Thursday, 30 November 2017
Volume 725
Sitting date: 30 November 2017
THURSDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2017
THURSDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2017
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider a range of Government bills, including the first readings of the Autonomous Sanctions Bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, and the Legislation Bill, and the committee stages of the Electronic Interactions—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Members of the Opposition will hear the rest of the Business Statement in silence, because I am interested and I cannot hear it, even with a very good sound system. The Leader of the House will start again.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the House will consider a range of Government bills, including the first readings of the Autonomous Sanctions Bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, and the Legislation Bill, and the committee stages of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In addition to business of the old Government, is the Government intending to take urgency on any of its 100-day plan, and, if so, when can we see that legislation, given the importance of that to the Opposition?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Government has no plans to take urgency next week. There may be urgency prior to Christmas to progress some of those bills, and we’ll certainly ensure that the Opposition’s fully informed of our intentions in that regard.
Motions
Israel—70th Anniversary of Recognition as State
Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I seek leave to move a motion without debate to recognise the 70th anniversary of Resolution 181 in the United Nations regarding the recognition of Israel as a State.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. The member may so move.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: I move, That we recognise the 70th anniversary of Resolution 181 in the United Nations regarding the recognition of Israel as a State, and acknowledge that New Zealand was one of 83 countries and nations that voted for the motion, which set in train the international recognition of the State of Israel, which came into being on 14 May 1948.
Motion agreed to.
Speaker’s Statements
Motions—Scope
Mr SPEAKER: Before we come to the next member—and it’s reflecting on the motion that we have just passed, and the series of motions that we’ve passed this week across a variety of topics—there have been at least two decisions of the Business Committee to tighten up in this area, and, frankly, I think that 124th anniversaries of receiving the assent to particular bills and 70th anniversaries, not in recognition of a country but a UN resolution on a particular issue at the United Nations, do not come within what I would consider to be the tight definitions expected by the Business Committee, even for non-debatable motions.
I want to thank the member who is supporting me, even though he shouldn’t be at this time, and I just want to indicate that if we get many more like this—and I will give this example to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: we had a motion for the Black Ferns for winning the Rugby World Cup; that may or may not have been within the rules. Having something a week or so later because they win an award is not, in my view, a good use of the House’s time. I’m just giving notice that even if no other member objects, I may.
Points of Order
Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not in relation to that matter; I just want to make that clear. I seek your guidance and, I hope, your considered ruling on an issue that came through yesterday in question time and is there in the question today. It is in relation to ministerial responsibility and accountability, particularly in relation to this issue, which we did discuss yesterday, about the past Government and the current Government. Of course, what we had yesterday was question No. 1 from a Government member to the Minister of Finance, where there was quite specific reference to the last Government’s programme and the defence white paper, and so on. And then, of course, we had the question from the Opposition spokesman, and rulings there.
Today, we’ve got, for example, question No. 5 to the transport Minister: “Has he [seen] any reports … under the previous Government”—
Mr SPEAKER: No—can the member read it out completely?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yeah, look, I can: “Has he received any reports commissioned under the previous Government that show the value of investment in rail?” You, effectively, ruled—I come back to Speaker’s ruling 159/3 where it makes it quite clear that, “Ministers in the Government of the day are not responsible for the activities of the previous administration.” So I’m really just seeking your guidance on that cutting both ways in relation to both—
Mr SPEAKER: I’ll stop the member now, so that I won’t need to come back with a considered ruling. The question is very clear: “Has he received any reports …?” If he has received a report, then it doesn’t matter when it was commissioned, if he has received it—and remember, it’s not “seen it”; it’s not “read it in the paper”. If it is received as a Minister, then he is responsible for it.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): Speaking to the point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Is this a—
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It’s related, but not to that question. I note that question No. 8 is another example that sort of steers the line, if you like. It says, “What was the expected date, prior to the General Election, that the Residential Advisory Service would cease operations,”. Again, that seems to ask the Minister in regard to something that relates to—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m going to sit the member down now. I don’t know if the member is deliberately trifling with my time, but I expect a member, before taking a point of order like that, to read the whole question.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do think, with the greatest respect, that it is the role of the Opposition—all members, in fact—we have a right and a responsibility to raise points of order and to have them understood—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Of course I respect the rights of members to raise points of order. I hope the member will respect my right to stop members when it’s clear that nothing will be added to the House by them continuing, and I certainly expect members, before they raise a point of order in relation to the eligibility for a particular question, to read to the end, where the ministerial responsibility is very clear.
Oral Questions—Reflections on Speaker
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Separate point of order, Mr Peters ?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s a separate point of order. I’m concerned about your comment about, for example, one member of the House expressing demur to a suggestion being put up by another member of the House, and that that would also transport all the way to the Speaker. Now, we all remember, in somewhat more chauvinistic days, when the Speaker was described as Parliament’s man. That sort of meant that the rest of us might demur but that you would not, unless you were making a ruling on the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. What I’m concerned about is if you could perhaps explain to us how you got there, sometime—not today, but sometime by next week.
Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I’m quite happy to do it now. While I am Speaker and I am, I think we could probably say, “Parliament’s person” and, generally, will reflect the view of other members, I am also a member of the Parliament. I retain many of the rights that members do, and that includes not giving leave to particular things.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While I understand and respect your semantic point in relation to question No. 5 today—for example, about reports received—what I am trying to do, though, is make a wider point in relation to both questions and answers, from both Government members and Opposition members, really, about it cutting both ways. And that’s where I’m—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Twice, at least, yesterday, or twice this week, the member has made comments that have reflected on me. Last week, the Hon David Parker did and received, I think, a relatively severe dressing down for doing it. The member can receive an assurance that I look very carefully at these questions and I do spend time contemplating the supplementaries that come. Members on both sides of the House are getting used to some new rules for them because they’re playing different positions, if you like, and it will take some settling down. But the member can be assured that I am very unhappy with suggestions of uneven treatment, whether they come from a relatively senior Government Minister or the shadow Leader of the House.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve only raised with you—I don’t think I have ever sought to make that allegation or suggestion. I’m simply trying to, through points of order, clarify and ensure that we understand and we’re getting there on the way forward. But I’m certainly seeking to—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I suggest that the first thing the member does, if he’s unsure about these things, is that he doesn’t raise it on the floor of the House, and that he has a good read of Speakers’ Rulings.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Government Financial Position—Crown Debt, Business Confidence, and Fiscal Plan
1. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm he plans to increase net core Crown debt from $59.5 billion as at 30 June 2017 to $67.6 billion by 2022; and can he confirm debt will not increase by any more than that?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can confirm that net core Crown debt was $59.48 billion at 30 June 2017, or 22.2 percent of GDP at the time. I can also confirm that the Government plans to reduce net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP to 20 percent within five years of taking office. I cannot confirm the exact dollar figure for 2022 at this time, as that is part of the normal Budget process, but the figure in the member’s question is our starting point.
Hon Steven Joyce: Given that response, is he concerned at the recorded level of business confidence in the ANZ business survey today, which suggests that there is some confusion about the Government’s position and its economic and fiscal plans, and that perhaps he should move to clarify that quite quickly, given those results?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have been talking to members of the business community in recent days. I will do so again tomorrow, and then, when we come to release the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Budget Policy Statement, we will be providing certainty for the business community and the rest of New Zealand about our plans.
Hon Steven Joyce: Well, in that case, can I suggest he possibly stops talking to the business community, given the results of that survey today?
Mr SPEAKER: Is that a question, or just a passing point? [Interruption] Well, there was no question, no question word.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What members of the business community I think share with me is the enormity of the challenges that that member left me by not putting enough money aside for capital spending, by failing to put money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and overseeing a housing crisis. They want to work with us to solve the challenges he left the Government.
Hon Steven Joyce: Woohoo! Has Treasury now done any costings on any individual policies contained in the Labour Party’s pre-election fiscal plan that shows the actual cost is higher than originally stated in that document?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury has been working on items within the hundred day plan that appear inside the fiscal plan. We’ve already announced the costings around the student allowance and student loan payment increases, which actually come in slightly under what was in the fiscal plan.
Hon Steven Joyce: Just to clarify: is he saying, then, as at today, Treasury has so far, up to today, given him no indication in writing that any policy in this pre-election fiscal plan of the Labour Party will likely cost more than was previously stated?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury are working through the costings for the hundred day plan promises. They have not yet been finalised, as the member knows. When the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update comes out, he will be able to see the detailed results of that work.
Hon Steven Joyce: Can he then confirm that there’s a disagreement amongst Ministers about the design and implementation of the Government’s winter energy payment, as reported by his colleague Stuart Nash at a Wellington Chamber of Commerce breakfast speech this morning?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, quite the contrary. Minister Nash, myself, Minister Sepuloni, and Minister Martin have been working together collegially. And, interestingly, we’ve been told as we’ve been doing that work that it’s great to see—finally—a group of Ministers who can work together.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the finance Minister whether or not the projections and calculations that he and Treasury are working on are going to be an example of aspiration and wanton optimism, or an example of aptitude, exactitude, and certainty when it comes to running the books?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They will be all of those elements that Mr Peters has raised—in comparison, I might say, to the previous Government, who decided that they would look like they were paying off debt by making sure they hadn’t put enough aside for the capital spending that was required.
Pest Control—Predator Free New Zealand 2050
2. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What has been the Department of Conservation’s biggest recent success in predator control to better protect our native plants and wildlife?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The Department of Conservation (DOC) has recently completed aerial predator control on more than 440,000 hectares of conservation land, including more than 38,000 hectares of Kahurangi National Park, home to whio, great spotted kiwi, kea, kākā, rock ram, and Powelliphanta land snails.
Marama Davidson: Does the department have the resources needed to protect the 4,000 native species that are at risk or threatened with extinction?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The recent work was a great success, but aerial control has only been able to cover 7 percent of conservation land, because of the funding available under Budget 2016. That has been totally inadequate. We have a biodiversity crisis, but under current funding, the Department of Conservation is able to do predator control on only 16 percent of land and able actively manage only 338 of the 4,000 species that are threatened or at risk of extinction.
Marama Davidson: What will the Minister do to better protect the almost 4,000 currently threatened and at risk indigenous species in New Zealand?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There are many ways that we can better protect our native wildlife, plants, and habitat. For a start, we’ll be changing the threatened species strategy, because the last Government was unambitious and was aiming to manage only 500 of those species, for instance. We have a commitment to significantly increase conservation funding to better protect our native plants and wildlife.
Hon Maggie Barry: What risks to native plants and wildlife might occur if there was open cast mining at Te Kūhā mine on the Buller Plateau?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member should be very aware that until the Minister considers an application for an access agreement, it is not appropriate to comment, to avoid prejudging the decision. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: No. Another question, or another two questions, in fact—seeing as it was the Leader of the House who interjected—to the Opposition.
Marama Davidson: How does DOC’s pest control work help threatened native species?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Reducing pest numbers over wide areas through aerial pest control allows native species to breed in relative safety, and we’ve seen that in areas like Southland’s Waitutu Forest, where predator control has meant that the kākā population can nest and is now increasing.
Hon Maggie Barry: Does the Minister acknowledge that the use of the aerial compound—it’s distributed aerially—1080 is the only way that we can attain the goal of predator-free New Zealand by 2050, and does New Zealand First cooperate with the Minister’s views?
Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has got no oversight as to what our position is as a party, and it’s an out-of-line question.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it is within the ministerial responsibility to seek cooperation on controversial issues from all parties in Parliament, and certainly those who form part of the Government. So I think whether or not she has sought that cooperation and any response is, in fact, part of the Minister’s responsibility.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not to dispute—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I’m going to interrupt the member now and say that the two questions just awarded have been taken back for an interjection during a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is not to dispute your ruling in any way, shape, or form, because if it was apposite to the coalition agreement and what we, with Labour, have agreed to do into the future, then I think you would be correct. But if it’s for policy that was not covered by that, then I think that my colleague is right to say that no Minister is therefore responsible for a party’s policy not part of a coalition arrangement.
Mr SPEAKER: I think, in listening to the question, the member—and the member will correct me if I’ve got this wrong. I think the member was asking whether the Minister had sought or had got cooperation from a group of members in this House around a particular policy. Whether or not it is current Government policy or whether it is not the policy of some other area, that reaching out to others to support a particular area of work is the responsibility of a Minister, and asking whether or not she’s done it, I think, is something that is OK as far as this House is concerned. Would the member—so we can all remember what she said—like to repeat her question.
Hon Maggie Barry: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister accept that 1080 is essential if we are to attain the predator-free 2050 goal, and does New Zealand First support her views?
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: In terms of 1080, it is one of the essential tools in the tool box, and the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in her independent report, was very clear about the need to use 1080. There is widespread support in terms of achieving predator-free 2050, and a recognition that we need to increase conservation funding across all three parties in Government.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I’m just going to—would the member sit down, because I’m going to make a slightly unusual ruling now. I was wrong in allowing the question, because I thought it was slightly more complicated than that as to whether the Minister had done anything vis-à-vis New Zealand First. In fact, it was just a straight opinion on another party’s policy, and I want to apologise to the right honourable gentleman. He was right and I was wrong.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s very interesting that you have put yourself into a contrite position on this particular issue. But let’s be very clear that when a Minister is in the House saying that she is going to seek extra funding for a predator-control arrangement—in this case, the use of 1080—then that would have to be done through the budgetary cycle. Much as it might be the desire of the coalition to be able to break apart and rely on the Opposition to help them through that, the Budget won’t be one of those things, and it will be New Zealand First’s vote on this particular issue inside a Budget, as part of a coalition, that enables that to happen.
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and that could well be true, but the member could also be quite premature on this occasion to be discussing that. They’re not that far in the cycle yet.
Mental Health Services—Outcomes and Funding
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Why did he tell the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists conference’s Q & A session on 23—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did give members some advice yesterday to try reading the question that’s on the sheet, which is a very, very different question.
3. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What measurable outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want members to settle down and remember that quite a few of us have new roles, and I think all of us will make mistakes.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Improved health for New Zealanders.
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why did he tell the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists conference’s Q & A session on 23 November that in three years’ time after Government investment in mental health people are still going to say the system is terrible, our suicide rate is still too high, and our mental health issues are still there?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: One suicide in New Zealand is one suicide too many. We will not get to zero in our first term.
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: So is he really saying, after making mental health his top election issue, that in three years’ time under his watch people will still say the system is terrible, the suicide rate will still be too high, and mental health issues will still be there?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm today that we will not neglect the mental health sector like the previous Government, and it will not take nine years to have measurable gains in mental health.
Hon Steven Joyce: Just in reference to the conversation we had at the start of question time today, I noted the Minister referring to the previous Government in his answer. I think, in the context of the conversations we’ve had, it might be, perhaps, preferable that he didn’t do that.
Mr SPEAKER: I’m not going to go that far, and the member wouldn’t like it in the long term.
Dr Liz Craig: So how will the Minister deliver improved outcomes across the health system?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To deliver improved health outcomes, we need a health sector that is effective and works together to deliver the services New Zealanders expect. That will require building strong relationships across the health sector. These relationships were seriously strained under the previous Government.
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How will he afford his Government’s additional new spending promises, including fixing the mental health system; extra pharmaceutical spending; more affordable dental care; and the Prime Minister’s promise of more funding for palliative care, given that he said his promised $8 billion for health had been “pretty much spent”?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We will afford them in the same way that previous Government’s did: we will spend money responsibly on behalf of taxpayers to deliver more affordable access to quality care for New Zealanders.
Prisons—Prison Population
4. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his Government’s intention to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over the next 15 years; if so, how?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes; and by being smarter than the previous Government.
Simon O’Connor: What is his specific target for a prison population reduction over his first term of Government?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is not possible to break down a target of over 15 years on a three-year by three-year basis. But what the Minister can commit to as a Government is that it is not going to continue on the current trajectory set under the previous Government, which by 2028 would see a 50 percent increase in our prison population. What is happening now is not working, and it’s going to be better.
Simon O’Connor: Will he rule out the early release of prisoners in order to meet any target they may come up with in three years, one year, 15 years?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have seen a rapid increase in the prison population over the last three years alone. If we want to avoid continuing the current trend, which will see a 50 percent increase in the prison population in just 10 years’ time, then we have to do things differently. So we will manage parole, we will manage bail, and we will manage offenders in a smarter way that preserves public safety but actually fixes people who do bad things.
Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While I appreciate that the Minister speaking on behalf of Kelvin Davis has articulated a number of topics, my question was incredibly specific around one particular option, which is the early release of prisoners, and I would appreciate that being at least addressed.
Mr SPEAKER: And I thought that buried in the answer was a response to that.
Simon O’Connor: What is the forecast impact on prison numbers of an additional 1,800 sworn police officers?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A growth in police numbers will have two particular impacts. One is that it will help to prevent more crime being committed, and so that has the effect of reducing the potential future prison population. The other is that with good community and rural policing, police get closer to their communities and, when people are detained for committing offences, early intervention can prevent them from getting to prison.
Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While again I appreciate the answer, again the question was quite specific around forecasted impacts. And we know from previous policy that there is a forecasted impact and that’s what I’ve asked for, not the generalities given.
Mr SPEAKER: Ask the question again, with no penalty.
Simon O’Connor: What is the forecast impact on prison numbers of an additional 1,800 sworn police officers?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have received no advice on the forecast impact of 1,800 police officers, but I have received advice on the very positive impact that additional police officers will have on reducing the number of offenders and reducing the number of offenders who wind up in prison.
Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If he is using official advice as he’s referenced here, is he prepared to table it, and do we know the font?
Mr SPEAKER: Well, no. Just to make it absolutely clear that the Minister has to be quoting it—and I was watching. Unless the Minister has an incredible memory and he was quoting verbatim a document that he has in the House but wasn’t looking at, there’s no chance of him being currently quoting from an official document.
Rail—EY Report, Strike, and Investment
5. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—List) to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports commissioned under the previous Government that show the value of investment in rail?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, this report by EY shows the rail network generates $1.5 billion a year in benefits to New Zealand. The biggest gains go to road users who experience less congestion and fewer accidents, thanks to the traffic taken off the road by rail. The report highlights the value of the Government’s plans to invest in rail, both in our cities and in the regions.
Kieran McAnulty: Why is the report being released now?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the Government has released the report this week because it greatly improves public understanding of the value of rail. Our policy is to get the most out of all transport modes, not just one. What’s hard to understand is why the past Government sat on this report for nearly a year. It’s just the latest in many inconvenient facts hidden from the public under that former Government.
Kieran McAnulty: Is it true, as stated in commentary on release of this report, that he has canned the East-West Link and shelved other major and important roading projects?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Actually, no, it’s not. Those comments made by the Hon Judith Collins are incorrect.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I’m not a transport expert, but that’s not related to this report that the member has had questions asked about.
Hon Judith Collins: Does he agree the value of investment in rail requires the trains to run?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.
Hon Judith Collins: What’s his message to the 30,000 rail commuters who have been told that their share of investment in rail won’t work tomorrow because the trains are on strike?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: My message to rail commuters affected by the strike is that they should ask some hard questions of the former Government, who put in place—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think we need to go much further here.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, well, I think the member’s answered the question.
Jenny Marcroft: Will investing in rail assist our regions?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. It will mean jobs, it will mean better connections for business in the regions, it will mean safer roads and less pollution. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to ask all members to sit down and just give a little bit of coaching advice to the people who are asking the questions and possibly for those who are assisting them. It would have been a lot easier on that question if the member had an “if so; why?” on the end, because, actually, the Minister had answered the question when he said “Yes.”
Jenny Marcroft: What have the consequences been of years of underinvesting in rail?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It means that the country is missing out on the benefits of rail as highlighted in the report. It means that freight transport is more expensive than it needs to be and businesses who are moving freight around the country have fewer options. A multimodal approach that treats road, rail, and shipping as part of one transport network for the good of this country’s supply chain will benefit both the cities and the regions.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What insights does he take from this report on the value of investment in rail in Auckland?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you. The report finds that the people who gain most from rail are the road users who experience less congestion. This highlights the wisdom of the Government’s plans to invest in both light rail and heavy rail in Auckland and to give Auckland the tools to help fund that investment. The alternative plan meant doing nothing and leaving Aucklanders sitting in traffic gridlock for 30 years.
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: What impact has the public transport operating model, also known as PTOM, had on investment in rail and the ability to ensure that the rail runs every day?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The public transport operating framework set up by the former Government has had the effect of driving down wages and conditions in the public transport sector, and it’s little wonder that workers in that industry are collectively bargaining to get better wages and conditions. This Government wants to see world-class public transport in our cities, but not at the expense of the workers who run the system.
Tourism—Potential Levy
6. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Tourism: Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Hon Jacqui Dean: When he told the Tourism Industry Association—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! When “he” told.
Hon Jacqui Dean: That’s what I said.
Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, I thought you said “you”. Left ear—sorry. Away you go. I apologise to members. Start again.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he told the Tourism Industry Association in a public forum that he was exploring options for a tourist levy, which would include local government funding models, had he had many discussions with local government about it?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can’t speak for the conversations that the Minister might have had with local government in particular, but I know that the Labour Party component of the Government had a wide range of conversations with the New Zealand public about the matter; it was called a general election campaign.
Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was to the Minister of Tourism, not to the Labour Party.
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I think that your question to the Minister was answered in the very first phrase. You got some additional information, which may or may not have been helpful, but the question was certainly answered.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Why is he backtracking from a firm commitment to an international tourist levy to consideration of that as just one of a number of options?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because a new Government has been formed.
Hon Jacqui Dean: What is his response to Tourism Industry Aotearoa’s statement that a levy on foreign tourists is completely unworkable?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The current Government is considering a range of options to better support the tourism industry, including a levy. I’m sure we’ll receive a range of views on that matter.
Labour - New Zealand First Coalition—Coalition Documents
7. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were eloquently made.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given her statements yesterday that “of course some of my staff have been privy” to the 33-page unpublished coalition document, do those staff still hold copies of the document, and are they employed by Ministerial Services?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister was referring to material gleaned by members of her staff in preparation for the coalition agreement. All of that material is not subject to the Official Information Act, because it was—
Hon Steven Joyce: Didn’t answer the question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m getting to it.
Hon Simon Bridges: Hurry it up. You haven’t got all day.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I have, actually, when you’re around. Can I make it very clear what the Prime Minister has said about the matters, which have been the subject of some artificial and constructed controversy. None of that material is official. None of that material is currently part of the eight-page document on the coalition agreement. But there are, obviously, side papers that we are working on in the future, and when that material is known and completed and evaluated and budgeted, it’ll be announced.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a small, pedantic point, but I know how you are on these things. Should the Minister answering for the Prime Minister say “on behalf of the Prime Minister”, or then speak in the third person? It makes a difference in the Hansard.
Mr SPEAKER: I understand that it does, and it has been a matter that another pedant has raised in the past. He’s currently sitting in the Chair, and I think he had a number of rulings that allowed for some flexibility on behalf of the Ministers answering for other Ministers.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, perhaps he could use his better judgment now in his own favour. That would be a good thing. In reference to her statement yesterday that her Minister of Finance holds a copy of the 33-page unpublished coalition document, does she have confidence in him to ensure that he does not circulate that document to other Ministers or Ministerial Services employees or contractors or secondees in his office?
Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just on another pedantic matter, the Minister asked a question referring to the Prime Minister as a “he” with “his”. I think if we’re going to be pedantic we should actually stick to the rules of asking questions.
Mr SPEAKER: Right, no. Let’s—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. My apologies. I am just so enamoured of the testosterone power of the current Government, so I do apologise. I should have said “her”. I’ll say it again. In reference to her statement yesterday that her Minister of Finance holds a copy of the 33-page unpublished coalition document, is she confident that he has not circulated the document to any other Minister or to any Ministerial Services employee, contractor, or secondee who might be in his office or other Ministers’ offices?
Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask the Prime Minister to reply, I just want to indicate that I think the first part of the reply should indicate whether in fact the Minister of Finance does hold the document as Minister of Finance, because it will make a difference as to further supplementaries.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answers, whilst the questions are sustained, are on behalf of the Prime Minister. I made that very clear on my first answer, and I didn’t think I had to repeat it every time. My answer for the Prime Minister, though, is this: not in his position as the Minister of Finance. That was not what the Prime Minister said yesterday, and no amount of trying to reconstruct the Prime Minister’s words will take away from the fact that she said Mr Robertson was privy to it because he was central to the negotiations for the whole time.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the 33-page unpublished coalition document located in any ministerial device or hard drive?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could the member help me out by giving us a description of what a “ministerial device” is.
Mr SPEAKER: Before the member goes on, we will treat that as a point of order, rather than having questions going the other way. Responding to the point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that in his very, very long, decades-old career here, the Deputy Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister today, has not been in office that often, or often enough to appreciate what it might be. But it is, essentially—perhaps maybe I should reword the question to make it easier for the gentleman.
Mr SPEAKER: I think if one sort of winds back the sarcasm in it and just asks the question again—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: There’s no sarcasm in a question that asks: is the 33-page unpublished coalition document located in any ministerial communications device, smart phone, or hard drive of any type, or a safe?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, I’m not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister posing as a male, for the umpteenth time, which was the expression that the member repeated again. The second thing is that if we’re going to take a long attack, I want to tell that member I’ll be around long after he’s gone. And the third thing I want to say is that this was all done before the Government was formed, and that is the only matter you’re entitled to ask about.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the 33-page unpublished coalition document currently located in any of the ministerial communication devices, be they handheld or on a hard drive, or in any safe in any ministerial office?
Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to interrupt now because my view is that the location of a non-ministerial document is not something that makes it a ministerial document. For example, I used to keep my personal cheque book in the ministerial safe; that did not make it a ministerial document. I know members kept their lunch in the ministerial fridges, and that did not make them ministerial matters. I’m saying to the member that I’m going to rule his question out—[Interruption] I beg your pardon? Nick Smith will withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, I withdraw and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member’s going to—I haven’t finished my ruling yet, but what I was ruling is that I’m going to give the member one last chance, without penalty, to phrase the question in a way that involves ministerial responsibility. As has been shown in a number of jurisdictions, the fact that something personal has passed through a ministerial computer does not make it a ministerial document.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be an appropriate ruling for the Ombudsman as to whether a document that’s held on a ministerial phone or document is not necessarily an official document for the purposes of that Act, but I think you are going beyond your role as Speaker in saying that a Minister cannot be asked about any matter that relates to things that are funded for the public purpose, in terms of being in a ministerial office—
Mr SPEAKER: OK. I’m quite satisfied on that, and I think that just about every member of this House—or those who’ve been Ministers—will have received material from family members, from constituents, on their devices, which have been owned by Ministerial Services. That does not make that correspondence ministerial responsibility.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, thank you for those interesting clarifications. I’ll change tack. Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement “Our office will be investigating how to apply a royalty specifically to water bottlers following advice from trade officials today that such a royalty would be in breach of our current and proposed free-trade agreements.”, and does this mean the unpublished coalition document will now be even shorter, even without further font changes?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government’s position is that there are many alternatives to arrive at the kind of result that a royalty would impose upon any taker of water. One could assume that, like every other sovereign nation and every country that sets its own royalties, we’re working precisely on that as we speak.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister therefore disagree with the legal team in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who have made it very clear today that applying such a royalty would be a breach of current and future—including this comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—illegal?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The problem with that non-legal interpretation of a witness at a select committee is that the witness said “could”. The witness did not say “would”, and there, if you’ve got any legal training, is a substantial difference.
Greater Christchurch Regeneration—Residential Advisory Service
8. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: What was the expected date, prior to the General Election, that the Residential Advisory Service would cease operations, and what steps has she taken since becoming Minister to ensure the service continues for people affected by the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Prior to the general election, the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) was expected to cease operations on 22 December this year. It was clear to me that this wasn’t good enough and that this closure was too soon. RAS is a valuable service to many people navigating the Earthquake Commission and insurance issues. That is why, upon taking office, I sought advice on extending the service and, on Tuesday, announced an additional $700,000 to extend RAS into July next year. This is a Government delivering on its promises.
Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t want to prolong the discussion earlier, but can you see the problem where we have a two-limbed question and the first limb of the question is entirely about the previous Government. We have been told that we’re not allowed to ask about the previous Government, even in a caretaker mode, as I sought to yesterday, and then we have this particular question today.
Mr SPEAKER: And—
Hon Steven Joyce: If I just may, Mr Speaker. I don’t want be pedantic about it, but it would be helpful for the framing of future questions and save all of our time if, perhaps, you could—I don’t know how you want to do it, whether we have a discussion in your offices or whatever, to discuss where this line is, because, quite genuinely, for members of the Opposition, I don’t think we understand where that line is at this point.
Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly willing to meet with members in my office to work it through. This one is, I think, relatively simple because the substance of the question goes to the actions of the Minister. While the Minister is not responsible for what happened before the election, she is responsible for that. Actually, the question could’ve been asked without the first leg, and that may have made it simpler and easier and we wouldn’t have had this fuss, and there might be some advice for backbenchers to get it right, who, I’m sure, are all drafting questions.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document that makes it clear that the trade officials advised the select committee that it would not be possible to introduce a tax, or if it was done, it would be in breach of trade agreements.
Mr SPEAKER: Can the member, as is normal, tell us the date and source of the document?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The original source of the document is, of course, 30 November—today. The material that is in the document is sourced from the transcript of the select committee hearing.
Mr SPEAKER: And it was a public hearing?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was a public hearing.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The document may be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Dr Duncan Webb: How does the Residential Advisory Service help people affected by the earthquakes?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Residential Advisory Service provides free independent legal and technical assistance to enable people to break deadlocks relating to their insurance difficulties. This has become especially useful for people with complex cases still to be resolved seven years after the initial Canterbury earthquakes. After seven years, it is important for these people to have access to the assistance they need so they can move on with their lives as soon as possible.
Dr Duncan Webb: Why is it important for the Residential Advisory Service—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did catch your eye there. I want to self-report. I did speak inappropriately as the gentleman was giving his question. I throw myself on your mercy, but do acknowledge that I was in breach of your new rules.
Mr SPEAKER: I thought it was a finely tuned thing, and I wasn’t going to pull the member up, so we’ll go back to Dr Webb.
Dr Duncan Webb: Why is it important for the Residential Advisory Service to continue?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Too many people are still waiting to move on with their lives in Canterbury, after being stuck in legal and technical limbo. Putting aside private insurers, the Earthquake Commission (EQC) alone has around 4,000 outstanding claims, with hundreds of remedial claims coming in each month—for example, EQC received 203 remedial requests last month alone. Under the previous Government, these people would have nowhere to go. Come December, under this Government, they will.
State Services (Open Government), Minister—Official Information Act Requests
9. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by her statement in Parliament yesterday that this will be “the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had”; if so, how?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Yes, quite easily.
Brett Hudson: Does she stand by her 29 November refusal to answer an Official Information Act (OIA) request made on 20 November, which sought a list of all reports, briefings, memos, or aide-mémoire that she had received since being sworn in as Associate Minister of State Services, on the basis that the request did not meet the requirement to be “specified with due particularity” as per section 12(2) of the Official Information Act?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.
Brett Hudson: Was she aware of the Chief Ombudsman’s opinion of 17 February 2012 with respect to an OIA request to the then Minister of Finance for a list of all reports and briefings by title and date received from any Government department since 9 November 2008 in relation to his roles as Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, and Minister for Infrastructure that it met the requirement of due particularity, as per section 12(2) of the Official Information Act?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t seen that particular advice from the Ombudsman. I have seen a range of advice from the Ombudsman—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has answered the question.
Brett Hudson: How can she be the ministerial standard-bearer for the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had if this is how she responds to Official Information Act requests, ignoring the precedent guidance from the Chief Ombudsman?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think, as we’ve seen in question time today, the bar was relatively low for the release of official information, under the previous Government. We saw examples of that around KiwiRail, around the Saudi sheep deal, and around all of the other dodgy dealings that they did that they refused to release information on. We won’t be following their standards—the very low standards they set.
Brett Hudson: Will she follow the Ombudsman’s guidance in the future with respect to responses to Official Information Act requests?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Generally, we do follow the Ombudsman’s advice, including the advice under the previous Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem, where she said that ministerial offices had been inappropriately interfering in the release of official information by Government departments under the previous Government.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—New Zealand’s Adherence
10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Children: Is she committed to implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in full?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Successive New Zealand Governments have committed to the progressive implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), in line with the UN committee’s guidance. This Government’s commitments align strongly with the recommendations made by UNCROC: for example, child poverty reduction, investigating historic abuse and violence towards children in State care, and improving housing affordability and standards.
Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister accept that a child has the right to know their parents, as per article 7 of the convention?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I think it is generally accepted that every human being has the right to know their whakapapa. There are, however, times when, for the protection of the child, it is important that their voice is heard and recognised inside some of the Government procedures and policies.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree with article 8 of the convention, which states that parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name, and family relations, as recognised by law, without unlawful interference?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: We do. We recognise, and have strengthened, actually, under Oranga Tamariki, the understanding of how important whakapapa is to all our children—that they know their wider family and whānau, that they know iwi links and any cultural background links that they have.
Hon Louise Upston: Based on her answer, will she then oppose legislation that removes the child’s right to know their parents—in particular, the removal of sanctions in section 70A of the Social Security Act?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Government will always consider what is in the best interests of the child, and, more often than not, that is the case to know their full family. But there are times, for the protection of the child or of their remaining parent—for the other parent—that certain information is not recorded.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she not understand, then, that there are exemptions in section 70A already that provide for the protection of the child; and, if she’s going to oppose that legislation on the parent’s right to know their parent, when will she tell the Minister for Social Development?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Unfortunately, the member may be somewhat misled herself. I am very aware of the exemptions inside the legislation. However, penalising the child’s family by taking away financial support, this Government does not believe is appropriate.
Mr SPEAKER: Just before I ask for another question, can I just say to the Hon Mr Little that having two Ministers answering a question at the same time makes it relatively difficult.
Question No. 11 to Minister
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s in relation to question No. 11, to the Associate Minister of Finance. The Associate Minister of Finance doesn’t have delegations yet. They’re certainly not published. I hesitated about this because I wanted to ensure that delegations didn’t go up. They certainly haven’t as at the time of this question, and so it’s quite clear, under Speakers’ rulings, that this question is out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I’ve obviously accepted it, and I wouldn’t have accepted it if it was out of order. Can the member refer to the Speakers’ ruling that makes it clear that it’s out of order?
Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, certainly: Speakers’ ruling 161/5. I’ve just checked—I checked throughout the morning. Speakers’ ruling 161/5 makes clear that Associate Ministers cannot be questioned about matters for which they have no formal delegated responsibility. As I’ve made clear, factually, he certainly doesn’t, as I understand it—
Mr SPEAKER: OK, we can solve this pretty easily. Has the Associate Minister of Finance received a delegation letter giving him formal responsibility in this area?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): I don’t think the formal delegations have been filed, but I do make the point that the Clerk’s Office accepted the question.
Mr SPEAKER: I was the person who accepted the question, and I do take responsibility for it. I have made a mistake, and therefore we’ll go on to question No. 12.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The mistake being yours, sir, could I suggest that the appropriate way forward would be to ask this question of the Minister of Finance. He being absent, I am in a position to answer on his behalf.
Mr SPEAKER: That might have been the case if we’d had some prior notice of this issue. We could have changed it, but, unfortunately, we haven’t, and it is a very specific question to a specific Minister who does not yet have those delegations. Therefore, I think it is appropriate not to continue with it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House being the master of its own destiny, I seek leave for the suggestion made by Mr Parker to become a reality in question time today.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the question to be addressed to the Minister of Finance. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Local Government—Auckland Council, Spending, and Infrastructure
12. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local Government: What steps will she take to support the local government sector to achieve greater efficiency and control spending?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): A step in the right direction. I want to reassure local leaders that I certainly support their ability to make decisions to fund current and future responsibilities in a sustainable way.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does she think it sufficient for Auckland Council’s spending to have increased by 26 percent in the last four years?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That’s a matter for—
Mr SPEAKER: No, no, sorry. There’s no responsibility on the Minister’s part for the Auckland Council’s rates.
Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Could the member repeat the question, so I can just check again.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does she think it’s sufficient for Auckland Council spending to have increased by 26 percent in the last four years?
Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry. What the Minister thinks about a matter for which she has no formal responsibility, in this case, is not in order. Have another go.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Local Government answered her primary question by talking about efficiency gains in the local government sector. If she hasn’t been thinking about efficiency, then how on earth can she possibly make that statement? It’s not unreasonable—
Mr SPEAKER: It’s adjunct to the Auckland Council, and I will refer the member in a second to the appropriate Speaker’s ruling, which doesn’t come to mind immediately. Speaker’s ruling 161/1: “The Minister is not responsible whatsoever for the operational activities or decision making of a local authority. The Minister can be responsible only for any particular actions he”—or she—“might be taking in relation to the local authority, or Crown decisions on appointments to council-controlled organisations or Crown investment in those organisations. But matters outside that are certainly not the responsibility of the Minister.”, Smith, 2012.
Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The National Party have run out of supplementary questions. They are now currently at 32.
Mr SPEAKER: The same as yesterday—I’m not going to rely on the member’s counting skills; I’m going to rely on the advice that I am getting, because that is the advice that I trust. It is fair to say that we have been too generous to the National Party on one occasion, and I apologise to the Government for that. But I’m not going to do a running total and I’m not going to have individual members tell me that I’m wrong.
Jami-Lee Ross: What reports has she seen of Auckland Council’s spending having increased by 26 percent in the last four years, and does she think that’s sufficient?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ve seen a number of reports. What I think about local leaders’ decision making on matters that concern them is irrelevant. They are acting within their responsibilities as leaders of their region.
Jami-Lee Ross: If it’s her view that the Auckland Council is acting within their responsibility and they’re efficient, why is her Government hammering Aucklanders with an 11.5c a litre petrol tax when Auckland Council can’t control the spending and the tax will raise less money than the blow-out in the council’s wage bill?
Mr SPEAKER: No, that doesn’t get there either. The member’s asking for an opinion in an area for which I think we’ve pretty clearly established from the Speakers’ rulings that the Minister doesn’t have responsibility to the House for.
Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve asked the Minister what her steps will be to drive efficiency, and I’ve asked her what reports she’s received about efficiency. She answered that question and I used her own words in my question.
Hon Tracey Martin: May I speak to the point of order, sir?
Mr SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. It was a ruling from me.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The mechanisms that local leaders use to drive efficiencies are matters of their own determination, but can I say this: a regional fuel tax is a far more fair way to apportion cost to vehicle users to reduce congestion than an interim transport levy that levies every household across the region, irrespective of whether or not they have a car.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, since attaining her job, has she received reports on the Auckland super-city that outlined the following things as part of their history: who set it up in the first place, second that there was—[Interruption] It could be in the reports. That’s what it’s about—to get inside the ambit of the Standing Orders. The second thing is that there was a forecast rate crisis because of the unnecessary demand that will be imposed upon them and they are choking from infrastructure over the last four years—referred to by the previous questioner. Can the Minister confirm that that was in the report?
Mr SPEAKER: The National Party have just lost two supplementaries because of the interjection during that, and it was lucky it was only two.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I can confirm I’ve received numerous reports that demonstrate, certainly over the last four years, the previous Government failed to recognise the increasing impact of a housing crisis, which inflated costs for ratepayers, and the ongoing challenge around meeting infrastructure demands in that region.
Paul Eagle: Thanks, Mr Speaker. What action has the Minister taken to respond to funding and finance challenges raised by the sector?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. This is a key priority for the local government sector, and I am seeking advice and working through a range of options for Cabinet to consider. It’s really important to stress that this Government will work alongside local government towards some real solutions that can make a difference.
Paul Eagle: Supplementary.
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just say to the member that there’s not a requirement in the Parliament to put one’s hand up.
Paul Eagle: I was just being polite. You were ignoring me, and I’m rather large. I’m not the smallest human being.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is pretty hard to miss.
Paul Eagle: Pretty hard—I even wore a tie to get your attention. Does the Minister have a comprehensive assessment of the current state of asset infrastructure across the country?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The simple answer is that we don’t have enough information about the scale and nature of asset infrastructure across councils to adequately size the scale of the problem. We must do better—we will—than the previous Government, and we will engage with them to face the complex issues around infrastructure needs throughout the country.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does she expect other councils to approach her to provide them with a bailout, given they no longer expect councils to control their own expenditure?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Well, I find that a bit of a challenging question. The regions have felt left out for a long time, but now they’ve got a regional development fund that will make a significant difference.
Jami-Lee Ross: Supplementary.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I’ve called Jami-Lee Ross.
Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister seen any reports on the history of average increases in local government rates in the past 25 years?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ve received a number of briefings on that matter. What I can say is that in the past nine years, the previous Government struggled, failed, neglected to address the increasing pressures of funding and finance for local government. While they’re doing nothing about it, while they’ve ignored the regions, I’m really pleased that this Government has a regional development fund that will at least send a message: help is on its way.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister please confirm that she has received reports where the major focus has been on the infrastructural crisis of Auckland and their need to have a Minister of Transport and other Ministers associated with that part of the country that are not just all Brylcreem and no socks?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Absolutely—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think it was really asking for an answer. Jami-Lee Ross. [Interruption] Two more—[Interruption] Oh, no, it just went again. Sorry.
Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister seen any reports that show the highest rates increase across New Zealand in the last 25 years was in 2007, when she was last in that portfolio?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Let’s just start with the past nine years, which were the result of neglecting housing issues in Auckland. That has had a consequent impact on a number of regions, which has left council leaders and mayors trying to meet the increasing challenge of infrastructure costs and the like. It’s important that they hear from this Government—
Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: No.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: —that we take these issues seriously. They are complex. We will be working with them.
Mr SPEAKER: Now—
Hon Simon Bridges: Well, you haven’t even heard it yet.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I haven’t heard it yet, and if it was that the—I’m just anticipating that it might have been that the Minister hadn’t answered the question. What’s really important is that when one’s making that point of order, one waits until the end of the answer, but the member—no, sit down. The member anticipated correctly. The Minister did not address the question, and she will—I think we might have it repeated so she can hear what it was, and we can do it. But can I say to the member: wait until Ministers are finished before taking those points of order.
Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the issue—I understand it, as far as it goes, but, of course, you have also made it very clear, and I think rightly, that we shouldn’t have superfluous material. So on that basis, I think there are times when it is—
Mr SPEAKER: But that—the member will resume his seat. That’s not the point of order that the member was raising.
Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister seen any reports that show the highest rates increase across New Zealand in the last 25 years was in 2007, when she was last in that portfolio?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In fact, the highest increase in rates was, significantly, in Auckland, as a result of that Government ignoring the housing crisis.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I’m actually going to ask the Minister to have yet another go. I’m not going to insist on a yes/no answer, but there has to be a response to the question that’s been asked. [Interruption] No, the member doesn’t need to ask it again. We’ve had it twice.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No.
Jami-Lee Ross: I have two points of order. Firstly, I seek leave to table a document compiled by the Parliamentary Library for my office, showing average rates increases since 1993, including 2007.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be no objection. It will be.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to my fourth supplementary about reports she may have received about the history of rates increases, she said she’s received many reports about that. In answer to my subsequent supplementary, which asked about reports regarding 2007, she said, “No.” It simply cannot be the case that she could say yes to one and no to the other.
Mr SPEAKER: No. They are not necessarily inconsistent. The member—I can see there might be a logical problem with it, but it’s not necessarily inconsistent.
Parliamentary Service Commission
Membership
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That, pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the following members be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Hon Ruth Dyson, Gareth Hughes, Clayton Mitchell, Jami-Lee Ross, David Seymour.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
This is a great day for families. It’s a great day for mums, it’s a great day for dads, and it’s a great day for babies because finally, after years of campaigning, after years of the public demanding that the Parliament do this, and after the Parliament twice saying that it would do this, this Government is finally delivering for families 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I must say that I am incredibly proud that this Government has decided to make this bill the first bill of the new Government, where we make good on a commitment that we have made to the public—a commitment that we made not only through the campaign but a commitment that we have made by supporting the campaign of 26 weeks for babies for many, many years.
This is a bill that will make working parents better off, and that is what is at the core of this: making working parents better off and supporting young families to get ahead. We’re doing this because we follow the evidence in this Government, and the evidence is absolutely clear that the more paid parental leave that we provide for families, the more flexibility families have in real terms, because it gives parents the opportunity not to have to worry about work, not to have to worry about where next week’s pay cheque is coming from, and not to have to worry about how they’re going to pay the rent or pay the power bill or put food on the table, but, instead, to spend time with their baby.
The evidence also tells us that that period of time is just so important for babies’ development. The opportunity to bond with their parents, the opportunity to breastfeed exclusively if the mother chooses to breastfeed—the World Health Organization is absolutely clear that breastfeeding exclusively for six months, or 26 weeks, is one of the best things that parents can do to give a baby the best-possible start in life. That is what the evidence says, and that is why, today, this Government is delivering on its promise to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.
We are going to do this in two tranches. The first tranche will be to extend from the current 18 weeks to 22 weeks on 1 July next year. The second tranche will be to increase from 22 weeks to 26 weeks in 2020. The Government is doing that to ensure that we not only make good on our promises but we do it in a fiscally responsible way. We have to ensure that as we govern this country, unlike the previous Government, we make sure that our promises are backed with funding. The way we can do that with paid parental leave is to do it in those two tranches. It allows us to fit within the Budget responsibility rules that this Government set for itself. Not only are we making good on a promise that we made, we’re also making sure that we do it in a fiscally responsible way.
I think what’s most important about this legislation is that this will make a real and tangible difference, especially for families who are on moderate and low incomes. This is part of the Government’s Families Package—a package that is unashamedly designed to put more money in the pockets of families on moderate and low incomes. We are unashamed, again, about doing that using the funding that we are going to save by not going ahead with reckless tax cuts that were legislated for by the previous Government and would have put money in the pockets of the people who already have the most. Rather than putting money into the pockets of every member of this House, instead, we are going to put money in the pockets of hard-working families so that they have the opportunity to do the best by their families.
I want to thank the National Party member Sarah Dowie. During the first and second readings of this bill, Sarah Dowie raised a really important point that if we are extending the overall amount of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, then we should also extend the keeping-in-touch hours. It was a very good point raised by a very sensible member who then worked constructively with the Government to ensure that her amendment was well drafted and was able to be accepted by the Government. That is the approach that this Government wants to take. When a good idea comes up, we don’t care where it comes from. We want to work constructively, even with members opposite. So I want to thank Sarah Dowie for her effort. I want to thank her for raising the issue, and I want to thank her for working constructively with this Government.
Speakers’ rulings preclude me from dwelling too much on matters that were not accepted by the committee of the whole House, but I do want to say that there was one matter that was not accepted by the committee of the whole House, but, again, this Government is interested in pursuing that and working constructively with the Opposition. We think we have an opportunity in the very near future to pursue that issue further. I’m sure that we’ll be able to get that one resolved by working constructively together as well.
After 15 years of paid parental leave being an issue that divided this House—15 years going all the way back to 2002 where the National Party fought against the Labour Party and its allies every time we looked to extend paid parental leave—we now have a consensus. That is a good thing, and I welcome that consensus, and I hope that it means that we’ll be able to move forward constructively with all members of the House making suggestions and offering up opportunities not only to extend paid parental leave in the future but to make it work better for families across New Zealand. It always takes a little while for the National Party to catch up, but usually they eventually do.
All I want to say to the House at this point is: let’s get this job done. Let’s pass this bill today, and let’s give parents, babies, and families the 26 weeks of paid parental leave that they have been demanding for so long. Let’s do this.
Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m happy to be taking a call in this third reading on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As we’ve just heard from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, this bill will, of course, see paid parental leave further extended, after the two extensions it’s had under the National Government, so that by 1 July next year families will be entitled to 22 weeks and then, as the Minister commented in his speech, it is rising to 26 weeks by 2020.
I want to actually, and somewhat surprisingly, commend the Minister for his new-found commitment to fiscal responsibility, and his reflection in the speech that he’s just given that it was important—and I’m not quite quoting him, but I’m getting as close as I can from memory—that the advances in paid parental leave happen in tranches as fiscal conditions improve. Actually, I think that could’ve been taken straight out of a Bill English or a Steven Joyce quote on the matter, because that is exactly what this side of the debating Chamber, or the National Party, has always maintained.
That is why when we had the privilege of being in Government, we extended paid parental leave twice, during some of the most fiscally challenging times in recent memory in this country. That is why we also, in our election manifesto, made it very clear that if re-elected, we too wanted to extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks. But, most importantly—and I want to raise this, because members of the Government have had lots of pot-shots in this debate about the fact that a National Government did veto an earlier attempt to go to 26 weeks. I simply pose the question to the Minister this way: if he is now quite happy in this House to acknowledge that it wouldn’t be fiscally prudent at this stage, at the end of 2017, to go to 26 weeks, why have they given the National Party such a hard time for making exactly that call last year when we acknowledged that it wasn’t fiscally prudent at that stage to go to 26 weeks?
What would have been quite gracious of the Minister, when he followed on from saying that it wouldn’t be fiscally prudent to go to 26 weeks straight away, would have been to acknowledge that, actually, the National Government was absolutely right to fiscally veto that change at that time. While staged increases, as financial conditions permit, is a good idea and we’ve always supported it, going that far that fast at that time wasn’t right. I thank the Minister for recognising that, for acknowledging that you do have to move carefully in stages as conditions allow, but, as I say, it is a shame that he couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge that, despite all of the pot-shots that they have had at the Opposition over that financial veto, they have now, effectively, agreed that it was absolutely the right thing to do.
Paid parental leave is a very important aspect, as we’ve heard, of allowing families to bond with their babies, to care for their babies, to be with their babies—just to adjust to that incredible upheaval in your life that is having a child. Those of us who have had the privilege of being parents know that it is the most utter change, in everything you know about life, that you can go through. And the time to adjust to that is critical. I’ve done some exciting and challenging and difficult things in my life, but I can tell this House that nothing was as hard as learning to be a parent and going through that phase.
I want to just, in my contribution, reflect on the incredible importance of both parents in that role. Both parents have a critical role in supporting, bonding with the child, supporting each other, and building that family unit. That is something that the National Party feels very strongly about.
I just want to take a moment to reflect on an email that just came through to me late yesterday from a 32-year-old mother who has shared with me, very generously, her story—and I don’t intend to share her name because that wouldn’t be appropriate. But she has epilepsy, and her epilepsy, while it’s normally well-controlled, she has noted that it’s well known that that leads to stress and sleep deprivation that can lead to an increase in seizures. So when she is stressed and sleep deprived, she can have an increase in seizures.
Unfortunately, when her baby was three months old, exactly that happened, and, as a consequence, she crashed her car while driving with her baby when it was three months old, when she had a seizure. Luckily—other than her—there were no injuries and she wasn’t seriously injured but, as a result, she lost her driver licence for a year. So, of course, from that time on, she was at home with her baby and unable to drive.
That is just one story—the multitude of variations that happen in family lives are so extensive, and any one of us could name any number of situations that highlight the incredible challenges that a parent at home with a baby can face in those early months, and how careful we have to be to support them. It’s certainly very encouraging to know that in the UK in 2015 they went to full flexibility in the way they provide paid parental leave. And, as the Minister did—and noting that brief reference is permitted—I am going to put on record that we continue to want to see full flexibility with paid parental leave.
One other matter that I did want to touch on in this bill and in this third reading wrap-up debate is the fact that I do feel that there has been a lost opportunity for this bill to have gone through a select committee process, when time certainly permitted that within the time frame the Government wanted to bring it in—so without creating any additional delay—to look at some of the matters that could otherwise have been addressed.
One matter that is certainly not included in this bill but does come into issue when you’re extending the period of paid parental leave—and so, therefore, it’s absolutely relevant—is the rate at which paid parental leave is paid.
I don’t know that many New Zealanders understand that paid parental leave is paid at less than the minimum wage. Now, when you’re off work for a shorter period of time, a considerable drop in income can often be managed and worked through but, as we are now providing for and enabling partners to be off work, or parents to be off work, for six months, to be paying them at under the minimum wage, I think, really does take some thought. Now, National, again, when we were in Government, put that rate up. Of course, the new Government has indicated their intention is to raise the minimum wage to $16.50 very shortly—I think in the same time period that this entitlement extension would take effect. That would mean that for paid parental leave to even reflect the minimum wage, there would need to be a 23 percent increase in the rate of paid parental leave.
So I do think, if we are true to our word and if the Government is true to their word, that they want to enable parents to be at home with their babies and focus on forming that family connection, they really need to be considering whether a rate that is 23 percent below the minimum wage, when they increase it, is really defendable. As I said, when National increased the period of paid parental leave, we also put the rate up.
I just want to reflect on one other aspect that is very important when you’re considering the term of paid parental leave, and that is that there are a multitude of international studies that show that the longer—and it is particularly a woman, so I appreciate that paid parental leave is for either parent—women particularly are out of the workforce on paid parental leave, then the risk of them not returning to the workforce increases.
So I do think it would be interesting to see, and I would be interested in having a look at the Cabinet papers when they’re the released—because of course they will be under the most transparent Government the world has ever seen—and seeing whether those Cabinet papers, where they considered this legislation, go through and consider and assess whether there will be any impact on women returning to the workforce because, actually, it’s something that I feel very strongly about: ensuring that we do everything we can to make sure that women’s biological reproductive function in the human race doesn’t become a barrier to them progressing in their career the same way they would if they were men. I know that in my career, and in this day and age, there are certainly some real challenges for women in that regard.
So I’ll be very interested to see whether the Government, in their Cabinet papers, turn their mind to and address that international research that shows, although paid parental leave and having parents at home with the baby is a very, very worthwhile thing, whether the impact on women’s retention in the workforce has been assessed, considered, and thought about how that can be managed.
In the last minute that I have, I just wanted to note that on the National Party side, we will be continuing to support this legislation because, as I’ve said, it is entirely consistent with our approach. It is entirely consistent with part of our election manifesto—the other part being, of course, to provide full flexibility. And, for our part, we will continue to support the extension, but we will certainly want to see the Government continuing to address some of those issues that I’ve talked about in this contribution.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is my first contribution to the 52nd Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I acknowledge you and congratulate you on your role as one of the presiding officers of this House, and welcome returning members and new members to this Parliament. It’s good to see you in the seat, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Can I use this short contribution to acknowledge another strong woman, who is with us in the gallery this afternoon? That is our former colleague Sue Moroney, whose dogged determination through her years as a member of Parliament was, I think, basically, all the hard slog that got us here to this third reading. So, Sue, can I thank you and acknowledge you for all the trials and many of the tribulations of making sure that this House finally gets to the point where families in this great country can have 26 weeks of paid parental leave. It is going to make a huge difference to many families, and, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out, many leading world health organisations have pointed out that at least six months of paid parental leave makes a massive difference to the development of young children.
I think, when we look at some of the issues that are highlighted around the development of children and some of the issues that we have in families, that very early bonding between the parent and the child is extremely important, and despite the politics—that that should be washed away so easily—of the last 15 years around this debate, the fact that we are getting to this point where we have 26 weeks is a big achievement for this House. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank again our colleague Sue Moroney and a lot of the help that she’s had along the way: 26 for Babies, that group as well. What we are debating, what this third reading will achieve, has been a long time coming but will make a massive difference to families here in New Zealand.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise in support of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, which the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in his intervention, described as a great day for mums, dads, and babies. Now, I certainly would agree it’s a good day for those mums, dads, and babies, and it could have been a great day. It could have been a better day—so much better.
The Minister talks about flexibility, and, indeed, I certainly agree with those sentiments. It was why, as Minister last year, the Employment Standards Legislation Bill provided a great deal more flexibility in enabling a far wider range of parenting arrangements, and parents with different work arrangements to access paid parental leave. Casual employment was covered, self-employment to some degree, shorter forms of employment, whāngai arrangements, and extending the duration of paid parental leave to parents of premature babies all enabled a greater level of coverage and flexibility in paid parental leave.
I think the Hon Amy Adams made a very good point—albeit that there’s no point being churlish, I think, about whether the previous Government was tardy in getting to extending the duration of paid parental leave, because, actually, Amy Adams quite rightly pointed out that if the Government, when it had its chance, delivered what it called for in Opposition, we would be debating a bill that was putting 26 weeks of paid parental leave in right now. We’re not, actually, because they are exercising some form of fiscal probity that they didn’t show in their calls for the previous Government to increase paid parental leave through Sue Moroney’s bill. I want to also acknowledge the passion, if not the mathematics, Sue Moroney showed for her member’s bill, and she should be rightly applauded and congratulated for her determined campaign on behalf of all parents, I’m sure.
But I do think that flexibility could’ve been greater. It could’ve been a better day for dads, because, let’s face it, it’s mostly women that take on the non-paid parental responsibilities in families. I, for one, was fortunate enough that my partner, my wife, was prepared to leave all work in order to concentrate full-time on our children, and that ability in those days, actually, to take unpaid leave was very helpful. We have an opportunity, I think, in the future, as the Minister has acknowledged, to do what we could’ve done in a select committee had we had the opportunity to make this bill better, to acknowledge that the best arrangements for childcare are ones that are a partnership of both parents, and that fathers, I know, really want to take a much more active role in the upbringing of their babies.
But that wasn’t really, I don’t think, what this was all about. It was about Labour’s repeated failure to acknowledge that parents and families are autonomous from the Government and should have a right to exercise their choice—their choice—in the manner in which the entitlements that are accorded to them through this legislation are taken. I am encouraged somewhat by the Minister’s commitment to continue to look at that, and I have no doubt that the Opposition spokesperson will keep his feet to the flames on that commitment.
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Or she could just work with me.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, Speakers’ rulings prevent me from opening that can of worms, Mr Lees-Galloway, but if you want to go there—[Interruption]
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I decide who breaches the rules.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I’ll go back to another matter that the Minister raised in his intervention, because what we heard today, once again, was the fact that under Labour no one in this country will ever get a tax cut. No one will get a tax cut, and the reason is this: (a) he wants to pay for this by eliminating tax threshold changes that have already been legislated for, and he’ll do that because we would get more money in our pockets as MPs than lower-income people. But the most basic understanding of a progressive tax system is it is simply not possible to even adjust tax thresholds without making sure everybody who pays tax gets the benefit of that—and because we would, they won’t do it. There will never be another tax cut under a Labour Government, and I think that’s telling.
But it would be churlish to finish on that rather sour revelation. It is a good bill. It is a good day. It could have been a better day.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s fascinating to follow the last speaker, Michael Woodhouse, and the crocodile tears coming from the National Party benches. I mean, there is some dressing up, I agree, and some, sort of, platitudes, but they are somewhat spiked. If I go to the contribution by the Hon Amy Adams, there was a National Party member having a go at a Labour - New Zealand First Government for not spending enough money. I thought I must listen more closely, because there is a National Party member standing up, after nine years, talking about a paid parental leave bill, and the last speaker somewhat misled the House.
Ms Moroney’s bill was always to be implemented over a number of years. It went through the Government Administration Committee that way; the Government picked it up that way. So when the last speaker makes a statement that the Labour Party campaigned on and should be bringing in 26 weeks today, that is not quite correct. People should go back and check the Hansard, and they should go back and see that Ms Moroney did an enormous amount of work to make sure that this bill—her bill—was always fiscally responsible. That’s part of what this Government is continuing to do, so to actually hear a National Party member, a previous Minister of the Crown, stand up and bemoan the fact that a New Zealand First - Labour Government is not spending more money seems somewhat disingenuous, particularly as there are other previous Ministers who are standing up having a go at the current Government, which has been here for five weeks, which is attempting to improve the lives of all New Zealanders.
And with this particular bill we will be improving the lives of all New Zealanders. I take on board Mr Woodhouse’s comments around fathers. Only 1 percent of fathers, currently, in New Zealand take paid parental leave. There is nothing stopping them, of course. There is nothing stopping fathers working with their partners and their baby’s mothers. That was not Ms Moroney’s motivation behind this bill, but I point it out. Any man who is a father can step forward and come to an arrangement with the birth mother to actually take part of this paid parental leave.
I’m not going to take up much more time, because this bill has been traversed. It is time to put these measures in place for New Zealand families. It is fiscally responsible. It was mutated and dumbed down by the previous Government, but now there is an opportunity, and it’s with some pride that we stand up on this side of the House and in the first 100 days stand by children, stand by mothers and fathers, and say this is a Government now that will support you going forward.
Hon Louise Upston: Not dads.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It is with some interest I note that the members of the Opposition benches, after nine years, now say “not standing up for dads”. I would ask them to point to in the Hansard one piece of legislation whereby they stood by dads.
SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Firstly, let me start with a hearty congratulations to New Zealand families. Every time I have risen and talked about paid parental leave, I’ve been in support of it. Obviously, when we were in control of the Treasury benches we talked about competing priorities. We needed to be fiscally prudent, hence our extensions of paid parental leave—yes, they were extensions—were done in tranched manner and were fiscally prudent.
So I do think it is unfair of the Government now to point at us and say that we have not been in support of families. We certainly have, not only in the realm of paid parental leave and extending that in a fiscally prudent manner but in other measures, with things such as free doctors visits for under-13-year-olds and our extended tax packages that would help the most vulnerable. So it is a little bit rich to hear the other side criticising the last Government when we talk about our measures in support of families.
But it is a good day, in my opinion, because paid parental leave has been put on the agenda again, not only by the current Government but by us during the campaign. It is a bill that we support. It is consistent with our policy that we campaigned on, and, as has been traversed in this House, the benefits of paid parental leave are wonderful. I mean, let’s face it: in a modern society where we can support mothers and fathers—and we wish that fathers were more supported, of course, through the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3; we wish that that had been picked up. But paid parental leave is in support of mothers—and fathers to a degree—to help them when a new baby comes along to bond; to engage in breastfeeding, if you can; and, obviously, to relieve a bit of the financial stress of having a new baby.
And, of course, one of my pet things is allowing some time to engage in community activities, to gain from the camaraderie of your peers who have also had babies and are going through the same milestones, but also with respect to extending keeping-in-touch hours to make sure that women and fathers who take paid parental leave can stay in touch with their place of work; continue to train; hand over cases, if that is the issue; hand over pieces of work; and just generally stay connected with their workplace, rather than feeling isolated. In that vein, I do have to thank the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and the Government for working with me to get my SOP 2 across the line with regard to extending keeping-in-touch hours. I’m very pleased to see that get across the line.
Again, I do say, though, that it would have been nice to see the Hon Amy Adams’ SOP get across the line as well with regard to making paid parental leave a little bit more—
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Well, not everyone’s as good an MP as you are, Sarah.
SARAH DOWIE: Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Lees-Galloway. We didn’t see that SOP get across the line, but nevertheless it is wonderful to see that we will be supporting this bill and that we will see this amendment bill get across the line to extend paid parental leave in two tranches, the first 22 weeks in July 2018 and then 26 weeks on 1 July 2020.
Again, I say I think it would have been nice to go back to select committee and really explore the balance between paid parental leave and keeping-in-touch hours, to really flush that out. We’ve already heard from the Hon Amy Adams that there is research out there that suggests that the longer a mother is away from work on paid parental leave, the less connected she becomes with the workplace and the less likely she is to return. I think that we would have benefited from the select committee process to really explore that, and, of course, to really get down to the nuts and bolts of making paid parental leave more flexible for both partners to take paid parental leave together, to further alleviate stress when there are issues relating to the pregnancy or the birth or the baby, to make things easier for family. But, nevertheless, this is a great day for New Zealand families. I am in full support of this bill going through, given that it does extend paid parental leave.
Let me acknowledge everyone that I’ve worked with on both sides of the House, with regards to the processes and the extension bills of paid parental leave that there have been prior to this. There are numerous people around the House, and also I acknowledge the honourable Sue Moroney up there in the gallery. We worked together on the Government Administration Committee on her bill.
Look, it’s a wonderful cause, and, as I say, the new Government is now in a position that they will have to balance competing priorities through the different portfolios. But they have chosen this, and, like I say, it is something that the National Party campaigned on and we therefore support. So congratulations to New Zealand families.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party knows that parenting is one of the hardest and most difficult and most important jobs that people do. As a country, we all benefit when parents are supported to spend more time and be able to give more attention to their babies, particularly in the first six months. So it’s a very proud day for New Zealand that this bill will pass—that we will extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks and then 26 weeks. I’m incredibly proud to be Minister for Women in this new Government—this multi-party Government—that is finally going to deliver what New Zealanders have been asking for for so long, and that, unfortunately, was vetoed twice by the previous Government.
The Green Party’s policy is 13 months’ paid parental leave, and, of course, we’ll still be campaigning for and making the case for extensions. I think the ultimate paradigm shift is understanding that important work that is not part of a commercial transaction is still fundamental to our society. We don’t have a successful economy if we don’t have a successful, healthy society with babies who are able to grow up in good conditions. We know that investing in paid parental leave will benefit all of us in the long run.
I personally haven’t had the joy of needing to take parental leave for having a child, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be lucky to be able to take advantage of this law. But I absolutely support making that contribution, as a member of Aotearoa’s society, that all babies will have this opportunity. Although I should say that we do need to do better, because, in fact, a third of babies born each year don’t qualify for paid parental leave. So we need to find other ways of assisting those parents who are in precarious work to enable them to have the opportunity.
I think that’s what this Government is committed to, because we understand that people and the environment are the most fundamental thing, and you can’t measure economic success simply by commercial transactions. So let’s recognise all work, especially unpaid work, and especially the unpaid caring work that so many women in this country do. Very proud day—very happy to be supporting this bill. Kia ora koutou.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be speaking in this final reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I want to start with both a bouquet and a brickbat. The bouquet is that I do think it’s fitting that the first piece of legislation for a new Government to complete is one that supports families. The brickbat, however, is I think it’s a crying shame that this first piece of legislation is also one that’s been done under urgency without the ability for the public to engage. Once upon a time, the Greens were always very, very outspoken about legislation that was put in this House without scrutiny, without the ability of the select committee to consider it.
Sue Moroney introduced a couple of different member’s bills on this particular issue, but as we’ve seen with the work of two of my colleagues, the first being Sarah Dowie, you actually see the opportunity of the important work that the House in its entirety and all of the members of Parliament bring. That’s a process, particularly for the new members of Parliament, that they possibly haven’t had the opportunity to witness yet—the really valuable work that occurs in the select committee, both with the ability of individual select committee members to contribute to great law but also for them to consider the very wide-ranging views of members of the public and their ability to contribute to improving the law.
It’s somewhat puzzling, in this particular instance, where the Minister responsible for the bill was kind of open on one hand and closed on the other—open to Sarah Dowie’s suggestion for the amendment to increase the number of days available for keeping in touch, but then completely not open to the suggestion of also supporting the second parent. I do say “second parent”—in many cases it’s a dad; it’s not always. The reality is that in New Zealand we have families of all shapes and sizes, and I think it’s a really important period of time, and I think it’s a really sad day in terms of missing the opportunity for the ability for a family to bond.
I say a family—yes, it’s the newborn; yes, it’s the parent that gave birth to that child and may or may not be breastfeeding; but it’s also the second parent, and, in many cases, if it’s a subsequent child, it’s a really important time for the whole family. For those who think back to that important time in their lives, often it was the important period of supporting the other children in the family. For some, that’s a big adjustment when they have a baby brother or sister that joins their clan, so the ability for the second parent to provide that support I think is critical. So it’s somewhat puzzling that we have a Government that says they’re interested in supporting families and dads and second parents but, actually, then haven’t been willing to do the work, when this legislation doesn’t come into effect until 1 July next year. It seems, in this case, that the trade-off has been the quality of legislation that we could’ve otherwise had, and that is the fundamental ability for families to make choices based on their own circumstances. Those circumstances are wide and varied, and the House could’ve given greater flexibility for families.
If I reflect on the changes that have been made, actually over the last 20 years in this space, I think we’ve made extraordinary progress, both with the two increases in duration in our time as well as the extension of flexibility—that’s really critical—but I suspect we’re seeing a bit of a recurring theme here. I hope I’m wrong; I really hope I’m wrong—that we’re not seeing a recurring theme here of a Government that is disregarding dads. The Minister for Children, who spoke earlier in this debate, laid claim to New Zealand First’s big push on dads and their rights, and, actually, earlier today confirmed that the Government is committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which include the right to know their parents. So this is an absolutely missed opportunity for dads. It’s a missed opportunity for the Government. I’m hopeful, but I’m not optimistic, that the words that the Minister in charge of the bill has spoken about in terms of their enthusiasm for fixing this problem with pace—I’m hoping that those aren’t just empty words.
I do think this is a great day for families, and I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is absolutely an honour to take a call on this bill. As my colleagues have mentioned before, this is an excellent bill, and it is one that many of us on this side of the House—all of us on this side of the House—have fought extremely hard for.
I want to begin by thanking New Zealand First and the Greens for their support. I also want to express my gratitude and my thanks to former Labour MP Sue Moroney, who led the charge on this bill and fought extremely hard for so many years to achieve this. I also want to extend my thanks to everyone who fought for this. There were a number of groups across the country who have fought for paid parental leave to be extended. Thanks, also, to the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway for this bill being—for us getting to where we are today.
It is the collective efforts of so many that have actually dragged the previous Government to their commitment to 22 weeks, although they vetoed it so many times—multiple times. It’s a little bit rich that members on the other side of the House talk about this being a sad day and missed opportunities, when they had nine years to implement this, if not more, whereas we are actually getting this done in less than nine weeks of being in this House since the election.
Chris Penk: You had nine years before that.
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Yeah, and we did heaps.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes—[Interruption] So this absolutely is an excellent bill. It’s a great day for babies, for parents, for families, and, indeed, for all New Zealanders, and this Government is committed—absolutely committed—to giving our families, our babies, the best start in life possible.
So, thank you. I’m going to leave it there, because we’ve talked quite a bit about the detail of this bill. My colleagues have talked about how this will benefit families and improve bonding. I once again want to end by thanking Sue Moroney for the work that she’s put into this bill. Thank you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Chris Penk—five minutes.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the bill, and I congratulate all those who have been involved in its passage and, indeed—nearly—implementation. I note that the affordability element is an important one, and, of course, in the context of the fiscal element, we need to ensure, of course, in passing legislation, that things are affordable, not only now but into the foreseeable future. No doubt this has been part of the calculation of the new Government, and it’s certainly to be hoped that we will have a robust financial situation in this country, such that we are able to afford social policy such as this. The dire predictions of a member of the new Government in choosing his coalition partners I hope will not prove a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard.
Politics is of course the art of the possible. It’s pleasing that this is possible, and it’s pleasing that it’s now deemed to be possible, but it wasn’t in the “nine long years” that that party opposite and their same coalition partners had before that.
It’s interesting to note that the reflections on the side of the House by some of the speakers might well be regarded as self-reflections, and I’m pleased that they too have caught up with themselves, perhaps, as much as anything, in promoting these 26 weeks of paid parental leave.
I’m pleased with this legislation in that it promotes parental involvement. It is not one of those situations, I think, in which the Government will be interfering or substituting itself in the lives of families, because it’s specifically allowing families to bring up their own. So, to me, that seems a very positive thing indeed.
Much has been said already, so I won’t continue at length on the point of whether paid parental leave might more effectively be named “paid maternal leave”, notwithstanding that in some occasions, of course, it is not actually a father who is the second parent. I would just establish the frame for the debate, which I expect and hope will follow with, perhaps, new legislation or a member’s bill in relation to allowing the flexibility, which is simply to emphasise a point that I would hope would be self-evident, but, in any case, I will make, which is simply that it should be what is best for the child and not necessarily the adults in the situation. Of course, those things will generally be in alignment, but the paramount consideration must, of course, be the welfare of the child, and I would urge all those who will be involved in any future legislation being promoted and, possibly, passed in relation to the flexibility elements to bear that very much in mind. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity, and it’s been a pleasure to be involved in the debate.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It’s an absolute privilege to be speaking on the third reading of this bill and to be in this House with Sue Moroney, who’s taken it through twice, right through the select committee process, only to have it vetoed by the previous Government.
For me, I have a really personal commitment to this bill. I wasn’t eligible for paid parental leave with my first son. I had to go back to work at six weeks, and it was absolutely tough. I had paid parental leave for my second son. It went to three months, and the difference was transformational, but it was still way, way, way too soon to go back to work. So paid parental leave is absolutely vital.
Just very briefly, I want to talk about our breastfeeding stats as a country. As a country, we only have about 65 percent of our women breastfeeding at six weeks, and that goes right down to 58 percent by three months and 27 percent by six months. That’s despite World Health Organization recommendations that we should be fully breastfeeding all the way through to six months, so kids don’t get infections, they get optimal nutrition—a whole range of positive benefits.
One of the big things about early cessation of breastfeeding is having to go back to work early. So this Government is absolutely committed to extending paid parental leave for the primary caregiver, right out to 26 weeks, so that we can have the option of people breastfeeding through, with that ease.
So it’s an absolute privilege to be part of a Government that sees this as one of the first bills through the House in the first few weeks that we’ve been in power. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very happy to take a call on this, the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill.
I would just like to start by saying what a great thing paid parental leave is. It has revolutionised the way that families operate since its introduction in 2002. I was lucky enough to have paid parental leave for 14 weeks for both of my babies. It was a wonderful time to bond with your baby, get to know them, and see those first milestones before you have to head back to work.
What I really like thinking about are the women who are testing positive right now for pregnancy. They’re probably around about nine weeks. They will be waking up tomorrow knowing that they will have this paid parental leave extended. I think that’s really awesome. People are just finding out, usually at about eight or nine weeks, that they’re pregnant and they’ll be waking up tomorrow going, “Wow! Isn’t that wonderful. I’m going to be entitled to that extra leave.” I think that’s a really awesome thing to think about, which is why we, and I, support this really, really good bill.
I say “really, really good” and not “great”, though, because I believe that the Government has missed a trick. Look, we’ve been over this many times, and I, in fact, have talked about it. I’m not going to talk about it at great length right now. But obviously that trick that they missed was the fact that they haven’t allowed flexibility for two parents—be they a mother and a father, or two mothers, or two fathers—to take that leave at the same time, whether or not your children are sick, whether or not your wife is sick. Indeed, I was sick when I had my first child, with pre-eclampsia and then HELLP syndrome. I was terribly sick, in fact. I spent a long time in hospital, and then had to have my husband look after me when I went home. We were fortunate to be in the position to be able to do that, but there are many families who aren’t.
I’m not sure why the Government missed this opportunity. We can only speculate. Perhaps it was because they were disorganised. Perhaps it was because it was under urgency. I don’t know. But it is a brutal combination, to be disorganised and have time pressure put on you. It forced this side of the House to put up a Supplementary Order Paper, which was voted down. All we heard at the time from Mr Lees-Galloway was that it was difficult, it was tough—we didn’t hear any particular details around that.
But I did read in the paper today some of those difficulties. I have to say that none of them were earth-shatteringly insurmountable problems. They were minor wording things that could have been fixed, if only there was the time available and the kind of vehicle to consider such issues. Wait a minute—there is. I may be new, but I do know that there is such a thing as a select committee—there is, actually. They can consider such issues. There was no reason for us to have this in urgency. There was no reason for us not to be able to give two parents the right to bond with their child at the same time.
Mr Lees-Galloway stood up today and talked about families and parents who now won’t have to worry about putting food on the table. They won’t have to worry about their finances. They won’t have to worry, because of this extended paid parental leave. But I do say that those parents who need to take leave at the same time will actually be worrying about putting food on the table. They will be worrying about their finances, because one of them will have to take unpaid leave to do that.
While we support this good bill, we do make the point that it’s not a great bill. It was a huge missed opportunity by Mr Lees-Galloway, and that’s a big shame. But congratulations to those mums who are nine weeks pregnant. I hope you enjoy your extended leave. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): As I stand here in our Whare today to speak to the third reading of this bill, I draw on a Māori whakataukī: “Te piko o te Mahuri, tērā te tupu o te rākau.”—the way in which the young sapling is nurtured determines how the tree will grow.
For how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa. So with that whakataukī in mind, it is a great honour to stand here today to speak in support of the bill which will increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks. The bill will be the first piece of legislation passed by our new Government; and how appropriate, putting people at the centre of what we are doing—people. And, not only that: our pēpē, our babies, our taonga tuku iho, our future.
This is about giving our children the very best start in life. The evidence is clear that this time is crucial for infant development, for developing close bonds with pēpē, supporting breastfeeding for the first six months, and reducing parental and family stress. Those are the aims of this bill. So I thank Sue Moroney, the 26 for Babies campaign coalition, and the many, many organisations who have worked tirelessly to achieve this change. It is also great that, finally, we have a consensus in the House for better support for our children and families. It is with great pride that I commend the bill to the House.
“Turuturu o whakawhiti whakamaua kia tina, haumi e-e, hui e-e, tāiki e-e!”
[“Make it tangible, make it practical, join, gather, and unite it, indeed!”]
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)
Third Reading
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Every New Zealander deserves a warm, dry home—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Move the motion. “I move, That the …”.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I move that the bill now be read.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, “That the Healthy Homes Guarantee …”.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Be now read a third time.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —now be read a third time. Thank you.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, we’ve been there, don’t worry.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Ha, ha! I move, That the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.
Every New Zealander deserves a warm, healthy home. The passage of this bill—the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—into law today will add the next chapter in what has been an impressive and important piece of work in this country over the last decade, overhauling and upgrading the quality of housing in New Zealand. This bill, once made law, will, I believe, be the most important public health reform that we can currently make in this country. Anyone who’s been following this debate will know that some 42,000 children in this country go to hospital every year with infectious and respiratory diseases that are largely a result of low-quality, cold, damp, and mouldy homes and the inability of their parents to turn on the electricity and heat those homes. Every winter, we have what’s called winter excess mortality, in which some 1,600 mostly older New Zealanders die premature deaths, for the same reason: cold, damp homes and an inability to heat them.
What this bill does is it builds on the work that’s been done by previous Governments over the last decade or so. The story, I think, has to go back to the efforts that were made by Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party, working with the then Labour-led Government to set up an insulation-retrofitting subsidy programme. To give credit to the former National Government, they continued that work through the Warm Up New Zealand programme and insulated approximately 300,000 homes during the last nine years.
Our belief is that even more is needed to be done, and that’s because all of those subsidy programmes hardly put a dent in the very poor quality of rental housing in New Zealand. Most of the subsidies were taken up by owner-occupiers. What this bill does is it actually raises the minimum standards that will apply to rental properties, by putting in place the ability of the Government to set regulations. It’s our intention, over the next 18 months, to set the regulations that will put in place a higher standard of insulation. We have, in the course of this bill going through the House, made it clear that the current standard legislated by the past National Government, which allows approximately 70,000 to 80,000 rental properties in this country that are already insulated to the 1978 insulation standard to remain at that standard and not have to be upgraded, a nearly 40-year-old insulation standard—we don’t think that’s good enough. The regulations that will be promulgated under this piece of law will set a higher standard.
They will also extend beyond insulation and beyond the requirement for smoke alarms, for a whole range of other factors that are critical to preventing homes being cold and damp. We’re talking about moisture control. We’re talking about ventilation and, most importantly, a requirement, in most cases, for a modern, affordable, fixed heating source, which very likely will be a modern heat pump or a modern woodburner. To have an insulation standard without any requirement for heating is a nonsense. It simply makes a cold, damp home insulated.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: There is a requirement for heating, in the Building Act.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the member thinks that the Building Act has a requirement for heating. A power point, Mr Woodhouse, is not a requirement for heating. Under our law, every rental property will require a modern, fixed, affordable heating source. This will ensure that it will be, effectively, illegal for landlords to rent out properties that are a threat to the health of the people living in them. It’s our view, on this side of the House, that it’s past time to modernise and upgrade the quality of our rental housing. It’s not OK for a landlord to be able to make over, let’s say, a 10-year period, hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue on an asset by renting out a property that is a risk to the health of the people living in it. We are better than that as a country, and this bill is going to make a serious step forward in improving the quality of rental housing.
I want to acknowledge the work of a lot of people on this issue that have got us to this stage. The first one I want to mention is the people at Otago University’s Wellington campus and the public health team there, led by Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman. Professor Howden-Chapman and people like Professor Michael Baker, and others, have done groundbreaking, internationally acclaimed public health research that has changed the public conversation on the issue of cold, damp homes and poverty in this country. It’s been a remarkable body of work that has influenced not only public opinion but public policy.
There’s a whole movement of people who have campaigned and worked towards the aim of a warrant of fitness, a set of tough, mandatory, minimum standards for rental properties. I want to give special mention to the Child Poverty Action Group, people like Dr Innes Asher, Dr Nikki Turner, and people like my colleague Dr Liz Craig, who has made a huge contribution to the well-being of children, particularly, in this country in relation to cold, damp homes and preventable deaths.
There’s a whole movement nationwide of people like the Community Energy Network, non-profit community organisations who have been doing fantastic work in communities up and down this country insulating homes, retrofitting, helping people to make their homes warm and dry, and using all of the subsidies available from councils, from central government, and from other places to help people afford those things.
I want to acknowledge the Hon Annette King, who recently retired from politics. She was the architect of our policy in this area that led to the drafting of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill that first appeared in the House here as a member’s bill in my name but was later taken up by the Hon Andrew Little in its second reincarnation before it was adopted as a Government bill after the election.
There are many, many more people I want to thank: the officials for the work that they have done, helping us to get this bill into shape and ready to be passed, and all of the submitters, the organisations, the private citizens, and the many community and advocacy organisations who came along at select committee and helped shape this bill.
The other key aspect that I want to mention is that, as well as enabling a set of regulations that will put in place the minimum standards on heating, on ventilation, on insulation, and on moisture control, the other thing this bill does is that it beefs up the compliance mechanism in the bill. It’s been very clear to us that a complaints-based system in the rental market is simply not enough, that the very nature of the rental market means that most tenants simply will never complain to the landlord because they’re worried that that will either harm the relationship they have with the landlord or lead to them having their tenancy terminated. What we’ve done is we’re beefing up the capacity of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to be responsible for a programme of risk-based auditing and investigations. So the legislation won’t simply rely on complaints or tenants taking the landlord to the tenancy tribunal if the landlord is believed to be in breach of the regulations but there will be a really significant programme of auditing and investigation to encourage compliance across the whole industry.
The big argument that our political opponents have put up throughout this debate has been that the standards will impose on landlords some kind of insupportable burden that will either drive landlords out of the market or lead to big costs being passed on to tenants. To be honest, this has just been scaremongering by the Opposition, who are looking for an excuse to oppose this. The National Party are opposing the idea of a landlord who has an asset that over the lifetime of the insulation and heating that they’re going to put in place will generate hundreds and thousands of dollars—the National Party is opposing the landlord being required to spend something between $3,000 and $5,000, with the help of substantial public subsidies, to get there. That shows, I think, a terrible kind of lack of vision and compassion. This law will make a huge difference to the people of New Zealand.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I think it’s appropriate to start with the one part of that speech that I think every member of this House will emphatically agree with, and that is the Minister’s first words, which were: “Every New Zealander deserves a warm, healthy home.” We certainly agree on this side of the House that that’s the case. And it isn’t acceptable that 15 or 16 mostly elderly, but from time to time very young, New Zealanders die in homes that are cold and damp, and that there are more than 40,000 preventable diseases contracted by our young in those homes.
In my second reading speech I mentioned a hope that, as we debate this bill, we don’t retrench back to the hyperbole that we had a year ago: that those that were opposed to these goals somehow did not care about those children. The House has been very responsible in that regard. It’s focused on the issues, which I’m very grateful for.
We eventually got to the nub, I think, in the committee of the whole House, of what this bill is going to do. As I mentioned, it wasn’t possible for us to know whether we were opposing it because it was innocuous and did nothing or because it was going to be a crushing and mis-targeted imposition on property owners and the Crown and the tenants. The reason is that despite the fact that the Government in its fiscal plan has $300 million set aside for grants for this initiative, there is a form of mathematical alchemy that would be required to make that enough to fund what we now know are going to be the changes, as a consequence of this legislation.
The Minister, in the committee stage, told us that it will be necessary for landlords to meet a higher standard—a more recent standard. He didn’t say which standard, but it would be ridiculous to require the higher standard but not the current standard, so we have to assume from that that the goal is at the 2008 standard—a more recent standard than the 1978 standard. But “It’s OK”, because there will be a grant process and it will be available to not only landlords but owner-occupiers, according to the Minister, and the $300 million set aside for that purpose is designed to provide that grant for 150,000 homes over four years.
Only, here’s where the alchemy is required. In the rental market alone, there are nearly 600,000 properties. All of them will be required, under the regulation the Minister intends to pass, to be upgraded to this new standard, the current standard—600,000 rental properties. About 80 percent of them are owned by mum and dad landlords, people who support the Labour Party—nurses, police, teachers; that’s their retirement nest egg—and 80 percent of the owners of those properties have two or fewer. They have only one or two. And all of them, if they don’t already comply with the 2008 standard, will need to comply when the tenancy is renewed after 1 July 2019. So the maths cannot possibly stack up if that is the requirement.
If it’s compulsory, there’s no way that even the renters, by a factor of probably two to three, can access that grant under the current appropriation of $300 million, much less the owner-occupiers that the Minister talks about, and the back-of-the-envelope calculations, which, nevertheless, are better than the calculations that the Minister has done, suggest that the total cost of this could be more than a billion dollars.
Hon Louise Upston: A billion?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: More than a billion dollars, if we require—as he has just told us—a modern, fixed, affordable source of heating, a firebox, or a heat pump. Well, there’s $2,500, if you’re lucky. We know from last year’s bill, when it was passed, that the average cost of retrofitting insulation under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act was going to be $3,300. There will be some inflation on that, so we’re already talking about $6,000 minimum per house, times the several hundred thousand—we don’t know how many. But the Minister has this flawed view that somehow if it was built pre-1978, that’s going to be covered. But, in fact, that 1978 standard applied right through until 2001. So, effectively, what we’re saying is that every rental dwelling built prior to 2002 is going to be required to upgrade.
Now, how many of those 600,000 rental dwellings does one think, as a proportion of those 600,000, would have been built prior to 2001? Probably most of them, yeah? Let’s just say for argument’s sake it’s two-thirds of them. That’s 400,000 houses expending $6,000 each—$2.4 billion. But that’s OK, because there’s a grant—only, there won’t be for at least 250,000 of them, much less the owner-occupiers the Minister wants to help, because there’s just not enough money.
So the concerns continue to remain that we are now leading towards this being a crushing imposition on the landlords and on the tenants, because it’s simply naive to suggest that the costs of the housing are not eventually reflected in the rental value. And it might not be just this, but when you add this to ring-fencing, to a capital gains tax, and to the many other things that are going to be imposed on landlords, as has been indicated by the Labour Government, then that will lead to an increase in rents. The $87 million the Minister mentioned for Housing New Zealand to upgrade its stock is, I think, understated by half, and then we haven’t even got to the adjustments to the income-related rents and the accommodation supplement.
But what’s most disappointing about this is that we shouldn’t be having to speculate on what those costs are. It behoves a responsible Government to actually have the answers to these questions, and we don’t.
So I think we’re at the end of a journey—a journey that the National Party supports the sentiment about, but not the method of, and therefore we will continue to oppose this bill—but we’re also at the start of a journey: the start of a journey to better articulate where that effort should be put.
Now, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act required the 180,000 completely uninsulated homes to be insulated by 1 July 2019, and that’s appropriate, because the very good research done by the public health team at the University of Otago based in Wellington highlights the terrible failures of those houses, but the focus is very much on completely uninsulated houses. Research by James Fricker—which I’m sure the Minister is familiar with—shows a dramatic decreasing benefit in thermal gain from the 1978 standard to the 2008 standard, to the point where the marginal benefits are massively outweighed by the marginal costs of what the Minister proposes.
He has said that he will have a comprehensive consultation process with landlords next year, alongside other stakeholders and the public in designing the new standards. My hope and my wish for the Minister is for him to tone down the rhetoric and turn up the hearing on what will be a very important consultation process, in order that we don’t misalign that investment, because if we are going to invest that much money in warmer, drier, safer homes, let’s do it in the houses that need it the most.
Now, we believe that the previous Government did that emphatically with the passage of the smoke alarms and insulation regulations after the Residential Tenancies Act. The Minister doesn’t agree. That’s fine. He’s now in Government. He has the responsibility to deliver and be judged on that delivery. But I implore him to listen very carefully and to make sure that we target that investment in the areas where the most vulnerable people, who we all want to protect, will benefit the most.
Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand here today in strong support of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).
Herein lies one of the main differences between the National Party and the new coalition-led Government from this side of the House. What we heard in this particular speech from the Hon Michael Woodhouse was a defence of landlords. Can I just remind the honourable member that we now have 50 percent of all people in New Zealand who rent—50 percent of all of our people rent—and one of those folks that is one of the main landlords is the Government.
What this legislation will do is it will ensure that all of the homes in Aotearoa New Zealand are insulated, that they are warm, and that they are healthy. What we know today is that 40,000 admissions into hospitals are for respiratory illnesses. These are preventable admissions to the hospitals. They are for respiratory illnesses for many of our children, on which, when you have warm, healthy homes like the ones that we will have under this particular bill, we will then save money at the other end.
We know from many of our doctors—and I’d like at this time to thank Dr Liz Craig, Dr Teuila Percival, a paediatrician from the Counties Manukau District Health Board, and so many of our doctors, who serve our young people. They are the ones—Dr Innes Asher, another paediatrician—that tell us and keep on telling us that we need to ensure that our children are living in warm, dry, healthy homes. It is not just the fact that we have so many children being admitted, going in and out of hospitals; it is also the fact that we’re told that over 1,600 people—their lives are cut short because they live in houses that are not healthy.
Now, we can actually continue to listen to the opposing side of this House telling us why we should not pass this legislation because they are supporting the landlords. But what about those people whose lives can be changed? It is not every day that we sit here and we talk about legislation that can save people’s lives, legislation that can save taxpayers’ funds. And it is not every day that we can actually look at legislation where we can save money in different parts of the sector—in the health sector. Housing actually has such an effect on our people’s lives.
You know, Madam Assistant Speaker—and I’m sure you have had this experience when you go knocking on doors. [Speaker shakes head] Just last—sorry. Don’t bring you in. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
Just last winter, I was knocking on a certain door and a lady—an elderly lady, who had worked all her life—opened the door and she was wearing a really thick jacket. She was also wearing a woollen hat and wearing woollen socks. My question to this lady was “Why is it that you are dressed up as if you’re walking around outside?” And her answer to me was “My house”—which was a Government house—“is not insulated. It is freezing. It is cold.” This legislation will ensure that people like her, who have worked all her life, actually are living in a house that is fit for purpose, a house that is healthy. I stand here in strong support of this legislation. Thank you very much.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I think the speaker before me, Jenny Salesa, has kind of missed an important statement that the Hon Michael Woodhouse made, and that is that we’re not debating the fact that we want New Zealanders to live in warm, dry, healthy homes. We’re not debating the fact that there are serious health implications for those that don’t.
But what we are debating, and why, unfortunately, our side of the House is unable to support this bill, is that the original bill that was introduced to this House has had the guts absolutely stripped out of it. Despite significant questions in the committee stage of this bill, the Minister in charge, Phil Twyford, just hasn’t been able to provide any certainty or any information about what actually this will mean. My colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse went through in significant detail around the costings side of it. What are the implications for homeowners? What are the implications for tenants? We do have a large number of tenants in New Zealand, and, actually, I’d want to make sure that those tenants are protected from significant increases in rent as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this side of the House doesn’t have the level of assurance or comfort that we would like to have had from a piece of legislation that in terms of the intended or stated outcome is to provide warm, healthy, dry homes.
It’s always uncomfortable on days like today where the legislation before us is miles away from delivering a stated outcome, and that is concerning. When we talk about the Government’s need to sit within fiscal parameters, the fact that there’s no detail available about what this is going to cost the Government in terms of its own collection of houses, to upgrade to the 2008 standard—and, actually, every taxpayer has an interest in that, because they are the ones that pay for it. Any time we talk about the Government’s liability that is for hard-working Kiwis who are the taxpayers who have to fork out to cover those costs—and a responsible Government would actually have that detail available. It is disappointing that they don’t.
Another issue that I think is really important—given the time frame of the implementation being 1 July 2019, given the 600,000 rental properties involved in this—is I haven’t seen any information from the Minister in terms of how this work is going to occur. Who’s going to do it? Along with KiwiBuild—sorry, it’s “KiwiBuy” now—there’s actually labour required to do this. There’s no implication, there’s no suggestion of how that’s going to happen, or maybe they’re going to do a healthy homes special visa as well, to bring more immigrants in and get around their current restrictions—New Zealand First’s current restrictions.
As I say, it is frustrating. We’d like to be able to support legislation that provides warm, healthy, dry homes. Our agreement with the Green Party in 2008, which I think was a fantastic agreement, a really important piece of work—
Simeon Brown: Pragmatic and sensible.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Pragmatic, sensible, as my colleague has said—supporting the very families that many of us come to this House to support. But, unfortunately, this piece of legislation is miles away from that. It doesn’t provide any detail. We’re not sure it’s going to achieve anything, and if it does, at what cost? I’m sorry that I, and this side of the House, won’t be supporting this bill.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): This bill will pass despite the stance of denial by our friends across the House, which is reflective of the still early stages of grief that they’re working through. The reason that this bill will pass is that it has a moral purpose, and despite the other side of the House believing that the onset of climate change will solve these particular problems of whānau in poverty, shivering in their houses—owned in many cases by their friends—this bill will pass because we have far too many low-quality rental properties, and in areas where we are experiencing, such as Auckland, huge population pressures. Now, we’ve heard from the other side of the House concerns to do with the expansion of a fiscal burden on property owners. If they were really so concerned about burdens and fiscal costs, why have they allowed red tape to spin out of control? And our senior colleague Mr Twyford is now having to confront that as he expands the number of affordable houses in New Zealand.
Why did they take such a dilatory approach in introducing an Australian model of occupational safety and health (OSH) that is causing all sorts of grief amongst the god-fearing small and medium sized businessmen and businesswomen of Aotearoa? Not a single thing—not a single thing other than make a worm grower suffer the full burdens of the OSH regime and a farmer get off scot-free. More on farmers when we advance our sophisticated thinking in relation to the emissions trading scheme.
Now, the other reason that this bill must pass is that how can we, as a Parliament, sit and watch the next generation being raised in substandard living conditions, at a time when the fastest-growing assets, particularly in Auckland, have been houses? How can we allow those properties and the people that own those properties to not step up to the plate and observe the full obligations of being property owners, especially when many of the people living in those properties are in receipt of handsome Government subsidies?
I’m hoping that the Minister of Housing and Urban Development has time to do something about that into the future. So we are seeing a transfer, via people of limited means, living in substandard housing, into the hands of property owners, where property owners feel no obligation to improve the warmth, either by insulation, either by fireplaces or other forms of heating, including heat pumps. So the morality of the situation is beyond cavil, and we know that this bill will pass.
Now, having been Minister of building myself, in the past, and I’m more than willing to share those experiences with Minister Salesa and Mr Twyford—it is just but a small step up on to the seventh floor of the Beehive where our friends over there will never, ever see again, because the new leader of the National Party is not in this Parliament: either working in a cigarette paper company, or as a lobbyist in some corporate—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Could I just remind the member that we are in a third reading debate and we should actually talk about the debate at hand, thank you.
Hon SHANE JONES: I thank you for that direction. It’s just that the truth bubbles forth despite obstacles in front of me, but I will observe the direction from the Chair, and for fear of earning the ire of the promoter of the bill, against the appetite of the public, I shall truncate this speech. I know they’ll be disappointed in Eketāhuna, and a host of other places—ahh, there’s Simeon waving. That’s the five-year-old school wave, son—something that you should own with pleasure, given that’s the quality of your maturity in your short time here in Parliament.
So the bill provides a firm regulatory regime, creates a level playing field and, if anyone’s doubting whether or not the improvements to rental housing will require wood, a billion trees will see to that. Kia ora tātou.
Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): It’s an honour to be able to speak on this bill, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), in its third reading, and especially to speak after the Hon Shane Jones, who I do agree has building skills and experience. The best advice I remember him giving me in this regard was to always pay with cash and not with credit. And that was the best thing to do whenever purchasing, whenever out there, whatever construction, whatever advice, and you’re standing around, scoping, taking the extracurricular activities around building and construction.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me. Do I have to remind this member we are talking about the bill at hand?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. But it is quite interesting. I would have to say that with the previous speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, he should also, too, remind himself of the whakapapa of which he was a part in the Labour Government in previous times, because while they can turn around and talk and have the high road of being able to say “this is what we will do for the poor people, for the cold people, and for the people in our communities with our healthy homes bill,” they need to look a little bit further past the nine years of a National Government, and look a bit further at the nine years under a Labour Government, and previously. When you do that, it gets a bit of a dim reading. That’s right; the lights turn down a little bit low, because that’s actually what happens when you see the record there.
I have to say, I’m probably one of the few people that’s in Parliament that was actually part of a—I was an electrician by trade, a tradie, and I did my apprenticeship with Jim Cato Electrical, who used to have the contract for Housing New Zealand. I had the privilege in many cases of being able to go both in the building of new Housing New Zealand homes but, more importantly, around the repairs and maintenance. So I’ve seen homes that have been cold. I’ve seen Housing New Zealand homes that really have been run down, where there hasn’t been the investment to ensure that they’ve been warm, dry, and healthy. And I can say to this House, as a person who was a tradesman delivering a service at a time in which the people of that community needed it, in those homes, that it was under a Labour Government where the investment was not made. I can, hand on heart, state in this House that I’ve seen that firsthand.
I can also say that being in Glen Innes for 20 years and working in the community there, we had the largest State housing stock in the whole of New Zealand, with roughly, approximately around 2,800 homes. They had the worst State housing stock in the whole of the New Zealand. [Bell rung]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m so sorry. I apologise.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker; Am I OK to continue?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. Carry on.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: And I have to say, it was there that I saw—and I can name the streets: it’s Farringdon, it’s Rōpata. These are streets that are well known in Glen Innes because they were streets in which, in those homes where I visited as a family worker, as a community worker, and even as a youth worker, they were cold, they were damp, they were run down, and there was no investment. I can remember lobbying our local member of Parliament. I can remember lobbying the local council. We needed to do something about it.
So I can say, with hand on heart—firsthand experience, where I’ve seen the under-investment; where I’ve seen where the so-called rhetoric of wanting to care for those in need has not been met. And yet, when I look back and I think about this bill and the healthy homes and all that it promises, there are elements of it that I would agree with. I would stand in this House and say insulation is absolutely important. The ability to be able to have that warm and dry home is absolutely important, and then I look back again over our nine years. What was it that we achieved in that period of time? Well, we invested into the State housing stock: 30,000 houses retrofitted so they were warm and dry; 290,000 subsidies that were given out into the general public so that houses were warm and dry. I would have to say that the record of the National Government in its time of nine years stands up very clearly against the record of the previous Labour Government, so I look forward to seeing what achievements will be made in this bill.
I want to raise an issue that was raised by the Minister in regards to insulation, because I remember the debates that we had in the House. In fact, I remember there was the green bit of insulation that was brought in. So we are talking about insulation. The rhetoric on this side, when they were in Opposition, was the fact that you cannot—and I think I heard in the House, the Minister asked: why should we let 39-year-old insulation stay as it is? Well, if he had read the full reports when we were looking at the thermal activity of those points of insulation—so the insulation from the 1978 standard right up to 2001—the R rating, which is the thermo-rating, is 1.9. So when you factor the difference between the new rating from the 2008 standard, it’s 2.9. What we were told by officials is this: the increase in thermal activity is only a 2.5 percent gain—that is all you would have. So they said that, really, by doubling the insulation, you weren’t getting any difference—only 2.5 percent. That’s from the experts themselves. So while we talk about the increase in insulation, we also need to talk about the increase in costs.
So I have to say that when I look at this bill there are elements that are missing. We know their colleagues have talked about the fact that there is the delay in the time period. Yes, there’s going to come into force the aspect of smoke alarms and insulation in 2019, but it’s the five-year period that we get concerned about. It’s the imposition of the costs that will be imposed upon those landlords, and, as my fellow colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said, we’re talking about 80 percent. I was at the submissions and the hearings when they would come into the select committee and talk about the fact that we knew, at a time when loss attributing qualifying companies were in place, where the investment for your future and your super was actually in a rental property, that’s what many New Zealanders did. So we need to be thinking about the imposition and the cost. As my colleague said, we’re looking at an extra $6,000 per house—$2.4 billion—that will be added to their cost, and we know the imposition and the challenge that that will have.
I have to say that while we agree with the importance of having healthier homes for our whānau and our family, the record of a previous Labour Government doesn’t stack up. The record of a previous National Government does stack up. That’s the record that it has. So I look forward, because this bill will go through because they have the numbers, to holding this coalition Government to account right across the House to see what record they can ensure that they have that will prove that they are making a difference. Actions speak louder than words. We oppose this bill, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).
MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased and proud to be standing to speak at what will be the passing of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). It is about time that we had a Government that understands what it has meant, over nine years of the previous Government, for things to be getting worse for families, for children, for our elderly community, and for people living in homes in shocking condition, for which there is no darned excuse. For this, in 2017 Aotearoa, there is no darned excuse. What are we doing today with the passing of this bill? We are putting first the livelihoods of children, our elderly, and all New Zealanders and all those people vulnerable to preventable diseases—preventable diseases that the Government has always had the power and the capacity to do something about. We are finally on a significant start to doing that.
So what are we actually dealing with here? The previous speaker from the Opposition benches, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, tried to say that the previous Government had done a good job. It is clear that over nine years, things got worse for New Zealanders, for families, for children, for elderly. We are looking at over 40,000 hospital admissions every year. We are dealing with 1,600 extra winter deaths every year. We are dealing with up to 15 children who die in this country every year, in Aotearoa, from preventable diseases due to unhealthy homes—homes in poor condition. On that, I want to thank the Children’s Commissioner, who, in his submission, reminded us that by keeping the insulation standards at 1978, we were upholding a broken promise to the children and citizens and families of this country—by sticking with those very standards.
So what does this look like on the ground? What does that damage look like on the ground? It looks like families having to choose between paying for healthy food or the rent or a power bill. No one should have to weigh those up. No one should have to trade any of those items off in their household budget. We are looking at families huddling in one room so that they can afford to heat a room to some sort of level that is livable. We are looking at wearing socks and hats and thermals to bed because it’s just unconscionable to go to bed with less. We are looking at the situation in the winters in Aotearoa. We are looking at walking into a room at night where the children are sleeping, where you get hit as if you’ve just walked into a fridge.
I note that the previous speaker referred to his experience in his communities and his neighbourhoods, and named the streets where he had gone to visit those homes as if to align himself with the experiences of New Zealanders roughing it in those very homes. I too am aware of those realities. I wasn’t there as a social worker—I know the streets in Manurewa that I’m talking about—I wasn’t there even as an MP visiting; I was there as a mother. I was there as a mother, dressing up children in those beanies, in those socks, sending kids to bed with five woollen blankets and a hat, walking into their room at night and being hit like I was walking into a fridge. I was there as a mother, and so I welcome this legislation change today because of the conditions that worsened under the nine years of the previous Government. What we are looking at and dealing with and wanting to fix today is that stress, that unnecessary stress, on our communities, the people that we are here to serve and listen to.
I’ve mentioned that the previous Government had nine years—nine good years—of being in power, with all of the officials, with all of the resources, with the very things with which Minister Twyford has managed to put early passing of this legislation into place within only weeks of stepping into his office. They had nine years to suss that out, with all the tools and resources right at their fingertips, and they did not. That’s why things got worse.
The Greens are proud to be working with the Labour Government to fix this, finally. We are proud that my colleague Gareth Hughes helped the Greens to put minimum housing standards on the political agenda when his first rental warrant of fitness bill was brought to Parliament in 2010. Sadly, it didn’t get through that time. Later, when my colleague Metiria Turei also brought a similar bill as a member’s bill, that was voted down by the National Government in 2016. I am proud of the long work that we have done with my Labour colleagues to fix this. I congratulate Minister Twyford and my Labour colleagues for getting this up on the board real fast, real quick. It’s a start, and it’s a significant step in righting the wrongs that have sat here and ruined people’s lives for far too long.
This bill is going to fix the failing insulation standards from 1978. We don’t need 1978 standards. We can do much better than that. This bill is going to ensure that we have moisture controls, ventilation, fixed heating that is modern, safe, and affordable—and affordable. There is no use having a good house if you’re still going to be on the sort of budget that makes you want to weigh up whether you want to turn the heater on—no good. That’s why we’re going to make sure that we’ve got fixed heating sources.
As I said at the start, there is no excuse in 2017 Aotearoa for homes to be anything but safe, warm, healthy, and affordable. This legislation will be welcomed by the landlords, the majority of whom understand what it is to run a good investment and to care for the tenants who are looking after their property. This legislation will be welcomed by those who get it, which is most, and for those who need a hand, well, that’s what this legislation is also going to do—to realise the moral and financial imperative that is a good investment into your rental properties. The Greens will continue to push for standards that make sure that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, affordable, safe whare, and today marks the most significant step in that direction in 10 years. I congratulate Minister Twyford. Thank you.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is a hollow, shallow bill that achieves absolutely nothing of what the previous member, Marama Davidson, claimed. Let’s just subject it to a little bit of scrutiny. The Green member claimed that the previous Government did nothing in nine years. Let me give her some hard numbers. In the last nine years, 350,000 homes in New Zealand were insulated. Let’s compare that to the previous nine years of a Labour-Green Government, and the number was 35,000. That is, the National Government just past insulated ten times as many homes per year as the left Government that preceded it, which reinforces that we are about action; they are about spin.
Let’s then ask the question: what does this bill actually do? Answer: nothing—absolutely zero. Let me take the issues through. Does the current law, passed two years ago by the previous National Government, not require every single rental home to be insulated by 1 July 2019? Well, yes, it does. At the time it was passed, members opposite said it was far too slow, yet this bill makes absolutely no change in that date for those remaining 180,000 homes to be insulated. And here’s the real irony: for those that were in the Parliament last year, they will have seen Phil Twyford running around the press gallery, running around the House, with two different pieces of insulation. He said if he was in Government he would require the higher standard of insulation. Yet nowhere in this bill does it do that. It’s absolutely silent on that question, again just showing the double standards from this Government.
And then I’ve heard the lofty words that this bill is going to deal with issues like heating, issues like the drainage, issues like the mould. But here’s the problem: every single one of the issues in this bill is already covered by the housing regulations. There are requirements, and I can read them. There is a requirement for all houses to be free of mould. There is a requirement to have proper drainage. There is a requirement for there to be heating. Now, there is the option right now to use those to be able to regulate, but today’s debate is not about the regulations, because we’ve got no idea what the Government is proposing. But the power to regulate exists right now, has been done, and this bill adds absolutely diddly-squat. It is so much in line with that brilliant speech by the Leader of the Opposition that said that this Government is long on intent but actually vacuous on the substance that’s required to deliver the goods. That is, guys opposite, intent is not good enough. It is substance that matters, and having a Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) guarantees absolutely nothing for the homeowners of New Zealand.
Then I also want to challenge the Green Party on some facts. The Building Research Association of New Zealand reviews and reports on the standard of our housing stock every five years, and has done so since the 1960s. In those reports most recently out, just 18 months ago, it showed, actually, that there’d been a 22 percent improvement in the quality of our housing stock. And so when I hear these highly partisan and ill-informed speeches from the Greens claiming that the stock of our housing stock went down, are they, effectively, saying that the Building Research Association of New Zealand cannot be relied upon? Are they saying they’re biased? Where is their proof? Again, we find the huge gaps between the rhetoric of this Government and the reality.
The last point I want to make is that this bill is meaningless unless it is backed up by funding. In our very first Budget, our Government, the National Government—when we faced billions and billions of deficits bequeathed to us by the financial incompetence opposite—committed $500 million to getting homes insulated. Now, this bill might have had some substance if there was some commitment from members opposite to actually fund insulation, but on that they are absolutely silent.
So let me be clear again: the law already requires every rental property in New Zealand to be insulated. That was passed by a National Government. The law already requires every rental property to be free of mould, to be free of dampness, and, actually, the real issue is enforcement, in which we changed the law to allow the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to directly enforce the law, but this bill actually changes the legal requirements on any of those issues associated with our rental properties not one iota. Thirdly, this bill does not put one penny into the exercise of improving the insulation of homes.
You see, this bill just sums up the new Government perfectly, and that is: yes, they’re good on spin. Yes, the intent—the voluminous objectives of this Government—are long and hard, but when you drill down into the substance, bills like this are as shallow as a bird bath and should appropriately be rejected.
Paul Eagle: Thank you, Mr Speaker—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! You have to call.
Paul Eagle: Oh, sorry. Mr Speaker?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Paul Eagle.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): It must have been my tie again there, causing confusion. I do want to just acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little and also Ministers Twyford and Salesa for their work, and also just acknowledge—oh, he’s left—the member for Nelson, who obviously needs a new tie, needs to have a decent lunch, or needs something. But what I wanted to tell him, and if he was here what I would be saying, is that in his time—I want to just reflect on his track record, or the Opposition’s track record, as landlord for 68,000 State homes, or “social housing”, as they rebranded them. A small portion of those are in my electorate.
Here we have someone who is saying, “Look, it’s not this, it’s not that, it means diddly-squat.”, but the reality for me is that when I see the State housing in my electorate, I don’t see the evidence of a responsible landlord providing healthy homes. So everything he said, everything he noted or said was wrong with this bill—all I saw was nine years of nothing. Nine years of nothing. When I visited a Tongan family up there recently, and I looked at the respiratory issues of their children, who go to hospital and who come back to a damp, cold, horrible home, I thought: where was the previous Government in all those years?
What I see instead are sales of State housing to Scots College, a decent independent private Presbyterian school in Strathmore. I see homes sold to it. At prize-giving last night, it was commented, “What a shame that when we purchased these houses”—so here we have State housing for the poor going to the wealthiest school in the city, for boarding facilities. They said it was a pity the State housing was so rundown, horrible: “No one could live here. We would never put our boys into these facilities.” But that’s what we saw.
What we also see, when you go down Strathmore Ave, is empty ground. Like, there are rugby field - sized plots, where State housing used to stand, but no longer. You go up on the hill there in Strathmore, and there are rows and rows and rows of State housing that is really unsuitable. I know that thanks to this bill and a programme of build work from Minister Twyford, what we will see are decent, warm, dry homes being built. It doesn’t matter if it’s being called “KiwiBuy” or “KiwiBuild”; the reality is, let’s get these homes built. Let’s build decent homes that deliver for decent Kiwis.
I’m hoping that this family who have lived in this house, who want to complain but the Housing New Zealand Corporation offices have been mandated with reluctance, with not treating people fairly, being told by their Minister, or Ministers—because this is an Opposition that, when in Government, didn’t have a housing minister for quite some time. But they are the victims of why this bill is needed.
I could quote figures, I could say a whole range of things, but what this really is about is giving people hope. If it means that the private sector follows—I’m not hearing this big ruckus of feedback. My in-box and messaging systems aren’t filled by developers—who I know well, who are actually really hoping that we get some consistency and some clarity on what they need to do to deliver to the expectations. At the moment, it’s been confused, it’s been difficult, and it’s been interfered with, but you won’t get that under this bill. You’ll get clarity. You’ll get some hope delivered to the good people of, at least, Wellington.
So no more ideological bets on this stuff, no more desire to sort of run it down and for the Salvation Army to, hopefully, pick it up and somehow make magic where the State couldn’t. What we will see is decent housing. And, look, this will be a Government that has a track record where these—I think it’s 64,000 State homes, because 4,000 have either been transferred out to other mechanisms or other delivery arms, which is part of the process—oh, I’ve finished.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member’s time has expired.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m glad to have an opportunity to speak in opposition to this Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). National agrees that every New Zealander deserves the opportunity to have a warm, dry, and affordable home. We have made significant investment in home insulation, and we’ve succeeded in insulating every State house capable of being insulated. Our record stands true: we have insulated hundreds of thousands of homes over the last nine years while we were in Government, which compares to 50,000 done under the nine years of the previous Labour Government.
I represent the electorate of Pakuranga in Auckland, an electorate that is almost completely residential. There are people who rent, there are people who own, and there are people who also own rental properties, and the question that they have of this bill is: what will it do? It’s called the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), but it’s going to do either of two things: it’s going to do nothing, or it’s going to impose significant impositions on them. We have not been given any subordinate legislation or regulations that go alongside this bill. It gives the opportunity for these to be created, but, normally, the process is that they would be signalled as to what they would be, what the standards would be, and there’s been nothing put on the table. This means that there has been no opportunity for what the cost of these regulations will be on landlords and on people who own properties who will be subjected under this legislation.
This Government is full of kind words, but what we’re looking for is action, and this bill, while it may be called the “Guarantee Bill”, as I said, provides no guarantees, and, therefore, will continue to mean that the current legislation, which we’ve already put in place—we’re not sure whether it’s improved, whether it does anything, really. So the National Party can’t support legislation where we don’t know what it’s going to do, we don’t know what the cost of it is going to be. We want certainty from this Government, not more and more of these platitudes and kind words, so we will be opposing this legislation. Thank you very much.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am absolutely delighted and proud to be able to speak at the final reading of this Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). We have a famous saying in Māoridom. It’s “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua.”, and what that means is that when one house dies, another house opens up. That can be used in lots of contexts, but in this context here, new houses are opening up—healthy homes, with established minimum standards that will be implemented under this bill to give hope to the 50 percent of Kiwis that live in rental properties and the 80 percent of Māori especially, of Māori families, that live in rental accommodation. So I’m delighted to speak in favour of this bill. This bill is going to make a huge difference in the lives of so many people. To those good landlords out there in Aotearoa, thank you. Thank you for providing appropriate accommodation for the many renters out there. But there are many, also, that are totally inadequate.
We’ve heard the waxing and waning from the other side. They had nine years, and they were completely ineffective in this area, and that’s why we’re taking a stand. I’m absolutely proud that we are delivering this afternoon on our hundred-day promises that we are wanting to deliver. We’ve had paid parental leave just before this, and I’m very proud to be here to speak on this Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).
I won’t prolong my contribution, because I want to get this bill passed as soon as possible. We’re going to put the framework in place that can provide the assurances that will set those minimum standards, that will make sure that those whānau out there that have been longing for appropriate, warm accommodation and housing and rental housing—that will finally be able to be delivered under this Government. So I’m absolutely delighted. Can I acknowledge the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, and I 100 percent tautoko this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe. First of all, I acknowledge the Minister of Housing and Urban Development and the members of your committee for the work and effort that has gone into the formulation of this bill. However, I stand as a new MP and speak in support of the National Party in opposing the proposed legislation. I will speak to the facts of the situation rather than the emotive talk, and I acknowledge the emotion that goes with such a subject and the content around the concern associated for people living in unhealthy homes.
May I just share with you that, looking at the title to this bill—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but if the members across both sides of the House want a conversation, please take it to the lobbies.
HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In continuing my view shared with the House, the acknowledgment to the Minister and to the members of your committee is simply to say and share with you that when I look at the title, Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), the emphasis and focus of this, of course, is the onus that’s placed on landlords and their duties and responsibilities to tenants within the homes. The opening statement that you made, Minister—I listened carefully to your words—was that you said “Every New Zealander”, every New Zealander, “deserves a warm, healthy home.” The emphasis of this bill is focused not on every New Zealander; it’s a select grouping of tenants who live within the property owned by a landlord.
I have represented, for a good part of my professional working life, the most vulnerable—those in deprivation and those in high need. I simply share with you that the expectation this party will hold your Government to account for is that every New Zealander does have that right to a healthy home.
Hon Tracey Martin: Nine long years.
HARETE HIPANGO: I simply share with you that over those nine long years the National Party did address these issues, and the detail and the facts of those have been spoken to in this House. So, in stating that, you will be well aware that when you were in Opposition—and you are in the position that now this party in Opposition once was in—the Government addressed the importance and significance of healthy homes for every New Zealander by insulating 290,000 homes, through the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme alone, and insulating 30,000 of Housing New Zealand stock. So these were commitments that were undertaken by the Government at the time.
I just simply would like to come back to the purpose of this—[Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!
HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to come back to the Minister’s statement around the intent that every New Zealander deserves a warm and healthy home. The intent behind this proposed legislation is focusing, in your view, upon those who are vulnerable as tenants. I can share with you my life experience, as can many of us that are in this House. There are many homeowners who cannot afford to insulate. They were the very ones, as well, that National supported with the insulation programme, when it was in Government for those nine long years. Prior to that, it’s also acknowledged that in the time prior to those nine long years, the track record that was there—Labour didn’t quite meet the standard.
So we look forward, now that you’re in Government—because it is acknowledged that the numbers will be there for this proposed legislation, this bill, to be passed into law. But I will come back to the factual basis of the concern that this party has maintained, and that is, effectively, is this proposed legislation really a Clayton’s bill? In other words, the Residential Tenancies Act and the amendment to that, effectively, requires, by law, the insulation, the smoke alarms, and the increased enforcement of housing standards. That’s already in place.
But let’s not forget, coming back to the Minister’s commitment—and I commend the Minister for that—“Every New Zealander deserves a warm, healthy home.” This does not cover every New Zealander. We’ve heard reference that 50 percent of our population lives within a home. Let’s not forget the other 50 percent who are homeowners. I will simply share with you that I have many of my own whānau who are homeowners. They have not been able to afford—and there has not been the standards imposed for them to have—what is talked about as a healthy home. Those subsidies were provided under the last Government, and that was the commitment that National ensured. That was what was put in place when, last year, National passed the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill to require, as I earlier said, those standards. It’s those standards that are proposed under this Clayton’s bill to be met.
So I will simply say that with the introduction of those standards, under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which is more balanced than the Government bill before the House today, this may be a Clayton’s bill and it is entirely not necessary. Time permitting, I will just conclude by saying that I cannot support the passing of this bill into legislation. Thank you.
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): What an absolute delight to be able to stand and speak in respect of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). I am the final speaker on behalf of the Government, which will introduce—this is the third reading of the second piece of legislation from this brand new Government that is going to see improvements for real New Zealanders, everyday New Zealanders, not just the elite few at the top but for the many that need a Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government at the helm.
I am so proud—so proud—to stand in this House. I want to commend the Hon Phil Twyford for your absolute stellar efforts. You’ve been at the front line, championing housing because there’s been an absolute shortage. Every day, all of us out there in our electorates, who know our people, who go into those homes—we see the condensation crawling down the windows, we see the mould up on those walls. I thank you, Phil, because the number of people on the East Coast, up in Gisborne, in Kawerau, in Whakatāne, and all throughout that cape are going to be in a better position because of this bill. I am absolutely so excited to stand on behalf of a compassionate and caring Government.
Now, the member that has just gone before said that we speak kind words. Well, I want to say that, yes, we speak kind words. She commended us to follow through with action. Well, in 10 sitting days we’ve just seen two brand new bills go through this House, under this Government. I want to commend our executive for fast-tracking those expedient bills that are going to make real change for real people—real lives.
I don’t need to go on and on and lament about how excellent this legislation is, because unlike the Opposition we’re just here to do the job and do it blimmin well. So I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) be now read a third 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 third time.
Bills
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 November .
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would just like to acknowledge the previous speaker from the other side, Kiritapu Allan, for saying, “Let’s get on and push this Government business through.” I’m very privileged and proud to be standing here progressing another National Party piece of legislation through the House, the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3).
This is an example of how this Government has hit the ground running! They’ve hit the ground running! I’ve just had a look at their website, and they are hitting the ground running with a programme of business across housing, health, education, families, the environment, and other priorities. So I thought, “Well, maybe this is one of their other priorities—a bit of a secret priority, like that secret 33-page document, which we still haven’t seen.” This legislation is talking about the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2017, the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Alcoholic Beverages Indexation) Amendment Order 2017 , the Energy (Petrol, Engine Fuel, and Gas) Levy Regulations 2017—well, maybe the 33-page document talks about those pieces of subordinate legislation. I’m really looking forward to seeing that.
Look, I don’t want to waste this Government’s time. They’ve got a lot to do. They’ve got a whole 100 days of stuff to do, and part of that is passing the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3). So I’m going to let them carry on. We’ll be supporting this legislation—National Party legislation—and hope that they can get on with their priorities. Hopefully, we’ll see a few more of those over coming times. Thank you very much—busy Government!
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a third 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 third time.
Bills
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill
First Reading
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Governance and Administration Committee for consideration.
This bill replaces the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995. The 1995 Act was the first time the law governing the civil registration of life events, births, deaths, and marriages had been brought together in one place. Civil unions were added in 2005. Importantly, the 1995 Act established the framework for the centralisation of the registration process and the computerisation and digitalisation of existing paper records. But after 22 years and many amendments, repeals, and additions, a rewrite is long overdue.
I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor as Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, for his efforts in getting the bill to this point. Importantly, Minister Dunne led a comprehensive review of the rules governing public access to registered information about life events.
With limited exceptions, the public have always been able to access information registered under the 1995 Act and its predecessors. This access supports a range of legitimate purposes, including family history research. The current access rules have been in place since 2009. Briefly, they aim to balance privacy interests and the protection of risk for individuals with the public interest.
The previous Minister’s review gave members of the public and interested parties the opportunity to have their say about the rules, and they were consulted on the changes the bill introduces. The review confirmed that the basic principles underpinning the access regime were sound. However, almost everyone who made a submission during the review expressed a preference for digital and online access over paper-based access via certificates and printouts. But the 1995 Act was drafted at a time paper-based access was the norm. The Act has been amended to allow some transactions to be completely electronic, but even when the information is historical—and some records go back to 1848—members of the public can only access individual records by purchasing a certificate or printout.
This Government wants to maximise the benefits of the growing digital economy. We also want to make it easier for New Zealanders to interact with Government in an online environment that is trusted and trustworthy. That commitment is evident in the appointment of my Cabinet colleague the Hon Clare Curran as Minister for Government Digital Services , and that commitment is evident too in our support for this bill.
The bill will deliver an Act that is modern, fit for purpose, and future proofed. First, the bill implements the changes recommended in the previous Minister’s report to Parliament on the review of the access provisions. The changes will support development of new digital and online access channels. They balance individual interests in privacy and security concerns, in particular, and the public interest in access to registered information for legitimate purposes.
The bill maintains the distinction between historical and non-historical births, deaths, and marriages information and related rules. It will put in place a legislative framework that supports development of new digital and online access channels. In particular, the bill will facilitate development of an online pay-for-view access regime for historical records, similar to that operating in Scotland. Scotland pioneered the provision of large-scale online access to historical information about life events. It has similar access rules to New Zealand, including the time limits used to define historical records. Several submitters to our recent ministerial review cited the Scottish people’s website as an exemplar of best practice.
At present, historical information can be searched but not viewed online. The bill will enable the registrar-general to make historical register images available online as an alternative to the purchase of a certificate or printout. Users will need a verified RealMe ID or approved equivalent that can be asserted online.
Users with a verified ID will also be able to search a limited subset of non-historical information to help them identify, but not reconstruct, an individual record they may want to access. Non-historical records will not be made available online because non-historical records may involve living individuals, and their privacy interests outweigh any considerations, such as ease of access. Individual non-historical records could still be accessed through the purchase of a certificate or printout. This maintains the status quo and is consistent with the Scottish people’s model.
The bill makes a number of minor amendments to support future online access to historical records. These include making historical birth information available at the same time the corresponding death record becomes available. The bill also reduces the age at which marriage records are classified as historical to 75 years, down from 80 years, and the bill will correct an anomaly concerning access to pre-1955 intention-to-marry records held by Archives New Zealand. Technically, the 1995 Act requires access to be restricted indefinitely. The bill will classify these records as marriage-registered and authorise access in the same way and subject them to the same rules as apply to solemnised marriage records.
The bill also includes a number of amendments arising from the Department of Internal Affairs internal operational review of the 1995 Act. This internal review did not look at the big “P” policy issues, so, apart from the changes to the access provisions that I have already mentioned, the bill largely re-enacts the existing law, but it does so in a way that ensures all provisions are presented in an up-to-date and accessible form.
The very fact that this bill is before the House now is because the 1995 Act lacks coherence and can be difficult to read and understand. For example, I’ve already noted that the 1995 Act has been amended to allow most transactions to be completed electronically, but that amendment is buried in a section at the back of the Act. The Act itself still reads as though people must put pen to paper, give notice in writing, and post documents or deposit them with the registrar-general. In summary, the bill omits redundant and spent provisions, renumbers provisions, and changes the language used to reflect modern drafting standards. The language used has been deliberately chosen to future-proof the law to provide flexibility for future service delivery solutions, but new service options will be in addition to, rather than instead of, existing ways of doing business.
I would like to note that alongside the decision to replace the 1995 Act with a modern piece of legislation, the department’s internal review did identify several small but important changes that were needed. In particular, the bill closes a loophole that would allow back-door access to information protected by a non-disclosure direction. Those directions are put in place to prevent third parties access to information about at-risk individuals and their families. The bill also strengthens the operation of the access register, which records details of third parties’ access requests to someone else’s information. I’m pleased to note these amendments have been endorsed by the Privacy Commissioner.
I am aware that there are some aspects of the existing law that members in this House would like to see reviewed. For example, I know the Governance and Administration Committee presented its report on the Petition of Allyson Hamblett the day after the bill was introduced. The committee’s report included a recommendation that the Government review the process for changing nominated sex on birth certificates. I will be presenting the Government’s response to the committee’s report in due course. I am pleased the bill and the upcoming select committee process will provide a timely opportunity to fully test the law, in line with the committee’s recommendation.
Finally, the bill includes three discreet amendments that respond to issues raised in the Law Commission’s report on burial and cremation law. These amendments will improve the timeliness and accuracy of cause of death information reported to the registrar-general. They are included in this bill as they can be progressed independently of the other work under way, including the Ministry of Health - led consideration of a replacement for the Burial and Cremation Act 1964.
To conclude, it is fitting that, after more than 22 years, this important piece of legislation is refreshed. The bill will replace the 1995 Act with a modern Act that is easy for people to use and understand and that can keep up with modern business practice and technology. At the same time, it introduces additional protections for privacy interests and at-risk individuals.
My thanks go to the officials and the previous Minister who worked hard to achieve this result. Finally, I welcome the opportunity to test the policy behind all aspects of the bill through the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Thank you, sir. The Opposition will support this legislation, not surprisingly. Last night, I was speaking in the House on Sarah Dowie’s bill, the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, and I made the point that it’s extremely important to make sure that legislation is kept up to date . There’s nothing worse, I said, by reference to a particular piece of legislation, than when one has sections like “section 27ZZH”—because so often, when there is amendment legislation, the underlying structure of legislation can be affected.
That is why, for example, when Mrs Tolley was the Minister for Social Development, we had a complete rewrite of the Social Security Act 1964 , which I think had been amended pretty well every year since 1964 and was a complete shambles. It was causing huge costs to be incurred by the department and also by lawyers as they tried to find out exactly what things meant. I said it was that kind of problem, that meant it was very important that legislation that may not be, as it were, politically sexy none the less be kept up to date on a regular basis. It’s a fundamental obligation of this House to do so.
This is an example of legislation that falls into that category, and I am pleased that the Government is progressing it, because, as the Minister of Internal Affairs said, the real essence of the bill is not anything that is necessarily earth-shattering, but it does re-enact the 1995 Act to ensure that all provisions are presented in an up-to-date and accessible form. It’s the sort of legislation, I say, that the non-legally trained member of the public should be able to have recourse to, to find out exactly what it means without having to go to a lawyer. That’s why it’s important that the legislation progress to the select committee: so that it can be reviewed and then brought back here and enacted just as soon as possible.
The Minister also said that there are a couple of minor provisions that raise privacy concerns. It’s important that the legislation cover those, and it’s good that they are there. It’s good that they’ve had the sign-off from the Privacy Commissioner. Importantly, also, the Law Commission did some very good work a couple of years ago on burial and cremation law—a rather grisly topic, but none the less one that needed to be done—and there are a couple of recommendations raised in that review that need to be covered by this legislation.
So it is a very good piece of work. The previous Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Dunne, was very enthusiastic about the project, and so I commend him, as the Minister rightly commended him. But I also say it’s very, very important, not only in this area but in other areas, that there be this systematic revision. Next week, we’re going to be talking about the Legislation Bill, which incorporates a number of important provisions, one of which is that parliamentary counsel and the Attorney-General have the power systematically to revise legislation. It’s a very important power. It hasn’t been utilised here because the department’s done it of its own accord, but none the less it’s a similar sort of exercise that has been undertaken.
So I’m very pleased that the matter is able to be progressed, and I commend the bill to the House.
VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I take great pleasure in standing to speak in the first reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill . In terms of looking at the important work that this Government continues to do, it is making sure that it moves with the times, and this is one of the pieces of legislation that is part of a movement towards a more user-friendly Government—a user-friendly Government that makes its information as accessible as possible to the people it serves.
So this movement to make information that is recorded by the State able to be accessed is very important. It is the responsibility of the Government to make that information available. And, as quite correctly pointed out by Chris Finlayson, this is not a piece of legislation that could easily be described as being sexy or that fascinating, but it is quite practical and is needed.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh, the bigamy provisions are interesting.
VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: Ha, ha! This bill does four main things—and the fifth is not being sexy, unfortunately. It re-enacts the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, which has lapsed. It gives effect to the recommendations arising from the Minister of Internal Affairs, and it is appropriate to acknowledge the work done by Peter Dunne in this area when he was the Minister responsible. It also updates and amends some of the operational provisions in the existing law. Fourthly, it responds to three discrete issues raised in the Law Commission’s review of the burial and cremation law.
This area is interesting for the fact that it makes it more timely and accurate in terms of recording the cause of death information. It is incredibly important in the sensitive area of people trying to do research in terms of their family history, whether that be whakapapa or through other interests, that we know that those dates of someone’s passing away are accurate. So having a change that enables those areas to be able to be relied upon, whether it be for personal research or for other work for the family, is very important.
It’s also important—to know where you come from in New Zealand, if you’re wanting to do research into your family—that we have a reliable source of information that people can easily access. It is for this reason that I see this legislative change under Part 4 as being a good one for New Zealanders.
There are some wider areas in terms of policy objectives that are important as well—the key one being to futureproof what we are doing so that the registration of life events, whether they are births, deaths, or marriages. Those are futureproofed so that as we change as a society, the technology that supports us is moving with the times. It is good to see a Government that continues to make those changes and put them in place.
It also regulates third-party access to births, deaths, and marriages information for authorised purposes. It is for this reason that it’s good to see that privacy is also being protected. It’s important when we are talking about people’s personal information that we can be reassured that it is appropriately protected and being accessed by the right people, and this is even more important as we move into a far more digital age.
It’s important to balance the public interest in access to births, deaths, and marriages information for legitimate purposes with the protection—at risk—of individuals and individuals’ privacy interests. This is one of the ongoing tensions that we need to consider when passing such legislation: to balance the need of accessing information with protecting the rights of citizens and their private information.
One of the objectives is to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation for a new statutory system for notifying deaths, which will improve the timeliness and the accuracy of registrations, including the cause of death. It is good to see that what we are moving towards is a far more accessible time. The ability to make sure that people know where to go, know how to get that information, and can rely upon that information is incredibly important. Part of this work has been looking at the main changes in the bills and the definitions of birth and death information, or marriage or civil union for that fact. A name change can be important when retracing information or accessing people to identify those in your family when you are going back. So making sure that we have those definitions correct is important.
The bill also provides, for a person who may provide a certificate issued outside of New Zealand in respect of a divorce or a marriage being dissolved outside New Zealand, that the certificate relates to a New Zealand citizen or a person who is already resident in New Zealand, and those changes are also important.
There is a really strong aim in the bill to make sure that we are moving with the times. I am pleased to see not only the Labour Government but National supporting a move into a digital age where it is important for citizens to access information but also to protect those rights of personal information. For that reason I am pleased to say that I commend this bill to the House.
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s wonderful to be taking a call tonight on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. And I say that genuinely, because it is an excellent bill from the previous Government that’s being progressed.
I have to say, though, that I am a bit perplexed, because I’ve been through Labour’s much-vaunted 100-day programme many times, and not once did I find in it the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill . There was a lot of talk about building houses, legalising marijuana, increasing the minimum wage, addressing climate change, and making tertiary education free. But, instead, we’re finishing week three of the six weeks before the end of the year debating the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill.
And it is a good bill, which is no surprise, given it’s a hand-me-down from the previous National Government. I do have to contrast what we are debating now with the previous Labour Government. Within three weeks of taking office, the then finance Minister, Michael Cullen , introduced legislation to increase taxes. Now, I don’t want to give the members opposite any ideas, but, at least they were doing something. We’ve seen nothing from this Government at all. Weeks have gone by and they haven’t introduced anything new.
Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Just passed two bills.
ANDREW FALLOON: And I’m sorry, Mr Lees-Galloway, but the two bills that you’ve just passed are regurgitated bills from the last Parliament. They’re not new at all.
I do want to commend the bill. It makes a number of changes to update the Act and to make it more accessible. It aligns with the previous Government’s Better Public Services (BPS) target, which I genuinely hope the new Government progresses with. The BPS target showed that Government can improve outcomes when targets are set and proper measurements are made.
This is a good bill. I want to join other members of the House in commending the Hon Peter Dunne, the former Minister and also the former Government for bringing it to the House; and I also want to congratulate the coalition Government for making it such a priority. Thank you very much.
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Ethnic Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand here today in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, and I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Hon Tracey Martin for her work, as well as for the department’s work in supporting her—the Department of Internal Affairs. Like the previous speaker, Andrew Falloon, I’d like also to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne, because he had done some work on this bill.
I’m here to speak on this bill and, as Minister for Ethnic Communities, I’d like to acknowledge that the intended improvements that the Hon Tracey Martin is introducing to this bill would mean that for New Zealand’s diverse ethnic communities—we have over 200 ethnic communities in this country, Aotearoa New Zealand—the improvements introduced in this bill would ensure that they have access to Government information and services.
This Government is focused on inclusion. We are focused on ensuring that all cultures are valued, that every individual person is valued—no matter who they are, no matter where they come from—and that they can all achieve their full potential. The bill that we are discussing right now has implications, because it refers to the statutory system for death notifications. The Law Commission’s review of this bill, especially of the burial and cremation law, is an important issue for the ethnic communities of Aotearoa New Zealand, and this particular bill will actually actively seek input from our ethnically diverse communities, and it will be important to go out and to consult and to ensure that all of their views—from all of the 200 or so ethnic communities in Aotearoa New Zealand—and their human rights are considered and acknowledged.
This bill will also aim to create a more cohesive piece of legislation, as it changes the language and the order and the content of removing redundant provisions that were previously introduced. We will look at certain recommendations that the Law Commission has handed down to us, as I said, especially with the cremation law and other administrative and operational matters. One of the things that we would also look at, that our former speaker from this side of the House spoke about, is the use of digital and online channels to ensure that we look at the historical records and ensure—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 December 2017. Pō mārie .
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.