Wednesday, 6 December 2017

WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2017

WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

Drinking-water Supplies—Contamination, Havelock North Inquiry Stage 2 Release

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 356 in relation to the stage 2 report on the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry.

Can I begin by thanking the members of the inquiry panel: former Court of Appeal judge the Hon Lyn Stevens QC, former Director-General of Health Dr Karen Poutasi, and vastly experienced water engineer Anthony Wilson for the work that they have put into this detailed and thoughtful report.

Drinking water is the most basic determinant of daily health. The report tabled today highlights that the quality of drinking water in New Zealand is too often inadequate and that regulation and enforcement have both been poor. We must do better.

The report shows what most New Zealanders will see as shocking levels of non-compliance with current drinking-water standards and Government incompetence, especially at the Ministry of Health. The first report following the Havelock North drinking-water calamity catalogued how 5,500 people fell ill, causing over 100 people to be hospitalised; long-term, painful reactive arthritis; Guillain-Barré paralysis; and a contribution to the premature death of at least two people.

The first report found long-term incompetence at the Hastings District Council, poorly maintained bores, a history of bacterial infections that were ignored, and an inadequate understanding of the aquifers by both the district and regional council. No one at the district council resigned or properly accepted responsibility.

The second report shows that the Havelock North example, whilst extreme, is not isolated. It catalogues serious failings by the Ministry of Health before and after Havelock North. It reports that, despite serious non-compliance by many water suppliers, the Ministry of Health have not issued one compliance notice or taken one enforcement action anywhere in New Zealand in the last five years. It shows unsafe drinking water is causing many tens of thousands, undoubtedly—perhaps up to 100,000 people, according to the inquiry—to fall ill every year from drinking water that comes out of their taps.

Eighty percent of New Zealanders live in areas where the inquiry has determined that water standards are adhered to. Large cities such as Auckland and Wellington city are well-serviced. People there have no need to be concerned by the findings of this report. The recommendations are focused on bringing other parts of New Zealand up to standard. The main problems are bacterial infections like campylobacter, protozoan infections causing cryptosporidium, viruses causing other gastroenteritis, and nitrate levels at excessive levels.

The report presents New Zealand and international evidence in support of recommendations that all reticulated water schemes should have their water treated. It rejects the view that regular testing of bore water is sufficient, noting that rain events, droughts, earthworks, and earthquakes all give rise to risks, meaning that even if testing is faultless, contaminated water can sometimes pass into the system for days prior to detection. It also explains that broken underground pipes and backflow elsewhere in the pipe system mean that even if pure water leaves reservoirs, the water can be, and sometimes is, contaminated before it reaches taps.

In addition to recommending the mandatory treatment of water, the report recommends a new regulator, fewer water suppliers—who should operate across larger regions in order to reduce costs and improve outcomes—and a licensing regime for drinking-water suppliers.

The report makes 51 detailed and specific recommendations. Some can be addressed quickly. The Government has today written to mayors and district health boards (DHBs) throughout New Zealand, asking them to check that the water they’re supplying residents meets current standards, given the report finds significant non-compliance. Alongside this, the Minister of Health, Dr David Clark, will brief Cabinet before Christmas on the next steps, short and long term. Overall, this report raises serious concerns about the oversight and infrastructure.

I will just make a couple of quotes, in closing, from the report itself. It says there’s “widespread systemic failure among water suppliers to meet the high standards required”; “The industry has demonstrated that it is not capable of … improving when the standards are not met.”; neither the Ministry of Health nor others have “shown an ability to call the industry to account.”; “currently [there is] no adequate or effective enforcement of … statutory obligations”; and “the … water industry has over at least [five years] experienced problems on multiple levels.”

There are many other passages in the report, which I would recommend that all members of Parliament read—and all mayors and all DHB chairs—before they take the steps that they need to make in order to better protect the public.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Thank you. I join with Mr Parker in thanking the panel, the Hon Lyn Stevens, Dr Karen Poutasi, and Anthony Wilson, for their outstanding work. They have provided the thorough and robust report that I’d hoped for when I first approached them. They’ve served their country well.

The National Opposition welcomes the recommendations and agrees they will substantially improve the safety of drinking water in Havelock North and the rest of this country, which is why we as a Government went to the extent of setting up this inquiry. The previous Government carried out extensive work with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) over water, infrastructure, and regulation. The National Infrastructure Plan had identified water infrastructure as the poorest performing sector across our infrastructure networks. As a result, we worked with LGNZ to get agreement on the best regulatory model, and spent a number of years on that. We agreed that this inquiry would be the vehicle to take that issue forward. The report highlights a quantum shift in how we should manage the state of our drinking water.

This is an issue that is above politics; it’s about doing what’s right for residents, and the new Government will have our support in any law changes required to implement the recommendations. The report addresses problems that have occurred over a number of years spanning both Governments, but the important thing is that the recommendations are adopted as quickly as possible. Local councils around New Zealand will need to sit up, as the Minister said, and take notice of this. It’s highlighted that the Havelock North contamination showed a series of risks that have been subsequently found in many other parts of this country.

Once again, we sympathise with the people of Havelock North, who were so badly affected by the contamination, and especially those who continue to deal with health problems related to the contamination. The incident severely affected the town’s residents, and I’m pleased the inquiry has comprehensively identified the cause of the outbreak, as well as applied robust recommendations to prevent future outbreaks.

As the Attorney-General said, Part 23 of the report sets out a number of urgent and early recommendations, the most significant of which is the proposal that a dedicated drinking-water regulator should be established early and promptly. There are a number of other urgent recommendations, and, as I have said, the Opposition will support the Government on any law changes required to implement the recommendations.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): That was a very illusory speech, evincing care without any responsibility—an attempt to escape responsibility. This report is the perfect embodiment of neglect in the regions by the past Government, and it shows.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And it’s no use screaming out that it’s rubbish. I’ll leave that specialty to you later; I’m talking about the report now. There is nothing more fundamental than the provision of clean drinking-water—a basic need of people. In fact, the mayor of that area, of course, at the time they were making a complaint, was scheming to be a candidate for the National Party, which was overlooked today.

The people of Havelock North have been badly let down, and just launching a report as though that’s an act of responsibility doesn’t cut it in a democracy. What they experienced was reprehensible. It was a failure of leadership. It was a failure of governance agencies to ensure public safety and well-being, and I think we all owe the panel that produced that report a lot for exposing what should have been known and had been forewarned for some considerable time. It was a failure to guard against complacency that led to contamination of drinking water, and New Zealand First wants to place that on the record, rather than let the former responsible Minister sitting on the other side get away with a performance like that.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to acknowledge the two people who likely lost their lives because of what occurred in Havelock North last year, and their loved ones, for whom I imagine today could be yet another very difficult day in their grieving process. On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to extend my sincerest condolences to them. I’d also like to acknowledge the more than 5,000 people who fell ill simply because of the water that they drank. It is an absolute disgrace, what happened to the people of Havelock North. All New Zealanders should be able to trust the water that comes out of their taps, and we should not live in fear of it.

The Green Party campaigned, as did our colleagues in the Labour Party, on the issue of clean drinking-water during this year’s election, and our choice to do so was made with good reason. We did it because of what happened to the people of Havelock North and our determination that it would never happen again.

Aotearoa New Zealand is a wealthy, privileged, sophisticated country. It is unconscionable that in 2016, in New Zealand, we had people who lost their lives and thousands of people falling ill because they drank a glass of water, washed their hands, or ate something that they washed from a tap. But it did happen, and that is why this report released today is so important. We cannot allow what happened to the people of Havelock North to happen again, ever, anywhere.

I’d like to acknowledge the work that has gone into this report. It is a comprehensive piece of work, and it has clear recommendations that I know that this Government will consider seriously and urgently. I know that this Government is committed to improving water quality across the board, and this report rightly focuses on our drinking water, but that is connected to our rivers, our lakes, our aquifers, and our oceans, all of which are under threat from pollution and degradation.

Within this report are recommendations around the safety standards and classifications of our drinking water, around compliance and enforcement of standards, and for more oversight over our water supply by both regional councils and central government. There is also a stark warning contained within the report that 20 percent of New Zealanders are living in areas that are vulnerable to outbreaks similar to what happened in Havelock North. For those people, it is absolutely essential that we have stronger, enforceable drinking-water standards and much more robust systems that respond quickly when those standards are breached. It is also absolutely essential that there is better cooperation between regional and local councils, and central government, particularly with regard to critical infrastructure. All of these things must happen urgently.

I know that this Government, and the Green Party, which stands as a part of it, is absolutely committed to making the changes that we need to in order to assure all New Zealanders that the water coming out of their taps is safe to drink. That is their fundamental right, and it is our fundamental responsibility.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just in the time available read out a couple of other quotes from the report: “there is little understanding amongst the New Zealand public about the number of people who are consuming water that is not demonstrably safe, the large numbers of people who become ill every year, or the burden this places on the country including, at its highest, through lost lives.” The inquiry panel members then comment on the fact that even since Havelock North, there has been very little improvement. In the last year they say there’s been only a 1.1 percent improvement in respect of the problematic areas, and that shields some decreases in those areas.

They say that we “compare poorly internationally.” They say that “The Ministry’s performance in relation to enforcement has been, … seriously deficient.” Indeed, it is apparent even after Havelock North that, effectively, the ministry had to be led by the inquiry, rather than the inquiry being assisted by the ministry. They say that there’s been a complete failure of leadership and stewardship with the ministry for some years.

Can I thank the other party leaders for their comments.

Speaker’s Statements

Chamber, Lobbies, and Galleries—Visitors’ Rules

Mr SPEAKER: The rules governing visitors to the public and Speaker’s galleries have been updated to modernise requirements about dress, to give clarity about items that can be brought into the galleries, and to clarify the powers of security officers. The rules apply to the public and Speaker’s galleries, and not to the press gallery. The rules governing the lobbies and the Chamber update the provisions governing strangers in the Chamber, to enable officials advising Ministers in the committee of the whole House to step on to the floor of the Chamber to speak briefly with the Minister in the chair. Officials will be allowed to bring electronic devices into the Chamber when advising Ministers. Whānau or staff members will be able to enter the lobbies in order to enable members to care for infants. An updated copy of the rules will be delivered to members this afternoon.

Points of Order

Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility and Reports

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

Mr SPEAKER: I fail to understand what it could be, but have a go.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I want to raise two related matters. Firstly, Speaker’s ruling 155/3, which states, “Members are able to ask Ministers whether they agree with the views of other people, as long as the view that is being expressed is about a matter that is very much the Minister’s responsibility.” And, of course, I’m referring to this situation yesterday—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member will now resume his seat. The member knows well that if he had a point of order in relation to yesterday, then yesterday was the time to raise it—not today. Does the member have another point of order?

Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER: A separate point of order?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Yes, Mr Speaker. It’s in relation to a related but different matter, and it’s in relation to 180/6. And, of course, the situation here is a matter that Mr Speaker has referred to quite a number of times, and it’s in relation to, effectively, the requirement that a report be received and that it be an official report—and I do want guidance on this.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can resume his seat. The beginning of question time is not the time for a tutorial for members on Speakers’ rulings or on the Standing Orders. If the member is uncertain as to interpretations, then the member can raise them at the time they occur. I have indicated to members, and several members have taken up my invitation, to discuss the fine points of Speakers’ rulings in my office, over a cup of tea, if necessary. But what I am not prepared to do is to have question time, which is a time of members, disrupted by dated points of order that are clearly out of order.

Speakers and Presiding Officers—Rulings, Timing of Commenting on

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do think you need to be a bit clearer about what your thinking is—in what guidance you’re giving the House—because while you’ve said this can’t be raised today because of something that happened yesterday, the reality is that we’ve got a book that goes back for decades, giving us guidance as to how the House might be able to deal with particular issues or moments—

Mr SPEAKER: Right. The member will resume his seat. He’ll have a good look at the book and especially Speakers’ ruling 20/3.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the point of order that you just sat me down on?

Mr SPEAKER: It was your invitation to me to refer to—[Interruption] Mr Brownlee, you know very well, even if you don’t know the number, what Speakers’ ruling 20/3 indicates. That is one of the fundamental Speakers’ rulings, and that is that matters must be taken up at the time. Disrupting the House and, I believe, now trifling with the Chair—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, rubbish!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve now raised what is, I think, a change of practice in the House. An event occurred yesterday; there was some discussion about it. You made a ruling. Now if a member has a view that that ruling is wrong, then I think you’re indicating that that is not to be discussed in the House. That would be a major change in the way the House operates. It’s not regular, but often I’ve seen it—those who’ve been here for a while will remember long discussions with the Hon Richard Prebble, which were exactly a tutorial to the rest of the House about exactly this issue. So I’d be keen to know whether it is now your ruling that once the Speaker has given a ruling, that cannot then be contested in House unless similar circumstances arise—that they can be discussed only in the privacy of your office.

Mr SPEAKER: What I am indicating to the member is that if he thinks that I have made a mistake on my ruling, if I’ve got things wrong, then the first thing that is appropriate is to raise it at the time; if that does not occur, to raise it privately. And, clearly, if a ruling has not made it into Speakers’ rulings, the next time that particular issue arises, if the member is not satisfied with the ruling again, then that would be the time to bring it up.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two matters in relation to this discussion that aren’t—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will now resume his seat—the member will resume his seat. There is not a discussion. I have ruled. Question No. 1—the Rt Hon Bill English.

Speakers and Presiding Officers—“Today in the House” Video

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

Mr SPEAKER: If this is the same matter, Mr Brownlee, then—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, no. It’s quite different.

Mr SPEAKER: I will take the member’s word.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Absolutely; as you should, as the man who protects parliamentary privilege, Mr Speaker. But I say, Mr Speaker, I do raise this, mindful of Standing Order 15(1), and take some comfort, though, that there are Standing Orders on the subsequent page that make it clear that there are some bounds to where we do take things in discussions with the Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’ve just looked at Standing Order 15(1), and it does go to the Clerk running the election.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, no. Here it is here—Speakers’ orders—

Mr SPEAKER: Speakers’ rulings, not the Standing Orders. Right? I’ll go to that, then.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, forgive me, please, Mr Speaker. I throw myself at your mercy once again. I raise this point: we notice that, in the last two days, at least, you have done a video preamble to the House business on each day, which is a new initiative that you have—

Mr SPEAKER: No, not at all. It’s a continuation of a previous initiative of my predecessor.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Is that right?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Right, well, I just would like you to perhaps give us some indication of what are the bounds for what you will be talking about each day in that regard, particularly if you consider it under that 15/1, which talks about the role of the Speaker particularly being Parliament’s man. There’s some concern that the popularity of this video may eventually lead to commentary on what the House is likely to do, which would be, of course, completely out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will be aware, of course—and I’m reluctant to get into this discussion, because it is totally out of order—that the Order Paper has been published, and I base my comments on that. I base my comments on other things that are publicly available at the time or have been provided to all parties—for example, today, I referred to the fact that we would be having a ministerial statement, because that had been indicated to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I did not disclose the fact that Mr Goldsmith had made an application for an urgent debate, because that would have given the Government—if any of them were amongst the very few people who had looked at it—an indication of something—[Interruption] Order!—that I should not have done. So that is the basis of it. If members want to look at it and go back, look through the old ones, I am trying to style myself on my predecessor, but I’m afraid I don’t quite have his pleasant face.

Speakers and Presiding Officers—Rulings, Timing of Commenting on

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You invited us to raise things at the time with you; I now wish to. Can I invite you to have a read of Speaker’s ruling 20/5. Speaker’s ruling 20/5 provides commentary from the Standing Orders Committee that says a retrospective issue can be dealt with by the Speaker if it is of such importance. I submit to you that the point of order from Simon Bridges was in relation to questions that we can ask. It is a very important matter that we get clarified around whether we can ask particular questions—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and it makes it absolutely clear that the Standing Orders Committee made it clear at that time that if there was a request for retrospective rulings—and I think it generally would have been where members had not been present and something had been drawn to their attention—that was to be brought up with the Speaker in the Speaker’s office and the Speaker—[Interruption] Well, the member will lose his head if he keeps shaking it like that, Mr Bridges. That was the basis of doing it, and it was very clear at the Standing Orders Committee.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order!

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Bridges, I am now, probably for the first time since I’ve become Speaker, beginning to lose my patience, and I want an assurance that this is a new and different point of order. I want to warn the member that if he is trifling with the Chair, I have called question number one and we are in the area of loss of questions for the National Party.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise this at the first available opportunity. I’ve noticed in all of the points of order that have been raised, you have expressed, really, annoyance that the points of order have been raised and I do want to raise—

Mr SPEAKER: Right, the member will resume his seat. He will read Speakers’ rulings 17/6 and 18/1, and I will call the Rt Hon—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t normally raise points of order. I do, however, think it is not helpful when words such as “that member will lose his head” are used in the House, and, Mr Speaker, I’d like you to reflect on that.

Mr SPEAKER: OK, the member will resume her seat. It was an inappropriate comment for me to make, but I will remind members of the appropriate way, if they do wish to disagree with the Speaker, to have a good look at the Standing Orders for working that out.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Job Creation and Unemployment—Youth Jobs Scheme

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday in relation to her Government’s “ready for work” scheme that “sanctions have long been a part of our welfare system, and that won’t change”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and, to recap, my full statement was, “When I was discussing the way that we would roll out this programme, we were acknowledging that there’s a range of ways in which we could encourage the uptake of the opportunity for employment.” I have also acknowledged that sanctions have long been a part of our benefit system and that won’t change. Ultimately, though, this is a Government focused on getting young people into work.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she stand by her other statement with respect to the work schemes that “Our view was that you couldn’t compel” people to take up a job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The quote that I just used was my exact response to that exact same question yesterday. I was talking about how effective some of those measures are. We’ve said that when we look at our sanctions regime we’ll consider that, but sanctions will always be part of our benefit system, and we’re not proposing to change that principle.

Rt Hon Bill English: So if a young person is offered, say, several jobs planting trees in Northland and doesn’t take them, does she believe that young person has any obligation to take a job offered, subsidised by the taxpayer, and if they don’t take it, should they be sanctioned?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr English is referring to the status quo, but as we said yesterday, these proposals are going before a full Cabinet meeting, and the focus for us is not neglecting the 70,000 young people not in employment, education, or training. We want to focus on giving them jobs and hope.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she believe—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Right, well, that’s—Mr Jones and Mr Brownlee, you probably evened each other out.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she believe New Zealand First’s proposed job schemes will work, if there are no sanctions for young people who refuse to take up a job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve repeatedly said, sanctions have long been a part of our welfare system, and we’re not proposing that that will change.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does she believe that New Zealand First’s job schemes will work, if there are no sanctions for young people who refuse—[Interruption]—to take up a job?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask the Prime Minister to respond, I am going to indicate to New Zealand First that they have lost a supplementary as a result of Mr Jones’ latest interjection.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve answered that question a number of times in a number of different ways, but, again, sanction regimes have long been a part of our benefit system. That won’t change. Proposals are coming to Cabinet, but I can tell you what won’t work. What won’t work is trying to explain to this country how you can continue to use excessive sanctions when there are no jobs, which was the case under that Government.

Rt Hon Bill English: How can young people know what is expected of them if the Prime Minister has at least two, and I think three, different positions on whether sanctions would be applied if they refuse a job, and if those positions are directly contradicted by a senior Minister, who said that young people will be compelled to work? If I was a young person wanting to see what expectations there were of me, whom should I listen to?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m happy to say that the programmes we are proposing are about real jobs with real wages and a future, and in industries and regions where we have massive gaps and where there has been massive regional neglect under that Government. We are totally united behind that goal.

Rt Hon Bill English: So when Government does consider these proposals next week, will it consider those proposals alongside the existing effective schemes, T500 in the North and Project 1000 in Hawke’s Bay, which link young unemployed people directly with employers who are providing real jobs? Why aren’t those schemes better than the one proposed by New Zealand First?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Probably only the previous Prime Minister can answer why those schemes didn’t help the 76,000 young people not in employment, education, or training.

Rt Hon Bill English: When will we know whether the Prime Minister has backed the Greens, who want to remove all sanctions and will certainly oppose the introduction of more sanctions, or New Zealand First, who believe their scheme, rightly, will work only if there are sanctions on young people who refuse to take the opportunities given to them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m sorry that that member is so confused. The welfare system has long had sanctions. There is no doubt, however, that under the last Government there was excessive use of those sanctions, and that is what we are proposing to review, alongside our proposal of actually saying it is not enough to say that young people are hopeless; you need to give them hope and opportunity too.

Child Poverty Reduction—Government Measures

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: How many children will her Government move out of poverty by 1 July 2019?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Exact details of the impact of our families package will be released when the legislation is introduced, which we have committed to doing within our first 100 days. In the meantime, the member will note that in the Speech from the Throne, this Government noted our expectation that we would be more ambitious than the last Government’s goal of 50,000 children being lifted out of poverty, which was announced just a few weeks out from the last election.

Hon Paula Bennett: If it is still the Minister’s goal to, and I quote, “eradicate child poverty in New Zealand,” what targets has she set to achieve this in her first six weeks in Government, given she wanted to see urgent progress in this area?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to be able to talk about the legislation we’re intending to introduce in our first 100 days, which sets measures and requires the Government to set targets. That will be introduced within 100 days, and I’ll be seeking support unanimously across the House for that legislation. At the time when we put that out, we’ll talk then about the targets we’ll be setting.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Minister now accept that a range of measures will be needed to measure child poverty, as we’ve been using, and you can’t just pick one, as she has repeatedly said in the past?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Had the member ever bothered to read my member’s bill, which was on the Table for more than six years, she would have seen that I always advocated that a range of measures be put into law—six years that sat on the Table and was available to read.

Hon Paula Bennett: Who will be responsible for determining whether a child is in poverty or not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s fair to say that if you’re a child that is experiencing deprivation and you don’t have the basic necessities of life, you could be determined to be living in poverty. But what we’re doing, as the last Government did, is looking at ways that we can take accountability through measures and demonstrate to the public what we’re doing about poverty, and you’ll see exactly how within 100 days.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Minister be able to determine which children are in poverty—street by street, household by household—or will she scatter money around, hoping it hits the actual children that really need it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The legislation that I’m proposing will be based at a level across household incomes. That’s the same kind of rationale that the Government sporadically used, but refused to ever set targets around.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does the Minister now recognise that social investment has the ability to target resources at the right children and also ascertain if that intervention is working?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have long recognised that child poverty is a stain on this country—it’s an indictment—but this is a Government that’s actually willing to acknowledge that and do something about it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Prime Minister to have another go. Do you want to repeat the question?

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Minister now recognise that social investment has the ability to target resources at the right children and ascertain if that intervention is working?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We of course will be analysing whether our interventions are working. That’s the whole point of publicly reporting as part of the Public Finance Act, which is what we’re committing to do.

Women—Leadership Roles

3. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Women: What recent reports has she received on women in leadership and the impact it is having on the New Zealand economy?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. A survey of 500 businesses, released this week by Westpac, found women make up 49 percent of the workforce in New Zealand but only 29 percent of the leadership roles. The report found that having equal female and male leadership could lead to better economic outcomes. For example, if there was an even split of men and women in management, there’d be a potential $881 million boost each year to the economy and a positive impact on businesses themselves.

Jan Logie: How does having more women in decision-making roles benefit workers, companies, and society as a whole?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The evidence showed that having more women in leadership roles, acting as role models, creates a virtuous cycle whereby both men and women see a greater potential for women to take up leadership opportunities. The biggest reported boost came from an increased flexibility in the workplace, which increases productivity. Women leaders are more supportive of flexible working arrangements, which makes it easier for primary caregivers to be in the workforce, increasing labour force participation overall.

Jan Logie: What did the report say was the biggest barrier to gender equality in leadership?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The top barrier cited was a perception of a lack of available female talent. This is a myth and reflects a clear bias against women that needs to change. Every day, I meet exceptional women who are delivering value to businesses and to their community. Women are now earning tertiary qualifications at a higher rate than men. Businesses that remain male-dominated are missing out on a significant business opportunity as well as denying women a fair shot.

Jan Logie: What advice does she have for how businesses can lift their game?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The research showed that only 40 percent of businesses had a gender parity strategy, and only 26 percent were actually measuring themselves against it. Businesses need to set themselves a gender target, measure it, and make it part of their managers’ key performance indicators. The Ministry for Women has a database that can help identify suitable women for governance roles. This Government has already demonstrated that closing the gender pay gap and increasing female representation, both in the public and private sector, is a major priority, and I will be investigating strategies to achieve that.

Economy—Tax Rates

4. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it his intention that from 1 April 2018 an individual on the average wage with no children will pay $1,060 more in personal income tax than they would do from that date under the law as it currently stands?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It is my intention that no one, including an individual on the average wage with no children, will be paying more personal income tax on 1 April 2018 than they are today.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question on notice laid down very clearly, in which I asked the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I think the Minister will have another go.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s not going to dispute my ruling?

Hon Chris Hipkins: The question asks for the Minister’s intention; he gave his intention.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it was his intention on a specific matter with a specific question on notice.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is my intention that no one, including an individual on the average wage with no children, will be paying more personal income tax on 1 April 2018 than they are today. The Government is going to reverse the previous Government’s proposed tax cuts that have not yet come into force, in order to pay for a fairer, more targeted package that will lift the incomes of many thousands of New Zealanders.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to that answer very clearly and carefully, and it didn’t refer to the law as it currently stands. It referred to a range of other things. It is, however, a specific question that is about the law as it currently stands.

Mr SPEAKER: I think any reasonable member listening to the answer will understand the response.

Jo Luxton: Can the Minister tell the House, under the tax package due to come into force on 1 April, what proportion of the benefits go to the top 10 percent of earners?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The top 10 percent of earners would benefit to the tune of $440 million a year, out of the $2.5 billion package—in percentage terms, nearly 20 percent going to the top 10 percent. This is unfair, and it’s why the Government will reverse those tax cuts and replace them with a fairer package.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice that the Minister found it much easier to refer to the actual law as it currently stands to the supplementary question than he was able to to the primary question. Could I ask you again—and perhaps I could repeat the primary question—to get him to respond to the law as it currently stands, as he proved able to in his supplementary answer?

Hon Simon Bridges: I think the point here is, of course, Speaker’s ruling 166—

Mr SPEAKER: Simon Bridges—would the member like the floor? Well, the member will call for a point of order, and he will get recognised.

Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the matter, I think Speaker’s ruling 166/4 is the point here, which makes very clear that “the Speaker will back members absolutely … when [it’s] a primary question that seeks information.” I think the point Mr Joyce makes is absolutely right, that—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now resume his seat. As the member will be absolutely aware, we are well past that. Actually, all I’m doing now is asking, because we’ve had the primary, we’ve had two attempts at the answer—the second one which I found a satisfactory addressing of the question. We’ve had another supplementary question and an answer. So we’re not going to go back and relitigate the primary again. If Mr Joyce would like to ask another supplementary he can—the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon Steven Joyce: Mr Speaker, thank you. In light of the answer to that supplementary question, can I ask the Minister again: is it his intention that from 1 April 2018 an individual on the average wage with no children will pay $1,060 more in personal income tax than they would do from that date under the law as it currently stands?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We intend to reverse the tax cuts that are in the law as it currently stands.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm that 1.2 million people are better off from 1 April next year under the law as it currently stands and was supported by three of the five parties in Parliament—National, the Greens, and New Zealand First—and those people would benefit, and they won’t benefit if the tax changes were reversed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm that single people with no children, families with grown-up children, and young couples with no children, starting out, will all be worse off under his proposals for personal taxation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I can’t confirm that. What I can confirm to the member is that on this side of the House we don’t think that he and I should get $1,000 a year extra when there are children growing up in cars and garages.

Hon Steven Joyce: Leaving aside the talking points, does he consider people on the average wage—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. What we’re going to do, and we have had a bit of a discussion about this, is we’re not going to have the prefaces. I’m trying to stop Ministers making gratuitous comments at the beginning of their answers, and I think I’m having quite a lot of success in comparison, but also that’s based on the Opposition doing the same.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague Steven Joyce asked a very specific question about the tax income impacts on people that didn’t have children. The Minister chose not to answer that, and instead to have a cheap shot at the personal circumstances of two members in the House, but did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member should know by now what the rules are around questions and addressing them. Is there a further supplementary—Mr Joyce?

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he consider people on the average wage should be paying a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: People on the average wage will pay no more personal income tax on 1 April than they do today.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry to prolong things, but, again, that question I don’t believe was even addressed. I raised the question of whether he thinks people on the average wage should be paying a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar and he didn’t respond to that question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, that is a fair point of order.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: People on the average wage will be paying the same effective marginal tax rate on 1 April as they are today. So if the Minister thinks that that’s unfair, it’s unfair under him as it’s unfair under me.

Mr SPEAKER: I will remind you of the fact that, Mr Robertson, you are the Minister and he is the member.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry but the Minister just repeated the previous answer. You ruled that it was—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. The member did much better this time than he did the previous time.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that all New Zealanders will be better off if we properly fund infrastructure and public services, unlike the previous Government?

Mr SPEAKER: Right. Any further supplementaries?

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm that his legislation to take $1,060 from 1 April next year off New Zealand workers on the average wage is being dealt with under urgency as closely as possible to Christmas in the vain hope that those workers won’t notice the $1,060 disappearing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t confirm anything in the member’s question, other than to say that during the election campaign, this issue was covered very, very thoroughly indeed, and New Zealanders will know that from 1 April, they will be paying the same personal income tax they do today but that they’ve got a Government that actually cares about lifting kids out of poverty.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 179/8—“Replies should be concise, which means not only short in terms of the number of words”—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now resume his seat. That was a very political question, it was quite long, and it got a response that I thought was medium-length and had about the same degree of politicisation.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Would you like me to carry on?

Mr SPEAKER: I’ve had enough of the member carrying on.

Budget Policy Statement 2018—Factors

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What factors has he taken into account in developing the priorities within the Budget Policy Statement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The starting point for identifying priorities is the need to build a strong, inclusive economy, be fiscally responsible, and reduce debt. A major factor we have taken into account is the number of New Zealanders who have not benefited from growth in the economy—for example, the 126,000 people out of work and the disproportionate number of Māori who are unemployed, which is nearly three times the rate of New Zealand European unemployment; the 76,000 15- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment, or training; and the 135,000 children living in material deprivation. The focus of this Government is on ensuring all New Zealanders get a fair share in prosperity.

Willow-Jean Prime: What economic factors has he taken into account in developing the priorities of the Budget Policy Statement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have considered factors such as the absence of any labour productivity growth in the New Zealand economy for the last five years, and that our country’s spend on research and development is just one-third of the OECD average. I also considered that GDP per capita growth was just 0.6 percent in real terms in the last years. The priorities in the Budget Policy Statement will reflect a Government that knows that growing the economy requires more than just an increasing population and an overheated housing market.

Willow-Jean Prime: And what environmental factors has he taken into account in developing the priorities of the Budget Policy Statement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve considered the importance of the environment and the economy as being seen as one and the same—in particular, the need to dramatically improve our water quality and give resources to improve conservation funding, which has been so drastically underfunded in recent years, and to once again be a leader in the world on addressing the major issues of our time, in particular climate change.

Roading—Projects

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Transport: Which specific and identifiable roading projects are a priority for the Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government is focused on getting better value for money from our transport investment and, as such, stopping the wasteful $2 billion option for the East-West Link and finding a more cost-effective alternative has been a priority. Another priority—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is very clear: which specific and identifiable roading projects are a priority for the Government? Not what isn’t a priority for the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I was living in hope that the Minister might get to it.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The East-West Link is a priority for this Government, just not the wasteful $2 billion option that was proposed by the—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very straight question. It does not require—and indeed more than that—any sort of a whack with a political connotation that the Minister’s doing.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought that once we asked for the intervention and had it, it was a very straight answer. It was an indication of what was a priority, and the fact that it’s going to be slightly adjusted is something that is quite appropriate to say. I do want to remind the member that the general debate starts, hopefully, this afternoon—although at this rate it may be this evening.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he support the current level of funding for roading projects?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government is currently in the process of putting together a new Government policy statement (GPS) on transport. The GPS will focus on getting the best value for money in transport investment. We will assess options on a level playing field, whether that’s roads, public transport, rail, or coastal shipping. What we won’t be doing is promising 10 projects worth $10.5 billion in a press release without a shred of economic analysis, which is what the members on that side of the House did before the election.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: “Does he support the current level of funding?” There was no addressing whatsoever in relation to funding.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the answer, and it certainly did address the question. Maybe not in the yes/no way that the member wants, but the member will know that yes/noes cannot be asked for.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Redoubt Road - Mill Road corridor project from Manukau and Flatbush to Papakura and Drury a priority for the Government, and does he support its funding from the National Land Transport Fund? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! This might happen on morning television; it’s not happening in here.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Mill Road project is currently being considered by the Government in discussions with Auckland Council as part of the consideration of the first 10 years of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. We’re giving it serious consideration. We’re very aware of the fact that Mill Road addresses a critical bottleneck in the southern corridor. It’s one of many projects that we are currently considering.

Marja Lubeck: Has he received any correspondence regarding unfunded roading projects?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Actually, yes. I have received a number of queries from local communities about the Government’s attitude towards $10.5 billion of unfunded roading projects promised by other parties. Let me be clear. The Government has not altered any existing funded project, with the exception of the East-West Link, where we’re looking for a more cost effective option. But we will not be bound by the rash, uncosted, pork-barrel promises from that side of the House.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s quite clear, from Speaker’s ruling 159/5, that questions from one’s own side should not be used to attack the Opposition. He made quite clear that was what he was doing when he mentioned a political party and referred then to the pork-barrel politics of a certain political party.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand the point, and I’ll ask Ministers to take that into account in the tone of their replies when they are answering areas for which they are responsible, including finding funding for projects.

Hon David Bennett: Is the extension of the Waikato Expressway from Cambridge to the Kaimai Range a priority for the Government, and does he support its funding from the National Land Transport Fund?

Mr SPEAKER: And New Zealand First have lost another supplementary question, Mr Ball.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: All projects are currently under consideration.

Alastair Scott: Is the Manawatū Gorge road project a priority for the Government, and does he support its funding from the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The replacement route on the Manawatū Gorge is a priority. It will be funded out of the National Land Transport Programme, and we will do it. We will expedite it. We won’t sit around for six years—like the former Government did—doing nothing.

Andrew Falloon: Is the Christchurch to Ashburton road project a priority for the Government, and does he support its funding from the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s under consideration.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, would he not think it’s natural that if someone was concerned about the Manawatū Gorge and was the local MP, he’d actually turn up to the meeting when people were protesting about it?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, it’s not a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.

Health Services—Outcomes and Policies

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

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

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does he say in response to the New Zealand Herald report of 3 December that despite campaigning on a real target for obesity reduction, he is now “non-committal on whether the Government will set a target, let alone what it will be.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’d say that it is an inaccurate report.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does he say in reply to Newsroom.co.nz’s statement of 4 December that the “Labour-led Government’s response to New Zealand’s surgical mesh problems is not what it campaigned on.”, given that he promised to immediately begin work on a surgical mesh registry if elected?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m delighted to update the member. He will know that when he was the Minister, there was a great deal of discontent over the time it was taking to respond to the Government’s select committee inquiry. One of the demands from that inquiry—the select committee recommendations—was that a registry be put in place. I will update the member shortly on even more promising progress.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What reports has the Minister received about the Ministry of Health’s capacity to deliver measurable health outcomes?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Today, the State Services Commission released the performance improvement framework review of the Ministry of Health. It paints a picture of a ministry that needs support to provide stronger leadership and governance of the health sector. There are many committed and hard-working people at the Ministry of Health and in the sector working to improve the health of New Zealanders. This Government will deliver it.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does the Minister say in response to the Dominion Post report of 6 December, which states: “He’s faced pressure in the House over the direction of the new Government’s health policy, unable to detail any planned changes or areas pegged for change.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven’t read that report, but it looks to me to be an inaccurate one, given that in the House I’ve outlined our plans to reduce the cost of access to primary care.

Education—Fees-free Policy

8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will the Government’s fees-free policy benefit workers and employers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Fees-free will be available to school-leavers and those who have not undertaken substantial previous study or training to become a New Zealand Apprentice or have not undertaken another substantial programme of industry training whilst on the job. That means that they will not have to pay fees for any training and assessment, either to industry training organisations or directly to training and assessment providers. What’s more, their employers will not have to pay any such fee either, so small businesses will be better off as a result of this policy, as well.

Angie Warren-Clark: What sort of financial difference will fees-free make for trainees and their employers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The latest estimate I have is that around 6,000 apprentices and trainees will be eligible for fees-free next year. The estimate is that they and their employers will save around $2,000 in fees, on average, in 2018, but there is a range within that. Some of those fees being covered could be $3,000, $4,000, or even higher.

Angie Warren-Clark: How long can trainees receive fees-free?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s very good news here. The fees-free entitlement for those in provider-based training is for one year. However, for those in on-job training, the entitlement will be extended to two years, so those who are doing on-job apprenticeships or training will be able to get two years of fees-free support.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How much of this new spending on free fees does he expect to go to students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It will go to students from all backgrounds.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he confident that completion and progression rates will continue to improve across the tertiary sector?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. And, unlike that member, I don’t think that people who are taking up education and training for the first time because of fees-free are somehow destined to fail. I think he should have more faith in New Zealanders than that.

Partnership Schools—Reforms and Provision of Bilingual Education

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before I ask my question, I just want to raise a matter with you that I’d like you to look into. One of the reasons that we on this side of the House haven’t been able to ask questions of Kelvin Davis in the area of associate education previously is because the delegations haven’t been up on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. I had a question answered by the Prime Minister, who said the delegations were signed off on 23 November, and it’s taken all of the time until yesterday to have them—

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member tell us what the current point of order is?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, can the Speaker please look into the time that it has taken to have those delegations in a position where we can ask questions, because I think it’s useful for the House to—

Mr SPEAKER: The short answer to that is no. It is not the Speaker’s role to look into or to audit the Prime Minister’s office.

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What plans does he have to strengthen the capability of the education system to respond to the identity, language, and culture of children and young people to raise educational achievement, and how does he plan to lead work to grow the quality and quantity of Te Reo Māori in the education system?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): To answer the second part of the question first, I will lead this work from the front. To answer the first part of her question, I’m very keen, now that I have had my delegations confirmed, to hear from Māori as to what they want and to work with teachers to determine what they need, because we all have a shared goal of raising educational achievement, both in our official Te Reo Māori language and through the use of the official Te Reo Māori language.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Given that Te Kāpehu Whetū and Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Teranga Parāoa are both providing bilingual education services that if closed would decrease the number of young people learning Te Reo, will he resign if these two Whangarei partnership schools close?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Minister of Education has actually said that he’ll be working with each of the kura hourua to sort out their situation, and we don’t expect any of them to actually close.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question, which—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member will resume her seat. It wasn’t a simple question. She started it with a given, and that was something that the Minister addressed—the given. If the member has two parts to her question or a phrase that starts it and the Minister answers the phrase rather than the bit she wants, then it is her fault.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I think a number of members in this House have raised that this is a bit of a change in the way that the Speakers have managed Parliament. In not allowing this statement at the beginning of the question, I would ask him to—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. It is a longstanding practice of this House that members do not start with an assertion. Again, I was probably kind to the member in allowing the question to be asked, but what I’m trying to do is stand back a little bit, and if the Minister takes advantage of a poorly worded question to give an answer that the member is not happy with, then that is the member’s responsibility.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he resign if these two Whangarei partnership schools, which are providing bilingual education, close?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Really, I just need to repeat what I’ve just said: that the Minister of Education will work with each of these schools and we don’t expect that they will close. We’ll just see over the coming months how it all pans out.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 177/3, which says, “where a question is clear, I think New Zealanders expect Ministers to answer”—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and plenty of Speakers’ rulings have said—we’ve actually changed, because a hypothetical question can be asked, but there’s no requirement to answer it.

Rino Tirikatene: What other reports has he seen on the importance of ensuring identity, language, and culture as part of our education system?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Kia ora. What a fantastic question. I’ve seen evidence of what happens when identity, language, and culture is not part of someone’s education. Some people tend to see the language as pointless, complain about being forced to listen to 10 Māori words on Radio New Zealand every morning, and want to limit the use of Te Reo to Māori language - only broadcasters. And by people, I mean Don Brash, former leader of the National Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Nikki Kaye. [Interruption] Order! I have called Nikki Kaye. I think that if I took questions off for every person who interjected after I called Nikki Kaye, the National Party would have none and New Zealand First would have none for the rest of the week.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he think it’s acceptable for 50 young Māori enrolled at the Te Rangihakahaka partnership school to be in a situation where they don’t know if their school is opening next year, and will he step up and advocate to the Minister of Education to sort this mess out?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Those students aren’t in the situation that she describes.

David Seymour: Does the Minister understand that a third partnership school / kura hourua also resides in his electorate—that being Vanguard Military School—and does he treat it the same as the two in Whangarei?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Partnership schools aren’t actually a part of my delegation, so I have no responsibility to answer your question.

Health Services—Primary-care Funding and Access

10. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What plans does the Government have to improve access to primary care?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Our Government is not satisfied that an estimated half a million Kiwis are not able to visit a GP for reasons of cost in any given year. We know that treating sickness early improves individual health outcomes, costs our health system less, and frees up emergency departments for the most serious cases. That’s why we will lower the costs of GP visits for New Zealanders by $10.

Kiritapu Allan: When will all New Zealanders be able to access cheaper GP visits?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This policy will go through a robust Budget process, and we expect that New Zealanders will be able to access cheaper GP visits from July next year.

Kiritapu Allan: What other future changes will the Government make to primary care?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Improving access to primary care will require changes in the primary-care sector and how we deliver services in our community. I will progress a review on primary care to ensure that New Zealanders have affordable access to quality primary health services.

Mr SPEAKER: Just for the National Party whips, they have lost another supplementary—thank you to Dr Coleman.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I punished him. I reprimanded him.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, was it—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, I reprimanded him. I tried to help you.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, it’s a double punishment, then—whipped by Mr Finlayson and losing a question as well.

Job Creation and Unemployment—Youth Unemployment

11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by all his statements on fixing unemployment?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Generally, in the context that they were made—yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: That’s a new one. Why did he say on Politik, “You don’t fix unemployment by following Jonesy’s idea and chucking a few Maori out there cutting scrub for a few months”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I said that on Politik because I was being interviewed at the time. So, generally, you answer the question. But I support the sentiment of Minister Jones—the passion, the flair, and he quoted Shakespeare yesterday. So that’s something that’s missing in the Opposition at this time. We totally support the sentiment, the passion, and the Māori flair of Minister Jones.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said on Radio New Zealand this morning that he is on the same waka as Shane Jones, isn’t it true that he is paddling in the opposite direction? [Interruption]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member can sit down. It would be a marginal question for the Minister for sport. It’s not one for him.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he commit to a target of more than 245,000 jobs created over the next two years, given his comments that the previous Government was just paying lip service to job creation?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This Government is committed to our communities. They are communities that have been suffering. After nine years of neglect from this Opposition, we are committed to turning the tide and addressing the crisis that the Opposition created in nine long miserable years.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said he was committed to turning the tide, but I asked him whether he was committed to a target of 245,000 jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I think it’s the third time today that I’ve explained to members on my left that members cannot require a yes or no answer. The question was addressed.

Paul Eagle: What are some of the challenges facing young people wanting to be employed?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What a wonderful question. Some of the challenges facing our young people—well, there are multiple challenges for our young people, but especially there are challenges for Māori, because Māori have unemployment at triple the amount of Europeans, sadly, at the moment, created by the previous Government’s nine years of neglect of Māori at the community base. Shocking—

Mr SPEAKER: No, one of the things that the member must remember, and I think he used to remember, is that when I stand up he sits down. And as he sits down he shuts his mouth.

State Services (Open Government), Associate Minister—Written Questions Responses

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by her statements about open and transparent Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services) on behalf of the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): [Interruption] I am happy to see you too.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Associate Minister of State Services with responsibility for open government, yes, in the context in which they were given.

Brett Hudson: Does she agree that written questions Nos 1486, 1484, and 1477, asked by Clare Curran in 2016, would warrant full answers under the auspices of how she would advocate for an open and transparent Government to respond?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the Minister is a seriously bright man, but to ask a Minister to recall the answers to a question like that shows how insincere and nonsensical the attitude of that member is.

Brett Hudson: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, there isn’t one—the Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters often asked exactly that question of Ministers when he was in Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member will resume his seat and let the Minister answer it.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can’t recall exactly what those questions were.

Brett Hudson: How can she claim to be an advocate for open and transparent government in word and action when she refuses to answer questions similar to those that Clare Curran asked in 2016 and that were answered in full by the then Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Similar is not the same.

Points of Order

Speakers’ Rulings—Timing of Commenting on

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to give serious consideration to a considered ruling to points that were raised at the start of question time around retrospectively raising points of order. I did not make that point at the time, because I considered that your patience was getting to a stage when it may have been dangerous to do so. But as you and I know, when we go back and look at Hansard subsequent to question time, we often see pieces in that Hansard that we wish to question and raise with the Speaker.

You and I both sat on the Standing Orders Committee and were both partly responsible for the inclusion of Speaker’s ruling 20/5 around the ability to raise issues retrospectively. You will remember, without doubt, the history of why that particular point was put into the report of the Standing Orders Committee and consequently into Speakers’ rulings. I think it is a very dangerous precedent that could be potentially made by your initial ruling today that, unless matters are raised instantly, they cannot be raised at all. I ask whether you would consider the points that I think were raised considerately by members at the start of question time, particularly by Opposition members, have a look at Hansard again, and perhaps come back to the House with a considered ruling and the ability for us to raise, retrospectively, points of order that we think are worthwhile raising.

There was no discussion that I recall during the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee about a stage by which such concerns were raised privately with the Speaker in his office. Members of Parliament—Opposition and Government—have rights to raise points of order and I ask you to reconsider very carefully your original initial ruling made at the start of question time today.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t want any assistance with this. I want to thank my right honourable predecessor for his intervention. I will seek further advice on this. Clearly, we have different memories of the reasoning behind this and the methodology to be used, and if it’s shown that his memory is better than mine, which I wouldn’t at all be surprised by, then I will come back to the House.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Yesterday was a great day for fairness and for the future of New Zealand, because 27 years after user-pays entered tertiary education, the tide has turned back. I want to thank the member, the Hon Chris Hipkins, for leading that charge. In the great traditions of the first Labour Government and Peter Fraser, who extended out secondary education because they recognised that was necessary for people to fully participate in society, this Labour Government is saying: learning is for life. Learning is for life, it is for the future of work, and it is fair.

The fifth Labour Government, when it came into office, took interest off student loans—that was an unfairness—and it expanded allowance eligibility. This Labour-led Government, supported by New Zealand First and the Greens, now has the opportunity to give to New Zealanders the chance for all of them to fulfil their potential, not just the lucky few.

I want to read to you a statement from a schoolteacher, who put this on social media. She said, “Today I told my class that by the time they start university in 2025, or 2026, the three years fee policy will be fully rolled out for them. They went very quiet and then very loud and excited, talking about all the things they could study. My kids have always been bright enough, but now they’ll have the means, and suddenly university is for them the obvious next step after college, like it was for me and everyone else at my decile 8 school. Most of them will be the first in their family to go on to tertiary education. One boy who, no joke, told me in year 4 that he wanted to be a tribesman when he grows up asked me about engineering degrees. I told him about the prospectuses and he sat there for a good 20 minutes of his free time reading and comparing programmes.”

That’s the difference this side of the House will make. That’s the difference, because we have ambition for every single student in New Zealand—not just the ones from the high-decile schools but for every young New Zealander to go on to study, to train, to take up an apprenticeship, to get new skills.

This Government is committed to equity in education, to education for all. And I issue a challenge today to the National Party: are they going to get rid of free fees? Are they going to get rid of it? Is Paula Bennett, of all the people, going to get rid of it?

Hon Paula Bennett: When we’re in in two years, buddy.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Are you? Are you going to get rid of it?

Hon Paula Bennett: When we’re in Cabinet in two years.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They are not going to commit to that, because just like interest-free student loans and just like Working for Families—“communism by stealth”, John Key said. John Key stood in this House and said he would oppose interest-free loans with every bone in his body. What did he do? He behaved like a jellyfish when he got into Government and accepted the whole thing.

This party on this side of the House and the support parties who are with us know that education is essential in the 21st century for the future of work: the good and decent jobs that will be created in New Zealand need people to go on and train throughout their lives. There is more to do. There is always more to do to make education fair and accessible for every single New Zealander, but I want to pay tribute today to all of those people who for the last 27 years have fought to keep free education on the agenda. It is hard to turn around the neo-liberal user-pays philosophy that was, I admit, brought in by the then fourth Labour Government and then made worse by the National Party that came in. But this Government is committed to turning that around.

This Government is committed to making sure that wherever you grow up in New Zealand, whether you are rich or you are poor, whether you come from town or you come from country, whatever you are interested in pursuing that will develop you as a person, that will grow your skills, that will add to the productivity of our country—we will support you to do that.

This is a great policy. This is a great day for New Zealand, because finally we are able to say we have turned the tide on user-pays education. Education is for all. Education is a public good. This is something that is in the DNA of the Labour Party. I thank New Zealand First and the Greens for their strong support in making sure that we can advance this policy. New Zealanders going into tertiary training, apprenticeships, polytechnics, universities, and wānanga next year will know that they will have a free year and that they would have three free years if they continue to support a Labour-led Government.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Well, I have to say, that was not the worst debate contribution that I’ve heard. I certainly have heard a lot worse, and my impassioned colleague on the other side there, Grant Robertson, gave it a bit of stick. But where he went wrong, though—it was fatally, fatally flawed in one place—was a confident man—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I’m going to interrupt the member. In fact, we’re going to start the member’s time again. Mr Goldsmith, Mr Faafoi, and a number of other people have been standing and having conversations with their backs both to me and to Ms Bennett. It is most uncourteous, and it will not continue. The Hon Paula Bennett, starting again.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Hey, so where I was at was, you know, it wasn’t the worst debate contribution I’ve heard—in fact, impassioned and sticking up for what they believe in and principled, and all those good things—but it was fatally, fatally flawed in one bit, which kind of ruined the whole thing. If, a few weeks into Government, you weren’t so confident you aren’t going to be there for more one term, you wouldn’t give a damn if we were for it or against it. But that’s actually the whole flaw of it; it was, actually, you know, would National be supporting your free fees in years in time, and that’s not what it is.

Hon Chris Hipkins: You’re bringing the house down, Paula!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, I’m not trying to be funny, Mr Hipkins. I think this is kind of a serious matter. I think it’s kind of a serious matter, the way Government runs, the way it’s actually structured, and whether or not you’re organised enough to know whether there’s enough votes in the House if you’re going to be putting up people for positions. I think it’s important to know, actually, Mr Hipkins, if you’ve actually done the count of your colleagues and you know who’s here and who’s away and what’s going to happen.

It has been a shambles—it has been a shambles—from day one, and it’s still a shambles today, but to be fair, in a new Government you can expect some mistakes. You can expect them trying to find their feet. You can expect the odd thing to be happening. What has really struck me with it is that what I expected was for them to have a degree of humility and to be actually able to stand up and say, “Got that one slightly wrong, guys. We’ve learnt from it. It won’t happen again, and we’ll move on.”, but they couldn’t do it. What we have realised is that after all of the glow of this new Prime Minister, who went round in the campaign and absolutely held herself up as being something kind of special, she’s as flawed as the rest of us and she’ll spin. You know, she’s as flawed as the rest of us, and her default position is to spin her way out of it instead of actually fronting up. I think, actually, I hope she learns from that, because the public do give you a bit of a hand.

So I’ve got a few key questions, colleagues. The first is: will Winston Peters still be the first man down the mine? We were promised that—we were promised that—promised it repeatedly, so will Winston Peters still be the first man down the mine? The people of Pike River actually deserve to know that. He made them that promise, and we’d like to see that actually go through.

We heard this great, impassioned plea, Mr Hipkins, about how wonderful this new fees-free tertiary education is and about how you’re doing it because you believe in education and you believe in people getting ahead. How about actually giving that to those people that are in charter schools, and recognising those students and those parents? They are actually full of real angst at the moment. They believe passionately in their kids. They want them to do well. I know some of the kids that are in some of those schools. They’re really, genuinely worried. It seems we care about some people’s education but not about others’. I ask for some consistency there.

Since we have the Government here, which is great, can we get how much immigration is now going to be dropped by? We were promised 30,000 by Labour; we were promised 50,000 by New Zealand First. Now it’s not going to be 30,000. Now they’re not sure how many. We’ve got no idea. People don’t know. Again, this is actually people’s lives, so it would be fair and reasonable to give people that are here in New Zealand applying for residency some certainty on what’s going on there. A lot of promises were made.

Mr Jones, it’d be good to know how many trees, yeah? We sort of had that it was going to be a billion. How many have been planted so far? We’re weeks and weeks in now. We’re six weeks in. We would like to know.

We’ve now backtracked, of course, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because Labour now love it, although they didn’t. So we’re just backtracking, backtracking, backtracking.

There were big housing promises from Twyford. We had that there were going to be 30,000 in the first year; now we’re already back to 16,000.

But the one for this week, without a doubt, has been the work-for-the-dole scheme. So we’ve got the “Js” going on. We’ve got Jonesy, Jackson, and Jacinda, yeah?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: So we have got that going on, and we’ve got Mr Jones going on about how this new work-for-the-dole scheme absolutely has to have sanctions. His nephs are getting off the couch; they’re going to be forced into these jobs at forestry—no call, by the way, on whether or not they’ll pass the drug test and actually be able to get into the jobs. Will there be sanctions if they can’t? Because that’s genuine—that’s genuine.

Darroch Ball: They’re all lazy and they’re all on drugs, right?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, he’s the one that said they’re lying on the couch, Mr Ball. He’s the one that said they’re not getting off and getting those jobs. He’s the reason why we actually have people that are imported into the North to pick fruit and actually get ahead. There is a way that we actually could do something about this, so we’d like to see some consistency there. Mr Jackson, of course, is against it. He doesn’t want sanctions. He thinks that everyone is absolutely hard-done-by, and if only they could get a chance. Then we’ve got the position of the Prime Minister, of Jacinda Ardern, and that’s interesting in itself. If anyone could tell me what it is, I’d be really grateful, because I’ve got no idea at all on where she stands on any of this. Again, instead of fronting up, it’s all just a bit mealy-mouthed.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): This, our fees-free education policy, is a wonderful policy. It is one where everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand can have access to post-secondary education. One of our 100-day promises is that we said that when we came into Government we would make fees free from 1 January of next year, and I am happy to say that we have delivered on that. Right now we have so many of our young people, and so many of those who are already in work but are required to train for more skills, actually having the opportunity to go through and train at post-secondary education. And one of the best things about this policy is the fact that it is universal.

You heard from our Minister of Education earlier on when he said that those who are wanting to go into industry training, instead of having access to just one year of free tertiary education, will be able to have access to two years’ post-secondary free education. That is really important, because when we look at our skills right now we know that we have such a huge shortage of skills. We know that there are so many who are currently in the workforce that can go through to industry training. They can learn as they earn, and they can get more skills to assist us with building a whole lot of the houses that we need to build, because we know that we have a huge, huge challenge to build houses to house so many—so many thousands of our people, right across Aotearoa. So we welcome this new policy, the fees-free policy, for so many reasons. And for our young people, as well as those who are older, who are wondering whether or not they can access fees-free tertiary education, they can go to www.feesfree.govt.nz, and they will be able to find out themselves whether or not they qualify for fees-free.

I’ve spoken to so many young people from South Auckland who are really excited about the opportunity this gives them—that they can actually go through, whether they go through to a polytechnic, to a private training establishment, or to university. Knowing that they can actually go through and train without having to worry about taking a student loan, without having to worry about asking their parents to assist, and without having to worry about whether they would have to work two or three part-time jobs just to afford an education—that has taken that worry off their minds. I’ve also spoken to many parents who are really excited about this as well, many parents who are saying now that this opportunity that their children have, to actually go through and train without them having to pay for their education, is a chance of a lifetime.

Just to go back a few decades, we know that here in Aotearoa New Zealand there was a time when public education was absolutely free. As the legislation actually tells us, public education should be free, but we know that is not actually the case. We know that when we look across the House, and when we look across on this side as well, there are some members of Parliament that, when they attended post-secondary education just two or three decades ago, did not have to pay. So why is it that we’re saying now that education should not be free?

Chris Bishop: Because 10 times the number of people go.

Hon JENNY SALESA: But that, Mr Bishop, is one of the reasons why we should ensure that it is more accessible for more people. We should make sure that we allow everyone, regardless of where they live, regardless of what part of New Zealand they come from, regardless of what ethnicity they have, and regardless of what earnings their parents have to at least have the opportunity to go through and train. Why should someone who attends a decile 10 school versus someone who attends a decile 1 school not have the same opportunity? That is the beauty of this legislation, Mr Bishop: this will allow free education for everyone. This is universal education, Mr Bishop, and we are a Government that is absolutely committed to ensuring that the opportunity for, and access to, tertiary education is fair for all. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Mr Speaker, I want to start my contribution to the general debate by congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker of this House, and I extend my congratulations, also, to your fellow presiding officers. You will realise, as Speaker, that it is a very critical role in this Parliament. It’s actually a very critical role in the democratic system of New Zealand, and for good democracy to function, it requires a Speaker who is prepared to accept that role of making sure that the democracy of this country can operate within this House. I’m certainly at no time going to tell you how you do your job; that’s something you’re going to figure out for yourself. But I can give one piece of advice, I guess, as to what guided me every day that I came into this place. I attempted to gain the respect of all the members of Parliament that I was attempting to do my job in a fair and impartial way. I think that is an important test as to whether you’ve gained the respect of all members of Parliament.

I was overseas at the time that Mr Peters made his announcement. I listened on my phone; it was 9 o’clock in the morning, as I was attending an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in St Petersburg, and I could never have been happier with the result of that announcement. Because I had no wish to go into any Government of which the Rt Hon Winston Peters was a part. I was there in 1996; in fact, I whipped with Mr Mark in the seat over there in the 1996-99 Government, and I knew then how it fell apart. I’m not one that will ever trust Mr Winston Peters, but I do wish those that are now going to deal with Mr Peters and his colleagues the very, very best of luck, because they’re going to need it.

I say that it is an absolute privilege to be in this Opposition, because what we are going to have the opportunity to do, as Opposition members, is hold what is appearing to be a very shaky coalition Government to account. And it is going to be a lot of fun doing it over the next three years.

We’ve already seen the cracks exposed in question time today: the Work for the Dole scheme advanced by the Hon Shane Jones, and then we tried to get some information from the Hon Willie Jackson as to whether he now supports it, or doesn’t, and I’m none the wiser after Willie Jackson’s comments in question time today. But I will go back and look at the Hansard later on in the day, very carefully, to see whether the Hon Willie Jackson supports Work for the Dole.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s comments—well, again, I’m not sure whether she’s supportive or not. Her answers are very evasive in the House. But we do know one thing: there’s one leg of the coalition that doesn’t support any Work for the Dole scheme, and that is, of course, the Green Party, who are essential—

Darroch Ball: There’s only two parties in the coalition.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: “There’s only two parties in the coalition.” We look forward to many, many votes—many votes—in this House relying on two votes, “two parties in the coalition”! We look forward to it. And if Darroch Ball really believes that, then it won’t be long before he’s over on this side of the House.

I’ve got a message for the Prime Minister: this is no longer student politics; this is about real Government. And it’s going to get tougher and tougher from here on in. We’ve already seen the different positions. Pike River’s a classic: “We will re-enter Pike River.” was the call from the Labour Party right throughout the campaign. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was going to be the first one down the mine. Well, I’m going to give him the box of the matches and the glass of whisky to go down there, as well, and there’ll be a lot of other New Zealanders cheering him on.

But now they’re in Government, they’ve looked at the reports, and their position is, in fact, the same as the former National Government’s: that we will allow entry into the mine provided it is safe to do so—provided it is safe to do so. And Darroch Ball shakes his head, because he wants the Rt Hon Winston Peters to go down that mine. He can’t wait for that to happen, because he’s going to then be part of the contest, whether it be Ron Mark, Darroch Ball, or the Hon Shane Jones, to be the next leader of New Zealand First. [Interruption] But it won’t matter, Ron Mark. I’ve got a message for you: it won’t matter, because you’re only here for another 2½ years, because then the New Zealand First Party will be totally destroyed over the next two to three years.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party has long led on increasing female representation in leadership, and I think that we’ve demonstrated just what can be achieved by that when you have explicit policies. We now have 75 percent of our caucus who are female—and incredibly high performing—the highest percentage, of course, for a long time of any party in this Parliament. I’d love to see other parties follow our lead, especially the National Party, which, sadly, still has less than one-third of their MPs as women.

Now, since I’ve taken on this role as Minister for Women, I’ve done a number of interviews on the persistent gender wage gap, and a number of interviews that have demonstrated to me why it is so necessary that we have a Ministry for Women to promote women’s affairs. There is an understandable perception out there in the public that, somehow, we’ve already achieved gender equality, that there is no need for explicit policies, and that men and women are paid the same for similar work. The data shows us that is simply not true. There is a persistent wage gap, and women are significantly under-represented in governance and leadership in the private sector at a much higher rate than in the public sector.

Just this week, we had the Diversity Dividend Report that Westpac New Zealand puts out, and I was quite shocked at just how low the percentage of women in leadership roles still is. It’s only at 29 percent, even though women make up 49 percent of the workforce in New Zealand. What this report shows is that having equal female and male leadership can lead to better economic outcomes. It’s actually better for business. This is a major economics consultancy that’s come out, done the research on this, and demonstrated that.

So when I go out and I say it’s my goal as Minister for Women and this Government’s goal to improve the situation for women and girls in this country, to close the gender pay gap both in the public sector and in the private sector, and to ensure that there’s greater diversity in leadership and governance, particularly in the private sector where it’s lagging behind the public sector—when we say that, inevitably we get a bit of a response from some quarters of New Zealand that say, “It should just be the best person for the job. We shouldn’t hire women just because they’re women.”

Well, what that view fails to take into account is that women currently aren’t getting the jobs they deserve and they would do very well at, because of bias. And that is clear in this report. It says the top barrier cited is a perception of a lack of female talent, and yet it also says businesses would be better performing and better off if there were more women in management roles.

So the only way to address this bias that is out there in the workplace is to have explicit plans and policies and a commitment to address this problem. The research showed that only 40 percent of businesses had a gender parity strategy, and only 26 percent of them were even measuring themselves against it. So this is time for us to come together in Aotearoa and to achieve better outcomes for all people.

I’m so proud not only to be in the Green Party but to be part of this new, progressive Government, which is, in and of itself, more diverse—certainly more than the previous Government and probably any Government that we’ve had in New Zealand. I think it’s a fantastic strength of this new Government that we represent different views and that we represent a wider range of New Zealanders. While the Opposition will try to paint this as some sort of problem for the Government, in fact it is our strength that we will negotiate and work together on the areas where we have common ground, and we will represent more than just the top 10 percent, or just those who are already doing the best, or just those who happen to be in the dairy industry in New Zealand. The previous Government tended to over-represent certain sectors of society. We want to represent all of New Zealand, and we will make better decisions when we do that.

This Government is committed to policies that will increase female representation, but it’s going to take more than that. We’ve already demonstrated that by extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks and then 26 weeks, which is going to help all families, and particularly women; by increasing the minimum wage—there are 350,000 women in precarious work in New Zealand, and increasing the minimum wage will improve their situation—and, of course, by ditching the last Government’s terrible pay equity and equal pay legislation, which would have put in place barriers to women actually achieving equal pay.

This Government is committed to equality and well-being for all New Zealanders, and we know that by taking an evidence-based and inclusive approach, we can achieve that.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s actually a pleasure to stand up here on this side of the House and represent the dairy industry, and I wasn’t overly impressed with the comment from the last speaker, Julie Anne Genter, that this party over-represented the dairy industry. We represent all industries, because we’re a go-forward party that actually like people to do well in business.

This morning, I was down at the Dairy Environment Leaders’ Forum. It’s a great group of people. They get their heads together and they are showing some leadership in the dairy industry about how to approach some of their issues. And I was very pleased to tell them, when I was down there this morning, that Mr Ron Mark stood up in the Address in Reply debate when he gave his leader’s speech and said that the farmer in Southland was just as important as the person who was running a business in Queen Street. I want to commend that party for that comment.

I was also asked as to what I thought this new Government might mean, and I said that, well, actually, it’s quite interesting for me to work out what this new Government might mean, because I might be able to tell you what some of the things that New Zealand First stand for are, I might be able to tell you some of the Labour policies, and I might be to tell you some of the Green policies, but when we make that connection and put them all together, I’m not quite sure—when we see this 100-day plan—exactly what it means.

Darroch Ball: You get MMP. You get an MMP Government

BARBARA KURIGER: Actually, Mr Ball, I don’t think you know what it means either, by the comment that you made before about the fact that there’s a two-party coalition—yes, but you need three parties to vote to get that Government. So you’re actually almost discounting it. It’s interesting, the distance between your party and the Green Party.

I was very impressed this morning because that Dairy Environment Leaders’ Forum are in the process of making some fantastic videos. We talk a lot about water storage and we talk a lot about irrigation, and, unfortunately, some parties in this Parliament think that irrigation is only for the farmers. Well, actually, the first step in taking irrigation is to make sure, before they take it, that the fish flow is accounted for. Actually, there are parts in this country where water is being used from storage systems to supplement that fish life. So we don’t have a water shortage problem in this country; we have a water storage problem in this country, and we need to get wise—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Water quality problem.

BARBARA KURIGER: Well, actually, water storage can help quality. So let’s just not let over 96 percent of it run out to sea; let’s be a wise nation and do it and use it, and use it well.

Now, the second thing I actually want to get onto is that down there we talk a lot about skills and trades, and I just heard from Jenny Salesa that no matter where people live, this current Government is going to deliver skills and trades. My fear, and I’ll say it right now—and I’ve had a whole lot of people say to me, “Why is the first year of education free? Let people prove that they’re going to do something.”—is that in electorates like the one I represent, it’s going to encourage more people to go up and fill the universities, and we’re going to be left with a shortage of people to stay and do the skills and trades. I know that promise is there, and I’ve heard it today, about funding all sorts of tertiary education, but the reality is that at some point those students have to be able to travel to that destination to get whatever sort of qualification it is. So I’m going to be keeping a real close eye on that as spokesperson for rural communities, because I want the students that choose to live and work and get trades in rural communities to have an equal and fair chance.

I’m one of those people that believe that not all the answers are in Wellington—in fact, 90 percent of them are in the community. Today I had a visit from a wonderful young group, and seeing that it was general debate, I said to them I would give them a mention. It was Jay and his friends from Tumekē Clothing. They are a Young Enterprise Scheme group, and they had decided there’s so many of us—you know, in Wellington we talk about lots of stuff, but it’s the people in the community that do it. They have developed these fantastic T-shirts as part of their Young Enterprise scheme, and they’re about getting Te Reo up and running. They’re in Wellington tonight, and I want to commend Jay and that team, because I think that’s a fantastic initiative. I’ve supported three other Young Enterprise teams in my own electorate, and there are a lot of good young people out there, and we need to give them the best opportunities.

So, with that, I want to say thank you for the opportunity. Thank you.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Mr Speaker, can I begin by congratulating you on your role as the Speaker of Parliament and, also, your colleagues, the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers.

I want to particularly acknowledge, for the record, Poto Williams being your Assistant Speaker and the first Pacific person to hold this office. I’m not sure whether that’s recognised by the House, but that’s a significant record, as Pacific communities look to the future of New Zealand and recognise that this is their home. For a large percentage of Pacific peoples—60 percent of them are born here in Aotearoa New Zealand—this is their home; they know no home other than Aotearoa New Zealand.

So the dreams and aspirations of their parents, grandparents, who first arrived into Aotearoa New Zealand—one of the key things of that vision was education. We all believed, and the elders all believed, that education was the key to the success of our communities, albeit in the early days of the 1960s and 1970s, many of the elders then got free tertiary education. That’s why we have a lot of teachers; that’s why we have accountants. In fact, many on the other side of the House are beneficiaries of the free tertiary education policies of previous Governments.

I think the policy that has been announced yesterday by the Prime Minister and by the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education—that is a policy that I would like to see this House shout from the rooftop over and over and over again, because this is our investment into the future of New Zealand. Look, we are saying that this is a policy—it’s universal, it is free, there is no age gap here. It is available to those who are finishing up high school this year. It is available for those who want to go into apprenticeship schemes. It is available for those already in the workforce who want to receive organised training. I want to say that as part of the work that we did in the Future of Work Commission, we know from what we see in other parts of the world that the work environment is changing, and unless our population receives skills, receives qualifications, our population will not be able to receive the full benefits of this economy.

I have to smile when I listen to the other side—and may they be effective members of the Opposition, and may they be long-lasting in that role of Opposition—because when they were here in Government, we would say, “Invest in the future of this country. Invest in free education.” What happened? No, they did not want to do one iota. Steven Joyce is somebody that got free education. Paula Bennett received the free education support from the State, but when they were in Government they pulled the ladder up.

So this is a policy that is not only going to benefit present generations but it’ll benefit the future and the next generation. I know that in my heart, unless Pacific children, Pacific young people, and the Pacific workforce, which this country will rely upon in years to come—unless they are able to access tertiary education, which the previous Government made harder, under their regime. They made it difficult. It was a regime where, if you had money, you could access tertiary education. But under this new Labour-led coalition Government with New Zealand First, with support partners the Green Party, this is the stuff that strong foundations, wealthy nations, are made from: by ensuring that it is available for all. I know in my heart that unless our communities, unless the working-class communities of South Auckland, unless Pacific workers quickly take up this advantage, they will for ever be treated by the other side as people only good for cleaning jobs, only good for cleaning up the toilets, only good for doing low-level skills and low-paying jobs.

That’s why it’s not just a responsibility of this side of the House to be championing and shouting from the rooftop of the value of this policy, but I think the other side, members of the Opposition, have a moral responsibility. If we are united in this House about doing what is good for New Zealand, then they have a moral responsibility also to promote this policy to their constituency. When we look at the struggles of many families, education is the key to remove them from the struggles and to succeed in Aotearoa New Zealand.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It seems that the theme is the education policy recently announced by the Government, and I’d like to focus on that for a minute as well.

I’d like to open with a letter from one of my constituents. She’s a 22-year-old graduate who’s just finished her Bachelor of agricultural science at Massey University. To quote her, “Many of my friends have commented in frustration that they can foresee many first-year students abusing and taking advantage of the financial privilege of a free first year at university. I think New Zealand needs to develop a principle and culture of reward for effort. Something for nothing does nothing for people. Rewards are far more valued when the work has been done.” I’m going to repeat just a small part of that: “Something for nothing does nothing for people.” That is, unfortunately, the policy of the Labour Government.

Whether I had a free education or Paula Bennett had a free education doesn’t make it right—it doesn’t make it right at all. My point here is that I find it quite ironic that the proposal of a universal benefit is supported, but then the universality of the $1,000 tax cut is rejected by the same people, by the same Government. I find that quite ironic. I agree with Grant Robertson when he said today that he and I don’t need the $1,000. But then, why does that Government give, essentially, $8,000 or $9,000 of fees free to the same group of people?

The universality is my point. I think the policy on the Government side has got it wrong. I do not understand why the Government—and we all agree that people should have access to education, particularly those who are in the lower socio-economic groups. But a universal policy is absolutely the wrong way to achieve that. Targeted scholarships, means tests—anything but a universal policy should have been the policy of that Government.

A universal policy is just going to mean a free year off, a gap year, for 19- and 20-year-olds or first-year university students. And there will be queues. There will be queues at enrolment time, and that will put more pressure on the universities, more pressure on the tertiary education institutes. So they’re going to have to build more classrooms, build more lecture theatres, and more lecturers will need to be employed. This is going to be a balloon. It will be a free lolly scramble for those that don’t need the money.

The next point I’d like to talk about briefly is working for the dole—working for the benefit—that Mr Jones has been talking about. Again, you know, we’ve got disagreement between Mr Jones and Mr Jackson. Mr Jackson says Mr Jones is mad. The Prime Minister is not quite sure where she stands on the issue. She talks about not committing at all, one way or the other, to support one Minister or the other and certainly not particularly supporting Mr Jones.

She talks about hope a lot. We can’t feed our families on hope. We need jobs, real jobs, and a growing economy, with real, productive jobs out there in the open market. A tax-subsidised work-for-the-dole scheme is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It doesn’t provide any training to those people that are doing meaningless jobs, taxpayer-subsidised jobs. And again, there seems to be this never-ending supply of money that is available to the Labour Government that at some point, at one point, and it’s coming soon—they will realise they need to be accountable to the taxpayer for the money that they spend on behalf of the taxpayer.

The work-for-the-dole idea from Mr Jones is ludicrous. What I would like him to support in the regions, with his billion-dollar fund, is to convince the Greens that water storage is a good thing, that water storage does support regional New Zealand, that water storage does provide productive and real jobs in the rural economy.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Thank goodness we have a Labour-led Government at the helm right now, because that was the most uninspired, absolutely tragic last five minutes of my life, which I cannot get back. So, Mr Scott, thank you for finishing.

There’s been a song on loop in my head—Fat Freddy’s Drop: “Hope for a generation”. I was going to sing it, but I got a bit shy. The thing that is going through my mind right now is thank goodness we have a Government at the helm that is inspiring hope in a generation of young people. Quite frankly, why the majority of us are sitting here in this House today is because for nine long years that Government failed to give our kids any hope. It failed to create spaces in our communities for kids, like a lot of our families—a space. It failed to create the picture that our kids might just, one day, go on to become whatever it is that they want.

There is this ethos that sits on the other side of the House that you are the ruling superior, and it is by us, for us, by the elite, for the elite. But this Government right here has invested in creating a vision of hope, and it stretches across all four corners of the well-beings. I want to commend Jacinda Ardern, our Prime Minister, and I want to commend our executive for implementing, in an extremely short period of time, six weeks in fact—we have had healthy homes. That legislation has immeasurable benefit in my electorate. You won’t see it, or maybe it might hurt the pocket a little bit because you’ve got to insulate your homes, for those of you that own rentals. But for a majority of those people living in those homes, that creates a healthy, warm environment.

We’ve had paid parental leave come through this House—26 weeks’ paid parental leave for parents that want to be parents at home. You’ve created all these quandaries about this, that, and the other thing. But at the end of the day it is a fantastic bill and an opportunity for our families to grow families.

But just yesterday—I want to commend the Hon Christopher Hipkins because what he has done, in six weeks, is introduce an extra fifty bucks for all students. That has the impact of 130,000 people in this country being better off because he found some money to give an extra 130,000 people fifty bucks in their pocket, to enhance themselves, to become engaged participants in our country.

But, more importantly, yesterday he reversed a tragic trend, which started almost 30 years ago, that started to commodify something that is a basic, fundamental human right. Now, I listened to you, Mr Scott, and I heard you lament the fact that you and the Hon Paula Bennett got a free education and it’s just not right. Well, it’s absolutely right for the future of our nation that every single kid is entitled to a free education. It is a fundamental human right. You want to talk about means testing education. Shall we start means testing health? Shall we start means testing for our primary schools? Hey, why not? Let’s go to our secondary schools. Health, education—there are some fundamental tenets that this side of the House believes in: that we should all be entitled to these as citizens of this nation.

I just want to turn—because it was not that long ago; it was only a few months ago, actually. I remember listening to our former Prime Minister in this House commenting on the state of young people, the state of young people—that there were kids sitting at home that didn’t want jobs. They were far more interested in sitting at home and smoking pot or whatnot.

Well, I live up on the East Coast. We’ve got some of the highest deprivation rates in this country. Forty-nine percent of my electorate is comprised of Māori. I am yet to meet that young person that does not want to fulfil their aspirations. I am yet to meet that one young person that wants to sit at home and waste away, until the time of oblivion. I have met hundreds of young people that think they do not have a place in this community and this society. So I want to honour the Hon Christopher Hipkins for creating an opportunity for the many—for creating opportunities for kids like mine, up on the East Coast. You know, our Māori kids—I think there’s going to be 16,000 Māori kids that are going to benefit from this fees-free policy. I want to commend you for your work in bringing this to the House.

Thank you to this Government. Thank you to New Zealand First for voting for change. Over 50 percent of this country voted for change, and that is indeed what we truly have. Thank you, sir.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is an absolute pleasure to be able to stand in the House today, and before I actually engage in the general debate I want to put a bit of a shout-out out to the team down at Scott Base and McMurdo: those who work out at Williams Field on the airstrip; those who’re at Phoenix; people like Peter Beggs, CEO of Antarctica New Zealand; Matt Johnson; Simon Trotter; Peter Smith; Trudie Baker; Fiona Shanhun; Rebecca Roper-Gee; Megan Smith; Kylie Wood; Lieutenant Commander Ross Hickey; Dai Seto, who was my climbing instructor down there; and everybody else, particularly New Zealand Defence Force personnel, who do such a tremendous job supporting New Zealand’s science community and doing that important work that’ll help us redress, hopefully, the climate change issues that this Government has decided it will bravely tackle.

I’m very proud of the fact that the New Zealand Defence Force is playing a very strong part in fighting climate change through the commitment of massive resources. In fact, it’s our largest deployment we have globally, and most people don’t know that. So a big shout-out to them.

But what an interesting time in this House. I’ve sat here and I’ve listened to the speeches, and I want to start with the Hon Paula Bennett. I feel sorry for her. Paula Bennett is trying hard, but she’s finding it hard to try. She tries humour, but it just doesn’t come through. And in this general debate, the one thing that I noticed is Paula’s furious. She’s furious with the pale, male, and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon RON MARK: Paula Bennett—the Hon Paula Bennett—is furious with the pale, male, stale elements to her left who cost her her ministerial job. She’s not the only one, though. The Rt Hon David Carter—what a bitter, bitter, bitter man. And he’s right. He did try hard to earn the respect of this House in his time as the Speaker. He tried very hard, and most of us found his trying very hard as well. And all I’ll say is, Mr Carter—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know it’s somewhat dated, but I think reflections on the Speaker—even of this sort—are going a bit far.

Hon RON MARK: Well, I—

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise for that. But I’ve got to say, the attack on the Rt Hon Winston Peters by the Rt Hon David Carter revealed something that those of us who were in a coalition Government in 1998 knew. Mr Carter made it clear in the speech today that he was happy—happy—that he’s consigned, along with all of his National Party MPs, to Opposition. Why? Because he has a personal issue with being in Government with the Rt Hon Mr Peters.

Well, one of the things that went through my mind when I was deliberating, and when I, amongst my New Zealand First colleagues, voted for this coalition Government and voted to make the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern the Prime Minister, was whether or not we could trust—whether we had confidence in the coalition partner. The Rt Hon Mr Carter, as he said, was a junior whip when I was a whip in coalition Government. I was the senior whip of New Zealand First and a junior whip for the Government. He was the junior whip of the National Party and a whip in the Government. But what Mr Carter didn’t say is that he also joined the plotters and helped overthrow his Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. I leave it right there.

So in my mind, when I’m considering who would I go to war with, who would I be in coalition with, who could I trust, who could I absolutely have confidence in, who would not put their personal vendettas above the best interests of the nation, and who would not put their own personal issues with another member of Parliament against the best wishes of his entire caucus—Mr Carter gave that answer here today. And I thank him for his honesty, and I hope the rest of his caucus colleagues appreciate it as well.

Mr Brownlee summed it up today when he said this: in reply to questions and answers, in an interjection, he said, “7.2 percent wins? That’s democracy?” I’m sorry, Mr Brownlee. Get over it. Get over it. Move on.

My message really is this: to all of the National MPs who are going into the Christmas break, who’re going to be pondering what they’re going to do now, who’re going to ponder what they’re going to do next, over those BBQs and on the beaches—if one is angry or bitter, like Mr Carter, that one is on the Opposition benches, look no further than your front bench and, for you, decide what you’re going to do after Christmas.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s my first time speaking since my maiden speech, and I’m delighted that I have the opportunity to speak on something that I’m absolutely passionate about. And I’m going to take the opportunity to speak about fees-free education for our students and our adults as well.

I’m actually going to change this up a little bit, because I heard about how there was a “we can’t live on hope alone.” That really concerned me, and I started to sit here, and I was thinking about what I normally do at this time of the year, before I had this position of being here in the House. For the last many, many years, I have been a school principal, and at this time of the year we’re preparing for the saddest time of the year: to say farewell to our year 6 students. Over this time, we take them through possible career options that they can have as they’re getting older and moving through their lives.

Even though the children that I worked with came from the most disadvantaged backgrounds around, and were predominantly Māori and Pasifika who had lost touch with their cultural heritage, those children had hopes and dreams like anybody else. Those children wanted to have a variety of different career options. They wanted to be teachers. They wanted to be nurses. They wanted to be doctors. They wanted to be builders. They wanted to be plumbers. They had hopes and dreams, like anybody does.

But I’ll tell you the really worrying thing that happened for those children along the way. In 11 years, the number of children that I had that went on to post-secondary education, from the many, many that I had go through my decile 1 school, amounted to 3 percent of that roll. And I find that a horrific statistic.

So I wanted to find out what were the main reasons that that was actually happening. What were the barriers to them? And there are a variety of reasons but, predominantly, what would come through is that “We can’t afford it, whaea. We just can’t afford it. It’s something we can’t do.”, or “I’m not sure I can do it, and I don’t want to take the risk that I won’t be able to pay that money back.” They felt so unconfident about their abilities because that’s what society had done to them.

This is what this fees-free policy can do for these children. It gives them hope, and hope is good for them. It is a policy that is for all New Zealanders. And not only does it give them hope but it gives their parents hope, because it is not only the children who were missing out on education but also their parents. Out of my roll of parents, I would’ve had about 5 percent of those numbers—and I’m not exactly sure, but it’s around between 5 and 10 percent of those parents—who had post-secondary qualifications. Every single one of those parents had dreams and hopes and aspirations for them beyond what they were doing in their lives—every single one of them.

But, again, the biggest barrier to them was the cost and the fees, and this policy will turn that around for them. This is a policy for all New Zealanders. This will help everybody into education.

Chris Bishop: That’s an argument for scholarships, not for universality.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, let them eat cake!

JAN TINETTI: Yeah, exactly. Those people did not have scholarships available to them, Mr Bishop. You need to get real. You need to find out exactly what is going on for those people.

Many of them have dreams now that they did not have before, and only last night I was contacted by a 17-year-old, who said to me, “Do you think that I could now become a teacher? I never thought that I could do this, but I’ve looked, I’m eligible, and now I want to become a teacher.” I am so excited for that young woman, because in 27 years of teaching, she is by far the brightest student. She’s stanine 9. She is the brightest student I have ever, ever taught, and that’s in high- and low-decile schools, and she has got dreams now that she didn’t have before this policy was announced yesterday. So it is a very, very, very exciting policy for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with pleasure that I speak in the general debate today. I just want to say at the outset that I wish the new Government well and congratulate it on forming its coalition. Many weren’t happy with the outcome, but it is, of course, democracy in action.

Before I talk, I just want to return to that dreadful speech I heard from the Minister of Defence, who talked with a lot of disrespect about the former Speaker of this House. I find that dreadful, for the Minister of Defence to take that opportunity to make that attack on him. I just think he should cast back and remind himself about some of his own actions. I, with former military experience, just want to remind that speaker about the importance of wearing medals and the respect that comes with that. I just think that’s been significantly undervalued.

The second thing: I was glad that he did speak of Peter Beggs from Antarctica New Zealand. I know Peter well, too, and they do do a fantastic job. I’m sure that speaker is now going to be able to claim he’s a polar explorer by having touched some snow in the Antarctic, and so I wish him well.

But I do think this raises a bigger issue: that is, being in power is a lot different from sitting in the Opposition. I think some of the new Ministers are now finding that it’s harder to be accountable for the results that they must now seek to achieve than they anticipated when they sat in Opposition. One of the biggest roles for any Government—any new Government, particularly—is to show leadership. I was glad that the coalition set out a 100-day plan, but I’ve got to note that that plan is on a slow burn. I’m rather disappointed, personally, that most of the bills we’ve debated in this House to date have been National Government bills, from a hangover from the 51st—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to warn the member not to anticipate any orders of the day and remind him we haven’t debated any bills yet.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you. With the issue of leadership, the big issue is about confidence. I think this is the biggest issue for a new Government. There are worrying signs that people do worry, and increasingly are worried, about the future of the New Zealand economy: where we’re going, and a general lack of confidence. It’s great to be able to talk about hope, as we heard before, and about being “relentlessly positive”, but I just want to highlight some of the independent parties who have already, in the last two months, started to highlight this issue of lack of confidence.

The first one was the Alleasing Equipment Demand Index that came out just recently, showing that 71 percent of businesses are concerned about the impact of politics on their ability to grow their business. The second one, the renowned ANZ Research’s ANZ Business Outlook, showed that business confidence has turned down sharply, particularly between the October and November period. The third was the slump in retail sales during the September quarter—and, of course, we know the retail sector employs many, many New Zealanders.

More recently, the Westpac economists, who say that this Government—and these are their words—“will face economic headwinds in 2018”, are increasingly joining a list of people downgrading GDP growth for New Zealand. They quote—this is not me; this is independent contractors—“the issues that are leading to this lack of confidence are the plan to introduce free tertiary education”, which in time will be significant, at $8 billion, “an increase in fuel tax, particularly in Auckland, the cost of increasing the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and the increasing Government spend.”

This is the issue that I’m most worried about: where this Government’s going to take our debt level. Our debt level is going to climb significantly, and I think that the importance of this for New Zealanders is that it removes the flexibility to do stuff when things go wrong. All Governments get blind-sided, whether it’s by an earthquake or whatever, and the lack of flexibility to deal with that, by spending everything you’ve got and agreeing to everything that everyone wants to ask you—that ill-discipline is going to come back to haunt this Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Maritime Transport Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 5 December.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, we turn first to the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, the committee was debating all provisions as one question, by leave. In terms of voting, I understand the leave granted was for a vote on the Minister’s amendments, and then a vote that all provisions as amendments stand part. We will proceed accordingly. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. Marja Lubeck had the call, and she has four minutes and 20 seconds remaining.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I’m rising to take a call on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It’s a real privilege to speak to this bill, as it will support marine safety and tackle pollution. This bill reads that it amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of the maritime transport system. This bill will increase the amount of compensation available to meet the cost of a major spill from an oil tanker in New Zealand’s waters.

In the legislation as it currently stands, there are limits on the amount that the New Zealand Government can claim back in the case of an environmental disaster, such as we saw in 2011, with the grounding of the Rena. The result of that was that, in the end, the taxpayer ended up paying for cleaning up that mess. The limitation of liability under the international convention prevented the New Zealand Government from recovering from those at fault. The member for Hutt South, last night, during his slot on the Trusts Bill, referred to this bill as a cracker—tried to make out that spending our time on this bill was misplaced and that it wasn’t an important enough bill to get finalised. I find it rather ironic that the other side of this House is criticising this Government for progressing, as a matter of priority, some of the bills that we have seen come through this House in the last fortnight.

With regard to this piece of legislation—this cracker of a bill, as the member for Hutt South has called it—it’s hugely overdue when you consider that the major maritime incident of the Rena happened in October 2011, which is more than six years ago. So my question is: why has it taken that many years to get legislation to Parliament to ensure that the New Zealand Government can recover compensation from the owner or owners of the vessels that have caused the damage to our environment? I believe the other side of this House is doing New Zealanders a real disservice by continuing their negative broken-record narrative when all this Government is doing is cleaning up the bills, clearing the deck—no pun intended—of all outstanding matters so that we can actually get on with getting the next pieces of legislation through this House.

Now, back to the bill. As I said, it will ensure the recovery of significantly more compensation from those responsible for environmental disasters such as oil spills, so that the cost is not borne by the New Zealand taxpayer. This bill increases potential compensation from approximately $411 million to just over $1.54 billion.

This bill, however, is not the bill as it was put forward by the previous Government. This bill is not a National bill; this bill is a greatly improved version of the bill as it was drafted under the previous Government. This version of the bill has taken into consideration the many submissions from those affected by it, and turned it into a Labour bill. During the select committee process, it became clear that a couple of proposed amendments were not supported by the vast majority of submitters to the bill.

Madam Chair, if you permit me, I would like to delve a little bit more into both of these arguments. Firstly, the mandatory drug and alcohol tests were unnecessary, counter-productive, and objected to by employers as well as employees. Unlike the statements from the member for Botany—who obviously didn’t read all the material—it wasn’t just the unions who were opposed to the drug and alcohol testing. Several operators submitted it would be too costly and difficult to comply with mandatory testing. The great message that came out from the submitters on this bill was that employers, in particular, felt strongly about the need for employers and employees to work collaboratively on this issue.

Officials commented in the regulatory impact statement as follows: “We do not have the data to know the true scale of the problem or if there is a problem … Until we know the true extent, we will not know what the appropriate level of intervention is.” Now, I say that, without evidence, there is actually a problem to address. The provisions as drafted are onerous and impractical, as well as costly, for the mostly small businesses in the maritime sector. The important thing to note here is that the risk that is being mentioned by the other side—[Bell rung]—of the House is about impairment, something random drug-testing doesn’t—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Marja Lubeck.

MARJA LUBECK: The important thing to note is that the risk that is being mentioned by the other side of the House is about impairment, and impairment is actually something that random drug-testing does not actually test. There are, however, already checks and balances on risk in place with the health and safety at work and the maritime safety system requirements, and the bill, on top, retains provisions for the Director of Maritime New Zealand to carry out non-notified drug and alcohol testing of workers in safety-sensitive roles. So there’s no evidence of any need for a costly and onerous system of mandatory drug and alcohol tests.

I actually, personally, would argue there is much more of a need to investigate the effects of fatigue in the transport sector as the extent of fatigue in incidents and accidents is largely unknown. But I’ll come back to that, hopefully, another day.

Back to the testing. So the improved version of the bill has removed the contentious aspect of the testing. The second aspect of this improved version of the bill is that it also has removed another contentious part, which was allowing foreign-flag vessels to carry cargo to the Chatham Islands. This would have created unfair competition, because foreign vessels aren’t subject to the same conditions as our domestic vessels. I am thinking about things like GST and labour laws. They would have had an unfair advantage over our own domestic services, likely putting them out of business. The people affected by this spoke at the select committee stage. All of them stated they did not support the foreign operators to come on to this route.

So this Government has cleaned up the bill to the point where we can support and commend it. As a new member of Parliament, I thought it was really heartening to see that many of the bills such as these, which have gone through the House, have been a cross-party exercise—a result of collaboration between all the members of the House. I understand the other side isn’t very happy about the fact that these are now passed as Labour bills, but there it is.

Our speakers at many times have acknowledged that many of these bills—like these bills—are the result of parties working together constructively, because that is the kind of MMP Government we aspire to be, and in the best interests of the people who have put us there to do the best job for New Zealand, some members on the other side of the House could try a little harder to show that they’re here for the right reasons. It’s not about point-scoring; it’s about doing what’s right. Do your homework—like we all have to—read all these bills, all the reports, and all the facts and figures, and provide insight to the people that are listening into the how and what.

So, just to repeat, this Government has done its homework and cleaned up the bill to the point where we can support and commend it to the House. Thank you.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise also to support this bill, and I want to acknowledge the contribution from Marja Lubeck, the previous speaker, who pointed out quite rightly that it’s taken quite a long time to get a bit of action in this area. She spoke of the Rena disaster, which in 2011 caused catastrophic disaster to the whānau, the hapū, and the iwi that were living along the coastline in the Bay of Plenty area that I represent. It will always be ingrained into my memory, the images of our whānau out there with their white disposable suits on, clearing rubbish and clearing the oil spilt from the Rena disaster from their beaches. They were picking up dead birds and they were picking up dead animals and dead sea life, and all because there weren’t tight enough rules, I guess, around what the Rena was—well, against the crisis that actually happened there. So if this bill actually moves to address some of that, then I’m incredibly supportive of it.

I remember last night, just before we wrapped up, the member for Hutt South was also looking forward to this as well, so—[Makes finger gun gesture] just for you. Here we go.

Let’s drill down into some of the amendments that have been made—kind of in the final stages here—and I specifically wanted to talk about the compulsion of drug and alcohol testing that has been taken out. As a small-business owner myself, I would do anything to minimise compliance costs and admin costs and things that weren’t deemed to be absolutely necessary. So, as a result of that, recommendations have been put forward that the random drug-testing requirement was not evidence-led policy-making, and so for that reason it’s been taken out. It was also pointed out that a significant majority of those commercial operators are already required to have appropriate drug and alcohol management systems as part of their marine operator safety systems, as well. So with those kinds of precautions in place, it makes good sense to actually have removed that particular requirement out of this bill.

The officials actually noted—and I quote—“We do not have the data to know the true scale of the problem or if there is a problem … Until we know the true extent, we will not know what the appropriate level of intervention is.” So, again, it was another good reason to have taken that particular amendment, that particular piece, out. It was also noted that it’s very difficult to know to what extent alcohol or drug use is involved in accidents in the commercial maritime sector.

I reiterate: there’s a lot of costs already on small-business owners. In canvassing the contributions made from people like that, who were small-business owners that were going to have to make themselves compliant with this random drug and alcohol testing—by taking it out, it removes quite a bit of cost and headache, really, that had been unnecessarily put in there.

I also would like to just finish off by congratulating the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter for really championing this. I think this is a great piece of legislation and I commend it, on behalf of the people of my electorate, to this House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Malo ‘aupito. Thank you. It is a privilege to take a call on the committee stage of the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their due diligence in hearing and taking action on the views of the public and in receiving advice from non-Government and Government officials.

Furthermore, I’d like to acknowledge the submitters, who duly voiced their knowledge, skills, and expertise. To some, this may seem insignificant, but to those in the shipping industry, this is indeed significant.

I’m honoured also to be a member of a Labour-led coalition Government where we support having a safe, sustainable, effective, and efficient transport system. Effectively, what this bill seeks to amend is the Maritime Transport Act of 1994, to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of the maritime transport system.

So there is a list of aims that this bill attempts to achieve. I’ll begin with managing the risk of drug and alcohol impairment. Effectively, the aim is to manage the risks associated with drug and alcohol use in the commercial maritime sector by requiring maritime operators to have a drug and alcohol management plan. So it is at this point that I wish to acknowledge the 11 people who lost their lives on 7 January 2012 in the hot-air balloon incident in Carterton, where it was found that the operator was impaired by drug use. Sadly, at the time of this incident there were no rules in place that allowed random drug and alcohol testing in this area.

This bill not only states that the operators must have a drug and alcohol management plan but it also has the intelligence to introduce a new Part 4B, in terms of random testing. So the bill provides that a drug and alcohol management plan must ensure that the random testing of safety-sensitive workers is carried out only if the worker consents to be tested. The consequences of refusing must be explained to the worker, where the director of Maritime New Zealand is also given power to administer random testing with the consent of the worker. The term “random testing” is defined as the “drug or alcohol testing of a safety-sensitive worker by a [drug and alcohol management plan operator] … where the worker—(a) is selected for testing in a way that is non-discriminatory;”.

One of the aims is about oil pollution, and this is where—I like this bit, because the aim for me is fair is fair, OK; compensation for damage caused by oil spillage. This bill increases the level of compensation available to meet claims or for oil pollution damage by a spill from an oil tanker in New Zealand waters. Like the previous speakers before me, I was outraged when I was watching—of course, most of the information that we saw about the Rena disaster was on the media, and one of the questions that I was outraged about was that most of the costs for cleaning up the mess, as a result of the Rena disaster, was actually met by the New Zealand taxpayer.

So this bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the protocol of 2003 of the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992. What the protocol does is that it establishes an additional tier of compensation that we can call upon in major events in New Zealand waters.

I know that my time is running out, but I would like to conclude that what this bill, basically, does is that this bill will protect people, it will protect the crews and people, and then it will protect our coastline and our taonga, and, effectively, have the intelligence to not have the taxpayer foot the bill, but there is an avenue to do that. So I therefore commend the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill to the House in committee. Malo.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that the National Party members haven’t been standing up to take calls, and I’m pretty certain I know why. It’s because last night, we had a few calls from the National Party, and their arguments against the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been put forward by the Minister are so flawed and have got so many holes through them, you may as well call them Swiss cheese. I know that the Minister stood up and made some very good points against the National Party arguments, and we haven’t heard from them since.

I think, actually, Alastair Scott took a call and he let a few things slip that perhaps he shouldn’t have. He made it clear that there was a new scale of measurement of how successful a policy is for the National Party, and it was whether it was hard, medium, or soft—that’s exactly what he said. He said that the Minister is being soft with this legislation. If that’s now the new measurement for the National Party in the policies that they’re going to try and bring forward over the next three, six, nine, or longer years, I think they’re going to be there for a very, very long time—and will make their time in Opposition a very hard and tough and long one.

The opposition to one of the fundamental parts of this SOP 6, which the Minister is putting forward, I think shows just how far south the National Party has gone since the election. Basically, in fundamental terms, this National Party is standing up and arguing for more bureaucracy for small businesses. They’re arguing for—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Excuse me, member. Could we come back to the bill, please.

DARROCH BALL: So, I’m talking about the part of the SOP in regard to the drug testing, Madam Chair. So what this National Party is doing when they are arguing against that part is arguing for more bureaucracy for small businesses. They are arguing for more red tape, more enforcement of regulations, and more costs for small businesses.

In fact, the mandatory nature of the drug tests that the National Party wants reminds me of the nanny State that they so much and so often complain about. The bill itself actually already states that, where necessary, those drug tests will already occur—where necessary—and they will achieve the safety objectives. So, with the inclusion of this SOP, if the drug tests are being conducted, where necessary, where they will occur and if safety objectives will be achieved, why on earth would the National Party want to increase the obligations and increase the bureaucracy and the red tape and the costs for small businesses? That’s why I say that the National Party have lost their way and moved south since the election.

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think that where I come from, going south is something to be applauded.

DARROCH BALL: Yeah, all right—sit down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That’s not a point of order.

DARROCH BALL: In general terms, what we’ve heard from the National Party—and what we will hear continually through these calls that they will take—is just a bunch of scaremongering. What they’re actually implying, and what they implied last night with their calls, is that we’re going to have a bunch of drunken sailors and drugged-up sailors—the likes of Captain Jack Sparrow—across our waterways, and that’s absolutely not true.

The extent of their scaremongering can be simply explained only if they read the actual SOP that the Minister is putting forward. If they look at the amendments to clause 6, the SOP’s explanatory note states that “The amendment of clause 6 replaces proposed new Part 4B with a scheme that no longer imposes … new obligations on an operator but continues to provide for … In particular,— … The operator is still identified as a person who is required by the Act and the maritime rules to establish a safety management system:”. That already is applied.

It also states “In particular,— … safety-sensitive activities and testable drugs are both prescribed by maritime rules:”. It already exists. There is no need for more bureaucracy, red tape, and costs for the small businesses.

I’d actually just like to mention clause 40ZB. It lays out what happens if a worker refuses to consent or the test result is not negative. It states that “If a worker refuses to consent to Director testing or is tested and returns a result other than a negative result, the Director must notify the operator for whom the worker carries out work of the fact as soon as practicable. … the operator must prohibit the worker from performing safety-sensitive activities until the operator reasonably believes that the worker is able to safely perform those activities.”

My point is this. The bill in its original form, when it was put forward by the National Government last term, imposed unnecessary bureaucracy, unnecessary costs, and additional obligations on small businesses, and the keyword is “unnecessary”. What this SOP—which New Zealand First will be supporting—does is it takes all of that away because it is not necessary. Those provisions are already there in legislation, and it accommodates for that. The only argument—the only basis of any argument—that the National Party has against supporting this SOP is scaremongering, and if they only read the SOP and if they only read the provisions within it, they would see that there is no need to continue with the bill in its current form.

We need to be able to ensure that safety is maintained and that the operators are still held to account and will have the ability to be able to ensure that the people who are employed under them and in their organisations will be able to be drug tested, which they are under the SOP. That’s why New Zealand First will be supporting it. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a dicky knee at the moment. I’m sort of hobbling about like an old sailor, actually, but even I’m quicker to my feet than the Opposition, who seem to have nothing to say about this bill today, and it’s a shame, because there are some important provisions in here.

I want to commend the contributions made by a number of colleagues in this session in respect of the random drug and alcohol testing provisions of Supplementary Order Paper 4, filed by the Minister the Hon Julie Anne Genter and just to really reaffirm that what we have in this bill, with the addition of the Supplementary Order Paper, is a very, very robust regime, but one that is actually proportionate to the issue that we have. I think it has been commented on, possibly, that at the select committee there was really very scarce evidence that there was a significant systemic issue here that requires the implementation of drug and alcohol management plans across a whole sector of the economy. If you are going to implement them here on the basis of no evidence, where else might you implement them as well?

But really, I want to comment, actually, on some of the changes that came through in the select committee process. The Supplementary Order Paper is very good, but there is so much good stuff that came out of the select committee that I think it warrants a little bit of time on the floor of the committee as well.

Todd Muller: Great committee.

MICHAEL WOOD: Actually—and you should be proud of this one, Mr Muller, because it was a bill that was worked through at select committee pretty collaboratively by members all around the House, but I’d invite you to stand up, take a call, and take some ownership of the good work that your party did on this as well. It might be the only bit of legislation that your party contributes to passing over the next three years, so own it—so own it, sir.

I want to speak to a couple of particular provisions that came out of select committee—a couple of the changes that were made there that I think are actually very good, but it is appropriate to draw the attention of the committee to them. The first one relates to the reimbursement for a second director test. Let me just draw people’s attention to the relevant clauses here. We are talking about sections 40ZC(4)(g) and 40ZE of the principal Act. These relate to the fact that—again, reaffirming—the director under the bill and under the Supplementary Order Paper does have the power and the authority to require random drug and alcohol testing where he or she believes that there is a good reason for doing that. That’s really important: a good reason; not just lumping it on a whole sector because we in this House say they should, but where there’s a good reason.

But here’s the thing. That has potentially huge impacts on the worker concerned, because we know that in the legislation, if that worker fails that test or if they refuse to undertake that test, their job is potentially on the line. It’s perfectly reasonable and simply just a matter of natural justice that a worker, having gone through a test, might want to have a second test taken to ensure that the test is accurate and that they’re not potentially going to lose their position or face other sanctions on the basis of a faulty test—and they do happen from time to time. So I think that all of us in this committee would agree that it is only fair and reasonable that a worker in that situation does have the opportunity to request a second test. Indeed, that provision is in the bill—that’s all agreed.

But the odious thing that was in the original bill, in section 40ZE(2), and I will read this out—this in the original bill: “If the worker requests a second test—(a) the Director must carry out a second test;”—fair enough—“and (b) the worker must reimburse the Director for the direct costs incurred in carrying out the second test.” So the poor worker, who was simply trying to ensure that their legitimate rights to natural justice were upheld, by legitimately requesting a second test that is allowed under the terms of the bill, would have to cough up for that. That seems to me to be totally unreasonable and totally at odds with what we would expect in other sectors where we go through this kind of testing regime. I think it was very sensible and very reasonable of the select committee, which had a good look at that and struck those words out.

Under replacement section 40ZA we do have the ability for the second test to be requested and to be adhered to, but no longer do we have that odious provision that would then require that worker to actually have to pay for something as basic as having the second test occurring. So I really want to commend to the committee that change, which came through the select committee process, and it was an example of the process working really, really well.

There are just so many good points that came through from the select committee, and I’d like to speak to some of them a little bit later on, but, for now, I’ll give someone else an opportunity to speak to this very, very good bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that the Minister’s amendment set out Supplementary Order Paper 6 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye; all those against say No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, can I just get a point of clarification? Are you putting the leave? Are you putting the procedural motion?

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You are correct; I have made an error. The question is that the question be now put.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A vote was commenced. You cannot stop a vote once it’s been commenced.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m sorry; I made an error of procedure. I will put the leave for the question to be put. The question is—

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We started a vote. You called a vote. You can’t stop a vote that’s been called.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let me take some advice on that. [Chairperson seeks advice] Members, I do want to say that there were no members taking a call, so the decision is that we will continue with the vote as put.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So what are we voting on? We’re voting on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)?

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We’re voting on the SOP.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 6 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill as amended to be reported presently.

Bills

Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

In Committee

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There’s no Minister in the chair. The Government is supposed to supply a Minister in the chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could we have a Minister, please? Thank you. Members, we now come to the consideration of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill.

Part 1 Amendments to Maritime Crimes Act 1999

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted and, actually, quite a bit surprised to have the opportunity to take a call on the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, which we support. I haven’t been involved in the committee stage of this debate, which is of great regret to me, but I have been perusing the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which I think is SOP 5, and I’d invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, to perhaps make a contribution to that SOP, because, as with the previous legislation that we have been discussing, the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties move their support on the basis of the amendments made in the SOP rather than to the primary legislation. It’s not quite as dramatic as the amendments to the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill but it is quite significant.

This bill is, of course, in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters rather than the previous Minister, Julie Anne Genter. But, again, it’s a bit of a reminder of the strength of our new Ministers in this Labour, New Zealand First, and Green coalition Government that we can have quite separate party leadership being demonstrated in the particular legislation that we’re debating now. So I know that there will be several other speakers wanting to take a call on this legislation. I hope they’re ready to take a call.

Todd Muller: And she looks around.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well—Mr Müller, isn’t it?

Todd Muller: Muller.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Sorry, Mr Muller. I would challenge that member to take the next call, because he generally does make a considered contribution in debates. I think he’s from an area that has coastline around it—is that right? You are not from Manawatū, landlocked? Where is the member from?

Hon Member: Bay of Plenty.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Bay of Plenty? There you are, there’s lots of water around there, and I would think this particular discussion would be of interest to him.

So, as I’ve said, I encourage the Minister to take a call, just primarily to summarise the SOP, because that is a part of this debate that we haven’t yet had an opportunity to consider. The select committee has obviously considered the original legislation and the submissions. In the meantime we have had a change of Government, and I know that some members haven’t yet accepted that as being the outcome of our democratic election but it has meant that this legislation is now able to be seen in a supportive way by the Labour Party, by New Zealand First, and by the Green Party. That is on the basis of the SOP, and I look forward to further debate on that soon.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, was referring to the member for Bay of Plenty’s coastline. I know she was just winging it, but, actually, this bill isn’t about coastlines.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, that’s very interesting, but it’s not a point of order. Is anyone taking a call? All right. We will put the question for Part 1. The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour of Part 1 say Aye; against, No. The Ayes have it. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

We come now to Part 2, clauses 26 to 42. [Interruption] My apologies.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Electronic Interactions Reform Bill

In Committee

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Enabling use of electronic identity photograph for identification documents and public registers

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Giving evidence and notice by electronic means

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to part three, clauses 43 to 79.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Speaker?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Megan Woods.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: To the rescue!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): That’s right. I look forward to your contribution, Mr Brownlee, on hearing that. Mr Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to take a call on this Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. This, of course, was a bill that went before the Government Administration Committee in the last Parliament, which was ably chaired by the honourable member next to me, the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Mr Speaker, this is a cross-agency omnibus bill that seeks to amend and update 17 Acts to enable digital interactions between individuals, businesses, and Government. It is an important piece of legislation, and modernising 17 pieces of legislation at once is no mean feat. This is an area where we have to consider that we do have modern legislation that is fit for purpose, and legislation that can see us through to a future, because making sure that we do have our electronic interactions absolutely right is critical to what our future is going to hold.

In Part 3, this is actually about the giving of evidence and notice by electronic means of this. There are some very important issues that are in this part of the bill. The idea—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Part 2.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Part 2—I thought we were on Part 3.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. Part 2—stay up with it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Part 3. It is Part 3. So that, Mr Brownlee, is on page 2 of the descriptions in the explanatory note in the commentary. So bear with me and I will talk you through it bit by bit.

So this is the giving of evidence and notice by electronic means. This is amendments to the Fair Trading Act of 1986, being one of those 17 pieces of legislation that is going to be amended. The select committee here has recommended inserting new clause 61A, which does amend that. The section allows the Commerce Commission to require a person to supply information or documents or to give evidence. Empowering the Commerce Commission with additional powers is a pattern that we are seeing necessary across Government. Only today, our Government signalled the need to give the Commerce Commission market study powers so it can look into the very important issue of fuel pricing. We must ensure that our Commerce Commission is equipped with the right powers to ensure it can do its job and make sure that we do have market places that are competitive and that are delivering fairness.

Mr Speaker, the other part that this does is the proof of email and delivery of a notice sent by courier, and this is also an important part of what we need to do. This is an important piece of legislation and I look forward to hearing more from fellow members about it. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank the member for her contribution, but I point out that I am, first of all, Madam, and, secondly, I am in the Chair.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s hard to get used to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I do appreciate it is hard to get used to. OK, we are on Part 3.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you very much. All right, well, I’ll just make some things up, seeing as no one is going to give me a copy of the bill. Thank you very much.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Gerry thought you were on Part 2.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Gerry apparently thought we were on Part 2. We’re on Part 3 of the bill, “Giving evidence and notice by electronic means”, and I have to say, Mr—sorry, Madam Chair. Some habits are hard to break, Madam Chair, so please do forgive me for that. It is interesting that the largest and laziest Opposition in the history of the New Zealand Parliament doesn’t seem to want to make any contributions on the legislation that they themselves introduced into this House and that this Government is very proud—very proud—to be progressing through the committee this afternoon and later on into this evening. Mr—sorry, Madam Chair. It’s been a while since we’ve had a presiding officer who was a woman, Madam Chair, and I think it is a very welcome thing, so, please, it is just taking a wee while to reprogram.

But I want to talk in particular about clause 44 and the subsections it inserts, which refer to audio links and the meaning of “audio link” as defined in this bill. So we turn to the definition, for example, of “audiovisual link” as a starting point. The meaning of an “audiovisual link” is something that, of course, could be interpreted in a variety of different ways. There are many different types of audiovisual link. For example, the audiovisual link in my office prompted me to come to this Chamber just a few moments ago. Let’s turn to the meaning of audiovisual link according to the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. It says an audiovisual link “means facilities that enable audio and visual communication between the Commission and a person when either or both of them are not physically present at the place specified in the notice.”

Of course, in dealing with these clauses the word “and” is very important, because an audio and visual communication is very different to simply an audio communication, which, of course, is the previous definition in the bill. An audio link “means facilities (for example, telephone facilities)”—here’s an interesting question. Here’s an interesting question: what about a Skype phone? This is important. The entire parliamentary complex, of course, has moved on to Skype phones, and we have Skype phones that offer both audio and visual, right? So now that’s interesting, isn’t it? By saying “for example, telephone facilities” are regarded as an audio link, do we thereby preclude them from being included in the definition of an audiovisual link—an audiovisual link? In fact, a Skype phone could potentially fall under both definitions, and I think that’s something that the committee will want to consider in great detail, given that this bill is designed to deal with the change in technology that is emerging and that is continuing to emerge. What happens when these definitions are changed as a result of the evolution of technology, and what happens when an audio link in fact becomes an audiovisual link?

Let’s go back to the definition of an audio link—I’ve got the members opposite on the edges of their seats with this; I know they’re going to want to get into this in great detail. An audio link, of course, means facilities—for example, a telephone—“that enable audio communication between the Commission and a person when either or both of them are not physically present at the place specified in the notice.” Well, the interesting thing here is that an audio link can also be used where people are present within a particular area. For example, we use video conferencing to link up with a variety of different people, some of whom are present and some of whom are not. So I think that creates an interesting question—an interesting question—about the definitions contained in this particular Part 3 of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill.

Look, there are many other provisions. I mean, Part 3 extends over several pages, and I have dealt with only two very small clauses of that. I intend to scrutinise this legislation in much greater detail to ensure that what we have inherited from the previous Government is, in fact, in keeping with the intentions of the current Government, making sure that we are delivering for New Zealanders the change that they voted for at the last election that the members opposite are still coming to terms with. So if we turn to clause 45, for example—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I think the good thing about the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill is that there really is something in this for everyone because Part 3 not only allows for serving notices and providing notices through email but actually continues to allow for the service of notices—for example, to the Commerce Commission—by way of fax. You would have thought, in this day and age, that there were not many offices left that have a fax machine in them. The National Party almost certainly does, because they simply have not moved on. They certainly have not moved on from 23 September. We know that that is causing them great anxiety as they have to very quickly equip themselves with knowledge of the Standing Orders, as we’ve seen this afternoon.

The requirement in clause 53, in Part 3, which allows for a notice to be faxed to a claimant but also to be emailed to a claimant, allows extraordinary flexibility—

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the justice Minister not dealing with Pike River?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —because when it comes to emailing and faxing notices of a legal nature—indeed, of a litigious nature—actually, the Minister of Justice is absolutely qualified to speak upon this. As somebody who has actually appeared before and given evidence to the Commerce Commission, I know just how handy it is to be able to communicate with the Commerce Commission by way of both email and fax.

What we see in clause 53, in Part 3, is this presumption that if a document or notice is sent by fax or by email, it is deemed to have been served on the claimant, or other person, the day after—or, in the case of an email, the second working day after the date on which it was emailed. Of course, that then puts an onus on the recipient to prove that they hadn’t received it or that the email address was wrong. This is going to revolutionise the communication of notices and the service of notices in this particular context, and so we do have to be alert to the risks that are associated with this. We all want to move into the 21st century and to modern telecommunications, but we also have to understand that there are risks associated in doing so.

It is interesting to see in clause 54—also in Part 3—a new subsection 2A, saying that “In the absence of proof to the contrary, a notice that is emailed to a person” is treated as having been served on that person on the second working day, “and, in proving that the notice was emailed, it is sufficient to prove that the notice was properly addressed” to the email address that was commonly known to the person upon whom it is being served.

These are new devices and presumptions in law of this nature, and so we do not take lightly—we do not take lightly—the role of this House and the committee of the whole House stage to provide appropriate scrutiny for these sorts of measures. The legal profession has been talking about modernising for a long time. Ever since the member for Tauranga stopped being a Crown prosecutor, the rest of the legal profession decided it was time to modernise and left him in its wake. But actually providing for the emailing and faxing of notices to the Commerce Commission or to parties to action in the Commerce Commission is, I think, a novel step for the law, and it is important that the rules around that and the presumptions associated with it, as, indeed, Part 3 does, are a vital development in this part of the law.

The Electronic Interactions Reform Bill will herald the way to a new way of doing business in so many institutions, not the least of which is the Commerce Commission. It is interesting to see, also, that not just notices on parties or the commission itself, but the serving of summonses now can be done through electronic means. That does open up a whole new can of worms, because there will be issues about whether Bill of Rights rights are properly observed and whether or not there is scope for challenges to that. But we cannot underestimate just how significant and how revolutionary the provisions in this particular bill are.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you very much, Madam Chair Tolley. I just thank the honourable member for his contribution and I just want to acknowledge that, yes, Part 3 is actually the most controversial part of the bill that we’re discussing today. And it is the most controversial part for the very reason that the member has just been articulating, and that is around the recognition of the legality of an email being sent, or a notice being sent by email, and what that means at the receiver’s end.

There have been concerns raised by members on the select committee to make sure that while the Government department can prove—and must prove—that the email address that they were using is a working email address and that it was addressed correctly, it only stands as a proof that it was correctly sent. For example—and I used this example for some colleagues of mine—if I receive, say, 300 emails a day, and I didn’t manage to get to that email on that day, just the fact that it was correctly sent doesn’t mean that downstream I can’t say that, actually, I didn’t open it on that day—there must be some downstream proof of that. I have the opportunity to say, “Well, it might have been my working email last week but it’s not my working email this week.” So there are some defences around the recognition that notices are or are not received.

But I think the other part of this that caused concern was that the same applies to couriers. With all due respect to courier companies, we all know how unreliable some courier companies can be. However, to send a notice by courier, as long as the department shows that it was sent to an accurate address, that it was addressed appropriately and correctly, then they can say, “We did send it, so therefore we met our obligation to send.” to an acknowledged address. If, however, it doesn’t reach that address because the courier company lost the notification, that is a defence against any downstream consequence of perhaps not taking action on that notice.

Just one other thing, though: Supplementary Order Paper 7, which is on the Table, also amends Part 3 just slightly. It’s the second amendment, it’s minor and technical in its drafting, and it updates just the numbering of the inserted provisions in light of other amendments that have been made in that Part 3. The first part of the Supplementary Order Paper, which has already been discussed there, allows the chief executive to set the parameters by which a photo will be made.

So I did just want to rise and acknowledge the controversy of Part 3, and that there is a tension there that will be tested, I believe, going forward. But it is something that needed to be updated: the language, the method by which Government departments—if for no other reason than actually there is a financial saving for the taxpayer. But we mustn’t lose that tension: just because you send something, was it received? Is there a way a recipient can prove that, “I didn’t receive it. There are reasons why I didn’t receive it.”? So somewhere in the middle it got lost. But I acknowledge the member and the controversy, and I acknowledge the interest from the Opposition benches on this particular issue, because I know how concerned they are with regard to the tension that is in this document. I know how excited they are to have this piece of legislation in this House and I look forward to their contributions as we go forward.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair Tolley, and I’m quite surprised to see members opposite not standing up and taking a call to talk about something as significant as Part 3 of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, because I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister just said, and ask her a couple of questions as well in relation to Part 3. In particular—

Hon Member: Don’t filibuster your own bill, Grant.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Their boat’s shaking.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Brownlee has a lot to say, yet nothing of any meaning whatsoever, and so it’s a strange world we live in, you know, that a man who once had such greatness is reduced to this. It’s quite a sad thing, really.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Far from the point that’s trying to be made by the Hon Grant Robertson, I want to convey, to anyone who’s interested, the knowledge—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is this a point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is. I’m simply wanting to make it clear that this is the greatest entertainment anyone could have, to see a Government filibustering its own bill.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Madam Chair, that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need any further help. That is not a point of order.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, Madam Chair. No, I am standing to take a call on a significant change in the way in which many Acts that have been before this Parliament for some time will be operationalised using electronic means. The point that—

Jami-Lee Ross: Grant, why aren’t you writing next week’s legislation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m way ahead of that, Jami-Lee Ross—way ahead of that. That’s done. That’s dusted. We’re on the way. I came down to this Chamber because this is a piece of legislation that changes the way New Zealanders interact with agencies that are important to them.

I want to come to the amended section 98, in clause 44, on audio links for the Commerce Commission, and I want to ask the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin, whether or not evidence has been provided to her, or through the select committee, about some of the possible risks that apply when giving evidence via audiovisual link. I know from cases that I’ve dealt with in my own constituency of concerns in the justice system and the courts where the use of audiovisual links breaks down—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, could I just ask the member to what clause he’s referring?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m on Part 3, clause 44—the amended section 98. And I’m more than happy to read it out.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We know you are!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because that’s always a useful thing to do, Mr Brownlee, to be able to make sure we know exactly what clause we’re talking about. And so this is here—in clause 44, Part 3, which amends section 98 of the Commerce Act—to allow for people to appear by audio link or audiovisual link. I wanted to ask, before I was so rudely interrupted by Mr Brownlee, the Minister in the chair—I know this is unusual, Madam Chair, but I just want to foreshadow the fact that I will be seeking a second call because I’m only up to the first of my questions to the Minister. And so what I wanted to make sure had been done was an assessment of the lessons learnt from the court system and the justice system around some of the risks associated with the use of audiovisual links. And what we know from the justice system is (a), the propensity of such links to break down, but also (b), if, and there may well be—in the case of matters related to the Commerce Commission and the Commerce Act—secrecy and privacy type provisions that need to be maintained.

I think if we’re making a change, as this Parliament I imagine will be of the will to do, is that change being made with an awareness and a knowledge of what can go wrong with audiovisual links? And so that was why I wanted to raise that with the Minister, to make sure that that is happening. They are very positive developments. They facilitate a much more efficient type of business in all of the Government tribunals and courts and agencies, but they are not without risk in terms of those privacy and security concerns, and so I would ask if the Minister might be able to comment on what lessons have been learnt, if any, in regard to that.

More generally, looking then at clause 45, and this is the question of the ability to serve notices through different forms of technology. This is actually a very important point, and I’ll give you a specific example. Many members of the House will have signed up to various organisations, including Government ones, using email addresses that they may or may not use on a regular basis. And I think—without wanting to bring political parties into the debate—political parties would be able to tell you that many of the addresses on their databases are no longer used, and a significant and important point is that if we are going to have this as the regular form of communication, how can we be sure that people are well served? Will they be given any advice about how to update email addresses? What will they do when they feel that they haven’t had contact from an agency because it was an old email address? It’s much different from moving around between residential addresses—[Bell rung]—Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you Madam Chair, because I am only on the second of my points. So, to me, that is a really important point: how are we making sure that email addresses are kept up to date? How do people know that it is the place that they will be best contacted at? So I would ask the Minister in the chair to come back to us on that.

I want to go now to clause 51, which is an amendment to the Copyright Act 1994, and I want to particularly look at what would now be new subsection (4): “In the absence of proof to the contrary, written advice that is emailed to a person must be treated as received by the person on the second working day after the date on which it is emailed, and, in proving that the advice was emailed, it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address.” That, to me, raises a number of questions, the first of which is that the whole point of electronic communications is their immediacy, and so the idea that it must be treated as received by the person on the second working day after the date on which it was emailed seems somewhat contradictory to the whole point of emailing—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It takes the member’s office days to reply.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, now, Mr Brownlee’s problem is he hasn’t got up to “R” in the alphabet, for his learning. He gets to “G”, and then he doesn’t quite know what to do afterwards. So it’s absolutely fine, Minister—

Hon Andrew Little: If you email it on a Saturday, you need two days.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, that’s true—that’s true. Actually, on a Monday, because he often doesn’t get to work till the Wednesday. I know for Mr Brownlee this will be hard to imagine, but for most people—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fill up the void. Personal insults—not a problem.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Filling up a void—I wouldn’t go there if I was the member, but, yeah, that’s fine. Really, it is a question that, actually, seems quite contradictory to what the whole point of electronic communications is.

But it is the second part of the clause—which does appear to me to have been added at a later point; I wasn’t on this select committee—“in proving that the advice was emailed, it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address.” I would ask the Minister in the chair if there has been any advice given around other jurisdictions’ use of that form of definition, because the way that things work in terms of cyberspace and using emails is that messages sent are not necessarily messages received. There’s an awful lot that can happen, and so whether or not the obligation here that something is sufficiently, properly, addressed and sent—now, we all know that it’s quite possible to place read receipts on emails, and whether or not Government agencies have been encouraged to actually put read receipts on their emails, would that not be a possible or a better way of ensuring that there is some certainty about whether or not this has been sent—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is rubbish, Grant. It’s complete—of course, that’s your obligation. You’re talking absolute rubbish. You’re wasting the House’s time.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Mr Brownlee has a number of opinions about this matter but isn’t interested in taking a call to tell me whether or not he actually—Minister Brownlee, in the 10 or 12 emails he’s sent in his political career, clearly believes that they all made it to the recipient. We can’t necessarily guarantee that.

So I do wonder if there has been some consideration given to the idea of read receipts or something else that could be used as a way of proving that an email was actually received, because simply sending it—

Brett Hudson: They can’t, Grant. They can’t be used as proof.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Brett Hudson has views, too. He was on the select committee, so he actually could take a call if he chose to.

Brett Hudson: So I understand the bill. This is why we want to pass it, Grant.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yeah, well, see, this is the problem, that members of the select committee won’t take a call. I have to ask the Minister in the chair if that is, in fact, the way that this was done. And these are not matters that are trivial, when you look at the kinds of things that have been sent through. These are notices of suspension for companies, notices of determinations made by the Companies Office—all of these are important matters, so it’s not something to be taken lightly, that simply sending an email that was properly addressed is enough to say that it was received. So I think that actually is a legitimate question that we can be asking of the Minister in the chair.

As I go through Part 3, I want to come to subpart—the one on marriage, what one was that one? There is a subpart around amendments to the Marriage Act, which I do want to cover, but I’ll return to that, perhaps, in another call. But I do also want to note that this whole provision around emails—[Time expired]

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair Tolley. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to support this legislation. It’s an admirable effort this Parliament is doing to modernise our communications legislation—17 Government departments are covered by this legislation.

Now, I want to confine my comments to the copyright provisions in Part 3 of this legislation, because it’s something I’ve got a bit of experience with in this House, with the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act, and we’ve got the copyright review going through at the moment. There are a few key questions that arise in this legislation. Now, it’s admirable this Parliament is trying to clarify how email communiqué should be used, because when it comes to copyright, you’ve got, basically, two sides of the debate, or two sides of the relationship. So a copyright owner has to notice that their copyright has been infringed and then send a notice to the relevant agencies, and then the appropriate mechanisms are invoked under the Copyright Act 1994.

In Part 3, what we see is that by amending section 136A of the existing Copyright Act, the chief executive may suspend notice. Now, I want to read this out—it’s in clause 51—because it is kind of quite tricky language: “(4) In the absence of proof to the contrary, written advice that is emailed to a person must be treated as received by the person on the second working day after the date on which it is emailed, and, in proving that the advice was emailed, it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address.” Now, if memory serves me correctly, the existing older legislation had a 20-working-day period.

It’s correct that we’re allowing emails as a valid form of formal communications, and here you’ve got two days to consider it read, but my question to the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin is: what happens when it goes to the spam filter? I bet every member in this House has spent more than two days replying to a constituent’s email or an email from your party. Now, I’m embarrassed to say that I’m in that category—taking far too long to reply. Is two days the appropriate mechanism? What does happen in the case of a spam filter? Where would you go? Where is the appropriate agency to, I guess, have it considered—if it’s appropriate or not?

I guess it’s more on a different side, but down at clause 53, which is amending section 139 of the Copyright Act, it’s basically clarifying around fax numbers. Now, far from me to tell the Government about legislation, but is it appropriate to be modernising legislation by including references to faxes in 2017? I remember when I first entered Parliament nearly eight years ago, the fax number was assiduously printed on the bottom of my business card—I wouldn’t even know where the fax machine is in my office. So while we’re doing the modernisation project of legislation, should we be including references to faxes? And if there are any statistics on how many fax machines are still in operation in New Zealand, that would be useful.

What we are talking about with the Copyright Act is severe penalties, including financial and criminal. When it comes to the provisions that haven’t been enacted by the Government, we’ve actually got the powers under the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act to terminate internet customers’ internet access. Now, I think that’s an egregious step that goes far beyond the bounds, but when it counts on sending notices, a warning detection notice, via email, we need to make sure that those people—I think there’s been about 13 or maybe 17 cases under that existing legislation, popularly known as the “Skynet Act”, that’ve been applied. In some cases, we’ve actually seen people serving overseas in the New Zealand Defence Force served with these detection notices. So it’s important, as we modernise our legislation and the way Government departments interact with each other and with New Zealand citizens, that we’ve got the appropriate rules in place to deal with these important questions. Kia ora koutou.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Tracey Watkins.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): No—Tracey Martin.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, Tracey Martin. Sorry.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like to rise and just address the questions from the Hon Grant Robertson with regard to—there were two questions that he asked. He asked whether I had been advised of any issues around using audiovisual links in a range of different proceedings. Just to be clear, audiovisual links have been used in a range of proceedings for a number of years, and there have been concerns vocalised about the possible risks involved with the links breaking down, with there being a breach to the link at the time that the individual using it—audio-linking in—is actually either giving testimony or having these discussions. The agencies that will be using audiovisual links will implement a range—and learn from a regard of lessons that have been used from the existing use. So this is an area of constant improvement. So while it’s certainly not risk-free, it is something that—it’s not 100 percent brand new. Some organisations have been using it, and lessons there are learnt.

Also, as we implement this opportunity across Government departments, these things will be dealt with, and we will progress best practice and other ways to make sure that we minimise the risks, but they don’t need to be dealt with in this bill. This bill is really updating that opportunity for those who have the capacity and are safe, and with a minimal amount of risk, to actually be able to use this facility. So there’s a bit of futureproofing in there.

The Hon Grant Robertson also asked about concerns—and can I just pick up on the two days, that there’s two days to say that you’ve received the email. I did give the example of—for example, today I think I received by midday 309 emails. There is, you know, some likelihood that it will take me a couple of days to go through them. But the responsible departments are looking at preparing guidance notes and coming up again with a best-practice outline around expectations of when and how agencies will use this opportunity. And then the Commerce Commission is one of the agencies that we believe will be taking advantage of it.

So these expectations would help to ensure agencies use email notices effectively, to make recipients aware of the relevant notifications—for example, how to ensure that the email is marked as being important. So out of those 309 emails I got, if I got an email notification from a Government department, we want to make sure that it would be highlighted or have an alert or the red exclamation mark on it, so that it draws my attention to it among the multitude that I have.

There were two questions also around how would the agencies ensure that they were updating the email addresses that they have. I think that’s a valid point for Mr Robertson to make—that is, the onus is going to be on the agency to do exactly that. That is the point of the piece of legislation—that they must prove that it was a current, working email. So it’s certainly going to be on the agencies’ responsibility to update its records and make sure it has the most recent contact data on it. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t apply. That’s the first thing.

With regard to Mr Hughes’ comment about the spam folder—he raises another very interesting issue and I think that’s something we’re going to have to manage, as, again, this is the environment we’re currently in. Government departments need to be able to use email to send out notifications. This is 2017.

But, taking that on board, if one particular Government department is always recognised by a particular email provider as being spam, then I think that Government department needs to probably have a look at how many notifications it’s sending out, and what are some of its key words that might be in either its address bar or whatever that may be picking it up and popping it over into the spam files. So I hope that has answered the questions from the Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Madam Chair Tolley. I would like to make my first contribution on this bill, speaking to Subpart 3, clause 53, which amends section 139 of the Copyright Act 1994.

I want to pick up on the topic that my colleague Gareth Hughes raised around the treatment of fax machines. But my questions to the Minister are slightly different than the ones that Mr Hughes raised. I note that, as best as I can tell, this is the only clause in Subpart 3 that refers to notices that are faxed. I don’t know whether that is because it’s not anticipated that the other types of notices will be faxed or if those are sufficiently dealt with in the primary legislation.

New subsection (2B) says: “A notice that is faxed to a claimant or any other person must, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be treated as served on the claimant or other person on the day after the date on which it is faxed, and, in proving that it was faxed, it is sufficient to prove that a fax machine generated a record of the transmission of the notice to the fax number.” Now, first of all, I’m a bit bemused as to why we get two days to find our emails but we only get one day to find our faxes. I’m not quite sure why that is. Anyone who’s still using a fax machine—and I don’t personally count myself amongst those people, but I’m sure there are folks who still use a fax machine—if they’re getting the kind of volume of faxes that one might get through email, why only one day, when you get two days to find your emails?

But I’ve actually got a more pressing concern than that, which is that in relation to both emails and posting—say an email was sent and your computer is not working that particular day. I think most of us have experienced our IT systems not working in our offices around Parliament and, probably, in previous lives as well. Now, that doesn’t mean that your email disappears. Once your machine, once the device that you are using to connect to your email server is up and running again, you’ll be able to get your hands on your email.

If your fax machine is not working on a particular day, it’s gone. The bill says that it is sufficient to prove that a fax machine generated a record of transmission, i.e., the fax machine that’s sent the fax has a record that the fax was sent, but it’s quite possible that the fax was not actually received. Unlike what we in the 21st century call electronic mail, email, that could mean the fax has disappeared altogether, and it could be difficult to prove to the contrary that the fax arrived. If you cannot prove that your fax machine was not working on the particular day that the fax was sent, then you have the record of transmission but you have no fax. You have no proof that you didn’t receive it, and therefore could be liable for whatever penalties or whatever consequences come about because of that.

So I wonder if the Minister has considered that, or if that was a matter that was raised at the select committee, because it does appear that, unlike a notice of determination that is sent through the post or a notice of determination that is sent by email—and I’m particularly thinking of email here—for a notice that is sent by fax, it seems that there is a potential for the person who should’ve received that message to have not, and have some difficulty in proving it.

So two questions there for the Minister. One, perhaps, is a little light-hearted—why one day, not two?—but the other one I think is actually a little bit more serious, given that there are consequences for people who do not respond to these notices. Perhaps it is that a notice of determination—the consequences for not responding to a notice of determination are different to not responding to a notice of suspension or any of the other communication that is referred to in other clauses in Subpart 3. But it’s a genuine question to the Minister that I would like a response to.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It is a delight to rise to speak on Part 3 of this bill. In particular, I want to raise perhaps some questions for the Minister in respect of the amendments to the Companies Act and, particularly, the notice that must be served by email.

Actually, for the Minister, I note that there were seven submitters in respect of Part 3—the Commerce Commission, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, and the New Zealand Law Society submitted on the implications that the amendments to the service provisions might have.

As a recently former practitioner that was often required to communicate with various Government agencies by a range of different means, it is indeed useful to see that forms like facsimile are no longer the only means by which to communicate and receive notice and those types of things. But there is a point that was just raised by my learned colleague the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and my good friend from the East Coast, Mr Gareth Hughes, just in respect to when email notifications are received. This is, indeed, the point that the Law Society was relatively concerned with, in regard to whether or not (1) the recipient had authorised the release of information to themselves as an individual, and then (2) whether or not it could be gauged adequately that they had indeed received that information.

I do note that the committee came back with some relatively sound responses and discussed the two main scenarios for non-receipt: primarily, that the communication wasn’t delivered at all—and I think my colleague Mr Hughes canvassed that relatively well—or it may have been delivered to the wrong address. I know for myself, and there are a couple of Millennials in the House, that we’ve had email correspondence for most of our lives now, I think, to a degree. We do go through email addresses constantly as we progress through our lives and our careers.

I guess my concern, or my note with this very sensible legislation, was just ensuring that emails that were received—the definition, sorry, that I wanted to just turn to was: used by the recipient. For example, in my case and I’m sure the case of many of our members here, you tend to have a few accounts that are open and active but that you don’t necessarily monitor at all times. I know for myself, I’ve got about four email addresses linked to my cellular device but there are probably about another three that I don’t actively monitor. So it’s not just the spam provisions that I’d be concerned about if notice was sent to some of these email addresses. So I’m just wanting to get some clarification about, I guess, the committee’s response to how you would gauge whether or not an email address is, in fact, used by a recipient.

The second point—I note that, of course, the Commerce Commission was absolutely in favour of these provisions because they are, in fact, common-sense, decent provisions that do tidy up an area of law. They do, in fact, address—I think it’s 17 statutes, and tidy them all up, bring them into a modern state. But it is an onerous obligation on all members in this House that we ensure that when we tinker with the law that it is, in fact, done—[Time expired]

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to respond to the questions that have been put to me by the learned colleagues. First, with regard to Gareth Hughes, he asked a question about how many fax machines there were, actually—I’m hoping it wasn’t in New Zealand, but whether it was inside the parliamentary precinct. If he goes to the photocopy room on most of the floors, particularly in Bowen House—I’m not quite sure, here in the Beehive—I think he will find that there is a fax machine in every one of the photocopy rooms.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How does that relate to the bill?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It was a question asked, Mr Brownlee, and the Minister is responding to questions. With regard to what I think with Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s—Mr Iain Lees-Galloway actually raised it: what would the proof be to show if your fax machine was broken, and whether you could prove that you didn’t receive it. I think it’s a reasonably valid question, because this is what the legislation does.

These are existing provisions. The conversation—the references to facsimiles, and so on, are existing provisions. I think one of the other parts of the bill refers to—actually, it was the Labour Party members and the Green Party members on the select committee for this bill that acknowledged the digital divide. They acknowledged that while we were updating these pieces of legislation for a digital environment, we needed to acknowledge that not everybody was moving at the same speed. So while I’m sure that the Millennials in the House might look with some, I suppose, amusement on the fact that the word “facsimile” is still there, there are still people who use them and we’re not going to remove those existing provisions, to accentuate the divide in any way, shape, or form at this time.

We do, however, acknowledge that the number of people with a facsimile is lessening. There are very few. We acknowledge that that may be an issue, that there may be the odd individual who will have to say, “My fax machine was broken on the day and it’s very hard to get a fax technician in these days.” So we will watch that on a case by case basis. The departments need to be reasonable and acknowledge these issues.

Why would you have a one-day clause with regard to receiving a facsimile, over a two-day clause of receiving an email? I think, for myself, the logic there is that it’s a physical appearance of a document out of a facsimile machine, as opposed to when I walk past my computer where the email has been sent and there is no flag up. It’s a recognition that the email is not a physical representation; it’s inside your computer, so therefore it’s not as obvious that it has actually arrived.

I acknowledge the contribution by the honourable member who talked about—particularly with regard to the Millennials—the number of email addresses that Millennials appear to have. I’ve just been educated on the number of email addresses that are possible, for a start. But with regard to that, again the onus is on the department to prove that it is a working email address. I guess the logic to me is that you use the reply button to some correspondence that has already been sent to the department from the person they’re trying to communicate with. I would only make the very practical suggestion to those who have such a number of emails to start using the forwarding device on your digital equipment to actually try and get them all into one place, so you know exactly what’s going on.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Ayes are 56, the Noes are 64. The motion will not be put.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’d like to correct the vote. I incorrectly voted ACT opposed. Apologies.

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

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT Party 1.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Chair Tolley, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill—almost as much pleasure as it does to be speaking to you as Chair, re the professional relationship we’ve had in the past. You were the Minister of Police at a time of another iteration of my life. I might say, Madam Chair, you did a sterling job, and I see that you’re continuing to do that same job today. With that sterling piece of obsequiousness, I’ll now go to the bill.

I’ve been interested, sitting here listening to talk, and we show the range of understanding—in fact, it’s been something of a case study in communications over the years. I suppose I was waiting for someone to talk about the Lamson tube, which I know many here won’t remember. That was a means of communication in my younger days, when I started professionally, whereby using a vacuum method we would send anything—written documents, cigarettes, anything—around the department that I worked in at the time. When I now see this bill, particularly Part 3, which has really entranced me—and I really would love to take the time to spend speaking about it now. In that part, we’re now talking about the ability to send messages, to send whatever we need, whatever is required, by electronic means. Finally, really—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā tātou e ngā mema o Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Before the dinner break, we were in committee for the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill and considering Part 3. Greg O’Connor had the call and has three minutes and 16 seconds remaining should he wish to take them.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just hope that I can regain some of the enthusiasm that I had for this bill before the dinner break. I had a very nice dinner, and I’m coming back now to try to just rebuild the passion I have for this particular part of the bill.

One thing I will say is that what we have concentrated on at the moment is that the real nub of this bill is the fact that we can now do things electronically that we haven’t been able to do before. I was just sort of regaling, or reminiscing, about the journey to this place that had this ability. I’d spoken about the Lamson tube and what we were able to do with that—sending pieces of paper and even cigarettes through the system, and all those different types of things.

Of course we then went on, following that, to the old teleprinters that often existed that sent messages around the country, usually overnight. In my experience, they were usually manned by retired navy gentlemen, who used to spend their nights up there, doing we knew not what. But, certainly, the messages used to get through. My own professional life was enhanced considerably by the Wanganui Computer Centre, which then enabled us to communicate at all sorts of times and dates. So when I look at Part 3 of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, I contemplate what is now going to be possible around these things.

Particularly one thing I do think should be brought up is that when we talk about this—the fact that we’re on the verge of Vodafone, one of the big providers, who are going to be discontinuing their own service system as a provider of email addresses. That will provide some issues, I would imagine, for those that have forgotten or have neglected to take the advice to change over to a new internet service provider. Nevertheless, I think the fact that one part of the bill that—despite some discussion through the committee stage where we would require the consent of those who would be receiving the information, I’m pleased to see that that was disregarded, because I think bringing consent to such provisions into the Act would really render it virtually inoperable for those who are likely, in the future, to claim that they hadn’t actually received the information.

The other thing, of course, is that in New Zealand we’ve always been very much ahead of the pack as far as the use of email goes. I remember I had a position representing New Zealand on a world stage, and as I handed my cards out in places like the United States, which we thought were the most advanced, it was some time before they actually had email addresses on the cards that I was receiving in return. That gave me some idea of how advanced New Zealand is in relation to our adoption of electronic means. Thank you.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I would like to talk about clause 75. This is an amendment to the Trade Marks Act 2002, and it’s about section 139A, “Chief executive may suspend accepted notice”, which is amended. There are a couple of questions I have here. Look, I understand the efficiency that digital communications provide—of that there is absolutely no doubt. In fact, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is doing some fantastic stuff in this space around providing efficiency, and they’ve actually quantified it to a huge extent.

This is the thing that I’m just—and I’m sure the Minister in the chair has an answer; it’s an easy question, but I just wouldn’t mind knowing the answer. What it says here is, and I quote, “(2) After section 139A(3)(b) insert: (c) by emailing it to [a] person at an email address that is used by the person.” Now—at the risk of sounding glib—you’re never going to email it to an email address that isn’t used by the person, of course, but I’m keen to know: how do you determine whether an email address is actually used by the person or not?

The reason I ask that is, you know: does it have to be acknowledged? Does the CEO, or someone on behalf of the CEO, have to seek authorisation or have to seek confirmation that, in fact, this email address is one that is being used, or is it a defined time period—for example, if this person has emailed the CEO or an agent or someone within MBIE within one month, within three months, within six months?

Let me give you an example: I used to have a Hotmail address, which I used the whole time. I moved to Gmail. I don’t even know if the Hotmail address exists in any way, shape, or form. In fact, as Dr Clark mentioned, with the amount of stuff we get through the parliamentary server these days, I haven’t checked my Gmail address for a length of time. It is still operational.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, that’s why you haven’t answered.

Hon STUART NASH: Ha, ha! Send it to my senior private secretary. The reason I ask this question is: what defines an email address that is used? Is it a time period, is it an email confirmation back from the person, or is it some other test? The reason I asked that is because what it actually says in clause 75(3), for insertion after section 139A(3), is it says “insert:”—and I quote—“(4) In the absence of proof to the contrary, written advice that is emailed to a person must be treated as received by the person on the second working day after the date on which it is emailed, and, in proving that the advice was emailed, it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address.”

Now, the Companies Office could send something to Hotmail, because I have no doubt that at some point they had that as a valid email address. It will go to that address and there will be no bounce-back that says “Sorry, Stuart Nash no longer uses that address.” So according to this, what it says is they could send an email and they—well, the officials, I should say; the CEO—will have to make an assumption that that email is received. What I would have liked to have seen, to be honest, in this bill is—the test on whether an email address is used by the person should be a response from that person that they have actually received that advice. Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not against emailing documentation.

Hon Dr David Clark: You’ve got to use common sense—got to use common sense.

Hon STUART NASH: You do have to use common sense. The use of technology will drive innovation in a way that we haven’t seen for years—you know, ever. There’s no doubt about that. I’m all for innovation to drive technology—certainly in the small to medium sized enterprise - sector—but I do think we need to be a little bit careful. If we make assumptions that, you know, a good, hard-working tradesperson that’s been out there plumbing your house or digging your ditches or wiring your house is going to come home and check their emails every single day, then I think we need to test that assumption. It may be that email addresses are used once a week, it may be once a month, and that may be enough, but I think we have to be very careful about assuming that people use technology on a daily basis.

Let me give you an example—a very recent example: the Napier water crisis. The council put out something on Facebook, and we were supposed to know that. As someone of my age, who was on Facebook but not particularly competent, I don’t check Facebook the whole time. So we cannot make assumptions around the use of technology.

Lawrence Yule: I knew it, Stu—I knew it.

Hon STUART NASH: Ha, ha! Mr Lawrence Yule, you should probably keep out of any debate around water in Hawke’s Bay at this point in time. What I would like to say is we need to test these assumptions, and what we absolutely need to do is, I think, in terms of validating any sending of electronic transactions, be assured that in fact it has been received.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just in recognition of how this is supposed to work, where a member actually asks the Minister a question and the Minister is supposed to respond, I would like to respond to the very valid issues that have just been raised by my honoured colleague. Quite rightly, the gentleman has pointed out that one of the ways that a department would recognise that this is not a working email address would be a bounced message, and we’ve all received those. A secondary way, quite rightly—and the guidelines and procedures are going to be worked through with the departments—would be to request a read receipt. Now, that’s very logical and very reasonable.

I do want to raise with the right honourable gentleman that while he may have had a Hotmail address that may still be working, I would suggest that that gentleman is so popular that probably people are getting messages that his mailbox is really, really full and so not to use that any more. But if that is not the case, I would just suggest that the gentleman go and put a forward on that Hotmail address to his Gmail address, and then the other right honourable member’s email may get through.

The rebuttal presumption has always been in place inside this legislation. We’re trying to modernise the piece of legislation into a digital environment—fair enough—and so the rebuttal presumption has always been there. That means that the department has an onus on it to prove that it is a working address, and this was designed predominantly for business. I would have to say, as a trustee of a particular trust, that I have been receiving emails from the Charities Commission, and so on and so forth, advising me that my return for that particular trust needs to be in place by such and such, and such and such. So already some of this is happening, and a downstream effect of that is that if I don’t do it, that trust could be null and voided. So there is an onus on, and it was designed for, business.

Agreeably I take the member’s point around small businesses—small owner-operators, upon which New Zealand is built—and that will need to be taken into account by the department as they set the policies and procedures around how this will be implemented and used. The responsibility is on the department to be reasonable and sensible. I did actually seek advice on this over the dinner hour rather than just going off and enjoying myself, like perhaps some other members did. It had been raised around spam and any of these sorts of emails going into the spam file, or, as you say, into a non-working email address. We have Millennials in the House with seven email addresses.

It still is a defence to say “I did not receive it.” If we get to the nth degree, there is forensics that could be requested by the recipient to say “It went into my spam box. I did not open it.” Or, you know, “It’s five days, I’ve been in hospital, and I’ve been unable to clear my emails.”—all these are real. But, with regard to the business community, the onus is definitely on the business community to provide a working email address. If we think that they must provide an official physical address—so anything to do with the Companies Office—it is not unreasonable, with regard to business, and particularly larger businesses as opposed to our small and medium sized businesses, that they must ensure that they have a working email address for our governmental departments.

I hope that that answers the member’s questions, I hope it’s answered some of the other questions raised in the committee, and I look forward to more questions from the interested members of Parliament.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is good to follow on from that conversation, because some of the questions I wish to raise in respect of clause 45, and the proving of delivery of a notice sent by a courier service, kind of go to the nub of the same issue. I was also going to raise some of those issues around emailing, and I want, before I get into too much detail, just to lift our sights for a moment and commend this bill, because what we are doing here—simply put—is bringing these interactions into the modern age.

If we continue doing things as we’ve always done, we would be running round on horses and carts, with people wearing funny hats, and delivering things and talking in funny accents to each other, all for the sake of propriety. Here we have a modern way of communicating via email or via courier, or in whichever way we’re doing it, that is about making sure that things are done efficiently, that the business needing to be carried out is carried out without undue waste, and that the resources that we all have—and they are limited—are used in the most sensible fashion possible. So I want to preface my comments with a general commendation, because I do think we are moving in the right direction with this bill.

I kind of want to despair a little at my colleague from Napier’s comments about his email address, because I do think in the case of email we need to apply common sense. It’s one of those things where I think most people in the modern world would have an email address that works, and I respect the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin’s, comments around making sure that businesses have one that’s current. They wouldn’t be able to trade in the modern environment without a current email address, so it’s such a reasonable proposal that it would be hard to quibble with it. Certainly, in Dunedin most businesses have an email address, and they’re required to supply one for communications purposes—very sensible.

I want to delve into the courier service issue, because it seems to me that it’s the same kind of thing we’re doing here, but there are a couple of questions that come out of it for me. So, in general, my starting point is that I think it’s a good idea. What we have here in amended section 102(2) in clause 45 is that in proving delivery of a notice sent by courier service: “it is sufficient to prove that the document was properly addressed and provided to the [courier] service.” So I guess I want to ask what happens when that goes wrong—you know, who does the burden of proof fall on if the courier service does not actually deliver what was intended to be delivered? Is it then the responsibility of the courier service, or is it the problem of the person on the other end of it?

What would seem reasonable to me would be that somehow the courier service would bear liability for that. It can’t be that the Government sends things off via an unreliable service, or I guess the Government might—you know, if it’s interacting—bear responsibility for that. So, I guess: what is the intention, and what kinds of thoughts has the Minister had about how that responsibility is apportioned for delivery?

Let’s face it: we’ve all had that experience. Somebody says they’ve sent something in the mail and we should expect the courier to deliver it, and it doesn’t show up. Sometimes it just plain doesn’t show up. Sometimes we find out months down the track, when we’ve found some old postcard that says “We called and you weren’t here.”, and it’s been shoved behind that piece of wood that’s falling off the side of the house, or sometimes it’s been blown down the street. Certainly, I imagine people in Wellington would have that experience. In sunny Dunedin, it’s not quite the same. It’s more likely to be a sun-bleached notice, which can hardly be read. Each part of the country will have its own challenges in that regard. But, assuming one’s missed that notice, whose responsibility is it, because there can be serious consequences if that thing that is being delivered is incredibly important, as it often is with a courier service? Where does the responsibility lie, and what kind of logical process does one go through?

I assume it’s common sense we’re working towards here, as was the case when we discussed the email issue earlier. But in respect of a courier service, the fact that it was sufficient to prove that it was properly addressed almost doesn’t seem to go quite far enough, because we have tracking services, for example. Are tracking services to be considered the gold standard if the communication is particularly important or if it considers financial affairs or other such measures? Is there a bar above which a tracked courier service should be used to ensure that there is a traceability of—[Time expired] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will hear from the Hon Dr David Clark.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Chair. You know, is it enough—

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are Speakers’ rulings and convention that when a Minister is seeking the call, the Minister automatically gets the call. I think you may have erred in giving the call to Dr Clark.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member. It is a convention, not a rule, and I have already given the call to Dr Clark.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank Mr Lee Ross for his constructive engagement on this issue.

Jami-Lee Ross: I’m here to help.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As he says, he is here to help. I think he’s trying to string out the debate. I think he’s just trying to string out the debate opposite there. He’s trying to make sure we all have interrupted calls and need rulings from the Chair, and so forth. I mean, it is an important issue, Mr Lee Ross, and I understand—[Interruption] Sorry, what was that?

Jami-Lee Ross: I thought you had sick people to save.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, sick people to save—sick people to save. Well, I mean this is an issue. If we’re talking about courier services, we could be talking about things that pertain to people’s health and well-being, because the stress associated with not receiving a package that one was expecting and that may or may not have been tracked does have an effect on people’s health and well-being. I would like to know if that is being considered. I thank Mr Lee Ross for his suggestion, because that was actually something that, until that interaction, I hadn’t considered. And that’s the beauty of free-flowing debate in the House. The House does often have the debate become things that may not have been considered and, of course, the committee of the whole House stage is the place where we can make amendments, if they are needed, or lay down the intentions to the committee in passing the law.

How is that taken into account, in consideration of whether a courier package that wasn’t received, how that affected the recipient and their subsequent response, whether they looked out for a package or not, or whether they’d received the email or not? One wonders whether there might be some good practice guidelines issued that suggest a courier delivery ought to be accompanied by or preceded by email communication. I guess if there are multiple routes followed, and that’s typically in the modern world what we do—I mean, sometimes if a message is particularly important, we’ll send an email to somebody, text them to say we’ve sent it, and then the email itself might say, “Expect a courier package.” I guess then there’s belts and braces.

But what we’re trying to do here, of course, is actually reduce the burden of responsibility on those who are sending the messages to a reasonable level. I wonder what thought has been given to the process of making the decisions about what level of communication is required; how frequent should the communication be? We live in a world where there is an enormous amount of communication and sometimes—and I will concede Mr Nash’s point that sometimes we can be bombarded with all this communication. It’s hard to sift through what the most important stuff is if there are lots of email addresses running, and I take the point about setting up a forwarding address that another member helpfully raised earlier.

But if there are all of these competing things, what is the best practice for communicating when something important is to be received? Does the ministry responsible—if there’s a ministry issuing notices—also have to give consideration to text messaging at a certain level of interaction if it’s regarding a significant transaction with companies, and has consideration been given to this? I hadn’t spotted it in the bill. I hope it’s not because I’ve missed it in my careful reading of the bill, but there’s certainly plenty of consideration given to email. I’m sure it will be something that came up in the select committee stage. I know Ms Dyson chaired the Government Administration Committee, and I’m hoping she will make a contribution. I’m sure the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin, will know—but whether text messaging was considered as another level of interaction, and how would you know whether a text message had been received or not?

The reception of a text message is another thing. I think most people do check the text messages. Then, of course, the next thing that comes is your communications via other electronic messaging apps and those kinds of things that I hear the young people are using these days. Was your Snapchat received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, or whatever? Where is this headed? I guess the Minister will have in mind the next bill that follows this, because developments are happening all the time and methods of communication are continuing to evolve. I expect this progressive Government will be looking at further legislation to ensure that we are not just ready for today but that we’re ready for tomorrow. So I wonder if the Minister in the chair has some thoughts about those other methods of communication that are becoming increasingly popular.

We know, of course, that when these things become too much, we see with mental health—and I am concerned as Minister of Health with the amount of social media that young people are receiving, and there’s some speculation that, actually, that bombardment of messaging is actually problematic. What thought has been given to that?

I thank the member, Jami-Lee Ross, for raising the issue of stressed caused and so on and the effect on people’s health of messages received or not received, tracked or not tracked.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just a very short call to answer the questions from the member, David Clark—very reasonable questions, I think.

The question around couriers was particularly—I did ask, actually, specific questions around my staff. Not naming any particular courier company, but I think we’ve all experienced something that has left one place and his never arrived at where it is supposed to arrive. So, quite rightly, just by having a department say that it was properly addressed when it left here is no guarantee, obviously, that it is going to reach the other end. Certainly, the protocols and procedures around how this legislation will be implemented in a practical sense by departments are being developed.

You quite rightly point out that there are tracking services on a courier package, which would provide the proof for any department that it had been received by the person it should have reached. I do remind the member of mail—snail mail—and that there was a time actually in this country where Government departments sent out letters. And as the Minister for Seniors—with a different hat on—I know that we still do. There was no guarantee either, at that time, that it was received. New Zealand Post was very, very competent, but things happen. I do believe that that will be worked through as the procedures are developed. It has been raised, and it’s now on the record.

With regard to text messaging, Facebook private messaging, or Snapchat, I think it will be a long while before Government departments start to—well, I hope it’s a long while before Government departments start to Snapchat you or private message you on your Facebook page to tell you that if you don’t make that appointment or this appointment, something bad is going to happen to you. I think that’s just too informal at this stage—not saying it won’t be in the future, but that’s too informal at this stage. And I think that was probably—those were the major areas of questioning that the member had.

Just around the courier service, similar to what we’ve had with the letter mail service—

Hon Dr David Clark: Multiple means of communication?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, certainly. So multiple means of communication: I agree. There is logic and some reason to the issues you have raised. This is why—you’re quite right—the committee of the whole House is so valuable, not just to the development of the legislation but that the members of the department, the staff there, pick up these conversations, they pick up these nuances that are raised by members of Parliament—very valid conversations around pieces of legislation—and they can inform practice further downstream.

I can appreciate that. Before you were going to send something by courier, it may be that you send an email. The courier with a tracked device is a follow-up from that. But I still say that there is always the rebuttal presumption that has been entrenched inside the legislation. There is a defence there and logic must prevail at the end of the day. Kia ora.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. May I take the opportunity, please, at this, only my second time speaking since my maiden speech, to congratulate you in your ascension to this role as an Assistant Speaker. I am not just saying that because, in doing so, you then allowed me to become your previous role of junior whip. I assure you I am sincere—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And the member needs to come to the bill. Ha, ha!

KIERAN McANULTY: This is indeed relevant, sir. I would like to direct my comments today to Subpart 8. It alarms me how Subpart 8 has been overlooked throughout this debate up to now. This subpart sets out proposed amendments to friendly societies. “Friendly society” is not a term that you could place upon the members in the Opposition benches. But, of course, it is the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. There are those in this House that were not born in 1982. I refer to myself, the member for Pakuranga, the list member based in Maungakiekie for the Green Party, and I will come back to that—

Hon Tracey Martin: There’s another behind you.

KIERAN McANULTY: There’s a number behind me. I’ll come back to that point later if you’ll allow me, sir.

The Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It is an Act that consolidates and amends the law relating to friendly and certain other societies. It makes provisions for the formation and administration of credit unions.

When I was elected, I had a fear; I feared that I would have to stand in this House and talk at length about things that didn’t matter, but I’m so pleased to be able to stand here tonight and talk about something as interesting and as relevant as Subpart 8 of this Act. I take particular interest in this as there is a number of friendly societies in Wairarapa, where I am based. Members of this House might be interested to know that Subpart 8 amends section 26 of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982.

There’s a couple of points here, within this, particularly within clause 66, that I’m interested in, and I would like the opportunity to pose a couple of questions to the Minister. I do note that, in new section 26(1A), it proposes three parts: “(a) delivering it personally to the society or branch;”. I note that this actually makes minimal change to what is currently proposed. Now, Mr Chair, I note in the look that you are giving in this direction that perhaps you would like the two Ministers in front of me to keep their conversation quiet, and perhaps I might take the opportunity to ask them to do so, also. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

KIERAN McANULTY: Excuse me, gentlemen, you are taking up valuable time here. I’m trying to get through my speech. [Taps Minister on head] Where was I, Mr Chair? Perhaps I should start again.

New section 66(1A)(b) states, “sending it by post to the usual or last known address of the society or branch;”. Now, I note that this allows for the fact that there might be a change in circumstances. I think that’s fair. But let’s look at “(c) emailing it to this society or branch at an email address that is used by the society or branch.” It does not allow the same flexibility as (b). I note, however, that in the ministerial comments that were provided, it does state that, in New Zealand legislation, the burden has always been on the intended recipient to prove a failure of delivery when communications were by post or fax, and I congratulate the Minister on extending that out to email.

I mentioned earlier that there are a number of us in this House that were not born in 1982, and therefore I raise concern around the mention of this fax. The member for Pakuranga and the list member based in Maungakiekie and myself may or may not know what a fax is, and I wonder if the Minister would like to take some of the time of this committee to explain to us what a fax is.

The point is that I actually congratulate the Minister on including that. Yes, there might not be many people in this country that still use faxes, but the point is that I come from a rural area, and not everyone in rural areas has access to the internet. So I congratulate the Minister on allowing this archaic technology to remain in this bill, because it sets a very clear message to people that you’re not going to move away from those things that work now.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, as the convention has been since the last Parliament, I’ll answer the questions directed to me by the member. Just very, very quickly—no, I cannot explain to the member how a fax actually works. That would be Dr Megan Woods or somebody with a scientific bent. But what I can tell the member is that the device itself was actually invented before the telephone. So it’s been around for a very long time and it is still—

Hon Member: I didn’t know that.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It was. Dr Google actually has explained that on the internet.

The other thing too is I need to correct a statement I made before with regard to the number of people who still use facsimiles. In the 1970s, there were 30,000 people in the United States who used facsimiles. This year there are 18 million. So you can see that the reason we have retained the comment about using a facsimile inside this piece of legislation, while at the same time updating it to new digital environments, is still very relevant and I do want to compliment the member on the fact that he recognises there are rural communities still on copper, some still on dial-up speeds or very close to dial-up speeds, where a facsimile is still part of the method of communication. Kia ora.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve been quite anxious to speak on this bill, because there’s a point that’s occurred to me. Actually, it was something that was said by my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash, and it just triggered a train of thinking. Mr Nash spoke very clearly to—I think it was Subpart 8, was it? No, no, it might’ve been Subpart 10 about patents. It occurred to me that there is one of these subparts in Part 3 that is a little unlike some of the others. If we look at Subpart 1, it’s about amendments to the Commerce Act, Subpart 2 is about amendments to the Companies Act, Subpart 3 to the Copyright Act, and Subpart 4, if I can find it, is about—this might be a bit similar—the Corporations (Investigations and Management) Act, and so on. So they’re all amendments to various Acts, but one of these amendments to Acts is a little bit different. Even though it looks the same, it is actually a little bit different, and that’s the amendment in Subpart 9 to the Insolvency Act.

On the face of it, it looks very, very similar to the other subparts. What it does is it allows communications to be brought into the 21st century, and to be done by audiovisual and by email and so on. But I guess the difference with the Insolvency Act is that often people don’t want to be contacted in insolvency cases. In a lot of the other cases that we’re talking about here, people actually want to be in communication with Government. They actually want to receive the messages. They want to expedite their business, and it makes the utmost sense to have that done through email, or through audiovisual communication, and in such a way that it really expedites it.

But one of the things with insolvency is that, of course, you’ve actually lost all your money, you’ve lost your assets. You know, going bankrupt is quite a humiliating procedure for a lot of people, and they sort of feel that the last thing they want to do is deal with the Official Assignee. By definition, if you’re bankrupt, if you’re going through that process, you have no money. Now, that often means that you don’t have easy access to a computer. You’ve got to no easy way of receiving your email.

I was thinking about this a little bit further, because, of course, in my electorate of New Lynn we do find a lot of people who come to us and they say, “Actually, we can’t telephone your electorate office because we can’t afford to pay the cellphone charges.” And I say, “Well, what about emailing?” and they say, “We don’t have a computer at home.” Now, typically, people who are less well off, they’re going to go through the no-asset procedure. That’s for people who owe less than $47,000 of debt, but you can only do that once and then you’re into the insolvency procedures. I guess if you’re going through insolvency, the incentive is to avoid communication.

Now, we all know that with email, as my various colleagues have referred to, we all get masses of email, and it becomes quite a good excuse, actually, to say “I didn’t receive it.” or “Maybe it got lost in the spam folder.”, and so on. So I agree that we do put the onus that as long as it’s been correctly addressed we’ve got to make sure that it does get to the person, but there’s just this extra barrier when it comes to the insolvency cases and, I guess, the no-asset procedure cases of people who don’t want to be contacted, and then it really makes no difference whether it’s an email or a letter, or so on. So I agree it brings it into the modern age.

I guess the other thing that’s sitting in here, if we go to clause 70 of this bill, which amends section 165 of the Insolvency Act, it even says things like “A person who is summoned by the Assignee for examination”—well, they can agree to an audiovisual link. But, again, I just wonder how common that kind of agreement actually is in this rather difficult case of insolvency.

So I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps speak a little bit about how that particular case might be got around in the case of someone who is reluctant to be communicated with; they don’t actually want to be communicated with. I’m not sure how this is going to improve matters by using email. In fact, it just gives them an extra excuse.

As I said, it is a little different to the other clauses in this bill where we are dealing with situations where people do want to be in communication with Government, where they do want to understand what’s going on, and yet we have the opposite incentive in this case. So I would appreciate the Minister perhaps adding a little to explain this.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Like my colleague, I rise for the second time to speak and for the first time with you in the Chair, and I’d like to congratulate you on becoming Assistant Speaker. We’ve known each other for a number of years and it’s a well-deserved role.

This bill is an example of a forward-thinking, progressive Government. The Electronic Interactions Reform Bill is an omnibus bill.

Jami-Lee Ross: We wrote it.

JAMIE STRANGE: Well, you won’t speak about it, and I expect that when I check my phone or my emails I’ll have hundreds of emails from constituents saying, “Why didn’t we hear from the National Party?” I do have to look at young Simeon Brown there, who is someone who I’m sure understands modern technology, Simeon. It would be nice to hear from the member, but we’ll see how we go there.

Look, I’d like to begin by also paying homage to the fax machine. It certainly has been singled out during this debate. In defence of the fax machine, I know we do have a few in Parliament here. It’s actually quite interesting. I asked my executive assistant (EA) to send a fax—

Simeon Brown: Have you got one? Do you have a fax machine, Jamie?

JAMIE STRANGE: I do not have a fax machine myself, but I asked my EA to send a fax only two days ago. She hunted around the Parliament Buildings until she finally found a machine, but then unfortunately the machine was broken. But that’s OK.

There is a place for all types of technology but the reason I said that we are a forward-thinking, progressive Government is because this bill is talking about how we can use technology for people to engage. If we look at clause 44, it says: “A person may appear before the Commission … by audio link or audiovisual link if the Commission and the person agree.” It goes on to define “audio link” and “audiovisual link” and gives various examples. Now, the key here is around access. It’s about people having access to each other.

On the weekend I played in a sports tournament. I had not done any exercise for a long time and, unfortunately, my legs—I could barely walk on Monday. And I was limited in my access. If I had to meet before a commission, it would have been difficult. But it is important to have these modern technologies available. Access is defined as the means or opportunity to approach or enter a place. I’m excited that in this bill here we are talking about increasing access for people. It’s about equal opportunity, which I know is something that the Opposition members agree with.

Now, the members on the other side have been asking for access to a certain document, which is called the coalition document, for a few weeks here. I would just like to give the members some advice: maybe you could try faxing a request for the document. I don’t know how you might get on there. But just in terms of access, though, because it does relate to this point, there are three things in the coalition document.

Jami-Lee Ross: Careful. Iain’s getting a bit worried.

JAMIE STRANGE: There are three things in the coalition document that I’m sure I will be at liberty to say, and that’s, number one, fine weather until Christmas; number two, the New Zealand cricket team will win; and number three, expect the National Party to refuse to debate bills in the House. So, look, hopefully we do hear from the members on the other side. It would be nice to hear from them, and hopefully we do.

My final point I would also like to just mention is around emails. Certainly most of us have a number of email addresses, and a number of them are what we would call defunct because we don’t check them. In my calculation, I’ve got my current Parliament one, I’ve got two Gmails, a Hotmail, an Xtra, and I think I’ve even got an Actrix email, and that’s going back a long time. But it’s important that people do check their emails because otherwise you could miss out on important financial investment opportunities that come from various countries of the world via email.

So, look, in summary, it’s absolutely fantastic to stand in support of this Part 3 here. A forward-thinking, progressive Government, thinking of ways we can engage, thinking of ways we can improve access for members. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to answer the questions posed by the last two speakers around Subpart 9, “Amendments to Insolvency Act 2006”, could I just point out to the members the amendment in clause 69, which amends section 143 of the Insolvency Act to permit a bankrupt—to permit a bankrupt—to “attend before the Assignee … by audio link or audiovisual link if the Assignee and the bankrupt agree.”

As a previous debt collector, I think it’s very important, the points that Dr Deborah Russell, the member previous to the one who just resumed his seat, has made with regard to those who are experiencing insolvency. While we might all think that they deserve their insolvency when we hear of people going bankrupt or becoming insolvent, there are those who become insolvent through the deeds of others. I believe this amendment is particularly important from the perspective that if you live, say, in a town such as Warkworth, where there is no public transport and where there is no way to get yourself to, perhaps, Takapuna, unless it is at a cost to yourself—for which, as the member pointed out, there are no funds available—there is often a council office or a sort of working governmental office that may have the technology that allows this audiovisual link to take place at no cost to the person who is becoming insolvent. So I do think that this is a very important measure.

But with regard to the question around email and, quite rightly, with regard to that person maybe having to strip themselves of all their assets to meet the criteria but also just to live on a day-to-day basis, the email address is being added as an extra tool for trying to communicate with people in these circumstances. The Official Assignee will try to use a range of communication channels to contact this individual. In some cases, a bankrupt may move to an undisclosed physical address, or otherwise try to avoid being contacted—and fair enough. They may move into a car, as many people in New Zealand, unfortunately, have had to do in the last nine years. Their email address may be the only remaining way, and they may use the library services and so on to actually continue to access their email.

So I just want to reassure the member. This is merely another tool in the tool box of a department, particularly around those with regard to the Insolvency Act 2006. This is not a once only, and not something that hasn’t been considered for those people who are attempting to not be found. Many opportunities will be tried; eventually, everybody is found.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the motion be agreed to—be put. Those in favour say Aye—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, sir, could you just repeat the question, please? I’m not quite sure that it was agreed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I move that the motion be agreed to, and those in favour say Aye—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We were in a vote. [Interruption] You will have to wait until the vote is finished. Those against will say No. The Noes have it. A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak to Part 3 of this bill. I want, as the Minister of Commerce, to speak to the amendments that are made, in Subpart 1, to the Commerce Act, pointing directly to clauses 43 and 44, around the ability of people who are asked by the commission to give evidence to appear either by audio link or audiovisual link. As the Minister in the chair has just said in her latest contribution, this is about giving further tools in this area, and that is something that, in terms of the new Government, we’ve been quite keen to give the Commerce Commission: further tools, and not just audiovisual and audio links, but the ability to look at market studies and to be able to self-initiate that themselves.

But, in this respect, we want to make sure that in important areas—especially around the likes of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which was amended by the previous Government in 2014—people who have been affected by the likes of third-tier lenders, payday loans, and higher interest rate caps, if the Commerce Commission were to ask those types of people in communities where access was difficult, get to make sure that their voices were heard. The ability to appear and give evidence by audio link or by audiovisual link is something that I think would be welcomed by those communities. As the Minister in the chair has said, those who might live in the regions where transport might be difficult—to get to a hearing that the Commerce Commission might be holding into this important area that we certainly want to move on, on this side of the House—might be constrained by their ability to travel. So if they were able to appear by audio link or by audiovisual link, that would give those communities, who, I think, it would be fair to say, are financially challenged, as it were, the opportunity to be able to give their evidence.

I think we do hear a lot of stories from our main centres, where we do see a lot of predatory lending, a lot of behaviour by people who are selling products and giving credit. It might be easier for those communities to be able to access the Commerce Commission if they knew where the offices in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch were. But if they were in other areas of the country that would restrict them from going to a Commerce Commission hearing, the ability for them either to phone in or Skype in, as is set out in clause 44, would be a very useful tool for those people, and also, I think, for the commission, to make sure that they get the wide range of views on an issue such as that, as could be done in that fashion.

My question to the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin, is because the clauses, I believe, in Subpart 1 apply only to the Commerce Act. And I understood, as I had a quick flick through—something else in my realm—the Fair Trading Act has, essentially, the same function. Is this ability spread out to other departments? I’m absolutely very happy that we can do it for both the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act, but my question to the Minister is whether we are thinking about doing this in other respects, to ensure the regions—I note that the Minister’s party is very keen on making sure that their voice is heard—have the ability to make sure that they feel part of the discussions that are going on, whether that be around competition or whether that be around third-tier lending, payday loans, or interest rate caps, which are some things that I would like the Commerce Commission to look into. As the Minister, that’s something that I’d be keen on.

There could be numerous other things that the Commerce Commission might call for evidence to be given on, and I think the ability of people outside of our major centres to, by these audio links and by these audiovisual links, make sure their voices are heard is extremely crucial. So, if the Minister in the chair could elucidate as to other areas where this might be done, I think that might be very helpful for the knowledge of the committee.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very happy to be able to play a part in this remarkable debate. I might say that earlier on in the debate I was, in fact, on the verge of calling a point of order—right at the start of the debate—because the Government’s legislative programme had proceeded so swiftly that there weren’t actually, at the point this debate came along, copies of the bill on the Table. But Government members are so seized of the issues in this bill, and so well researched, that I think, as everyone can see, they’ve been deeply, deeply engaged in this debate and its details. In my comments—

Kieran McAnulty: Not like them.

MICHAEL WOOD: That’s right.

Kieran McAnulty: They don’t care.

MICHAEL WOOD: I’m not here to judge, Mr McAnulty. I think this is a bill the Government is proud of, that we’re proud to speak to, and I think that the community’s going to judge us and our Opposition on our contributions.

There are two areas that I want to cover off in my comments, and those two comments relate to the degree of legislative consistency that this bill—

Hon Member: We’re enjoying seeing your Ministers. They haven’t got anything to do.

Kieran McAnulty: Outrageous. Sit there and bloody call things out, but you won’t say anything.

MICHAEL WOOD: Mr McAnulty might want to learn something about legislative consistency, if he’ll just lend an ear out. The degree of legislative consistency that comes through this bill across a wide range of Acts—I want to talk about that and the value of that, and then there are a number of questions that I do have for Minister Martin, relating to some of the particular words that have been used at various points of the bill in Part 3. Finally, if we get time, I want to talk about some of the issues that arise around the onus of proof that have come through in the course of this debate.

So let’s start by talking about the legislative consistency that we see echoed from one end of Part 3 to the other. I’m very pleased that my colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi’s here, because, of course, Part 3 particularly relates to the commerce and consumer affairs area, and as a past Opposition spokesperson in that area—I mentioned it to Mr Faafoi—he was keen to run down and participate in this debate. There is a huge number of bills—there is a huge number of bills—that Part 3 affects: the Commerce Act, the Copyright Act, the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act, the Designs Act 1953, the Fair Trading Act, the Financial Advisers Act, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act, the Insolvency Act, the Patents Act, and the Trade Marks Act. Across Part 3 we’re dealing with all of these Acts.

You know, some members of the Opposition in some of their comments have sort of suggested perhaps this isn’t a particularly important piece of legislation, but when you think about that body of legislation, those things touch on many areas of our economic life, and what we’re dealing with here is the way in which citizens relate to the Government entities that oversee those areas of their economic life. That speaks to the importance—and the beauty of Part 3 of this bill is that we’re putting consistent legislative provisions over the top of every single one of those Acts. So citizens or businesses or NGOs—any kind of entity that is now having an interaction with Government in this area, no matter what the piece of legislation, has consistent provisions and consistent languages to describe their obligations to communicate by means of electronic interactions with those Government agencies. I don’t think we should understate or undersell the value of that, from the point of view of having quality legislation that is accessible and that reduces compliance costs for those people who engage with the State. I think that’s something we should put up a bit of a cheer for.

Just moving on to a few of the questions that I have for the Minister—if I could beg the Minister’s indulgence, some of these questions might seem to be taking a bit of a deep dive into very, very specific wording and interpretations, but for those people who are familiar with English literature, there’s quite a well-known bit of wisdom about short stories. It says that in the first paragraph of a short story, if there is a reference to a coat hook on the wall, then by the end of the story you want to know why it was there. That’s the thing about the words that we put into legislation. We have to know why they are there, because you can bet your bottom dollar that over the next 10 or 15 years some citizen or some lawyer will want to know, and will possibly test that, and it will have real-world consequences. So, building on from that, there are a few of these things that I do really want to delve into.

The first one relates to—where are we here—clause 45, new section 102(1)(d), which is emailing it to—there are some changes from the Government Administration Committee here. The select committee has added in words. It originally read “emailing it to an email address used by the person.”, and the select committee has added in the words “the person” and “that is”, so that the full text of (d) now reads “emailing it to the person at an email address that is used by the person.” If you’ll forgive me for bringing up the spectre of former President Bill Clinton, I want to look at the definition of the word—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Michael Wood.

MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to look at the definition of the word “is”.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For some time now, I’ve been in the Chamber, and I’ve been noticing that you are studiously avoiding calls from this side of the Chamber. Given the fact that this is the Opposition in a committee stage, I am wondering if you can explain what your basis is for allocating so many calls to the Government and consistently ignoring calls from the Opposition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I disagree with the member. [Interruption] No, I don’t need any help, thank you. It is the sole discretion of the Chair to choose who speaks next. Michael Wood was on his feet. He clearly hasn’t finished making his point. I decided to give him a second call, and I disagree that I have not been fair in taking calls.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Not only is it absolutely your discretion which calls you accept, but for that member to question your integrity in the way that he did is disorderly, and he should be required to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I think everyone needs to calm down. I have taken a number of calls that have been closure motions from the Opposition, one of which I have put. It will cause disorder if we continue on this line of discussion. I suggest that we go to the member Michael Wood, so he can finish his speech.

MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Chair, for a wise, considered, and fair ruling.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I’m sure that member has been here long enough to know that for him to comment on your ruling in that way is totally disorderly.

Hon Stuart Nash: And, Tim, you’ve been here long enough to know you can’t question the Chair’s choice of who speaks and who doesn’t speak.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is absolutely disorderly for a Minister to be influencing the Chair while he is considering his ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. It’s really up to members, OK. I want to hear from Michael Wood about the bill. I take on board the comments from Hon Tim Macindoe. I ask the member to continue his speech.

MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that people will be eager to get back to my comments around the definition of the word “is” in clause 45(1)(d) of the bill. I’ll just recap, clause 45(1)(d) is now reconstructed by the select committee to read, “emailing it to the person at an email address that is used by the person.” Of course, the word “is” is a tense of a kind. It denotes a certain point in time, and that really is my question.

We’ve explored to some degree in some of the contributions earlier on the question of multiple email addresses. “Is” denotes that it is an email address that is currently in use. Of course, this begs the question of: well, how do you define that and how do you determine whether it is a current email address? Does that mean that it is an email address that someone has used within the last week, the last month, the last year? An email address that has simply been a passive account into which the person receives emails, perhaps views them, or does “is” denote that it would have to be an active email account by which they’re actually responding to emails?

The reason that I do ask about this is not so much in terms of the point that the Minister in the chair has made before about the onus being on the business to make sure that up-to-date details are there, because we would expect that businesses who are playing it by the book, are organised, and are wanting to be cooperative would do that. My point really relates to the enforcement side where you might have people who don’t want to deal in an honest and upfront way with Government entities, who, essentially, try and play a bit of a game with this provision by arguing that a certain account is not—perhaps because they’ve deliberately not checked it for a few months because they don’t want to be engaging with the entity about a matter that might be in dispute or a matter that might be, I don’t know, heading towards a prosecution or a complaint of some kind. So it would be really helpful to hear from the Minister in the chair if there’s been any dialogue with officials or anything like that about how we’re going to interpret that word “is” in respect of whether an email account is, indeed, an active one. I think that would be really good to hear.

One of the other questions I had for the Minister—here we go. It’s in Subpart 4, and it relates to clause 58(1)(b). I’ll just read it out as amended by the select committee, “emailing it to the corporation or associated person at an email address that is used by the corporation or associated person.” Now, originally, the text of that clause simply said “emailing it to an email address …” and the select committee has added in the words “the corporation or associated person …”. So, previously, it would’ve seemed to have been valid as long as the email had gone, as long as it had gone to the email address. Now, there must be some reason why we’ve added in the words “[to] the corporation or associated person …”, and I’d like to hear from the Minister exactly why that is, because that, to me, would seem to denote that there needs to be some kind of heading or subject line that addresses the particular entity. Again, the concern here is that if we have people who are wanting to be cute, who are wanting to play with a bit of fancy footwork, they might be able to claim that because the email doesn’t identify who the corporation or associated person is, even though it has gone to their address, it may not be valid, and the addition of those words would seem to suggest that there is some significance there. So that would be really good—to hear from the Minister as well.

The final question that I have relates to clause 51(4). This starts to come to some of the onus of proof. The wording added by the select committee at the end there, and this echoes across all subparts, is “and, in proving that the advice was emailed, it is sufficient to prove that the advice was properly addressed and sent to the email address”. I think we can all understand the reasons why those words are there. But the fact is that there is always going to be a natural justice cloak that comes across all of the provisions of this Act if ever it is tested in the courts. My hypothetical question to the Minister is: what if we have the situation of a third-party deleter? So if we know that in accordance with the bill the advice was properly addressed, it was sent to the correct email address, to the person it was meant to go to, but somehow, possibly unknown to that person, a third party, a family member or someone else, has deleted that email, possibly mischievously or possibly not mischievously—there would have to be a natural justice component there and I’d like the answer to that.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Look, it’s extraordinary this. I think this is a wonderful bill. [Government members cheer] I find it quite heartening that I’ve got such a positive reaction from the Government. I find it quite extraordinary, actually, that we see this. This is a valuable piece of legislation, there’s no doubt about that, very important. But it’s quite interesting that the Government are filibustering their own bill, albeit that it was a National bill.

I think many experienced parliamentarians would wonder if they’ve crossed into a parallel universe coming in to hear a bill, a very valuable bill, being debated by and filibustered by senior Ministers in the Government, albeit that it’s very important, this bill.

Electronic interactions are absolutely essential and, as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tracey Martin, will know, we need to move to this right across our economy and as quickly as possible while not leaving other people behind. However, having all these Ministers in here giving five minutes on this you’d have to wonder, “Why aren’t they busy in their offices?” An open question; I don’t know.

Hon Member: Nothing else to do.

STUART SMITH: You need to engage with your sectors. Anyway, I’m quite happy with the bill in its current form and the work that the Government Administration Committee did, and I commend it to the House.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I take great joy in speaking on a bill that modernises over 17 pieces of legislation to help enable digital interactions between individuals, businesses, and Government. It’s a bill that is part of wider efforts towards digital transformation across the Government to meet New Zealanders expectations and to have public services that are easily and readily available through digital devices. It’s a bill that continues New Zealand’s transformation to be a leader in Government digital transformation.

In Part 3 of this bill, the Government Administration Committee recommended a new clause, clause 61A, to amend the Fair Trading Act 1986, in particular to allow compulsory interviews to be held by audio or audiovisual link with the agreement of the person and the Commerce Commission. This amendment, which is similar to clause 44, I note, that amends the Commerce Act 1986, has been made.

So I’d like to just take a look at that, indeed, in terms of what’s proposed in the bill. So in terms of “audio link”, this clearly means telephone facilities, and that’s great because most New Zealanders have clear access to an audio link. But the second, in terms of audiovisual link “means facilities that enable audio and visual communication between the Commission and a person when either or both of them are not physically present at the place specified in the notice.”

So what you really need to be assured of here, if that option’s taken, is that you have fast internet to have that audiovisual connection happening. We need to make sure that, if that option is being offered to members of the New Zealand public, that those in rural areas of New Zealand that are currently largely operating still on copper wire are able to have fast access to internet. I know places not too far from here in Hutt South on the western hills—actually not far from my house—that struggle to have fast internet as New Zealand is not getting up quickly if we want to make these changes and become a far more digitally able Government interacting with the public.

There are also issues in that space we need to look at. Maybe someone’s got a shared driveway and is waiting for consent to get fibre put down. Maybe you’ve got a particularly grumpy neighbour who’s not prepared to give you access. So it’s important that if these options are being made available that people do get access to fast internet.

I would also like to look at some of the recommendations made by the committee in terms of amendments made to the Copyright Act of 1994, which it does. In fact, clause 54 makes amendments to section 144A of the Copyright Act 1994, and I’m sure that the members opposite will be quite familiar with this piece of legislation. You wouldn’t want to “lose yourself” too quickly on that one.

The next time, perhaps, that the National Party has a concern in terms of breaching the Copyright Act under any of those spaces, they can look forward to being able to do that on an audiovisual conference—if it happens again. I did also note that “Lose Yourself” is actually the number one hit by Eminem, but the number two, which they should’ve thought about using instead, was “Love the Way You Lie”. I thought that was actually far more fitting. Number three happens to be “Smack That”—maybe that was after the election.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member needs to come back to the bill, please.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: Just to conclude, it’s a great pleasure to be able to speak on a bill that really brings New Zealand Government up to speed with digital transformation, but we do need to make sure that we are really enabling that technology to be fully available to all New Zealanders. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call the Hon Stuart Nash, can I say to members that relevance is becoming an issue, in that the notion around access across all subparts of Part 3—it’s not enough for members to simply repeat the same argument in every subpart of the part. So I’m asking members to be relevant, and it’s also not helpful for other comments to be made during their speeches.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I would like to talk about Subpart 6, “Amendments to Fair Trading Act 1986”. Clause 61A—this amends section 47G, “Commission may require person to supply information or documents or give evidence.” First of all, I’d just like to make a point: it says, “Commission may require person …” Shouldn’t it be “a person”? It doesn’t really matter. I mean, everywhere else in the bill it talks about “a person” as opposed to “person”. It doesn’t really matter; I’m just making that point.

There are a couple of points I would like to make about this clause, and the first one is: why is it that the commission “may” only require a person and doesn’t compel a person to supply information or documents and evidence? I just wonder, under what circumstances—because the Fair Trading Act is sort of fundamental to, well, as it says, the fairness of our retail sector or how commerce works, I suppose, in this country. Does the commission, in any other part of the Act—I haven’t got the Act in front of me. Is there any other part under the Fair Trading Act where the commission can actually compel someone, under the Fair Trading Act, to provide information or documentation or evidence? The reason I ask this is because if the commission does not have the power to compel, then it is very easy for someone to just say, “No, I’m just not going to engage with the commission.” If one side decides not to engage with the Commerce Commission on this, then, again, the logical next step is that justice is not seen to be done.

The other thing I would like to talk about on this is new section 47G(1A) in clause 61A. This is where we insert “A person may appear before the Commission”. We’ve talked about audio and audiovisual; I’m not going to talk about that at all, but what it says here is “A person may appear before the Commission under subsection (1)(c) by audio link or [video] if the Commission and the person agree.”

Now, my question around this is: where does the onus sit? So, for example, if the person agrees, must the commission agree, or does the commission have the right not to agree? Or is it the other way round? So if the commission agrees and the person disagrees, is that enough? I would’ve thought that that is the logical way that this should run, but I am concerned—well, I would just like to know, and I actually think it should be clearer. If the person agrees, then I would almost compel the commission to agree as well.

The reason I say that is, again, it may be—and I’m not saying this is, by any way or any stretch of the imagination, going to happen—that the commission might say, “Well, you live in the very Far North. We’re going to disagree to you appearing in front of a video or audiovisual link”. What that does is it places an undue cost or burden for that person to actually come down and meet the commission in person. So what I would like to see here is that if the person agrees to meet by audio or visual link, then the commission must also agree to do the same.

Part of that question is also: under what circumstances would the commission disagree? Let’s make an assumption here that, as the law reads it, the commission may disagree to meet with someone—if the person agrees, the commission may disagree. Under what circumstances would the commission disagree to meet with someone via audio link or audiovisual link? I can imagine that there might be a time—and it may be that they believe the evidence cannot be delivered in a way that allows justice to be delivered. But I cannot think of any situation where the commission would not agree to meet a person if they had agreed, as mentioned, because the burden could be far too high for a person to come down to, let’s assume, Wellington or Auckland—I don’t think the commission would go anywhere else. And why would they? I know there’s not a commission in Kaitāia, for example.

But this is about reducing the burden of compliance or the onus for someone to appear in front of the commission. So I think this should actually read that if the person agrees, then the commission should agree. That’s all I’ve got to say on that matter. Thank you very much.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been waiting a while to make what I hope are some very salient few points. It is a pleasure to speak to yet another technical bill in this House. I would like to focus my contribution on a few points.

By and large, the topic of debate has focused largely, in Part 3, on that of “notice by electronic means”. I would, however, like to draw all of the members’ attention to “evidence … by electronic means”. In clause 44, the amendment to section 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 is amended such that “A person may appear before the Commission … by audio link or audiovisual link”. I find it incredibly interesting that only just now we are adding and updating the ability for people to appear or provide their contributions by audio link, which I can only assume is the humble telephone, the telephone being that which was invented in the 1800s—very controversially, obviously—by Alexander Graham Bell, although that is in dispute as a matter of history.

Moving along, I would like to draw attention back to something that was actually mentioned by the Hon David Parker, but I would like to get the Minister’s input on it, which is mentioned in amendment to a multiplicity of different Acts contained in Part 3, which is along the lines of sending it by email address to an electronic address. I looked up the Oxford Dictionary definition of “email”, and that is “Messages distributed by electronic means from one computer user to one or more recipients via a network.”

Here I wish to raise the question of whether this network could be interpreted by the courts as a social media network. I note that the Hon Tracey Martin, in previously addressing a question similar to this, noted that there perhaps isn’t contained the level of formality in the likes of social media. But I then looked up the Oxford Dictionary definition of “email address”. An email address is simply defined as “a string of characters which identifies a location on the internet or other network to which an email can be sent; this information considered as a point of contact for a particular individual, organisation, etc.”

So on that point I would just like to raise that the courts would obviously be interpreting this Act and what is meant by “email”, with regard to the Interpretation Act 1999, section 5(1), obviously noting that “The meaning of an enactment [is] ascertained from … text … in … light of … purpose.” The purpose here, as has been mentioned by the Minister, is an extra tool in the tool box of communicating between organisations and those individuals who they intend to contact.

So I would simply like to put it that there is the potential here for the likes of unintended consequences as technology develops, and I would like to put it to the Minister that I would very much like to be enlightened on whether there has been very much consideration of the use of social media. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. Just to answer some of the questions put by several of the members earlier, can I first, just with Mr Faafoi—I think it was Mr Faafoi—he talked about whether audio links and audiovisual links were currently in use in a wider sense across departments or was there any intention to have wider use across Government departments, and so on and so forth.

Mr Faafoi will of course be aware that select committees in the Parliament do, from time to time, use audio links and did have the capacity for audiovisual link. So I can say that the Parliament, not perhaps as often as it should, but it does have that capacity to Skype in submitters. I also visited a remand centre recently, where a young person there was, by audio link, involved in a family group conference with 15 to 20 other people.

I think that what we’re seeing is that possibly this legislation is updating some of the other departments who, I’m sure, have been emailing people, but this is giving them the legislative parameters by which to create the policy to formalise the practice. I think that’s probably a reasonable statement.

With regard to Mr Stuart Nash’s point about the omission of an “a” before “person”, I have been advised that it is drafting practice not to include articles such as “a” or “the” in titles of provisions. So that would answer that, Mr Nash, and, actually, in my copy it does not say “person”, it says “persons”—“enable persons”; not my copy of the bill but my copy of the papers—just to be clear.

With regard to the last question asked by the honourable member who resumed her seat, Chlöe Swarbrick—no, I have not had any further conversations particularly around the Oxford Dictionary definition of email address being a string of characters that lead on to a communication, or any forward planning with regard to the use of social media. I totally accept what the member is saying, that the digital environment continues to evolve and communications with human beings continue to evolve through different devices and through different methods. But I haven’t had any advice at this stage or any suggestion that we will be, say, putting private messaging on Facebook, or whatever else, into the legislation going forward. Kia ora.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. Just one quick question to the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin. A lot of the debate tonight has been around how technology is advancing and how electronic communication is making our lives easier and communication faster. But I did just want to ask one question in relation to clause 56(4), which replaces section 217(3), where in this instance it’s, I guess, what we’d call traditional means of communication, i.e., post—the old post service—and the regression of that service. New section 217(3) talks about replacing a clause in the Copyright Act around a summons being sent to a person. I’ll read it out, for the benefit of the committee. It says: “A summons sent to a person in accordance with subsection (1)(b) must be treated as served on the person at the time when it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of”—and the select committee has removed the word “post” and inserted the words “business for the service it was sent by.”

I think that kind of points to the way that the normal post service, as we have traditionally known it, has changed over time, because we are sending much more electronic traffic. The reality for New Zealanders is that the post that used to arrive six days of seven days of the week is now arriving sporadically. Some people may get it on a Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and other people in maybe more regional areas of the country may get their post only two days a week.

I am wondering if officials have thought about that in terms of a summons being served on a person and that person’s ability to respond to it, if they have cause to challenge the summons. Someone may have a longer period of time to deal with a summons being served, because their postal service, as it stands now, is more regular or irregular than it might be for someone in another area.

You might get your post only on a Monday and a Friday, which I understand might happen with some people who might not necessarily be served by New Zealand Post as their delivery service, as opposed to a New Zealander who might get their post delivered on a more regular basis, which in traditional terms wouldn’t be as regular as it has been over decades.

Whether or not—if they did want to challenge their ability or the summons that is being served on them, from one person to the other, I wonder whether the officials have thought about whether or not the length of time that they’ve actually had to consider a summons is something they could challenge in the court. If someone is served a summons and it has a time frame about when they might have to appear or when something has to be delivered as part of that summons, if you’re getting your mail on a more regular basis you’ve got more time. If you’re not getting your mail on that regular basis, you have less time, depending on when the date of the deadline in the summons might be. That might put some people, in areas that aren’t being served as regularly, at a disadvantage to others.

So I’m just wondering if officials have thought through that potential conundrum, because of the way that our traditional postal service is now operating, where the mail doesn’t come as often as it used to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Enabling electronic licences and electronic voting

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. I would like to talk about clause 81. What this is about is this is enabling electronic licences and electronic voting. This is what Part 4 is about. These are amendments to the Conservation Act 1987.

I can’t quite draw a bow between electronic licences and electronic voting and the repeal of these two sections in the Conservation Act, and let me tell you why. What section 26N in the Conservation Act is about is transitional councils. Section 26N in the Conservation Act says, “The Minister shall, by notice in the Gazette, establish—(a) a Transitional New Zealand Fish and Game Council; and (b) a Transitional Fish and Game Council for each region defined under section [of the Act].” It talks about the transitional council and what it’s there for and how it operates.

Section 26O outlines the functions and powers of transitional councils. The only thing in this that I find any reference to in “Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting” actually is in section 26O(3), where it talks about “Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), each Transitional Fish and Game Council shall—(a) conduct a postal ballot for the first election of members of the Fish and Game Council for [the] region”.

Now, I get that. I mean, we’re moving forward, and a lot of what we’re talking about here is moving from postal to electronic voting, and this is what this whole thing was supposed to be about. But why are we, in this bill—unless I’m reading the wrong piece of legislation here; we are talking about the Conservation Act—moving transitional councils out of Fish & Game councils, or moving the ability for Fish & Game councils to actually appoint a transitional council? I have absolutely no idea. How does this fit into the bill?

I’ve been in this House long enough to know that often in these bills you sneak certain things in because it’s the right thing to do, or something’s outdated, or there’s no other Act that is in fact good enough or relevant enough. But this is totally outside the relevance of what the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill is about, and I don’t know how it has been stuck in there.

The other thing that concerns me—and I don’t know who was on the select committee, but I wasn’t—is that it talks about the fact that “Transitional Fish and Game Councils concerned shall engage the Department for a period of not less than 6 months, on terms and conditions [that must] be mutually agreed, to manage—(a) the area formerly known as the Rotorua Acclimatisation District (except those parts that constitute the Taupo Fishery in that District); and (b) the area formerly known as the Southern Lakes Acclimatisation District.”

Again, I’m not too sure if the area formerly known as the Southern Lakes Acclimatisation District still exists. It may well, but at some point in time in the conservation legislation, we believed that it was necessary, but it’s not even talked about. We’re just getting rid of this in this bill—in an electronic voting bill? Where is the relevance here? Minister, I’m hoping that you can answer this, and what I’m really hoping about—and I’ve seen enough of the former Government do this in my time. What happens is there’s something they want to sneak through under the cover of darkness, hoping—not you, Madam Chair, the former Government, the former National Government—that no one’s going to notice; hoping that no one’s going to notice, it’ll go through the select committee, and no one will submit on it because they’re just not expecting it.

So I have a couple of questions. The first question is: why are we getting rid of transitional councils from Fish & Game? Is there no longer a need for a transitional council? Is there never a time when a transitional council may be needed in the Fish and Game space? Again, if we go to clause 82(2), it repeals section 26Z(2). Section 26Z(2), again, talks about transitional councils—so we’re doing away with them. We’re doing away with transitional Fish & Game councils. What’s that about, and what is the relevance of that to this bill?

The other thing I’d like to talk about is the Wildlife Act. Now, a lot of Subpart 2 is amendments to the Wildlife Act 1953. Again, maybe I’m reading this legislation wrong, maybe it’s been so long, but one of them, for example—clause 86(2) talks about “In section 16(3)(c), before ‘licenses’, insert ‘game’.” I’m looking at 16(3), and what it actually says here is “repealed by section 5(2) of the Wildlife Amendment Act 1996”. There’s no 16(3)(c) here. Again, maybe I’m looking at it wrong—[Time expired]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just before I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, I just need to put the question again. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve been waiting all night for this call. So Part 4, “Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting”—I’m particularly interested in the electronic voting side of this, particularly given I wasn’t part of the select committee, so I’m wanting a little bit of detail around that.

Clause 82 of the bill would amend section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987 to enable elections to be conducted by electronic vote as well as by postal voting. I think my questions really are with respect to whether or not a precedent has been set for legislating for electronic voting in the past, or whether or not this is in fact the first. I think it would be really clear to the House why that would be of interest to me, given that there has been lots of discussion about the fact we are in 2017, in the modern age, where when it comes to voting, having to undertake a postal vote or, in the case of general elections, for instance, having to show up to a hall and cast a vote on paper does seem to many to be quite an archaic way of having to exercise, I guess, your democratic right—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I hate to interrupt the Minister, but I do want to remind the Minister that the voting is about the Fish & Game councils. Please ensure that your speech is about that clause in particular, rather than wide ranging.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thanks, Madam Chair. It is about the Fish & Game councils, but I really want to know the detail behind what they are anticipating with the electronic voting—with respect to members of the Fish & Game councils, whether or not the process has been set up in advance of this or whether the legislation is pre-empting a move to go down the track of electronic voting. That’s where I’m going with that.

I would like to know this because it isn’t just about the Fish & Game councils; it is about other areas where we can anticipate there will be the desire to head towards electronic voting, given, as I said before, that we are in 2017 and so much more is being done online. I’d like to know from the Minister the safety procedures and precautions they have in place, because that’s always the criticism, and those are always the questions that are asked about online or electronic voting—whether or not there are the safety measures in place and what they are. I guess that’s the question that I have, and that’s where I’m heading in terms of the detail around what has already been put in place.

If the case is that, actually, they’re just pre-empting that this is where we’re moving to, then I’d like to know from the Minister what the next steps will be with regard to establishing that system of electronic voting with respect to the Fish & Game councils. I do think there will be other areas watching this space really carefully to see what develops, to see whether or not it works for the Fish & Game councils, and whether or not there is a major shift away from postal voting to the electronic voting that’s being proposed in Subpart 1 in Part 4 of this piece of legislation.

So those are some of the questions that I want to put to the Minister. It does seem to be quite innovative, and she might know whether or not there are other pieces of legislation where electronic voting has already been introduced. I think that would be of interest to the House in general, given that that will be an area that we’ll need to head more in the direction of. So perhaps the Fish & Game councils—and with regard to this bill, that this is actually just setting the scene for future changes that we can expect to happen. If that is the case, then I guess just more of an explanation from the Minister would be of interest to me, and I’m sure of general interest to the House. So it would be great if the Minister could answer those questions.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to respond to some of the questions from my honourable colleagues—the Hon Stuart Nash asked two questions. First of all, he wanted to know why, and if, we were just willy-nilly getting rid of transitional councils. Just to inform the member, around about a hundred years ago, we had acclimatation—climation, climatation? [Interruption] Acclimatisation councils—societies. We had acclimatisation societies, which then—around about 1990—were transitioning through to be the Forest & Game Council, which we’re talking about today. So those transitional councils were in place for less than three years. They no longer exist because now we have Forest & Game. So it’s really a tidy-up around a piece of legislation for something that is no longer required.

He also queried in regard to clause 86, and he went back to the 1953 Wildlife Act and said that he felt the section we were referring to had already been removed. The reality about the amendments inside this piece of legislation is that they are technical amendments. In the Act that we are amending, there were two meanings given to “licence”, so what is happening in this piece of legislation is a piece of clarity around the fact that we are talking about game licences. So it was a bit of an anomaly or a bit of a slip-up in the Act, which we are now amending, and this is to tighten it up. So that’s an answer to Mr Nash on that.

With regard to electronic voting and the discussions around—I take on board the honourable member’s suggestion. It’s a hot topic. It’s a hot topic at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, for example—will nations move to online electronic voting, and so on and so forth—and it is good to have little sections, I suppose, of New Zealand trialling electronic voting. I note that there’s a dual voting opportunity—so, some by post and some by electronic mail.

I will mention, however, to the member—and, quite rightly, it is something we need to watch and see about the restrictions and the opportunities for misuse or hacking. Will people issue themselves a number of fishing licences illegally by hacking into the system? I think it’s something—sorry, they won’t issue themselves licences, I suppose. This is about voting. So, will they elect themselves, through some sort of illegal hacking type of voting, to be on the Fish & Game Council? That’s something I think the council needs to be very wary of. So while that is not a country’s election—so, therefore, the outcome would not be as serious—it’s a way that we can test these mechanisms.

I pick up on the member from the Green Party’s previous contribution around this particular issue and what she suggested, which was hacking into the favourite bird of the year competition. I would have to point out the fact that if the ruru got 113 votes over the takahē at only 855—for a bird that can’t be seen to then get more votes than a bird that can definitely be seen and that is one of our iconic birds, then I think there are questions that do need to be asked around electronic voting, and it’s something we definitely need to keep our eye on.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to speak to Part 4, “Enabling electronic licenses and electronic voting”, and, in particular, the Department of Conservation - related amendments, which would facilitate the online sale of game hunting licences and online voting for Fish & Game council elections.

Clause 82 amends section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987, and that’s the conduct of the elections. There were comments made about a view being expressed that the offering of electronic voting could improve participation in the democratic process for Fish & Game councils. The amendment here is a really important one because what it is doing is clarifying that the electronic voting option is available, and it is expressly authorising that there could be both electronic—i.e. online—and paper postal voting to facilitate choice for fish and game licence holders.

Also, while we are modernising these processes and the use of technology, we’re also noting that there is a modernising of the language. It was proposed in the replacement section 26Z(1)(a) that the words “ballot” and “vote” are both used, and that, while “ballot” is a synonym for “vote”, “ballot” is perhaps a less common term and may create some uncertainty as to what it encompasses. So it was considered that “vote” should be used in both places for consistency and to avoid uncertainty, and this entire section is about making it expressly clear that you can either have the postal vote or a combination of postal voting and electronic voting. I think it’s appropriate too that in the drafting of the legislation they have taken it from one sentence and put it into separate subparagraphs to make that absolutely clear.

A reference was made—and I was just going to make a note of caution around what happened in the controversial vote for Bird of the Year this year. I know that we’re talking about Fish & Game, and not Forest and Bird, but there was a lot of controversy about over 100 fraudulent votes that were cast in that, and I think it just highlights that there is the ability to create fake email accounts for purposes of voting, like in that recent Bird of the Year competition. While I was in favour of the white-faced heron receiving those votes, I do think that it does raise the serious point that we need to make sure that this is a safe system, particularly if it’s extended beyond the purposes outlined in this bill.

Of course, I must take every opportunity to also put in a plug there for my region and for Northland and the fact that we don’t have ultra-fast broadband in all of our communities and we would be disadvantaged in this process. So while we are moving towards the modernisation of the technology that we use to participate in these processes—I think that’s fantastic—you cannot forget about the regions and their ability to actually utilise this legislation. With that, I commend the bill.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s a privilege to be able to speak on Part 4 of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. But I might just add, Minister Martin, that, in terms of technology, we’re behind the eight ball again. I’ll get to that in a second.

Because it is 9.15 p.m., for the benefit of the committee, I want to talk about clause 82 of the bill, which would amend what the previous speaker, Willow-Jean Prime, spoke about—section 26Z of the Conservation Act 1987. If we go to clause 82, in terms of “Section 26Z amended”, it goes to replacement subsection (1)(a) and it talks about “using either of the following methods … (i) postal voting; (ii) a combination of electronic voting and postal voting;”.

I wasn’t part of the Government Administration Committee, so what’s the discussion in terms of method of electronic voting? Is it taking a picture of your paper and texting it? I know from my children, if I send an email to them, I sometimes have to ring them to say, “Check your email.” In the discussions previously, before the break, there were mentions of the Millennials that no longer are using emails. So that’s where my comment about—that we are behind the eight ball, electronically. If it is to make our life easier and simpler, then maybe we should look at what it is, actually, when we say “a combination of electronic voting”. What is that? Honourable Minister, if you could answer that question: what does that look like?

As I sat here and I heard members talk about the bird—I know that this is not about that voting in terms of your favourite bird.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, it’s not about the bird.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: I myself voted for pūkeko, and I made my kids vote for pūkeko, as well, because pūkeko are from Tonga, where I’m from—they’re also native there.

I know that this talks about that we can talk about Part 4, from clause 80 through to clause 93. I was going to ask a question but I actually answered my own question. But I thought I might ask the committee to share my learning as I sat here and listened through the discussions on the previous part, Part 3. I really want to talk about clause 84(3), where it actually says, “In section 2(1)”—of the Wildlife Act 1953—“insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: ‘game licence’ means a licence to hunt or kill game issued by the Department or a Fish and Game Council under regulations made under this Act”.

English is my second language, so I’m sharing with the House how I learned, just by sitting here and reading this, that later on it refers to that—in terms of clause 93, amending section 72, it talks about “(1) In section 72(2)(a),(b), and (c) and (3A)(a) and (b), replace ‘licences to hunt or kill game’ with ‘game licences’.” So that’s what I learnt: OK, that’s why there was a definition of what “game licence” is, and later on in parts of the clauses, from clause 80 through to clause 93, it actually has been changed throughout the clauses. So I just wanted to share with the committee my learning in terms of that.

I just want to ask the Minister: if you could please answer the question as to what is a “combination of electronic voting”—what does that look like? Is it a text photo of your voting paper, or is it an email? If you have some clarification on that, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much. I’m glad I took a call on that. Malo.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am a little bit nervous, following after that speaker, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, and the detail that she was able to provide on this piece of legislation, but let me have a crack.

I am excited about speaking about Part 4—I’ve been waiting all day to do this—and in particular, two particular parts. I want to talk about the proposal around the introduction of electronic voting, and I also want to talk about clause 84(1). But I’ll start with the first clause: clause 81, “Sections 26N and 26O and cross-heading repealed”. I do want to ask about this—and the point was made by my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash earlier today—and I just wanted to make the point that there might be some concern amongst particularly those in our rural communities around how we might be extending beyond that of allowing those to participate in electronic voting, and the impact that we might have on the transitional councils. I take the Minister’s point that they may no longer be relevant. However, I do urge the Minister that in the communications, once this bill—this marvellous bill—is passed, we just make some effort into reassuring those who have had a long history with the Fish & Game Council that we might not be exceeding the brief when we’re wanting to go about doing this.

In clause 82(1), we are replacing section 26Z(1) with the following: “(1) The election of members of Fish and Game Councils must be conducted—(a) using either of the following methods of voting: (i) postal voting: (ii) a combination of electronic voting and postal voting;”. I note that the original proposal was “by postal ballot or electronic vote;”, and I commend the Government Administration Committee and the Minister for allowing flexibility there, and not having that rigid structure of choosing that difficult decision: do we post, or do we text? Now you’ve got the option.

However, I do want to pose a question around the futureproofing of this piece of legislation and what is currently being proposed, because we are currently looking to amend a piece of legislation that was put forward in 1987, 30 years later. That suggests to us that we’re wanting to make sure that we’re proposing something here that will stand the test of time in 30 years’ time. If we leave it as is, under paragraph (a)(ii)—“a combination of electronic voting and postal voting;”—once this Government places the investment in rural and regional communities around connectivity through rural mobile and broadband, there may not need to be the need for postal voting. However, as it is currently written, you may have to tie them into a combination of electronic voting and postal voting, and I just think perhaps I would like to hear from the Minister around how that particular clause might be futureproofed so that we don’t get stuck with sort of what is technology that might become out of date.

Here’s to the exciting bit: clause 84, “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”. This is in Subpart 2, “Amendments to Wildlife Act 1953”. I happen to have a copy of that Act in front of me here, because I wanted to know what the definition of “associated products” was, being proposed in clause 84(1). It says: “In section 2(1), definition of ‘associated products’, replacing ‘products made’ with ‘goods or services produced or supplied’.” Now, looking at this Act here, under “associated products”, it means “products made in association with game bird habitat stamps as part of the game bird habitat stamp programme”—clear as you like.

My concern is around the extension of the intention of the original Act, because here we’re talking about “products made”—production. We’re wanting to expand that to “goods or services produced or supplied”. There are two parts that I want to raise a question on there. “Products made”—a product that is produced. Here, we’re expanding “products” to “goods or services”. It is no longer just a product; it is also a service.

Then we’re looking to go beyond production in terms of “products made” to “produced or supplied”. So we’re moving from production to distribution, and I would like some clarification around that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the honourable Minister, can I just suggest to members that we have possibly exhausted the debate on the election of Fish & Game councils, so I would ask members that, in the continuation of this particular part, we look at other clauses to debate.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to the questions that have been raised, particularly around postal voting and online voting: at the moment, only postal voting is allowed in elections. This bill will allow postal voting and electronic voting, alongside each other.

With regard to the honourable member Kieran McAnulty’s question about whether perhaps we’re not futureproofing the legislation effectively at this time, there is the word “and”, so that it becomes optional. But I have no doubt that that honourable member will be here in 30 years’ time, and he can have a look and possibly then switch it around later on.

This bill will allow elections to be conducted both ways. So it will not allow just one way, because if we did that, it would mean that people without internet access could not take part.

The definition of “game licence” is the new definition replacing the second definition of “licence” that is currently in the Act—just to be clear.

To go back to the reference with regard to the original Act and stamp, I’m pretty sure that was the production of a product. Previously, with regard to licences and being able to purchase licences online, which this bill will allow, you had to physically go to an outlet from which they were—I don’t know—allowed to do this and have a stamp put on a licence. So this is actually giving an alternative to that, hence the “services” part, which is what I believe we’re referring to.

Just with regard to online voting—back again—online voting will be in effect only once regulations are made. These regulations will set out safeguards in respect of how online voting will operate. Some organisations already do online voting, such as Fonterra. So there are some precedents already set here, and, obviously, because it’s Fonterra, there are members of the rural community who are already participating, I would suggest, in online voting.

As to what the electronic voting looks like to the honourable member, I am sorry, but I have not gone and ever voted in the Fish & Game council elections. But I have seen examples of online voting, which is where you have a registered email address—and it would be an email address that is proven to be currently in use—that receives a document with an attachment or a link across to a secure website where you click the name of the individual or a series of names of those you wish to be elected and then you submit that form. So I don’t believe it means you can take a photo with your phone of a physical form and then send it by messenger.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Assistant Chair Williams, noting your directions prior, I don’t want to lament this particular point in respect of Fish & Game, and I won’t traverse whether or not the win of the Bird of the Year was meritorious or not, given that I was a strong supporter of the kākāpō—but that is by the by.

The point that I really did want to just briefly speak to was that I’m very pro opening of democracy and I am very supportive, particularly being of the cohort of the younger members of this House that has probably more of a natural fluidity with regard to engagement with electronic measures and so on and so forth, and also just recognising that there’s plenty of research that endorses and encourages, in fact, the opening of our democracy by way of digital voting.

But I guess what I just wanted to quickly touch on—and I promise my points will be brief—is that there’s been this big movement towards voting by electronic methods. I commend the work of the Department of Conservation, endorsed by yourself, as a Minister, and other members of this House. My question is whether or not we are digitising democracy by stealth, whether this in some way becomes a bit of a slippery slope. We’re opening up the Pandora’s box for other measures, other ministries, and so on and so forth as well, to, I guess, replicate the measures that have been taken here.

So, to the Minister in the chair, Tracey Martin, perhaps just a couple of brief comments on whether we do think that we are opening the Pandora’s box beyond the scope that is intended. I know that Fish & Game are just a minor body, but it nevertheless does set a precedent, and I wonder if we have truly turned our minds to the impacts that this electronic voting measure may have. Thank you.

Part 4 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Food Safety Law Reform Bill

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): In the last Parliament, leave was granted for all provisions of the bill to be considered as one question. Is there any objection to this approach? There doesn’t appear to be.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call in this 52nd Parliament, continuing on the committee stage for the Food Safety Law Reform Bill. As one of the members of the Primary Production Committee of the 51st Parliament, along with the Minister now seated in the chair, Damien O’Connor, it’s great that we are able to now be in Government to be able to continue on the passage of this very sensible piece of legislation.

As we know, the background—if I can just quickly canvass that again. This bill arose as a result of the whey protein inquiries on what was called the botulism scare. As we know, a Fonterra plant had a dirty pipe and—long story short—it led to massive worldwide recalls of whey protein concentrate, which was used as an ingredient in child infant formula. This went all the way around the world in terms of the recalls. It caused substantial damage to customer relationships, to suppliers of baby food, particularly Danone. As we know, there’s been only recently results of an arbitration that went against Fonterra to the tune of well over $100 million. So the costs of this episode are still being felt. This bill was in direct result of the recommendations that came out of the inquiries—two inquiries, actually—that took place in the aftermath of that event.

This bill is widely supported. We heard from a number of submitters from major industry groups in the primary sector—major exporters. This bill is all about protecting the reputation of New Zealand exporters, ensuring that we have impeccable standards, and that we can compete and supply our wonderful produce and export products worldwide. So it’s really important. This cuts right to the heart of the integrity of our food systems and also our ability to trade with the outside world.

This bill amends three pieces of legislation: the Animal Products Act, the Wine Act, and the Food Act—I’m just quickly relaying it from memory. We heard from major industry groups, from the likes of the horticulture industry, the meat industry, the seafood industry, and, of course, the dairy industry. We heard from exporters and processors, large and small, who all have an active and keen interest in this piece of legislation. On the whole, most of the operational changes that occurred didn’t require legislative change, but this bill captures all of those changes that need to be implemented through legislation.

So in this contribution, I wanted to touch on—and, hopefully, I might be able to get another one—and to really cover the main areas in terms of the provisions of this bill around the scope of delegated legislation. I think that was a big area that we heard submissions on at the select committee. Just last evening, we considered the Legislation Bill, which would be looking at a central registry of all secondary legislation, and a core part of being able to reinforce our systems of traceability, of recall, of enforcement—it all cuts to the ability for quick decisions to be made and for systems to be in place.

The ability to activate those systems as a matter of urgency not only requires primary legislation to be in place, not only requires secondary legislation by way of regulations, but might also require more technical pieces of legislation such as notices or subsequent notices to reinforce or to provide more detail, I suppose, on the actual secondary legislation or regulations. So a large part of the work that we did at the committee was listening and trying to deal with the concerns around providing certainty, providing a cost-effective regime by which exporters and food manufacturers of all sizes would be able to comply, meet their obligations, and also tighten up our regime.

So I believe we’ve struck a good balance in the bill, right across all the three principal pieces of legislation that we are amending, in that we are leaving scope for secondary legislation to be able to be consulted upon with industry and also to be able to be implemented in a timely fashion, but also making sure that it is constrained and it is not an unfettered power that we are granting to the Ministry for Primary Industries or certain other officials or decision-making bodies that are involved in making these critical decisions.

So a lot of what we are doing with this piece of legislation concerns putting in place the framework by which our major food exporters, meat exporters, and wine exporters can have confidence that their food plans, and their risk management plans, and everything that is involved in their manufacturing processes and their export processes are robust and are able, I guess, to stand up to the scrutiny, and, ultimately, stand up to what might be an urgent event that may arise. All of it is designed to ensure that we have just a strong, robust system so we can ensure that the quality and the reputation of our export products maintain an impeccable standard.

I just want to—as we are talking about the different levels and scope that are contained in the bill around the secondary legislation—acknowledge the fact that there was the best practice that has been followed through the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee, and that committee, made up of eminent senior practitioners and legal minds—

Chris Bishop: Could be you one day.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Could be. Ha, ha! It set forth the elements for producing the secondary regulations. Having gone through all of those elements, the committee was satisfied, through the very good advice that we received from officials, that the regime that is now in place through this bill would be able to cater for the wide variety of instances, be it through regulations, be it through notices, be it through subsequent notices—it would cover the full array of situations but also fall within good legislative practice, and I’m pleased that, as a committee, the work that we achieved on the bill was able to meet those high standards and generally be supported by all of the major food industry groups.

And we’re not talking about—sure, there might have been maybe a dozen or so of these groups, but the membership of those groups, which they represent, is enormous, if we are talking about Horticulture New Zealand and all of the different product groups that they represent, and the meat industry. So I commend this bill.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Chairperson Williams, it is with great pleasure that I stand to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It is also good to be participating in democracy, and I note the lay down misère over the other side of the Chamber. This is an important bill and deserves important scrutiny from this committee. With all due respect to the debate that we have had just previously, this is not debating the relevance of the fax machine; this is debating some of the most important issues around the food safety and sustainability of the New Zealand economy.

This bill, as my colleague Rino Tirikatene has just pointed out, is a result of the independent Government inquiry into the false botulism scare, the whey protein. This was a shot across the bows of New Zealand’s food safety regulations and systems, and it was good that it turned out to be a false scare, but it was one that we have to take the opportunity to look at and see if our systems are, in fact, robust and fit for purpose. That was a very, very expensive exercise. I note Danone—$183 million in costs they have got off Fonterra. That is probably only the tip of the iceberg, when we look at a lot of the other issues that would have flowed from that.

This is to better align the current standards and regulations under our three main food Acts, as has been pointed out—the Animal Products Act 1999, the Food Act 2014, and the Wine Act 2003. This is an imperative, that we protect the reputation of New Zealand’s food producers and exporters with the twin pillars of biosecurity and food safety—and I note the new Minister putting extra scrutiny over both of those twin pillars—and that is welcome in this 52nd Parliament. It is imperative that we have world’s best practice and gold standard, and, particularly, as I note, as we face new competition from alternative synthetic proteins, that doesn’t allow us to rest on our laurels in any way, shape, or form.

This is really important for New Zealand, in the sense that we are the only agrarian First World economy in the world—

Matt King: We agree. Let’s vote.

MARK PATTERSON: And it will affect Northland, Mr King. You may make light of this, but it will affect Northland. Northland is an agrarian economy. This will be very, very important for Northland.

Let’s look at the things we are doing: the free fees, first-year free fees—and we’ve just heard today that that is going to be extended to trades for a second year—extending paid parental leave, regional development and our billion-dollar fund and our billion-tree strategy, which will vitalise the regions like Northland.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! Could we come back to the bill.

MARK PATTERSON: All this, Madam Chairperson, is possible only because we have a food industry—a $6.5 billion horticulture industry, $8.5 billion of red meats, $17.5 billion in our dairy sector. We cannot afford to trifle with this particular sector, and that’s only the big ones; there are plenty more. So we need to improve these programmes and food safety regulations through this legislation. Exporters—and when we need to empower the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to be able to act in a more effective and timely manner.

We need more robust traceability—so we need a lot of the things that have been brought forward in this bill. The mock recalls, for example, are things that are already standard practice within our large exporters. Our customers are demanding it, so it’s just regulation actually catching up with what is already being demanded, and tidying some of this up.

MPI, I note, are not going to enforce duplication. They are going to respect some of these practices that are already there, so there are some good pragmatic things already there. New Zealand First did have some concerns around the effect on artisan food producers. We have talked with officials who have given us some reassurance that those things have been covered. So we look forward to progressing this bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I am reluctant to rise, given the enthusiasm to speak on this bill in the committee tonight. But I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Opposition, who were in Government when this unfortunate incident with the WPC80, the false botulism incident, occurred. That, as has been pointed out, has cost this country literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and it’s a wake-up call to our whole country.

I acknowledge the progress made by the previous Government to work through that inquiry, to look at the recommendations and then to move through to implement them through this piece of legislation. I acknowledge David Bennett, who was the previous Minister who introduced the bill into the House. I’d welcome a contribution from him, I guess to give some of the background that he heard in developing this legislation.

Can I just say that I would like to welcome support for the bill across the House. I know that the previous Green member of Parliament, Steffan Browning, had Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 355 that he had brought at the last minute to this piece of legislation, and we’ve had discussions with the Green Party to work through issues that are legitimate issues. They were, in the SOP—and I’m not sure whether the Greens will still proceed—issues around labelling, the labelling of GM food and irradiated food in this country.

The request was a perfectly reasonable one: that we should more thoroughly investigate where inappropriate labelling has been occurring. I’ve committed to the Green Party that we will follow up on that as a matter of course—in fact, there’s a legal obligation to do that, but, of course, many of the Government departments were squeezed under the previous Government. We don’t have all the money to fix everything immediately, and so they had to prioritise investigations. We will look at the level of inappropriate labelling that has been occurring, and follow up on that.

Can I just also acknowledge concern—and I think there was an amendment from New Zealand First—around the issue of costs for small innovative food producers in the food system. Can I put on the record that as an incoming Government that is looking to grow value in the regional and rural economy, we will look to ensure that the regime laid down by the Food Act and by any amendments that we may bring in will indeed offer them opportunity and encouragement to get out and do their thing, and not be unduly hindered by huge costs.

I know the Primary Production Committee heard from Biddy. Anyone who hasn’t heard from Biddy, who’s a cheesemaker from the Wairarapa, should go and look. I think the Ministry for Primary Industries has a file about this high on Biddy. She was a staunch advocate for small artisan cheese producers, and I acknowledge the effort she put in to bring that wisdom to Parliament through the select committee. So we’ve committed to follow up with New Zealand First to ensure that we put in place a regime that is affordable and effective for them.

There was, at the last minute, SOP 316 from the then Government itself when the bill was introduced. It’s been tabled. We will follow through with that. It does three things, basically. The first one is provide the ability for the director-general to delegate to other senior officials some decision-making powers. The terrible reality was that he was offshore when the WPC80 incident occurred, and there were some legal restrictions on what anyone could say at that time. So the Government’s proposed that—the previous Government did—and we’ll follow through on that.

The other one is, and it might be of great interest to the members on this side of the Chamber, making the sale of hemp seed legal. It’s a very low-THC food, so, for the members on this side of the Chamber who are thinking they might, you know, see an opportunity here for a bit of fun, you’ll have to probably eat tonnes of hemp seed before you get a bit of a buzz. But the point is that New Zealand and Australia jointly agreed that the sale of hemp seed was a very low risk and that it was a perfectly legitimate new food for people who want to eat it, but because it has very small amounts of THC, we couldn’t do it under current legislation. So we’re making changes there.

The other changes are technical. Very briefly, they’re technical changes that officials have advised the previous Government and this Government need to be carried through. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I welcome support from across the Chamber for its progress.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Chair Williams, thank you for the call following on from Minister O’Connor, who is not unknown to me. We did spend some time on farms together as youths, so we come from a similar place when we talk about the need for food safety. It may seem somewhat unusual that as the member for Ōhāriu—for those who don’t know, when you fly into Wellington in a southerly, you look down on what would appear to be a largely urban electorate, but between there and the coast is a quite considerable farm part of my electorate, one that I spent some part of my youth in. I was found to be useful out there, because once they found out I could crutch sheep, I was very quickly accepted into that community. But I’d make that point to say that I have one of those electorates where a bill like this is incredibly important across the board.

The Minister talked about labelling. We understand such a risk of mislabelling. Even in this very Chamber today, we saw the Speaker—I’m not sure, Madam Chair, if I’m allowed to refer to the Speaker. I know many of the members across the Chamber do look similar. The term “Stepford husbands” has been used. But the Speaker made a mistake with Messrs King and Falloon, who were mistaken for each other today. It just shows how easily mistakes can be made, so it’s important. We saw what did happen.

Perhaps going further down the bill, can I just talk about one very sensible—

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

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill with amendment, the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill with amendment, the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill with amendment, and progress on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.