ask 6,000 questions—6,000 questions—suggests that after nine years of Government, you had no idea what you were doing in the first place. Six thousand questions—I think that’s more questions than I’ve asked in my whole career.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, no.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, possibly not. Ha! All we’re getting there is a diet of cynicism and doubt, blackguarding the new Government’s policies and plans, throwing cold water on visions and aspirations, and badmouthing the future of a country called New Zealand. It puts one in mind of the famous line in The Mikado:

Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,

All centuries but this, and every country but his own;

Now, there is one who especially does this, and this is a man whose name is Finlayson. He waited until I was out of the country, and then he attacked me. He waited until I was out of the country, halfway around the world, and he launched his personal attack. He said, “I acted for the National Party when it expelled you way back in the early 1990s.” Funny about that, because on day one of the court case, they sought an adjournment. Their case collapsed—collapsed in total. He was the legal adviser. Well, let me tell you: the greatest legal mind in the whole Commonwealth—namely, himself; “yours truly” from Rongotai lines up in Rongotai four times in a row, and four times in a row the smart people of Rongotai rejected him. And so should the National Party. This is the man who made himself a QC. He made himself a QC. He didn’t vote for the profession to make him a QC—no, he thought, “I’ll make myself one”—[Interruption] Pardon? Is that the man from Pakuranga?

Hon Member: No, it’s not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, he sounds as stupid. That’s why I made a mistake.

Chris Penk: I’m the member for somewhere; you’re the member for nowhere.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I see. Listen sunshine, I can even say this. I’ll be here long after you’re gone.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’m on my feet. I think we’ll have a bit of order. Thank you. That is not helpful.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is most unhelpful when you lead with your chin. And let me tell you, you know—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, it’s not my chin.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes. Quite right. And in this case, decidedly so. It’s his chin that’s the one I’m talking about.

In fact, if I came from Helensville, where the last incumbent member visited about once every six months, I wouldn’t be shouting from the treetops like that member is. Helensville is a place that’s never seen an MP, and in fact the last MP there didn’t know that the biggest controversy coming in the country was in his own electorate, in the form of Kim Dotcom. Kim Dotcom had been to his office twice, and he told everybody he didn’t know about it. And offshore, in comes the overseas security brigades and there was an international raid on Kim Dotcom’s home. His predecessor said he neither knew about it as the head of the GCSB nor as the head of the SIS. I hope that member is an improvement. From what I’ve just seen, I don’t think so; I don’t think so.

But I want to say to that member that his colleagues sitting back there with him were forewarned before the last election as to what was going to happen. I told all those members there that they were going to be on the backbench for a long, long, long time. At least he could have the decency of acknowledging a forecast and a prediction that came right. I want to say this: that member will have to do a whole lot more, judging from the lack of talent in front of him over there, if he ever wants to see his party come back in Government. This party over there is tired. The whole front bench will not last. Even now, the internecine strife and the backstabbing have started. Oh yes, you can hear those knives on the grindstone. This is not an alternative Government we’re looking at right now.

I want to make it very clear—I want to make it very, very clear—that we have plans for regional recovery, we have plans for infrastructural investment, and we have plans to restore our health and education systems and their resources. As I have travelled around the country, and I do extensively, and far more than that member there, let me say what is the most amazing comment I get: “Thank God you guys turned up and made the right decision.” Now, I’m a humble man, and I said to them, “When my colleagues evaluated the alternatives, the sense of going with a conscience, against the blind ideology that doesn’t work, was profound, and we made the right decision.” And wearing a blue tie is not going to save that member now.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—an inspired choice, thanks to my lobbying. I must say my sense of esteem for the voters of Northland has just gone up exponentially as a consequence of that speech. But I do congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues—one day he’ll get to know their names—on their election to Government office. Having been there for the last nine years, and five as a Minister, I get some insight into the challenges and the opportunities, and I wish them all the best.

In particular, congratulations to Messrs Curran, Parker, and Clark—those Ministers in this Government who hail from the deep South of Dunedin. A lot was said over the last few years about Dunedin’s challenges and the opportunities that they would take to improve things, like the flooding issues in South Dunedin, the setting up of a gaming centre of excellence, I think, and, of course, the issues around the Southern District Health Board and Dunedin Hospital.

While we didn’t see eye to eye on all of those things by any stretch, I certainly commit to working, as I think we have in the past, in a collegial way to ensure the best for the city of Dunedin. I’ll even go as far as to say this of the Minister of Health, Dr Clark. He has said some significant things about the speed and nature of the Dunedin Hospital rebuild that, in the advice that he’s likely to get, he will probably need to retract and cool down and slow down.

I would say to him this: I’m not going to be too critical of that if indeed he has to do this. The project is too important. Both parties committed more than a billion dollars to upgrading the physical infrastructure, to ensure that there is a modern, fit for purpose facility well into the 21st century. I will know well enough how difficult that is, and how the drum-beating rhetoric in Opposition might not be matched when he sees the reality of the challenges of finding a location, devising service specification, and actually envisioning what the future of healthcare for the South is. As I say, I won’t be too critical if it’s necessary for him to cool his heels somewhat, and I look forward to working with him to getting the best outcome for the South.

But in respect of the reflections that one has in Opposition, I guess it’s fair to say that we have a little more time on our hands to reflect on the political philosophies that brought us to this place. Sometimes in Government, one gets so caught up in the day-to-day development of policy and the implementing of programmes, it is difficult to find the time to sit back and reflect on why it is we are here. I have certainly appreciated—it’s one silver lining—the opportunity to do that, to reflect on the things that are core to National Party people: liberty, freedom, individual responsibility, the right to live independent from the State and to live well and in the manner of that person’s choosing.

Indeed, in the Speech from the Throne we heard a little bit of a nod to that when it was said: “This government aspires for this country to be a country where all are accepted, no matter who they are, where they come from, how they live, or what their religious beliefs are”—noble sentiments; only, the actions of the Government are completely the opposite of the freedoms that are espoused in the Speech from the Throne. But there was a nod to it, actually, in the page before that—indeed, around tax. I think the battleground is best fought in the attitude towards tax, where the speech says—I think it’s at page six—“There will be a progressive tax system.”

Well, we already have a progressive tax system, so that’s code, actually, for a more progressive tax system “where everyone pays their fair share according to their means.” Now, where have we heard those words from? Karl Marx: “from each according to their means”—the socialist propaganda is embedded in the Speech from the Throne. Let there be no doubt of the goal of the Labour-led Government to socialise the freedoms and the liberties that they already talked about, but won’t follow up on—a progressive tax system according to their means.

I think we’ve seen another nod in all of the sorts of approaches we’re seeing, where the previous Government, through their Family Incomes Package in Budget 2017, were going to increase the tax thresholds that would benefit the lower-income families the most: increasing accommodation supplements and Working for Families that would have paid some families over $150 more a week and lift 50,000 children out of poverty. But because those tax changes were going to give me a tax cut, they’re going to get rid of it. And 50,000 children will stay in poverty.

What will they be replacing it with? A Best Start package, which means that the very high-income earning colleague of mine who is about to have his third child is going to get a baby bonus. Well, I’m sorry—and I don’t speak for him—but if it were me, I would say, “No, thanks. I don’t need the State’s help. There are many more families and children in this country that need it more.”

Again, a nod to this is in the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. The name is going to be changed now to the Ministry for Children. Well, I’m sorry; the Government does not need to minister to my children. I am their father; I will look after them, as every responsible parent in this country should. But if they can’t—or won’t—and that puts those children at risk, then it is absolutely right and proper for the State to intervene in a targeted way that restores that child and those families to the independence that they themselves aspired to in the Speech from the Throne.

Hon Tim Macindoe: That’s absolutely right. That’s what it’s all about.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is not about that, unfortunately, Mr Macindoe; it is about universality and it is about treating classes of people as classes. Oh that it were the case, Tim Macindoe, that that were the aspiration. Indeed, in my reflections, that is the country that I aspire to: a country that keeps the Government out of people’s lives when it’s unnecessary to intervene.

Now let’s talk about promises, because, indeed, we heard the promise to be more transparent and to deliver transparent mechanisms to hold the Government to account: “This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information.”—it will strengthen transparency around official information. Well, that should be withdrawn and an apology made to the people of New Zealand, because only five weeks in and we are seeing roadblocks being thrown in the way of the right to know what the plans of this Government are, and the equivocation and the obfuscation around an agreement that I understand was signed and was given to Ministers, and it matters not one bit whether they had been sworn in at that point or not: it is their road map for how Government administration will be undertaken, and the public has a right to know what’s in those 33 pages. In fact, my guess is that it will be the size of a postage stamp by the time they get back to the office this afternoon. It will be shrunk and put out of sight, because they talk about transparency and they don’t act on it.

But the saddest thing about the first five weeks in Government is the retractions and the withdrawals of the commitments that they made to this country prior to coming to office. I’ll mention just three: a billion trees. It was pretty unequivocal: a billion trees. Only, what they didn’t say was that half a billion of those billion trees were already going to be planted anyway. A hundred thousand KiwiBuild houses—only, they’re not; they’re going to be bought off the plans of existing developments. It’s one forward and one back on house supply. And the really, really big rort was 20,000 to 30,000 fewer migrants. Well, they’ve backtracked on their immigration policy at 100 miles an hour, and Iain Lees-Galloway is now saying there’ll be virtually no change to tertiary education visas, to essential skills visas, to long-term partnership visas, and to parent visas—they’re all there, and that was entirely different from what they gave the public an expectation on. I am sad about that. We’ve got two years, 10 months, and two weeks to go before the public gets another say on whether or not they’re doing any good. Well, I hope they last that long.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate you on your election—you will do a fantastic job in the Chair, I am sure. It’s a great opportunity to review the last five weeks of this new Government, isn’t it? It’s fascinating what’s really occurred in the last five weeks. In my view, it’s been a very weak start for this new Government. The coalition looks like a three-legged wobbly stool in the first five weeks. Just think back to when they couldn’t even get their votes organised to get the Speaker elected into the House—on the first day. That was a shambles. And now we see backsliding on numerous fronts. Just think about what they are proposing to do on paid parental leave: locking out the opportunity for parents to share that special time with their children and not be forced to go back to work when they may need to look after other children in the family. I just think that that is already nanny State creeping in in the first five weeks of this Government.

Then we think about another big issue that obviously Chris Hipkins wanted to get stuck into, and this is another one about “nanny State knows best”, and that’s locking kids that aren’t yet five out of school. I can’t believe that they would want to say to parents, when a child is four years and 10 months, “Sorry, they can’t go to school.” If I was a teacher—and I’ve got a few mates that are teachers; they say to me, “Well, it makes sense to have these children in together as one cohort at the start of a term rather than being interrupted throughout that term.” Obviously, that is a big issue for the Government, which they want to use a sledgehammer to fix. Then we see national standards. Once again, are they in or are they out? And the list goes on.

Even today, and over the last 48 hours: the secret coalition document. This document’s going to come out no matter what. It’ll be prised out by the Ombudsman, or it’ll get to a point because of the political pressure that’s building, not just by the biggest Opposition party in the Parliament but by the media as well, because they can smell something here—whether it’s 38 pages or 33 pages—and they know that this Prime Minister has stood up in this House and said, “I want to lead a very transparent Government.” This strikes to the heart of this coalition deal with New Zealand First. You can bet your bottom dollar that this document will be coming out in a matter of moments, because the New Zealand public deserves to see it and to see what this Government is up to.

Then we focus in on the primary sector. Over the last five years as the Minister for Primary Industries, and a couple of years before that as Associate Minister for the primary sector, I’ve built numerous relationships up and down the country. As I go around the country and talk to farmers and growers and exporters, they are petrified about the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) being smashed apart by this coalition Government. There are 2,500 employees that work in MPI, and by and large they do a fantastic job. They are petrified right now about their future. Are they going to be told that they need to move to such and such a region, when in fact their families and their kids are settled here in Wellington or in other parts around the country?

What will happen is that they will focus on themselves instead of doing what they should do—and that’s supporting our exporters to get their products into market. Smashing apart MPI into five different entities will be costly. They’ll need to get new chief executives and they’ll need to get new premises up and down the country. MPI already has a massive footprint up and down New Zealand; they already have an enlarged footprint around the world. So for MPI to be smashed apart is going to mean that the ball will get dropped, and the balls that MPI has to juggle and deal with are numerous. You will see those employees focus on themselves instead of focusing on what they should be doing—and that’s growing our exports and doing wonderfully well in terms of the whole aspect of supporting our primary sector.

We’ve got a new Minister, Damien O’Conner, who has had nine years to build up policies—and that one, in my view, is a daft one. He’s also been talking big time about collaboration in the primary sector: “There should be more of it.” Well, in the primary sector, with MPI, you’ve already got collaboration. You’ve already got the biggest Government regulator working across all the different sectors. Why would you want to smash that apart? I can’t believe that it’s to do with anything other than being ideology driven.

Also, when we think about collaboration in the primary sector, this week we’ve got the Primary Growth Partnership annual meeting. They’re all coming into Wellington. They will be intrigued to hear a speech from Damien O’Connor, because he has gone up and down the country ridiculing the biggest investment in the primary sector under the previous Government. He’s called it a slush fund, he’s called it corporate welfare—he’s called it a whole lot of things—and now he has to stand up and speak to hundreds of people this week and talk about collaboration in the primary sector when it will be staring him in the face in this room. The Red Meat Profit Partnership: six different meat companies all sitting around the table together. If you think about Lifestyle Wines, there are 18 different wineries that are involved in this programme. And the list goes on and on and on.

He is going to set up a primary advisory council and also a chief agriculture adviser. Now, what’s going to be fascinating is when this group of advisers goes back to the Minister, Damien O’Connor, and says, “Actually, you need to be supporting regional water storage projects up and down the country.”, when they’ve ruled out a whole lot of them because of the influence of Eugenie Sage and because David Parker hates farmers and hates irrigation. We are on the cusp of a big drought occurring in New Zealand any time soon. In my patch, it’s very, very dry right now in the Horowhenua. I was out at the Horowhenua Taste Trail on the weekend talking to exporters—Genoese Foods, Turk’s Poultry, RJ’s Licorice—all worried about this new coalition Government and what it means for them as exporters.

What’s also going to be interesting is where the Government ends up on stock exclusion and water quality, because that is going to have a massive cost on the primary sector. What we don’t hear from the new Minister for the Environment, David Parker, is the great work that farmers have done already, fencing off 26,000 kilometres of streams and lakes, which gets you on a plane from Wellington to Chicago and back again. That’s a massive contribution that our farmers have made in a voluntary capacity, and soon this coalition Government will be out with grandiose plans of doing more fencing, up hills and beyond. They’ll be tougher on water quality, because that’s what they said in the campaign, and so the primary sector—the big engine room; the primary sector—is petrified about economic growth slowing down; exports slowing down; no irrigation; biological emissions for animals coming into the emissions trading scheme, ahead of research, once again; and more tax on our most productive part of the New Zealand economy, getting ahead of the investment made by the last Government, which was trying to come up with solutions, not taxes.

So the primary sector right now is in a state of flux. Over the road at Pastoral House, there are a thousand MPI workers doing all the work that they do diligently, day in, day out, and they are really worried about their future. And I can tell you what: it’s going to be costly, it’s going to be disruptive, and there’s going to be a huge amount of redundancy. I know that the State Services Commission and MPI are busy trying to talk the Minister out of what he is currently proposing, and we will be watching on this side of the House to ensure that the new coalition Government continues to do what they can to support the primary sector, because everything I’m hearing at the moment scares the bejeebers out of me and a lot of farmers and growers and fishers up and down the country.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Ā, e Te Māngai Tuarua o Te Whare nei, tēnā koe. Ko Hikurangi Te Maunga. Ko Waiapū Te Awa. Ko Ngāti Porou Te Iwi. E te tuahine Hine Tāwhiwhirangi, rātau mā kua wehe atu ki Te Pō, haere, haere, moe mai rā.

[And so thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of this House. Hikurangi is the mountain. Waiapū is the river. Ngāti Porou is the tribe. Sister Hine Tāwhiwhirangi, and others who have departed to the void, go forth, journey on, and rest there indeed.]

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I please acknowledge your appointment to the Chair, along with our assistant colleagues in Adrian Rurawhe, Poto Williams, and, of course, the Speaker himself, the Hon Trevor Mallard. I know that you’ve all been appointed on merit, and I wish you all the best and I look forward to your rulings over this 52nd Parliament.

This is my first contribution in the 52nd Parliament. Can I extend warm greetings to all the new members in this House and say I look forward to the exciting term that lies in front of us.

Can I please acknowledge the voters of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—those that have supported me to return to this House as their representative. Can I mihi out to the many of them, from Pōtaka in the north, right through to Wainuiōmata. Nō reira, e Te Iwi o Te Ikaroa Rāwhiti, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Therefore, to the tribe of Te Ikaroa Rāwhiti, salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you all.]

One of the failings of the last Government over the last nine years that I have clearly witnessed as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is the lack of infrastructural investment throughout my electorate. I’m talking about roading, health, education, and jobs in the regions, which for nine years—nine years—that side of the House failed to deliver in the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I was up the Coast just the other day, in Rangitukia, in Tolaga Bay, and also in Tokomaru, and their issues remain the same. They are the issues I’ve raised around a lack of investment in my region around roading, around health, around education, and around jobs.

I’m proud to stand here in a Labour-led Government, and I want to commend our second elected female Prime Minister in Jacinda Ardern. I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his decision to go into coalition with Labour, and, of course, our friends the Greens.

I’m excited about the proposed policies that lie in front of us for the next three years, and I want to take the time for that side of the House, particularly, and for the members of the public who are watching, to remind us that this Government is going to be a Government of action. It will not be a Government that’s going to sit around and twiddle around and not do anything, but it will have an absolute commitment to action, and it’s no better reflected than in the coalition 100-day plan. When I look through it, I want to highlight some areas that I know are going to deliver real results to the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

Let’s look at education. We’re going to raise the student allowance by $50, starting on 1 January. That’s going to be enormously beneficial to many of the young people throughout my electorate going into tertiary education, particularly, but into anything post-education. We’re going to make available the first year of education, which the Minister of Education has talked about in this House.

Housing has continued to be a big issue throughout my electorate, and in the healthy home guarantee, many of the Māori constituents I represent are going to benefit from all the homes being fully insulated and warm. Banning speculators is going to reduce the price and make it affordable for very first-time owners. And, of course, establishing the Affordable Housing Authority and beginning KiwiBuild—with the billion trees, there should be no unemployment in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti with KiwiBuild and a billion trees. So I want to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones in his role in terms of regional economic development.

Whānau—we talk about the Families Package. As winter comes next year, once we get over summer, the winter fuel package, Best Start, and the paid parental leave extensions kicking in on 1 July are definitely going to help Māori, and, of course, the minimum wage, which is going to lift to $16.50, and introducing fair legislation to improve our workplaces is always going to make a difference.

The ministerial inquiry into mental health is a big issue on the Coast, is a big issue in Gisborne, and is a big issue in Hawke’s Bay, and I welcome that as part of the 100-day plan. And, of course, in the environment, we are going to clean up our rivers and waterways and we’re going to set zero carbon emission goals through the Independent Climate Commission. Of course, when it comes to the finance, we have very strict financial commitments and rules and regulations, and we’re going to resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and establish the working party. So I just want to put on record that this Government is going to be a Government of action, and no better is it demonstrated but in the 100-day plan.

I am proud to be accorded the opportunity to be a Minister of the executive, and I want to take this time now to acknowledge the portfolios that I have been given and talk briefly about them. I want to acknowledge the men and women up and down this country who are customs officers. They look after the border of this country in terms of illegal drug trafficking and anything else that we don’t want in this country. I want to acknowledge them for the hard efforts that they do: illegal drugs, revenue collection for importers and exporters, and another big one—which I’m particularly interested in—is trade. That’s the Customs Service. It is much more complex than I have given them time for, but I want to acknowledge that I’m looking forward to working alongside the hard-working officials in the Customs Service.

I’m also the Associate Minister of Agriculture, and what the previous speaker, Nathan Guy, said around primary industries—can I share that as I’ve travelled up and down this country and met with different farmers, the feedback I’m getting is quite a different one to that former Minister. They’re pleased that we’ve got a Labour-led Government. They’re pleased about the innovative ideas, because for nine years there’s been a tired array of ideas coming from that side. They have come up to me and said that they are looking very much forward to working with myself and the Hon Damien O’Connor in the agricultural space. And pulling out or dismantling—can I just put off the fear around public servants losing their jobs. We have worked really well with our officials to assure them that we value the contribution they will continue to make to this Labour-led Government, and nothing will change on that front. So don’t take any notice of that former Minister.

I want to also acknowledge the local government associate role that I’ve picked up and, of course, the newly formed Crown-Māori relations, which is an exciting new portfolio that this Labour Government has decided to create. Can I just say in that context, in terms of the Crown-Māori space, I want to acknowledge the Treaty work that Governments do—particularly the Office of Treaty Settlements—with iwi. Once that is generally finished and in the negotiation we have got to an agreement, then the Crown generally leaves the table and it’s on to the iwi to get on to it. I actually believe that there’s an opportunity for the Crown to remain at the table, to unlock the economic potential not just through iwi settlements but whānau, hapū, and marae organisations who want to make a better difference for their people that they represent. And there’s definitely a role, I believe, for the Crown to remain at that table. That’s why I’m excited for the role in working with the Hon Kelvin Davis in that particular space.

There isn’t much more that I want to add, other than to look forward to working on this side of the House with the innovative and bold suggestions that all three parties have come to the table with. I’m looking forward to working with colleagues. The 100-day plan is an ambitious plan, but it’s clear. It’s open. It’s transparent. It’s available to the public. We will be held accountable on what we’ve said we are going to do in the 100 days. It is inspiring. It’s ambitious. But I wouldn’t want it any other way. I wouldn’t want it any other way. Those members on that side are going to have to realise that they’ve got three years of sitting there. You’ve got three years of sitting there. You’ve got three years of sitting there and listening to this side of the Government that has been brought in to create and fix the mess that you have left behind, and I’m happy to be part of a Labour-led Government who is going to make a difference for all New Zealanders. Kia ora.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just remind members not to bring the Speaker into it, because it’s becoming quite prevalent in the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It’s a pleasure to follow the contribution by that last member, Meka Whaitiri, who seems to personify the new Greens - New Zealand First - led Labour Government, which is increasingly, after only five weeks, one of a tone of just sheer arrogance. “Get used to it,” she said, from her lofty heights. “Get used to us.” Well, that’s arrogant. Iain Lees-Galloway, in question time today, saying to the Hon Amy Adams, “Well, if you’d played nicely and if you’d been nice to me, I might’ve listened to your Supplementary Order Paper around paid parental leave. All you had to do was just do it nicely, and we might’ve listened to you.” Well, that sounds like arrogance to me. But the speaker who has just resumed her seat, what capped it off for me was the parallel universe she inhabits where she goes around New Zealand and farmers—farmers—are welcoming a Greens - New Zealand First - Labour Government.

Hon Member: Name them!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Ha! Yeah, bring them to me. I will talk to them, because I have never met any of them.

I can tell the speaker that I have spent the last glorious week—glorious week—in my own electorate of Waitaki, clearly and undisputedly the most beautiful electorate in New Zealand. I can say that in front of the new chums, because it is. In that beautiful week last week I met up with a number of members who were not only very keen to have a yarn about the new normal for us in the National Party and to talk about their hopes for the future but also to talk about the fears—the very real fears about what a Greens - New Zealand First - Labour-led Government will mean for them.

So it might’ve been the vintner that I met just out of Alexandra who grows, very successfully, grapes for some pretty good brands, wine labels, around New Zealand, who said to me as I went into her small home where she showed me some of beautiful product and some beautiful muffins—thank you very much. She said, “I don’t know what I’m going to do if this Government brings on the minimum wage of $20 an hour. I don’t know if I if I can keep my vineyard going.” She is a small business, and if she and her husband—

Hon Shane Jones: Rich get richer—rich get richer.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Now the Hon Shane Jones mocks. The Hon Shane Jones laughs when I say that. I invite the Hon Shane Jones to go down to Airport Road, just out of Alexandra, pop into Immigrant’s Vineyard—yes, these people are Dutch; they’re very nice people too—and tell them why he is scoffing at their fears about raising the minimum wage having an impact on their business. And it’s not just raising the minimum wage having an impact on their small business—and to the listeners at home, if I may address them directly, the Hon Shane Jones is still mocking as I am talking about the real experiences that are being told to me by my constituents who are small-business people. He mocks. He calls them rich. He calls them the rich getting richer. Well, the professional person who runs an office—they hire something around 19 staff and this person is saying: “They raise the minimum wage—I don’t know if I can take school leavers on anymore. I just simply don’t know whether we can afford it.”

That’s not me speaking. This is small business speaking—

Hon Shane Jones: No, you’re making it up. Fake news—fake news!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —directly to us about their fears coming out of this Government. No—not making it up at all.

So let’s turn to the farmers and their fears about the impacts of this Government on farming. I had several meetings last week with irrigators. I have met with a representative of the Manuherikia irrigation company. Now, they have a proposal to raise the Manuherikia dam, improve water quality, improve environmental outcomes, improve outcomes for the community, and improve outcomes for the farming. They have been working for years and years and years on this proposal to augment and improve their existing irrigation company. It’s not a new initiative; it’s an existing irrigation company. They have been working with the Crown investment company and luckily enough they have got a commitment from the Minister that the support will be maintained for them. But they fear for the future because this commitment only relates to stage two. This is stage three. What about stage three? What about if this Government pulls out from supporting irrigation, which has all these environmental, social, economic bottom lines—what about if the Crown pulls out from them? What happens to that six, seven years of earnest work by all the farmers and the farming committee? What happens to those families and those livelihoods? What happens to that little corner of New Zealand who relies on water for its economic sustainability?

I’ll tell you what’s going to happen: irrigation is going to become unaffordable. Those farming families, who have been on the land for generations, who have gone from mining privileges and are transitioning to the Resource Management Act framework for water, who have been doing the best for their families, the best for their farming endeavours—we’re just going to shut up shop. I don’t know what the land will become, but it won’t be productive. What does that do? What does that do to New Zealand’s economy? That is what this Government has to answer. So the Hon Shane Jones, who was still chipping away across the House, needs to get up and tell this House what he is going to do to maintain economic sustainability—

Hon Shane Jones: Billion dollars. Billion trees.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —in those regions that need water? And it’s not just Central Otago, it’s not just North Otago, it’s not just the Hunter Downs irrigation company who are facing the same sort of challenges; without water there is not the level of productivity. What does productivity bring? What does water bring? It brings jobs; that’s what it brings. It brings people shopping in the supermarket; that’s what it brings. And what is Shane Jones’ answer to that? A billion dollars a year. Well, let’s be having it, Minister. Let’s be having a slice of that billion dollars into Manuherikia irrigation company, into Hunter Downs. I’m sure colleagues across this side of the House could stand up and talk about—

Hon Shane Jones: Corporate welfare—corporate welfare.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —any number of initiatives that will benefit—is the Minister now calling it a “pocket of money”? What’s he calling it? Say again? I invite the Minister—

Hon Shane Jones: Billion trees.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —he’s been chipping across the House. Oh, a billion trees. You see, there’s another thing: a billion trees—obviously more than you can count on the fingers of both hands. The thing is with those billion trees, we were already planting half of that. So does the billion include that half or not? And what about the land? Is the land available for those billion trees? And what about the workers? Are the workers available for those billion trees? And what about when they have to be paid $20 an hour, minimum wage? Does that become economically sustainable? There is so little substance to that proposal, it’s laughable. But here’s the rub: it is important. It is important to my region, it is important to my colleague’s region, it is important to every region throughout New Zealand that we have decent policies coming from this Government.

They’ve had five weeks in Government. We can put that on the fingers of one hand. They’ve had five weeks. It is not good enough any more to say things like, “We’re looking forward to getting to know the sector.” I’m sorry; that is not good enough. These people are in Government now. We need answers. My farmers need answers, and they need them sooner rather than later, because I’ll tell you what’s happening in the regions: there is a high level of anxiety and uncertainty. There is going to be a lack of investment in that very infrastructure of the half of the private sector that New Zealand needs to continue to thrive. Well, here it is folks. You ain’t going to get it from them. Bring it on is what I say.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, can I just refer the members to Speakers’ Rulings from Mr Geoff Braybrooke that interjections should be rare, reasonable, and, if possible, witty. And just being like a parrot, you know, is not particularly witty.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you so much. May I begin my address by congratulating and acknowledging Mr Venkat Raman. He’s the founder of Indian Newslink, and last night we celebrated 10 years of businesses under Indian Newslink—so many businesses across New Zealand—and I’d like to just acknowledge all the work that Mr Venkat Raman has put in to our country. I would also like to congratulate Crimson Education, the overall winner of last night’s Indian Business Awards. In particular, it was a young lady called Sharndré Kushor—22 years old. I’m just extremely proud that it’s a young lady that actually won that award.

Our new coalition Government was sworn into office just over four weeks ago. We are bringing new ideas to solve so many issues that we’re facing in Aotearoa New Zealand today. Just earlier on during question time, we heard that there is a Budget funding hole of just over $10 billion in infrastructure. The two main issues I would like to talk about this afternoon are child poverty and homelessness. In addition to addressing those two issues, we also have to look at that particular funding challenge.

One of the main issues that we are finding ourselves having to address is this issue of homelessness. Now, I remember, about two years ago, when I was trying to highlight this particular issue from South Auckland, and, initially, when I became a member of Parliament, I did not expect to deal with such volumes of homelessness on a daily basis in my office. But the most shocking thing to me, as a local MP, was the fact that so many of these families coming to ask for assistance were working. They were working full time, and yet they could not find a place where they could actually afford the rent.

And so I’d like to also acknowledge at this time the assistance from a journalist who actually came and spent a lot of time in Ōtara—three weeks, and he was doing other work as well. I am talking about Mike Wesley-Smith of The Nation. In that time, one of the things that he actually uncovered was that in Ōtara, in the previous year, 80 percent of all the houses that were sold were sold to investors. It actually answered one of the questions I had in my mind, because so many of these families coming to ask for my assistance had never lived in a State house. They’ve always lived in private rentals.

I was wondering why I was seeing so many people from my local community coming to ask for assistance—people that had never asked for assistance in terms of social housing in the past. He actually helped me answer that question. When they are given eviction notices, told to leave those houses, and they cannot find another house that they can afford—and, yes, they’re working full time—it is actually really desperate. I find a lot of these families in desperate situations. Initially, when I saw families who had come to see me in the minivans they live in and in the cars that they live in, and when I went out as a local MP—I found so many cars parked in the street, and all of these folks were living in those cars—I found, with the assistance of the journalist, that half of them work full time, and that a quarter of them had degrees.

So they’re educated, 25 percent of them; they work full time, 50 percent of them; and they’re still living in cars. This, of course, is a really concerning issue to me as a local MP, but it has become a big issue for us as a Government, because we know now—and we know this from Yale University—that New Zealand now has the highest rate of homelessness in the OECD.

We know—a little earlier on, from Otago University—that there are over 41,000 homeless people in Aotearoa New Zealand, but that is 2013 census figures. I’m looking forward to the census figures of next year, because if we go by the kinds of numbers I’m seeing in my office in Ōtara, the figure will probably be more. When I first became an MP, I was seeing a certain number of families who were coming to ask for assistance because they were homeless, but three years later I was seeing three times those numbers of families. So, on the one hand, I’m looking forward to the actual numbers from Statistics New Zealand but, on the other, it will probably confirm that we have so many more who are living in these situations.

One of the things that we read in the media lately is some criticism of the kinds of experts that we, the Government, are bringing together to give us the actual reality of homelessness, of rental, and of the conditions of our housing, but let me just say that what my parliamentary colleague and Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Twyford, is doing in bringing these folks together is actually going to inform us. They will actually tell us: this is the status of housing right now; this is the status of rental accommodation; and this is actually the status of homelessness. For us, as a Government, those statistics—yes, they did exist and they do exist in the Government departments—haven’t actually been out there in the public. And so I look forward to when that report is going to be released, which is going to be just before Christmas.

In terms of child poverty, can I now reflect on a lady who is one of my heroes, someone I look up to, and how she served children, and how she served those who were living in the most dire of circumstances: St Mother Teresa. We celebrated her birth just a couple of days ago, and as many of you already know, she had a life journey that was filled with love and compassion, filled with kindness towards our most vulnerable. She founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, and she has over 4,000 sisters in over 100 countries. Some of these sisters are right here in Aotearoa New Zealand. I met a few of them over the weekend.

One of the things that St Mother Teresa did is she reached out to anyone and to everyone in need. She offered practical help, no matter their race, their faith, or their social status. And one of the things that is occurring over in my electorate, in Ōtāhuhu, where there are a few Catholic churches but also a few Catholic schools, is we have a non-governmental organisation that helps those who are homeless; it’s called St Vincent’s. This particular organisation works in collaboration with McAuley High School. They have what is called Vinnies. Now, what this organisation does is it assists our youngest students and helps them to serve those in need. On a yearly basis, they come together and they go to St Vincent’s and they help them with food, they help them with clothes, and they help sort things out, because too many of our families are in need.

But if I can go back to St Mother Teresa, one of the things that she is quoted as saying is this: and I quote, “Stay where you are. Find your own Calcutta. Find the sick, the suffering, and the lonely right where you are.” And other quote from her, “If you can’t feed 100 people, then feed just one.” At this time, I’d like to refer to a young boy, not in my electorate—a young boy from Manurewa; we know, because this was covered in the media. This young boy, he would go past this older gentleman, a Pākehā gentleman, and what he would notice was that this gentleman was crying. But what he did was he stopped. He asked him, “Why are you crying?” This was a homeless person. This older gentleman shared with him that he had lost his wife. He had lost his home as well, because he had lost his job. But what this young boy did is he shared his lunch with this gentleman. This gentleman now, we know, tells us that that act of kindness, that act of love, gave him hope, and every day he would look forward to this young person stopping by to share his lunch.

Can I just say that if many of us in this House just share a little bit of kindness, just like this young boy and just like St Mother Teresa, we would help a whole lot more people. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to rise to speak in this Address in Reply debate but, first of all, I would like to congratulate you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think this is the first opportunity I’ve had to actually congratulate you on your election to Assistant Speaker. I’m very, very happy for you—very well deserved.

Just referring to this, it’s also a great pleasure to actually follow the Minister who just resumed her seat. The Hon Jenny Salesa is a good sort, and when she was actually talking about Mother Teresa, I was just sitting here reflecting on the fact that perhaps she needs the quality of Mother Teresa to be on that side of the House, to deal with her coalition partners: to her left, New Zealand First, and to her right, the Green Party. So I wish you good luck, my friend. You will require the patience of Mother Teresa to deal with your coalition partners, so well done. Also, congratulations on your elevation to Minister for Ethnic Communities. I’m her shadow and I’ll be following you around, and I look forward to working with you. We have had precedents. We’ve actually worked together in the past, so I know that we work really well, so, hopefully, you just need to answer those questions.

I’d like to start by also acknowledging the people in Mt Albert. They have, together with so many New Zealanders, voted to continue the strong legacy of the National-led Government and voted for a strong economy and an aspirational country. I would also like to acknowledge, in particular, the voters from the migrant community. For some, voting can still be a daunting experience, and I acknowledge their support and encouragement for me and my ethnic caucus colleagues as I begin my fourth term as a member of Parliament for the National Party.

Just on that note, I’d just like to commiserate with my friends on that side Raymond Huo and Louisa Wall, who I respect tremendously. I am disappointed for you that you did not actually rise to the ministership but, you know, your time will come, so just be patient. I rate you guys, so you just need to wait a little bit.

I would also like to acknowledge my Korean community who has staunchly been backing me as a member of Parliament and backing National’s vision for families, safer communities, and a strong economy. I just want to say thank you. Kamsahamnida—that’s “thank you” in my language.

A few days ago, I had the distinct privilege of being honoured by the Korean community of Wellington, who held a special reception. Apparently, being a fourth-term member in Korea’s quite a big deal, so they decided to do a big dinner and I just want to say thank you. Thank you for coming along and thank you for honouring me. I think it’s wonderful that we live in a country that celebrates diversity.

I was also reflecting back to my maiden speech and part of that—you know, it was also during part of the Address in Reply debate—where I noted how important it was for Asian New Zealanders to be participating in New Zealand’s democracy. I quote, “voting is the ultimate realisation that we live in a democracy.” It is important to say that all voices matter in an election and in making sure our Parliament is representative of the people it legislates for. Whether one is attacked by others for one’s last name, for or one’s accent, or, indeed, for where one tries to build one’s life in our country, know that we on this side of the House, the National Party, are listening to all of you and will advocate for all of you in this House and across the community of our nation—although some across on the other side may not.

Under the National Government, we saw a booming economy, we saw more jobs being created by businesses ready to offer innovative research and promote New Zealand’s brand on the global stage. We saw better roading across our country, and we saw 21st century learning classrooms spring up all across the nation for better education and the building of young minds, actually. National has been a champion for the vulnerable and will continue to champion those who will have their voices cut off under this new three-pronged Government.

With my new portfolio responsibilities I’m reaching out alongside all of my National parliamentary colleagues to talk to these stakeholders in our communities—our businesses in the country that want to make sure they’re being listened to. I can tell this House that people want to ensure that their issues are heard, that—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Members, please don’t talk across the aisle. Sorry to interrupt you. Please continue on.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. People want to know that the Government isn’t just dealing with what’s interesting to them, but to the people of this country, and I just want to assure the public that National is, in fact, listening.

As of this morning, I have actually written to hundreds of stakeholders and community leaders across broadcasting, communications, digital media, and ethnic communities and started meeting with them to listen to their needs. These are people that are already speaking out about their concerns for the future of New Zealand’s migrant communities and for the future of good telecommunications, as well. They’re concerned, because they’re unsure what is in store for them and they want to know. They want to have transparency, they want to know where they are headed, but this Government hasn’t actually given them the transparency that they promised them so far. So I will keep on asking questions and my executive assistant tells me that as of today I have asked 579 written questions to Ministers in this 52nd Parliament to ensure that I and the people of New Zealand can hold them to account and support the best transparency and open Government that can be done for the benefit of New Zealand’s democracy.

Some in the media might actually sort of, you know, downplay that and say we’re wasting our time or whatever—that we’re asking pedantic or unnecessary questions, but these are important questions. These are important because we want an open, transparent Parliament. They are necessary because it has been over a month since the new Government took office and some of those questions that we’re asking are not even being answered.

Under this Government, we are already seeing the election promises backtracked. Less than four or five weeks since taking office, just over two months since the election, it’s disappointing but it is what comes with a Government coalition so lacking in cohesion and practical policy ideas—

Hon Kris Faafoi: [Yawns]

MELISSA LEE: —that they must look back on what was working, I guess. National had a strong, innovative plan and so they will actually go along with that. That member across over there yawns. You know, they’ve already backtracked on planting 100 million trees a year. That actually worked out—I had to actually try and calculate how many that would mean in 365 days. That’s 274,000 trees planted every day, including weekends, to achieve that target, and half of them have already, as members have previously said, been planted by the industry to replace forestry stock as needed to ensure the long-term production of New Zealand’s vibrant forestry industry.

They’ve also backtracked on immigration. Everywhere I go, as the ethnic communities spokesperson, people tell me they are really concerned about the new Government’s policy on immigration, because they feel that they’re going to be discriminated against—that Labour’s immigration policy, if they have a colour of skin like mine, might actually discriminate, or that maybe if they have a surname like mine, it might discriminate. They are really, really concerned, and I urge you, the Hon Jenny Salesa, to look after your constituents in those ethnic portfolios who are really, really concerned. If they haven’t talked to you, they will be coming your way and speaking very loudly.

Alongside my National colleagues, championing the needs of the public, we are here speaking for the businesses who actually need some work, and I wish the new Government the best of luck in their endeavours. So far they’re not doing such a great job, so I look forward to them improving.

Under National’s nine years, average take-home pay increased by $13,000 to $59,000 per year, a 28 percent increase, and this was not merely inflation but real cash in hand for the benefit of those who actually needed it the most. In order for them to catch up to the work that the National Government did, Labour’s going to have to pedal pretty damn fast. Thank you.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, and, as this is my first opportunity to say a few words in the 52nd Parliament, can I add my voice to those who have acknowledged your elevation to the Assistant Speaker’s role. I actually was personally very pleased when I saw that. I think you’ll do a tremendous job, and it is a testament to your talents that you’ve brought in over the last few years that you’ve been here.

Can I also acknowledge everyone who has been returned or elected for the first time to this great House, and particularly Angie, at the back there, sitting in exactly the same seat that I was in three years ago. This could be you in three years, sitting out here—

Hon Scott Simpson: Or less.

TODD MULLER: —or potentially less. But, seriously, it’s great to see you here, and I look forward to working with you over the next three years.

Can I particularly acknowledge the National Party team who have got elected. I think particularly, if you look at our 2017 intake, it’s a very, very impressive group of people. I thought the 2014 intake was pretty good, actually, but I’d have to say the 2017 intake just talks to the strength of capability and renewal that our party has brought into this House and that has been a legacy of both John Key’s leadership and Bill English’s. Can I, of course, acknowledge our leader. As I said to a huge National Party function a couple of days ago, where we had 250 there, here is a man who genuinely understands people. Rather than a smile-and-wave approach, he actually connects at a very deep and genuine level with people, and that actually talks to his character and is part of the reason he remains so popular.

When I look out across at the Government in front of me, I just have this huge sense that they’re still pinching themselves that this thing’s actually turned out like it has. In fact, I still believe most of the people in the Labour Party still can’t quite believe it, particularly those who have found themselves on the ministerial benches. You can see that in the lightness of their programme, which I’ll return to in a moment. But this still has very much a feel that three months ago it was the great Hail Mary pass. For once in politics the pass stuck, and there they are, sitting there now on the Government benches. But you can tell from the 100-day plan that they have put in front of you that they are seriously underdone in terms of thinking around the vision for the next three years.

You can tell that because they have reverted to type. As a former student president, I understand this. When the pressure comes on and you actually get a real job, the first thing you do is (1) form a committee, and (2) bring the people who were here 10 years ago back again to tell you how to run the country. So Sir Michael Cullen turns up. Helen Clark we haven’t heard of for nine years—she’s suddenly back in full voice. Heather Simpson’s upstairs designing how to actually put a Government together.

This is a party that simply was not ready, and you can see it in terms of the plan that they are talking to. Already, the lightness of their agenda has been highlighted. We’ve heard it this afternoon—some of the flip-flops that we’ve already had. The trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), was an affront to democracy! You add the words “comprehensive and progressive” in front of the name—now it is the best deal that we can possibly see!

I have to mention him, because he would be very disappointed if I didn’t: Minister Jones. He bellicosely sort of belches billions of dollars, is what so far—I’ve only been in this House for a little bit, and this is what I see. It’s like, “a billion trees” and “a billion dollars”—you know, typical of someone who’s never really had to own the applying of capital himself. So let’s look at that billion trees. Well, it’s not a billion trees, is it? It’s half a billion. We’ve been here five weeks—it’s already half. And there’s no plan behind it. It’s just nice, high-level rhetoric. Where’s the land? Where are the people trained to be able to plant it? Where is the capital to be able to facilitate it? [Interruption] Actually, you’re quite right: we can’t do all this. We’re going to rely on the private sector to do it. We haven’t talked to them about it, but that’s what going to happen.

Look, that high-level rhetoric is humorous, at a level, but this business of Government is serious. There is a significant amount of capital that wants to be able to swing in behind a strategy that has merit, and the risk here is that the strategy’s going to be shown as a laughing stock because there’s no detailed thinking behind it.

If you go to the billion-dollar-a-year regional development fund, I actually agree with my colleague who says that in many respects we want that to be successful. Coming from a region that is extremely successful—the Bay of Plenty and Tauranga, at the moment with the highest level of employment in the country, the highest level of internal migration to our region—it is an area that has been invested in heavily by private capital but also facilitated by public investment, such as Callaghan Innovation and others. They understand that, actually, you invest where the highest growth is occurring.

I want to make sure, over the next three years, that this billion-dollar fund, when you strip the humour and rhetoric away from it, is actually a fund that has got serious criteria behind it and that understands that businesses of New Zealand deserve the support, where appropriate, of public money. Mr Jones can’t stand there one second and bellow, “Corporate welfare”, and in the next second say, “Oh, and I’ve got a billion dollars to throw out and haven’t really thought about the criteria yet.” This is serious. This is public money—taxpayer money. It deserves to have criteria that are defendable and that mean that the communities of Tauranga that I represent have an opportunity to showcase their businesses being able to access it.

I do want to spend a moment reflecting on the portfolios that I have been asked to take up as the National Party spokesperson, particularly climate change and assisting Nuk, of course, in Crown-Māori relations moving forward. I’ll talk to both of them. I’d like to start on climate change. I had the privilege of travelling with Minister Shaw a couple of weeks ago, and I acknowledge him for inviting me, as other Ministers in the National Government previously have done, to go overseas. He did a fair job—in my opinion, more than a fair job—around that forum, promoting New Zealand’s interests. But there was a concern for me that is starting to become quite serious, and that is that we can talk here about ambition; we can look forward to 2050 and have high-end rhetoric around where we want to position New Zealand; we can call it a moral imperative; we can call it, even, an issue of our generation, and in many respects there are aspects of that definition that I am comfortable with—but what I am not comfortable with is this view that we have to be first, that we have to be fast, and that above all we need to be famous and acknowledged by the NGOs as somehow taking more than our proportional response on behalf of the global community. I disagree with that.

The National Party has a strong record on climate change. It has always believed that our response should be proportionate. We should take part in a global community’s response, but it should be proportionate. There is no premium for being the best and the first. There is also a moral imperative for the families of New Zealand who seek to compete on the world stage selling their goods to the world. Those families understand the importance of the environment. Those families understand the importance of climate change. Those families understand the importance of a proportional response and this country doing our part—and I don’t disagree with the fact that we must. I don’t disagree that we should consider a climate commission to provide some independent advice. The emphasis is on independence. There’s no independence in saying, “Oh, here’s our independent tax working group, with Sir Michael Cullen leading it.” That’s not independence. What, is Russel Norman going to head the climate commission? Absolutely ridiculous.

But there are some fundamental choices that this country has to make as we move away from a carbon-intensive world, and they are very appropriate questions to ask of all of us around our appetite for change—the appetite to actually crystallise the cost of the move. Yes, there are opportunities, but there will also be significant costs for our trade-exposed industries, and it’s absolutely critical that we get this balance right. The concern that I have is that our motivation must always be that we must do what is good for New Zealand. It must not be that we must do what the United Nations will give us a gold medal for, because it is for New Zealand that we work. It is for New Zealand that we endeavour and strive. It is not to get a gold medal from the United Nations because somehow we’ve got there first, in their view.

There are 190 countries on this journey, and we are but one, and we do 0.16 percent of the emissions. It is important. We must play our part, but it must be proportional. Let us not get carried away by international rhetoric saying “Being number one is what counts”. Being for New Zealand is what counts. Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Assistant Speaker, can I first congratulate you on your appointment. It is delightful to see you in the Chair, and I look forward to seeing you in the Chair many more times. It is a real pleasure to have your input into this House after your already acknowledged service to your fine electorate further south. It is, of course, from our perspective, also good to be on this side of the House, looking from a different perspective across the House.

I wanted to reflect a little on the election, and the new Government’s ambitious programme resulting from that election. Before I get too far into that, I do also want to thank the good people of Dunedin North, who have invested their faith in me to put me back in this House again for another term. The good people of Dunedin North, I think, voted—at least two out of every three of them—for the Government that sits on this side of the House. They are disproportionately wise in that part of the country. In fact, it would be foolish of me to quibble with their choices. So I thank them for that, and I hope that I can also live up to the faith that they have put in me.

It is a real privilege, I have to say, to serve as the Minister of Health. In the four weeks that I have been in the role, I have really enjoyed the opportunity to get around to speak with those people in the sector who have been struggling, who have been stressed, and who have been frustrated from nine years of a Government that had not prioritised the health of New Zealanders. The system, of course, has continued to work well for those who can get into it. Every day I hear stories from people who have been well served by our health system. They are incredibly grateful for the fine clinicians, the allied health workforce, the nurses across the country—those people who serve day in, day out in our health system to make sure that people are looked after; those caring professionals that train to be health professionals because they want better health outcomes for New Zealanders.

But there’s no doubt, and we’ve all seen the statistics, that sickness has gone up, that absenteeism at work and burnout have gone up during the period of the previous Government. So many of the people in that workforce have been doing it tough, and, more than anything else, they’re expressing relief to me that there is a Government that has committed to putting more money into the health sector—that has committed to making health a priority once more—and a Government that up front says, “We want affordable access to quality care for all New Zealanders.”

This is a Government that’s not afraid to be ambitious, that’s not afraid to want to make sure that New Zealanders have better access to quality care. I feel very proud to stand on this side of the House with the support of the coalition partners for an approach to health that will mean better healthcare—that will genuinely mean better healthcare for New Zealanders. The people in the sector who get into the sector because they care too are also delighted with the change of Government. So I thank them for their acknowledgment, and I want to acknowledge their ambition.

I also want to ask them for patience because, of course, we can’t fix everything overnight. Nine years of neglect in the health system—

Chris Bishop: Aw, rubbish.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —will take some time to put right. We don’t need to look any further, in fact, than Dunedin Hospital, now that Mr Bishop quibbles with what I’m saying. We know that that hospital is long overdue for replacement. In fact, in 2014 I asked the then health Minister when they would begin to address the delays in the hospital rebuild—in 2014—and still they had not done anything about it come this election. They had not got a plan together despite advice from many sectors that that ought to be quite possible.

What’s worse is that they had not put money aside for it. No, there was nothing—no capital put aside. There was a contingency of a few hundred million when, in fact, we now know that a build is likely to cost $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. They imagined, I think, that this money would mysteriously arrive on some kind of money tree, perhaps—I’m not sure. We know now that they’d put aside $5 billion for capital projects when, in fact, they knew $13 billion were already on the way.

That’s the kind of bookkeeping that we have seen from that Government during their time. They have actually left a whole lot of things that are going to take time to address, and the full extent of that is still being uncovered. I know in my portfolio, in health, I am still finding more rundown assets that need to be looked at, that need to be replaced over time, and that, of course, cost money. But you can’t sweat assets forever. You can’t sit on those assets forever and not expect the system to be under strain.

We know in Dunedin Hospital, for example, surgery gets cancelled when it rains. The operating theatres cannot function because they are leaking. That is not a first-world hospital. That is, unfortunately, the kind of thing you might expect to see in a developing country, but it should not be happening in New Zealand—certainly not in a hospital where many of New Zealand’s clinicians are trained.

It’s not the only example. Up and down the country there are other hospitals that are showing wear and tear, and no provision has been made, it seems, from that previous Government to address those issues. And you know, with existing buildings that have passed their use-by date, they also force old ways of doing things—more expensive ways of doing things. The previous Government simply has not kept up. It has not had the vision for New Zealanders to have access to quality healthcare at an affordable price, and we’ve all borne the cost of that.

Instead, they had a focus on short-term targets. So we saw that Avastin injections have skyrocketed under their watch, and skin lesion removals, and those things counted towards their elective targets that they wanted to parade about, but, frequently, many of those were done in primary care previously, at lower costs. So we’ve had these distorted behaviours with an exclusive focus on short-term targets. All of these things will need to be addressed.

What I’ve also found out since I have been the health Minister is that none of the district health board (DHB) annual accountability documents have been signed off. None of them—none of them—and we know why that is. It goes right back to the time when they made that blunder in the Budget where the health Minister did not see that the wrong amounts had been allocated to the different DHBs around the country. Two weeks out from the financial year beginning, the DHBs didn’t know the correct amount of money they would be allocated in the Budget. Long after the Budget day, two weeks out from the financial year beginning, the DHBs around New Zealand did not have the correct figures for how much money they would have to spend in that financial year. So, of course, everything has been pushed back, and the previous Minister—goodness knows what he was doing. But all 20 DHBs had not been signed off with their accountability documents, and how many months into the financial year are we now?

I think it’s a disgrace. It speaks to the low priority placed on health by the previous Government, and I can assure this House that this Government takes responsibility much more seriously in the health space—as it does in education, as it does in housing. We are a Government that is concerned for a kinder, more caring society; a Government that has empathy; a Government that will manage fiscal responsibility. We have set ourselves the Budget responsibility rules, which we will keep to. We will manage in a fiscally responsible way, but we won’t prioritise building new prisons, or pet projects in the roading sector, or whatever else it may be. This will be a Government that looks to look after New Zealanders’ interests; that spends money wisely; that is concerned to provide decent education for all New Zealanders so every kid can get a world-class education at their local school; that wants to provide affordable access to quality care so all New Zealanders can access quality care regardless of the depth of their wallets.

We’ll do that, in part, by reducing the cost of access to primary care. Currently, people going to see their GP—we know that over half a million people in the past year have not gone to see their GP because they couldn’t afford it. How can that be in a country like New Zealand, that over half a million people—and growing—every year cannot afford to go to their GP when they need to, for reasons of cost? So we’ve said we’ll lower that barrier. We will reduce GP fees by $10 so that New Zealanders will be able to afford to go and visit their doctors, because we believe that all people should be able to afford that quality care, not just those who are already well off.

In the health sector, we will have other priorities, too. We’ve said we want to kick off a mental health inquiry. We want to have an agreed approach, because the current approach clearly has not been working. There’s been a 60 percent increase in the number of people accessing mental health services over the past decade, and less than half of that in terms of additional funding to meet that need. But we want to have a review first so we fully understand how best to spend any new money in that sector, so we get the best outcome for New Zealanders. We want to make sure that there’s a good public health system, and we want to make sure that the disparities that we see across different ethnic groups are reduced, because right now there are clearly not equitable outcomes in the health sector. As I’ve said, we want to address the issue of primary care. We want affordable access to quality care for all New Zealanders.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. If there was ever an example of this new Government’s lack of readiness and preparedness to be in Government, it’s that Minister who has just resumed his seat, David Clark. About three months ago, he had no expectation at all that he would be in the hot seat, and his speech in contribution to this Address in Reply debate absolutely sealed the confirmation of that very firmly in the minds of everyone who would’ve been listening and everybody in the Chamber today. Madam Assistant Speaker, it’s a pleasure to be participating here in the Address in Reply debate, and it is with pleasure that I congratulate you on your appointment as a presiding officer of this House, and to your colleagues as other presiding officers, I wish you collectively well in this 52nd Parliament.

I have the great pleasure and, very proudly, the responsibility of returning to this House for a third term as the very proud and keenly championing MP for Coromandel. I’m pleased to report that the pohutukawa are in bloom along the Thames coast and around the peninsula, and that summer is on its way. We are going to enjoy, notwithstanding this new Government, a very good summer in the Coromandel.

The election result was interesting in Coromandel, because we had some good candidates, I have to say. I want to congratulate the other candidates who went through the campaign with me in Coromandel. We had a new Green candidate, and he took over from the irrepressible Catherine Delahunty, who’s retired from this House. He did pretty well—in my view, made something of a rookie’s mistake and ran a candidate campaign rather than a party vote campaign, which saw the Green Party vote diminish significantly in the Coromandel, a seat once held by a Green MP. That was probably a surprise, although part of it was probably in response to the situation that occurred during the election campaign, where the former Green Party co-leader, Metiria Turei, was forced to acknowledge that her electoral and benefit fraud meant that she needed to go from this place.

What I’m sad about as a result of that is that two other, I think, good Green MPs are not sitting in this Chamber: Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon. In what I think was probably one of the most principled acts that I’d seen in my years of watching politics in New Zealand, Kennedy Graham and David Clendon chose to resign their places on the Green Party list as a matter of principle. This House is the poorer for not having those two Green members here. I worked with Kennedy Graham on the GLOBE-NZ project, which led to the Vivid Economics report, and I’ve got to say that I worked very closely and well with Kennedy Graham, because that was truly a cross-party consensus document. I hope that when the climate change initiatives that this Government has heralded so loudly do come into effect, they find a place for Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon, because they are two MPs who did make a good contribution to this House.

I want to congratulate my colleagues in the National Party, particularly our leader, Bill English, for what I thought was an excellent campaign. Bill English came to the Coromandel and campaigned through there with me. I have very fond memories of standing in front of the world-famous Lemon and Paeroa bottle in Paeroa, and we had a very good period of time campaigning there. But what was immediately apparent when we had Bill English in the electorate was how he was speaking to middle New Zealand in a way that resonated, that captured their imagination in a way that worked for them. It was aspirational, it was standing on a very good record of the nine years that the National Party had had in Government, and we’ve left this Government with a New Zealand that is in very good shape. No matter what they will try and do in terms of rewriting history and trying to change the facts and the numbers and statistics, the simple reality is that New Zealand has done well and prospered under nine years of the stable, calm, rational leadership of John Key and Bill English.

So where are we now? Well, we find ourselves now with a new Government ill-prepared for Government, ill-prepared for leadership, and ill-prepared for the challenges and the opportunities that they confront and face on the Treasury benches. Funnily enough, I was speaking to a New Zealand First candidate only last week who said, “I dodged a bullet.” That’s about himself—he said, “I didn’t get elected. I dodged a bullet, because I would not have wanted to be there, in hindsight, because I didn’t think for one moment”, said this New Zealand First candidate, “that the Rt Hon Winston Peters would do what he did.” Now, be that as it may, I suspect it probably reflects what could easily be referred to as voters’ remorse by a fair percentage of New Zealand First voters who actually didn’t vote for this outcome, weren’t expecting it, and weren’t wanting it. In my electorate, where there were some New Zealand First voters, I’m pleased to say that my National Party membership numbers have increased a wee bit. There are a number of them that have come back to the mothership, so to speak, and they are in good heart and they’re ready for the next election in 2020.

Bill English has given me a great opportunity to take over the National Party’s spokespersonship role on the environment. I’m delighted to have been given that opportunity, because being from the Coromandel and representing the electorate, of course, our natural environment and our natural heritage and resources are incredibly important to me, my constituents, and the rest of the nation. In the National Party, I think we’ve got a very good view about environmental care, responsibility, and management, but we have never talked up our goals and aspirations and our good intent in the way that this Government did during the election campaign. They really did talk it up. Bill English, in his Address in Reply speech, when leading off this debate a week or two ago, made the point that the Speech from the Throne was dripping with good intent, and dripping with good intent it certainly was, but good intent is not what gets things done. Actually, what this Opposition will be doing is we’ll be holding the Government to account not for their good intention—because, heaven forbid, we agree with most, if not some, of their good intention—but what we will be holding them to account for is the reality of their intention. It’s a situation where, now that they sit on the Treasury benches, actually, deeds and actions speak louder than words and mere good intentions.

I want to just remind members opposite of the challenge that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill English, made in his speech. He said that we’re going to measure two important environmental measurements for this Government. This time next year—next Christmas—we’ll be looking to the Avon River in Christchurch to see what tangible improvements and water quality have occurred there. We’ll be watching and we’ll be wanting to report back.

Similarly, the second area that we are going to be looking at this time next year is in Auckland City, where, over the last 12 months or so, on 160 days, raw sewage has been pumped on to the beaches and into the harbour of Auckland in a way that if it was being done by farmers in our rural communities, they would be prosecuted.

So what we’re going to do is ask this Government to come good on their good intentions—come good on their good intentions and prove that the road to purgatory is not paved with good intentions, and it is something more than that.

David Parker has a very big workload. He’s been given the environment responsibility. He’s a capable member. I’ve had dealings with him from my time when I was chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee. I don’t, for one minute, question his ability. But, boy, he’s got a very heavy workload. So we’ll be watching that very closely over the next little period of time.

The National Party is in incredibly good heart. We’re united. We’re strong. We’re not at all diminished. We will continue to ask questions—written, oral, and policy questions—of this Government, holding them to account, holding the peat to their feet, so that they actually have to turn good intentions into good deeds.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I wish you well in your role as a presiding officer.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I first of all congratulate you, ma’am, on your elevation to this role. It was a pleasure serving with you on the Justice and Electoral Committee in the last Parliament, and I’m sure you’ll do a great job in this role. And congratulations to all the other presiding officers as well.

This is my first time speaking in a debate in the House. I’ve had the privilege of asking my first oral question. I’ve got to say that asking oral questions when you’re in Opposition is a little bit different to asking oral questions when you’re a Government backbencher. The adrenalin is a bit higher and the nerves are a bit greater. But this is my first time speaking in the House.

I want to acknowledge, secondly, the good people of Hutt South for electing me as their local member. It’s an honour and a privilege to have that role, and it’s something that I’ve worked pretty hard for over the last three years as a list MP. I want to say it was a bit of a bitter-sweet victory. Oftentimes when you win an electorate seat off another party, oftentimes you are in Government, so it’s a bit of a bitter-sweet victory to win the seat but lose the war. But, as I have been saying to people around the Hutt, ultimately the Government did change and we just have to make the best of it. What I’ve said is that where we can work with the Government in relation to things in the Hutt Valley I’m keen to do that, and where I can’t work with the Government and where I think things are going to take the Hutt backwards, I’ll say so.

Can I acknowledge the new Government and our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Congratulations on your election to office. All of New Zealand is hoping that you do well and wishing you all the best.

A few things characterise this Government, and I want to run through a few of the characteristics that have come to define this Government after only five or six weeks. The first thing is incompetence. We saw that on the first day with the debacle over electing the Speaker. You wouldn’t think that would be particularly difficult for a Government to do. You turn up, it’s the first day, everyone gets sworn in, you elect the Speaker, and then we go off for lunch. But no, no. You wouldn’t think that would be difficult, but it was for this Government because they didn’t have the numbers, or at least they didn’t know that they didn’t have the numbers, which, as we know in politics on this side of the House, is actually far worse. Always know when you’ve got the numbers, and they didn’t.

But we also see this incompetence on display in the House at the moment. Despite the 100-day action plan, and much fevered talk about a Government of action, and we’re going to do this, that, and the other thing, there’s actually no legislation that the Government has brought before the House for us to consider. OK, we’ve had the paid parental leave bill, but in their own words that was a bill that was passed in the previous Parliament. So that’s not actually a new piece of legislation. We had to ram that through under urgency—hypocritically going against everything that the Government said in Opposition for nine years, about how urgency was an abuse of the democratic process and was unconstitutional. We had to do that through urgency.

And then we have the Government picking up a member’s bill in Andrew Little’s name, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), and basically 95 percent of the content of that bill is a replica of what the previous Government passed in the last Parliament. They’ve had to pick up a member’s bill and adopt it as Government business. And other than that, what do we have? Nothing. We literally have nothing. That’s why the Government had to change the sitting programme, so they could send the Parliamentary Counsel Office off in the last week to desperately draft legislation. We’ve turned up here for a four-week sitting period, and is there any legislation that’s pressing, that’s coming down the line? No, we’ve no idea. So this is a Government that is incompetent.

But it’s also a Government that’s hypocritical, particularly around its transparency and its openness. What does the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour say? It says, “This is an agreement that will strengthen New Zealand’s democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information.” But we learn this week that, actually, there’s a secret document of 38 pages, or 33 pages, or 32 pages, depending on which font you use—Arial, or Comic Sans, or something. There’s a secret document that actually governs how the coalition will operate.

What we hear is that this is a document of precision on various areas of policy commitment and development. We hear from Mr Peters, the Deputy Prime Minister, that these are directives to Ministers with accountability in media strategy to ensure the coalition works. In fact, this document is so important, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, that “the things contained in the document apparently were the first subject we raised about how we’re going to handle a cohesive coalition agreement.” I just want to repeat that for the House: the things in this document that the Government is refusing to release, the things in this document, were the first subject raised by the Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition negotiations.

Does anyone seriously think that something that was the first subject raised by the Deputy Prime Minister is not of public interest? Absolutely it is in the public interest. The Prime Minister’s excuses as to why this can’t be released are pathetic. First of all she said, “Well, they’re just notes.” Well, as she will know, from her nine years OIA-ing the previous Government, that is not a reason not to release something. Just because something is not a formal document does not make it not official information. She should go and talk to the Ombudsman about that.

Then she says, “Well, it may be that some areas are unworkable or fiscally irresponsible.” Well, again, that is irrelevant. I am sure that some of the things this Government wants to do will be fiscally irresponsible. I am quite convinced many of the things this Government will do will be fiscally irresponsible, but that is no reason to deny their profligate spending plans from the New Zealand people. And then she says, “Well, we haven’t distributed it to Ministers.” Well, that’s irrelevant. Just because Ministers don’t have it doesn’t mean it is not official information.

The worst excuse, or the most comical, depending on how you look at it, came from Mr Peters himself. He stood next to Jacinda Ardern at the post-Cabinet press conference: “I mean, Moses came down from the mountain and only had Ten Commandments, right? But there’s a lot in the Old Testament as well, get it? I’m only here because the Prime Minister asked me to be here. This is not Zimbabwe all over again.”

I literally have no idea what that even means, but it’s certainly not an excuse as to why something that is at the very core of the new coalition Government should not be released. So they’re hypocritical, and they’re arrogant. It has only taken six weeks. We had Shane Jones sitting there, throughout the previous speeches, bellicosity and belligerence personified, literally waving at Jacqui Dean, saying, “Bye-bye, bye-bye.” I’m imitating Shane Jones from about 40 minutes ago—bye-bye, bye-bye to Opposition members. The arrogance on display, after just six weeks, is just unbelievable.

The responses to written questions—Chris Hipkins says it’s parliamentary spam. I have asked Stuart Nash who he met with on a particular day, and he said: “You need to be more specific.” OK. I asked him who he met with during a particular hour-long period. He refused to answer. The arrogance is breathtaking. We’re trying to get access to information that we answered when we were in Government. When the now Government was in Opposition, they got access to a lot of that information.

And then we have the briefings to incoming Ministers. We’re six weeks in. Where are they? I understand, from my sources in the Civil Service, that briefings to incoming Ministers are usually sent around departments. They’re usually sent around departments after they’ve been to the Minister. But in this new Government, this new regime of transparency, the “BIMS”, as they’re popularly known, have not even been sent around to senior staff. They’ve been kept in Ministers’ offices, and the journalists have been declined the requests. Well, they need to be released.

The fourth characteristic of this Government, and this is the thing that will ultimately bring them down in the end, is a tendency for virtue-signalling as a substitution for public policy. And it was Milton Friedman who said that one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results. This Government has a long ambitious list: eradicate child poverty—

Hon Shane Jones: Go back to the Second World War. The Korean War!

CHRIS BISHOP: —enter Pike River; stop homelessness; build 100,000 homes; plant a billion trees, Shane Jones; increase the health of the economy. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Members!

CHRIS BISHOP: And what they like to do—particularly Green members, but New Zealand First are not immune to this either—is pretend that because they care more, because they have more empathy than National, in their minds, and because they have the most passion for something, that will lead to better public policy outcomes. But, actually, as they are about to discover over the next three years, just because you tell everyone out there in the community that you care more and the nasty Nats don’t care about homelessness or poverty or trees or whatever, that does not necessarily mean that public policy gets improved. They are about to discover that, and I am looking forward, on this side of the House, to the new Government discovering that reality.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Madam Assistant Speaker, I am really pleased to take a call in this Address in Reply debate, and can I acknowledge you as Assistant Speaker. Congratulations on your role, and to Adrian Rurawhe, as well, but particularly to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I thought we had a very positive working relationship on the Health Committee. Perhaps if I could put it this way, I suspect both of us will miss working on that committee. Can I acknowledge the Deputy Speaker, as well, and, of course, the Speaker himself, Trevor Mallard—now the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard—for taking the role.

But as I begin this speech, I think it is really appropriate to turn to the people of Tāmaki and to thank them for—in fact, first and foremost—an incredible party vote response. Tāmaki’s as blue as blue, and they turned out in droves. My thanks to all those people in the electorate who supported the National Party. Thanks, too, that they took the opportunity to tick the box twice and include me in that, and I’m very pleased to be returning to this House for my third term.

The people there in Tāmaki are quite remarkable, and one element of it—it doesn’t matter if they are in St Heliers or Glenn Innes, Ōrakei or Glendowie, they are very quick to give their thoughts and opinions on things, and that is actually quite a refreshing thing for a local MP. I never go to bed or wake in the morning worrying or wondering what the people there think. So they are disappointed, which will be no surprise, that we were not able to negotiate our way to Government. We certainly were able to bring an enormous vote overall. In fact—I think one of my colleagues was telling me earlier today—actually, the same numbers effectively voted National this time as they did back in 2014. We just weren’t able to quite pull it over the line. But I am relishing the opportunity to be in Opposition. Not wanting to be, by any means, but you relish the chances that you’re given. I’m one of these sort of—it doesn’t always go well with my theology, but actually a bit of a fatalist. That actually—

Sarah Dowie: It’s because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s been proving quite amusing, like chasing people in the North around the bush. But, actually, it’s an opportunity, and you have to take them. To the people of Tāmaki, we’ll continue to be a strong voice for them here in this Parliament with issues that concern them.

Hon Shane Jones: What about Prince Harry?

SIMON O’CONNOR: But also to—oh, we’re coming to that. You’re going to really like this one, Shane.

Hon Member: What about Rob?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely; it’s just going to go on and on—but also to take the role of Opposition and hold this Government to account.

This, now, is for Shane Jones. But, of course, we are replying to the Speech from the Throne, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge, as this House did today—in fact, it was quite remarkable that this House was completely united in affirming its support for the Queen and the monarchy of New Zealand. I think it’s fantastic, particularly for anyone here who understands democracy and good governance, as is often spoken of by me in the House. But I do want to acknowledge Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for their engagement. This is indeed an exciting time. I would want to echo the sentiments of some people today, that they should be invited down here as quickly as possible. Perhaps newer members of the House won’t realise but, actually, the tourist potential of when we have the royal family down here is huge. There was a select committee report, I think about 2 years ago, that highlighted the sort of tenfold increase in the likes of spending and visitors to this country when we bring members of our royal family down here. So I think it’s fantastic.

Just continuing the theme for Shane Jones’ sake, I want to congratulate Her Majesty herself and Prince Philip on their 70th wedding anniversary, which, as that honourable member will know, was on 20 November—70 years; their platinum jubilee.

Hon Scott Simpson: The member opposite was there.

SIMON O’CONNOR: The member opposite may well have been there; I won’t quiz him—we’re not in oral question time. Look, I’m only coming up to one year married, and I just note that if Rachel and I do reach the platinum anniversary, it will be in the year 2086—could be a long time.

Look, those matters aside, we now have a Government that really has no idea what it’s doing. The previous member who just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, I think quite eloquently touched on a number of the problems. Really, what we have here is a bunch of people—and I’m talking now about Labour, Greens, and New Zealand First—who campaigned in poetry but are now having to govern in prose. I’m not even sure they’ll even be doing that.

In fact, in many ways I can’t help but think they’re governing via Post-it notes; sort of throwing Post-it notes around and seeing what happens to stick on the wall. Some of the Post-it notes are green, some are black and white, some are certainly red. They just sort of wait and see what lands there. In fact, when I think about the colours of Post-it notes, or the types, some of them are even Post-it notes in the spirit of Donald Trump. We have a left-wing Government that is anti-immigration, and we have a left-wing Government that is anti the TPP. In fact, from what I understand, there is no other left-wing Government—in fact, probably not even a left-wing party in the world—that is so supportive of Donald Trump’s policies, particularly, again, as I say, around immigration and the TPP. It must create very confusing conversations when this governing party fronts up to the likes of the Trudeaus of the world and tries to explain things.

I was very pleased to pick up the corrections portfolio. I think, for me, it illustrates one of the problems this Government is already running into. We’ve had the former spokesperson, now Minister, talk about reducing the prison population by 30 percent—very lofty, lofty goals. The problem is that a few weeks in, there are absolutely no details on how this will be achieved. As a number of people already around the country are asking me, how can a Government profess to be tough on crime—and we’ve heard that from the Minister of Police; we’ve certainly heard it from the Minister of Justice—and at the same time be reducing the prison population by simply not releasing people into the community? I have been at pains already to point out to the House—not in this speech but in some of my questions—that most people, in fact over 75 percent of people in our prisons, are there for violent offences. It is one of those myths out there that we’re actually locking people up for drug offences but, by and large, we’re not—

Hon Andrew Little: What about the other 30 percent?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, actually, we can’t do the math—

Hon Andrew Little: That’s right—with a proper parole system, we could let them go!

SIMON O’CONNOR: So we already have here the illustration of the problems. We have the Minister of Justice yell out, “It’s 30 percent.” No, it’s 25 percent of people in prisons who are there for non-violent activities, but that member’s Government is wanting to release 30 percent. So, you know, I’ll leave people to do the math there. Look, I’m also very pleased to take up the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I’m not going to go into detail there, but obviously a fascinating area, along with defence and trade.

But I do want to use the last couple of moments to touch on a couple of other critical areas. The main one is actually around education and the push to close the partnership schools—or the kura hourua, sometimes inaccurately known as partnership schools. I want to put on the record that these schools are remarkable. I’ve had some engagement with a number of them. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I was at a huge gathering called Trust Live, pulling students, teachers, and the community together to celebrate. What is achieved in these schools for these young people is remarkable. It has turned lives around. Members who have been in this House a little while will know this, particularly those of us who sat through the select committee process, that it was people, often from those communities they say they represent—and it’s general but it is the Pacific and Māori communities and lower socio-economic groups within European New Zealanders who are crying out for this—and now they’re seeing the results and it’s absolutely remarkable, but equally sad that this Government is looking to shut those down.

It’s very representative to me of a one-size-fits-all approach, which always fits very well with the left wing—one size fits all and, come hell or high water, people will fit that; they will be made to fit that. It probably suits their union mates, particularly in the education sector, that will not deign any opportunity for someone to work outside their model, lest it show them up, but I think it is absolutely sad that young people in New Zealand, particularly on the periphery, are going to lose an opportunity here.

I want to sort of, probably, highlight in a different way—and I did point it out a few weeks ago in a very brief speech. We hear a lot about diversity these days; it’s sort of one of the buzz words that’s flicked around. I’d like to put it to the left, in particular, that they look at diversity when it comes to education; that, actually, it’s fine to have a State system, but equally it’s good to have an integrated system and a private system, and to have a little bit of diversity and have these charter schools as well. Because, you know, that’s what people want, and we want to respect that. In fact, we want to be tolerant of that. Lest I even mention this phrase today, with some of the news out there, it could even be argued as a human right, but maybe others in this House, particularly on the other side, might like to opine on that a little bit.

There are also issues in health. I congratulate the new Minister. I worked with Dr David Clark on the Health Committee. He has a huge road ahead of him. So much has been promised; how that’s going to be fulfilled leaves many questions. I am particularly disappointed that somehow this falsity of something called “medical marijuana” is being put forward as some great priority in health, when one can think of so many other things that are going on. On that, my time is up, but congratulations again, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): This is a split call—the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. “E rere kau mai Te Awa nui nei mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa. Ko au Te Awa, ko Te Awa ko au.”

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. “This majestic river flows directly from the cluster of mountains to Tangaroa, deity of the sea and fish. I am the river and the river is me.”]

The river flows from the mountains to the sea. I am the river and the river is me. Toitū Te Marae ā Tāne Mahuta; toitū Te Marae ā Tangaroa; toitū te tangata.

[The marae of Tāne Mahuta, deity of the forests and birds, stands undisturbed; the marae of Tangaroa, deity of the sea and fish, stands untouched; man is sustainable.]

If the land is well and the sea is well, the people will thrive. This wisdom was known to many previous generations of tangata whenua. The health of the land and the sea is critical to our own well-being, and, furthermore, the health and well-being of our communities, of our neighbours, and of all of the people—our fellow citizens in this country—affects our own well-being. We are all connected.

The reason I stood for Parliament, in particular for the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand, is because I have hope. I have hope that love will triumph over fear. I have hope that we, as fellow humans, as part of this richly diverse ecosystem that is currently under a considerable threat, can overcome our differences and our most selfish tendencies and impulses and be our best selves and work together to stabilise the climate; that we can work together to restore our rivers and our native species; that we can work together to achieve peace, that we can work together to achieve justice; and that we can all live our lives respectfully—respectfully—of our fellow humans and of the planet that gives us life.

Although it’s common in this Parliament for us to focus on the short term and the drama of the daily game, which is evidenced perfectly by the National Party—newly in Opposition, caught up in trivial questions and trying to hamper the progress of the new Government with spurious allegations—I want to talk about the bigger picture. The work that we, as policy makers, as legislators, and as politicians, do here will determine the course of our history. Democracy here in Aotearoa, but also globally, is our best chance at solving the climate crisis and reducing inequality. Inequality, in and of itself, is anathema to democracy.

This new Government and the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne could not have come soon enough, because, for the first time in nine years, we have a Government that believes it has a real responsibility to protect the environment and to protect and empower all of our people. And for the first time in the history of Aotearoa, we have Green Party Ministers, of which I am hugely privileged to be one. I stand on the shoulders of all those who came before me. I will not waste one moment. I will do everything I can to bring the Green kaupapa into the policy and processes of this Government, which represents more than just one party. This Government represents a wider variety of views of New Zealand citizens, and I think that is a fantastic thing for democracy.

The National Party Opposition are giving their passionate, empty speeches, parroting talking points—anything to criticise the Government or to claim that it is not possible to do better than they did in the past nine years. I don’t believe this is because they are bad; I just think they don’t see that we’re all connected, and they don’t acknowledge that the playing field, so to speak, of our society is not level. There is a history of colonisation and subjugation that leaves a legacy of conscious and unconscious bias and will prevent justice unless we all work together to overcome it. When they speak of freedom for individuals, it is the freedom of a few privileged people—mostly white; mostly male—to continue to profit excessively at the expense of the many people who do the real work of our society.

The National Opposition do not see that the economy isn’t money; it isn’t just about business. A stronger economy is not achieved by a few hundred millionaires making tens of millions tax-free in capital gains while homelessness increases in Aotearoa. The economy is not a thing that is separate to us; it is entirely made up of us. It is entirely made up of people and our natural resources, and if we want to thrive for the long term and leave a better future for our children and grandchildren, we have to look after both, and that is the path the Green Party, as part of this new Government, is committed to: one of love for all people and our planet. Aroha mai, aroha atu.

[Empathy is incoming and outgoing.]

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this opening debate of this parliamentary term, I want to acknowledge the historic nature of this Government. Our country now has an inspiring, new, young Prime Minister, someone who represents generational political change, one of the youngest leaders on the world stage. We have a new Government that truly reflects the MMP system we adopted all the way back in 1996: our most MMP Government we’ve ever seen. For the Greens, who are proudly the world’s oldest national green party, which traces our routes back to 1972 with the Values Party, it’s historic that we have three Green Ministers and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in Government. For my caucus, it is inspiring and historic to have this country’s youngest member of Parliament—the youngest in decades and decades—Chlöe Swarbrick, and also the country’s first refugee MP, Golriz Ghahraman. But, most importantly, for Kiwis it is historic because of the policy agenda of this Government. This is going to be the Government to tackle climate change and inequality to protect our environment.

After nine years, it sure is time for a change. What we saw was an economy that had amongst the highest growth of inequality in the developed world; low wage growth; low productivity; research and development languishing in the bottom half of the OECD; a housing market that locked a whole generation out of ownership; and hundreds of thousands of cold, damp homes, literally, making thousands sick. We saw an economy that poisoned our rivers and saw species threatened with extinction, and a Government that would throw tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money at oil companies to drill, to mine, and to frack. That is why it’s so great to have a historic change of Government, a new, progressive Government.

I think I can quite safely say this is going to be the most climate-friendly Government in our country’s history. It’s at the heart of the confidence and supply agreement we’ve negotiated with the Labour Party, and we’ve set a goal of being a net zero economy by 2050. We’re going to introduce a climate change zero carbon Act. We’re going to introduce and establish a climate change commission. We’re going to set up a green infrastructure fund. We’re going to start working with unions and workers for a just transition from the fossil fuel economy. We’re going to start planning towards 100 percent clean, renewable electricity. We’re going to see more electric cars on our roads and more solar panels on our schools’ roofs. We’re going to drive the research and development into sustainable, low-carbon, environmentally friendly ways of running our economy, be it from farming to manufacturing.

We’re going to be increasing water quality across the country, significantly increasing funding for the Department of Conservation, giving our threatened species a true taonga. It’s something that unites all of us in this country: our love for our environment, our love for our special taonga: our flora and fauna. We’re going to see our cities give Kiwis more options for better public transport and safer walking and cycling. We’re going to fix the mental health system. We’re going to make sure that our school system gives every New Zealand child everything they need to succeed, no matter what their learning needs are. We’re going to see women paid more, to close the gender pay gap. This is what we’re delivering for Kiwis. This is the historic change.

There are lots of other things we can point to in this Chamber, but it’s the policy agenda—putting New Zealanders, the environment, our climate, and our society at the heart of Government. It’s going to be a pretty great three years, and I’m looking forward to rolling out these great positive changes for Kiwis. Kia ora koutou.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, and can I congratulate you and the other presiding officers on your election in this Parliament. I look forward to seeing you in the Chair for the next three years.

Can I also congratulate the new members that undertook their maiden speeches throughout the course of this Address in Reply debate. There was a large number of new members. It’s always great to see new members giving their maiden speeches here and telling us what they’re about, what they stand for, and what they’re going to be looking to achieve, and I particularly want to congratulate the 10 new National MPs that all gave their maiden speeches as well. As a caucus, we were very proud to see them stand on their feet for the first time and introduce themselves to the House, and I’m sure they’re going to achieve great things in their time here as members of Parliament.

It’s very good to be speaking in this debate, and I’m certainly going to be supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The reason why the Leader of the Opposition moved the amendment that he did was because there has been a huge amount of achievement that we were able to undertake in nine years as a National-led Government, and we left this country in a far better place than we inherited it nine years prior. We also left the economy in a great shape. We left many of the civil and public services that we have in New Zealand, like the education system and the health system, in a much better state than we found them, and there was a huge amount of achievement in the social sector for young people, particularly, and for families in this country.

I share the Leader of the Opposition’s view that this new Government we have opposite needs to be held to account for everything they do and ensure that they are delivering more for New Zealanders. They talked a big game. They went out there during the election campaign and said they were going to do a huge amount of things, and now is the time to hold them to account on that. Not just members of Parliament on this side but members of the public in the community will be looking to ensure that the talk that they talked during the election campaign actually results in achievements for New Zealand, and when they fail in receiving achievements through this new Government, the public will be quick to say so, and so will we.

I have been reading and watching the progress of this new Government so far, in the four or five weeks that they’ve been in office. We were told that there was going to be some big honeymoon period. Well, I think they’re going to be wondering where that honeymoon period is, because so far they haven’t done particularly well. I noticed that Kelvin Davis didn’t spend any time on his feet during question time this week. We’ll see whether he’s going to have a go on Wednesday or Thursday. They’ll probably make a good choice if they don’t give him that opportunity. I see Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters are here to answer questions this time—probably a wise move on their part, too. But we saw very quickly during the first two weeks of Parliament that their number one in the team got them through the election, but there wasn’t a huge amount sitting there afterwards.

I think what we’re seeing as well is that this Government is not able to deliver on the rhetoric that they had during the election campaign. The big talk that they had and all the promises that they had in the election campaign are not coming to fruition. In fact, I think very soon in the new year, we’re going to be talking about this Government as the Government of broken promises—the Government that talks big but doesn’t achieve anything.

The first thing I want to talk about—I was looking through the coalition agreement between the Green Party and the Labour Party, and I stumbled across this very interesting set of information. The two parties agree to “Strengthen New Zealand’s democracy by increasing public participation, openness, and transparency around official information.” Well, how does the Green Party stay in the Government with the Labour Party and those other Ministers from New Zealand First, when the very simple set of accountabilities that they should have to this House, the Government is ignoring?

Ministers are refusing to be accountable to this House. We see during question time that people like Winston Peters not able to answer a straight question, but we also know that the written question system is a situation where they’re not prepared to even say what they’ve been doing. They will not say to the public what they’ve—

Jan Logie: The hypocrisy—the hypocrisy!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Calm down, Jan Logie. You know, you might get a chance to be a Minister one day—you never know. She’s not right now. But accountability to this Parliament is so very important.

I also want to understand a bit more about the Green Party’s view on democracy and accountability and transparency. You see, we learnt through an email to a journalist that the Green Party is prepared to trade away electoral law in this country to get a public holiday. This is the party that stood up day after day in this Parliament and talked about the sanctity of electoral law. They talked about the fact that such basic institutions of New Zealand should be respected so wholeheartedly, and here they are saying amongst their colleagues—they didn’t expect it to get out to the media—that they’re prepared to trade away electoral law.

What else are those parties prepared to trade away? We don’t know that, because Winston Peters, who said he’d make this secret deal public, is now refusing to do so. The Prime Minister stood in the Beehive theatrette and danced on the head of a pin, talking about the fact that it was just notes and it didn’t mean all that much. Those 38 pages, or 33 pages—depending on which font it’s in and depending on which ministerial staff member changed the font in the system—tell us exactly what the Government’s going to be up to, but we don’t know, because they don’t believe they’re accountable to the public.

They don’t believe in transparency. They’ve abandoned already, in their first few weeks of being in office, public accountability and transparency, and they want to trade away electoral law just to stay in office, because Winston Peters knows that his party won’t be happy with many of the things they’ve agreed to and he’s concerned—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Whatever.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —his MPs will jump. Is he concerned that Mark Patterson is going to jump? Is he concerned that the other MPs—Fletcher Tabuteau; is he going to jump? Fletcher Tabuteau is quite a talent. No wonder he needs a law to ensure talented people like that remain in his party, when they know what’s in that secret agreement. No one else does.

The other broken promises are racking up pretty fast, as well. They promised a billion trees. Now, we’re hearing it’s going to be only about half a billion.

We heard year after year how the Labour Party was going to send down someone into Pike River—into the mine. Well, now they’ve adopted the National Party position of saying they’ll do that but if it’s safe. That is the correct decision to make. We stand by our view, and we welcome the Labour Party’s coming to the party on that particular situation.

What about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? Oh, we were going to hear about how the Labour Party was going to go in tough and they were going to release everything and they were going to completely change the deal and ensure that all the nasty stuff that the National Party put into TPP wasn’t going to exist. What’s the situation now? They changed a few words in the title. Now, apparently, it’s a whole new deal. Well, Labour has failed on those promises so far.

I want to talk a little bit about Manus Island as well, because it appears that that is the number one foreign policy goal of the new Labour Government—ensuring that that nasty Australian Government does something about the refugees on Manus Island. At the same time that the Prime Minister was overseas talking about ensuring that 150 refugees could come to New Zealand, we were debating in this Parliament whether fathers could have access to the same paid parental leave system as those that mother children. I want to know why the Labour Party was so opposed to fathers having access to paid parental leave at the same time as the mother of the children, and why the Labour Party was happy to say they’re unhappy about that, whilst the Prime Minister was talking about how she wanted to bring 150 refugees to New Zealand. Why does the Prime Minister of New Zealand care more about 150 men on Manus Island than about the fathers in this country that want to take paid parental leave with the mother of their children? That’s the reality of it.

While we were talking about paid parental leave and having an equal opportunity for fathers to have that paid parental leave alongside the mother of their children, for various reasons that’ll be important to their family, the Prime Minister was out there talking about bringing in refugees from Manus Island. Good on her—it was a National Party view as well—but I have to say that seeing the two sitting there side by side in the newspaper wasn’t something I felt particularly comfortable with.

We’ve seen other promises like KiwiBuild being abandoned somewhat in that they’re not going to be building the houses they said they would, but they’re going to buy most of them—another failed promise. The police officers that Stuart Nash said were going to be imported from overseas—they were going to have this big programme to get 1,800 police officers coming into this country—already, he’s backtracking on that as well. And the immigration changes—we heard week after week during the election campaign from New Zealand First about how they were going to stop all those immigrants coming into the country because those nasty immigrants were buying up all the land as foreigners. They’re back-tracking on that as well.

So I want to know why the Labour Party and the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party believe they can hold this together for three years. I want to know what’s in that secret deal, because the public deserves to know. I want to know why those backbenchers up there aren’t asking to see publicly that deal so they know what they’ve signed up for, and I want to know why this Government believes it can horse-trade away something so important like electoral law. So far this is the Government of broken promises. This is a Government that is not going to achieve everything it said it would at the election campaign, and we’re right here to hold them to account. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a good day for New Zealand, as this Government is about to be confirmed by its first confidence vote in this House. Jami-Lee Ross asks, “What makes us think that this Government’s going to be able to hold it together for three years?” And I’ve got one simple answer for him: because we believe collectively that a better New Zealand is possible—something the last Government had stopped believing. They believed that that was as good as it got for New Zealand, and we on this side think that better is possible and that New Zealand’s best days are still ahead of it. We are optimistic and positive about the future of this country. How quickly the members opposite have forgotten the aspirations they once held for this country.

This is a Government that is unified and disciplined, working together in what I think will be recognised in the future as New Zealand’s first genuinely MMP Government: a coalition Government, supported by the Green Party with confidence and supply, working together to make New Zealand a better place, constructively identifying the areas that we can work together on and constructively working through the areas where there may be disagreement. And we will do so in an open and transparent way. We will do so with positivity and optimism, and I think that that is what New Zealanders are looking for.

This is a Government that is already making progress. This week in the House we will confirm in law extra entitlement to paid parental leave, something that this side of the House collectively—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—has campaigned for, for a very long time. I am absolutely delighted to say that when the third reading is completed on Thursday it will not be vetoed by the Minister of Finance. This is not the first time this legislation will have been passed by this House, but it is the first time it will be progressed all the way through to being signed and becoming law, because this Minister of Finance and this Government think that it’s a priority—in stark contrast to the Government we replaced, whose Minister of Finance, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, thought that it should be vetoed. We will deliver on that commitment.

We will deliver on our commitment to ensure that those living in rental houses have warm, dry rental accommodation, and that will be delivered when that bill, introduced by my colleague Andrew Little, now in the name of the new Minister Phil Twyford, will be passed through this House in the coming days as well.

We have already made clear our commitment to deliver the first year of tertiary education and training free for those entering study for the first time next year, and that will be in place from 1 January. I want to be clear about it: that includes people going into trades training. Some of the views of the members opposite suggest that they think that tertiary education is only about those who go to university. Roughly, only a third of school leavers go on to university. This policy will also apply to the others who go on to polytechnic training, training, and on-the-job and workplace training, and it will deliver for New Zealand. Students who were ignored under the last Government will get an extra $50 per week in living costs and in student allowances, also from 1 January next year. That’s in place and that is going to be delivered.

It would be fair to say that over the last decade the tools and levers available to the Government have been finely tuned to ratchet up the cost for those undertaking tertiary study. For the first time in nearly a decade, there is a Government that is committed to lowering the financial barriers to participation in the post-school education system, and I am absolutely proud to be part of that and the work that we have been doing to deliver that and to make that a reality. We know that investment in our people is one of the most important investments a Government can make. Providing opportunities for New Zealanders to upskill and retrain is a high priority for this Government.

We have already made clear our commitment to ban overseas buyers who are soaking up New Zealand homes, and overseas speculators soaking up New Zealand homes, and we will be delivering on that as well. My colleague Andrew Little has already made announcements on delivering on the commitments we have made to the families of the people who were lost at Pike River. And to Jami-Lee Ross, who made much of that, I simply remind him of the words of the former Prime Minister John Key, who went down, looked those families in the eye, and said that he would do whatever it took—whatever it took—to bring their families home. Whatever it took: that was the commitment made by the previous Government. This Government will work with those families. We will make good on the commitments that we have made to them. We won’t simply make promises that we have no intention of keeping.

I’m absolutely delighted and humbled to have been made the Minister of Education in this new Government. It is a job that I have aspired to for quite some time, as members of this House will be aware. I want to acknowledge my predecessor in the role the Hon Nikki Kaye, who is in the House today. When I ran into her not long after she became the Minister of Education she said one of the best things about working with people in education was the level of passion and commitment they have to their job. I want to acknowledge that I have had exactly the same experience. Whilst we might not always agree, the level of commitment shown by the people who work in our education system is truly amazing, and I do want to acknowledge them.

I do want to disagree with the Hon Nikki Kaye on one respect though—in that she referred to our “union mates” in the House the week before last when she was questioning me. On this side of the House we prefer to call them “teachers” rather than our “union mates”, because no Government can deliver on its commitments in education without teachers. Actually, they are the people who do the work on a day-to-day basis to make sure young New Zealanders get the very best possible start, and, increasingly, to make sure adult New Zealanders get second opportunities at learning, because we know that more and more of that is going to be required in the future. As the future of work changes and as the future of the way we live changes, more and more New Zealanders are going to need to re-engage with the education system. I’m really excited by that challenge.

I’m also really excited by the challenge of being Minister of State Services in this Government because I think that we can do an enormous amount to ensure that our public services are more responsive to the lives of New Zealanders. They can act in a way that is more connected rather than operating in the silos that they operate in at the moment. And, again, I have been truly humbled by the level of passion and commitment of those working at the senior levels of the Public Service whom I have had interactions with in my role as Minister of State Services. They are constantly driving for a more responsive, better Public Service. This Government is certainly going to be working them hard to deliver on that because we believe in the power of the State through quality public services to make a big difference in the lives of our citizens. We think that we can do a much better job—better is possible. The message that we had from the previous Government clearly was that this was as good as it got. Well, New Zealanders didn’t agree. New Zealanders had more ambition than that. And no matter what certain members on the other side may choose to claim now, more New Zealanders voted for change at the last election than voted for the status quo, and we will be delivering on that change on this side of the House.

We will be delivering working collaboratively together in an MMP environment to ensure that New Zealanders get the change that they voted for at the last election. New Zealanders were hungry for something different. They were hungry for a Government that had a better vision for the future of New Zealand; that was optimistic about the future; that believed that better is possible; that would treat the role of Government with a degree of respect and with a degree of humility; that would treat New Zealanders with respect and with empathy, as my good friend the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has committed this Government to doing. I am enormously proud to be a member of this Government. I am looking forward to continuing the work that we have already started. We are positive. We are confident. We are optimistic about the future. I’m looking forward to getting on with the job.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I take the opportunity to actually congratulate you—I know I did it personally, but I’d like to do it publicly now—on your elevation to Speaker. I know your encyclopaedic knowledge of Speakers’ Rulings and of the Standing Orders will hold you in very good stead in that role—so congratulations.

I’d like to actually pay tribute to the Minister of Education. He, like most of us, will understand the value of a good education and, certainly, numeracy is very high on that list, and the ability to count to 61 was certainly proved to be failing on the first day of Parliament. Never mind, those national standards will ensure that students can actually count to 61, so let’s hope that continues.

I think some of my colleagues have been very unkind to the new Government, likening it to a three-headed monster and all sorts of things. I don’t like that analogy at all. So I actually thought that a car analogy is far more apt. I think the analogy would start with the main party, the Labour Lada. Now, the Labour Lada is a very old car. It’s not fit for purpose and it’s mostly junky, and it comes up with some very strange ideas. It’s then joined ably by the old Trekka truck, which is New Zealand First. The old Trekka truck, made of plastic, also not fit for purpose, unsafe, and unreliable. Then, of course, we have the third party, which is a rainbow-coloured, electric-powered, 1960s combi van, with a hazy, smoky, unknown substance coming out of it, and dropping its principles every time there is an urgency debate. So that’s our Government and good luck to them, but we will be here holding them to account. And we certainly do need to do that.

I’d have to say that my electorate was very disappointed that the Speech from the Throne didn’t mention the ongoing need for support for the Kaikōura rebuild after the earthquake. I thought that was rather sad, but never mind. We are moving on, and I think it was quite important that a billion dollars is being spent on a road and rail rebuild, and we’re yet to hear much from that side on that. But it’s fantastic work started by the Government ably led by John Key and then Bill English.

Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s the last time I’ll let you cut a ribbon.

STUART SMITH: And it’s moving on fantastically well. I would like to acknowledge Minister Faafoi, who did a great job in opening the new marina. [Interruption] Yes, he does do immigration cases. That’s right. We can’t forget that. It has been a fantastic job to rebuild that marina and get it up and running and just in time for Christmas and the opening of the road.

In fact, when we talk about the election, I thought that was a phenomenal effort by my colleagues, and I’d like to welcome all my “class of 2017” coming into this House. They’re fantastic. Particularly the member from Northland, who fought a good, strong battle to take the seat from some other member—I don’t know who that was—but well done to the member from Northland. It’s interesting to see that when you have electorates—and certainly in our party, when you’re so dominated by electorate MPs—having that pulse of what’s happening—

Hon Tim Macindoe: High-quality electorate MPs.

STUART SMITH: Yes, high-quality electorate MPs—it’s phenomenal—compared to these guys over the other side, but never mind. New Zealand First: how many electorates have they got? Well, they had one—not this time—never mind.

Our economic position is such now that our economy is going to keep going strong for some time. [Bell rung] Thank you. The bad impact of the new Government—

Hon Kris Faafoi: This has got to be the longest two minutes of my life.

STUART SMITH: Yes, well, it’s a bonus. It’s actually a bonus.

Jami-Lee Ross: Labour stuffed up in their timing.

STUART SMITH: That’s right. They couldn’t work out their timing, I guess—again, those numeracy skills. Timing is numeracy skills, isn’t it? Yes. Sixty seconds in a minute, 3,600 seconds in an hour—we could go on. But, look, leaving the economy in such a fine fettle really makes it difficult for them to mess it up in the short term, so we’ve really just got to hold them to task. They’re complaining about the number of questions; I’m still waiting for a number of answers. I know that everybody else is. We’re waiting with bated breath. So we look forward to those questions coming through, and we won’t accept those answers that really are just trying to push it out further and then generate more questions. So we look forward to holding you guys to account, and we look forward to the next three years. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. By way of interjection, a few moments ago, the Hon Ruth Dyson very generously moved an extension of time for my good colleague the member for Kaikōura. I’d like to second that motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think the member knows that the member has to seek it for himself and, seeing he didn’t use his full time anyway, I think it’s a bit unreasonable. He dropped about a minute short. [Interruption] Order! While I’m on my feet, I would like to ask Mr King—I’m sure he’s just sort of sucking on a lolly, but if he could do it less actively, especially when he’s in shot, there will be fewer complaints to the Speaker’s office, thank you.

The question is that the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English be agreed to.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 56, Noes 64.

A party vote was called for on the question, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General in reply to Her Excellency’s speech.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Address in Reply agreed to.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise, Mr Speaker, but in reading out the result of the first vote count, you indicated that the Ayes vote was 56. My understanding, from my count of that, is that they voted 57 votes.

Jami-Lee Ross: Fifty-six National, one ACT in favour of the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr SPEAKER: So we’ll seek leave of the House to amend the previous vote to 57 in favour, 63 against. Is there any objection to that? All right. That’s the case, and my having declared the result of the previous one, I will now read the Address to Her Excellency.

Address in Reply

Presentation to Governor-General

Mr SPEAKER: The Address is as follows:

ADDRESS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

to

Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame Patsy Reddy, Chancellor and Principal Dame Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Principal Companion of The Queen’s Service Order, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Realm of New Zealand.

YOUR EXCELLENCY—

WE, the House of Representatives, thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Fifty Second Parliament.

We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration

Ko te tūmanako nei kia mahi tahi tātou katoa.

[Our hope is that we will work together.]

Address agreed to.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That Mr Speaker, accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of the House, do present the said Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by Her Excellency.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed from 15 November.

Clause 3 Principal Act (continued)

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. We are back in committee on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), where the Opposition has spent several hours in its technical analysis of the bill, trying to understand what it is we are attempting to achieve and asking the Minister to address the simple question: are we asking landlords to insulate houses that were insulated under previous standards and upgrade them to the current standard for insulation, and, if so, what will be the cost of that on both the landlords and the Government? I am disappointed to note that we were unable to get an answer from the Minister of Housing and Urban Development in respect of that fundamental question. So I don’t intend to take up too much more of the committee’s time, frankly. If the Minister is not prepared to answer that fundamental question we are not going to flog a dead horse.

But I would remind the committee and the Minister that in the Speech from the Throne, the Government committed to fostering an open and more democratic society, that it would strengthen transparency around information, and that it’s customary, when primary legislation gives a regulating-making power to the Government, that the intention of that regulation be signalled to the committee in order that we may assess the impact of that and vote for or against it. Indeed, that’s what happened in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which gave rise to the smoke alarms and insulation regulations, which I remind the committee that the Minister in the chair, as the member for Te Atatū, was so opposed to.

He went crusading around the House and the press gallery—I’ll just use this [Shows photo] as an aid for the committee—to remind them that last year the Minister held up two pieces of insulation material: one that was from the 1978 insulation standard, albeit I have to say, Mr Chair, that it wouldn’t have been a residential insulation material because in 1978 they weren’t that colour. That would have been commercial material from a wall space that was far narrower, but that nevertheless had the thermal properties that would reduce heat loss by 82 percent. That wasn’t good enough for the member who is now the Minister. He held up another piece of insulation material much, much thicker, and said that is the standard to which we aspire.

So my question to the Minister is this: will he say in the committee whether it is his intention, if this legislation is passed, to pass a regulation that will require residential properties, including the Government’s own, that were compliant with the standards that were set at the time the insulation was installed to, nevertheless, by 1 July or by the subsequent renewal of the tenancy, upgrade that to the 2008 standard, which is the present one? It’s a simple question. It doesn’t require rocket science to work out. It’s a simple yes or no—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to come back to clause 3.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s right, the amendment to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): When I’m on my feet, you can—thank you. You’re actually talking about clause 4; if you can come back to clause 3.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s quite right. This will be my last intervention to the committee, because I think the case has been established. We are amending the Residential Tenancies Act. Clause 3 says so and our question to the Minister is: how—how—are we amending the Residential Tenancies Act, and what powers are we giving the Minister that he doesn’t already have? Also, what is the cost of that power on the tens of thousands of mum and dad rental owners, and the largest landlord in the country, with around 60,000 houses, many of which are not insulated to the standard to which the Minister now appears to aspire, and what is the cost of that on the Crown? These are fundamental questions. There is no point continuing to answer the same question clause by clause. We’d appreciate an answer.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 13A amended (Contents of tenancy agreement)

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 Section 45 amended (Landlord’s responsibilities)

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to clause 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 New section 132A and cross-heading inserted

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to reply to one of the questions raised by the honourable member Michael Woodhouse, about the regulations, now that we’re discussing clause 6 of the bill, which is basically about the regulation-making power that our amendment will give to the Governor-General. The member very kindly showed the House a photographic image of me, in the old days when we were in Opposition, showing the two different kinds of insulation. One was to convey the thickness of insulation typically found in the 1978 insulation standard that the former National Government’s legislation allows 70,000 to 80,000 rental properties to continue with under their new law. I compared that to the typical thickness of insulation required by the 2008—the most up-to-date—building standard. So my response to the member’s question is that the regulations that we will be developing over the next 18 months, after the bill is passed into law, will certainly require all landlords to implement and meet a higher standard—a more recent standard—than the 1978 standard.

It’s not good enough, in our view, that the current law passed by the National Government allows landlords to have 38-year-old insulation in their property—a 39-year-old insulation standard. The point of this legislation is that we are modernising and upgrading the insulation standards of New Zealand homes. That’s the point of this bill. So we are not going to allow 38-year-old insulation to continue in a house, because that’s simply not good enough. We will be—the Government will be, the officials will be—consulting with the public, with industry, with landlords, with tenants, and with the scientific experts on the appropriate standards for insulation, but I can reassure the member that we will not be allowing some 80,000 New Zealand rental properties that are currently insulated to the 1978 standard to continue with that woefully inadequate standard.

What will be the impact for landlords? I’ll tell the member. It will cost approximately between $3,000 and $5,000 or $6,000 for a landlord to put in a heat pump and insulate a standard New Zealand home. That property, depending on where you are in the country, over the lifetime of that insulation—and let’s say it’s a heat pump—will generate several hundred thousand dollars in gross revenue; that’s what that asset will generate. It’s a very small expense for an asset that generates quite a large amount of revenue.

On top of that—on top of that—our policy is to provide grants of up to $2,000 to assist both landlords and owner-occupiers with that expense. And for the benefit of tenants, we are going to be providing a winter fuel payment—$450 for a person living alone over the five months of winter, and $700 for a multi-occupant household.

In answer to the member’s question about the cost to Housing New Zealand, our estimate is that it’s going to cost about $87 million for Housing New Zealand to meet the standards that are likely to be required under the regulations that will be promulgated under this piece of legislation.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, I must compliment Minister Twyford. It took a while, but we got there. We now know that several hundred thousand 38-year-old properties—in fact, they could well be only 18 years old, because the 1978 standard was in place until 2001. There were some very modern and pretty well-insulated homes that were built in 2001, and what we now know is that for no other reason than the Minister has decided that an 82 percent thermal block is not enough, their owners are going to be forced to pay several thousand dollars in heating and insulation.

One of the things that I will say, and it’s, I think, an encouragement for the 52nd Parliament, is that we have in this debate stayed clear of some of the unfortunate hyperbole that permeated this bill in its first and second readings and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill last year. What we do know is that the worst houses in this country are the ones without any insulation, ceiling or floor, that were constructed prior to the 1978 standard being put in place. But the fact that it might be 38 years old—and I’m a bit older than that—doesn’t make it bad. There are some perfectly adequate 38-year-old cars on the road that are still performing adequately their task. Indeed, the regulation that is in place right now—the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations—requires those insulation materials to be of a reasonable standard, to be fit for purpose. But that’s not going to be good enough.

We now have an estimate of $87 million for the Housing New Zealand bill and the taxpayers’ bill. That hasn’t been verified, because it isn’t part of any regulatory impact statement that’s on the Table for us to examine, but I do acknowledge that the Minister may have got that since we last debated this. But heaven knows what the unnecessary burden on mum and dad landlords is going to be when they find out that their houses—that could be as recent as 16 years old—are not going to be good enough for this Minister.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In the dinner break, I got the calculator out. Thanks to the confirmation by the Minister, we now know that the regulation that would be passed by the passage of this legislation will require all homes constructed prior to 2001—so only 16 years old—and that have not had in that period of time a substantial refit, will be required to upgrade perfectly good insulation in the ceiling and underfloor at a cost of—well, the Minister suggests between $3,000 and $5,000. I think the number is probably closer to $5,000 than $3,000, depending on the ability of the owner to put insulation over the top of, in the case of the ceiling, rather than replace.

He offered an estimate of the costs on the taxpayer for the Housing New Zealand upgrade of $87 million. Now my basic math to that suggests that at $5,000 per dwelling that would insulate only 17,000 of New Zealand’s State houses to the new standard.

Hon Members: How many?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I haven’t been able—17, one-seven, of the 66,000-odd houses that we have—in the time available, to ascertain the proportion of the State housing stock that was constructed prior to 2001, but I would be almost certain that it would be far, far more than 17,000. I wonder if the Minister has made what would be a reasonably elementary but understandable mistake in assuming that the upgrade would be for pre-1978 houses. Indeed, that standard prevailed until 2001 and therefore—if, indeed, his commitment to the regulation is correct, and I’ve no reason to doubt it—all of the houses constructed, private or public, prior to 2001 would be required to be upgraded to the 2008 standard.

I simply ask the Minister two things. Firstly, in respect to the State housing stock, how many of those houses in Housing New Zealand ownership, Government ownership, were constructed prior to 2001, and is it considerably more, as I suspect, than 17,000? Because if it is, the cost to the taxpayer is more likely to be 2½ or three times that amount as we head towards, I don’t know, 40,000, maybe 50,000 of the houses that are in Housing New Zealand ownership constructed prior to that period.

The more pertinent thing, I think, for the many mum and dad landlords that are listening tonight who have just found out that they are going to get a bill sent to them by the Labour Government for about $5,000 in a requirement to upgrade perfectly adequate insulation with thermal properties pretty close to but not exactly the same as what we’ve got now—how many landlords own properties constructed prior to 2001 and will be required to pay that $5,000 bill that the Labour Government, remember, says won’t be passed on to tenants? So the other cost to the Crown is going to be increased income-related rent subsidies—

Hon Amy Adams: That’s right, and accommodation supplement.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —and accommodation supplements. That’s right, Mrs Adams—very, very learned in this matter. But the bill to the Crown is going to be several hundred million dollars more than just the cost of the upgrade of the State housing stock. But, ultimately, the first payers of that are going to be the mum and dad landlords. I would like to know how many of them—maybe 100,000, maybe more—have dwellings constructed prior to 2001; that is possibly half a billion dollars of taxpayer funds into these regulations. The public have a right to know what we are debating tonight.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to clause 6 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 6 as amended agreed to.

Clause 7 Schedule 1A amended

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to clause 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 7 as amended agreed to.

New clause 8 Related and consequential amendments

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to insert new clause 8 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

New clause 8 agreed to.

New schedule

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to insert a new schedule be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

New schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

As the House will be aware, statutes amendment bills are legislative vehicles that make minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament.

The bill as introduced amends 29 Acts administered by 12 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors, omissions, and incorrect references, such as an amendment to the District Court Act of 2016. This amendment allows community magistrates and justices of the peace to deal with contempt of court when hearing proceedings. This power was previously conferred under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 but was inadvertently removed by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act of 2016. This amendment would reinstate this power for community magistrates and justices of the peace.

Another example is the amendment to the Coroners Act 2006 and the Remuneration Authority Act 1977. These amendments allow the Remuneration Authority to determine the salary and principal allowances of the Deputy Chief Coroner. This position was established by the Coroners Amendment Act 2016. However, due to an oversight, that Act did not provide the authority with the explicit power to set the Deputy Chief Coroner’s salary and principal allowances.

Some amendments make non-controversial and supported improvements to how some Acts work in practice. The amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 seek to modernise and improve the operation of the Act. One amendment allows departments to state in their financial statements the cumulative amounts incurred in satisfying court judgments. Previously, the Minister of Finance was required to prepare a statement each financial year with itemised amounts that departments have paid. This amendment ensures departments can follow modern fiscal management practices.

Other changes make technical amendments to facilitate functions of governance. An amendment to the Public Finance Act 1989 ensures that only those reserve boards that earn a substantial amount are captured by auditing requirements. The amendment proposes that reserve boards with total operating expenses or revenues of less than $100,000 per financial year are exempt from auditing requirements. To ensure the threshold continues to be set at an appropriate level, a further amendment allows the Governor-General to change this threshold, following a joint recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Conservation.

A final example is an amendment to the Policing Act 2008 that allows police to efficiently deal with unclaimed property. The amendment removes the requirement that lost property be sold at auction and shortens the length of time that police must look after the property from three months to six weeks. Property that is of little or no monetary value may instead be destroyed or given away, as an alternative.

While all political parties in the Parliament support the amendments proposed in this bill, I look forward to hearing from the committee’s membership in terms of the examination of their views on these matters, as well as any views of the public. The examples of amendments I’ve mentioned demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I look forward to the passage of this bill through its stages and I will work constructively with all parties as such bills are put together in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to take a call on this first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I thank the Associate Minister of Justice for walking us through some of the examples of the matters in the bill. As the Minister has said in his speech, these are, by tradition, uncontroversial and well-supported bills. One thing I thought that the Minister may have wanted to mention was that, of course, this is a bill that our side of the House was in charge of when all the policy work was done, but, of course, they are, as I say, creatures of this House, and, by convention, any member, really, can have any particular change in the bill altered if they think it is controversial and needs more debate.

So it won’t come as any surprise to this House that National will be supporting this legislation. The Minister set out in his contribution some of the changes. In total, I think there are 29 different pieces of legislation that are amended. It probably is worth just mentioning not so much examples but the types of things that these useful bills do allow this House to do in a reasonably efficient way. For example, you’ve got a change to the Animal Welfare Act, which really just enables us to update that process so that modern technology can be brought into play and, without changing the nature of what’s being done, enable a much more efficient process. Through a number of pieces of legislation, the Care of Children Act, Child Support Act, Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, Domestic Violence Act, Family Proceedings Act, and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act, we have some very simple amendments that really just go to the way invoicing is handled and processed—again, just to add more efficiency into the system.

Through the Justices of the Peace Act, the Minister mentioned one change, but one of them, really, is just enabling a recognition of appropriate service—where JPs have had to retire, often through ill health or no fault of their own, where it is appropriate, it will allow them to still use the “JP (retired)” tag that would normally be available only after 10 years’ service. In other situations, it’s correcting errors or just making it simpler for legislation to be understood and applied.

So they are the sort of thing that this House has to treat seriously, and it’s quite right that the bill will go to select committee and be tested to make sure there aren’t unforeseen consequences, but, at the same time, it would be a nonsense if we were to waste the time of the House on each of these being processed as separate amendment bills. So where we can find, as I say, common and uncontroversial changes like this, putting them through the House in this way is something that is actually a very important part of the process and the procedure of Parliament.

As I said, it is a bill that was put together during my time as the Minister of Justice. It’s now in the name of the existing Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, obviously being taken through by his Associate. National supports it and commends it to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m happy to join in the contributions in this House in supporting the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), not to just prolong it but, again, offer my view on the support of this House, acknowledging that this is a legislative vehicle in which we can get technical amendments through the House that wouldn’t necessarily get any time in the House given the legislative programme before us. As the Hon Aupito William Sio mentioned, the Statutes Amendment Bill is a legislative vehicle that makes minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts, and it allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually.

The part that I do want to make most of my contribution on is Part 1, the Animal Welfare Act 1999, clauses 3 and 4. But before I do, can I just give a bit of context as to why this particular part of this bill is important to me as Associate Minister of Agriculture. I just remind us that animal welfare in New Zealand is about caring for animals and it is about caring for our reputation. Some members in the House will be pleased to know that New Zealand is a nation of animal lovers. We rely on animals for companionship and economic prosperity. Sixty-six percent of households own a pet, and $20 billion in animal-related export revenue is important to our State. Our animal welfare system has been ranked first-equal alongside the United Kingdom, Austria, and Switzerland by the global charity World Animal Protection.

Our global reputation as an ethical food producer is enhanced by our commitment to animal welfare. Even isolated cases of poor animal welfare may negatively affect our reputation as ethical producers of animals and animal products. I do want to acknowledge the extra $10 million that we had in Budget 2015 to develop new regulations around improving our compliance and enforcement activities in animal welfare.

To the actual clauses in this bill that I mentioned: clauses 3 and 4. As the previous speaker spoke to, it is around modernising it. The actual clauses talk about trapping and ensuring that we are practising trapping, ensuring that if we are trapping at sunrise we need to be checking the traps 12 hours from sunrise. If the traps have caught any animals, then we’ve got to make sure that 24 hours—that we are checking those traps. Of course, modernisation through technology should be able to tell people that are trapping that they should be able to check their traps. In terms of Part 1 of the Animal Welfare Act, it’s part of a wider commitment to improving animal welfare practices in our country because of the impact it has on our economy.

Just quickly, there are other parts of this bill that I just want to make comment about. The previous speaker talked about—particularly—Parts 3, 4, 5, and 11. All of these parts talk about improving the payment of invoices, and it’s important that we do that, that our systems around legal representation in the courts are as efficient and as effective as possible. But I just thought, because these particular parts all relate to the payment of invoices, whether there’s something more deeper that we need to examine in the system of invoicing for legal representation. I will leave that up to the capable hands of the select committee.

But in closing, there are parts of this particular bill that, when I read them, and I want to mention Part 12—I will mention what they are. Part 12, which is the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act; Part 17, which talks about the Housing Corporation Act; and Part 26, which refers to the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 and consequential amendments. When I read this particular part, I did want to ask questions as to why those particular amendments were necessary. Of course, I’m sure there’s a valid reason why they’ve been caught as part of this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). But I look forward to this bill going to the select committee. I do hope those that are impacted by the various parts—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Who’s chairing that committee?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It must be a hard-working chairperson of the select committee. For the public and those that are impacted by these particular parts, I do hope people take the opportunity. Those particular parts, Parts 12, 17, and 26, for me—there’s really a question around why we are making these changes. When I read the parts of the Act, it’s not quite clear. But, of course, this is the first reading, and I look forward to the full report from the select committee to particularly answer those questions on Parts 12, 17, and 26, as to the need for it. I commend this bill to the House.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): It pleases me greatly to rise and stand in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s also my first opportunity to stand, after my maiden speech, and speak freely, so I’m glad it could be on something as un-meaty and non-controversial as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

As a new MP, this bill seems like common sense. You see, when I tried to explain to my whānau what it was all about, I basically said these bills are a way that we can make lots of small amendments to a whole lot of bills, a whole lot of Acts, all at the same time, without having to go through the rigmarole of creating brand new bills for very minor changes. So that was easy to understand.

I quickly also realised that this is a standard practice and that, actually, you’ve been doing this since the 1950s, and it relieved me that such amendments wouldn’t be so vehemently opposed by the Opposition and that we might actually be making decisions on behalf of New Zealanders all together, which is what the Government should be about.

In this debating chamber, where time is precious, it makes sense to put these bills through all in one go, and while there are a lot of amendments, I’d like to drill down into just a few of them, some of them having already been mentioned. The first one is the Animal Welfare Act, which is both a positive for conservation but also a positive for technology as well, updating the language to allow remote monitoring of live-capture animal traps as an alternative to manual inspection. We are always looking for ways to update our world as we move into this increasingly digital era, and I think that this is the perfect way to do it.

The other one that I wanted to talk about was the Policing Act 2008, which is to, basically, get rid of the little piece that talked about how any item of lost property that the police accumulated would have to go to auction if it was of any kind of value, and also reduce the time that the police have to take in looking after all this lost property, from, essentially, three months down to six weeks. These are amendments that I think are positive—positive because I think it’s a win for the police but also a win for the people of New Zealand and for our communities, so that instead of looking after our lost property, they’re actually out there looking after people and our communities, keeping us nice and safe.

The Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015—that there has been for the purpose of Te Rarawa fisheries advisory committee, basically, advising the Minister. It’s been very blatant in this particular amendment on the utilisation of fish, aquatic life, and seaweed managed under the Fisheries Act. It’s also a triumph for Ngāti Kuri, for Te Aupōuri, and for NgāiTakoto as well, which, according to this particular amendment, will also be catered for. So it is a win for the iwi to have this clarification as well, and I wish them all the best.

As our Opposition colleague has already mentioned, there are quite a few amendments in here to do with Child, Youth and Family Service: the Care of Children Act 2004, the Child Support Act 1991, and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. Many of these amendments and Acts are designed to correct drafting errors, omissions, and oversights, as has already been mentioned, and for this reason I consider this bill to be time-efficient, time-saving, and deserving of support. So, for that reason, I support this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). As has probably been raised by prior speakers to the bill, a Statutes Amendment Bill can include only items that are approved, by all of the parties to this Parliament, as being non-controversial amendments. Because of that, we’re allowed to have an omnibus bill that is not limited in scope as to any one of these subject areas that are covered but that can make individual amendments to a wide range of Acts of Parliament in the same piece of legislation. That, of course, saves time in this Parliament—not quite as much time as we were expecting tonight, because the Opposition don’t seem to be taking any calls. But I see that the former Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, has come to the rescue. I’m sure he’s willing to take a call so as to explain some of the finer points of Part 9, which relates to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 and related amendments.

These amendments are, I think, seen as non-controversial by the House because they arise from a report of the Law Commission, which is titled The Crown in Court: A Review of the Crown Proceedings Act and National Security Information in Proceedings. These amendments, which were recommended by the Law Commission, make amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act and the Bail Act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.

I understand that these amendments to clauses 29 to 31 and 34 to 36 repeal section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act, which is an old piece of legislation dating back to 1950, and make related amendments to the Bail Act 2000 and the Electoral Act 1993. That’s because section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act is now used, generally, in respect of bail money and otherwise applies only to election petitions under the Electoral Act 1993. So, instead of doing it through the Crown Proceedings Act, this amendment changes the Bail Act to replace what used to be in section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act. I think that seems pretty sensible, and therefore I can see why that is recommended as a course.

The other very important matter I would bring to the attention of the House—

Andrew Bayly: How many more minutes? Oh, 6½ minutes.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, one of the many other important matters—it’s a challenge now. It’s a challenge now. I was going to do five, but I’ve got six minutes 42 seconds to go according to the challenge from Opposition members. The next one that I would refer to is Part 13, lucky for some or unlucky for some.

Part 13 deals with changes to the Family Proceedings Act 1980. Now, this is a very minor change to the Family Proceedings Act, but it is an area of law that needs considerable attention because, to be frank, the Family Courts are not working very well in New Zealand as a consequence of some of the amendments that were made by Hon Judith Collins, which stripped out the participation of lawyers, have caused a proliferation of ex parte orders where they are made without reference to the other side. The courts have been so clogged up with ex parte orders that people who are adversely affected by an ex parte order made without notice and without their knowledge have to wait many months in order to get it sorted out, which is a terrible thing when children are, effectively, being held away from one parent by ex parte orders. There’s something there that needs to be sorted out. That will be an issue of more controversy that cannot be dealt with under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), because I would’ve thought that the National Party, having been responsible for that poor process in the Family Court, would probably not agree to it being fixed here. But they have agreed to this minor change, and so I celebrate them for that.

This change is to clause 44, which amends section 162B and, quite sensibly, it says that where there has been a lawyer appointed, in a family proceeding, to represent the interests of the child or just to assist the court—because that sometimes happens when the parties aren’t legally represented or there’s an unusual issue that arises and the judge thinks that there’s a need to have some assistance for the court to tease out the issues—at the moment those invoices where there’s a lawyer appointed to represent the interests of a child or to assist the court, you can’t get those things paid except by clogging up the process and going back to the original court. That is no longer going to be the case now, because it seems that everyone in this Parliament agrees that it would be sensible for that minor matter—the approval of the bill that has been caused to be necessary to be paid because the courts have already ordered that a lawyer be appointed to represent a child or to assist the court. Now the registrar of the court, if this amendment proceeds, is going to be able to authorise that expenditure.

The next part that I would like to refer to is Part 15. Part 15 relates to the Fisheries Act. There’s a section in the Fisheries Act, and I’m told it’s section 255(6), which already protects banks from forfeiture of quota. Now, this is what happens if someone’s found to be breaching the Fisheries Act and plundering our fishery, if they are taking one species and recording it as another, fishing in the wrong zone, or using a net that’s the wrong size—all of these things can create a risk of forfeiture of quota, and it is that penalty that the fisher that acts illegally is at risk of. It’s actually one of the most effective penalties that keeps the fishing industry honest and minimises breaches of the Fisheries Act. In respect of that, if you’re going to forfeit quota, you’ve got to be a bit careful that you’re not prejudicing people other than the offender. So it would be unfair just to rip the quota away and say that the person that had lent money, effectively, secured by a security like a mortgage over the quota—if they lost out as well, that would be unfair. The law already provides, at section 255(6) of the Fisheries Act, that banks be protected from the forfeiture of quota that might otherwise occur simply because the bank has a financial association with the offender. [Bell rung]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you’re someone that has got a financial association with the offending fisher and you’ve got some security interests, well, you’re at risk because you ought not to be able to avoid the consequences of this in that circumstance. But if they’re a bank who has no financial association with an offender, they’re already protected. Now, what the amendment does is extend that protection to non-bank deposit takers. So the protection that is currently afforded to banks is now being afforded, effectively, to other lenders who carry out similar functions to banks. I think that is a good amendment, partly because we know that as our banking system is very reliant on the large Australian-owned banks, and they’re a force for good in New Zealand, it does mean that if you want to have competition from other financial providers to the banking sector, you’ve got to afford them the same protections that the banks get, otherwise they will be suffering a point of competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the banks. Their risks would be higher when lending to a fishing company, and, therefore, they would have to charge a higher interest rate, and that would make them uncompetitive. That’s poor public policy, because we want competitive pressures on the big Australian banks. And so that—that, that, that—is the purpose of Part 15 of this bill, which amends the Fisheries Act 1996.

I’m afraid I’m not going to have time to cover in detail the amendments to the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m thrilled to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

It is always a joy to follow my colleague David Parker. Not only does his intelligence shine through at any contribution that he makes to this House but his fine eye for the detail in important legislation, such as this, never ceases to impress. I think that is why it’s so disappointing that the Opposition—an Opposition that said they were going to participate, that they were the largest of Oppositions at whatever time in history, and that they were going to make sure they were going to scrutinise legislation and scrutinise this Government—doesn’t appear to have understood the legislation or thought that parts of it were important enough to contribute on.

For my contribution, I would like to just draw people’s attention to the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 1999. I will just read what clause 4 does and why that’s so important, because I think the public of New Zealand will be particularly interested in this particular clause. It replaces section 36(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Section 36(1)—for those who don’t know—obliges any person who sets a live-capture trap or causes a live-capture trap to be set to ensure that the trap is inspected within 12 hours after sunrise on each day—each day—the trap remains set, beginning on the day immediately after the day on which the trap is set. Now, it’s important to know that failure to comply with this inspection requirement carries an infringement offence and it will attract an infringement fee of up to $1,000. So that’s up to $1,000 if you set a live trap and you don’t go back within 12 hours after sunrise to check that trap.

Now, you might think that the purpose of this amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) was for the welfare of animals, but it’s not. It’s not for the welfare of animals at all. It’s very interesting. The explanatory note of the bill goes on to say, “The purpose of the amendment is to enable the use of remote monitoring technologies instead of [the] daily manual inspections of traps. These technologies include the use of capture sensors and wireless communication networks.”, and so on.

So it’s interesting. I would have thought that the Opposition would have wanted to have some conversation about the fact that while it is the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the reason for this amendment is actually not necessarily just the welfare of animals. It’s a recognition of a technological advance, and I believe that this Government’s going to be doing some work around trapping in the next three years, so I think it’s opportune that during this Statutes Amendment Bill—

Simon O’Connor: Which of the 33 pages is that on?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Please take a call, Mr O’Connor. There is no better time to take a call and have your voice heard and put on the record, so that the New Zealand public knows that you’ve read the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and have an opinion. But what I think is most interesting too, though, is the fact that there has been an increase in the fine with regard to an offence. The explanatory note of the bill goes on to say that “If a person relies on the use of [an] electronic monitoring provision, the system … must enable the person to meet the person’s obligations”—e.g., check that trap—and “provides that any live animal found in the trap”—

Matt King: Six minutes to go.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —yes, Mr King, that’s right—“must be removed or cared for or must be killed without delay. A person who commits an offence against section 36(2) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 (for an individual) or $25,000 (for a body corporate).”

So while these are non-controversial amendments, they’re not insignificant. So, again, I articulate that it’s disappointing that the Opposition doesn’t see the need to rise and articulate their view around what are quite significant changes: if a body corporate should ignore the amendments that have been made—when this bill goes through its final reading—there is a $25,000 fine. The public needs to know this, because ignorance of the law is not a defence of the law.

The other section I’m particularly interested in is around the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993. It’s a very small change but an important change. The amendment, through clause 9(4), replaces the words “goods before they are given a biosecurity clearance” with the words “uncleared goods to which the authorisation relates”. Now, you might think that’s not important, but, actually, words matter, and Mr Finlayson will know that words matter particularly in the law. Because with the words “goods before they are given a biosecurity clearance”, there was the impression that those goods would automatically receive a biosecurity clearance, and that is not a given. Hence the change and the words “uncleared goods to which the authorisation relates”. This gives the Biosecurity Act 1993 the opportunity, should those goods be received—because that’s who it’s for; it’s to put responsibilities on to persons who are receiving uncleared goods. So the change makes it clear that they do not get a guarantee that those goods will be cleared.

So language is important, words matter, and amendments like this matter—because this is about the small tweaks and nuances that we have inside the legal system, and it is where people will get tripped up, possibly, if they find themselves in front of the courts. And that’s why it’s important to have a full outing of statutes amendment bills like this in this House with all members of the House participating in the conversation and highlighting and bringing, hopefully, their skills and their perspective to the legislation.

I’ve got only a couple more points that I may have the time to touch on, but, as the Minister for Children, I do want to mention the Care of Children Act 2004 amendment, the Child Support Act 1991 amendment, and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 amendment. All of these are a small change to the way a lawyer who has been appointed to represent a child, or to assist the court, may submit his or her invoice for fees and expenses. We heard from the Hon David Parker the reason why this needed to be changed—that there is a clogging up around the system. I mean, there are certainly other areas of this legislation that will need to be addressed in the future. There are other things that need to be reviewed or focused on inside, certainly, the Family Court, but this is just a small, little administrative nuance that will create some efficiencies going forward.

There are some fascinating other parts that the bill covers—[Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Domestic Violence Act 1995 is mentioned. I would have thought the Hon Amy Adams would have highlighted that particularly. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act—I would have thought that Chris Bishop would have been down here with bells on, because, of course, he has a member’s bill tomorrow that also wants to amend that particular Act. I know he has an in-depth knowledge around censorship and the rules, so I thought perhaps he might have been interested in that.

I see that my time is coming to a close, so, unfortunately, I will be required to take my seat. But, as I say, on behalf of New Zealand First, we commend the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House. We know how important these non-controversial changes are. We encourage the Opposition to stand up and participate, because we know that the people they represent would like to hear them articulate and participate in the debate and the conversations inside this House on every piece of legislation, as every piece of legislation affects their lives. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thought I’d get up and speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) briefly. It’s obviously a bill that the whole House is unanimous in its agreement on, on the basis that it is a Statutes Amendment Bill. But I was getting a bit concerned when I saw Minister after Minister after Minister standing up and having to filibuster a Statutes Amendment Bill. I mean, I’ve been here only 6½ to seven years and I’ve never seen Minister after Minister having to stand up and speak on statutes amendment bills like this.

I know that they’ve become very busy Ministers, but to find the time to come down for 10 minutes to speak in the House on a Statutes Amendment Bill—I just want to congratulate them. They clearly have a lot of time on their hands. These statutes amendment bills—[Interruption] Well, they don’t need to interject. I saw the junior Labour whip handing out speaking notes on a Statutes Amendment Bill, so I thought I’d be helpful and use up one of the calls for you.

It’s a Statutes Amendment Bill. It’s one that we normally let go through fairly quickly. They’re simple changes to pieces of legislation, and it’s unnecessary for the House to waste a huge amount of time on it. Therefore, this side of the House does support this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to congratulate you in my first opportunity to do so subsequent to my maiden speech. It’s quite a funny contrast to my maiden speech, being able to reply, to give my input on behalf of the Green Party on this bill, and I’d like to remedy the understanding that Jami-Lee Ross has about the Government’s approach and its confidence and supply partner’s approach to this bill. We absolutely do take it very seriously, and we believe that it could be given the robust discussion that New Zealanders expect from this House.

So, on that point—talking about this being my first speech in this House, in this first reading—it’s quite a contrast, you know, coming in quite idealistic, wanting to change the world, and wanting to tackle all the big issues, and being presented with a relatively non-controversial piece of legislation here in the form of this bill.

So the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is obviously a pretty weighty piece of legislation. I think that the process for this bill also has to be commended. There was quite due cross-party consensus, and a lot of that working together that I think a lot of New Zealanders also want to see, both inside this House—that collegial manner that I think is so important to actually getting things done.

In referring to different clauses in this bill, in Part 1 we’ve got the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Just to echo the sentiments of Tracey Martin, this is something that we are absolutely stoked, as the Green Party, to be supporting because this here is, obviously, something that relates to the mission of Eugenie Sage as Minister of Conservation to get New Zealand predator-free by 2050. But, as the Green Party, we want to make sure that we go about doing that in as humane a manner as possible. It’s not these pests’ fault that they are in New Zealand, and we wouldn’t like to see them suffer for any longer than is necessary, so we’re glad to see that those traps will be inspected within 12 hours after sunrise on each day that the trap remains set.

If I can also draw the members’—all of the members in this House—attention to Part 22, on the Policing Act 2008. Clause 67 amends section 41 of the Policing Act 2008, which is the section on unclaimed property. We as the Green Party are also very happy to be supporting this, because it is moving away from simply disposing of property—waste; not great—to giving away property. This is property that has no monetary value or has only negligible monetary value, or property that is not appropriate or practicable to sell, and, as the Green Party, we are obviously as keen as possible on diverting things away from being waste and on recycling.

So to leave it there, on that point, this is a relatively uncontroversial bill. I would love to see the Opposition stand and make their thoughts known and participate fully, freely, frankly in the democratic process, as I believe all of us in this House were elected to do. This bill is something, I may mention, that the National Party initially instigated, so it’d be great to hear their reasons for supporting—

Andrew Bayly: Let us have a go. Let us have a go. Come on. Let us have a go, Chlӧe.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —this bill and for making it happen. Please do have a go.

Marama Davidson: Have a go—have a go.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Have your go. Thanks, guys.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the honourable Stuart Smith.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you for the promotion, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s richly deserved! Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a contribution on this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a very important bill, but in the spirit of the previous contribution, I don’t want to waste—we’re all against waste.

I want to focus on the Animal Welfare Act of 1999, as someone who had live capture traps—deer traps, to be precise. They were, essentially, a fenced-off area in the bush that the deer would walk through and trip a drop gate, and they’d be captured, and they would stay in there for quite some time, actually, because they’d calm down. It was a much better outcome for the deer to leave them in there—they had plenty of food and plenty of water—and we would then live capture them with, once again, either a net gun or with a dart gun.

I would like to tell a little funny story about one of them. This deer was pretty angry and we didn’t want to give it any more Rompun, which is the drug that you use through the dart gun, because you can overdose and then have a bit of a problem. But it turned out the problem was that when I’d shot it with the dart gun, I thought it had gone into its buttock, but it had in fact gone through the scrotum. So it had missed all the vital organs in the scrotum, but the drug had disappeared out into the air. That’s why it hadn’t really been dosed very well, and so we had quite a rodeo to get it captured. But the deer survived, and it went on to be a good breeding animal. So I support the sentiment of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, can I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your role as the Deputy Speaker. It’s definitely a privilege that I follow on from that 1½ minute contribution by the member Stuart Smith across the floor. Yes, I’m not a Minister either, so I’m fresh off the front line. I am fresh off the front line, so it’s definitely a privilege to be involved in this debate.

My first speech in the House is about the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), a bill that allows—I want to echo all the speakers before me—amendments to be made that would usually receive sufficient priority to progress individually. As a new member, I love the fact that this is achieved through the support of all parties involved in this great Parliament of ours.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I’d like to bring to the discussion—as I said before, I’m fresh off the front line—my involvement as a registered social worker, a care and protection statutory social worker, a youth justice social worker, and a person who led and managed within the ministry that you were last head of, the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. I understand the principle—they talk about the paramountcy principle. It is the paramountcy principle in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 and the Care of Children Act 2004—the principle talks about the child’s best interests and welfare as the first paramount consideration.

So if we look at Part 3, what I want to bring to the House’s attention is where it says “a lawyer”—so, the Care of Child Act 2004 and the bit that talks about “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”. When we go into Part 4 in terms of the Child Support Act 1991, it also has “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”. Then, if we flip the page and go into Part 5, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, it also says “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”, and if we continue on to Part 11, which is on the Domestic Violence Act, it talks about “a lawyer appointed … to represent a child”. Then, if we continue to Part 13, it talks about “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”. Being fresh off the front line, I think this is a principled approach and I support the amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), because it is about resourcing appropriately the people that represent the voices of children—of children who these Acts actually talk about representing their voice.

I am not a lawyer as such, but as a social worker, if I can offer an insight, in terms of working within the Family Court and working within the Youth Court, on what the lawyers go through. Actually, as an ex - social worker, we couldn’t progress things without hearing the children’s voice, and the people that represent the children in court are the lawyers. So I firmly commend this change, not just to fast track things but to take a principled approach that we should put in systems that support the principle of the paramountcy of the child and support those who actually chose those professions because they are about the child.

I look forward to all the discussions that will be coming through the select committee. I look forward to those discussions on this bill before the House, and that’s where I offer the insight in terms of common sense. This is what common sense looks like. A lawyer in Auckland—I could just say a lawyer for a child—could travel in the Auckland traffic from the Family Court to an Oranga Tamariki office to attend a family group conference, then they are back again at 2.15 to the Youth Court to represent a young offender. Then on top of all of that if they are attending Manukau court or Auckland court, they would have to send two separate invoices to all those courts. So it does make sense to have one door where it’s all about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. So I commend and appreciate the changes in this bill.

Justices of the peace have served this nation, New Zealand, for 203 years, since 1814. I would think that the members opposite would spend time to acknowledge the work that justices of the peace do. As a justice of the peace in Auckland, I forgot to change my number, but I think they have my work number from my last place and they’re probably getting the calls at six o’clock or three o’clock in the morning to witness documents. As justices of the peace, we volunteer and we do this because it’s a community service—it is a service that is needed. So I’ve been a justice of the peace for a number of years and I must admit that I haven’t had the opportunity to check whether I can continue on with that role of community service while I now stand privileged to be here in this House.

I just want to acknowledge the work of Gary Nichols. He’s the ministerial duties training coordinator at the Auckland Justices of the Peace Association. He puts in 200 percent effort in getting all our justices of the peace trained, and that includes myself. I must admit, Gary, that I haven’t been to a few trainings in the last year; now you know why I haven’t come to training on a Saturday morning. Justices of the peace attend training in Auckland where there is no parking—so they have to pay for parking out of their own pocket. But, thank goodness, the refreshments are provided—the least you could do. So, as a justice of the peace, it’s something that we take as a responsibility—to serve our community, whether it’s one o’clock in the morning or three o’clock in the morning.

But when there is a time that we are sick—I quite agree with Part 19, if you are unable to carry on those community services that you’ve put your hand up for and that you quietly go about doing your business and stamps and everything. When you put your hand up and you can no longer do it, you can no longer provide that community service that you love doing—you love servicing the community—it is great to see that you can put the “JP (retired)” next to your name even though you haven’t done your 10 years. I really commend that to the House. I look forward to seeing justices of the peace come through this House to see whether the Opposition have something to say about those things, because I know, as a justice of the peace, that when it comes to lots of functions, we used to see the people across the bench in those meetings.

In my experience as a statutory social worker in care and protection and youth justice and in my community involvement as a justice of the peace, I totally support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I look forward to hearing it come back to the House for further debate. On that note I just want to acknowledge, again, the efforts, in terms of the Auckland justices of the peace—I can only talk about Auckland, because I’m a member of the Auckland justices of the peace—their work in terms of tirelessly arming our community service people, who are in the community, day after day, morning after morning, night after night; that have done this community service for New Zealand for the last 203 years.

Now, come on guys, I’m sure that you can make an effort to get up and represent the views of those people that have done that. And, again, I want to acknowledge the Auckland Justices of the Peace Association for the efforts that they have made to make sure that justices of the peace in New Zealand—in particular, in Tāmaki-makau-rau—are well trained. On that note I would like to take my stand and say thank you very much. Malo ‘aupito.

MATT KING (National—Northland): With a challenge like that, how can I refuse? I would like, first of all, this being my first speech after the maiden speech, to acknowledge your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the great job you do.

While I was sitting here, I wanted to let everyone know that there are actually people out there watching this debate, because I’ve got a couple of texts from people from the North.

Hon Tracey Martin: Oh, come on. They’ve got no coverage. How did they text you?

MATT KING: And the texts were along the lines of—thank you, Tracey Martin, we’ve got coverage up there. “What the hell is going on?” is what the texts were. So I texted back to them—I did text back to them—that it costs $453,000 an hour to run this Parliament and at this moment in time—and that’s an old google; so that’s a couple of years old now—

Hon Tracey Martin: They employed you to come to this place, articulate, and represent.

MATT KING: —$453,000 an hour and what’s happened is that—ha, ha! What’s happened is that we agree on these amendments, so there’s nothing to debate about. We agree with everything that is put down here, so we can vote on it right now. We can vote on it right now and we can finish it for the day. But what will happen is that the country will see that Labour have not organised themselves enough.

Andrew Bayly: OK, sit down.

MATT KING: OK. And they haven’t organised themselves enough to actually fill the rest of this evening. And Nuk Korako—you hassled him about having a time-wasting bill, well, this is what you guys are doing now.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment to this role.

You know, we agree with the members of the Opposition that this is a bill of small matters—matters that perhaps are not very large; matters that can be solved by a little bit of agreement; matters that you might think don’t require a debate and don’t require a discussion—but I tell the members of the Opposition that they are wrong in that regard. Parliament is not just a chamber for debating, for combative ideas; it is a chamber to educate people and to help citizens of New Zealand understand why we are passing the laws we are passing. So that is why we are here in this Chamber tonight, talking through these matters, taking this bill of small matters very seriously indeed. The members of the Opposition talk about the expense of running Parliament, but what price democracy—is what I say. What price democracy? Our democracy is worth spending money and time on, and I invite you on the other side of the House to take our democracy seriously.

So I turn now to some of the small matters in this bill, matters that need a little bit of discussion and little bit of enlightenment so that our fellow citizens understand why we are passing these matters. As so many of my friends and colleagues here tonight have started with, I intend to start with Part 1—that is to keep it simple for the Opposition—of this bill, which amends the Animal Welfare Act. You see, this particular part enables instead of people having to trek up and down hills, trek through the bush, to check a live trap—instead, we can embrace modern technology and use electronic monitoring. Now I know I might look like a simple, innocent tax lecturer from Massey University, but I tell you I have walked those trap lines. I have been up and down the dissected hill country in Taranaki, checking traps, making sure that the dead animals are taken out; and that animals that were alive are taken care of. I’ve done those hard yards and those hard hills in Taranaki and it takes a lot of time and effort.

One of the reasons that we are introducing this electronic monitoring of live traps is not just in respect of animal welfare; it’s also a simple cost-saving measure. Now, the Opposition would have us be concerned about cost-saving measures, so I invite them to consider this part very, very seriously indeed. By introducing electronic monitoring of these live traps, we can ensure that we spend less money and we spend less human time and effort ploughing up and down those wretched hills, checking on the traps. It’s a simple, common-sense, and kind measure, and I think we should take it. I’d invite the Opposition to consider exactly why we are passing this small matter, because I tell you those hills are not exactly small.

I want to turn now to another small matter in this bill, and it’s going to take several pages further on to Part 24 of the bill, with the Public Finance Act 1989—a topic dear to my heart. There’s a particular clause in the amendments to the Public Finance Act that is to do with reserves boards and the audit requirements for reserves boards. So diligently, because I want to help my fellow citizens to understand what this particular amendment is about, I searched out what reserve boards are, as defined in the Public Finance Act. And the Public Finance Act says that reserves boards are defined in section 2 of the Reserves Act.

So in the rather handy website, the legislation site for the New Zealand Government, I headed off to the Reserves Act to look up the definition of reserves boards. But there is no definition of reserves boards in the Reserves Act, so that might be another small matter for another similar Act in a few years. But, what there is, is a definition of reserves, and they are various parcels of land that the Government holds as reserves and that are administered by various boards.

So, I thought, well, where are these reserves? What are the particular parcels of land with which we are so concerned? From there, using the wonder of modern technology as we’re going to use for the live animal traps, I headed off to hunt out where these reserves are. They are administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC), with a whole series of other parcels of land. On the DOC website, you can find a list of the various parcels of land that DOC administers, and various reserves. There are 22 of them. It doesn’t exactly say where these reserves are. In fact, that’s all I could find out—that there are 22 of these reserves. So may I suggest to the Opposition that for their question No. 6001, they ask for a list of these reserves?

But it turns out that these reserves actually incur some expenditure each year and, because they fall under the Public Finance Act, they need to be audited. But auditing costs money. There are only a small number of these reserves. They don’t have a lot of revenue associated with them. In fact, I rather suggest they have no revenue associated with them. They have some expenditure associated with them, but it’s a really small amount. So spending large sums auditing them doesn’t seem to be worth the effort.

So there’s an amendment here that suggests that if these reserves have annual expenditure of under $125,000, then an audit is not required. Now you may be worried about this. You may think that perhaps we should audit all public entities—that anything that is using public money should be audited down to the nth degree. But I tell you, these boards are supervised by DOC so we have accountability for them in that way. And it is also utterly consistent with the changes in auditing practice in the past few years.

In the last few years, we have changed auditing practice so that large entities—that’s entities with revenue over $30 million of revenue—have full-scale audits; not-so-large entities—that’s entities with under $30 million of revenue—can have smaller audits; and then there are some very simple rules that apply to tiny entities—entities with under $2 million of assets can have a simple accrual accounting system, and a very simple audit. Once you’re under $125,000, you simply have a set of cash books and a very simple audit indeed. That applies to public entities, it applies to charities, and this amendment is utterly consistent with that approach to auditing small entities—that where the amount of money concerned is actually quite small, then no audit is required. So I think this is a very, very sensible amendment.

Then there is just one more amendment that I wish to consider this evening, and that is Part 27. Now, Part 27 amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act. The State-Owned Enterprises Act, I think, first came into being back in the 1980s—

Hon Andrew Little: 1986.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you—1986. Thank you, Mr Little. But the world has changed since then. And, in particular, something that’s been developed since the 1980s is the internet. So there is a very simple requirement here and, again, it’s a very common-sense one, a very small matter. It’s a matter that suggests that instead of having annual audited accounts, the financial performance, the statements of service intention—all the reporting that we associate with Government entities and with State-owned entities—as well as having them published in dead-tree form, on paper, we embrace the 21st century and they get published on websites as well.

Hon Andrew Little: No!

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you. It’s a very common-sense change. It’s a small change, but it’s a change that brings us smack-bang into the 21st century so that accountability for these entities can be extended, not just to those of us in the House with the pieces of paper in front of us, but to our fellow citizens who, through googling, through searching, through reviewing websites, can themselves engage with our State-owned enterprises, and whether or not they are being properly conducted. So, it’s a very simple change that will allow this to happen. That is the reason that I support this amendment.

So, in closing—very sensible amendments; amendments that we ought to agree to, and I urge the members of the Opposition, for the sake of our fellow citizens, to please stand, debate, explain, and engage with this very sensible bill.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Electronic Interactions Reform Bill

Second Reading

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill be now read a second time.

The bill modernises 17 pieces of legislation to help enable digital interactions between individuals, businesses, and Government. The bill is part of wider efforts towards a digital transformation across Government to meet New Zealanders’ expectations for public services that are easily and readily accessible through digital devices.

As the new Minister of Internal Affairs, I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its constructive consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank the eight submitters on the bill, particularly the two submitters who made oral submissions to the committee. I was particularly pleased to see that the Privacy Commissioner was supportive of the parts of the bill that his submission commented on.

The Government is making good progress on developing digital services so that a wide range of Government services are available both online and offline. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to continue to make it easier for New Zealanders to interact with Government. Progress is being made in developing integrated systems so that people can easily access services from the different agencies and organisations they deal with when they have a significant life event such as having a child.

The first integrated service went live with the first release of SmartStart in December 2016, and the first anniversary of this service is next week. The Department of Internal Affairs, the Inland Revenue Department, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Ministry of Health have worked together to develop SmartStart, which provides step-by-step information on one website to help new parents access a range of Government services. It has had over 150,000 visitors in its first year, and over 10,000 New Zealanders use SmartStart to share their new baby’s registered birth information with the Ministry of Social Development. This removes the need for these new parents to provide a paper birth certificate and fill out an application form, and it has also resulted in approximately 70 percent of them no longer needing to attend a face-to-face interview. It is in this context that this bill supports efforts to ensure New Zealand continues to be a leader in Government digital transformation.

The bill has four parts. Part 1 of the bill amends the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995, the Marriage Act 1955, and the Civil Union Act 2004 to allow individuals to apply electronically for certain services, such as applying for a marriage licence, without having to front up to an office to complete a statutory declaration.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012 to allow consent-based use of an individual’s photograph, collected as part of the application process for a RealMe verified identity.

Part 3 of the bill amends 11 Acts relating to the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio to expressly allow certain types of notices to be served by email. Part 3 also makes amendments to the current requirements for an individual or business to appear before Government agencies for an interview. These amendments will allow the requirements to be met using an audio link or video link to conduct these interactions remotely where both the individual and the agency agree.

Part 4 of the bill amends the Conservation Act 1987 to ensure that fishing and game hunting licence holders can vote online in Fish & Game Council elections, if they wish. Part 4 of the bill also amends the Wildlife Act 1953 to allow the image of the game bird habitat stamp to be incorporated within a game hunting licence, rather than requiring a physical stamp to be stuck to each licence. This change will help the online sale of licences and will meet anticipated future demand for digital licences potentially accessible by portable electronic devices.

The eight public submissions covered all parts of the bill and provided useful perspectives on the proposals. The Government Administration Committee has recommended amendments to the bill in response to some of the issues raised in the submissions to help ensure the bill achieves its stated objectives. The Government supports these, and a number of amendments have been made to reflect these recommendations, which I will speak to briefly.

Technical amendments have been made to Part 1 and include amendments to clauses 14 and 21 in the bill, which amend the Civil Union Act and Marriage Act, respectively, to provide greater certainty that individuals based overseas can apply for a civil union or marriage licence using electronic channels enabled by the bill.

The committee recommended amendments in clauses in Part 2 of the bill that amend the Electronic Identity Verification Act. One recommendation is to amend clause 30 so that the photograph collected as part of the application process for a RealMe verified identity can be used to support the issuance of a broader range of identity documents, such as a passport. This and other minor recommended changes have been made to Part 2 of the bill. I intend to introduce a technical Supplementary Order Paper to enable individuals to update their photographs.

In Part 3 of the bill, the committee recommended a new clause 61A to amend the Fair Trading Act 1986 to allow compulsory interviews to be held by audio link and audiovisual link, with the agreement of the person and the Commerce Commission. This amendment—which is similar to clause 44, which amends the Commerce Act 1986—has been made. The committee also recommended changes to the clauses throughout Part 3 of the bill enabling the service of notices by email. The main purpose of these changes is to clarify that an agency that serves a notice by email needs to prove that it was properly sent to an email address actively used by the recipient.

One amendment has also been made to Part 4 of the bill based on the committee’s recommendations. This is an amendment to clause 82, which amends the Conservation Act 1987 to clarify that the Fish & Game Council can use online voting, but must retain a postal voting option for its members in all council elections.

In its report, the committee also commented on the digital divide. This term generally refers to the gap between those who do and those who do not have internet access, often because of geographic or affordability reasons. It can also cover differences in digital capability, particularly between socio-economic groups. The focus of this bill is to enable access to services through new digital channels for individuals who choose to interact with Government departments.

I agree with the committee about the importance of ensuring all New Zealanders—young and old, whether in cities or regions—have the opportunity to take advantage of digital technology. Internationally, New Zealand generally performs well on measures of digital access, but not all New Zealanders are participating equally in the digital world. The Government will, therefore, pursue a number of initiatives that will be aimed at reducing the digital divide. This includes working with communities, academics, and industry representatives from the digital technology sector to understand the extent of digital disadvantage and to identify practical steps to address this.

We will also identify the digital skills New Zealanders need to remain digitally engaged citizens. This will help Government and non-Government organisations develop a coordinated response to support digital inclusion. I look forward to working with the Minister for Government Digital Services, the Hon Clare Curran, to achieve this.

Once again, I thank the individuals and groups that made submissions on the bill, and the Government Administration Committee for its improvements to the bill. The Electronic Interactions Reform Bill benefits New Zealanders because it will enable New Zealanders to complete more interactions with Government digitally. It is an important contribution to ongoing efforts across Government to provide services designed to meet the needs of New Zealanders in the digital age. I would mention, however, that the Government has a responsibility to ensure that it supports all our citizens, regardless of their age and socio-economic background, to be supported to use and to understand their access to these digital services, if in only one way to cut the cost that they are now meeting when it comes to manual processes, which are the other alternative. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Mr Assistant Speaker, can I being by congratulating you on your assumption as an Assistant Speaker. You always made a wonderful contribution to Treaty bills and I hope the fact that you are now in the Chair doesn’t prevent your continuing to do that.

Can I also congratulate the Minister of Internal Affairs on becoming the Minister. Mr Eagle from Rongotai and I have a very special interest in the internal affairs portfolio because it involves the Chatham Islands, and I expect that he and I will be beating a path to the Minister’s door on behalf of the Chatham Islanders, because there’s much to be done over there. I also congratulate the Minister on an excellent speech tonight, in contradistinction to the rather confused gibberish that lasted for only seven minutes that we had from her leader this afternoon. It really was a rather peculiar performance even by his standards.

I congratulate the Government Administration Committee on dealing with this technical legislation. In a sense, this bill is not unlike the Statutes Amendment Bill that we dealt with at length just in the last few minutes, but the Government Administration Committee, chaired by the now chief Government whip, has very carefully gone through this legislation. I don’t think in this second reading speech I need traverse unnecessarily much of what the Minister has said in her comprehensive speech. It is a very important piece of legislation. There is unanimity across the House on this issue of ensuring that New Zealanders should be able to interact with the Government digitally so far as is possible, and that is why there are quite a number of pieces of legislation that this omnibus bill is going to amend in order to achieve that aim of improved digital interaction.

The Minister has spoken in detail and so I won’t repeat her about the amendments to allow certain services offered by Births, Deaths and Marriages to be completed without the necessity for statutory declarations, and also some proposals to remove some restrictions on the use of photographs, and those provisions seem to be eminently sensible.

I was particularly interested in the amendments that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has proposed. These relate to requirements for individuals to appear before Government agencies in certain proceedings, and also allowing certain types of notices to be provided electronically. I won’t go through every amendment to the legislation referred to in Part 3, but simply, sir, refer the House to Subpart 1, which deals with amendments to the Commerce Act, and that provides the flavour of what follows in the other consequential amendments. Section 98 of the Commerce Act provides that the Commerce Commission has the power to require a person to supply information or documents in evidence, and there are two amendments that will be made to section 98. The first is that someone can appear before the commission either through an audio link or an audiovisual link. I was surprised when I read that that it hadn’t been done years ago, because that seems to make a lot of sense.

The other point that is of importance relates, for example, to section 102 of the Commerce Act, amended in clause 45, and that is dealing with the issue of emailing people. In other words, one can either deliver a notice to the person who is going to be summonsed under section 98 of the Commerce Act or email it to them, and then there are some requirements set out in the bill that deal with how the onus of proof on whether the document was emailed and whether it was received is dealt with. So these are all very sensible amendments to bring the legislation into the 21st century.

As I said, I could go through the other subparts, but that would seem to be a waste of time. I was interested to hear in the previous debate the earnest challenges from some of the new MPs on the other side that we should all stand up and fill the Chamber with our eloquence, and be sort of like Wagner operas—sounds good, but they do go on and on and on. I prefer the approach of cutting to the chase, saying what needs to be said in as succinct a manner as possible. That has always been my style, and I commend it to members of the Government. Dr Webb would benefit greatly from that, because in my experience, as a lecturer he tended towards the Wagnerian opera style.

The only other point that I would make relates to the issue in Part 4, which is the issue of enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting to be conducted, for some reason, by fish and game organisations. Look, that all, again, sounds incredibly sensible. Let Fish & Game electronically vote—but not as often as they like; only vote once—in accordance with the requirements of section 26Z of the Conservation Act.

I would say this to the Minister of Conservation. One of the things I was interested in when I was Attorney-General was revising statutes to get rid of hideous sections like “section 26ZZH” or whatever, and, indeed, we began this little jihad some years ago with bringing together a revision of all the legislation relating to contract and commercial law. I want to place on record and congratulate parliamentary counsel, who recently won a supreme plain English award for the way in which that legislation has been revised. I would certainly hope that the Conservation Act could be revised at some stage in the future, because that kind of way of setting out sections is rather cumbersome indeed.

So they’re really the only points I want to make. As I say, my preference is not to witter on, like Mr Peters did this afternoon, in a vague and incoherent manner, but to really cut to the chase, say what needs to be said, and commend the bill to the House.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister for Government Digital Services): Well, for someone who professes not to like Wagnerian operas, Christopher Finlayson did tend to witter on a bit during that speech. I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, which they describe as an omnibus bill because it amends a whole bunch of different Acts. Behind that lies quite a significant purpose, which this new Government supports in principle, in terms of the populace and citizens being able to interact more through electronic means with their Government. However, along with that goes a responsibility of Government to ensure that nobody is left behind and that nobody is disenfranchised and unable to access the technology and therefore unable to communicate with their Government. Unfortunately, that part of the equation has been woefully ignored by the previous Government in its approach right throughout the last nine years.

You—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but the people out there listening tonight—will notice a significant, in fact massive, difference in approach from this new Government, which takes a very progressive, modern approach to communication between citizens and Government, but, importantly, one that does not leave people behind. I know that the Minister of Internal Affairs made reference to this in her speech, and I’m sure that we will be working in accord on that very matter, along with other Ministers, as we go forward into this new era of hope and what I describe as digital inclusion, which is an extremely important place for us to be.

As the new Minister for Government Digital Services, I, of course, support any moves that make it easier for New Zealanders to access public services, which include that drive towards more effective digital services across Government, because the digital transformation of Government is part of a wider and critical transformation of our whole society from increased use of digital technologies—for our economy as well as the way that Government communicates and does business with its citizens. I want to reiterate that the previous Government was all about pushing New Zealanders to interact with the Government digitally, which this bill represents, but not at all about ensuring that all New Zealanders were able to do so. Labour and coalition Government members who were then in Opposition made mention of this in the commentary to this piece of legislation, where the impact of the digital divide was raised as a significant issue and questions were asked about what this Government was going to do about it. So I want to spend a few minutes actually speaking about that very matter and just exactly what the digital divide is.

Of course, there hasn’t been a great deal of research done in this country on this, because the Opposition now, the previous Government, really did not put any weight on it and was not interested in pursuing it. But the World Internet Project estimates that 8 to 9 percent of New Zealanders, or around one in every 11 people, are not regular users of the internet, while a further 11 percent are low-level or light users. That adds up to one in every five who use the internet sparingly or not at all, and that is just the basis of the research that we have now. There needs to be a lot more research on this.

The 2020 Communications Trust estimates that around 40,000 households with school-aged children don’t have access to the internet. Affordability is a key issue, and it’s great to see that organisations like the 2020 Communications Trust, which runs Computers in Homes, have been doing such important work in this space. Of course, the previous Government axed the funding to them. It was one of the very few programmes that were out there trying to close the digital divide, and of course they axed the funding to them. We, of course, will be going in the opposite direction. Otago University has done work on a social deprivation index that has identified the lack of internet access at home as being the highest-weighted factor affecting social deprivation for working-age New Zealanders. What that tells us is that lack of access to the internet is rapidly becoming, and has already become, a new measure of poverty in this country.

So we have a bill before the House tonight, which we support, that has potential, without the work being done to close the digital divides, to widen those divides in our country, as more and more interactions are being done electronically between Government and citizens, and yet the gaps are not being identified, they’re not being measured, and nothing is being done about them. In fact, under the previous Government, programmes were being axed. Of course, we raised this when we were in Opposition; we get into Government and discover that that certainly is the case, and that the research is very light, the emphasis that the previous Government paid was almost negligible, and that there is a lot of work to be done.

This Government is committed to creating a digital inclusion blueprint for New Zealand to be doing the research on: where those digital divides are between rural and urban communities; where people inside urban communities are not able to afford internet access at home; where our children are going to school where there is computer access, are going home at night with an expectation that they will do their homework online, and are unable to because mum and dad have a prepaid phone with no data access—those children are being denied their opportunities for the future; where older people are unable and do not have the skills to interact with Government online, whether it’s ordering a new birth certificate, whether it’s getting a new passport, whatever; and where people who are on low incomes and who are being required by Work and Income to interact digitally with the Government are unable to.

This is creating disadvantage. It’s disenfranchising large tracts of our population. The previous Government really didn’t give a stuff.

Chris Bishop: Oh, that’s rubbish.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Well, Mr Bishop, then you get up—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Why doesn’t he get up and give a speech about why the previous Government axed the funding for Computers in Homes, which was the only programme funded by that Government, which was started by the previous Labour Government—

Chris Bishop: Oh, was it?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes, it was. So you get up—sorry, not you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Why doesn’t he get up and present the evidence as to how his previous Government was committed to closing the digital divide.

In conclusion, this is a bill that goes to digital transformation. But if you want to transform the country, you have to take the whole country with you, in order to be effective. If you are widening the gap and making our society more unequal, and making digital inequality the new measure of poverty, then that’s a fail. This new Government will not. It will close that digital divide and it will make it a priority.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s great to be able to take a call on the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I think one of the great reasons why it’s so good to be able to talk about this piece of legislation is because we continue to progress National’s legislative agenda through the House this evening.

Hon Andrew Little: Because they couldn’t finish the job.

SIMEON BROWN: While this is another omnibus piece of legislation—well, we’ve actually got legislation on the Order Paper, and we had a lot more to do, unlike the new Government, which is yet to put its own bills on the Table.

But let’s talk about the piece of legislation that we’re talking about tonight. It’s great to see that this bill is going through, because it is about putting into force our Better Public Services goal: 70 percent of the most common interactions to be online. This Government made great progress about ensuring that more and more transactions were taking place online. I don’t know why people don’t like doing things online, because whenever I would ring up IRD or StudyLink and listen to their terrible music, it really wanted you to get online and do all your interactions on there.

We’ve made some great progress: 52 percent of all transactions in March 2016, up from 29.9 percent in June 2012. This is about continuing to implement that programme now, across a whole wide range of other legislation, to allow more and more people to be able to use our online systems to be able to do that. So I would like to commend this bill to the House as another great example of National continuing to improve New Zealand’s ability to interact online. Thank you.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak to the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. It’s also the first time I’m actually speaking in the House after my maiden speech, and possibly the first time I’m speaking with you in the chair, so I’d like to extend my congratulations to you and to your presiding officers, and to the Ministers—[Interruption] Shall I go on?

This bill is a cross-agency omnibus bill that amends 17 Acts to allow certain Government services and legislative requirements to be delivered electronically. I will go into some of the aspects of the bill that I particularly like so that I can speak, I guess, a little bit more to how I feel it will be beneficial to all New Zealanders. The proposals affect Acts that are administered by primarily three Government departments, and those are, namely, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It’s part of ongoing information management and digital transformation work in the State sector, as the Minister of Internal Affairs has also pointed out previously.

In essence, this bill makes it easier for individuals and businesses to interact with Government, and that is important. This Government has made it abundantly clear that we will prioritise increasing public participation, increasing openness, and increasing transparency. This bill makes good progress towards that goal, as it moves many of our ministries squarely into the 21st century. It moves our ministries into the digital age, and it allows them to communicate more easily with New Zealanders as well.

There are four distinct parts to this bill. The first part allows for certain services offered by Births, Deaths and Marriages to be applied for without requiring written statutory declarations. It also proposes to remove some of the restrictions on the use of photographs that are stored in the RealMe verification services, with the consent of the individual concerned, of course.

The proposals related to MBIE, or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, allow people or businesses to appear before Government agencies via electronic means in certain circumstances. That means that they would be able to be interviewed using things like audio and video technology. I mean, I’ve spent a fair few hours in teleconferences and video conferences, and know how beneficial that can be, especially in an age where so many of us are time poor. My understanding is that it’s going to save everyone involved quite a bit of time and money and effort, which is a great thing.

I imagine this would be particularly beneficial, and as I was reading this bill and researching it, a number of people I know personally sprang to mind who would benefit from this—particularly people who have young families, for whom travel is quite difficult and involves a lot of planning, forethought, and childcare provisions as well; those who struggle to find money for travel; and those who live in rural areas. MBIE’s proposals would also allow for certain types of notices to be provided electronically.

The proposals relating to the Department of Conservation would allow game hunting licences to be sold online. It would also allow—and this is the part of the bill that excites me, particularly—online voting, as was mentioned previously, for Fish & Game Council elections. This is something that’s been talked about time and again in the past: the need for us to move towards electronic voting. I mean, if we can do it for the Fish & Game Council elections, that means this takes us one step closer to online voting in a number of different elections. So many have spoken to me about online voting, whether it’s local government elections or central government elections as well, and this takes us closer to that reality. So I’m quite excited about this part of this bill.

It is also important to note that there were some concerns that were expressed during the first reading of this bill that have been considered by the Government Administration Committee, which of course was the select committee that examined this bill. It is important, also, to note that the select committee recommends that this bill be passed with the proposed amendments, which the Government agrees to. I’m also pleased that the Privacy Commissioner was supportive of the specific parts of the bill that his submission commented on.

One of the concerns raised during the first reading of this bill, and one of the concerns that was considered by the select committee, was around the digital divide. There are a number of factors that lead to that gap of the internet haves and have-nots, those who will be able to benefit from this digital transformation and those who may not be able to. Some of these barriers include ethnicity; language barriers; digital literacy is another one; geography, of course—where you live in New Zealand—and people with disabilities also. Age and household income continue to be the two biggest dividers, the two greatest factors that determine whether people, whether families can access the internet and, therefore, benefit from this transformation that we are debating here today.

As previously mentioned by the Minister, Tracey Martin, the focus of this bill is to enable access to services through various digital channels for those who choose to interact with Government online, but, of course, if we’re here debating the benefits of democracy as well, or the importance of democracy, then the onus is on us to ensure that we bridge that gap or we close that gap so that there are more people who are able to benefit from this digital transformation. Therefore, this must be addressed. It was, as I mentioned previously, addressed or considered by the committee and mentioned in the committee’s report. The ability to interact with Government easily should not be limited just to the young and those with deep pockets; it should be available to, and accessible by, everyone, and that’s why this Government will work closely—we’ve said we’ll work closely—with industry representatives, with different communities, with academics, and with key stakeholders so that we’re able to determine the extent of the digital disadvantage and also to take some practical measures to address that gap.

In addition, though, and this is what we have to acknowledge, this bill being passed in this Government means that—this is a Government that has already said we will be focusing on so many other aspects of lifting people out of income deprivation. We have a strong focus on that across the board, with a specific focus on those who are most in need. We’ve committed to making sure that there is decent, secure work that is available that pays enough for everyone to live with dignity. We will focus on fixing the health crisis, the housing crisis, and making sure that we have better transport that gets our cities moving again, and all of these will go a long way in ensuring that our families are lifted out of income deprivation, out of poverty, so that there are more people who can benefit from this digital transformation as well.

This is not only a sensible bill; it’s one that embraces the 21st century. Government is the linchpin user of ICT in our economy, the largest single user of technology. This is something that is innovative, is visionary, and enables us to be the best country that we can be for all New Zealanders. It increases trust between people and the Government. All New Zealanders deserve open and transparent democracy. The internet and digital tools are instrumental in us achieving that trust, in us insuring that we can bridge those gaps so that more New Zealanders are able to benefit from these changes from this bill and what it will achieve for us all.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I rise to also support this bill, and just to the previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, I really enjoyed your speech there. Sorry to hear about the recent incident on Ponsonby Road, but if she moved to a safe place like Clutha-Southland, we don’t have any of these types of activities or crime down there. It’s a great place, and the people are even better.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Now that Todd’s gone.

HAMISH WALKER: That’s a bit cheap. In the previous speeches, no one’s actually mentioned the benefits this bill brings to rural New Zealand. We’ve got farmers that are busy. During lambing, farmers can’t take time to drive an hour or two to town to do simple Government procedures. The second-largest city in New Zealand is actually rural New Zealand. If you take the population, we’ve got roughly 600,000 to 620,000 people that live in rural New Zealand. Clutha-Southland is vastly rural. We’ve got Queenstown, we’ve got Gore, Balclutha, Te Ānau, and last Thursday I was in Milford Sound. I drove about four hours from home to Milford Sound, and they’ve got a workforce there now of around about 200 to 250, throughout the year. It’s not like these people can just drive down, five minutes down the road, or catch a bus, to use Government services; they’ve actually got to drive through Te Ānau, on to Invercargill or Gore, which can take three or four hours. If they are going on to Invercargill, I highly recommend they stop in at Jim Gray’s house for a lovely cup of tea and a lovely muffin. Just watch his wife’s cooking, because if you go there too much, the guts will expand.

I support this bill. Just a couple of points. Section 26Z, amended by clause 82—Fish & Game Council voting online. This is a good initiative, and I commend Minister Curran for taking up this bill. Just secondly, Part 4, clause 82, amends section 26Z of the Conservation Act, which means that with online voting farmers can actually stay on their farm, work in their businesses, and they don’t have to waste time going to town. So I commend Minister Curran for this bill. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Kia ora. I am glad to be rising for the Green Party, for the second time tonight, to speak to another fantastic piece of legislation.

Simeon Brown: National legislation—National legislation.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The House is broadly in agreement about this bill. It’s straightforward, it’s common-sense—common-sense is not a piece of termination that I like to use frequently; it’s more often associated with the likes of Simeon Brown, who is making his point known across the House at the moment. I’d like to commend the Hon Tracey Martin for this bill—it is Tracey’s bill; I would like to confirm that.

Something that it is always important to be cautious of—and to echo the sentiments of the Hon Clare Curran—is that we need to have an awareness of the digital divide, which currently is present in New Zealand and is absolutely one of the indicators of inequality. On that point, we have to strike the balance between not shutting people out, i.e., convenience, but also the likes of accessibility.

On that point, too, I would also like to raise the point of privacy. I note that online photographic storage is something that was flagged by the Privacy Commissioner. They noted the need to go through a privacy impact statement, so that is something that I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that is something the Green Party would like to see, but, still, we stand in support of this bill.

On the point of online voting, this is something that’s often lauded as a bit of a panacea for engagement and turnout and participation in elections, so we may see that the Fish & Game councils may be run off their feet with engagement in elections. This is something that I also want to ensure that we in this House are aware of when we’re talking about increasing engagement by way of online voting, because it is something that can be vulnerable to attack, to hacks and otherwise, by some of those people who may be looking to rig those elections.

This is something that I recently experienced in the Forest & Bird Bird of the Year competition, which, as the campaign manager for the kererū—one of three people managing the campaign for the kererū—

Chris Bishop: A fine bird.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: A fine bird. A fine bird who, I think, really characterises many of us in this House. One hundred votes were fraudulently cast for the white-faced heron.

Chris Bishop: What an outrage.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: What an absolute outrage. So that is something that I would like to draw all members’ attention to, as one of the potential vulnerabilities of online voting. Unfortunately, just to conclude that story, the mighty kererū was robbed, characteristically, I might add, by the kea, of the bird of the year title. But we’ll be back in 2018. We will succeed. We will win.

In summation, the Green Party would like to commend this bill to the House. We are in agreement that it is absolutely straightforward and common sense.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution this evening. Can I congratulate you on your new role as Assistant Speaker. When we specifically think about this very important bill, the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, it gives me an opportunity to think back to 2009 when I was the Minister of Internal Affairs, when we were doing some strategic thinking about online usage, uptake of broadband, and making it easier for customers to verify themselves online. Now it’s great to see some more changes being made. The transformation that’s been made in recent times, particularly with passports now being able to be applied for online—that is a big transformation that was delivered by the National Government in the previous term. This bill, indeed, carries on with some of that good work.

It also talks about electronic voting, and I guess that is the way of the future, when we think about this House and democracy and how we are always keen to get more engagement from voters up and down the country. Certainly, electronic voting is a way to enable a greater participation in New Zealand’s democracy. But I guess that comes with some challenges as well, because we need to ensure that we can indeed verify each individual so that those people that are choosing to vote online are indeed those particular individuals and not someone else.

This bill also talks about the digital divide, and, I guess, the haves and have-nots—those people that are fortunate to have broadband right into their homes or their businesses. We heard another contributor on this side of the House talking about rural New Zealand. For still a large chunk of New Zealanders out in the heartland, it is certainly very challenging to get access to broadband.

The National Government rolled out a significant investment over the last nine years—ultra-fast broadband one and two, focusing on some of those smaller towns. Also, the Rural Broadband Initiative, which has enabled access for a lot of those hard-to-reach locations throughout New Zealand. Also, mobile blackspots—there was a big initiative there to allow people with cellphones to be able to make emergency calls. So there is a lot happening in this space, and this reform bill that we are debating this evening will go a long way to ensure that progress continues to be made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Paul Eagle—a 5-minute call.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and congratulations on your role. The last time I was speaking, there was a swimming pool over here, so I’ve moved this way to avoid that and to make sure I get it right this time. It’s my pleasure to support Minister Martin and, of course, Minister Curran in their work here. I also want to just acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson as the committee chair who helped lead this piece of work through. I don’t want to repeat much, but I do want to just acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson. He talked about succinctness, and he ran a succinct campaign. I think he had nine hoardings and went to nine meetings, but he did come up with the quote of the campaign, which was that if he did win he would call for a recount. I was going to pay the fee for him to do that, but, of course, the rest is history.

I think this is the “Making Life Easier for Kiwis Bill”, because when I read through it, it talks about a whole range of things that others have talked about that make life easier for most Kiwis—not all, but most. I thought I’d just concentrate on a few things that have been said and a few bits and pieces that I’ve picked out. I picked out what the MP for Pakuranga has reminded us of: this Better Public Services agenda that was led by the previous Government. They wanted—I think you said 70 percent of transactions online by the end of this year. Somewhere in the notes, it talks about that they got to 52 percent. But, really, the only big things that happened there were that the ministries got bigger, the cost of restructuring these departments got bigger—everything got bigger, except for what the purpose of Better Public Services was for. So I don’t want to call it a failure outright, but close to—close to.

Hon Nathan Guy: I wouldn’t do that yet. You’ve only been here for five minutes.

PAUL EAGLE: That’s right. I wouldn’t call it a failure just yet. The other thing, though, that the notes pick up on is online security and secure data. That was a hive of information, because we’ve talked lots about the local government elections, where we could have had those being online. They weren’t, and I’m glad. I want them to go online, but I’m glad that local government wasn’t used as the guinea pig, because several in the IT sector were saying to me, “Look, we cannot have these online because the Government cannot prove to us that all will go well.”

Look, I’ve got a list here, and the list is huge. In terms of protecting public information, we had leaks galore. We had health—in fact, we had health senior officials in 2015 having to swear that they did not leak the information. We had 6,000 names and addresses of individuals leaked, or however else you want to describe it, and the information go yonder in 2012. I’m not even going to talk about Novopay, nor the IRD issue with Rt Hon Winston Peters, but the issue of securing online information and data I think needs to be addressed.

We’ve also talked lots about the digital divide. I know we’ve had the information there on those who don’t have the internet. I think what the Department of Internal Affairs talked about is that 93 percent of people do actually have access. I know that just up the road there in Newtown, in my electorate, you have something there called SmartNewtown. That’s a local government - funded resource where people can go in who don’t have much, they can log in for nothing, you’ve got 20 computers set up, and they can communicate with their homeland in the language that they choose to, in the time that they have, for no money. How simple such a service is. But, look, let’s try and do our best to get the information that we need to get out to people like that more easily. I’m really happy, and it’s my pleasure, to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of this bill. I want to just focus on one particular part, a part that particularly interests me, section 102, in clause 45, which talks about the legitimacy of email as a modality for delivering notices and documents. This interests me because, amongst other things, for a decade or so, I worked at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. In the 1970s, the thinking is, probably a quarter of all the world’s email traversed that organisation. So I have a deep background in the early email days.

I’m particularly interested in the mechanisms that the Commerce Act will allow for documents to be delivered. There are four of them: “(a) delivering it to the person; or (b) leaving it at the person’s usual or last known [address] … (c) sending it by post to the person’s usual or last known [address] …”—and it’s this fourth part round here, around email, that interests me—“(d) emailing it to the person at an email address that is used by the person.” It’s that very first part—“emailing it to the person”—and I’m sure the select committee thought this through, but I just wonder: what if the email is a company or a corporate email and not a person?

The reason I raise that is because if we look further down at sections 388A(f) and 388A(g), in clause 48, it clearly differentiates emailing it to the director and emailing it to the company. So there seems to be some difference between a person as a director and a company. Just that very first part up there, part (d), “emailing it to the person at an email address”—I’m sure this has been well thought through, but I just wanted to raise it in this contribution. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): As a new member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I wonder whether I could put myself in the position of arriving late but claiming all the credit. In any event, I do want to acknowledge the former chairperson, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and all other members of the Government Administration Committee of the last Parliament. The select committee examined the bill and released its report in April. This is a cross-agency omnibus bill seeking to examine and update 17 pieces of legislation, to help enable digital interactions between individuals, businesses, and government agencies. The Minister who is responsible for this bill, the Hon Tracey Martin, and all other members who spoke earlier have listed all the details and proposed functions of the four parts of this bill. I tend to follow the former Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and try to take a succinct approach.

I read with great interest, in an article published in Computerworld magazine in 2016, that Inland Revenue had begun accepting digital signatures with Mind Your Own Business (MYOB), which claimed to be the first accounting software provider to support the facility. The use of digital signatures by Inland Revenue would redefine how businesses interact with the organisation. The IRD guidelines allow documents such as tax returns to be filed with an electronic signature rather than in writing, meaning there will be no need to print, sign, and send the forms to Inland Revenue. MYOB also said that it had been working with Inland Revenue to find ways of simplifying a range of compliance and taxation proposals, and had also worked with the Government on the introduction of e-GST as well as on changes to provisional taxation, to allow it to be calculated and paid directly through a business accounting software package.

Two years ago, a New Zealander had her identity electronically stolen and used online by someone in Russia. The situation is unfortunate, but could serve as a timely reminder that we do need to closely scrutinise how this type of electronic activity is carried out. So this bill has taken a balanced approach.

The Government Administration Committee also analysed and discussed what they called a digital divide. Now, this is a term that generally refers to the gap between those who do and those who do not have internet access, often because of geographic or affordability reasons; it can also cover differences in digital capacity between socio-economic groups. It has just refined the view that there is a great deal of urgency for us to get the infrastructure and basic investment, in that regard, right.

I tend not to use too much of the House’s time. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Mr Assistant Speaker, I rise and just take a call. First of all, can I just acknowledge your ascension to the role of the Assistant Speaker and thank you that your character and your nature truly suit the role that you’ve been called to. I look forward to your adjudication through the House.

I want to also acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin in this opportunity, because what I do realise is that Tracey Martin, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, will have the honour of actually being at every citizenship ceremony, and she’ll be able to give a speech where she welcomes people along. Previously, it was the Hon Peter Dunne that had that privilege, but she’ll have that privilege. So I just want to acknowledge you, and thank you—

Hon Tracey Martin: I’ve done it in local government. It’s wonderful.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —and local government as well—in particular also for this bill.

This would be your first legislation coming through the House: the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. As you’ve said, and you’ve stated in your speech, this is about ensuring that the reform improves the interactions with the public. I think it’s fair to say, and I’m glad that in your speech—unlike some other members that sort of totally bagged the previous Government. This is a bill that has been a long time coming. It’s been worked through the Government Administration Committee as well, so it has had the support and the input of the previous Government as well.

The one part I do want to bring to the attention of the House is Part 4 of this, where clause 82 amends section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987. Where that becomes important is because it actually then allows for both electronic voting and postal voting to be able to take place.

I know that the previous Green member David Clendon—he and I were on the Justice and Electoral Committee. The whole point around digital technology and platforms is that while it’s important to improve efficiency, it isn’t the only form. I think I like the balance in this, and I want to acknowledge that he was also of the same mind that we are too. What was important to us, when we heard submissions when our digital technicians came in, they, hand on heart, said to us that—this was not in this select committee; it was in the Justice and Electoral Committee—there was no organisation that could 100 percent prove that online voting could be tampered with.

We’ve had some proof from Chlöe Swarbrick, who talked about the fate of the kererū and its voting. As humorous as it was, what it does prove is the fact that there needs to be options with both. I think, most importantly, the electronic transaction gives—in Part 4—an opportunity for using both of those together. So I just want to highlight that. I think this is a good bill. We’re supporting it anyway as it moves forward in the second reading. Thank you.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, I wish, firstly, to congratulate you on your election to your new position. It’s good to see you sitting in the Chair. First of all, I would like to say, in speaking on the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, it’s important that we strike a balance, as we’ve heard tonight already. It’s a great thing to see: making Government more accessible to New Zealanders—that’s a good thing—not only New Zealanders but, I note, also to businesses—to make transactions and communicating with Government far more accessible. But it is important that there is a balance struck by ensuring that we take all New Zealanders with us and not letting this so-called—as we’ve heard tonight—digital divide make participation more difficult.

We note that there’s been a series of concerns raised through the Government Administration Committee, and we’ve heard also that it’s one in every five New Zealanders who, in fact, don’t have access to the internet regularly. I know that where I come from, in Hutt South, there are many children who go home at night who don’t have the internet in their homes and who don’t have access to a computer, and so have to use either libraries or a friend’s house. So it’s important that we remember to make sure that the next generation of New Zealanders are participating in this new wave of change that we are initiating through this bill.

There is also another area we need to look at. It’s the generation of New Zealanders who didn’t grow up with computers, who might not, through economic or socio-economic means, be excluded but through their own technological awareness. I know for a fact that my mum has tried to turn off the TV with her cellphone more than once, and there must be other New Zealanders out there who are challenged by the fact of getting to terms with new technology.

It’s been noted that there’s a series of initiatives in place that are able to counter this concern. We have a cross-agency digital economy work programme that aims to support the growth of the digital sector and the uptake of smart use of ICT across the economy. Also, there was research initiated by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in December 2016 that aims to gain insights around the current levels of digital exclusion and capability. A digital services heat map will be produced that shows how the trust and InternetNZ are updating, that maps and digital initiatives by location, type, and also programme, which is encouraging to see, and also research on international initiatives that assesses countries’ effectiveness in dealing with digital exclusion and improving digital capability.

But I do believe that the greatest initiative to address the risk of having a digital divide would be this Labour-led Government’s Families Package, which will be coming into force shortly. It’s by making sure that we have families who are receiving the basics in their lives through ensuring we invest in health, education, and housing, and not give tax cuts to those at the top—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: —who already have computers—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will come back to the bill.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: It is this Labour-led Government’s initiative to make sure that we have a fair society in order for all families to be able to afford to have access to the internet and have access to their computers. That’s why we are extending Working for Families to 30,000 more, introducing a Best Start payment to help families with costs in the child’s early years, and introducing a winter energy payment to superannuitants and those on main benefits—so that everybody in New Zealand has the money to go and purchase a computer and pay their weekly bills to access the internet. That is how we address the digital divide in New Zealand.

As a former public servant, I also would like to say that having communication flows inside of Government is always a priority. The amount of time taken up with paper and paper-pushing takes a lot of cost on to the taxpayer. Having more effective flows and being able to communicate, whether it be online or through digital online cameras, is a fine way of making sure meetings and paperwork are not having the Government’s time taken up unnecessarily.

It’s interesting to see how the uptake of new technology has increased over time. When we think back to when the first ways of communicating or getting information was over the radio and think about how that took over time for people to get their radio and get that up and running. Television—the first TV sets that we saw were people getting information, and that uptake increased more quickly than radio. Now, with the increase of internet, that uptake has been faster than ever. When we see the rate and the level of New Zealanders that are engaging through Facebook, through Twitter, and through Snapchat, and we see how ready people are to engage through the internet, it is a good sign that the Government needs to get on board and grasp the opportunity of more effective communication with a wider range of people, but we must ensure we do that in a way that reaches everybody.

It’s good to see that there is agreement across the House on this piece of legislation. It’s good to see that there is agreement from all parties that we need to be making the New Zealand Government far more accessible to New Zealanders. I look forward to seeing New Zealanders and businesses taking full advantage of a far more accessible Government here in New Zealand. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.

Subordinate legislation confirmation bills are an annual event and usually mark the rapid arrival of Christmas. Their purpose is to confirm, by Act of Parliament, regulations that would otherwise lapse at a particular date. The process is set out in the Legislation Act 2012, having been clarified and detailed by the Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Act 2015. There is no fixed category of regulations that have to be subject to this procedure, but they tend to be those that are towards the edge of what is regarded as acceptable use of regulation-making powers, and, indeed, the Regulations Review Committee has suggested that four categories of regulation should be considered especially suitable for statutory confirmation. These are regulations that are emergency regulations, regulations imposing a financial charge in the nature of a tax, regulations amending the empowering Act or another Act—or Henry VIII clauses—and regulations dealing with issues of policy under the authority of a broad empowering provision.

This second reading debate is the only opportunity that the House has, as a whole, to consider a bill such as this. The first reading is without debate, as is the third reading, which will follow the second reading forthwith. It’s important that the House passes the bill by the end of the year, as any duties or levies that have been paid under a regulation that is not confirmed by the due date have to be returned to those who have paid them—a complex and expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

The detailed scrutiny of the bill and the regulations that it validates was done on the House’s behalf by the Regulations Review Committee, most capably chaired by the Hon David Parker—a Labour MP—assisted by two members who returned after the election: Michael Wood and Chris Bishop, the latter being a National MP; and two, of course, who did not return to the House after the election: the Hon Craig Foss and the Hon Chester Borrows.

This year’s bill confirms delegated legislation made under six Acts: the Commodity Levies Act 1990, dealing with chicks and eggs; Customs and Excise Act 1996; the Education Act 1989; the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989; the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001; and the Social Security Act 1964.

The regulations under the Customs and Excise Act that are to be confirmed place strict limitations upon the importing of southern bluefin tuna, raise tobacco duties, ban the import of high-powered lasers, and adjust duties on alcohol in line with increases in the Consumers Price Index.

The Commodity Levies (Eggs) Order 2016 imposes a levy of 36 cents a chick when sold for egg production.

Chris Bishop: Is that right?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It also defines what a chicken is, Mr Bishop.

Simeon Brown: What is a chicken?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A member of the species Gallus domesticus—I’m surprised that the honourable member did not know that—which, of course, would be useful for someone like the Hon Chris Hipkins, whose notes I’ve had the benefit of casting my eye over prior to arriving in the House tonight, because he, of course, was thrown out of the Chamber for using the word “chicken” once upon a time. It is late at night, Mr Assistant Speaker, and these are the things that we use to entertain us.

The education regulations clarify the rules around eligibility for tuition subsidies, a matter that is going to have the attention of this House very soon. Regulations made under the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 concern rates of levies or duties for the petrol or engine fuel levy or gas safety monitoring and energy efficiency levy. Various rates of benefits and allowances are increased by the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2017. Finally, accommodation supplements are raised and area definitions relating to them are altered to better meet the effects of the National Government’s inflated rental market.

The wide range of regulations confirmed by the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) show the value of regulation making as a tool for the executive to respond to changing circumstances in a way that is quicker and more appropriate than the full legislative process would allow yet still subjects these important pieces of Government decision making to the scrutiny of Parliament by means of referral to the Regulations Review Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s interesting what you learn every single day, and tonight I learnt the technical definition of a chicken. It’s very good, because there was some story about “Mr Chicken Little”, but I don’t think that was referring to anyone around here, ha!

It’s good to be able to take a call on this legislation, the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3), which is the second reading in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins. The Government—

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.