Wednesday, 29 November 2017

WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2017

WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Leave to Move Motion without Notice—United Nations Resolution 181, 70th Anniversary

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion to recognise the 70th anniversary of Resolution 181 of the United Nations, regarding the recognition of Israel.

Mr SPEAKER: That has not been circulated in a way to me, and leave will not be granted.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s a new rule.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, Mr Bridges, any member can object; one has. It will continue, and I do want to say to Mr Robertson and other members that there is going to be a tighter arrangement around whether or not the House debates motions without notice. There have been previous agreements in the Business Committee, and it is my intention—especially with quite a lot of support from the Deputy Prime Minister—to make sure that the motions that are debated are ones that are serious and infrequent.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Government Financial Position—Capital Spending Pressures

1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What specific examples of capital spending pressures has he been advised of in preparing for budget 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve been advised of significant capital spending pressures across multiple portfolios, including defence, education, and health. For example, district health boards (DHBs) have signalled a required capital spend of $14 billion over the next 10 years, which will require $9 billion of additional Crown funding. This signalled investment requirement is higher than at any time since DHBs were established, reflecting nine long years of under-investment. I have also been advised of $20 billion of potential spending for defence stemming from Defence White Paper 2016, which does not appear in capital spending forecasts.

Kiritapu Allan: Was the funding path for defence capital spending made clear at the time of the announcement of the white paper?

Hon Steven Joyce: Yes, it was.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On the contrary. While the then Minister of Defence claimed that there was now “a degree of funding certainty that enables them to plan with confidence out to 2030 and beyond.”, in reality, as one commentator has said, the National Government never accurately costed it and made no provision in any of its long-term forecasts to pay for it. In fact, the previous Minister of Finance has now said that the previous Government had hoped to stretch out the book dates for some capital purchases to be made. This is far from providing certainty.

Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government going to address the issue of defence capital spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the coalition agreement indicates, the first step for the Government is to re-examine the defence procurement programme. We believe that we can find better value for money for New Zealanders as we look to fund our future defence needs. This is the responsible thing to do given the mess left by the previous Government.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister aware that the defence capital plan is for $20 billion of expenditure over 15 years and is able to be funded by a combination of depreciation and the nearly $110 billion of unallocated capital funding over that same period of time, and does he consider that his increasingly frequent attempts to divert attention from his plan to ramp up debt risk looking a little silly?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can answer any one of those three questions.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will not be lectured by that member, who grew Government net debt by $15 billion on his watch. If there is anyone in this House who needs to take responsibility for debt levels, it’s that member. I would also say that the $110 billion he mentioned is based on some heroic assumptions that he made, is heavily back-loaded, and, in fact, contains only $33 million of forward spending in the next 10 years.

Hon Steven Joyce: I seek leave to table the Fiscal Strategy Report from Budget 2017, which clearly lays out—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I warned Dr Coleman when he tried something similar—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Gosh, you’ve got a long memory.

Mr SPEAKER: The member might have a short time in here. I warned Dr Coleman when he attempted to table something that was already in the public arena and, in fact, had already been tabled, that I regarded that as disorderly because it is trifling with the House, and it will not continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In this age of much-vaunted transparency, openness, and budgetary honesty, how was this forward expenditure described in the last document that you received?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As commentators have said, there was no provision in any of the long-term forecasts to pay for this, and it was, as one commentator said, never accurately costed. Those would not be the actions of either a responsible or a transparent Government.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No. 1 yesterday; if so, does she also agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s answers to Oral Question No. 2 yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister stand by her answer yesterday in the House in relation to the 33-page coalition document that “nothing has been given to Ministers”; and, if so, how does she reconcile that with her Minister for Children’s comments yesterday that she has a copy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As was clearly stated in the House yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister, he acknowledged that before his members became Ministers, they were aware and familiar with negotiation documents.

Hon Paula Bennett: So can the Prime Minister confirm no other Ministers currently hold a copy of the 33- or 32-page coalition document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in the House yesterday, as Prime Minister I have not circulated any document to Ministers since they have been sworn in, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister outlined yesterday, his members may have had contact with negotiation documents before they were sworn in.

Hon Paula Bennett: How many Ministers have a copy of the document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said, I have not circulated that document, as Prime Minister, to Ministers.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think I can anticipate it. I think I am going to ask the Prime Minister to have another go at answering the question.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can only answer in reference to my role as Prime Minister, and as Prime Minister I have not circulated any such documents from the coalition negotiations to my Ministers.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not the question I asked. If she doesn’t know how many Ministers have it—I was very clear, very precise, because that’s what you ask of us—I think it’s fair for her to say that.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure that the Prime Minister has responsibility for documents that were circulated to people who are Ministers, before they were Ministers. I think that’s what the member’s asking, and when I’m contemplating whether or not people kept documents, that is certainly not something for which she has responsibility, or I would expect that she would have knowledge.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 156/4 makes clear that the Prime Minister can be questioned about coalition agreements, and so my submission is she is here, the questions are to be answered, and if they’re able to be answered, well, they should be answered.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and the area that the Prime Minister can be asked about is how they do affect Government policy. She’s indicated, certainly in the House yesterday, that currently they are not. Then, I think, because they are not the formal coalition documents, they’re not the things that have been signed and published, and in fact we’ve had an assurance today that the Prime Minister has not circulated them to Ministers. So I think we‘ve reached a point where people are going to have to be more innovative in their questioning if they’re going to be in order.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that no employee of Ministerial Services currently holds a copy of the long coalition document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know that of course some of my staff have been privy to negotiation documents. In fact, some of them were at the negotiating table. But my expectation of my staff now, as Government, is that they work to the confidence and supply agreement, the coalition agreement, and the fiscal plan, because those are the official agreements that we have signed up to.

Hon Paula Bennett: Have any officials seen the document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have previously said, I as Prime Minister have never circulated this document to officials, nor have I circulated it to Ministers. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t know how I could be any clearer. I have not circulated—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to remind both some very loud members on my left and the Prime Minister that when I do stand up, everyone should be quiet. What I was interrupting the Prime Minister to say is that she has completed her answer. There was no need to add any more to it.

Hon Paula Bennett: How does she reconcile, then, her answer just now with her statement yesterday, and I quote, “Nothing has been given to Ministers. Nothing has been given to Government departments or officials.”—so have any Government officials seen the document?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, which is what I just said.

Hon Paula Bennett: No, it’s not what you said, so it’s great that you finally did.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms Bennett, I did not answer the question.

Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, I thought it was an inside voice. Does she agree, then, with her Deputy Prime Minister, as she stated yesterday, that work is going on on the GDP per capita and the unemployment measure—both things that you agreed to during the negotiations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The reference to unemployment measures is in the coalition agreement, which has been circulated publicly and widely, and the reference to GDP measures was in the Speech from the Throne. As I’ve said, where there are areas that we will pursue, we will put them out in the public, which is exactly what we have done.

Hon Paula Bennett: Then has the finance Minister got a copy of the document, since both of those policy areas are in it, and has he seen it to be working on those measures?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member for Wellington Central was at the negotiating table. He was privy to all of the negotiating documents and discussions because he was there.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents

3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 2 yesterday; if so, does he also agree with the Prime Minister’s answers to Oral Question No. 1 yesterday?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): To the first part, the honourable member asked nine questions—or attempted questions—yesterday. I answered the six successful questions, and I stand by all of those answers. To the second part, the Prime Minister was asked nine questions yesterday. I heard them, I read them, I agree with them, and today’s Wednesday.

Hon Paula Bennett: You’re amazing.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms Bennett.

Hon Paula Bennett: On what date was the coalition document abbreviated?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have no idea as to the exact date that a smart staff member decided to change the font and take the coalition document down from 38 to 33 pages. We were rather busy at the time, and you’ll understand that that wasn’t our major concern.

Hon Paula Bennett: How, then, does the Deputy Prime Minister know that that was done by a staff member under New Zealand First when, in fact, he doesn’t know the date of when the font was changed, and on 25 October he stated that it was 38 pages long, and then, on 26 October, he was sworn in as a Minister? So was one of his secretaries sitting there at midnight on the 25th deciding they would change the font to make it more precise?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if one wants to behave like a Philadelphia lawyer you might ask a question like that, but the reality is that it was changed and it was changed by a person in our operations and that person has confirmed it with me since then so that I could come here and, with pointed accuracy, answer these questions.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is that person employed by Ministerial Services?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just make it very clear that until we were sworn in, those people were paid for by Parliamentary Service, and that’s why it’s not caught by the Official Information Act.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very, very precise in: was that person employed—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and what I am yet to see the relevance of is whether a particular Parliamentary Service employee is now employed by Ministerial Services. I’m not sure that it’s a relevant question.

Hon Paula Bennett: So, actually, this does go to the heart of whether or not this is an official document, and I believe—and the point that I’m trying to make in here is that if it’s been worked on since he’s been a Minister by a ministerial staffer, then that actually makes it an official document. Now, we can argue whether that’s right or wrong, but that’s my line of questioning, and I would like to pursue it by having my questions answered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, it would be apparent to the meanest mind that to form a coalition, you have to have an agreement. It is quite possible, therefore, that it’d be inevitable the agreement would be decided upon in writing before the coalition is signed off, not after.

Hon Simon Bridges: I think this goes to the very basic point we were discussing earlier in the points of order, which is that, in terms of Speaker’s ruling 156/4, coalition agreements can be the subject of questioning, and it’s really about whether it’s Government business. That’s fundamentally the question of whether it’s Parliamentary Service or Ministerial Services. So this has to be, I’d suggest to you, a relevant line of questioning for us to pursue.

Clayton Mitchell: Referring to the point that the member raised with Speaker’s ruling 156/4, it actually specifically talks about the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Right, well, I think we’ll leave that point on one side. I think the important question is whether or not someone has been working on something as a Ministerial Services employee. I have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that the change was made before the change of Government and, therefore, you know, people might have a different angle. There might be a question of further work on the document, and the member might want to pursue that. But at that time of change, I think we’ve had a pretty clear assurance that it couldn’t have been a Ministerial Services employee because the Rt Hon Winston Peters, at the time, was not a Minister.

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, one of the answers that he’s given this time was that, actually, he wasn’t sure of the date, and I have—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I, unlike some other members, have been listening, and I have heard him say that it occurred before the change of Government.

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

Mr SPEAKER: If this is going to be pursuing the same matter, Mr Bridges, I don’t want to hear it. If it’s a completely new matter, I will.

Hon Simon Bridges: This is in relation to a critical matter for both the Government and the Opposition. That’s why I raise these points of order. The point of order is this: I appreciate the position you’ve outlined in terms of facts. I agree; I was listening to that. But what the member has asked is whether this person is now a Ministerial Services worker. That is—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If that’s an area of questioning that the members want to pursue, they can. But it will be slightly challenging getting it within order for a new question. It’s not currently relevant.

Hon Paula Bennett: When he clearly stated on 25 October that there was a 38-page document, he was then sworn in as a Minister the following day. Is he saying that between him discussing his 38-page document and being sworn in, that the font was changed in that document and it was by a New Zealand First staffer and not by someone ultimately—well, they could have been employed by Ministerial Services?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This might sound like an earth-shattering event, but the reality of it all is that—

Hon Simon Bridges: You thought it was pretty important back then.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And so did you at the time, I recall, and you’ve never recovered. I want to say it very clearly that my memory was of that size, and I was told by the staff member that, actually, we fonted it down to 33 pages. That’s why I corrected it when the members were asking the question, in the interests of accuracy.

Hon Paula Bennett: So why doesn’t the Minister just simply release the document that he describes in many different ways, or, as the Herald said today, it is “a fruitcake of disparate ideas and undeveloped policy”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I regard that as a compliment, coming from that paper—and its declining readership explains why. So I won’t waste my time or Parliament’s or the listeners’ time.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why have you got it safely locked in a safe in your office, when a secretary has it on a computer and, simply, keeps changing the font?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because—if I could just say it from a chronological point of view—it was fonted down and then went to the safe. Anyone that’s got any sense of logic would have worked it out before making a fool of themselves, but there’s an old English saying: the malady of ignorance is being ignorant without knowing it.

Housing Market—Financial Stability Report

4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What reports has he received about the impact of the Government’s housing policy?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member starts, I am going to indicate that the National Party has two further supplementaries.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I have received the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report, which announces an easing of loan-to-value (LVR) mortgage restrictions. The Reserve Bank says that this move is possible, in part, due to Government housing policies that are, and I quote, “expected to have a dampening effect on the housing market.” Members on this side of the House have long highlighted the way that LVRs lock first-home buyers out of the market, and we welcome this decision.

Marja Lubeck: What else does the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report say about the Government’s housing policies?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Reserve Bank says, and I quote, “the Government has announced a number of policies that are likely to reduce housing demand and increase housing supply”, ”they are likely to reduce house price inflation expectations and weaken demand for housing, particularly from investors seeking capital gains”, “this is likely to see the gradual reduction in housing market risks”, “If sustained, slower house price growth should lead to a continued moderation in household credit growth and reduce the potential for a significant house price correction.”

Marja Lubeck: What did the Reserve Bank have to say about housing under the previous policies?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I thank the member for that question. This time last year, the Financial Stability Report said, and I quote, “Vulnerabilities in the housing market—

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to interrupt the member. The member has responsibility for neither the time period nor the organisation.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister seen a report that, despite the Minister saying that Treasury advice to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to inform its Monetary Policy Statement was incorrect and that he’d called them into his office, the Reserve Bank had not received any other advice and are standing beside their working assumptions?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We respectfully disagree with the commentary that the Reserve Bank made about the suggestion of a private sector offset for KiwiBuild policies. We have had discussions about that and about the full impact of the KiwiBuild policy. I’m confident that we’re proceeding on the same page.

Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Treasury Costings

5. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What specific policies did the Treasury cost as a consequence of the recent Government formation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury advise me that as a consequence of the Government formation, they have been involved in the costings and the policies within the Government’s 100-day plan. As a matter of course, they are now working with departments on the costings of all policies that will be in Budget 2018, which are clearly too numerous to detail to the House in question time.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This particular question was one that was debated quite a bit with the Clerk’s Office to get it within the Standing Orders. It makes a request about specific policies that Treasury costed. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I don’t think he’s answered the question about that at all.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, the questioner asked me what Treasury has done as a consequence of the recent Government formation. Consequences are things that happen after an event. I have described the things that happened after the Government formation.

Mr SPEAKER: The problem I have, Mr Robertson, is it does start off with “What specific policies”. I’m absolutely certain that in the end, when the Minister said that they were too numerous to quantify all of them and to be specific about, I think he could have been more helpful, and I advise him next time to tell us three or four. I will give him another chance.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, Treasury has been looking into the costings of the 100-day plan. This includes the Tax Working Group, the Families Package, costs around the Overseas Investment Act changes, social housing, and the restarting of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund contribution.

Hon Steven Joyce: Has Treasury conducted costings on the regional provincial growth fund, and has an assessment been made at this stage of the split between capital and operating and also the split between new and recycled money; and, if so, what is the approximate nature of those splits.

Mr SPEAKER: And I think there were actually—I mean, I know the Minister is not experienced in this area, but I think there were five supplementaries there.

Hon Steven Joyce: No, there were three.

Mr SPEAKER: Three with either/ors, but yes.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury has been involved in early discussions about the shape and the criteria of the provincial growth fund, but those are at very early stages.

Hon Steven Joyce: What specific policies did Treasury cost for the Labour Party during the recent Government formation negotiations?

Mr SPEAKER: That’s not a matter for which the Minister has any ministerial responsibility.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when this was discussed with the Clerk, the reliance was on Speaker’s ruling 159/3, and that makes it quite clear that, as you say, the current Government is not responsible for the last Government’s actions. I think the issue here, though, is what you’ve got is a situation where it’s about an entity—in this case, Treasury—that spans the Governments and that is providing advice specifically for the new, incoming Government. So my submission to you is it’s clearly within the Standing Orders. It’s clearly relevant to what this Government is doing, and you should allow it.

Mr SPEAKER: Well—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I need the member, because, clearly, when there is a question that’s been contentious or there’s been contention around it, I am briefed. However, I would prefer that discussions that are held outside the House with officials aren’t—the details of them are not brought in here, because in the end, the shape of the question is my responsibility, with the member who’s asked it. I think it is quite clear that there is not ministerial responsibility for costings, just as there is no responsibility on the part of Mr Robertson for the costings for any other negotiations that happened at that time.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind your previous ruling then, when the Minister has made reference to costings of some type already in question time, is it within the Standing Orders to ask a follow-up question in that regard?

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister has referred to Treasury costings done before the formation of the Government and has relied on those in the House, then at that stage he can be questioned on them.

Hon Steven Joyce: What are the specific policy ideas he had in mind when he replied yesterday in question time, to a question regarding fiscal costings, “We did access Treasury for a handful of specific policy ideas.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can say that that was in the area of existing liability for pay claims facing the Government.

Hon Steven Joyce: If that’s all that the finance Minister costed with the specific policy costings at that time, then how can he have confidence that the coalition agreement that he’s now responsible for executing as finance Minister can be achieved within his fiscal parameters he holds so dear?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The responsibility for costings during a coalition period lies with the State Services Commission and involves a range of agencies who would be providing information; Treasury is just one of those.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister confirm whether there is anything further in the either 32- or 33-page secret coalition addendum that would add to the fiscal costs of this coalition Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The costs in the formal coalition agreement, the confidence and supply agreement, are being worked on fully, and I am absolutely confident that they can be met within the Budget 2018 guidelines. Those are the guiding documents of this coalition; no other document that the member might be referring to.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question around the document that’s being debated—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I should have ruled the member out at the time. I apologise for being too kind to him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether or not, even as a matter of personal opinion formed after some time in this House, he thinks these questions are in danger of putting Mogadon out of business?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: No, not a chance.

Partnership Schools—Potential Closures

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: Can he still say with some confidence that the four partnership schools contracted to open in 2019 will not go ahead; if not, what reassurances has he given the sponsors of those contracts that their contracts will be honoured?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Officials are currently in discussions with some partnership school sponsors and will soon be in discussions will all of the others. I don’t believe it’s in the public interest to release further information, legal or otherwise, on the implications that the removal of the charter school model could have for those schools while those discussions are taking place.

David Seymour: Is it not in the interests of the parents and children considering those schools and other partnership schools to know at least what sort of time line the Minister might have for a decision?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that is a reasonable thing for them to ask, and I have been very clear that we won’t be rushing that discussion process. We won’t be pre-empting it, either. And we will certainly give plenty of notice before any change is made or implemented.

David Seymour: Why did the Speech from the Throne say that all pre-committed irrigation projects would go ahead while partnership schools face such uncertainty; to wit, does this Government put culverts ahead of kids?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have any ministerial responsibility for irrigation projects.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking about partnership schools simply with reference to another policy—

Mr SPEAKER: The member tried a relatively smart approach and got a relatively smart answer. It’s more or less what would be expected.

David Seymour: Thank you. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wonder if the Leader of the House might be generous enough to give ACT another supplementary so that I might continue this rout of the Minister of Education.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Go on then.

David Seymour: Will the Minister visit any partnership schools before he closes them?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t want to pre-empt the discussions that we might have with them, as the member did in the final part of his question.

Tertiary Education—Living Costs

7. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How many students will receive additional assistance with living costs in 2018?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: more than 130,000 students will be $50 a week better off from 1 January as a result of this Government’s commitment to increase student allowance base rates and the amount that students can borrow for living costs. This Government understands the pressure that students and their families are under as they seek to gain the skills and qualifications they need to get ahead in life, and we will back them.

Jamie Strange: Will this support go only to university students or will other tertiary students benefit as well?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m advised that more than half of student allowance recipients, and more than a third of students who borrow for living costs, come from outside the university sector, including polytechnics and other tertiary education providers. This is a broad-based change that benefits a wide range of students studying in all kinds of occupations.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he tell the House why, if the student allowance remains targeted to those most in need, his free-fees policy is not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s made a very clear commitment to progressively remove the financial barriers to participation in education, and we will continue year after year, Budget after Budget to make more steps towards that. The introduction of a first year of free post-school education and training next year is the first step of what, I’m sure, will be many over a very long period of time that this Government is in office.

Provincial Growth Fund—Funding Sources and Decision Making

8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to his $1 billion-a-year Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regional Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: In the context in which they were given, yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with his statement last week on the fund, that his expectation is that it will be fresh capital?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Could he repeat that?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the member’s being really good; he’s talking to me, but he’s not quite getting the mike.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with his statement last week on the fund, that his expectation is that it will be fresh capital?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: For the most part.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, is the reason he’s being somewhat equivocal that he has been promised new money, but behind the scenes Grant Robertson is desperately trying to unwind that agreement?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: How does he reconcile his statement that the fund process will be rigorous and independent with a statement to the Otago Daily Times that advocates for the regeneration of Dunedin’s waterfront “would be pushing on an open door with me as minister”, because “Anything to do with harboursides … is likely to get a tick from me.”?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: In the words of the Minister: easily.

Hon Nathan Guy: Will his $1 billion fund support regional water storage and irrigation projects that can grow jobs and exports, plus enhance the environment?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: The final criteria for this fund have yet to be determined and have yet to go before Cabinet.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why won’t his $1 billion fund support water storage projects that can indeed support Northland, where a recent report concludes that 92,000 hectares could be under irrigation and employ 3,400 jobs?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: When did that member first discover Northland, for goodness’ sake! As we have said and made very clear, the criteria for all projects, including water storage, have yet to be determined and have yet to go in front of Cabinet.

Schools—New Entrant Age

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement in relation to changing the age at which children can start school that it is “not unusual for a Minister or Government to state its intention” on an issue before going through the Cabinet process; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, because, among other reasons, I am aware of a Minister announcing $37.5 million of teacher supply initiatives without taking it to Cabinet or without appropriating any money to meet the costs of doing that. That was the previous Minister, who is now questioning me on the matter.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer, did he consult or advise the Prime Minister, the Green Party, or the New Zealand First Party before or after he told the media on 21 November of his intention to change the age at which a child can start school?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I didn’t need to consult any of them, because that was the policy platform that all three of those parties campaigned on at the last election.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer, is he aware of section 5.12 of the Cabinet Manual that states that Ministers must submit to Cabinet proposals for new legislation, and the provisions in the manual on requirements to consult with other parties; does he believe that he has breached the Cabinet Manual?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, no. In answer to the first part of the question, it was contained in the policy platform that all three of the parties that form the Government campaigned on.

Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the merits of the policy of allowing children to start school before their fifth birthday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen a report raising concern “that the introduction of cohort entry policies are being driven by administrative convenience rather than the needs of the child.” That was the clearly stated minority view in the select committee report on this legislation, which was supported by Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party. As a member of that select committee, I heard many submissions opposed to this particular provision, and not one submitter spoke in favour of it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he believe that he may have misled schools and parents, given that it is reported that he asked the Ministry of Education to draft an amendment to the law and that it would be part of an education amendment bill, which is contrary to him saying it was just his intention?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In order for Cabinet and Cabinet committees to discuss potential legislative amendments, somebody first needs to put something on paper.

Hon Nikki Kaye: If the school starting age is changed to five, what is the general estimate of the percentage of children that may now have to—or, in the future, when the law is changed—wait to start school beyond their fifth birthday in a school that has adopted cohort entry?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That cuts both ways of course, because, at the moment, under the current policy, there are a number of children who have to wait well beyond their fifth birthday to start school under the nanny State policy introduced by the last Government.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question, whereby I asked, “What is the general estimate of the percent of children?” I was very specific about that. I didn’t say “how many”; I said “general percentage”. He did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to have another go.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have that information in front of me.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the fact that some schools have notified families of the start dates for children for next year, which would need to change if he changed the law, will he rule out that there will be any law change until 2019 at the earliest; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That would be a matter for the House to decide, because the House would vote on a commencement provision on any such legislative change.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this is a very specific question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, that was a very specific question, and it was answered in a very specific way. I think that if members do understand the difference between introducing a bill and passing it, it would be useful.

Schools—Truancy

10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Education: What reports has she received regarding truancy rates in New Zealand?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): In Parliament yesterday the Ministry of Education’s annual report for 2017 was tabled, and I was concerned to see that the number of students regularly attending school fell from nearly 70 percent in 2015 to 67 percent last year. In term 2 last year, the report tells us, only 57 percent of Pasifika students were attending school regularly, and that figure for Māori students was only 55 percent. As acknowledged in my public statements around this issue, there are nuances inside these numbers that need to be addressed, but this level of regular attendance cannot be ignored.

Darroch Ball: What is behind this rise in truancy?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: That’s something I’ll be seeking more information on. I am meeting with the chief executive from the Ministry of Education this afternoon, and will be asking if the ministry has more nuanced data to flesh out our understanding of these numbers. I will specifically be asking questions around the changes made to the truancy service by the previous Government in 2012, and how they impacted on truancy levels, particularly in rural and semi-rural schools.

Darroch Ball: Does the Associate Minister have any other concerns around young people and their participation in school?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I do. As part of our work looking into these numbers I will be seeking a strong focus on the group of 12,600 children aged eight to 14 who have unexplained absences of more than 20 days per year, or who have enrolled in more than three schools in the last four years. While the gender balance of these young people is evenly split, we already know that 6,300 are of Māori descent, 2,050 are of Pasifika descent, and 3,100 are of European descent. To ensure that we provide these young people with the best possible tools for their future, we need to have a more in-depth understanding of the reasons for their non-attendance.

Social Services—Data Collection and Sharing

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she support social investment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes, I support the concept of investing in people to support them to live the best possible lives in the future. What I do not support is the direction the previous Government were taking the concept, which viewed people as liabilities on a balance sheet instead of as human beings.

Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member just lost a supplementary then.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I had indicated to Dr Reti that he should take it, and Paula Bennett continued to interject.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Not on this matter?

Hon Tim Macindoe: Well, it’s related to this, but I think it is a very serious point of order, sir.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if it’s a new point of order and new information, I’ll be interested, but if it’s just trying to make me change my mind, I won’t be.

Hon Tim Macindoe: My question is simply how a member could possibly see someone behind them when no spoken invitation to ask a question had been given.

Mr SPEAKER: There was a long gap and plenty of time for Ms Bennett to be quiet.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What role does the Minister have in assuring the New Zealand public that Government-held data is being used wisely and well?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Minister was very clear that the collection of individual client-level data being forced contractually from NGOs will end. The Social Investment Agency’s data exchange project is under way, and will attempt to ensure that privacy concerns are met.

Dr Shane Reti: In light of that reply, why is the Minister refusing to answer written question No. 8753, which asks exactly the same question, seeking assurances for New Zealanders, because the time required to answer the question “cannot be justified”?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member answers, I’m just going to indicate to Mr Bridges that I am being very generous to him.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I answered the question to give him a general idea of the Government’s approach. The specific matters no doubt would take a very long time to pull together.

Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table the reply to written question No. 8753, which seeks assurances for New Zealanders—

Mr SPEAKER: Is that something that is currently available, or is it in the three-day period where it’s not yet published?

Dr Shane Reti: The Table Office informed me it’s under the three working day rule, and won’t be available for several days.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that leave be agreed to. Is there any objection? There is no objection; it may be tabled.

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

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What Government data will the Minister use to identify the most vulnerable?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not have that information in front of me. What the Government is committed to is an approach to social investment that actually treats people as human beings, rather than seeing them as liabilities on a balance sheet.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 12.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I had called the next question. I apologise to my right honourable friend, but I can’t go backwards.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I seek leave to ask this question?

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member can seek leave to ask a further supplementary. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

State Services (Open Government), Minister—Official Information Act Requests and Priorities

BRETT HUDSON (National): My question is to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) and asks: what are her priorities for the portfolio?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think—if the member would have another crack at just straight reading, all right? Try the yellow sheet, which is the official one.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification on that, because her full title, certainly on all the Government websites, is Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government).

Mr SPEAKER: And what has been accepted by me is on this sheet, and that’s what will be used.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Every day there are amendments to questions that are lodged—sometimes to the substance, sometimes to the Minister. In the past, the whole Minister changed because the Government decided to transfer it. In the end, we have to rely on the official sheet, and we don’t want that relitigated at the time we come to the House.

Hon Simon Bridges: I totally understand that point. Don’t they, though, have to be correct titles? Isn’t that incredibly important for the future?

Mr SPEAKER: That is something that I am happy to have a look at and will have a look at, but it’s something that should be taken up not at the time the question is being asked. Brett Hudson.

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services: What are her priorities for the portfolio?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Associate Minister of State Services): My priority is that this will be the most open, most transparent—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I’m just going to indicate to the Minister that when she has the mike, people can hear her even if there is loud noise from the other side. My recommendation is that, notwithstanding the cheers and support from my left, she just keep going.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My priority is that this will be the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had. We will do this in several ways, including requiring proactive disclosure of some official information, as I said at NetHui recently in Auckland; improving Government capability and performance in relation to the Official Information Act; and deepening the Government’s commitment to the Open Government Partnership.

Brett Hudson: Will she be backing Otago University lecturer Bryce Edwards, who has said, and I quote: “It’s time for everyone who believes in reforming the OIA processes to join together and campaign to make that actually happen.”?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes.

Brett Hudson: Does she agree with Dr Edwards’ characterisation of her role as the Minister with responsibility for open government: “She has already committed her government to doing much better than the last government in terms of releasing information.”?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes.

Brett Hudson: How, as the Minister responsible for open government, can she, in all good conscience, address a written question from a member about events in respect of a single day by saying that providing an answer “would take substantial research and collation, which I do not think is in the public interest”?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I will defend the right of the Opposition to ask written questions, but the Opposition is abusing that right. I happen to agree with Ben Thomas, the former National press secretary, who called it “6000 stupid questions: National’s [denial-of-service] attack on the Government”.

Hon Simon Bridges: Supplementary?

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary—sorry, no, there’s none left. That concludes oral—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You gave us one back. [Interruption] You gave us two back.

Mr SPEAKER: And then took one back again.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: But we’ve been doing our own count here.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’m relying on my—[Interruption] Well, there is an obvious question about relying on the member for counting, and I won’t get into that, because that would be seen to be partisan.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, how unusual.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I am relying on my assistant for keeping the count. I think we’ve established that on one particular occasion he was too generous to the National Party, because we do check, but I’m going to go with him rather than the member’s count.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

It couldn’t have been summed up better than in those last few sentences, where the “Minister of Open Government” stands firmly for the right of the Opposition to ask questions and firmly against the Government’s obligation to answer them—just one more example of the chaotic start of this weak Government, with a big cheque book, that’s already trying to hide what it does.

This week, we’ve had the opportunity in Parliament to discuss the secret coalition agreement, and we have established at least one thing: it exists. It exists; it’s in a safe, according to the Deputy Prime Minister; and some Ministers have it. We’ve also established one other clear thing: the Prime Minister, Ms Ardern, does not want it released. Here’s a simple question: who looks more comfortable talking about the secret coalition agreement and its possible release? Well, it’s Mr Winston Peters. He is the one who—whoever thought we’d be relying on him for telling it how it is? That’s how low the standard is for the new Government. He’s the one who’s described what’s in it: directives to Ministers, content about how the coalition should conduct itself—that all seems perfectly reasonable in the context of this unusual coalition Government. He’s also said it would be released. He’s quite happy about it.

Well, there’s someone who isn’t happy about it being released, and I just want to speculate about why. Winston Peters is happy to see it released, because it will show the extent of New Zealand First influence in the new coalition. The Prime Minister is very unhappy that it might be released, because it will show the extent of influence of New Zealand First in the new coalition. It does help answer one of the mystery questions: why has New Zealand First given away so much policy? There’s none of the anti-Māori policy you’d expect from the rhetoric from the election campaign, they’ve given away whatever it was on immigration they wanted to achieve, and “anti-foreigner” has been taken over by the Labour Party.

Are New Zealand First members and voters happy about the campaign to get Manus Island refugees here? I suspect not. Did they agree with the partners of sole parents not having to reveal their names so they’d have to contribute to the support of their children? I bet not. So why did they give it all away? Well, it must be because of the influence contained in this document, and that is why it is of so much public interest—so much public interest. For instance, it’s probably the key to how they manage the Greens. As we pointed out before, Labour hopes that putting the Greens down there, and New Zealand First there, means they’ll forget that each other is in the Government.

But does it contain, as speculated, a New Zealand First effective right of veto over all appointments and over the Budget? I think that’s really important. You see, the published coalition document is certainly now no longer a reliable guide to what this Government does. I mean, you look at that coalition document. Pick a number, and then halve it, and that’s what they’ll probably do. It’s not what they said they’d do, but half of it. Where it says they will do something, it probably means they won’t do something. We’ve seen so much backsliding and turning back on the backsliding to try and make sense of the regional development fund, how many trees are going to be planted, how many houses are going to be built—all the things that actually matter in reality and actually aren’t about intentions.

We have watched a circus over recent days, over the secret coalition document. The Prime Minister, in particular, has said, “It’s a list of policies that might come to light.”, and that compares with the description of the Deputy Prime Minister, who says, “It’s a set of directives to Ministers about how the coalition will work.” There can only be one of them that’s right. And this is the leadership of the new Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister cannot agree on a public description of a secret document that’s at the heart of how they work. That is why so many New Zealanders are rapidly losing confidence in this Government.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): If ever you needed an illustration of the irrelevance of Opposition, that was it—that was it. That little contribution did nothing to improve New Zealand, it did nothing to enlighten New Zealand, and it didn’t change the fact that this new Government is getting on and governing in the interests of New Zealand.

I want to cover an announcement that the Government made today, which is one of the many instances where there is universal agreement across the three parties that make up the Government. New Zealand First campaigned on this, the Labour Party campaigned on this, and the Green Party campaigned on this: that is, making real the fact that New Zealand land assets should, first and foremost, be for New Zealanders.

While we’ve had the former Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, talking about secret documents, actually, what the media is writing up in great detail—and very well reported, I might say—is what we’re doing in respect of rural land today. They’re not interested just in the fact that we are tightening the criteria so that, first and foremost, New Zealand land assets will be for New Zealanders; they’re interested in the theory as to why we are doing it.

They’re not the only ones that are interested. Increasingly, this is being reported in overseas news outlets, which are looking to how New Zealand is trying to maintain our liberal, outward-looking focus as a nation whilst dealing with the insecurities of New Zealanders born of the fact that the middle classes are feeling that they’re being squeezed out by the influences of multinationals and wealthy one-percenters from overseas.

In the Government, we know that it’s important to maintain what are very liberal settings in New Zealand, which make for a peaceful and prosperous society, outward-looking in our focus, that looks to the rest of the world in our trading relationships so that we can sell goods and services to the rest of the world to pay for our imports. But we also know that there is an unprecedented rate of change in the world, with the accumulation of wealth as a consequence of the excesses of global capitalism pushing all of that wealth, or just about all of the additional wealth being created in the world, to be captured by the top one percent.

What was the response of the last National Government in response to the concerns of New Zealanders? They largely ignored them, and in fact they pulled the wool over their eyes. There was a lot of concern around the Crafar farms sale to overseas buyers. The Government said they were going to tighten up on land sales, and then they sent a letter that duped New Zealanders by saying, “Look, we’ll only look seriously at applications to buy farms ten times the size of an average farm.” The average size of a dairy farm is 200 hectares. What would the old Government do? They’d look carefully at farms over 2,000 hectares. Virtually no dairy farm is of that size. In respect of sheep and beef, the average is about 700 hectares. What did they look at when they were getting over 7,000 hectares? The other ones—it would be going a little bit too far to say they were simply waved through, but that was just about the truth of it.

We think that in order to protect these beneficial settings that we have in New Zealand, we have to protect New Zealanders from being outbid by one-percenters from overseas. We’ve got support from lots of farmers in this regard. The National Party lost contact with the heart and soul individual farming families they used to represent. Now they represent the multinational corporate end of town. We’re standing up for the New Zealand farmers, who say they shouldn’t be outbid, and their kids and their neighbours shouldn’t be outbid, by one-percenters from overseas. We want sharemilkers to graduate to become farm owners rather than being for ever the employee of someone from overseas.

In the Labour Party, supported by New Zealand First and the Greens, we see that these issues are central to what New Zealanders see of themselves. If you’re going to stay here and pay taxes and put your shoulder to the wheel of the New Zealand economy, you should have the privilege of owning our land assets. That’s true of the most expensive piece of land and the cheapest piece of land. To do otherwise is frustrating the ambitions of New Zealanders who think this is intrinsic to their rights as a New Zealander. The Labour Party, with support from New Zealand First and the Greens, is standing up for New Zealanders and is doing it in a way that is preserving our international trading relationships.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): When this new Government was—I won’t say elected—formed on 19, I think it was, October, and it was announced by the decision of one man, there was a couple of things we knew. We knew that it would be a big-spending Government. We knew that. We knew that they would be addicted to debt and they’d be all about handouts and unions and back to the dark old days of the 70s. We knew that.

But I tell you what we didn’t expect. We didn’t expect to be sitting here a month after the new Ministers had received their warrant and to be looking at what has to be one of the most secretive and shambolic Governments this country has ever seen. It’s secretive, because we are talking here about the questions around the addendum to the coalition agreement. We’re not talking about some private notes or thought pieces or discussions. We’re talking about what were 38 pages, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, of an addendum, with all the detail, to the most important document that goes to the heart of Government in this country.

Let’s be really clear about this. This is the document on which this Government is formed. It’s why it exists. There would be no Labour - New Zealand First coalition without this document. It is absolutely fundamental to our whole system of Parliament and democracy, and yet the Prime Minister says the public don’t have any interest in seeing it—shouldn’t have any right to see it—and dances on the head of a pin like I’ve never seen, about why it shouldn’t be released.

This is a document that, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, gives directions to Ministers on how to carry out their activities.

Darroch Ball: You’re just guessing.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Now, how anyone can tell me—I’m not guessing; I’m relying on the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. And directions on appointments—how you can keep that secret and pretend to be open is, frankly, a joke.

It’s been an omnishambles. It genuinely has been an omnishambles from the very first day in this House, where there was a failure to know the rules, a failure to count, a failure to get it right, and right throughout. We’re now a month into this new Government’s 100 days. We’re actually more than that—we’re actually more than that. We’re about 35 days in. So we’re a third of the way through. And day after day, we’ve come to this House as Opposition and we’ve asked questions. What are the details? No answer—“We’re working through it.” What is the plan? “We’ve set up a working group.” What are the costings? “We don’t know. We’re working it out.” Where is the legislation? “Haven’t got that, but we’ve already announced what we’re doing.”

This is a Government that clearly isn’t ready to govern. The flip-flops we’ve seen already in just a month—funny how they were giants in Opposition and yet timid little mice now that they’re in Government. Those incontrovertible, non-caveated, completely black and white statements about what they would do in Government have back-pedalled faster than Lance Armstrong going backwards.

This is a Government that hasn’t seemed to give effect to one of the incontrovertible statements they made in Opposition. Look at Pike River—look at Pike River. On 13 September the now Prime Minister said, “Absolutely, unequivocally, we have clear evidence that it’s safe to go in and we will go in.” Within a few days of being in Government: “Well, we’d like to go in, if it’s possible, but we’d need to be sure it’s safe.” Now, I’m not knocking her for that view. That was always the view that National had. Of course we would want to go in if we could, but it must be safe. But how quickly an absolutely laid-down, straight-line promise to the country that was repeated time and time again by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister has now gone by the wayside.

And you look at housing. Mr Twyford came into the House every day and told us if only they were Government, they would’ve fixed it by now. He’s now there. It’s now his opportunity. And what have we learnt? KiwiBuild is “KiwiBuy”. Actually, what they’re going to do is just buy up a whole lot of houses because, frankly, in “Labour Land” only the Government can do anything well. But what’s worse—even then he doesn’t quite know what to do, so he sets up a housing working group to tell him how to fix the problem. Now, I don’t recall anywhere in the last three years Mr Twyford saying, “Well, we know there’s a problem, but we don’t know what the answer is, and we’ll figure it out if we ever become the Government.”, but that’s what he’s now telling us.

It is an omnishambles, and I would expect a Government that’s had nine years to figure out what it wants, what it’s about, to get that right.

And I’m going to leave you with one thought on this addendum to the coalition agreement. Here’s my suspicion. My suspicion is the real reason Labour don’t want to release it is because everything that’s in there would go against what they’ve promised the Greens. What I want to know is: do the Greens have that document? Does the Green Party, who’ve given supply and confidence to this New Zealand First - Labour coalition, know what’s in it and does it undermine everything they’ve been promised?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): It’s a pleasure to take my first call in a general debate in this Parliament. It’s wonderful to have this opportunity to have a broad-ranging discussion and not be called into line by the Speaker about it.

What I’m more than happy to be talking about is the great new Government that we have, which has hit the ground running. We have a Prime Minister that New Zealanders are absolutely loving. I’m getting great feedback in my electorate and everywhere I go that people love her new approach. They see generational change, they see compassion, they see kindness, and they see empathy. In short, they finally see a Prime Minister who cares about them and cares about their lives. And, for the first time, I am seeing real hope and excitement in people about their future.

One of the things that it has been a great pleasure for me to observe over the last month since we’ve been in Government is the number of young women who were previously disengaged from politics absolutely fizzing with excitement about the inspiring role model they see in our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and the interest that they are taking in politics as a consequence.

We are making progress, this Jacinda Ardern - led Government. We are making great progress. We’ve got on with the work of banning foreign speculators, which the previous Government, over the course of nine years, said couldn’t be done. We did it in a month. We’ve got paid parental leave, we’ve got the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) on the way, and a families package that will put more money in the back pocket of Kiwi mums and dads. One of the things I’m really excited about seeing get into place for next winter is our winter power payments, which will help those who, we know, struggle to pay their power bills. It will help them have warm homes and keep them healthier, and I am excited about being able to talk to constituents on that. We are determined not to waste a minute on this side of the House. Real action—the kind of action we haven’t seen for the last nine years. That is what we are determined to do, and what our Government is getting on and doing.

We are told by the Opposition that we’re never going to have seen a more effective Opposition. Well, what I’m seeing is a lot of inside baseball. The biggest issue of the day for the Opposition seems to be secret notes. Sitting in question time, it seems to me like I’m watching a really bad teen movie. There is a jilted lover who is convinced that somewhere in the secret diary of someone, locked in the safe of someone’s bedroom, is the secret of why it ended—why it didn’t get over the line, and why they were left hanging and they chose someone else. You hear speaker after speaker convinced that those secrets are locked in that safe, and, if they knew, the troubles of the universe would be solved—if only they could see those secret 33 pages. Well, I think the Opposition needs to come to terms with the fact that the reason they didn’t get into Government isn’t contained in some mythical 33-page document. The reason they didn’t get into Government is because New Zealanders voted for change. New Zealanders voted for something different, New Zealanders voted for hope, and New Zealanders voted for a future of which they can be proud and that they can see themselves.

After the nine years of that Government, what are we seeing when we do get into Government? We’ve had Amy Adams, in the last contribution, saying, “Well, Phil Twyford hasn’t fixed the housing problem in a month.”; they had nine long years. And what have we found when we’ve come into Government? What we’re seeing is the big problems that have been left behind—billions and billions of dollars of a capital deficit. We’re seeing creaking schools and hospitals. Of particular interest to me was a $75 million budget blowout on a multi-sports facility in Christchurch. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what we’re seeing of these so called “fiscal geniuses”—of what they’ve left behind after nine years in Government.

There is not much to show for the record of what the last Government put into place. We are a Government that is determined to get on and do it, a Government that is determined to provide a better future for New Zealanders, and a group of people that aren’t obsessed about the secret diary that doesn’t exist. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, if this is a Government that has hit the ground running, I’m not sure what alternate reality we are living in. But, certainly, we should be talking about transparency and open government, absolutely, especially after the answers that the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) just gave. Open government—we’d been lectured on this for the last nine years, while we were over that side of the House. New Zealand Labour, New Zealand First, and New Zealand Greens lectured us on the importance of the Official Information Act—line, chapter, verse; on we go—lectured us on the importance of using it and the appropriateness of urgency, and lectured us on how the Official Information Act is so integral to good government. What do we see now? A secret agenda, hidden away, that goes to the heart of how this Government is going to be run, sets out the modus operandi of what they are going to do.

So often when we were over that side of the House, we were lectured on “Say what you mean; do what you say.” But what has this Government done? They’ve hidden behind their documents and done flip-flops. Flip-flops. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition called them a circus troop. Absolutely: we’ve seen flip-flops, we’ve seen tightrope artists, we’ve seen contortionists as they’ve weaved their way through promises made and backtracked. Absolutely. So it’s no wonder that we are questioning them about their openness and their transparency, because, really, I don’t think that they mean it at all.

What does this mean for the regions? There’ve been so many promises out there about policies, but what are the ramifications? There’s been no thought gone into it. We have had claims about immigration, that immigration is going to be cut—22,000 to 60,000—but what does that actually mean? Who are these people that are going to be cut from migration?

Let’s talk about Southland and our regional strategy. New Zealand First has been a party that’s stood up and talked about how important regional development is, but, on the flip side, it’s talking about cutting immigration. So where is some of the region’s workforce going to come from? There’s no transparency around that policy; it’s just a number that’s going to be cut. Oh, but look there, there’s a backflip by the Minister, because we’re not concerned with numbers anymore! Well, let’s be upfront: what’s in that document; what’s in that dossier? Come forward and let us know, so that people like those in Southland or in Taranaki can plan for the future.

Just the other day, I was visiting a constituent. Five jobs for electricians available—five jobs available that he could hire straight away. Where are those people going to come from? Well, I’ve got news for New Zealand First: they’re not going to come from Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch. We need skilled people.

Moving on to regional development, with the flip-flop and this $1 billion fund that “Dr Evil” keeps talking about—$1 billion, whether it’s new funding or a mixture. How is that going to be applied? Well, our previous Government put $2.4 million into our SoRDS project—the Southland Regional Development Strategy—to attract 10,000 more people by 2025. Where’s the consideration going into that? How does the $1 billion apply to that? We don’t know, but we’re going through policies and doing flip-flops and not being transparent about what it means.

This is not a Government that’s hit the ground running; it’s a Government that’s made a whole lot of promises in the election campaign and doesn’t know how to deliver. They’re not fit for Government. They don’t know how to be Ministers. They don’t know how to be good Government members. They don’t know what the ramifications of their policies are.

Let’s move to tertiary education, shall we, and this free-fees scheme. If they understood regional development, they would have understood the Southland Institute of Technology’s (SIT) free-fees regime and its importance in our Southland regional strategy. But what’s happened? We’ve just had a blanket policy with no consideration for what SIT is doing, except when they did have an emergency meeting during the campaign. They sent Mr Andrew Little down there to have a bit of a chinwag with our CEO, because he knew he was getting into dangerous territory.

So, look, there is no thinking about the ramifications of these policies. No wonder they’re doing flip-flops, no wonder we’re questioning them about transparency, because they’re not doing what they say and they’re not clearly communicating it to the New Zealand public. No wonder the New Zealand public are confused, and no wonder they’re losing interest in this Government pretty quick.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Well, it’s a bit of a rarity to be having to sit here and listen to the National Party give us a lecture on flip-flops. The Key Government was noted for its focus groups that would flip-flop at the—[Interruption] Bit of a miss.

I’m pleased the member Sarah Dowie raised Southland, because there are so many things in Southland that need to be fixed. I’m pleased you raised the $2.4 billion for the Southland Regional Development Strategy. You turned up with $2.4 billion—you turned up with a planeload of Cabinet Ministers with $2.4 billion. We have turned up with $3 billion over three years. We’re going to do some real things. We’re not going to be running Invermay into the ground. We’re not going to be running Telford into the ground. We’re not going to sit there while Queenstown has a massive infrastructure deficit and a housing crisis and has got a 13-bed hospital. We’re not going to sit around; we’re going to do something.

Righty-o, so I don’t want to spend another minute talking about the National Party, because it is a seething mess of resentment and denial. What I want to talk about is the great day this is for New Zealand. There were thousands of young men and women that got up this morning to go and pick up their handpiece or milk their cows, or to put on the cuffs and get their spray units going in the orchard, with some hope. Finally, they had a Government that was on their side, and not the side of the foreign speculators. I would like to commend my colleagues the Hon David Parker and the Hon Eugenie Sage for the priority they’ve put round this very, very important piece of legislation.

I might say, following on from the housing situation, it is a disgrace what has happened in that as well. If you take away the pathway to young people, that’s like taking the All Blacks away from rugby—it takes the pinnacle.

This is a great decision also because of the family farm. Everything you see in these great cities that we see, all the infrastructure we have, is built on one single foundation: the family farm. That has sustained us since the Dunedin sailed out of Ōāmaru Harbour in 1877 with our first shipment of frozen meat.

So under the previous Government and these liberal foreign ownership rules, where we had 465,000 hectares sold in 2016 alone—

Hon Tracey Martin: 465,000?

MARK PATTERSON: 465,000 hectares. The Overseas Investment Office, between 2008 and 2015, had 724 applications for sensitive land, of which 11 were turned down—a mere 1.5 percent. That is a wet bus ticket, and you should hang your heads in shame, over that side, for selling out the young generation of New Zealand coming through.

We’ve also seen farm debt balloon as a consequence of opening farming up to the international market. We now have $61 billion of farm debt, up from $35 billion when that previous Government was coming into office. The interest alone on that debt is the whole of the beef industry—the revenue from that—just to pay the interest. And, of course, they’re foreign banks, as well. That money’s heading off to Sydney or Amsterdam.

As Mr Key warned us previously, we will be tenants in our own land if we keep this up, and if that previous Government had got another three years, there may have been nothing left at all. Not content with allowing a mass sell-off, that Government decided to get in on it itself, by selling Landcorp’s Jericho Station in Te Ānau—selling our State-owned farms, which are owned by the people of New Zealand. An utter disgrace, and particularly when the underbidder, who was a local farmer, was a mere $200,000 short. That is how pathetic this previous Government had got.

But, ladies and gentlemen, the cavalry has arrived in the form of this New Zealand First, Labour, and Green coalition Government. We will put this right, and we have put this right today. Thank you.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I never thought I’d say it, but that member Mark Patterson makes me miss Denis O’Rourke.

It is fair to say, at the end of the day, I think the best side did win. I mean, it could’ve gone either way, but, really, as we say in sport, the scoreboard never lies. I just want to acknowledge the two leaders who I think got it over the line: Scott “Razor” Robertson and Luke Whitelock. Canterbury winning the rugby Mitre 10 Cup championship recently, for the ninth year out of 10, proved once again that Canterbury is the best rugby region in the world.

Can I take the time, Mr Speaker—it’s the first time I have spoken in the House—to acknowledge you and the other presiding officers for your election. I did read recently they were referring you to being the referee of the Chamber, and growing up the son of Tom Doocey, the international rugby referee, that gives me some great comfort. But, as we know, it’s expected now—referees in the field of play are also expected to do some coaching, so I look forward to your support over the coming term.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll start now by saying keep me out of the debate. Keep going.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the good people of Waimakariri, who have re-elected me as their member of Parliament for a second term. I am very humbled and very privileged not only to get more people to vote for myself but that more people voted for National in 2017 than they did in 2014. Could I state for the record of the House that it is my job as the member of Parliament for Waimakariri to serve all in the electorate to the best of my ability, irrespective of how they voted.

The first chance this new Government’s had, and they’ve failed the region of Canterbury. When you look at the Speech from the Throne how many times did they mention Canterbury recovery? How many times did they mention Christchurch recovery? Even Kaikōura—we commemorated the one year recently, and I’d like to acknowledge my good friend and colleague Stuart Smith for his great advocacy in that district, post the earthquakes. They didn’t mention them once. The former National Government had the Canterbury recovery as one of the top four priorities. This Government has let down Canterbury right from the start. Look at how many Cabinet Ministers we had from Canterbury in the last Government: up to four. They’ve got one—25 percent less Canterbury MPs in Parliament, and we’ve still got the same amount of Canterbury MPs on the National side. They’re hollowing out the representation from Canterbury—25 percent less MPs from the South Island, yet we have the same amount of MPs in National from the South Island. It’s all because New Zealand First had a purge of their centre-right MPs: Denis O’Rourke, Richard Prosser, and Ria Bond. They got rid of them all because they knew they were going to have a marriage with the loopy left and they couldn’t take the centre-right MPs with them. This Government is failing Canterbury, the second-biggest economy in New Zealand. It’s failing the South Island right from the start.

Then we had the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration come out. Her first task in her new role, and she came out and said she was getting an anchor project “back on track” by cancelling its contract. How do you get something “back on track” when you stop it? Then she went on to say there was a $75 million blowout. Well, let’s publicly release that document. Let’s know the breakdown of that $75 million. Is it increased expenditure? Or, in the environment of Canterbury, is it increased risk allocation that would sit on the budget and not be realised with good contracting. Let’s release it. They’re talking about openness and transparency; let’s release the document. That Minister is also talking about merging anchor projects. She mentioned several times last week that she’s interested in saving costs by merging anchor projects. What is this code for? Is this code for removing funding for the Canterbury earthquakes to pay for big funding policies announced in other parts of the country? Is the Canterbury earthquake going to pay for Auckland housing? I believe the people of Canterbury should know, and they should know and have the confidence that this new Government is going to stand up for them as the great region of Canterbury rebuilds. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Ā, tuatahi, e tika ana ki te huri i ō tātau whakaaro ki taku tuahine kātahi anō ka hinga i roto i Te Tai Rāwhiti, nō reira e te tuahine Heeni: moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā!

Ki a koe e Te Māngai, ā, ngā mihi ki a koe i roto i tō tūru hou, pai ana ki te kite atu i a koe. Ā, tekau mā rima ngā tau, mai i te wā mutunga i kōrero au i roto i Te Whare nei; nōku te hōnore mō taku hokinga mai.

[So, firstly, it is apt that we turn our thoughts to my sister who has passed away just now at the East Coast, therefore, to you, the sister Heeni: sleep, slumber, and rest there indeed!

And so, to you, Mr Speaker, acknowledgments to you in your new seat, it is so nice to see you. It has been 15 years since the last time I spoke in this House; the honour is mine for my return.]

It’s been 15 years since I’ve had a bit of a kōrero in the House, so it’s great to be back. It’s appropriate today that I salute our Māori caucus—a Māori caucus that has done the business despite all the lies and all the stories from the Opposition on the other side.

Mr SPEAKER: No. No. No.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No? Got that wrong, sir?

Mr SPEAKER: Yeah. Not lies if you’re talking about people who are currently in the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, stories—all the stories, sir. All the stories that have come from the Opposition about this wonderful Māori caucus over the last few years. Despite all this nonsense, we cleaned up in the election—13 Māori representatives—13 Māori representatives: seven Māori seats, four list seats, and two general seats. You’ve got to ask the question why. Why did we clean up? Because we concentrated on the issues that resonate with our people: housing, health, education—core issues for our people; not goobledegook stuff like tino rangatiratanga nonsense that was being spouted out in an independent Māori party that the National Party talked about. The nonsense that they talked about that you could get Māori independence sitting at the table, and all you were getting were crumbs and the National Party were giving tax cuts to their rich mates. No, sir, we concentrated on the issues.

You can’t expect your people to support nonsense. I am proud of what we did. I’m proud of what we did in the health and education areas. Some of these wonderful Māori MPs who you see in front of you today: Peeni Henare, Kiritapu, Willow-Jean over here—we’re adding something to the House. We had a National Party supporting nonsense—absolute nonsense—in the last few years. So today, I want to thank the Māori nation for supporting our Māori caucus. The Māori caucus, the true Māori party, for this Government, for this Parliament. E tika ana ki te mihi ki a mātau i tēnei wā.

[It is only right that a tribute is accorded to us at this time.]

At the same time, I want to say that it’s only right that we mihi to the Māori Party for their effort. It was hard sitting with the National Party, we know. But despite our disagreements with them, we salute them in terms of at least trying to advance kaupapa Māori every day. Yes, things went wrong. Things went wrong for sitting by Jami-Lee and others, but it was hard for them, and today I say thank you to Te Ururoa and his partner, Marama—Marama, wasn’t it?—Marama Fox. Well done for the effort. It must’ve been tough sitting at the table, getting crumbs from the Tories.

I want to say today also that I’ve been lucky enough to be given this employment ministry. It’s an honour and a privilege to be given it. When I came into the position, we got the results: 4.6 percent was the unemployment rate—4.6 percent—and the problem is—

Jami-Lee Ross: Why couldn’t he get elected to Cabinet?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, why are you sitting there? Because you’re stupid. All right?

So in terms of the unemployment rate of 4.6 percent, the problem with that is there’s a crisis in the employment strategy. The crisis is Māori, Pacific Islanders, women, and the disabled have all missed out. And they’ve missed out because of the greedy, selfish policies that were being put out by the last Government. As an employment Minister, I’m going to try and get a strategy in where we get collaboration with the Government agencies; where we focus on communities; where we fund our people directly instead of them getting crumbs. We know what they can do. We know what they can do, but they must be given an opportunity.

We can’t have an employment strategy where you get 4.6 percent of people unemployed and Māori and Pacific Island rates at three times that rate. That’s a crisis. That’s a crisis that’s been created by this previous Government, and it’s a strategy that I want to address over the next few years. I’m sure I’ll be able to do that it with the other Ministers, like Shane Jones and Carmel Sepuloni and Peeni Henare, as we get the strategy, the correct strategy, for our people. Ā, nā reira ki a koutou, kia ora anō tātau katoa.

[And so, to you collectively, therefore, an appreciation to us all once again.]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to acknowledge and welcome the member back. I didn’t want to interrupt him, because he was in full flight, but the member did address at least three members in the House by their first names. While I know he was being caring about it, except to Mr Jami-Lee Ross, he must use members’ surnames as well. I’m sure the member will catch up.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this debate. We have had a very good start to this term demonstrating how disorganised this Labour Government is. In these few days of the House sitting, we have seen so much disorganisation on that side. Just to remind them, on the very first day they had no idea how many of their members were away, and then they wanted to block some National MPs from being on select committees. Then, in a very embarrassing situation, they had no option but to do a U-turn and allow the remaining National MPs to be on select committees. That definitely left the Hon Chris Hipkins red-faced. Actually, I’m really amazed to see that he’s still got the job. Ha! Maybe that is the best they have.

After that, they introduced their very first piece of legislation, and then that legislation didn’t go through the select committee process. That legislation is being rushed through the House. So the sequence of activities that we have seen so far—first, blocking some National MPs from being on select committees; second, not letting this first piece of their legislation go through the select committee process—clearly tells us that they know that the select committee process is not going to be an easy process for them. This is because they know that they don’t have the mandate for their election policies from the percentage of votes they got, and that’s why they have been trying to block National MPs from being on select committees, and trying to rush this legislation through the House without letting it go through the select committee process.

From the very first day, what I see is that they are trying to paint a very negative image of our country, New Zealand. Not just here in the House, but outside also, I have seen some of their members speak, and they have been continuously painting a very negative image of New Zealand. We should not forget that this is the same party that was exposed, only a few months ago, exploiting and mistreating 85 political recruits from overseas.

Yes, it’s very convenient that they can ignore facts. Yes, I’m talking about the policies that the previous member spoke about. There are several policies I can count. They should be really proud to see that they have inherited the economy that is the envy of many, many OECD countries. Our roads and our schools are better than when the previous Labour Government left office. We made GP visits free for children under the age of 13. We increased the benefit for the first time in 40-plus years. Māori and Pasifika students are doing better. So I’m really proud of the work that the previous National Government did, because that work definitely benefited several families in Mt Roskill.

So from this new Government, what we are seeing is that they just believe in the same thing they believed last time: that is, taxing, borrowing, and spending. But we are a small country. New Zealand doesn’t want any more debt. People don’t want handouts. People want jobs and opportunities. People want jobs and opportunities to find self-worth. People want jobs and opportunities to find self-growth and to see their community flourish. We cannot have a prosperous future by having other people put clothes on our backs or food on our table, but that is what this Labour Government believes in: handouts—making people depend on the system.

But, it doesn’t stop there. In the very first week of question time, the Prime Minister could not confirm that they are going to build 100,000 new houses in 10 years. This was one of their most important policies because, every meeting I went to, they kept talking about this policy of building 100,000 new houses in 10 years. Then the Prime Minister could not confirm that they are going to build 100,000 new houses in 10 years, because, all of a sudden, they realised that there is no plan. They cannot deliver it. They need land to build that many houses, and there is nothing done so far for that.

But, on this side, we are quite helpful, and I have some advice for that side. The advice that I have for them is that maybe they should be talking to NASA. Yes, I’m talking about NASA, which is involved in aeronautics and airspace research. NASA is planning to send humans to Mars in the 2030s. Maybe that red planet Mars is an option for that red party? All in all, disorganisation, fictional facts, secret documents, attempts to impeach democracy, and promises already broken—or, as Labour would call it, business as usual. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. Mr Speaker, in my speech, I want to honour influential women. I want to appreciate the work of women in our grassroots communities, pushing for the progressive change that we all need—that Aotearoa has long deserved—and who are trying to fix up the mess and deal with the fallout that has been put upon our communities from years of the previous Government’s neglect and abuse, in actual fact.

So I will start and join my whanaunga, Mr Jackson, in honouring Hēni Tāwhiwhirangi of Ngāti Porou, who was a staunch advocate for the well-being and development of Ngāti Porou whānau, iwi, and hapū—the very agency that our Government should be working to support in our rohe.

I am also going to ask this House to honour Shelley the bus driver here in Wellington, who, I was given word, passed away yesterday. Shelley would greet her customers in Te Reo. Shelley would greet her customers and passengers with a smiley face and Te Reo, as part of something that all New Zealanders should feel comfortable and learned and able to be able to do. Shelley is another example of the influential women that this House should be backing, for us to do our part in backing up the incredible work that is happening on the ground.

I want to honour Debbie Munroe in my Manurewa community for the work she does and has done for years, feeding people who are living rough on the streets, looking for the solutions to take them off the streets.

I want to honour the women of Parihaka, and I announced a couple of weeks ago that I would insert a member’s bill into our biscuit tin to create a commemoration day for Parihaka. I want to acknowledge the women and children who this Crown apologised to for the rape and abuse by the violent aggressive act of the Crown in invading a settlement and peaceful community.

I want to honour Paora Crawford Moyle and all of the women who were abused by the State, and the Greens are proud to call for an inquiry into the Crown State abuse that absolutely included our young sons and our young daughters.

I want to honour Waimarie, Qiane, Bobbi-Jo, Pānia, and Moana for protecting Ihumātao on the front line against the development that was again forced and opened up by the previous National Government. They have not given up, and nor should we.

I want to honour the ongoing kaitiaki protection work that mana whenua, wāhine and tāne and all genders have always done, including the Ruanui mammal sanctuary that is wanting to be created by the East Coast and Ngāti Ruanui and other iwi. I am proud to be with the Green Party who will support the kaitiaki work that has always led at the grassroots.

I want to honour the women of the Mongrel Mob in Waikato, who I have been keeping an eye on, who are working in their own whānau to prioritise the safety and well-being of their mokopuna, are taking up their own agency to do better from within their own powers and dreams and resources, and are connecting to community to make sure that their mokopuna will be kept safe and to look for new pathways to live as community.

Our role in Government is to protect and support the work that these grassroots influential women are doing. Our role is to not continue to create and place barriers in their way. Our role is to not sell off State houses so that they have to pick up the pieces of our people on the street. Our role is to not—and the Greens will stay firm on this—continue to give permits to seismic surveys that damage both the potential of our climate safety and our marine mammal life.

Our role is to support the very women who are at the front line of these causes. I am proud to be part of the six women of our eight-member caucus in the Green Party, who understand that the leadership and future of our country absolutely depends on the hands of our women being healthy and strong and supported. Kia ora.

Mr SPEAKER: I call a gallant member, Christopher Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise to contribute to the general debate, and I ask myself, in the context of being the member for Helensville, what the actions of the Government will have in store for my electorate. Obviously, general themes are to be canvassed in this debate, but all politics—it’s almost a truism to say—are local, and so I want to focus on a couple of specific examples that I think will act as benchmarks for the performance of the Government. By looking at those, setting a line in the sand now—a west coast beach sand, perhaps—we will be able to see if there is a great difference between the rhetoric and the reality, we’ll be able to judge the difference between the walk and the talk and to check the flips and the flops—I would say “the yin and the yang”, but I know the Minister of Housing is not fond of Chinese-sounding words—and we’ll be able to see the before and after of the Government formation and, in three years’ time, exactly what that looks like.

So on the subject of the opposite pairs, we could talk about open and closed, in the context of Government. We could talk about shut or open, in the context of a gate for immigration arrivals. We could talk about the yea or the nay, in reference to a proposed referendum on the Māori seats. We could talk about above or below, being the figures of a hundred thousand homes and a billion trees. Or we could talk about those being perhaps in the context of the private sector, rather than the public sector, and the credit being claimed by the Government already for the work of ordinary New Zealanders taking a risk—they’ll take everyone else’s good work, indeed.

So, in the context of all that, as promised, I’ll raise a few issues for the consideration of the Government that pertain directly to the Helensville electorate—first, passenger rail beyond Swanson Station. This is an area of intense concern to the electorate, although I appreciate not necessarily to all members of this House, but as the House of Representatives, as the Government, they will be responsible for the issues and the outcomes that actually speak to the daily lives of the individuals in my electorate, and indeed every other electorate in this nation. So there’s the tunnel that precludes the passenger rail that is desired by those residents. I hope that the Government will take as liberal an approach to safety considerations being carefully considered in relation to that tunnel as they are in relation to the Pike River mine re-entry, and I hope that “pike” doesn’t have another meaning in the context of backtracking on promises in that regard.

In the commitment of the Government, or at least its parties, in relation to the election campaign and the things that we heard from them on the campaign trail in relation to public transport, I hope those things become real for the people of Helensville and that we can rely on that in good faith. It’s too soon to say whether the Government will or won’t, and I am genuinely open-minded about the fact that there may be some constructive work done by them on that. I would like to work with them in good faith to achieve those aims for the people of Helensville, and I invite them to do so.

Another measure on which I think we’ll be able to judge the success, at least so far as the people of Helensville are concerned, is that of kauri dieback, or “ka-oo-ri” dieback—say it however you want, it will be pronounced “extinct” soon enough if there is not proactive action by a Government whose parties on the campaign trail talked about being passionate advocates for the environment. They talked about being its great defenders, and I will look forward very much to seeing that they do that, or, if not, then they will have that kauri gum, if not blood, on their hands. So, again, an open invitation to work constructively on these very serious and, indeed, urgent issues, and it will be very interesting to see if the rhetoric does indeed match the reality on that one.

Similarly, in terms of communications, the relevant Minister has talked about the Government wanting to leave no one behind and believing that digital means are a fundamental way of it being able to achieve this. So I say to the Minister, and indeed her Cabinet, that it will be very welcome indeed if areas like Bethells Beach and Coatesville in the Helensville electorate are able to rely on that, and it is not merely the flip to be followed soon enough by a flop, as in so many areas.

Finally, on the subject of water quality, west coast beaches are among the worst in the Auckland region—and, therefore, I suspect in the country—in relation to some issues that are traditionally local government. So, in fairness, I must say to the Government that not only have they not been in long enough to have affected that but it is an area traditionally not in their realm. However, if the rhetoric and the reality are to be matched in relation to the water quality—criticisms that they had been making in Opposition in relation to dairy farm streams and others—then I look forward very much to them achieving a great deal in that regard, and we will be watching them very, very closely indeed.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s my first time speaking in the House after my maiden speech, and it’s such a privilege to rise here as a member of a very strong and committed MMP Government, led by our leader, the brilliant and passionate Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. There’s been a lot of negativity from the other side of the House, but after their nine long years in Government, we have now taken over to show we’re serious about making a change for the better.

Getting on with our 100-day plan, we have already seen the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks to give our children the best-possible start in life, and we have seen the banning of foreign speculators from buying existing homes, as a first step to fixing the housing crisis. We have shown our commitment to equal pay by cancelling the flawed legislation that would have made achieving pay equity harder for New Zealand women.

The changes show that we’re making a Government that is not afraid to care, and another very recent example of that was the announcement yesterday, on the 38th anniversary of the Erebus crash, of the commitment by our Prime Minister to a national memorial to honour the memory of those who died. The Erebus accident is still the worst aviation accident in the Southern Hemisphere, and yesterday we remembered those who lost their lives 38 years ago, when Flight TE901, with 20 crew and 237 passengers, crashed into Mount Erebus on 28 November 1979. That was a day when all New Zealanders said they knew someone who knew someone who was affected by that disaster.

Our Prime Minister has shown empathy and understanding of the ongoing hurt and grief of the families and friends of the crew and passengers who died on that fateful day in 1979. It’s a terrible oversight that until now, nothing has been done to establish a suitable national memorial to the Mount Erebus accident victims, especially for the many families involved. Other, more recent disasters have their own memorials, including the Pike River accident and the Christchurch earthquake victims.

In 2019, it will be 40 years since Erebus, and that will be a very suitable time for the opening of a national memorial. Our Prime Minister has committed to talking with the families and Air New Zealand on how best to pursue this. There are several smaller memorials, but there’s no significant public place where all 257 names are displayed and where people can come together, remember, and have special times of contemplation, prayer, and reflection.

One of those smaller memorials is a memorial garden close to Auckland Airport. On 28 November 2000, the 21st anniversary of the Erebus disaster, work began on that memorial garden dedicated to the 15 flight attendants and five flight crew who died in the crash. The garden was opened the following year. The 20 names were recorded on a plaque set into a memorial stone at the centre of the garden, and the words read: “This garden is your special place”.

I was president of the Flight Attendants and Related Services Association (FARSA), the flight attendants’ union, for four years from 2009, and every year on 28 November, we would lay a wreath and remember our colleagues who died at Erebus. Having this memorial garden so clearly shows the importance of having a special, dedicated place to remember the families, surviving spouses, siblings, and children of our colleagues, and of having a place to come together every year to honour the memories of those who died on that fateful day and to feel for the families and their ongoing grief.

In 2014, a special 35th anniversary memorial service was held. I would like to repeat the heartfelt words spoken at the time by our past president of FARSA Mary Webb, who was also a crew member at the time of the Erebus crash. She said, “The crew were not heroes. They were ordinary people like you and me. They went to work and they never came home.”

Repeating her words, I can’t help but think of another group of workers—29 men who went to work and never came home; the tragedy at Pike River mine—and I am so proud to be part of a Government that cares enough to appoint the Hon Andrew Little as Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry and to do all that is possible to provide closure for those families. I hope that the Pike River families can take some comfort from seeing how nearly four decades after the Erebus disaster, we are still honouring the memory of those who died. They will never be forgotten.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Speaker’s Rulings

Debates, Interrupted—Speaking Roster

Mr SPEAKER: I think I’ll indicate to the House the approach to be taken for the interrupted speeches for the forthcoming debates, as I indicated to the Business Committee yesterday.

There were a number of members who were part-way through speeches on bills, and the normal practice would be to resume them. What I have decided, because we have quite a different balance in the Parliament, is to adopt a new rotation and to come in at the point of the interrupted speech. So those speeches are, effectively, wiped and another member has the ability to take that.

So we’re not starting the bills again. All we’re doing is saying if we’re at the third speech we’ll have the third speaker according to the new roster, and go from there. If members are interrupted and want to start again when it’s their time, that’s fine enough, but obviously people who’ve completed their speeches can’t have another one on the same question because that would be against the Standing Orders. So I call on members’ order of the day for member’s bill No. 1.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 9 August.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just indicate to Amy Adams before we start that we’re having a little bit of a problem with the clocks at the moment, and it may be that the clock goes up rather than down—all right?

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker—I’ll take the clock as gospel, then! Look, it is a pleasure to take a call in this third reading on what is a very good bill from my very hard-working colleague whom I’m now delighted to call the member for the Hutt, Chris Bishop, who put this bill into the House through the members’ ballot. That is, as new members will come to know, a very important part of the way this House operates. It is often where we see some very worthwhile changes—not always the biggest, most significant changes, but none the less very important changes—that can be addressed and worked through, and I congratulate Chris Bishop for finding this gap in the law and working to address it.

The particular issue that’s being discussed here—and it’s probably worth reflecting on it, just because it has been far more than the usual period of break in an interrupted reading since we had discussions on this bill—is, of course, the change to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act that came about as the result of a very unique situation in New Zealand, and one, I think, that everyone would agree is not the sort of New Zealand that any of us want to live in. That is the situation where, as a country, we found a book being banned. In a country that stands up for free speech and the rule of law, it is quite inimical to our way of life that we would have book banning.

Yet that was the issue that the board of review found themselves with in September 2013 with a book called Into the River, which was almost by operation of law having to be banned. The review office found themselves in the situation where, having been asked to review the decision of the classification office, and having been asked to put in place an interim classification for the publication in question, they had only the two options, which were to either leave a book entirely unclassified that had previously been classified as restricted to 14-year-olds and over, or ban the book entirely. Even though the review office were quite clear that they didn’t think banning the book was appropriate, they did not feel comfortable making it entirely unrestricted, because of the nature of its content. So we had this, as I say, very contrary to New Zealand’s way of life approach of completely banning the book.

So Chris Bishop realised that there was a lacuna in the law and put forward this member’s bill to provide for an enhanced series of interim orders that addresses that situation and means that where there is an interim order on a classification office decision or board of review decision, they can put in place, really, the full range of orders that you would expect them to be able to do—either to leave it unclassified, to ban it entirely, or to put whatever restrictions are required in terms of access to the publication in the meantime.

The bill has been through the Justice and Electoral Committee, of course. I was not on the select committee at the time, but I understand there were a number of thoughtful submissions. The committee made some useful changes, tweaking the name of the bill to better reflect the style of parliamentary drafting, and obviously just adjusting the offence provisions as well to give effect to that more complete set of interim orders under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act.

So we find ourselves now at the third reading stage in this interrupted debate. My understanding is that the bill has been unanimously supported through the House to this point. I would very much hope that that would continue. I see no reason why not. It is an issue that needs to be resolved. As I said at the outset, it is not the biggest issue that this House will deal with, but none the less this is an issue that resulted in something that I regard as actually very serious. We don’t want to be a country that bans books. That is not who we are, and it is absolutely the view of most of us in the House—I know I’ve expressed it myself on many occasions—that whether or not I agree with what someone says, I will always stand up for their right to say it. I haven’t read this book. I don’t know particularly how offensive or challenging the material might be, but none the less I’m prepared to stand up for the right of the book to be available, subject to the appropriate classifications.

So where we’ve found ourselves in a situation where the law compelled a banning of books, then it was right to act, and Chris Bishop saw that opportunity and put the bill in the ballot. He was very fortunate, I have to say, in having the bill drawn. Not every member in the House is as lucky. I’ve been lucky once myself. I hope to be lucky far more often now that I can be back in the ballot. It is with those few words that I wish to commend the bill to the House.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I take the call to speak on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. I wish to acknowledge Chris Bishop for identifying this anomaly in the current law, which has given rise to the occasion, quite unusually in New Zealand, of a book being banned. That book was banned on the basis of there being inappropriate material for young people to engage with, and I think that that’s been a really appropriate issue to be taken up on by the member, who has taken a good role within the Hutt South community to engage with young people and be advocating on behalf of their rights and interests, making sure that they are well looked after in our society. That has been one of the underlying reasons that it’s been an interesting course of action to see a book here banned.

I support this bill, as does the Labour Party, for the reason that there is an anomaly that allowed the book to be outright banned when a restriction or more flexibility in terms of the censorship would’ve been far more appropriate. Unlike the previous member, Amy Adams, I have read large sections of this book, and, to be honest, having children of my own in teenage years, there are some sections that are reasonably explicit. There are questions about how children should be accessing material and how we deem that to be appropriate. This is particularly interesting in an age where kids are accessing a lot of information through the internet, and that’s particularly unrestricted. So while it’s important to have clear access and to not be outright banning books, we do need to keep in mind how we’re making sure that children are safe through what they’re accessing through social media and through the internet. We need to be, as much as technology allows us, consistent when we’re looking at the type of material that young people are accessing.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for classifying publications such as films, videos, books, games, and audio recordings, and I understand that this particular anomaly arose because of the nature of the material—because it was a book—and so it fell into a different classification. So I think, again, it’s important that we change and modify as technology does. The question is: it is just because this item is a book that it was banned, when other information available wider on the internet was far more easily accessible?

One of the interesting points that came across in terms of the banning of the particular book, Into the River, that this whole member’s bill arose from was that it actually generated far more public interest in the book. Far more people made an endeavour to purchase the book. Probably, more kids went out and tried to access the book. So it’s always important to weigh up how this type of action is going to be making an impact upon people’s lives. The controversy, the media coverage, and the increased attention on this piece of literature ended up generating far more heat and light than otherwise.

I think it’s important, also, when we’re looking at the type of material that children are accessing, to acknowledge that society changes and adapts over time. In the history of books that have been banned, there’s always a lively debate when we look back and see the types of literature years ago that we as a society found to be unacceptable. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned because of offensive language, racism, and being unsuited to a particular age group. We’ve also seen Ulysses banned, and when it screened at movie theatres we saw men and women having to enter at different times. I guess this is another point to show that, over time, society has changed. We’ve seen other books over time, such as Where Did I Come From?, published in 1973, banned. I remember that one quite fondly. It was well looked at on the library bookshelves in my primary school, along with The Clan of the Cave Bear. So it’s important to remember, when we’re looking at material, when we are considering whether it should be made available or not—that we also keep in mind that society does change its judgments as time moves on.

One of the key provisions in the bill, which is intended to allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication, means that there’s more flexibility, and I think that’s the great improvement here. That means that there can be taken into account that there is a certain age group that might be more suited to accessing the material; that they could belong to a certain class, such as tertiary students; and that the accessing of the publication can be for a certain purpose, such as a film festival. These are the three new types of interim restriction orders that reflect the classifications that may be imposed on a publication by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This commentary covers the main amendments that have been recommended to the bill, but it does not cover the minor or technical ones.

It has been good to see that the principal Act contains offence provisions that do not envisage the more flexible interim restriction orders proposed in this bill. It is important, too, that we enable the Office of Film and Literature Classification to be able to have the flexibility to look at material and respond appropriately, as they are required to. Keeping in mind, too, that this is a small issue—this is the only book that I’m aware of that has come into this instance. So it will be interesting to see in the future if we have other instances coming up that require that flexibility that will be enabled by this legislation to be taken into account and be able to be utilised.

The bill here will provide that the president of the board of review and the High Court have an expanded tool kit, and they can be used when considering whether to restrict a publication. The bill will also allow the president to restrict a publication, as already mentioned, based on that more flexible ability of looking at age and considering whether that’s appropriate or not.

It is quite clear from all of the commentary that we’ve seen to date, whether it be in this House or in wider media, that Into the River should not have been banned. This change is a small one, but this side of the House considers it’s a useful one, because we see that freedom of expression in New Zealand is important and we need to protect the ability for expression to go freely in New Zealand. Outright bans of literature are simply not acceptable in New Zealand if we want to continue to be a free society, a democratic society, and one that gives people access to the information that they are able to digest at that age. So I thank the House for the time, and I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora koutou katoa, ko ēnei ngā kōrero mō tēnei kaupapa.

[Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and greetings to you all, these are the comments pertaining to this matter.]

This is my first call in the House, and I am grateful for that opportunity. I take a look at this bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill, and I would just like to start off by saying that New Zealand First supports this bill.

This is not a groundbreaking alteration to the legislation; this member’s bill of Mr Bishop’s is simply a small tweak. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill has been labelled as being something of a catchy title; personally, I think it’s a little clunky.

Looking at a little bit of back story, painting a picture here, we’ve seen public silent readings of a book. We’ve seen book shop front window displays with books encased in paper bags, being faced with the potential of seriously large fines of thousands of dollars. Now, this gives a whole new perspective to the term “reading for meaning”, all over one single book, which has become something of a poster child for this piece of legislation. This literary poster child has created a bit of a brouhaha over a blip on the legislative landscape.

Destined to become for ever a footnote in Aotearoa New Zealand’s literary history, the written word, of course, is art, and we know that art improves our human experience and our life in general. Art in all its forms is aspirational; it challenges, inspires, and has the power to shape our attitudes and our values. So this little legislative tweak will correct what seemed like a big overreach at the time, and an obvious example of destructive interference with a process that was taking some time to work but nevertheless was working well.

It shouldn’t have ever been about the book—a book that is a writer’s authentic work, presented for public consumption in a very genuine way. The author’s ambition to write about difficult subjects like teen sex, drug use, and bullying, in language that teenagers can relate to, is a good and worthy one. How well he has succeeded—how well the author has succeeded—is an entirely different question. People will have different views of this book, and it is right and proper that those views can be, and have been, expressed in public debate.

When we look at reading, and reading of all manner of books, that is, of course, good for everyone. Especially important is finding topics to engage our young people. This particular book has engaged young male readers, and that is something that we need to encourage more of. Not only does reading increase our empathy, it also happens to be one of the single best habits for enhancing our creativity.

A study by graduates at the University of Western Ontario, published in the US for a psychological science journal, has found that creativity thrives in people who are happy and positive, and those who read books regularly are, on average, more satisfied with life, happier, and more likely to feel their lives are worthwhile. If you read regularly, the resulting improvements in your mood will spill over into your creative endeavours in life, so you’re happier, more creative—kind of like killing two birds with one book.

Reading’s also a boon for creativity in so far that it promotes a calm, a contemplative mind-set, reducing stress—and we could all do with a bit of that—and it does that more so than, would you believe, listening to music, drinking a cup of tea, taking a walk, even in the bush, or any other commonly used stress relief mechanisms. So in spite of all these benefits, too many people claim that they don’t have enough time for reading.

The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill—the process that the Office of Film and Literature Classification went through in the case of this book that we’ve been talking about, Into the River, was a very rare one, but through the amendment this anomaly will not happen again, and that is something to be thankful for. This is the first time in over 10 years that an interim restriction has been put in place, and it’s the first time for a book. The last time was in 2002 for the film Bully, which was initially rated R18. This bill would not have been applicable in the case of this film, as, until the decision was reviewed, it was perceived that this film may not have been suitable for viewing by an adult audience. After the review process, the same classification remained for that film.

From the few submissions that have been made in relation to this bill—and there were four submissions—there were two main concerns, the first being that in censorship of content, currently interim restrictions function like censorship, making the classified documents illegal to possess, distribute, import, and display, hence the books in paper bags. This bill aims to have these interim restrictions changed from temporarily banning the content whilst the classification is reviewed to instead allowing the material’s availability to be restricted to particular groups.

In the case of Into the River, at no point was there any reason, based on the classification it was given, for it to have been banned for adults. Even the group that had appealed the rating of the book was advocating only for an R18 rating, not for the book to be banned. The author himself, Ted Dawe, was aggravated by this step to ban the book until the classification could be reviewed, because he felt he was being cut off from the reading public. He had a lot of comments to make at the time; he, in fact, was baffled by that.

One thing he said was that for most writers, when they get the premier award for winning, which he did for this book, it will be their glory year. For him it was a year of hell. It was a year of accusations, of nasty emails, of censorship. It soured the entire experience of being an award-winning author. He will never get another chance for one of those awards, as, according to him, you only ever get one. Usually, that’s the case, and now his will be spoiled. He said he was blindsided by the ban of his book. He said it was extraordinary, and he’s had a few emails from people who share that sense of outrage. He asked, “Do we live in a country where books get banned? Next thing I’ll get burned.”

This amendment is a movement away from unnecessary censorship. The enforcement of the banning of a book that has already been released, in this case, was not only difficult to enforce but entirely unnecessary. There were outcries from school libraries, from public libraries, from librarians across the country, and from overseas media, of course, ridiculing the ban. The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa director Joanna Matthew said that libraries generally supported freedom of speech and that she saw that the ban of Into the River was a tragedy. If we censor literature that talks frankly about some of these issues that the book touches on, then I think we run the risk of burying them.

The other concern of submitters was for the ability to appeal the classification to remain intact. Now, this amendment still allows for groups like Family First New Zealand to appeal the classification decision, but, by all accounts, the book Into the River contains some very graphic content that they weren’t happy with that made the book inappropriate to be categorised as a child’s book, as a children’s book. Now, New Zealand First respects community standards and places a high priority on the protection of children from harmful material. This appeals process is fundamental to the protection of the young and the impressionable from objectionable content.

To sum up, we must balance the public good with freedom of speech. We need to remove all barriers in the way of readers. We need to encourage our young people in particular to read. We have a wealth of talented writers in New Zealand, and they must be encouraged to tell all of our stories. To ban the book was seen as a Draconian measure. The flip-flopping of the classification decision—this made New Zealand look like a little backwater on the international stage, as we hit the headlines around the world, as one book caused quite a bit of kerfuffle.

So, in conclusion, New Zealand First supports this bill. Although just a little tweak of legislation, a blip on the legislative landscape, it is an important alteration to an anomaly that will improve the freedom of expression.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand here today and take a call on the third reading of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by congratulating my good friend Mr Chris Bishop, the MP for Hutt South. Chris had remarkable success not just in the Hutt South but also in having a remarkable number of members’ bills drawn over his short career. As a new MP, I hope that by taking a call tonight some of that good luck rubs off on me.

The bill we’re debating this afternoon is a fairly simple one. It makes a small but necessary change to the legislative and regulatory environment around classification. It fixes an anomaly in the law that allowed for films, books, and other publications to be banned unnecessarily because only two limited options were available to the president of the board of review: to either leave a publication unrestricted or to ban it entirely.

This was the case, as we’ve heard tonight, with Ted Dawe’s award-winning book Into the River, which was the subject of an interim restriction order as a result of an appeal by Family First. Even Family First have accepted that the book should be available. All they wanted was a higher age classification applied to it. Family First did submit on the bill and said the following: “Family First simply wanted the book restricted to an age-appropriate audience because of the material covered in the book.” They note the book contains the “c” word nine times, the “f” word 17 times, the “s” word 16 times, and the other “c” word 10 times. That’s a legitimate position to have, but not one I necessarily subscribe to. As I said in my maiden speech just a couple of weeks ago, I managed to pick up a fairly colourful vocabulary on the pig farm at the age of 15, rather than from books. But, unfortunately, the only two choices that were available to the board of review were to either leave it unrestricted or ban it, as they did for six weeks.

I now want to turn to the changes that Mr Bishop’s bill proposes. The bill will allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication, as they do now, or to restrict it only to people who are at a certain age, belong to certain classes, such as tertiary students, or are accessing the publication for a certain purpose, such as film festivals. I want to particularly highlight the second of those: tertiary students. At the risk of getting into debating my university transcript, like this House did just a few years ago for another member, at one point in my university career I did actually take a film paper. It was my final year at university. I’d satisfied all the requirements for my political science major and, unfortunately, lost any ability to get a commerce degree, as I had intended, so I enrolled in a Māori in film course. It was a very enjoyable way to end my university career, watching Once Were Warriors, Patu!, and Whale Rider and then writing, I think, 200- to 400-word short answers on them. I couldn’t really tell you if any of the films that we watched had strong classifications on them, but it did leave me with a pretty strong view that universities and polytechs are places of learning, of debate, and of challenging norms, and it is important they have the freedom to do that.

I’d like to congratulate the Justice Committee on their work in improving the bill and recommending it be supported with full support in this House. It’s a committee I now sit on, and I’m confident that we’ll carry on with their good work. I do note that of the 10 members that sat on that committee just a year ago, six of them are no longer in this House, which I hope doesn’t bode ill for the rest of us. I do note, though, that one of them has gone on to become Prime Minister, so perhaps there is hope for some of us.

I thank the four submitters who provided comment on the bill. As I mentioned, one of them was Family First; also Shane Campbell, the Office of Film and Literature Classification of films, videos, and publications, and the Society for Promotion of Community Standards. It won’t surprise many of you that there was some dissent, and, in fact, 75 percent of those four submitters are in favour of it.

I again congratulate Chris Bishop on an excellent bill and for pushing it through Parliament over the last 12 or 13 months. It’s an excellent and most sensible change, and I commend it to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Firstly, can I congratulate you on your appointment as an Assistant Speaker in this House. I actually want to reflect on that, just briefly, because we have a Pākehā man as our Speaker, we have a Pākehā woman as our Deputy Speaker, and we have a Pacific woman Assistant Speaker and a Māori male Assistant Speaker. So if we wanted to look at a representative Speaker list, I think we have it, and it’s actually worth noting. I don’t think anyone else has really paid tribute to the diversity that we have. I think your job is incredibly important in making sure that we undertake our roles as members of Parliament in this House in a way that manages and ensures we all contribute constructively.

Secondly, I’d like to acknowledge all the new members of this Parliament—a lot of you. I want to acknowledge your maiden speeches. I think they were an outstanding range of maiden speeches, and they also really highlighted why each of us is here representing our particular electorates, our communities of interest. I think this bill, in some ways, speaks to those communities of interest. I am a previous member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie, who chaired that committee, and also Chris Bishop, who was a member of that committee and is, obviously, also, the author of this particular member’s bill.

I’ve got a lot of respect for Chris because he does bring to the House issues that do need legislative reform, and he does it in a manner, I believe, that allows all of us to contribute to what is a discussion that some may see as trivial but, actually, within the context of a lot of the korero that we’ve heard today about freedom of expression, about balancing those freedoms, I guess, with the role that the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act actually has, which is to, I guess, moderate and to look at content related to books, films, videos, and other publications and whether or not they are material that should be available, in the public good, to the public. That, in essence, has been a lot of the discussion we had with regard to this particular piece of legislation.

The reality for the committee, the reality for us as New Zealanders, was that there was a process that banned a book. When I looked at the plot summary of Into the River it was, and I quote, “Set in New Zealand, the book tells the story of Māori youth Te Arepa Santos as he moves from the East Coast to Auckland to boarding school, where he has encounters with intimacy, sex, drugs, racism and death.” Now, none of us would ever have imagined that a story that provided an opportunity to look at a young person moving from the East Coast rural New Zealand to Auckland would create a situation where it was banned. It was banned for six weeks in New Zealand.

I just want to walk us through how that happened, because, in fact, in September 2013 Ted Dawe’s Into the River was classified “unrestricted”. So I would have thought that was the end of the story. Pretty much, it was for mature audiences, suitable for those 16 years and over. What happened in December 2013 was, in fact, Family First appealed that classification. So they went to the Film and Literature Board of Review, and in December 2013 the classification went from “unrestricted” to an R14. There was a really curious thing that happened, actually. The president, Don Mathieson QC, actually had a dissenting view. He said it should have been classified R18. It wasn’t. It was classified R14.

Everyone would have thought, “OK, let’s move on.” But it didn’t, because in August 2015 a group of librarians around Auckland, because there was such a huge demand on the book, appealed and in August 2015 the book was deemed “unrestricted” again. So you’ve already had “unrestricted”, R14, the dissenting voice that said it should have been R18, “unrestricted”, and then Family First appealed it again. What happened in that second application by Family First—they also applied for an interim restriction order. It was that part of the process that then effectively banned the book. Under the current legislation, when there is an interim restriction order imposed, then you can’t supply or distribute the publication and you cannot possess or import the publication for the purpose of supplying or distributing it. And therein lies where we got the ban.

So what this piece of legislation will do is make sure that, when interim restriction orders are being put in place when there is an appeal, one of the tools available to the people who are responsible, the Film and Literature Board of Review, is that they can actually say, “In the interim we’re going to give it an R14.”—which it has—or an R18, whatever it may be. But, essentially, what they’re saying is that it should still be available—what we highlighted in the legislation—to people of a certain age, to people who belong to a certain class, such as tertiary students, and people should be able to access the publication for a specific purpose; we noted that it may be a film festival. Obviously, it’s not relevant to a book. But the reality is, this piece of legislation is providing another tool in the tool kit that will ensure books are not banned.

That’s something to be commended. I think that that’s an incredibly—it’s a great contribution, actually, to lawmaking. I personally think that when we have people like our author Ted Dawe trying to engage with particular cohorts of young people—this book, I remember a lot of discussion about it. It was about providing a genre and an opportunity for young people to have discussions about intimacy, sex, drugs, and relationships.

In fact, I did look at Family First’s kind of rationale for that second appeal. What they said was that it wasn’t just about the book. What they were preoccupied with was about benchmarking the censorship office in setting, I guess, what’s appropriate. From their perspective, they thought things that have adult themes—such as sex; that have sexually explicit content and bad language—should be restricted to that R14 kind of restriction.

I guess therein lies the discussion and debate within society about when is a young person a young person. At what age do our young people have access to information—through story, through narrative—that gives real-life examples of how our young people navigate those particular issues these days: how they navigate growing up, how they interact with their peers, issues such as engaging in relationships that involve sexual exploration, having the opportunity to drink alcohol, and those other things that this book actually provided?

So for us to clarify that books such as this are valid and that they have a place, and while we’re, kind of, going through a bureaucratic process in some ways that they shouldn’t be banned, as I said before, I think that this really provides a good example of a member’s bill—that if it’s crafted in the right way, if it’s brought to the House in the right way, actually will get the support of the House.

One of the other things I want to highlight is that throughout the select committee process we all deliberated collectively. We did have lots of questions, believe it or not. Some people will think that this bill was very small, but actually we had lots of great discussions. One of the aspects of this House that I think we underestimate is that there is an opportunity for us to collaborate, that there is an opportunity for us to work together, and, from my perspective, this piece of legislation provides a really good example of how, collectively, we can make decisions for the public good as a Parliament. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill—what I think is a thoroughly sensible piece of legislation. It highlights an anomaly in the law that arose out of a rather fascinating situation where censorship officers were provided a rather black and white response mechanism, where they could either ban the book in its entirety or allow it to remain available and accessible, which obviously presented a massive inconsistency when the previous classification saw the book as rated R14. So this total ban of about six weeks, we believe, as the Green Party, was inconsistent with Aotearoa’s championing of the freedom of speech.

Censorship in Aotearoa New Zealand is about 100 years old, coming about with the advent of film, and as books began flooding the shelves and the minds of New Zealanders. The reasons cited at the time that censorship was first introduced in this country was that “the class of moving pictures at present exhibited in New Zealand constitutes a grave danger to the moral health and social welfare of the community.”

Fundamentally, I think, it was prompted by a bit of a moral panic, which we have not yet rid ourselves of in this modern day. It was a moral panic in response to the dissemination of ideas, especially those that challenge norms or the status quo, which we still see to this day and, as I believe, was the situation that we saw in this case with this book.

This is a crucial tension to highlight when considering censorship. In doing so, in censoring art or literature or otherwise, are we quashing the potential for robust, thorough debate to challenge our experiences and reflections of reality? Are we stifling critical thinking or a potential critical response?

It’s these seemingly small things, like the situation that we saw with Ted Dawe’s Into the River, that can have flow-on effects in terms of potentially opening the door to the stifling of democracy. With regard to the case that prompted this legislation, the board of review report highlighted, I believe, an incredibly worthwhile point, which is that “The Board considers the book is likely to educate and inform young adults about the potentially negative consequences that can follow from involvement in casual sex, underage drinking, drug taking, crime, violence and bullying. The Board considers that the book serves a useful social purpose in raising these issues for thought and debate and creating a context which may help young adults think more deeply about the immediate and long term consequences of [the decisions] they may be called upon to make.”

So the context that is being referred to here is such that this book was taught in schools. That context is one of education. It is a safe space where teachers guide children through different and challenging ideas. This, I believe, is the very purpose of the education system as a public good to be the critic and conscience of society and to ensure that we are raising young people who are able to challenge social norms in such a way that leads to our social evolution.

This contextual consideration is something that I think we need to continue considering because, I assume that later, as the years and decades pass, we will see the changing nature of media, as we already have. I’ve had a few people in the Green Party notify me of the fact that I was born in the year that Sony Betamax tapes were first introduced. Now we are seeing kids growing up with the internet. This prompts the issue of modern access and, perhaps, raises the point that censorship doesn’t mean what it might’ve traditionally used to. For the time being, the Green Party is absolutely happy to support this bill because it is a very sensible bill that fixes an anomaly in the law, but we would like to highlight that there will be more coming down the pipeline in this modern day that that we will need to consider.

As time allows me to continue on this point of idealism and theorising, I would like to note that the ideology behind the support of freedom of expression is one that is socially liberal. That’s something that many of the contemporary members in this House have in common. But where I think many of us diverge, as has become quite pertinent and obvious as a point of debate today and in days previous, is on our economic thinking. On this point, I’d like to invite Chris Bishop and other members of his party to consider that economic ideology, because these social and economic ideals are at odds, fundamentally. Whilst we may be advocating for art and literature and those things to be out there in the world, accessible to people, the fact of the matter is that whilst society is unequal, those goods, those ideas, that education, are not accessible to all.

So on that point, I will leave it. I would like to commend this bill to the House, and would like to say that we’re looking forward to the developing technology and the House’s response to it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Matt King—five minutes.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Madam Assistant Speaker, I’d like to acknowledge you for your appointment, since this is the first time I’ve appeared before you. Well done.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. It’s a mouthful—wait for it—

Hon Member: You can do it.

MATT KING: Ha, ha! The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill. What a mouthful.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Time’s up!

MATT KING: Time’s up!

Darroch Ball: Do you support it or not?

MATT KING: Absolutely—100 percent. Twelve ten-minute speeches; I get to do five minutes on a bill that totals nine pages from cover to cover. We support this bill, in National, because it’s common sense, for one, and, secondly, because my colleague Chris Bishop is running it.

It’s a bill that went before the former Justice and Electoral Committee, of which there are a few members in the House, but, as my colleague noted, some have left. And, as a newly appointed member of the Justice Committee, and along with some very talented people from both sides of the House—and I mention my colleague from my former profession Greg O’Connor in that—it falls on us to speak about it. I look forward to getting my teeth into this justice area. It’s an area that I have personal experience in.

Now, this bill, it’s about flexibility. It’s about providing the President of the Film and Literature Board of Review, and the High Court, flexibility when making interim restriction orders. There are two significant clauses: clause 4, which, essentially, allows the president of the board, when making interim restriction orders, the flexibility to restrict the availability to a particular age—14, 16, or 18—or a class of person, like tertiary students, or for a particular purpose, like film festivals, and clause 6, a new clause, which introduces new offence provisions for interim restriction orders.

I’d like to acknowledge some of the speakers that have spoken before me and the ones that are going to speak after me, for taking up their allotted 10 minutes of time—ha, ha!—because it’s a nine-page bill, and I’m struggling. This is a simple but essential bill that improves freedom of expression in New Zealand—a core National Party belief. So we support this accordingly, and I commend it to the House at two minutes and 50 seconds. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. You have 5 minutes.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Meitaki maata. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I take this opportunity to thank the member for Hutt South, who was then a list MP, Chris Bishop for the opportunity to learn. It’s my first time speaking in a third reading.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives us rights as New Zealanders about how we conduct ourselves in this country, and there’s a section there that I like. I like the fact that it talks about rights of minorities and that a person who belongs to an ethnic or religious minority can enjoy the use of such language in this country. What I liked about what the member Chris Bishop said—I know him because he sits there and he’s usually very vocal, but he’s not here today. He’s not here. I want to commend him, because I like what he said, that it is a small but useful change—small but useful.

So I refer to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which talks about minorities using language—not that I think the Tongan language is any minority in Tonga, but it may be here. It reminds me—in my role as a member of the Tongan Language Year Committee—of a proverb called Si’i pe kae ha. It talks about “small but significant”. This is small and useful. Why do I think that it’s small and useful? I think, if you didn’t identify this gap, it then starts the beginning of the erosion of our freedom of speech. Even though it is small, it’s an indication that in this country—in New Zealand—that if we find a gap that needs to be corrected, then we should correct it.

Now, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Film and Literature Board of Review for their responsibility. They are appointed, as I have learnt, by the Minister of Internal Affairs, and, if we look at those who are appointed to boards, there’s lots of discussions about their qualifications and the merits of one to be on a board. I didn’t go as far as finding who the members are, but I hope that it was covered by all our diversity as was spoken about before, by what diversity looks like in this House.

I also want to thank, as a parent and as a grandparent, all the submitters. I know they have been spoken about before, but I think there’s merit in saying their names: Family First New Zealand, Shane Campbell, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc., and the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The reason why that is is because I’m satisfied as a parent that there are groups out there that believe in their belief so much that they make time to have their voices heard. So I want to thank those submitters.

There have been comments about the esteemed 10 people on this board, and I just want to acknowledge the members of the then Justice and Electoral Committee. The 10, six who are not here today—people may say it’s small and insignificant, but, actually, they had a significant role in correcting this gap. As I said before, if we let things go, it’s like a broken window. The window breaks, and then you move on to the door, and if we don’t fix that it will just continue to break. So, for me, this is about the erosion of our freedom of rights in this country, and the erosion of freedom of speech, and I commend the select committee for their wise judgment in hearing out the voices of New Zealand that were represented by these groups that I have referred to.

I want to commend the member. I know that he’s not here today, but sometimes when he interjects in this House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me. I just need to remind the member that you cannot refer to a member who is not present in the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK. Madam Assistant Speaker, I want to seek leave to apologise, as it’s my first time in speaking in a third reading.

I want to acknowledge the wise ideas that have come through in this House. As a new member in this House, I’m confident that we are able to identify gaps—small for some, but for me very significant—and address them and give flexibility to those people that have been empowered by the Minister to make decisions on behalf of all of us. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I too would also like to congratulate you, on my first opportunity to congratulate you, on your position in this place. Well done. I would also like to acknowledge Chris Bishop—the lucky one. I think this is his second—at least second—member’s bill pulled from the ballot in the one Parliament—the previous Parliament.

Todd Muller: Three.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Is it three? There you go. The organ one, this one, and there was—what was the third one?

Todd Muller: I don’t know. No one’s saying it was rigged.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: There you go, no one’s—

Matt Doocey: The one next week!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Oh, the other—ha, ha! So, lucky for some, Mr Bishop.

I’d like to pick up on a couple of things that were mentioned across the other side, particularly, as the debate developed. We started talking more about censorship and what that means, because this bill has brought that topic into the House. Censorship and the freedom of speech—there’s freedom of expression to be balanced with protecting society, or particularly young people, from those words or those images that those authors choose to use to express themselves.

I remember at my uncle’s bach in the 1970s finding Playboys of the day. Now Playboys, I assume, are still R18, and were then too. I wasn’t 18; I was far younger than 18. But I can tell you those images back then would be seen when walking down the street, or in any newspaper—the front page of a newspaper—or on any TV channel. The standards have moved; the standards have changed—not for the better or for the worse; I’m just saying that they’ve changed. My point here is that the legislation must be flexible enough to allow changes in the standards that we set ourselves across society.

The other point I wanted to make was to be careful about censorship—and it was discussed earlier—around the internet. In this House, we should be considering censorship not just in books and films that are regulated by these people that we’re talking about today—by authorities—because they can touch and feel and control the supply of those books or films or cinematography, but we should also consider what is available across the internet: what is available and not controlled, or not censored and is out of control.

A couple of points that I just thought I’d bring up, given that the debate and the discussion that we had earlier. Turning to the bill, turning to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill, this is a small tweak, as I think it’s been referred to. But, as I say, just because there are a few changes in the words that enable this flexibility to occur—and that’s a good thing—don’t forget that it can spawn and kick off a whole series of thinking that revolves around censorship and the internet. I think we should be thinking about that.

Coming back to the bill, the idea that an appeal can be made by someone, and that the judge, if you like, has a choice of only two options is quite ridiculous, and it was very astute of Mr Bishop to pick this anomaly up. Where else can one appeal and only have a choice of life imprisonment or being let out the door? Or, you know, at a school, where someone might be stood down—well, it’s not going to be expulsion or let off scot-free. The headmistress or the headmaster or the principal always has some discretion around deciding how to treat any situation or an appeal by someone when they want to seek justice in their cause, if you like. Even my kids, when they appeal for leniency or justice, it’s not ever a one of two choices option; there are always grey areas when it comes to listening to your own children appeal a decision that has been previously made.

For the board—the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review—to have a choice of only two is absurd. So this flexibility gives the board three other choices, or three determinants, when considering, and they are their age, belonging to a certain class—like a tertiary student group of people—or for a particular purpose. So a lot more flexibility, a little more grey—that’s a good thing. We should be considering producing legislation that is not just black and white, that is flexible, and that can be adjusted over time without having to come back here because there’s a black and white line in the sand. So that flexibility that is being adopted into this legislation is obviously a good thing. It’s good to hear both sides of the House support it, and I would encourage all legislators here to consider not making black and white rules and regulations but rather consider flexibility—leaving others to decide, giving them jurisdiction on what standards or rules or appeal systems—in this case, appeals systems—can be adopted. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Much has been said about the background of this bill, and much has been said about the book Into the River. I hope Into the River—if I may use the title as figurative language—could help guide us through some “uncharted water”.

Mr Bishop constantly said the book had been banned in New Zealand. Was the book banned in New Zealand? Technically, it wasn’t. It was subject to an interim restriction order, pending a decision by the Film and Literature Board of Review, which meant it could not be sold in New Zealand or taken out of a library. After six weeks of deliberation, the board issued its majority decision, classifying the book in October 2015 as “unrestricted”. The president again issued a strong dissenting opinion upholding his earlier view that the book warranted an R18 classification or, at the very least, an R14 classification. I want to acknowledge that. The bill in its current form has not only exposed the legislative anomaly but also got the balance right.

We are living in the modern 21st century, and online surfing has incrementally become a new normal. In terms of content classification, we have broadcast TV content, which is classified under the Broadcasting Act according to a code that is overseen by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. We have got filmed content, which is classified by the Classification Office, which provides ratings. But for the online content, do we have adequate oversight, mediation, or power, or any ability at all, in that regard? The answer is probably no. So there is a grey area in our law and our community standards that has not been addressed.

We are also living in a modern Aotearoa and celebrating our multiculturalism. We have more than 150 nationalities living in New Zealand. For the Chinese community, for instance, we are celebrating all sorts of our cultural events and celebrating our ethnic languages and publications in those languages. However, this may serve as a timely reminder that we may have some issues in that regard, particularly concerning what we are talking about in this bill, and also particularly with regard to the proliferation of social media in any languages other than English.

In terms of classification of content or publications classification concerning ethnic languages, it is to some extent uncharted territory. For example, there are at least four television channels broadcasting in Chinese in New Zealand, there are about four or five radio channels servicing the Chinese-speaking audience, and six Chinese language newspapers or magazines, as well as a dozen online or social media news portals or websites. None of them are members of the New Zealand Press Council. The Press Council’s scope applies to published material in newspapers, magazines, and their websites, including audio and video streams, as well as to digital sites with news content or blogs characterised by their new commentary. Presumably, the scope covers all of the above, but in English only.

We all know an independent press plays a vital role in our democracy. It plays a very important role in protesting, maintaining, and guarding our freedom of expression. However, as a journalist turned politician, I do appreciate the distinctions between views and news, and between facts and comments. However, in the case of a publication concerning ethnic or, in that regard, foreign languages, the reality is that it is impossible to maintain the basics at the moment, let alone content that may be caught in the definition of “objectionable” as defined in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

I can cite as an example that during the campaigning there was a five-point statement that was widely circulated via the Chinese social media platform, and it openly called upon supporters to give their party vote to the National Party. The top two reasons it gave were (a) those who are receiving social welfare are “lazybones”, and (b) it likened refugees to terrorists. This scaremongering had worked to some extent. We’re not talking about politics here; we’re talking about how to get our laws, such as this bill—which will get passed into law—understood, appreciated, and, eventually, enforced in New Zealand. Thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Mana Whakawā, ahiahi mārie. Good afternoon. May I acknowledge the members of the House who are present here today—thank you—and may I also acknowledge the voters of the Whanganui electorate, who have placed me here to speak today.

Furthermore, may I also acknowledge my colleague Chris Bishop for his steady, sturdy, and robust inclination and work on this piece of legislation, which I have the pleasure of being able to stand to speak in support of, noting that for many years, having worked as a lawyer in the courts, this is the first time that I now have the ability to stand and speak in the passage of a bill that is soon to be passed into legislation. So that is indeed a privilege, and I acknowledge my colleague Chris Bishop again for the effort put into this.

May I just say that in my maiden speech, I concluded that with the words e tīmata—it begins! So this opportunity, post-maiden, is quite a privilege, as I stated, and so I have begun. I begin by referring to this bill—soon to be legislation as it is non-contentious. It’s supported by New Zealand First—the member who spoke this afternoon—the Greens, and also members from the Labour Party. I reference that the comment had been made by the New Zealand First member that it’s a small tweak. I would submit that it’s more than a tweak. Although small, it’s not insignificant, and there are members in the House who have spoken to this, prior to that, particularly referencing the importance of the freedom of speech, and I will turn to that later, in the submissions.

There’s been talk—and it’s been well canvassed and covered—as to the purpose of this bill before the House. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill—yes, it is a mouthful, but it is a very small, albeit important, piece of legislation to ensure the significance of freedom of speech. We’ve heard members speak about the detail of the bill. May I just give some context as to how this came to be by way of a book called Into the River. I’d just reference, as my first time standing to speak post-maiden, the coincidences associated with Ted Dawe’s book Into the River. I am from Whanganui, and I have an association and relationship with the river. Now, this story, it’s well-known, was an award-winning teen novel about a young boy who was coming of age. This 14-year-old character, Te Arepa “Devon” Santos, a Māori boy from the rural East Coast, wins a scholarship to attend an exclusive boys’ school in Auckland, and it’s a story about him being bullied, I believe.

Like a number of those here today, I’ve not had the privilege of reading this book, but I just hark back to the days when I was a student at college in the 1970s, and there was a contentious story called The Catcher in the Rye—so there are those of us who may be familiar with that period. It was contentious because it was a book that had been banned in America. It was a piece of American literature that for me, attending a Catholic girls’ convent school—to read the story The Catcher in the Rye had some type of similarity to this book, Into the River. Catcher in the Rye was the story of a young character who, in the 1950s, went on a journey and an adventure into life. But it happened to be that that life journey and adventure was based in the city of New York. And, again, I referenced the coincidences of me speaking on this proposed amendment bill—the association with Into the River, being of the river, but also Catcher in the Rye, which was a story that, when I read it as a 16-year-old back in the 1970s, I had no idea I would actually be referencing in the House of Representatives here in relation to this legislation. The other coincidence is that I have a son who lives in New York and is working there.

The importance of these stories is about the ability and access, that was restricted at the time, as has been canvassed in the discussion and debate before the House—the restriction for a period of six weeks for a group of interested readers to be able to access the story and the messaging behind this. The details around Chris Bishop’s bill here—I refer to the second reading where Mr Bishop had indicated why it was that he saw this as being significant. The book had been temporarily—for that six-week period—banned or restricted; but it was still restricted, therefore, effectively a ban, and there was an anomaly in the censorship laws as result. This bill is going to address those anomalies.

It’s been canvassed, and I just again refer to the second reading quotes from Chris, saying that New Zealand publications are classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. So it started in September 2013 where Into the River was classified as unrestricted, suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over. That was appealed by Family First, a families lobby group—well known—who sought a restricted classification for the book. So in December 2013, it was classified R14, and this was a unique classification in that it had never previously been assigned.

As a result of growing dissatisfaction back in that time, Auckland Libraries requested the board’s decision be reconsidered by the classification office and so that was done. It was appealed again by Family First. So moving fast forward through to arriving at why this amendment to the Act is being made. As stated, it’s more than a tweak; it is significant. And the significance is that this bill proposes simple amendments to give authority and empowerment to the president of the board for those reviews, and more flexibility when imposing interim restrictions.

The key provisions in the bill are intended to allow interim restriction orders to completely restrict access to a publication as they currently do, or, importantly, to restrict access to only people who are of a certain age, who belong to a certain class, such as tertiary students, or those who are accessing the publication for a certain purpose, such as a film festival. So, essentially, the bill—what it does is it creates three new types of interim restriction orders that mirror and reflect the classifications that can be imposed on a publication by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. In essence, it means that there is a calibration of the interim restrictions, or a recalibration.

I referenced earlier the importance of freedom of speech and the importance of what we have as New Zealanders under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Some may think that this may be small and tweaking and insignificant—it’s far from that. It’s a robust bill that makes a small albeit important change to better protect the freedom of speech and expression of ideas here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So it’s adjusting—it’s more than tweaking; it is completely altering an anomaly, which was identified by Chris Bishop, within this legislation, soon to be amended. Importantly, also, when Parliament thinks that the law is being applied poorly, then it’s important that Parliament addresses these matters by way of amendments to the law.

In conclusion, with all the speakers before, everybody who has stood today to be heard in this House, we’ve commended Chris Bishop for the work, and the members of the committee, and I too seek to commend this bill to the House with the support from not only myself but the party that I stand to represent. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill

Third Reading

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill be now read a third time.

It is an honour to rise on this bill, which is in my name—the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. This bill may appear somewhat complex, but the truth is it simplifies matters regarding tort law. This bill adds significant improvements to the New Zealand legal system. The law of tort covers civil wrongs, whether intentional or otherwise, and it is a very important part of our legal system. As in all fields of law, issues arise, however, and solutions are required to improve the systems. One of those issues is that of jurisdiction. It applies when certain torts occur over multiple jurisdictions. For example, there is a case where multiple jurisdictions are involved: the question arises of which laws apply in the first instance. These matters are technical but are nevertheless fundamental to ensuring an effective judicial system. This bill seeks to clarify these elements of confusion in tort law.

There are four fundamental changes to tort law presented by this bill. The first is to abolish a rule referred to as double actionability. This is a somewhat archaic rule, passed down from our common law heritage with England. When a tort claim is brought in New Zealand for an action committed in another jurisdiction, the New Zealand court can hear the claim only if the tort is actionable in both jurisdictions. It then must apply New Zealand law unless the other country has the more significant relationship with both the occurrence and the parties. This private international law bill abolishes this double actionability rule under clause 6. Legal professionals have long called for reform, as the law is widely known as being difficult to apply and to understand.

The bill takes away, but it also creates. With the double actionability rule abolished, clause 7 of the bill creates the general rule that will be used in situations where the intent of the double actionability rule would have previously been applied. In essence, clause 7(1) establishes the place of wrongdoing rule in which “the applicable law is the law of the jurisdiction in which the events constituting the tort in question occur.” Put simply, if the event happened in the UK, the UK’s law applies. This is the second change brought about in this bill, and it is a sensible and logical rule. It is what you would expect of our judicial system.

Clause 7(2) goes into more detail saying, “Where elements for those events occur in different jurisdictions, the applicable law under the general rule is taken as being—(a) for a cause of action in respect of damage to property, the law of the jurisdiction where the property was when it was damaged;”. This bill abolishes the complex double actionability rule that has no place in the modern legal system. Subsequently, it creates a new multipurpose regime that addresses two central elements encompassed within tort law: damages to property, and general cases.

This bill doesn’t stop with simply establishing this regime. It adds a dynamic mechanism to ensure flexibility in the systems approach. As the fourth and final element of this bill, this mechanism provides an exemption to the place of wrongdoing rule, allowing a court to apply the law of another jurisdiction where it is substantially more appropriate to do so.

In essence, the bill gives the court the ability to look at complex circumstances, and judge whether the regime this bill creates determines the proper jurisdiction, and whether a different course of action may be more appropriate. This is clarified in clause 8(2), which has two main elements. The first is “(a) the significance of the factors that connect a tort with the jurisdiction whose law would be the applicable law under the general rule;” and the second part is “(b) the significance of any factors connecting the tort with another jurisdiction”. Once both are satisfied, if it is substantially more appropriate for the applicable law for determining the issues arising in the case or any of those issues to be the law of another jurisdiction, the general rule is displaced.

I have personal connection and appreciation of the domain of tort law from my previous experiences studying it and practising it, and I am conscious of the complexity and nuances of tort law. I am consequently aware of the impact of this small, yet significant, bill among legal circles, especially those who specialise in tort law.

I would like to thank those involved in working on this bill—firstly, the wonderful clerks of the previous Justice and Electoral Committee of the 51st Parliament: Shennia, Tamara, and Jess. I would also like to thank the Ministry of Justice officials for their assistance on this bill, especially throughout the committee stage. Thank you to the then members of the Justice and Electoral Committee; we’ve heard much praise of them in the last reading of the last bill heard. It was a fantastic and collegial select committee in the 51st Parliament.

Jono Naylor, who has since retired, was my deputy—and an excellent deputy at that. I’d also like to pay tribute to the previous members, some of whom have retired or are in absentia from this Parliament: Paul Foster-Bell, Chris Bishop, Maureen Pugh, Marama Fox, Jacinda Ardern, Louisa Wall, Metiria Turei, and Denis O’Rourke, who have all provided valuable contributions on this bill.

Finally, I’d like to thank two submitters to this bill: firstly, the New Zealand Law Society, and, secondly, Professor Campbell McLachlan QC, Jack Wass, and Dr Maria Hook. I’d also like to personally thank Maria Hook for her dedication to the bill, especially with regards to its interaction with the Accident Compensation Act.

So, to conclude, I think that this is an excellent piece of legislation. It has been well thought through, and confidently developed through select committee, and debated in this House. The four elements of this bill simplify the complex aspects of tort law when international jurisdictions apply. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my first proper speech, it’s a real pleasure to speak on something so close to my heart. Unlike Ms Dowie, I have an emotional attachment to this law.

Hon Amy Adams: You need to get out more, then.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you know, as a former professor of law, I’m not sure I’ve had the pleasure of having such fine minds already so well developed to hold.

You know, as a professor of law, here we are talking about conflicts in law—I never thought it would actually happen. So look, this is a real problem, and I do hope that this bill effectively solves it. That’s not to say there’s not going to be some challenges—I mean, the law of tort sounds all very nice when we think about the torts we’re usually involved in. Mine is usually a car collision or something like that. But if we think about defamation in the modern world, we have some real problems.

So, you know, we’ve got the tort of defamation committed across electronic medium—perhaps on Facebook and perhaps written in New Zealand, read in the United States, and with a company based in Ireland. Well, I’m not sure that this will easily solve that problem, but certainly it gets us around the double actionability rule, and it’s probably worth just pausing for a moment to understand why we even have that rule. It may seem arcane, but there is something important behind it, and that is the idea that nations will respect each other’s legal systems, so that we won’t allow litigation in one jurisdiction that undermines the sovereignty of another nation in respect of a tort that happened elsewhere. So that’s a really important point. It is something we’ve got to remember that is being put to one side—and that’s something I will return to, because there are real public policy questions around the issue of what kinds of torts we should allow to be litigated in New Zealand.

Importantly, of course, this bill does not affect procedure, so whilst we may be able to litigate foreign torts in New Zealand courts, we will not be doing so under foreign procedural rules. I want to just point out how important that is, because the rules of procedure are really quite dear to our legal system with regard to the rules of evidence, and to make sure that natural justice is adhered to.

So we are substituting this double actionability rule—the idea that we won’t be litigating anything unless it’s a wrong in both nations—with this place of wrong rule, and that does make some sense. There is a lot of difficulty sometimes, I think, in determining exactly where that place of wrong is, and although the prior rule was perhaps complex and difficult to apply, I’m pretty sure that this one will give lawyers plenty of work, as well—and I see Chapman Tripp, actually, on its website applauded this law change, and that does give me some cause for concern.

It is just worth thinking about exactly what kind of things we could find ourselves litigating in New Zealand, and it’s worth just looking at the boundaries of tort, because there are many torts out there, some of which we are at forefront of, and some of which we’re clearly not quite ready for. Certainly, New Zealand is at the forefront of torts in respect of privacy and breach of seclusion. So a breach of seclusion—which is well recognised in New Zealand, America, and Canada—could, under this kind of rule, be litigated here quite easily.

However, if we look at some other tort such as, for example, the duty of care that a mother owes to an unborn child, which is not well recognised in New Zealand—not recognised at all, in fact—and is looked at with suspicion in Canada, but is certainly an emerging tort in the United Kingdom, a really difficult question arises. It is entirely conceivable that there is a motor accident in the United Kingdom where an unborn child of a New Zealand mother is injured, they return to New Zealand, and—obviously, through a guardian—the child sues that mother for the injury caused. We need to pause very carefully and ask ourselves the question of whether this place of wrong rule is the prevailing value, or whether, in fact, we need to say that that’s not a tort that we want to recognise under any circumstances.

That is a very important question. Obviously, there are rights around autonomy—control over a woman’s own body—to be counterbalanced against really important questions about care for a foetus. Now, the New Zealand courts and the Canadian courts have not contemplated that. In fact, on public policy ground, certainly the weight of argument is heavily against it in those jurisdictions. That’s not to say that elsewhere a different public policy is not accepted.

Or we could find ourselves—even worse—contemplating truly arcane torts. I did spend a little time doing some research and found probably, and interestingly, another one that touches on the rights of women: the tort—

Chris Bishop: What’s that one?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —come over here and I’ll show you—of enticement.

Chris Bishop: Enticement? Goodness me!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Enticement, yes. It’s a fascinating tort and, as the fine minds of the Opposition would know, a tort that we abolished in 1975.

Chris Bishop: What were you researching?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I knew you were going to come straight back at me with that—

Chris Bishop: Why were you researching enticement?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Especially for you, my friend.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but not for me.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, I apologise. I wouldn’t want to prefer anyone, although—I’ll stop there. So that tort is the old tort of luring a spouse, and of course it used to be an actionable tort by a husband against the enticer. That clearly is a tort that in the modern world is entirely repugnant, and a tort that we would have no time for in New Zealand, whatsoever.

Now, fortunately, I am pretty confident that that’s effectively dealt with by Ms Dowie’s bill, because clause 11, in fact, provides that New Zealand will not—this does not authorise the actioning of a tort that is contrary to the principles of public policy. Having said that, I think some New Zealand judges are going to have an exciting time thinking about what torts are not recognised in New Zealand but that are, nevertheless, consistent with public policy. An underlying thread in the whole of the law of tort is public policy—that we recognise torts that are consistent with public policy, and we don’t recognise torts inconsistent with public policy. So were I in court, I would be arguing that any tort we don’t recognise in New Zealand, by definition, conflicts with principles of public policy, and, therefore, it’s a hard row to hoe to bring any tort in New Zealand to that effect.

The other thing that Chapman Tripp will be excited about—and they’re probably very happy to be getting such a mention in the House tonight—is the fact that clause 8 deals with “substantially more appropriate” jurisdiction. Now, in fact, that is just a hole so wide you could drive a truck through it. Having said that, I’m not sure that anyone has come up with any better words yet, but that kind of vagueness will create considerable uncertainty. That is uncertainty for the courts to deal with, and so we’re going to have to leave it to them. Certainly, that’s another one that lawyers will have a field day on. But I suppose, as a lawyer, I’m excited by this because all of a sudden we’re going to be able argue about all kinds of foreign torts, constitutional torts, torts of enticement, and torts of all kinds, and we’ll be able to do that in New Zealand and the judges will be able to develop foreign jurisprudence for others.

Having said that, it’s certainly a step forward from the double actionability rule. It is a piece of legislation that was needed. I’m heartened that the Law Society supported it, and certainly the bill as reported back is a vast improvement on the first draft, dealing, as it does, with personal injury and with things that are repugnant to public policy—two things that certainly would have concerned me greatly. So, having said that, and having given a great entrée to the legal profession for the great work they’re going to get out of these conflict of laws problems, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. Look, I am going to take what I hope is a shorter call on the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. To begin with, can I just acknowledge the member—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: A worthy successor to Sir Geoffrey.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —that’s right—Sarah Dowie who has brought the bill, as, I think, has been acknowledged by the speaker who has just resumed his seat, the member for Christchurch Central. It is a very good bill, a very worthy bill, although I have to reflect on the fact that anything that’s got the word “tort” in the name is sure to sort of set a wave of panic and fear through anyone who’s been a law student, and anyone who’s a current law student, and anyone thinking about being a law student—in fact, anyone who’s ever talked to a lawyer. As soon as you start talking about torts, I think anyone who hasn’t been legally trained immediately goes, “Oh God, blimmin’ lawyers. Here we go again.”

Chris Bishop: Or they think you’re talking about cake.

Hon AMY ADAMS: That’s right—not, unfortunately, torte with an “e”. We’ve just had a very interesting, although somewhat hard to follow, treatise from the member who’s just sat down on the interesting and archaic tort of enticement. I think we may have discovered the only member in this House who can really go toe to toe in a debate with Christopher Finlayson on arcane points of law, and no doubt this House will be privileged to listen to some of those debates over the course of this term.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I thought he was talking about the coalition negotiations.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Ha, ha! Well, as Christopher Finlayson has just pointed out, he may well have been referring to the coalition talks when he was talking about the tort of enticement. But I’m one step further down the path of recovery from legal practice than both the member who brought the bill and the last speaker. I’m now nine years into my deprogramming and return to the non-legal world, and so I’ll try and, I guess, put more of what might be a layperson’s spin on this bill.

Actually, very simply, what torts are all about is just a wrong done between two people and how you go to court to get a remedy for that. And that’s—well, actually, it’s not simple, even when both parties are in New Zealand and the event occurred in New Zealand. It still becomes incredibly complex and difficult and the sort of thing that lawyers enjoy immensely. But where you have two parties, or more than two parties, and the relationship and the events have spanned a number of countries, there does become an incredible difficulty of deciding exactly which legal system applies. The law should turn its mind to how we can make that far simpler so that not only can disputes be dealt with more simply but people can figure out in advance what the rules are that are likely to apply to them.

We used to have this slightly strange position where the test was: the country of most relevance to the dispute or the facts in dispute. Relevance is one of those things, a bit like reasonableness, that can be a little bit in the eye of the beholder, and it is very difficult to pick up any sort of instruction manual and work out what that means. It wasn’t even a simple “Where were you when the wrong occurred?” This bill removes that doubt and makes it very clear that the country’s laws that apply are those of the country where the wrong—the bad thing—was done.

Now, even that sometimes isn’t simple enough, and the bill therefore goes in to set out a range of rules for how you can determine where a wrong was done. It used to be, in the good old days, that you knew exactly where the negligence occurred and where the water tank broke and spilt the water over your paddocks, or whatever the event was—and the lawyers in the room will know what I’m talking about. But, actually, in an increasingly digital world and in an increasingly borderless world, our events and our businesses and our interactions are not that simple, and it is incumbent on us and the law and, therefore, this Parliament to try and remove that uncertainty wherever we can.

So, look, this does make sense, and for all of those millions of New Zealanders crowded round their radios and internet livestreaming to watch this debate in joyous anticipation of the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill passing, the simple thing to understand is that it simply makes it much clearer to understand which set of rules apply in some of these very difficult legal disputes. The thing to take away is that it will make it simpler, it will make it cheaper, it will make it cleaner, and, importantly, it will bring us into line with the countries that we tend to look to: Australia, Canada, England, and the like. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I don’t need to take up any more of the House’s time. I don’t have a particular legal treatise to set out on one of the other arcane torts. I will leave that to my more recently active colleagues from the legal profession and commend the bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Let me begin by congratulating you on your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker. I haven’t actually spoken in the House since my maiden speech—and what a topic to get first up. It is an absolute privilege to take my first call on the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. Having spent 25 years in the health sector, getting a bill on international tort law first up has been a pretty steep learning curve—not like Duncan, who lectures in the subject. So forgive me if my approach is much more simplistic in thinking about it in lay terms.

Actually, it’s a really nice little bill, and I think what it’s going to do is significantly simplify the way that torts are resolved across jurisdictions—you know, so things like negligence, property damage, and defamation. And, I guess, thinking “What are those examples?”, and they’re a bit hard to find on the web, but for us—if a parliamentary delegation of some of us went overseas, hired a rental car involved in a car crash, or if we get involved in some complex defamation that then spans borders on cyberspace. I think, whatever the complexity, it’ll all distil down to some very key things for those involved: it’s incredibly expensive, it’s incredibly complex, and it’s incredibly stressful, and anything that makes it more complex is likely to lengthen the whole process. So this little bill aims to streamline some but not all of that.

In speaking to the bill, I’d like to acknowledge my Invercargill colleague Sarah Dowie, who shepherded the bill through, since she’s taken over from David Bennett. Coming back to trying to distil it down into its most simple—you know, for a layperson—it’s about replacing that double actionability rule with that new general rule about the place of wrong. As we have alluded to in the House, currently double actionability means that if something’s happened overseas and you want to take it through the New Zealand court system, you have to make sure that there’s the legislative machinery to do that both in New Zealand and also in that other jurisdiction where the tort occurred. You need to have that in both places, and that adds to that level of complexity, because you have to be working across two different legal systems and understanding the complexities of both. Also, there’s a problem: if something’s considered to be a tort or wrongful in one jurisdiction and it’s not in another, how do you weigh that up? I think the problem is having to weigh that all up where some people have already undergone significant harm, where it’s incredibly expensive, and where time is money for those involved. It’s really important to sort that out.

So what this bill is proposing is actually to streamline that, and, instead of the double actionability, have a new general rule that where the events happened, the law of that jurisdiction should generally apply. In general, it’s called the place of wrong rule. The bill, though, still preserves the ability of the affected parties—if they want to put the case about which country’s law applies, then it still allows the courts to make a determination as to if and when the parties can choose to make that request. It also talks about providing that ability to have guidance when we might have that place of wrong rule being displaced. For example, if it was more relevant to another country—for example, if we were a parliamentary delegation going somewhere else, would it be more relevant, if we got injured, to have that under New Zealand legislation versus the legislation of the country where we had our injury? So it allows that flexibility if there’s a closer connection to the circumstances of another country when you’re weighing up that. The other thing, though, is that this bill will bring us into line with many other countries—the UK, Australia, and Canada—because they’ve already abolished the double actionability rule, and they’ve put in place the place of wrong approach. So it just lines us up with those countries.

Just looking at where we’ve been on the bill since the first reading, there’s also been another few changes to the bill, not substantially but just specifying more detail and making it a bit clearer in terms of the relevance in the New Zealand context. The first thing is about being very specific about personal injuries and the fact that it’s the law of the country where that injury occurred that should take precedence, and putting extra definitions in around what a personal injury is, so it’s much more closely lined up to our own ACC legislation. What we need to make sure of in this country is that ACC and our ability to have no-fault compensation are absolutely preserved. It is essential. So it’s really reassuring to see that that work has been done just to tidy that up and make it clear that that’s covered.

There were also some additional clauses added to specify that the legislation applies not only in overseas countries but also in New Zealand. I mean, it may seem really obvious, but I guess that’s the other thing—for example, if the parliamentary delegation from Australia came over to New Zealand, and thinking it through in that context. So, you know, it’s really just tidying that up as we bring the bill forward.

The other thing, when reading it through, is, first, it’s also really encouraging to note that our own principles of public policy are preserved. There’s nothing in the bill that allows for the laws of other countries to override our own public policy, protecting the freedom of debate that we have in this House and making sure, in terms of things like defamation, etc., that that can’t be overridden by another jurisdiction. There is also the note that nothing gives effect to laws that would not otherwise be enforceable under New Zealand law. So we can’t come in and have other overseas countries overriding our own laws and creating new ones over the top. It is reassuring that our laws are protected, in the current context, if there is a conflict with other jurisdictions.

So, as I said, it’s a nice little bill, and for my first entrée into international tort law, it was a nice, short bill. It was really quite nicely laid out.

Chris Bishop: Don’t go too far into that.

Dr LIZ CRAIG: Well, I could understand it, anyway, so whether that’s a litmus test—but, anyway, in summary, it significantly simplifies the rules around how torts are resolved across jurisdictions by ensuring, in most cases, that the law of place of wrong applies. It also gives us sufficient flexibility that when there’s a case that’s much more closely tied to another country then we can use their legislation. I think what it does is it takes that level of complexity out of that process in which a lot of people have already suffered a harm. It’s very expensive and it’s time-consuming, and this just steps back a little bit in terms of making that bit more streamlined. Also, there’s protections there so that our own legislation, our own public policy, and our own ACC are protected, so that the principles of public policy prevail. So I therefore commend this bill to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is my first speech of this Parliament and being part of this new Government, Madam Deputy Speaker, so congratulations on your appointment. I’ll be taking a relatively short call on this, because, for one, I’m not going to stand up and try and pretend that I’m a lawyer, whether it be current, recovering, or, indeed, a professor on the matter; nor am I going to pretend that I knew what “tort” actually meant before last week’s caucus, when I was handed this bill. This bill was spoken on on behalf of New Zealand First through the last Parliament by Denis O’Rourke, and I’ve taken over for the third reading of an Opposition member’s bill that looks like it’s going to be passed in this House. I didn’t see it through the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I would suggest that there are a number of people—if not everyone—in this House who know more about it than what I do.

Actually, when Clayton Mitchell, the whip of New Zealand First, gave me this bill to read, when he said the words “choice of law in tort”, I actually thought he was talking about a French pastry, or something to that effect. Actually, it was an interesting read to find out what “tort” meant.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Someone get the smelling salts for the Hon Christopher Finlayson.

DARROCH BALL: Yeah. I mentioned I went through the second readings and through the Hansard to see what it meant and what the different positions were of the different parties, and one of the things that the Hon David Parker said was that unless you were a lawyer, you’d be struggling to find any sort of relevance and, more importantly, any sort of enjoyment going through this bill. Actually, Todd Muller had a good quote, as well, in the second reading, and he said words to the effect that he had just endured two hours of pain on this utterly dry matter. I am struggling to actually be able to disagree with him on that point.

Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, the horror!

DARROCH BALL: I’m sorry. I know that the professor has some emotional attachment to this; however, I do not. But, like I said, one positive for me was that I found out what “tort” actually meant and what this bill was doing and the relevance of this bill. Actually, it’s been mentioned a couple of times that the bill is complex and that it changes the current legislation to ensure that it’s more simple to follow, and that’s always a good thing to support.

So the word “tort” actually, I found, was of French origin—that’s correct—and is actually derived from the meaning of “wrong”. “A tort is a wrongful act, other than a breach of contract,”—so we’re not talking about contract or criminal law—“that results in civil liability. Currently, where an action is brought in a New Zealand court for a tort committed outside [of] New Zealand, the common law rule of double actionability applies.” I know we’ve heard it, and I don’t really want to lecture on it too much, but what this changes is the fact that “The bill will abolish the rule of double actionability, and establish the general rule that the applicable law is the law of the country where the events constituting the tort occurred.” So I’ve learnt those two things, going through this entire process.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Can you just run over that again?

DARROCH BALL: Yeah—ha, ha! So, in essence, it does two important things. It simplifies and clarifies the issues with the cross-border torts, and that has been needed for some time and is widely supported. It also brings us in line with jurisdictions similar to New Zealand.

I’d also like to just make a very quick and important note that when the committee heard submissions on it there were only two submissions. That was from the New Zealand Law Society and from a professor who was also a QC. Both submissions supported the bill and the intent of the bill, and, in fact, the recommendations that those submitters actually brought forward—most if not all of them were adapted and amended to the bill. Being that the changes are widely accepted and widely supported, New Zealand First will support this bill through the House. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I’m really pleased that New Zealand First is supporting this bill, because at various stages New Zealand First has opposed it. I’m delighted that Darroch Ball has indicated their support.

Look, we were all sitting around one night wondering what bills could be the subject of members’ bills. People were wondering, and I came up with the brilliant idea: what about double actionability? That’s the genesis of the bill. It’s always been a subject that I’ve found most interesting—possibly a very sad reflection on me, but there you have it. So David Bennett looked after the bill in its initial stages, and Sarah Dowie has done a wonderful job steering the bill through to its third reading, and I’m so very pleased we’re here.

On one level, it could be said that private international law, or the conflict of laws, is geek’s law. It’s the sort of thing that pretty sad lawyers like when they’re not really interested in human rights and stuff like that. But the fact of the matter is the conflict of laws, or, as it’s called now, private international law, is a very important practical subject. In the course of my legal career I’ve had to deal with issues such as: can one enforce in New Zealand a judgment obtained in Virginia? In another case, can one enforce in New Zealand a judgment obtained in Hawaii, which was under appeal? Is such a judgment full and final for the purposes of enforcement in New Zealand?

Chris Bishop: What’s the answer?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: What happens—I won, as one would expect, so the answer was yes, it could be enforced in New Zealand even though it was under appeal. Then there are cases that come up all the time: what happens if a contract is entered into between a New Zealand company and a company in Texas, and the governing law of the contract is Texas law—can that be litigated on in New Zealand?

With increasing international involvement between individuals—and I stress individuals, because we’re talking about private international law—private international law is becoming, and will continue to become, an intensely practical subject. That’s why it’s very important that we have clear rules to deal with the kinds of topics that arise, be it divorce, be it domicile, be it reciprocal enforcement of judgments—all these kinds of issues come up from time to time.

I suppose it’s because of the intense pressures on this place and on the Ministry of Justice that sometimes we don’t have the attention brought to some of these black-letter law issues that we should, because it’s considered that it’s in the realm of “only the lawyers are interested in it”. But unless the rules are clear, one runs the risk of what’s called satellite litigation, where enormous cost can be incurred and delays incurred while lawyers argue over things like the double actionability rule.

I want to congratulate the various speakers who have talked about this rule and how it applies to torts like defamation or negligence. I don’t think I need restate the rule or where it came from—some of the old English cases—but it certainly at the moment applies in New Zealand, which is why it needs to be considered. It has, over the years, produced unfair and peculiar results. An example would be where a defendant can invoke a defence available under one system of law but not the other, in circumstances where the connection between the claim and the former system is tenuous.

So it is overdue for reform in this country. It lacks certainty, which is its primary problem. The court, when dealing with the rule, has to consider two sets of laws. I think, on balance, it could be said it’s too favourable to defendants and, importantly, as referred to by Ms Craig, the rule has now been abolished in most other jurisdictions. It was the subject of legislative reform in England and Wales in 1995. It’s been the subject of reform in Canada. In Australia, I think it was the High Court of Australia that decided that the double actionability rule should be abandoned. So that’s why, in a state of great excitement one night, I suggested: let’s move on the double actionability rule, and my caucus colleagues accepted the challenge with acclaim.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And acclamation.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Mr Woodhouse was particularly enthusiastic.

The heart of the bill is clause 7, so the double actionability rule goes west, as it were, and it’s replaced with the general rule that the applicable law is the law of the country in which the events that constitute the tort in question occur. Some members have already referred to clause 7(2)(b), that basically it will be the country where the most significant element or elements of those events occurred. The second key point, which I won’t go into in any detail, sets out when the general rule is displaced, and that’s clause 8. Finally, clause 10 abolishes the rule of double actionability and related common law rules.

So by the passage of the bill we will fall into line with other countries, and I’m very pleased that that is the case. Previous speakers have referred to submissions that have been given by various submitters. I think the person that was referred to a few minutes ago was Professor Campbell McLachlan of Victoria University, who is an academic and a Queen’s Counsel. He is one of the world authorities on this subject. He’s the editor of a book called Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, which is one of the great textbooks of the legal library, and I’m very grateful to him for his interest and support in this matter.

Another person who’s been very helpful is another Wellington Queen’s Counsel, one of—I would say probably our top lawyer at the present time, David Goddard, who I spoke to about the bill, and various lawyers in Chapman Tripp. The New Zealand Law Society always does a very good job when it comes to legal submissions. They are the ones who, year in and year out, come down to select committees—as Dr Webb’s going to find out—and invariably contribute to the improvement of statutes. I think it was an American academic who said it’s the bar who makes the statutes, and I think that’s probably absolutely right, because the New Zealand Law Society on this sort of thing does a very good job.

So that’s at the heart of why we’re discussing this legislation. I congratulate Sarah Dowie for—she may say accepting a hospital pass, but for taking this bill and steering it through the House. It is a complex piece of legislation, but, as I say, it is a practical piece of legislation and this Parliament ignores black-letter law at its peril. I always recall with limitation law, which had reached a shocking state, that a judge of the Court of Appeal said, when dealing with a case on the law of limitation: “This law is so out of date there is nothing we can do with it. It cries out for a legislative solution.”

So it’s very important that with this sort of stuff—it’s hardly going to be party political, but it behoves both administrations, be it a National one or a Labour one, whoever’s in power, to try and keep this kind of law up to date, because it’s important to do so, obviously, and also because it avoids that spectre of satellite litigation where delays and costs are incurred because rules that really should be quite straightforward are unnecessarily opaque. So I really think this is a very good development, a very good piece of legislative reform. I’m very grateful for the comments that Chapman Tripp made about it, because they said—[Madam Deputy Speaker stands up]—how wonderful it was, and I commend the bill to the House. I’d been looking at that clock, not you.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry. Thank you. It’s time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to take a call to speak on the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, even though I’m not a lover of torts myself, unless they’re of the chocolate variety, unlike my colleague, the member Dr Duncan Webb. It is, however, a bill of conflict and international intrigue, and, in fact, as my colleague Dr Webb mentioned, even enticement.

The Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill introduces a valuable reform and will bring an important part of New Zealand’s private international law into the 21st century. The bill is concerned with the rules for choice of law in tort. I understand “choice of law” refers to a stage of litigation involving conflicting laws, when differences between laws of different jurisdictions need to be resolved. Where a New Zealand court is faced with a tort claim that contains an international or a cross-border element—so, basically, where the tort happens in two jurisdictions—choice of law rules tell the judge how to identify the system of law or the set of rules that will apply to assess this claim.

Currently, New Zealand law applies the double actionability rule, which was developed by English cases back in the 19th century. Where the court is faced with a tort that was committed overseas but is brought to action in New Zealand, it has to be actionable in both countries—so, basically, in the country or in the jurisdiction where it happened and also in New Zealand. The New Zealand court, or domestic courts, can hear the claim only if the tort is actionable in both jurisdictions. This doesn’t seem to be very logical to me, and neither did it to the two people and organisations that submitted on this bill. To my mind, and to them, it would be much more logical to apply the law of the jurisdiction where the tort actually happened.

This is exactly what the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill will achieve. This bill will get rid of the double actionability rule. If you look at clause 6, that’s exactly what that particular clause is about. The next clause, clause 7, creates a general rule, which is called the place of wrong rule—basically, referring to the jurisdiction where the tort occurred. Clause 7(1) establishes the place of wrong rule, in which “the applicable law is the law of the jurisdiction in which the events constituting the tort in question occur.” Under this clause, the general rule is that, basically, it’s the law of that jurisdiction, the place where it happened, that will apply. That seems sensible to me.

Basically, in summary, these are the aspects of the parts of this legislation that the bill we’re debating will change. It will abolish the double actionability rule. It will establish a place of wrong—so it not only abolishes one part of the legislation that doesn’t make a lot of sense and, actually, is quite an archaic piece of legislation, but it also moves it into a different space. It establishes which law will apply in that particular instance. It provides rules, also—and this is the third part of the bill—to determine where a tort can be said to have occurred, where the events occur in more than one jurisdiction. So, in the first case, we’re talking about what we do in a domestic court of law when the tort has taken place overseas. There are also rules in this legislation if it happens over two jurisdictions, over more than one jurisdiction. There are quite a few instances of that, and I’ll go into something that’s called the passing off tort in due course, which is quite interesting.

It also provides for an exception to the place of wrong rule, allowing a court to apply the law of another jurisdiction where substantially more appropriate to do so. I will get back to this point in a minute, but just to take a step back, because, like many in this House, I’m not exactly a lawyer myself, and those who are watching, as well, may not understand what exactly tort law is. So I’ve just got a definition that I will read, to shed some light on what exactly we’re debating here. Now, tort law is defined as a body of rights, obligations, and remedies applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others. The person who sustains injury or suffers pecuniary damage as a result of “tor-chiss”—“tor-teeus”—conduct is known as the plaintiff—

Hon Judith Collins: Tortious.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —tortious; thank you, I was quite sure it wasn’t torturous, but I wasn’t quite sure what it was—and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for that damage is known—and I like this particularly—is known as the defendant or the “tort-feesa”, is it? The tort-fees—

Hon Members: Tortfeasor.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Tortfeasor, yes. I thought that was particularly fascinating when I read this. Examples of tort include car accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, and copyright infringement, as well. So imagine this: a car accident happens overseas, say in a country like Malta—and this is actually a case that was one of the more famous cases when it comes tort law and, actually, to this particular double actionability rule—and it’s brought to the New Zealand courts for action. I’m not too sure why that would be, but, anyway, in that famous case, Boys v Chaplin, that’s kind of what happened. The accident itself happened in Malta, the action was brought to a different court—it was the UK, I think, in that particular case, but say it’s to New Zealand. Currently, it would have to be actionable in both Malta and in New Zealand for it to be actioned here or for the action to be brought here. This bill will change that.

However, clause 8, which talks about—I have it right here, clause 8 of the bill, which allows the general rule to be displaced where it is substantially more appropriate for the law of another country to apply, taking into account the significance that factors connecting the tort with each jurisdiction would actually allow, as in this case—in Boys v Chaplin, it actually allowed for the case to be brought to action in the UK and for UK law to apply. Now, this is actually a slightly vague clause, a slightly vague part of this bill. So, while we support this bill—I support this bill and the Labour Party supports this bill—it’s not perfect, as bills often aren’t. This part, particularly, is little bit vague and a little bit confusing.

So there’s this tort, apparently, that’s called passing off, and it’s an economic tort. What it does is, for example, if I were to steal a brand like McDonald’s, perhaps, and start my own chain of burger places here—

Michael Wood: Or even that Eminem song.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —yes, or an Eminem song, yes; if I were to steal that, rip it off, and just use it without any permission—that, apparently, would be liable for passing off. Now, this could happen on the internet. The digital age that we live in, when it intersects with real life, could have real problems. This particular clause, clause 8, opens us up to some vagueness when it comes to those sorts of areas, because that doesn’t actually happen in a specific jurisdiction, does it? It happens, potentially, across multiple jurisdictions, potentially in cyberspace, which I’m not sure is actually a jurisdiction under law. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that it’s a good bill and we support it for a number of reasons, but it’s not perfect, and perhaps there are specific aspects of this bill that could be further clarified or further defined.

The reason we support this bill, however, is that there is actually strong international judicial and academic consensus that the double actionability rule is not fit for purpose, that it is unwieldy, that it doesn’t make a lot of sense, really, and that it sets us apart, or it keeps us—it doesn’t move us into a space where we are comparable or we move into a space alongside comparable jurisdictions.

So, basically, it’s not fit for purpose. It’s been abolished by a number of other countries, other jurisdictions that we like to compare ourselves with—for example, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and I understand that there’s been proposals for change in Singapore as well. It’s been debated quite a bit there. The rule also confuses the question of jurisdiction—so, which court should hear the claim—with the choice of law, which set of rules or which law should the court apply. So that’s a little bit problematic as well.

The other part that I found quite interesting was when I was reading some of the submissions—well, one of two submissions—to this bill. One of the submitters pointed out in their submission that this is quite an archaic piece of law—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the member. I forgot to ring the bell. The member’s time is up.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I should have yielded to the member. It was a very good contribution and a valuable one to the House.

I will admit to the House that I am a little bit daunted speaking about torts in Parliament. I worked for Greenpeace for 10 years before entering Parliament, and I spent more time in front of a judge than making tort- or constitutional-based arguments in front of a judge. But look, it’s been a fascinating debate. I’d like to single out the member for Christchurch Central, Duncan Webb. He made an incredible contribution, explaining the history.

Not being familiar with tort law, I would point out that this is actually one of the most substantive debates we’ve had in Parliament for a while, and anyone watching I think maybe learnt a thing or two about the international legal norms.

I would like to congratulate the member Sarah Dowie for navigating this legislation through the House. If you listen to Chris Finlayson, it was all his work, of course, but I acknowledge the work of the member sponsoring the bill.

The Greens have supported this legislation all the way through. We want to see our legal system, which can be, for many people, a daunting process as well—it can be overly complex. We want to clarify and simplify law, and here’s a pretty common-sense area where we could improve it. We know other jurisdictions around the world, such as the UK, are going down this path to abolish—I guess you could make the argument—the archaic double actionability rule.

What I learnt from the member Duncan Webb’s contribution was the broad range of tort law—everything from motor accidents to defamation law, and even to constitutional issues. Now, there’s going to be some implementation issues, as we saw, with some pretty archaic laws—tort laws that we got rid of decades and ages ago that are still on the statute book in other countries—and how we navigate this area. But, in a nutshell, this common-sense law change to simplify and make our legal system easier to access, more able to be understood, and, hopefully, delivering better outcomes for Kiwis is a good thing, and that’s why we’ve supported it all the way through.

I acknowledge the submissions—the small number of them. It has the support of the New Zealand Law Society. We want to thank the House for progressing this very constructive, positive bill. Kia ora koutou.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to be speaking for the second time this evening, this time taking a split call on the third reading of the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill.

Can I start by acknowledging my hard-working colleague Sarah Dowie and, in particular, an achievement that she has achieved in the last couple of weeks: extending the number of keeping-in-touch days available to new mums who want to go back to work from time to time without losing the rest of their paid parental leave. It’s a positive change, and I also acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway and the Government for supporting it.

I mentioned earlier in the House that, when I was at university, my intention was to graduate with a commerce degree, but what I omitted to add was that my original intention was actually to study law as well. I hate to say it, surrounded by such accomplished legal minds as Christopher Finlayson, Amy Adams, Sarah Dowie, and, of course, Judith Collins, just down in front of me, and our resident expert—

Chris Bishop: That was a bit late.

ANDREW FALLOON: Sorry, mate; I don’t think you ever practised, actually, so I’m not going to include you in that one—and, of course, our resident expert on enticement across the House. But I made it only as far as one paper, so I come to this Parliament very much a layperson in legal matters, my only recollection of studying tort being the infamous snail in the ginger beer.

I have to say, though, that it was a pleasure listening to New Zealand First MP Darroch Ball—first, because, like me, he’s not a lawyer, and, second, because of the strong disagreements he was having with Labour MP Duncan Webb over the significance of tort law. I thought, “Fantastic! Division within the Government ranks, and on such an important issue.” But my hopes were dashed when he confirmed New Zealand First was voting for the bill along with the rest of the Government. I am pleased, though, that the bill will pass unopposed, which, as my colleague Christopher Finlayson said, wasn’t the case at earlier readings, when New Zealand First voted against it. Evidently, Mr Ball is a cleverer man on legal matters than Mr Denis O’Rourke was.

Similar to the previous bill that we were debating, the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill is a relatively simple and non-controversial matter. At its most fundamental, a tort is a wrongful act or infringement of a right other than a breach of contract, leading to a legal liability. This bill provides the rules for determining which country’s law to apply for cross-border torts. The bill abolishes double actionability and establishes that the applicable law is the law of the country where the evidence constituting the tort occurred or where the most significant elements of the event occurred. The bill also clarifies and simplifies New Zealand law and brings us into line with international jurisdictions.

As a new member of the Justice Committee, it’s been a pleasure to read through the previous submissions on the bill: one from the New Zealand Law Society and the other from Professor Campbell McLachlan QC, Jack Wass, and Dr Maria Hook. The Law Society noted that the bill largely mirrors legislation in place in the UK. The second submission makes similar points in support and pushes back on suggestions by New Zealand First that the bill is not required, stating simply that “reform is necessary and the double actionability law should be abolished.” This is an eminently sensible bill, and I encourage all members to support it.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. But before I do that, I may just have to correct a tort of my own. The last time I rose to speak was for my maiden speech, and I neglected to acknowledge the Chair, so I remedy that tort at this moment and acknowledge the Chair, acknowledge yourself, and congratulate you this evening on your rise to that exalted position. Having now been obsequious enough to, I hope, now remedy that tort, I will go on with the rest of my speech.

It is a difficult one, especially following those legal goliaths the Hon Chris Finlayson and Dr Duncan Webb. They leave one with very few places to go while they cerebrally dissect this bill. To assist, perhaps, the thousands, nay tens of thousands, at home who may be forsaking the soap operas, the game shows, and the dramas tonight to watch this, I will endeavour to put this in terms that perhaps I can understand as to what this is about. It is to enable civil wrongs committed against New Zealanders in other countries to be righted, here in New Zealand. Certainly that’s my simple understanding of it. It’s about jurisdictions.

I just wonder, Mr Assistant Speaker, if I can just take a moment. My journey to this House has been somewhat longer than others and it’s given me the opportunity to get some context to things that we’re speaking about. Certainly jurisdictionally I do remember getting a lesson in how different jurisdictions come to our advantage. As a much younger man backpacking through Africa I found myself—and I’m showing my age—in German South West Africa, shortly to become Namibia, speaking in a hotel with a rather large and opinionated South African man on the subject of apartheid, which was then, of course, the system of Government operating in South Africa.

We disagreed strongly, as you might imagine. I was somewhat critical of his Government. The next night we’d moved further south into South Africa and we found ourselves in a place called Springbok, which is what you’d imagine a town in the northern cape of South Africa to look like, not only one horse but unfortunately one hotel. I found myself again in the company of this same gentleman. We argued strongly about something that wasn’t to do with apartheid but again he took umbrage. This time, however, he decided that he would have the last say, and he went to the local police station to get the sergeant to come back and made a charge of sedition against me because, in fact, what I had been doing was criticising the South African Government for their apartheid system, and that was actually against the law of the land.

Fortunately, the big sergeant who came somewhat nervously, presumably to arrest me, suddenly had a bright light go on and he said, “Ah! That’s right; that happened in Namibia—the South West. You’re right; the jurisdiction has saved you. But I must warn you this time you cannot talk about and criticise the Government in this manner.” So that gave me an understanding that jurisdictionally there are opportunities for people to hide. In that case, I think it was a positive that I didn’t find myself in a South African jail. So when I read this bill that’s the thing that I really did see—that jurisdictions can be a friend and an enemy.

New Zealanders love to travel in order to work, to play, and, increasingly, to do business overseas, and they are likely to find themselves in situations like I did, whether intentionally or accidentally, where wrongs are done to them—civil wrongs. Of course, we’re not talking about criminal wrongs here. So one of the advantages, of course, in being a New Zealander, and something that I note that none of the previous speakers have brought up, is the fact that we are very much a corruption-free jurisdiction in which to take cases. I stand here as someone who has just spent 40 years in the New Zealand Police. I have never taken a bribe, but, I might say, I’ve never been offered a bribe either.

In those countries where police officers can’t say the same, the judiciary and other aspects—the police cannot be corrupt by themselves; they are corrupt regimes. So being able to take these remedies in a place like New Zealand now, presented by this bill, without having the double-accountability factor to prove, will be a massive advantage.

Just before I do commend this to the House, I just might just mention two terms: “lex loci delicti”, which, of course, is the law of the place of the wrong; and “redire”, which is “to return”—two beautiful terms. I don’t like to show myself as being too old-fashioned but I do remember the odd Latin mass as a lad. It’s good to see that Latin can be used, it’s still relevant, and even as I prepared tonight I felt a touch of nostalgia using those terms. So I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The member who’s just resumed his seat, Greg O’Connor, talked about nostalgia, and I’ve got to say, this bill brings back nostalgia for me—nostalgia for the last Parliament, because it was in the last Parliament that this very fine bill was introduced. We heard earlier in the debate tonight from Christopher Finlayson QC about his great idea, which I think he’s been pushing for a number of years, to do this bill, the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. It was given off to that legal titan David Bennett. It’s fair to say that David Bennett was very enthused about it.

In fact, I remember when the bill was pulled from the ballot, because I went down to the biscuit tin ceremony down in the Table Office at 12 o’clock on a Thursday, very excited to have possibly another member’s bill pulled. Some members will know I’ve had the luck of the draw in the last Parliament. I hope that continues for the new Parliament. Number 38, or whatever it was, got pulled out, and everyone quickly went through this “What’s all that? Maybe it’s euthanasia, maybe it’s, you know, whatever.”, and it was the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. I think it’s fair to say there wasn’t wild enthusiasm from the journalists and the assembled masses. There were quite a few people there that day. In fact, David Bennett was as surprised as anyone.

Jami-Lee Ross: I texted him the result.

CHRIS BISHOP: Jami-Lee Ross is telling me he texted him the result. He was pretty excited about it. Then, of course, it went to Sarah Dowie, and she was very excited to have passage of this bill. Unlike David Bennett—I shouldn’t be mean about him—Sarah Dowie does have a distinguished career in the law down south. Her and I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it was in the last Parliament, and we saw this bill through. All these people turned up to speak to us: Jack Wass, who I know, is a barrister in Wellington, a good friend of many friends of mine who are barristers at Stout Street Chambers; Campbell McLachlan QC, who taught me international law at Victoria University, made a submission.

Kiritapu Allan: Good man.

CHRIS BISHOP: I see my friend over the other side there, Kiri Allan. When Kiri came to this House—and I welcome you, Kiri, to Parliament; I’m sure you’ll make a great contribution—we ran into each other in the Beehive lifts and she said, “Oh, we’ve met before.” and I said, “Oh, yep, did we meet at law school?”, and she said, “Yes. You were the loud guy up the back.” And it’s not the first time I’ve heard that talked about my days at law school. But great to have you in the Chamber, Kiri.

So Campbell McLachlan QC turned up, we had Jack, and we had the Law Society, and Denis O’Rourke—just on the theme of nostalgia, we do miss Denis.

Matt Doocey: Bring back Denis.

CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve got to say, and my friend Matt Doocey from Canterbury, a fellow Cantabrian MP—we do miss Denis, because Denis, he had his quirks. It’d be fair to say he had his quirks, he had his foibles, but, actually, Denis O’Rourke had a legal background and he sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee with us. He would sit there, he would analyse the evidence, he would read the submissions—which is more than other members do, I have to say—then he would come to a view, he would take it to the New Zealand First caucus, and, generally, what he said New Zealand First would go with, and that was their position. He was a good and honourable member of that Justice and Electoral Committee. I think we’re going to miss him in the Parliament. I never thought I’d say that—I never thought I’d say that about Denis O’Rourke. I think we are going to miss him in the Parliament, but I’m sure that people like Mark Patterson and the newer members of New Zealand First will make a worthy contribution as well.

Greg O’Connor: Will they ever say that about you, Chris?

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m sure you’re going to make a worthy contribution too, Mr O’Connor.

Anyway, that’s just a reasonably long way of talking about what is a very decent and good-intentioned bill. People out there listening might think, “Well, what’s the Parliament doing three weeks or four weeks out from Christmas with a new Government talking about the choice of law in tort?” They might be OK in thinking that, because, usually, new Governments come to the Parliament with a massive rush of new legislation and they put the House into urgency. We’ve got the hundred-day action plan and things like that but no, no, here we are a few weeks out from Christmas, having a members’ day, churning through the worthy legislation of the last Parliament. I think that’s actually going to continue for the next few weeks, as it may be, because, actually, the Government doesn’t have many bills on the Order Paper. This great new Government, filled with good intentions, dripping with good intentions, does not have much legislation. But we will see that. But this is a—

Dr Deborah Russell: It’s because we respect democracy.

CHRIS BISHOP: “It’s democracy.”, she says. Well, we’re familiar with that concept. Thank you for that noted interjection. But this is a worthy bill, and I’m looking forward to seeing it pass into law. I commend it to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe Te Kōata o Te Ārepa, ā, tēnā tātau Te Whare.

[Acknowledgments to you, the Prism of the Alpha, and salutations to us, the House.]

This is my first speech in the 52nd Parliament, sir, so I wanted to, as is customary, congratulate you on your appointment, and your fellow presiding officers for their appointments. I look forward to participating in the work of this 52nd Parliament. Can I also offer my congratulations to all returning members and new members. I think, from what I’ve observed, I’ve really enjoyed this debate thus far because we’ve heard some outstanding contributions from new members—on all sides, but in particular Dr Duncan Webb, Liz Craig, Priyanca. I’m very proud to be standing on this side of the House among such really capable colleagues.

I’ve got lots to say about this bill. In fact, I had the honour of giving a speech, at rather short notice, on the second reading of this bill. I had a quick glance over the Hansard—

Chris Bishop: That’s never a good idea.

RINO TIRIKATENE: It’s never a good idea, yes. I thought, back in hindsight, “Hmm?” I was able to read contributions from Jono Naylor, who was a great member of the last Parliament, about his exploits with his reggae band, with a potential tort in Jamaica and the harm that may have been inflicted on Jamaicans by some cultural misappropriation from such a performance. So, yeah, I was stretching things. But I think that is exactly what tort is all about. It’s about judge-made law that has been created by the doctrines and the pronouncements that have come through the courts that we have also inherited here in Aotearoa. Inevitably, there are disputes that arise when actions are committed across jurisdictions. I guess, in its most simple form, that’s what this bill is seeking to simplify, by ensuring that some archaic rules, such as double actionability, have been abolished.

On that note, I do want to acknowledge the sponsors of this bill. I thought this bill was a bit of a step beyond David Bennett, when it was first introduced into the House, and now we know—I do acknowledge Sarah Dowie, the local member there in Invercargill, who has ably taken on this bill, right to its third reading, but it was revealed to us earlier in the debate that none other than the Hon Christopher Finlayson was, indeed, the true legal brains behind this bill. And here we are at its third reading.

I do acknowledge and respect the legal skills—I guess, the legal mind—of an eminent parliamentarian and jurist and practitioner such as Mr Finlayson, but I must say, we have Dr Duncan Webb. I must say that he can match Mr Finlayson toe to toe on any discussions or debate around legal matters. I really enjoyed the contributions from both because I could sense the legal whizzing, like two tops spinning, in terms of their contributions around knowledge of the law and the knowledge of torts like—what was it, entrapment? No, enticement—and other, ah—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Interesting.

RINO TIRIKATENE: —interesting torts that had been established by the courts. So much so, I can just imagine the chargeable hours that would have been racked up by such legal minds whirring, as they were, in consideration and analysis of this bill. That is one aspect of this bill that I’m sure will be welcomed by the legal community: the fact that there’s always something to explain to clients and to add into any advice that they give.

One aspect, I think, that is contained in the bill that I guess overrides everything—and it is provided in the bill—is the fact that clients can put it in writing. Once it’s in writing, there’s a contract—it’s an agreement. So it is conceivable that two parties or more can, in fact, anticipate that there may be a tortious claim that one or other may have in the future, and they can actually stipulate within the contract itself how they will deal with that claim and what applicable law will apply. Any decent lawyer, I guess, would always instruct their clients to put it in writing, and I guess that’s the key aspect from this.

When tortious claims in actions are conducted, is where there is harm that’s been caused where there hasn’t been an agreement between parties. It’s civil wrongs that have been committed from one party to another. That’s why we are bringing clarity to the situation where a tortious act is committed in an overseas jurisdiction—between New Zealand’s jurisdiction and somewhere else, wherever that act has been committed.

I did mention in my last contribution on this bill some examples of what might be included within its ambit. Now, sure, I think the Jamaican reggae example might have been a stretch too far, but I think we can just look around the House and look at recent legal actions that have taken place. In short, adjusting some of the facts, you might be able to create a tort, maybe, in some of them. Just by way of example, I think Mr Wood gave the example of Eminem. Maybe he could be claiming that there was a tortious wrong—that he feels aggrieved in such a way that there was a tort committed by stealing and using his intellectual property or his music to promote an election broadcast.

I think in my last speech I also used the example of the tort of invasion of privacy. We’ve heard about certain cases around surveillance or eavesdropping in on people—staff members—and I guess the aggrieved party may, if they have a good lawyer, think they might be able to extend the case to some sort of civil action as well, which might create a tortious action.

Likewise—oh, I guess case in point: we have the Rt Hon Winston Peters taking a privacy action against members opposite for—

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

RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh, sir, I am very much addressing the bill, because I’m talking about potential tortious actions. I’m just giving those as an example of if one party is in another jurisdiction, for instance, and it then comes to the point of which law applies. We are now enacting legislation that simplifies this area—simplifies what would be vexed legal issues by making it very clear that, in general, the place-of-wrongdoing rule will apply, through the abolishment of the double actionability rule.

I commend this bill to the House. I think there’s a lot that we can learn through it, and I’m sure that it will be of benefit to disputing parties in the future. Kia ora tātou.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and to take the final call in relation to the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. I will not be making the error of referring to any litigation that’s currently before New Zealand courts in my contribution, and I must admit I was somewhat surprised that members opposite have thought it appropriate to do so.

It’s tempting to make a general comment about torts, referring to snails and ginger beer bottles, for those who are inclined to enjoy such a joke, but that might be opaque for many. But nevertheless I feel I would be negligent not to try.

Before I proceed any further, I’d like to acknowledge a few of the others who have spoken in relation to this bill so far. The honourable member Sarah Dowie, in whose name the bill is now proceeding—I thank and congratulate her for that. To the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC—his name is not above the title but his fingerprints are all over it, so I congratulate him on that as well.

Similarly, I enjoyed the contribution from Dr Webb, the member for Christchurch Central. He made some very interesting, and I think useful, points in relation to the extent to which we can legislate in these matters, particularly around some hard cases across international lines, and I would encourage him and say that I look forward to maybe a member’s bill in his own name to rectify any of those matters that he feels were deficient in this piece of legislation.

I also echo the thoughts of a couple of colleagues on both sides of the House in relation to the experience of studying law. The phrase “certainty in the law” obviously has a particular meaning in relation to this legislation, but my own lack of certainty in the law related not least of all to torts exams, and so I’ll have to proceed with that in the back of my mind and not allow it to distract me too far.

It seems to me that this piece of legislation is very worthwhile and, indeed, worthy for five main reasons, which I summarise as: certainty, sovereignty, flexibility, internationality, and priority. I’m not sure if “internationality” is actually a word, but it fits, at least phonetically, with my other points in making some sort of terrible Dr Seuss sequel.

So on the first, certainty, at clause 10—we’ve heard already from other members that the main import of the bill is to abolish various common law rules, and in particular, those around double actionability, which, of course, as has already been explained well by members on both sides of the House in support of the bill, simply means that if a tort or a potential tort is committed, then it need not be actionable in more than one potential jurisdiction to be valid as a claim. It seems to me this is a good thing. Certainty in the law is a high priority for lawmakers, I would suggest, and is almost as important as having law that is good in other ways, because at least the parties involved in a potential action know where they stand. That seems to me an empowering thing for citizens, as well as their respective legal representatives.

My second point is sovereignty. It seems to me that this law has a very beneficial aspect in that it promotes New Zealand sovereignty. It does so primarily through clause 5(1), which I’ll take the liberty of referring to in the bill itself: “The characterisation for the purposes of private international law of issues arising in a claim as issues relating to tort is a matter for the courts of New Zealand.” So that’s, obviously, under the heading of “General principles”, and it seems to me that it’s a guiding principle of the substantive clauses of the legislation. That is a very useful overall flavour, such that our courts can determine our matters to the extent that they are our matters. And, of course, if they are not, then the law does provide for other jurisdictions to handle those matters, and that’s something to which I will turn shortly.

Next, however, on the subject of flexibility, again this has been raised at least briefly by other speakers. At clause 8 I note that the general rule, which is being discussed in relation to the appropriate jurisdiction—or “country”, as is the term used in the law—being that in which the action or the wrong, or the potential wrong, takes place, is displaced if the court determines that in various circumstances it is “substantially more appropriate for the law of another country”, which it labels as country B, to determine the matter. So it seems to me that flexibility in having a rule but having that able to be overruled, so to speak—a presumption that’s able to be rebutted—is a valuable thing. At the same time as enjoying and promoting certainty in the law, we do also like flexibility in the law to the extent that it allows a matter to be determined on all the relevant factors. So, again, it seems to me a well-considered and thoughtful bill in that regard as well.

Next, internationality. It has been observed—if you will forgive the tautology—that we live in a global world, and so it’s appropriate in relation to this, and indeed all legislation, that we consider how this law of our land might interplay with the laws of other lands, as well. Of course, the whole flavour of the bill and its tenor is to contemplate that things happen in different countries—or, again, jurisdictions—and that we need a mechanism for determining where those should best be heard.

The law itself, however, in its drafting and passage so far, also reflects an international flavour in that it draws heavily upon a statute on the UK statute book that is broadly equivalent. That dates to 1995 in the UK, and that seems to me helpful for a couple of reasons. The first is that we can take advantage of the things that we, as a House, determine are valuable to carry over into our own law, firstly, and secondly, that we are able to ensure some degree of alignment between our law and that of the UK, in this case, and, thirdly, because in the case of legislation there that has been in effect for some 20 years, we have the benefit of some jurisprudence, I expect, that will have been built up in their courts, and so that may give our legal system some guidance about how we might best apply this law when it comes to be considered in our courtrooms as well.

My fifth and final point—as promised, Mr Assistant Speaker, which I know that you and every member of this House and the thousands watching at home have been eagerly awaiting—is priority. So at clause 11(4), we hear that—and I quote—“This Act has effect without prejudice to the operation of any New Zealand rule of law that”—among other things, leaping ahead—“(b) modifies the rules of private international law that would otherwise be applicable in the particular circumstances.” So, clearly—or perhaps not clearly—this legislation itself acknowledges itself to be subordinate to New Zealand laws that already trump private international laws. So there’s no confusion about whether this displaces in those circumstances. It sets out its own priority, albeit in a subordinate kind of a way, and it seems to me that that demonstrates some foresight on the part of the drafters, the promoters of the bill, no doubt the submitters, and those who contributed at the earlier stages of the passage of the legislation.

So it’s with some pleasure and relief that I wrap up my own comments. Noting that I’m the 12th of 12 speakers, we approach the end, and it seems to me, finally, that it might be worthwhile to make a comment on the way that the law has been drafted in very much a plain language fashion. I think that does credit to those involved, and I acknowledge the staff of this institution as well as the elected members and officials who have been involved in its passage. It seems to me it’s a helpful thing from the perspective of accessibility of law that laws can be readily read and understood, whether or not one has a considerable legal background. We’ve heard speakers in the House tonight with a range of different experiences grapple with it, come to terms with it, and, I think, understand it well enough to reach a sound conclusion in commending it to the House, and I do so as well.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 July.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the—

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I’m not “Hon”, don’t worry—Jami-Lee Ross.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Jami-Lee Ross.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. You helped my colleagues a bit there, too, to remember my name.

I am taking a call on behalf of the National Party on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I thank Ruth Dyson for coming up with the idea and bringing it to the House by way of a bill. Unfortunately, the National Party position is still the same as that prior to the election, which is that we will not be supporting the bill progressing further at this point in the form that it’s in. However, that’s not to say that the National Party doesn’t support the intention of the bill, which is that retirement village occupiers—residents in a retirement village—should have access to the same rates rebate scheme.

When I was sitting in my office going through this and asking myself the question, “Could I convince my colleagues that there’s merit in supporting this bill?”, I took time to go through the departmental report and the select committee report on the matter—and I read the bill itself as well, which is a one-clause bill, essentially—and I was drawn by the fact that there is a lot of advice and evidence in those reports suggesting that what the bill is seeking to implement simply wouldn’t actually be achieved by the bill in its current form.

There was a lot of advice from the Department of Internal Affairs and there was a lot of advice from parliamentary counsel as well that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which suggested that the one change that the bill would make to the Rates Rebate Act around the definition of ratepayer simply wouldn’t go far enough to sort out many of the other issues that do exist already and could be created by this amendment, in and of itself.

I understand that the select committee sought an extension of time once, and it got that, to try and do further work. It sought a further extension of time to do even more work on the bill, but that extension of time was denied for a range of reasons. I submit to the House and submit to the member in charge, Ruth Dyson, and even to the Minister for Seniors, who I see is in the House as well, that we’re of the view that this bill should be given much more consideration either by a select committee or it could be taken up by the Minister for Seniors.

I know that, look, we’re in Opposition now; it’s a bit of a new world for us, and we don’t have the same access to officials and advice that we had previously, and we are aware that Opposition members that don’t have the same access to that advice often will put forward ideas—as I think this is one—which are well-intentioned but may not have the full research behind it and may not have the full backing of official advice, which would turn it into a high-quality bill that could achieve what is intended.

When you are in Opposition it easy to say, “Well, we’re not ultimately responsible for it; we’re just going to plough on ahead anyway, because that National Party—we can go into retirement villages and say that National’s not going to let you get a rates rebate.” That’s easy to do when they’re in Opposition, but I submit to members on that side now—the Hon Ruth Dyson, who has been a Minister before—that the issue is now their responsibility. They are now in Government, and the issues that the Department of Internal Affairs have quite rightly raised should be taken into consideration.

Whilst the intention of the member in charge of the bill is honourable, I think it actually would be somewhat reckless for a Government member to plough ahead with a member’s bill that their own officials say wouldn’t be workable and their own officials say would create potentially even more anomalies.

If I stand back and say, “Should residents of a retirement village that are contributing funds towards the cost of paying the rates or taxes towards the local authority—should they have the same access to a rates rebates scheme as owner-occupiers do?”, I have to say yes. It seems reasonable that they would. Should we write a law that is written in such a way that it’s fair and equitable for all people in this situation—

Michael Wood: You only had nine years to do that.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —and does not—oh, stop that, Michael. Michael: he was in local government; he should know better. Is it fair and reasonable that a law should be passed that would create more anomalies and more problems? I have to say no.

So what I would support, and what I think my side of the House would support, is that the bill goes back to a select committee and is investigated further, or the Minister picks it up and uses her ability as a Minister to apply officials to it, to make it into a much more comprehensive bill and a bill that would actually achieve what is being sought.

When you’re getting advice from the department where they’re saying that it would just create more anomalies, where it wouldn’t work, where there’d be situations where residents of a retirement village would end up paying, potentially, no rates or residents of a retirement village in one situation would access the scheme and in another situation wouldn’t access the scheme—I just don’t think we should be progressing with the bill in that form.

I think the wider issue and the wider question that should be answered by the Government and addressed by the House at some point is a full look at the Rates Rebate Act. It is a 40-year-old Act. It was written in 1973. Times have changed considerably.

Hon Aupito William Sio: You weren’t even born then.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: No, I wasn’t. I wasn’t born back then. Thank you, Mr William Sio. He was, a long time ago.

The Act was written in 1973 and it really needs a good brush up. It needs a good look at by the new Government, and I think Tracey Martin could probably do a good thing by picking up that Act, as Minister for Seniors, taking it forward, and giving it a proper consideration. So we would support a thorough investigation into the Rates Rebate Act. There’s a new Governance and Administration Committee, which I think is a committee that has both four members from the Government and four members from the Opposition. There is an opportunity through that committee to thoroughly look at these issues around rating and affordability and also issues to do with the rates rebates scheme. I would suggest that is the better course of action.

Yes, it is possible for Ruth Dyson and her colleagues to plough on ahead with this bill. But the advice that the select committee received is now the advice from their own officials. They are now responsible for this Act and what happens. They can’t just say it’s the Government’s problem; they are the Government now.

We support the intention of the residents of a retirement village having access to a rates rebate scheme. We share—well, we accept the advice of officials that this would not be workable. We accept the advice that it should be looked at thoroughly, and it takes more than just one clause in a member’s bill to address this issue. I would hope that the member could send it back to a committee; either send it back to a committee or come with a very expansive Supplementary Order Paper in the committee stage. But that’s our position. We wish we could help more, but in this case we can’t see a way in which we could support the bill in its current format and we’ll be opposing it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Seniors): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. I rise on behalf of the Government and New Zealand First to support the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I thank the honourable member Jami-Lee Ross for his contribution, I thank him for his critique, and I thank him for his suggestions. I also thank him for putting in to the Hansard the National Party’s support for a complete review of the Rates Rebate Act 1973, and I look forward to working with him going forward, now that we have the support of the National Party on the record around that Act, because he is quite right—there is a need to review that Act from 1973. There’s been tweaking around it, and it’s a shame that he and his Government didn’t do it over the last nine years. But I look forward over the next decade or so to working with him from this side of the House, to make sure that we can support our seniors more appropriately.

Also, I appreciate him rearticulating the fact that the National Party will not support this small measure to try and assist some of our senior citizens to stretch their restricted incomes a little bit further. It’s always interesting to have the National Party rearticulate why they will do nothing. So I appreciate the fact that—because it’s been a long time since we were here talking about this. It’s been a long time since this was in select committee. There’s been an election, there’s been coalition negotiations, and there’s been a whole new Government formed. But that party has remained true to their opposition to actually giving our seniors a little bit more support while we go forward. That is true.

Mr Jami-Lee Ross is correct that officials advised that they would need to be satisfied that the characteristics normally associated with a home were going to be associated with those of our seniors who now live in situations where they have a licence to occupy. There seems to be, with all due respect, and Mr Lee Ross has been on this—oh sorry, it’s Jami-Lee Ross. I beg your pardon. Mr Ross has been on this side of the House, so he will know, as I know, that there is a tone of Government that permeates officials’ advice when they come to select committee. I’ve sat on select committees where I have asked officials, “Why is this your answer? Why is this in this bill?”, and they have said, “It is the policy of this Government.” So to suggest that one Government official’s advice based on the policy of the Government that they were publicly serving should, therefore, be uplifted at all costs by a new Government with a new policy direction is a little disingenuous.

These are our older citizens’ homes. Whether they have a licence to occupy is actually irrelevant around this support. This is about recognising that these seniors pay towards the rates of that village, and many a large village owner—and Mr Doocey is shaking his head—has said to me, “I don’t make any profit. I don’t make any profit out of these villages, only on capital gain.” Many a large village owner has said, “I’m virtually a saint. I’m doing this because I believe in providing for these older citizens.” But these older citizens are living on a very restricted income, and all this Government is trying to do is maximise their opportunity to have a little bit more joy, a little bit more disposable income, and recognition—

Brett Hudson: Then write a decent bill.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —that they pay, Mr Hudson. Go and talk to your granny, because I tell you she will reinforce what I am saying to you now. All they want is a little bit more stretch to the meagre amount of how they are supported by their State, and that’s what this Government will do.

This is a first step towards other things. This bill will be a first step to recognising that they do contribute to the rates across that village, they are ratepayers, and they should have access under the criteria. There are criteria, and Mr Ross pointed out that those criteria have been set in place for a very long time and definitely need a review, because some of our seniors—particularly, let’s say, in Auckland—whose rates have shot through the roof and whose super has actually been attached with the Consumers Price Index have now lost their opportunity to even access through the criteria the rates rebate because the rates rebate income level has not moved as quickly as the other things. So, from our perspective, we’re interested that the National Party has continued along this tack. We find it disappointing, and we found it disappointing then.

I enjoy it when the Opposition suggests that the Government is reckless when supporting New Zealand citizens. If we—this Government—are going to recklessly recognise that some of our seniors do live in owner-occupied circumstances and do provide funding towards the rates over the complete complex, and if we’re going to recklessly support those citizens to actually be able to lift in some way their standard of living, then I am happy that we are reckless in that way.

I think, from our perspective, we need to recognise that by 2036, 1.2 million New Zealanders are going to be in the category of seniors. We need to recognise that this is not a single issue, when we talk about this particular demographic, but one of many that we are going to have to address very, very quickly.

So I’m not going to take up much more time. I believe it’s an obvious bill to support. There may be nuances in it—I mean, it sounds a little bit like saying, “Let them eat cake.” If we can’t give them the whole shebang, then let’s not give anybody anything—that’s what it sounds like from Mr Ross, and this Government is not inclined in that direction. If it’s only a little we can do and only a few thousand of our citizens that actually benefit from this bill, then it is a few thousand that have benefited, and we will continue to work to make sure that our other seniors who need our support are able to gain our support. But we won’t stop just because it doesn’t give everybody cake.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I just want to start by addressing some of the comments that the member who’s just taken her seat, Hon Tracey Martin, made.

The first, and perhaps most chilling, were the comments she made about the role and position of officials in select committee business. I believe the words she said were “the tone is set by the Minister”. So the real chilling thing we hear in this Chamber tonight is that, under this Government—certainly, under the Hon Tracey Martin, in her portfolios—officials are going simply to iterate the will of the Minister.

That is actually a real problem, because our select committees are not committees of Government; they are committees of Parliament, and officials are there to give the committee of Parliament advice, not to sing from a ministerial hymn sheet. But Ms Martin has made it clear that she is of the view that that is how they should operate. And that, I contend, is fundamentally wrong. It’s not good governance, and it’s not good government.

The other problem I would note in what Ms Martin was saying is that she highlighted, I think without realising it, an inconsistency in the way this Government is treating its legislation. You see, just a short while ago, we were debating the paid parental leave extension in this very Chamber. A member from this side, the Hon Amy Adams, saw a flaw in that proposed legislation and suggested that it would be good if parents could share a leave entitlement and take that entitlement together at the same time. After some pushing and shoving, the Government agreed that they thought the intention was good. But their position was—and it was spoken by the Minister in this Chamber—that although it was a good idea, the legislation wouldn’t work as intended, and therefore it couldn’t be made as a Supplementary Order Paper to that bill; it had to be done as a separate and new piece of legislation.

Well, if they were consistent in their thoughts and actions, they would accept the advice of officials: that the real problem with this bill is that, as it’s written, it cannot and will not deliver the intention that lies behind it. So if they were consistent, what they would do is they would set this bill aside, they would allow it to fail at this reading, and, instead, as a Government, they would create a new piece of legislation that would actually have the proper provisions to deliver to the objective. Instead, Ms Martin and others are saying we should continue with this flawed bill.

It’s not just a simply flawed bill; it’s a deeply flawed bill. We can look here at paragraph three—it’s pretty close to the top—of the departmental report.

Hon Member: That’s after one and two.

BRETT HUDSON: Well, indeed. So what did officials have to say? Well, let me just read this; it won’t take long: “As outlined in our initial briefing to the Committee, the Department of Internal Affairs … considers that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required to do this.” So the advice of officials, acting impartially, because this was and remains a member’s bill, pointed out to the committee that the bill, as it’s written, simply could not deliver the intentions without an awful lot of work—work that they recommended could not be achieved within a select committee set of amendments.

So I think, for good reason, the officials, in advising the members, stated that, really, the best course of action was to not recommend that this bill pass and, indeed, to give effect to the intent, to craft a better piece of legislation. I don’t believe the officials had a view on whether that should be a member’s bill or a Government bill, but their view was that the bill in front of them, and now in front of this House, cannot deliver. That intent is flawed and should not pass.

The reality is that there are multiple means of contracting and title and rights to occupy in various forms of rest homes, retirement villages, and lifestyle villages around New Zealand. Some, in the minority I believe, do give full title to the occupier—to the owner—and they are entitled, for instance, to make capital gain on that property, and that owner may very well be entitled to a rates rebate under the current legislation. But many others are more in the nature of what they call a “right to occupy”, where the occupier doesn’t hold a full freehold title, where often they are not permitted to benefit from any capital gain, while still paying management fees and what have you to the operators.

And so, through that structure, not only do they not qualify under the current legislation, but the whole structure of that and workings of that operation make it somewhat difficult to navigate a way through to identifying the occupier as the ratepayer and, indeed, to ensuring—which the officials and others pointed out—that even if a rebate was given on a basis of a unit within a title, or a separate title within a property, there was difficulty in ensuring that the relief, the rebate, would actually be seen and benefited from by the occupier of that unit. The reality is that, in the first instance, it would actually go, more than likely, to the operator or owner of that village, and so there’s a very real chance that the occupier might not get any—certainly not all—of the rebate that might otherwise be held to be valid for them.

There are also other complicating circumstances too. Many of these villages have shared facilities, and those facilities are available to all residents, including residents that might have a “right to occupy” of an apartment-type unit in that complex. So how then, for instance, for the purposes of calculating what could be eligible for a rebate, would they go about calculating what was shared, what was theirs, how much of the rates bill could be set aside for the square metreage or whatever of that, and how much of the rates bill the occupier should still be up for because of the use or potential use—availability—of all of those shared facilities.

So when you look at the simple reality of the living arrangements, the villages, the structures, the bill as written can’t deliver what is otherwise an extremely worthwhile intent. It’s an intent we share, and we would love to work with the Government, across the House, on a new piece of legislation that not only had that intent but was drafted in a way—with appropriate complexity, as officials pointed out—to actually be able to give some greater degree of certainty, some real confidence to members, that the benefits would accrue to those occupiers.

While we do believe in intent—and we know that this Government has founded its entire programme on intent only—we can’t in good conscience cast votes in favour of a bill that is high in intentions and low in practicalities. So we will be opposing this bill, but we do offer—and would encourage the Government to consider working with us on a new piece of legislation to actually give full effect to the intent behind this flawed bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe. I rise for the Green Party to support this bill. This is a simple bill with a simple goal, as has been outlined by members on all sides of this House, and I’d just like to foremost echo the sentiments that were expressed by the Green Party member responsible for debating the first reading of this bill, Jan Logie. She noted that, foremost, there were three issues that this bill sought to address and that is why the Green Party stands in support of it.

The first is one of geographic equity. I point out to the members of the Opposition, who seem to be a little confused about how this bill would work in practice, that it currently actually does work with regard to how district councils are operating to provide rates rebates for citizens living in retirement villages. They do so in four different districts: in Auckland, in Kāpiti, in New Plymouth, and in Thames-Coromandel. Those are four different places in New Zealand where this is currently working. The point of complexity, which was indeed raised by the report of the Department of Internal Affairs to the Local Government and Environment Committee, was predominantly one of calculation. I would hesitate to suggest that whilst the select committee in charge of this bill extended their consideration for a month, they had the ability to investigate that complexity—you know, albeit the fact that National had been in power for nine years and had the ability to do just that.

It’s noted by the Opposition that they support the intent but they do not support the bill. So my question to the Opposition is: “What would they like to do? What would they like to see?” Beyond stalling, beyond asking for more time, beyond binding up the resources of this House, which they themselves time and time again have lamented the waste of, I would like to ask members of the National Party what they would like to see, what they would like to do.

So the select committee report—there was a majority report and a minority report. The majority report by the members of the National Party on the select committee noted that it was difficult to calculate the rates rebate, to apportion rates to a specific unit. This is, as was noted in the minority report by Labour, Green Party, and New Zealand First members, a bit of a bizarre, incorrect, and irrelevant narrative from those National members around that mechanism, because it is not all too much of a complex issue, given that those with occupation rights agreements in—as I have previously mentioned—Auckland, Kāpiti, New Plymouth, and Thames-Coromandel have received the rebate already.

It has also been mentioned, with regard to this complexity, that they would like to see it referred back to the select committee, that they would like to see a more complex mechanism for calculating or figuring out how this rates rebate would, in fact, work. On that point, it seems to be—this is actually why people switch off from politics. This is a request for technocratic, bureaucratic delaying tactics. I would suggest that members of the National Party go back and review those 34 submissions by members of the public—all of whom were in favour of this bill. This is the will of the people and if the National Party supports the intent—

Andrew Falloon: 34 people.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No, 34 different organisations, I will remind the member, and the member is more than welcome to go and look at those submissions himself. Should the National Party support the intent of the bill, I suggest that they support the bill itself.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and other presiding officers on your election, and I look forward to working with you during the sessions. This is an important bill, and the intent of the bill, as other colleagues have mentioned, is good, but still there are some weaknesses in this bill, which we would like to be rectified before it is implemented. Some of those I will be highlighting during my speech.

First of all, I would like to clarify what the Hon Tracey Martin said—that the owners and operators of villages are saints. In my view, yes, they are saints because they provide a place to live for those elderly retirees who are in loneliness in their homes. The elderly go there, they have the company of other villagers, they share their thoughts, their talk, and they spend time together to kill that loneliness. So, in my view, yes, the operators of villages are saints. The people working there become family members, and if I look at myself, I am also slowly going in that direction, and one day my children will also leave me alone at home—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really? How quickly?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Oh, after you; after you leave—only after you. I’m looking forward to you—to leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: The day you leave I will follow you soon—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me. Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was talking to the honourable member who was trying to interject, asking for my viewpoint. [Interruption] Listen to me. I’m talking here. I’m not talking to him.

As I was saying, these villages provide a great facility for seniors and retirees—[Interruption]—and some of the retirees are ready to go there very soon. I hope so. The main problem is how to calculate the rebates that are to be passed on to those retirees. There are already so many conditions. When this legislation was introduced in 1973, it was a simple time when owner-occupiers were there in the retirement villages. But it has become very complicated in the last 40 years. We can see that there are freehold titles, leasehold titles, cross-lease titles, licences to occupy, and lease arrangements. All of these make it very complex to determine how the rebate can be passed on to these retirees. We agree that we should be passing on these rebates, but it’s very hard to calculate. The current maximum rebate is $610, with a threshold of $24,470 of income.

Hon Tracey Martin: Should have used those officials when you had them.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: So these are the complex issues that are to be addressed before we can conclude. It is very simple for the Hon Tracey Martin to just stand up and say, “This is a Government bill. We’ll take it back, and we will do the work that is required. As was mentioned by the Department of Internal Affairs, this is a complex area.” She has already accused the officials of just working to the tone of the Government. So it is her turn now to stand up, take the liberty, take up the bill, and take it back to the officials to make sure that they speak the tone of the Minister and how she is going to do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does National hate retired people?

Hon Tracey Martin: Why do you leave our seniors out there on their own?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: This is very important.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why do you hate seniors?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Don’t just barrage me. Listen to what I am telling you. Listen to your leader. You don’t have much to say, because your leader says everything. He has got the secret documents in the safe; you need to go and read these also.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to help the member. I know he’s new to this House and he hasn’t been here for very long, but he does repeatedly insist on bringing the Speaker into the debate. He doesn’t seem to have got the message from the Assistant Speaker. The member needs to stick to the Standing Orders—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, I did not bring you into the debate. I was talking to the two members. He needs to have a hearing aid, I think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): If I could just have the member—[Interruption] Thank you. Thank you for resuming your seat.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think he might have been referring to me. I want to apologise. I got excited with Winston talking about retirement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members, will you resume your seats. I don’t think we need any more. Thank you very much for your interventions, members; I think we will continue with the debate.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is an interesting time, and I’m enjoying it.

Hon Tracey Martin: Ha, ha!

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Once again, it makes someone laugh, because they are very grim in their offices. At least they get this opportunity to come and laugh in the House, so it’s a real opportunity.

The Department of Internal Affairs, in their departmental report, clearly said—and I would like to read it—that “As outlined in our initial briefing to the Committee, the Department of Internal Affairs … considers that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required to do this.” So this is a real opportunity for the Government to go back and do some homework and bring this bill back to the House to ensure it can deliver its intent. With these words, I conclude my speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Deborah Russell—five minutes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in this House to a simple matter of fairness—fairness, which is dear to the Labour Party. It motivates us and drives us. Despite the assertions from the Opposition, this is, in fact, a very, very simple matter. They are dreaming up complexity where none exists, and perhaps it says more about them than it does about the bill itself.

I am absolutely committed to this bill, absolutely committed to ensuring that we get a fair deal for the residents of retirement villages. I’m committed to it, even though it will make not one jot of difference to my own constituents in New Lynn. And why is that? It is because the Auckland Council has worked out how to do this. It will make not one jot of difference to people who live on the Kāpiti coast, because the Kāpiti Coast District Council has worked out how to bring fairness to the residents of retirement villages. It will make not one jot of difference to the residents of retirement homes in New Plymouth, because the New Plymouth District Council has worked out how to bring some fairness for residents of retirement villages. But it turns out that the members of the Opposition think it is too complicated for Government, even though these excellent city councils can do it. So I think we can sort out this matter, and it is a really straightforward matter to sort out.

What we’re doing—the essence of this bill—is helping out elderly New Zealanders who don’t have very big incomes with the expenses of maintaining their own home. This is actually a really important part of our aged-care policy. There’s kind of an ongoing strategy that we have in aged care to look after our elderly citizens, to help them to age in place—to stay in the homes that they know, to stay in places of their own, to keep them secure. That’s an ongoing strategy we have, and it’s why we fund all sorts of home help. It’s why we try to fund help in homes; it’s in order to help our aged citizens to do the very best they can. But, you know, it can be tough meeting the fixed costs of maintaining your own home, and this is what this simple measure sets out to do. It sets out to help our aged citizens.

We help a lot of them already. There is a huge number of retired New Zealanders living in their own homes who collect a rates rebate, but we deny that rates rebate to people who happen to live in retirement villages, all because of a quirk of the law that wasn’t envisaged when this rates rebate was first set up in 1973. So now we’re going to set out to fix that problem, and it’s a simple solution. All we do is amend some of the definitions, and that will make it possible to extend the rates rebate to people who hold a licence to occupy in retirement villages. It turns out, again, it’s not easy. The Opposition have suggested it’s just a bit too difficult to calculate it. But, I tell you, you get any decent cost accountant and you can sort it out. These problems can be sorted out. It’s not that hard. So that’s what we’re going to do—we’re actually going to set out to sort this problem.

It sort of leaves me puzzled—puzzled—as to why the Opposition would oppose this measure. Who is going to deny helping elderly New Zealanders? Why would you refuse to help them? I just can’t understand it. I have sort of been thinking about it and trying to work out what is going on here, and all I can come up with is that they are engaging in the politics of despite. For the benefit of my colleague Mr Chris Penk over there, who is rather fond of the quirks of the English language, the word “despite”, as well as being a preposition, can also be a noun. It is the politics of contempt or the politics of disdain, and I see the politics of contempt and disdain going on there over the concept of being fair, the concept of trying to work out a simple measure. I see the politics of contempt and disdain going on in the way that the minority report on the Local Government and Environment Committee has been ignored, and I see the politics of despite going on in the way that the Opposition is refusing to help the residents of retirement villages who could just do with a little bit of help with their income.

So I urge them, instead of sticking to their rather silly opposition to this bill, to, in fact, acknowledge that the problems can be solved; that they acknowledge that it is actually a simple matter, that they acknowledge that we can sort out some of the complexities of calculation with just consulting an accountant—and believe me, I know; I have been an accountant. It’s not that hard, and it is not that hard to be fair. That is why, on this side of the House, on the Government side of the House, we support this excellent bill, which will sort out a problem for our elderly and will do so in a way that makes it fair for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Jonathan Young—five minutes.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Yes, I stand to take this split call. You know, it’s not that this Opposition is opposed to this legislation, it’s that the officials in their position are opposed to the mechanisms of this legislation as much as they can be in being impartial servants of this Parliament. [Interruption] Not your Government, sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker—that member’s Government.

If we look at the comments by the officials, it needs to be read out and reiterated again. As Mr Hudson said, “As outlined in our initial briefing to the Committee, the Department of Internal Affairs … considers that the Bill as introduced would not achieve its stated purpose. Additional and complex amendments would be required”. But what I want to go to is their conclusion, because their conclusion says this, “However, even if future work were limited to the eligibility of retirement village residents for a rebate, a thorough consultation process with stakeholders prior to commencing law drafting would be desirable to achieve a good outcome for all parties.”

What they are saying is that there was not a thorough consultation process. In this House, we want to make good law, not just more law. We want to have quality regulations, not just more regulations. Seriously, I have sat on the member’s, Ruth Dyson, committee in the last Parliament and I have to say she was a competent chair, and this bill does not reflect the competence that is needed in order to do good for the people that are designed to receive the benefit of the intent of this bill.

I’m saying to the Government on the other side, especially the new members: instead of being tribal, be intelligent. Instead of just opposing us because we are your Opposition, why don’t you listen to what the officials have said—

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

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you. I know what you’re going to say, Madam Assistant Speaker. Why don’t members opposite support the quality legislation? Why don’t they try to earn a reputation of presenting quality legislation to the House, in order to truly benefit the people that they intend to be benefiting? What we see in this piece of legislation—it is so complex. It is complex, because there are people in retirement villages right now today in New Zealand—

Hon Tracey Martin: They have to meet the criteria.

JONATHAN YOUNG: —who pay less than what they could possibly pay if this piece of legislation goes through. Well, that’s a very good point that the member across there raises. If there are four retirement villages in this country that can do this, then this legislation’s not necessary—it’s not necessary, because they have found a way. So here we go, wasting the time of this Parliament, wasting taxpayers’ money to put this piece of legislation through, and it’s all because there is legislation here that is not up to scratch.

Seriously, I do put it to members of the Government: why don’t you really consider, because you do talk about being fair, being kind, being a Government that considers people who have some need—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Look, we can’t go on having you being brought into the debate. Now, I don’t want to be too pedantic about this, but you might have to think about a yellow card and then a red card.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member. [Interruption] Thank you. I thank you for your intervention. Thank you.

Rt Hon David Carter: Speaking to the point of order, the member will be aware that, of course, Speaker’s rulings were changed in 2011 at the behest of the Standing Orders Committee. It’s OK for the Speaker to remonstrate with a member who continues to bring the Speaker into the debate, but it’s not OK for any other member to interrupt the debate and to do so. The member should know that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I appreciate the intervention.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you to the member opposite. In my closing remarks, may I say that National have supported the intent of the bill, but did not agree that the bill was the best way to achieve it. Nor did the Department of Internal Affairs; they said a more comprehensive review of the rebate Act was needed. Nor did the Parliamentary Counsel Office support it as well. So there you go—that’s the quality legislation that this Government are putting forward for this country.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since I made my maiden speech, and so I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role, Madam Assistant Speaker, and your fellow presiding officers. It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. Can I start by thanking the Hon Ruth Dyson for her many years of hard work advocating for elderly people. Her tenure here and her experience shouldn’t be underestimated. Thank you also for bringing this great bill to the House, and can I also thank those who took time to make submissions. It is great to see people getting involved in our democracy.

This evening, I want to focus on three key points, with the first being the role the late Rt Hon Norman Kirk, a former Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand, played in establishing the rates rebate scheme. Secondly, I want to make some observations about retirement villages, their impacts on ordinary Kiwis, and the difference that this bill will make to their lives. Finally, I want to talk about fairness—a core value of mine and of the Labour Party, and the single biggest reason this bill should be progressed in the House today. So thank you very much for bringing this bill to the House.

As Mr Ross said in his contribution earlier, it is a one-clause amendment bill. This is not a complex or difficult bill; it is simply a bill that is ultimately about fairness and equity for people living in retirement villages with occupation right agreements. This bill is simply to update legislation that was created under Norman Kirk in 1973, before retirement villages were around on the scale that we see they are today.

The late Norman Kirk was a fair man—a big man with a big heart—and if it wasn’t for Norm, those people on low incomes who owned a home would never have got any relief from their local authority when they needed it to get ahead. A hand up, I call it; not a handout, as the Opposition likes to call it, but let’s look at the original legislation and its intent.

Norman Kirk believed that people who were on low incomes such as benefits and superannuation needed some financial relief due to the fact that meeting rates payment obligations proved to be a financial hardship for many. The way in which to do this was to introduce a rates rebate scheme. Now, that was well and good for that day and age.

I never met Big Norm, but, as a South Islander, his legacy lives on. One of the people I met when I was out doorknocking in my electorate—a lovely woman called June—had met Norman Kirk and was the beneficiary of the rates rebate scheme. That was his vision for those who didn’t earn much but who wanted their own home and wanted to get ahead, and that’s where I first learnt about this bill. Her friends, who had recently moved into a retirement village, had found themselves without this option. Why should they miss out? They had been taxpayers all their lives. Why was it so unfair? Why were some eligible and some weren’t, solely because of a living situation that wasn’t an option in 1973? It’s not what Big Norm would have wanted, and it is not what he would have envisaged.

Retirement villages were not around on the scale that we see them today. We’re told that there are 360-plus retirement villages in New Zealand, and I have to say that when I look around the Rangitata electorate, this is certainly a growing industry there. That means 34,000 Kiwis are living in retirement villages right now, with many more joining all the time. Of that, though, a staggering 80 percent don’t qualify. That’s over 27,000 decent people who are potentially missing out. That’s unacceptable, that’s unfair, and it’s even more unfair when the rates rebate scheme is underspent by up to $5 million. Add this to the statistic that 50 percent of residents in retirement villages are reliant entirely on superannuation, yet they would be entitled to apply if they simply lived around the corner from the village, and it beggars belief that it has taken 44 years to get this on the table.

One of my favourite meetings was with Grey Power. I spoke with a resident who was somewhat excited to meet me. Not only did he want to tell me that he’d been married for 50 years; he also said he’d done the figures, he and his wife would be on the receiving end of a rates rebate, and, given that superannuation was their sole source of income, this would be a very welcome addition. So he was really hopeful that this bill would progress.

I was disappointed to read that my Labour, Green, and New Zealand First colleagues had to prepare a minority view for something so straightforward and that the Opposition members on the Local Government and Environment Committee completely ignored the submissions that were supportive, leading them to vote against this bill. What completely surprises me, though, is that the former Minister of Local Government the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga acknowledged that not only did retirement villages need to be looked at but, in fact, regardless of their living situation, residents—and I quote—“do, in fact, end up paying rates.” Currently, retirement villages are required to pay fees, which cover the costs of running the village, and this includes rates, which are then on-paid in bulk directly to a local authority. Therefore, quite clearly, they pay rates. It puzzles me why the Opposition members on the select committee couldn’t get their heads around this.

It is heartening to see some councils front-footing this issue, and they have adopted practices to allow residents with occupation right agreements to apply for a rates rebate. A report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry has also noted that the current rates rebate scheme certainly excluded and made people ineligible, and therefore this needed to be reviewed to enable people to have the ability to apply for a rates rebate scheme. In order for this to happen, the current Rates Rebate Act would need to be amended. Now, if some councils can make this work, surely it can’t be that hard.

As I said before, this is not a complex issue. It is not a complex amendment, but it simply sets out a change in the definition of “ratepayer” to include those who are residents of retirement villages who pay rates through their fees, with an occupation right agreement, to the operator of the retirement village.

So, in conclusion, the rates rebate scheme started with a vision from Norman Kirk to help alleviate the financial pressures that people on low incomes were burdened with, and it was fit for purpose at the time. But times have changed, and so has the way we choose to live. Now—44 years later—we are here with this bill before the House to decide whether people who live in retirement villages should be treated fairly and equitably compared with those who live in their own homes.

We are an ageing population and, as such, more and more people are moving into retirement villages as a preferred choice in accommodation. It is not fair that in a way these people are penalised for choosing to live in retirement homes. With elderly people more often than not relying on superannuation as their sole source of income—like the gentleman I spoke with at that Grey Power meeting—it is only fair and it is only right that we look to adopt the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. So it is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and congratulations on attaining the position. The way you handled that situation earlier, I can see you’re going to do a great job. I think it’s an interesting bill that we are debating tonight, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, and, as the previous speaker, Jo Luxton, said, we do have an ageing population—there’s no doubt about that. I think if we look, certainly, across my electorate, there’s a range of retirement villages from Amberley all the way through to Picton, and they vary in size from small privately-owned retirement villages to the larger corporate villages. It’s a variety of incomes that people are on or financial backgrounds—or positions, at least—that these people come from who are residents in those villages. In Marlborough, 22 percent of the population are over 65, so it’s quite a significant issue in that area—

Chris Bishop: How much?

STUART SMITH: Twenty-two percent. I think it’s one of the highest in the country. And to actually explain the situation, we’ve got a great place to live. We’ve got wineries, the most sunshine hours in the country—what’s not to like? That’s why people want to go and live there. The Marlborough Sounds are on your doorstep, and if you’re in a retirement village, living in Marlborough, you can access those things.

So going back to the bill, there were 34 submissions. Actually, I have a very important question: why, if this bill is so important, isn’t it a Government bill? I mean, why isn’t it a Government bill? If the Government is not—is it overwhelmed with legislation of its own on the Order Paper? I don’t think so. So I don’t understand why it’s not. It really surprises me that it’s not, if it’s such a worthy bill. Thirty-four submissions, as has been said earlier. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order, members!

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I seem to have that effect on members on the other side at the moment, and I’m taking that as a compliment, actually. There were 34 submissions—eight oral submissions—eight of which called for amendments on the commencement date and also on a definition of ratepayers in the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002. A third of the submissions also asked the committee to consider the administrative effect of the bill. I think that’s quite important. I’ve been on the select committee for three years now—not this particular select committee but other select committees—and I’ve never heard that from submitters. I’m not sure what other members’ experience is—I’ve never heard that. I think that is quite telling. The officials advised, of course, as we’ve heard, that the bill would not achieve its purpose. The Parliamentary Counsel Office counselled against the bill proceeding in its form.

The Hon Tracey Martin is someone who I respect, and I think she should reflect on the statement she made earlier that actually called into question the professionalism of the Public Service and their independence, because I think they do a good job. Their job and their role is to make sure that legislation comes to this House in a form that will work for New Zealand and New Zealanders, and, quite clearly, they did not believe that was the case with this legislation.

The member in charge of the bill—they sought two extensions. The first one was granted for about two months. The second extension application was blocked because the member in charge of the bill opposed it, so the bill has come back not fit for the purpose that it seeks to be. [Interruption] In fact, there was one statement that the risk—

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who made that remark knows it is unparliamentary. She is not allowed to refer to members in that capacity, in that way, and she should withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): The Hon Ruth Dyson—I require you to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could we just clarify to the House that the word “slug” is now unparliamentary?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think the member will know that the ruling is that what is or isn’t unparliamentary is at the discretion of the Speaker, and I’ve made the ruling accordingly.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do answer to most things, actually. The risk of unintended consequences of this bill was also pointed out in the official report. These are pretty strong words from officials who are impartial and who are experts in this bill.

So what are the facts and what is this bill trying to achieve? The rates rebate scheme, as has been mentioned, was introduced in 1973 and I agree, it probably is well overdue for a review. But since then, the licence to occupy has proliferated throughout New Zealand, and, in fact, 80 percent of people living in retirement villages are living so, under a licence to occupy. This is the issue that is causing the problem. It’s not about councils getting around it; it’s about the legal structures in which people live. But I’ll come to that later.

So the rates payments rest with the owner and operator of the village in a licence to occupy situation—that the person in there is actually who is liable to pay the rates. So that is where the problem lies. The rates rebate is based on income, the level of rates, and the number of dependants. It is $610 and it’s an income threshold of $24,470. Whilst it’s to be applauded, the work of the advisers, it’s difficult for a number of reasons, which I want to touch on now.

The arrangements relating to how properties are owned or occupied in retirement villages—there’s terms of freehold title, leasehold title, cross-lease title, and unit title. In the unit title case, those people will actually get a rates bill anyway, so they’ll be a ratepayer. Licence to occupy—as I’ve already mentioned, that’s 80 percent of people occupying retirement villages at the moment, and residential tenancy.

In order to get a rebate, the person must be a ratepayer, and the ratepayer in relation to the property. That’s not possible under this legislation. Also, under the Local Government Act they have to be named in the rating information database and they have to be on the district valuation roll. If you have a licence to occupy, you will not be on either of those, so you won’t qualify there.

A second issue that we have is to ascertain what the rates are and apportioned to the units. As was pointed out in a very good speech by Mr Brett Hudson, this is actually more complex and has been characterised—[Interruption] Despite one of the members across the way, it is really complex and we’ve heard that from officials and from those people operating in that field.

Rates can be held in three ways. There can be a rate on the land, a charge for the water and waste water, and a regional council rate as well. [Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m confused by the clock, I have to say. I’m not confused enough to be a part of that side, that’s for sure.

As I wind down, it is a huge cost administratively to administer this bill. It raises issues of privacy of financial information for those people occupying the retirement villages. There could be a situation where the operator of the village in question could pay their fees on the village. So I think that’s quite a significant cost. Also, often, when these licences to occupy are signed, people agree on a fee that they’re paying over a number of years. Rates will change during that period. How do you apportion that? That is quite legally difficult.

Yes, there’s $56 million in the cost of the rebate scheme. What we’re talking about here is about 10 percent of that, and it’s difficult if you’re in that 10 percent, I accept, but however it is none the less really very difficult for this to go in. It’s a flawed piece of legislation, not just in my view but in the officials’ view, who looked at this very hard. I applaud the member for her attempt. However, it really isn’t good enough. It just simply won’t work and therefore, with regret, I oppose the bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the interests of putting this matter to bed or to rest or to sleep, I move an extension of time for that last member that was speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members, I must remind you about order in the House. I have to say that members on this side of the House, with their constant interjections, have actually caused disorder. I was allowing the member to continue with his speech, rather than disrupt him, to make that very point. So I would ask members on this side of the House, please, to retain some order and to allow people to continue with their debate.

Stuart Smith: Can I speak to the point of order, please?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Speaking to the point of order.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I actually thought that he’d been asleep all the way through that. I’m just surprised he was awake.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): The member will resume his seat. That’s not—[Interruption] Please, if you would put the leave again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Could I remind you, before you sanctioned the House for its behaviour, that I sought, in the interests of putting the matter to bed or to sleep, to seek leave for the House to give extended speaking time to that member, because it’s working.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think that’s a frivolous motion. The member will resume his seat.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I perhaps will seek to bring a little more decorum to the House, as we go into the final stages of this particular reading. It’s a great honour to rise to my feet to speak on this particular matter. Post maiden speech, these will be the first remarks I am honoured to make in this House. As I scribbled a few notes, you think back to why you come to an odd place like this, to stay up until 10 o’clock at night, debating the nuances of these various matters. Reflecting on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, it really strikes at the heart of why most of us come to this House.

We’re trying to make right the wrongs that have existed—or do exist, by anomalies in our law—for the little guys, for those that are the most vulnerable within our communities. For bringing this bill into this House, to the Hon Ruth Dyson, I want to commend you for your work and note that this is exactly the type of bill that many of us came here—these are the types of laws that many of us came into this House to make. So thank you for your hard work.

It is on that note too I think probably many of us, particularly those first-timers that come into this House—we come into this House, after nine years of absolute frustration with the conduct by the opposite side of the House, which looks at things like this. You see, it’s a simple bill, as has been said throughout this House. It’s a simple bill that has immeasurable impact for many, many people. Those people that this bill has immeasurable impact upon are some of our most vulnerable within our communities.

The measure of any society, they say, is in the way that we treat our most vulnerable. When we think of them, it’s usually our children and our elderly. Now, the reality is that—I’m very proud to stand amongst a Government where our Prime Minister is the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. But I’m also very proud to stand in a Government that has been the bastion of standing for those most vulnerable, at both ends of the spectrum. I want to acknowledge too, because he’s in front of me, the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his constant work at the coalface, advocating for our senior citizens.

Many of us have just come off the back of a hard yards campaign out in our various regions. I want to acknowledge the Deputy Speaker, Anne Tolley, who is not in the House right now—the member for the East Coast.

Hon Members: Not in the Chair.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Not in the Chair, but certainly will be in the House, no doubt.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I must remind the member not to refer to members who aren’t present.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: My apologies, Madam Assistant Speaker. But I wanted to make reference to the member of Parliament for the East Coast because I’m a very proud resident, living on the East Coast. All throughout our region, one of the striking aspects that struck me consistently throughout our region was the number of our elderly that came to me with stories of extreme poverty; the number of our elderly and those that advocated on their behalf that would bring the most egregious stories; and the number of our elderly that are too ashamed to tell their stories of how they actually don’t have a roof over their head or how they’re living in crowded accommodation or how they can’t afford to go into retirement villages some times. It’s bills like this: simple solutions that have immeasurable impacts for so many of our citizens. I’ll turn to the nuances of that bill now.

When “Big Norm”, as he’s been referred to previously, but when Norman Kirk introduced our primary legislation, which was the Rates Rebate Act back in the 1970s—I must admit there were some cackles from across the other side of the House, or perhaps it was this side, that some of us that sit in this Chamber now aren’t old enough, weren’t around, at the introduction of the original Act. I’m one of those members.

Jami-Lee Ross: I was offended—I was offended.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: You’re offended. The good sir over there, Mr Jami-Lee Ross, was offended. I wasn’t offended. But it made me reflect. Look, at the time when this bill was introduced, it was introduced to give reprieve to those most vulnerable within our communities, to ease the pockets just a little bit, and to provide some kind of rebate by way of rates to those members in our community that simply didn’t have enough cash in their back pocket at the time. That was 40-odd years ago; well, it was 45-odd years ago. Well at that time it hadn’t yet been envisaged that retirement villages would become popular residential environments, but we know now that it’s a growing area where many of our elderly live. In fact, I think that over 50 percent of our residents now that are living in retirement villages are superannuitants, so not necessarily of major means. But this bill—a very simple bill, a very effective bill—enables so many of our elderly to have a little bit more cash in their back pocket.

I want to acknowledge that there’s been widespread support from those that are at the coalface who work within this environment. In particular, I want to acknowledge John Collyns and the Retirement Villages Association. I also want to acknowledge Rob Wilson, Dick Williams, and John Moore, who are the office holders of the Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand, who’ve all swung in behind to see sensible, practical, common-sense legislation like this legislation pass through this House.

When I was going through the submissions that had been made, one of the first that I stumbled across was from one of our constituents from the East Coast, Freda Woisin, who is a resident at Carter Village in Te Puke. Now, that took me back to my childhood, you see, because my mum, a working-class woman, was a cook and a cleaner at the Te Puke retirement village for many, many years. I spent many, many years growing up, really, in those retirement villages and seeing the daily life that many of our elderly and superannuitants at that time were living. It can be an immeasurably tough life if people aren’t of sufficient means.

I remember spending many a Christmas while my mother cooked in those retirement villages for the residents and noted that for some people there wasn’t necessarily a lot of joy come around each Christmas. I remember that every single year. If you hadn’t been fortunate enough to be able to set aside savings for your retirement years—another year over; another year not too much in your back pocket. So I reflected on that and I felt compelled to make comment that over the course of the campaign too those memories flooded home, of sitting amongst those retirement villages through my childhood. When I went up to, for example, Kiri Te Kanawa Retirement Village in Gisborne or Dunblane Retirement Village in Gisborne, the common request from many of the constituents living within those environments is “Look, we just don’t have enough to get by. Look, the superannuation amount in our back pocket, it’s just not enough to get by.” People spoke directly to this bill, that it might just enable them to have a slightly better life. For what we hope and what we know will bring just many more benefits for our constituents, particularly in the East Coast, which I’m very proud to be from; for those 15,000 people that are superannuitants that are living in the East Coast, but the many more throughout the country, they will have a couple more dollars in their back pocket—immeasurably proud.

Madam Assistant Speaker, almost there—no, it’s an absolute honour to speak in favour of this bill. I just want to note that what we found for nine years over the opposite side of this House was that there are all these issues that we could see bubbling to the fore at every single stage whether they were with our children, whether they were with our elderly, but there was this complete opposition to actually cut through and act for those that were must vulnerable within our communities. It is with absolute pride that I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

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

Second Reading

BRETT HUDSON (National): I move, That the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Fundamentally, this bill is about providing choice to employees and employers to construct the employment arrangements that best suit each of them, and mutuality is a cornerstone and key component of this bill. But like so many bills, the bill emerges from select committee in better shape than it entered. It might be a bit of a blunt way to put it, but so often select committees have a major role in panel beating the original legislation into something that is more fit for purpose, more relevant, and more applicable to New Zealanders, and such is the case with this bill. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was able to spend time scrutinising the provisions of it and making very sound amendments.

Now, it’s important to note, there were a number of submitters that pointed out that certain rights, such as the right to be free of discrimination and sexual or racial harassment in the workplace, would have been contracted out under the bill as it was originally introduced. It is right to point out that the member that introduced this bill to the House and sponsored it at first reading, the Hon Scott Simpson, did point out those very elements in that first reading speech. It was signalled very clearly that the bill would receive changes in select committee to address those matters. In fact, as the member that had taken over the bill by the time it actually received attention at select committee, as the first to submit on the bill, I made those very points very early on—that we needed to look at amendments to make sure that those provisions were brought back into the scope—and, of course, naturally enough, they were made.

But I’d like to point out, before we talk about the changes the committee made, that when the bill was first introduced to the ballot, it received wide support—including from the then Labour spokesperson, one Andrew Little, who noted that he supported the bill in principle and anticipated that Labour would support it. Well, if they’ve got any clue, they would continue to do so. Of course, it’s in even better shape now, and that’s a good thing.

As I said, the bill is fundamentally about allowing employees and employers to together arrive at the best employment agreement for each of them. Essentially, it allows employees to negotiate some form of compensation that is more valued by them than the personal grievance provisions of the Act. Likewise, it permits an employer who can see some relevancy in having such a situation to offer more to the employee, such that they might be prepared to enter into an agreement.

One of the issues that was raised by members opposite in their then Opposition roles in select committee was: what problem does this solve?

Hon Member: Exactly.

BRETT HUDSON: Exactly—exactly. What it shows is the members opposite who were in Opposition then but now are in charge of running the country can’t understand that members in this House should be getting ahead of problems and actually proactively introducing things that are going to help New Zealanders get ahead—in this case, help people to have the right sort of workplace relations and opportunities. [Interruption]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members—order!

BRETT HUDSON: If they can’t get their heads around getting ahead of a problem, we’re going to continue to see more of the Government that we’ve seen over the last few weeks, which is an absolute shambolic mess. One can only hope that they will learn from the experience.

The situation was widely canvassed by submitters and it was acknowledged that these sorts of actions are quite routinely seen today, with the likes of chief executive officers having employment contracts that contract out of these very personal grievance provisions. In fact, the submitters—and, particularly, I think, the Law Commission, which submitted—pointed out that there are questions about enforceability of those provisions of those contracts under the law as it stands today. But no one—no one—questioned about whether they actually work in practice.

So this bill says: why should CEOs be the only employees in companies who should be allowed to negotiate those sorts of terms and provisions in their employment contracts? Why should other employees who feel they have the confidence and are prepared to go into negotiations—why should they be excluded? Why should they not be permitted to likewise care for their own circumstances and their own future?

Clearly—to another point that was raised by members opposite and submitters—they think that these employees who are earning at least $150,000 a year are somehow vulnerable or disadvantaged. The reality is that any employee that is earning that much in a business is, clearly, highly valued by the business, else they wouldn’t be in that sort of role and wouldn’t be compensated to that very high level of earnings. To suggest that they are by and large somehow vulnerable, disadvantaged, or somehow not capable of negotiating their own employment terms and conditions is the noise from members that are still living in the 1970s, and one could only hope they might make it into the 21st century sometime soon. I won’t hold my breath.

But none the less, these people are in roles of responsibility. They are highly valued by the companies who are prepared to compensate them to such a high amount. Should they wish to enter into those negotiations, why—why—should they be prevented from negotiating those terms such as we all permit CEOs to do and have done for many years?

It’s important to note, too, that the bill had and retains provisions to protect employees, to ensure that they are not coerced into such negotiations and that the agreement that is reached is clearly mutual and can be proven to be so through the independent legal advice that is a fundamental requirement in order for the agreement to be valid. The employee must seek and receive independent legal advice. The agreement must be in writing. There are measures to protect employees being coerced by employers into entering into provisions that they truly do not wish to.

Now, there were, as I noted at the beginning, elements of the bill as first introduced that would have meant that employees would not have had redress in matters that had been raised by submitters as issues on basic human rights. These are elements such as not being able to take action in the case of discrimination, sexual or racial harassment, or certain other measures. Officials advised, and it was acknowledged right at the very beginning of the select committee process, that it would be a good idea to ensure—and, in fact, necessary to ensure—that those provisions were still available to employees. Officials came up with a very simple and elegant way of addressing that, such as the bill permitting the contracting out of only a single provision: section 103(1)(a), which is the element about unjustified dismissal. So the employee does and will retain redress through instances where the employer contravenes their other rights. At the same time, though, the committee did make recommendations to this House that clarification be made to ensure that where the employee does contract out of that one provision, they understand, and there is no opportunity for them to take other legal proceedings in the matter of that dismissal.

The committee, as committees often do, looked at provisions or situations in other countries, and committee members did chat, if I might say, about why in Australia they do have the provision for those legal challenges, despite the fact that they have legislation that automatically contracts those higher-earning employees out of the personal grievance provisions. In fact, I think that’s probably the very reason, and members did, I think, reach some level of agreement on that. In Australia, because it’s not optional, if you earn over a certain amount you are automatically out of those provisions. That’s why they retain—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, I rise for the second time in this House. I’d like to first congratulate you on becoming a Speaker. We’ve known each other for a number of years, and I have great respect for your values, understanding of process, and care for people.

Now, before I begin on this bill, I need to correct something about my maiden speech. I mentioned four Labour Party MPs who had stood in the Hamilton seats, and after my speech, the Speaker, the Hon Trevor Mallard, reminded me that there was one more, whom I forgot, and that was him. Hopefully, the Hon Mr Mallard is watching in his office. Thank you for the work you did in Hamilton West.

Now, this bill allows employers to contract out of unjustified dismissal protections when hiring employees who earn over $150,000 per year. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the bill was supported by various business groups and was opposed by the Human Rights Commission, most lawyers, unions, and workers.

I’d like to begin by focusing on one word, and that’s the word “choice”—not a word from the 1980s, when we said “Choice!” with our thumbs up, but, basically, it’s where somebody can choose between two things. Inspired by Deborah Russell, my colleague, to boldly go where no Labour MP had been before, and possibly no New Zealand First or Green MP—I’m not sure—I went to the National Party website. Now—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, you didn’t.

JAMIE STRANGE: I did. I did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did you have a lie-down afterwards?

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! It was quite difficult to get on there. The parliamentary server blocked me initially for dangerous or unauthorised material, but after some negotiation, Parliamentary Service let me on the site, which was good. Before I talk about what was on the site, I must say the font could be improved, just so you know that. It is a very small font. But I’ll do my best.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the member should know that Mr Peters is the expert on fonts in this House. Maybe he should talk to him—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE: So let’s have a look at what’s on the National Party website, fonts aside. “The National Party has always valued enterprise, hard work and the rewards that go with success. We will continue to aspire to a New Zealand where all New Zealanders can flourish.”

Hon Member: Is that the comedy section?

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! “We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values:” Now let’s have a listen to what these values are. Number one: “Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles, and our Sovereign as Head of State”—OK, all right. Number two: “National and personal security”—OK, sure. Number three: “Equal citizenship and equal opportunity”—equal opportunity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You aren’t making this up, are you?

JAMIE STRANGE: It’s right here. It’s right here, Mr Peters. It’s here. It is difficult to read. And number four, here we go: “Individual freedom and choice”. So—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That can’t be true.

JAMIE STRANGE: It is on the website. Whether it’s true or not is up to the members. So let’s have a look here. You see, the key thing is this bill removes the choice of an employee to undertake a personal grievance. National Party: the great bastion of freedom of choice—

Matt King: Yeah!

JAMIE STRANGE: I’d like to know—ha, ha! I would like to know why the members are discriminating against people earning over $150,000. Why would you discriminate against those people by removing their choice for a personal grievance? Those earning over this salary are not just in senior management; they can be public servants; they could be whistleblowers. Some employees may choose to settle any disagreements through another process, other than personal grievance. However, it’s vital that this option is available to them. It comes back to choice.

The second point is that there is a power imbalance between an employer and an employee. The employee has the weight of control, and I worry about employees signing contracts that remove their right to personal grievance.

I’ll talk about two jobs that I’ve worked in, and neither of them have anything to do with fonts, so we can relax there, Mr Bishop. The first job was in retail. There was no union. It was an individual contract, and I clearly felt the power imbalance. I was on a low wage, and it was very difficult for me to ask for a pay rise, because there was a clear imbalance. My second job was as a schoolteacher, which did involve fonts. Now, we had a strong collective under the NZEI Te Riu Roa union, and I had the right, if I required it, to a personal grievance. Fortunately, I didn’t need to take it up, but the choice was there.

Another point: why do we need this bill? Only 1 percent of the population earns over $150,000. Is it really worth the time of this House to debate it? There is no pressing issue in our society around this. There’s no evidence that employers or employees are asking for it. This bill is a solution looking for a problem, rather than a problem looking for a solution. [Interruption] Thank you, Mr Galloway—Mr Lees-Galloway.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Yeah, thank you. Jeez.

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! Now, a couple of other points. This bill undermines and contradicts the basic human rights of workers. A submission from the New Zealand Human Rights Commission said, “the Bill would seem to be inconsistent with a number of International Labour Organisation (ILO) and human rights treaties and instruments, including: ILO Discrimination … Convention … The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. I agree with them that this bill removes the basic human right of a defence against the behaviour of a person with power over one without.

So, in summary, number one, it removes choice—“individual freedom and choice”, from the website there; small font, very small font actually, I must say. Number two, we don’t actually need this bill. Number three, there is a clear power imbalance between employers and employees. Number four, it undermines human rights. And, to finish, all employees deserve the right to access personal grievance. Whether they want to or not is their choice, but they deserve the right.

This Government is committed to increasing fair outcomes for working people, regardless of their income, mansions, or boats. This Government opposes this bill because it is unnecessary, poorly targeted, and establishes a dangerous concept in New Zealand’s workplace relations framework. The concept of contracting out of employment rights is dangerous. This legislation sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to further contracting out and diluting of our employer accountability. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you so much. I’m delighted to stand up and take a call on Brett Hudson’s excellent bill, the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. You could have done with a snappier title, but it’s a very good bill.

I just have to start by reflecting on the somewhat surreal experience of hearing the member who’s just resumed his seat, Jamie Strange, concerned that we’re wasting the time of the House with this bill. We’re wasting the time of the House—this from a Government who, on the very same day they finish their first Address in Reply debate, is debating such important, ideological reforms to our country like the Statutes Amendment Bill and the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. This is a Government who, a third of the way into their 100-day plan, has got nothing in the tin, and is debating statutes amendments and subordinate legislation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings require this member to actually address the bill before the House—not a montage of her memories, but the bill before the House right now—and she’s had enough time to get to it. So would you please bring her to the point of the business of the House, thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the honourable member for his intervention. This has been a very wide-ranging debate, but I invite the member to continue.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—speaking of time-wasting from that member across the House, we have this speech worrying about this; well, actually, this is what members’ days are about. Members’ days are about allowing individual members to find small aspects of the law that actually can be improved, and make a lot of sense. And I support this.

I’ve also got to take issue with the comments of the last speaker that this bill somehow removes choice. I sat there and tried to work out on what planet allowing a senior, high-paid, highly remunerated staff member to agree with the employer removes choice. After taking their own independent legal advice—no one’s been tricked into this; intelligent, clever, highly skilled people who have taken proper advice—why shouldn’t they have the choice to remove this process?

So far from removing choice, Mr Strange, it is the absolute opposite of that. It is saying this to mature, intelligent adults—who we don’t treat like children, on this side of the House; who we don’t assume need the nanny State powers of the Government to protect them from their own basest instincts; who we actually agree can make a sensible, balanced, mature decision on the facts, with good advice. And why wouldn’t we let them? Australia does it. Has it meant the end of civilisation as we know it and the horrible outrage and intimidation and exploitation of those poor, highly paid CEOs? Of course it hasn’t. It is a nonsense, the argument. There is no reason at all that we shouldn’t allow it.

And it is important to note that this doesn’t apply to whistleblowers. There is a clear protection in the bill for whistleblowers. It doesn’t apply to most of the grounds set out in section 103 of the Employment Relations Act at all. It is very clear that the employee can still seek assistance where a term of their employment contract hasn’t been given effect to, where they’ve been discriminated against, where they’ve been sexually harassed, and where they’ve been racially harassed. There is a whole list of grievances in section 103 against which the employee is still absolutely protected, but, to give them the right, the choice, the entitlement to choose a different set of processes for themselves, like an adult, we support.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.