Thursday, 7 December 2017

THURSDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2017

THURSDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider a range of Government bills, including the first reading of the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill and the third readings of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill, the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill, and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. As notified to the Business Committee, urgency will be moved after question time on Thursday for legislation that progresses the Government’s 100-day programme.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just wanting to inquire from the Leader of the House—how many senior Ministers will be required to filibuster on those bills next week?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think it is a testament to the Government backbench of brand-new MPs that they are doing a better job of holding the Government to account than the largest and laziest Opposition New Zealand has ever had.

Motions

Ian Templeton—Press Gallery 60th Anniversary

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the 60-year anniversary of Ian Templeton working in the press gallery.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House pay tribute to Ian Templeton of the parliamentary press gallery and acknowledge his remarkable length of service in what is now his final week of covering the proceedings of this Parliament.

Ian Campbell Templeton started journalism in 1946 with the Otago Daily Times, the last of the independent newspapers in New Zealand. In July 1957, he came to the press gallery. Sid Holland was the Prime Minister when he arrived, and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern is the 15th Prime Minister he has reported on.

Hon Member: Were you there when he arrived?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha! No, I wasn’t here when he arrived. Ian Templeton, the founding member of the New Zealand Press Council, which he served on for 25 years, was awarded an OBE in 1993 and awarded a CNZM in 2010, and recently he was awarded an honorary doctorate in literature from Massey University.

This is an occasion to acknowledge the presence of his wife, Hannah, and family members in the gallery today, including daughters Jane and Fleur, and two of his eight grandchildren, Harry and Claudine.

Ian, your service to journalism in Parliament and parliamentary reporting has been pretty remarkable. As a journalist, you were amazingly accurate, interested in the details, a repository of deep knowledge, and, because of that, the standout character in the press gallery. It’s hard to see how your achievements can ever be replicated. You will be sorely missed. Ian is at the front of Parliament today.

As we know, Templeton is a Scottish name. As the famous lyric says from the song “Flower of Scotland”: “When will we see your like again?”

[Applause]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I rise on behalf of the National Party to join the Government in paying tribute and in expressing admiration and best wishes to Ian Templeton, as moved by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Ian, it won’t have escaped your attention, nor that of your colleagues, that it’s not so much an irony but truly a mark of respect that this motion is, in fact, moved by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and it’s something that we would not have expected—to see such tribute paid to a doyen of the New Zealand media.

In 60 years of reporting from this place, you’ve carved an enviable reputation for accuracy, for insight, and for fairness. Your discerning but authoritative interview style has always demanded respect. Over the course of your time here, you’ve seen some 608 MPs take their seats, and this is your 21st Parliament. I came to this place when you were well past the midpoint of your career, and the then Prime Minister told all of his new intake that if we wanted to know what was going on around the place, just read Templeton, and that the Trans Tasman was a must-have subscription.

I’m told that the mantle of the longest-serving press gallery journalist now passes to a gentleman who’s served a 35-year apprenticeship alongside you, but I have to say a look at his work confirms you’re a much better journalist than teacher. Well, I can only say to Mr Templeton that you both come from Gore, so you’ll appreciate that good things take time.

Ian, you are from a distinguished family, and your significant contribution to the service of public information stands beside the public service of your older brother and your twin brother. We have in this country a very safe democracy, which is in no small part due to the profession that you have taken a lead in so very well. To have your family here today to hear just a little of the regard in which you are held by this institution is, I think, very special. So we extend to you, to your wife, and to your family every good wish for a long and enjoyable retirement.

Can I finally reflect that you came to Parliament in the year of the Black Budget and express a hope that you are not leaving just ahead of the next one.

[Applause]

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish to congratulate Ian Templeton on his 60th year as a press gallery journalist. Sixty years is an incredible amount of time to be in any job, let alone the press gallery. Ian first started working in the gallery in 1957. Many of my parliamentary colleagues here today weren’t even born then. Over that time, there’s been 17 Prime Ministers and 21 elections. We’ve seen huge change in our country, and this was all under the watch of Ian.

Ian’s commitment to professionalism and integrity sets a high bar for all journalists to aspire to. I’ve been talking to a few people about you. I hear you’ve got an uncanny, longstanding, and well-deserved reputation for getting things right. One of the most important elements of this was his ability to gain trust, and the reason that Ian was able to write so accurately was because of the relationships that he built. He was known to have a weekly meeting with Helen Clark, which I’m sure his fellow gallery journalists were envious of. Many of you, of course, know—all of you should know—that Ian’s brother Hugh was a Cabinet Minister, and yet, as testament to his professionalism, there was never any indication of leaks coming from him.

I understand that Ian himself says that journalism is a worthy profession and that what he does is for the public good. I think this highlights just how important quality, integrity-based journalism is to the health of democracy. Quality journalism is a public good that allows us to be informed about important issues. It allows us to debate issues that are sometimes uncomfortable and confronting. Although I’m sure many of my colleagues get frustrated at times—and I’m not sure he ever gave me a good rap—quality journalism plays a vital role in keeping accountability in our country, which is the lifeblood of robust democracies.

Once again, on behalf of the Labour Party, congratulations to Ian on his incredible and record-breaking milestone of 60 years in the press gallery.

[Applause]

Hon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too want to recognise and congratulate Ian Templeton for his long and outstanding career. As someone who is only 44 and has been in this institution for only 38 months, it just blows my mind, sir, that you have been in journalism for 60 years, and 53 of those in the press gallery. That is an extraordinary achievement.

I note that this is a time of incredible change in the media industry. There are huge pressures going through the industry. Technology is causing huge disruption. Business models are changing, and yet your career has seen radio eclipse newspapers; television eclipse radio; the internet eclipse television; the consolidation of regional papers; the loss of the evening daily papers; fewer journalists doing more, not just more stories but across more and more technology platforms—you have, quite literally, seen it all. And I note also a few of the most historic moments in New Zealand’s history: the Wahine disaster, Mount Erebus, even the 1951 waterfront strikes, which you covered in your career, and I do think that that is an extraordinary achievement.

On behalf of the Green Party and everyone in New Zealand who values a strong and independent media, I thank you for your service.

[Applause]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party, I’d like to join with other leaders in congratulating Mr Templeton on his extraordinary service. For the avoidance of doubt, the comments that follow have been in no way influenced by Mr Templeton’s influence on me being awarded the Trans Tasman Politician of the Year several years ago.

But I would like to say that a free and professional media that reports to the people in a clear, engaging, and transparent way is the essential pillar of a democracy, because it is the first one to go when a democracy is eroded. I can’t think of a better signature of how lucky we have been in New Zealand to have that than to have someone who has practised it so professionally and so astutely for six decades—a period of time that, much like my colleague James Shaw, I find it rather difficult to fathom, but I’ll take your word for it—and to have a journalist with an economics degree is a rare, but extremely welcome, thing too. So congratulations, thank you for all your service, and I hope that what lies ahead is fun and prosperous for you.

[Applause]

Mr SPEAKER: Ian, I’m very tempted to start this by saying, “At the midpoint of my career …”. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

[Applause]

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Obligation to Answer

Mr SPEAKER: I have reviewed some replies to written questions provided recently. The Minister for Economic Development has responded to a series of questions saying that they are out of order under Standing Order 380. That is not an answer to the question. It is not for Ministers to rule things out of order. Only I may rule on relevance and admissibility. If it appears to a Minister that the question is not in order, then the proper course is to return it to the Clerk’s Office or to enter into a discussion with the Clerk’s Office.

I have also seen written questions asking what meetings a Minister has attended between certain dates that have been answered by “What is meant by meetings?” That is not an answer to the question. If a Minister is not clear what a question means, he or she could contact the member who has asked the question in order to seek clarification. A Minister’s office should be able to receive clarification and provide a reply to the question within six working days.

I remind Ministers of their duty to the House and, through the House, to the country to account for the public offices they hold. Ministers should give informative replies to the questions they are asked, where it is consistent with the public interest to do so—Speakers rulings’ 176/5 and 177/5.

The questions that I have mentioned today will be returned to Ministers, and I would expect that they would be replied to urgently. I will continue to review answers to written questions periodically to ensure questions are being addressed.

Points of Order—Purpose, Retrospective Rulings, and Relitigation

Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday, the Rt Hon David Carter raised with me the issue of retrospective rulings on matters of order. I’ve reflected on that matter and on methods of disagreeing with a ruling of the Chair. Earlier this year, the Standing Orders Committee considered the matter of retrospective rulings.

An extract from the committee’s report appears as Speaker’s ruling 20/5. However, in light of the matters raised, it is worth referring to the full text of the report at page 14: “There is a well-established prohibition on raising points of order in the House about events that have passed. This helps ensure that points of order address matters that are relevant to the maintenance of order at that point in time and are not themselves used to disrupt the order of the House. This prohibition on retrospective points of order is appropriate and we encourage Speakers to continue not to entertain them. We consider, however, that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it is important and in the House’s interest to do so. The Speaker’s primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House’s ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address the matter. … Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker, outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed, and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still, of course, a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. As always, rulings of the Speaker are final. A retrospective ruling on a matter of order does not reopen the matter for discussion.”

The committee intended that the Speaker could, on his or her initiative, deal with retrospective matters of order. It did not empower members to raise such matters on the floor of the House and, in fact, required them to be raised privately with the Speaker. While the event that led to the change involved a comment that the Speaker had not heard, the report did not restrict members’ rights to raise a variety of matters relating to the order of the House and the rights of members. The presumption remains that a point of order must be raised once and cannot be raised by a member at a later time—Speakers’ rulings 20/3 and 20/4.

Speakers from Guinness through to Carter have ruled that when a matter has been the subject of a decision by the Chair, that decision is final and comment on it is not allowed. Members have a right and a duty to raise points of order where they feel the House is outside its Standing Orders, but any attempt to bring into question the Chair’s decision is out of order and is in no way protected by the Standing Orders. To persist in doing so, despite warning, makes it a highly disorderly procedure—Speakers’ ruling 22/3. The only way to challenge the ruling of a Speaker is by a direct motion on notice—Speakers’ rulings 17/6 and 18/1.

Points of order are not intended to ask questions or to seek clarification. They are to deal with matters of order at the time they are occurring in the House or to draw the Speaker’s attention to the fact that a member intends to exercise a right given by the Standing Orders, such as making a personal explanation. I thank the Rt Hon David Carter for raising this matter. I will circulate this ruling immediately and I will be available in my office from 5 to 6 p.m. today and again next week if members require further clarification.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing Supply—Adequacy and KiwiBuild

1. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What does the briefing he received as incoming Minister say about the impact KiwiBuild will have?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): It states that the KiwiBuild programme creates a unique opportunity to support transformative change in the construction sector. It says that the sector suffers from capacity constraints and low productivity, but, through KiwiBuild, large-scale contracts could support a market for manufactured housing, which could reduce time to build each dwelling by 60 percent and total construction costs per dwelling by 15 percent.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does the briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM) say about the situation the Government has inherited?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the briefing says that high house prices, and I quote, “generate a significant drag on productivity: … increase government costs: …” and “have stark distributional impacts: …”. In short, the previous Government’s housing crisis made the country poorer, made middle- and low-income New Zealanders poorer, and cost taxpayers a lot of money.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the BIM address the claim that New Zealand has been in a record housing boom?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, actually, yes it does. The BIM notes that house construction compared to the size of the population is well below levels achieved in the early 2000s, let alone in the 1970s. It says that suboptimal performance of the New Zealand housing market is well recognised. It continues to face pressure, particularly in Auckland, where not enough houses have been built to meet the demand from strong population growth.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What conclusions does the BIM reach in support of the objectives of KiwiBuild?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the briefing says that the most important factor for improving long-term housing and urban outcomes is to ensure the responsiveness of housing supply. Supply needs to be responsive to population growth and provide enough choices of location, price, size, typology, and tenure, and that is exactly what this Government intends to deliver.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the KiwiBuild programme’s goal to deliver more houses, more affordable houses, or both?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Both.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In response to that answer, what is the Minister’s best estimate of the net increase in the number of dwellings that will be constructed under the KiwiBuild, excluding those KiwiBuild dwellings planned to be purchased from developments already in the pipeline?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The coalition Government will deliver 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, over and above what the private market or the former Government were going to deliver.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my first supplementary, I asked whether affordable or total house supply was the goal. The answer was both. Given that, I then asked how many net of those purchased properties would be constructed. I didn’t get an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member did. The question was addressed.

Child Poverty—Government Measures to Address

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: I stand by my statements made as the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction in the context in which they were given.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does she stand by her statement that, and I quote, “I have long recognised [that] child poverty is a stain on this country” and, if so, is she heartened that the Child Poverty Monitor 2017 showed that there were 10,000 less children classed as living in severe poverty since the 2016 report, and material hardship had reduced by 20,000, all under the previous National Government?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, yes; in answer to the third part of the question, it is technically true that the National Party was in Government at that time, but it may be a bit early to actually decide that it was all their own work.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that the only benefit increase in the last 40 years was done by the previous National Government, because they are the dividends you can get from growing the economy and responsibly managing the Government’s finances?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can confirm that the previous Government raised beneficiary rates. I can also confirm that they slashed many other programmes when they first came into Government.

Dr Liz Craig: What are the Government’s plans to reduce child poverty?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Government has many plans with which to reduce child poverty, and these include the introduction of a child poverty reduction bill shortly, Best Start payments, extending paid parental leave, winter energy payments, increasing Working for Families, and tackling housing issues.

Hon Paula Bennett: What is her Government’s target for reductions in the number of children living in benefit-dependent households, given the previous Government’s policies resulted in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has finished her question.

Hon Paula Bennett: Oh, I was just giving it a bit of rounding.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I did make it clear, I think, yesterday, that I was going to be tighter on questions. The member has asked a supplementary question, and adding a “given” afterwards about the actions of a previous Government is not the responsibility of this member.

Hon Paula Bennett: May I reword my question then, sir, because it was kind of a fullness of question, and I’d like to reword it.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes—I’ll be kind.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Government please confirm that we had a reduction of 60,000 fewer children living in households with poverty since 2011?

Mr SPEAKER: I think I am going to ask the member to reword her question again because I think she ended up with a double negative and that she didn’t get what she wanted.

Hon Paula Bennett: OK, let’s give this another go. Can the Minister please confirm that we have seen a result of 60,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent households since 2011?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, I cannot confirm that, unfortunately. I don’t have those figures in front of me.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that one of the benefits of a strong, growing economy is the number of children in material hardship dropping from 220,000 in 2011 to 135,000 in 2016?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can confirm that a strong and growing economy should result in a positive impact for those children that live in poverty, but what we have seen is that, unfortunately, there seems to be a greater impact on those at the top end of the scale, and this Government would like to see that more evenly spread.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will she commit to supporting social investment as a tool for driving the individualised changes needed to lift more children out of poverty?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: This Government will commit to its poverty reduction target. It commits to placing those into legislation so that it can hold itself and future Governments to account for the outcomes for children. With regard to a policy that was part of the previous Government, I cannot make that commitment.

Jo Hayes: When will the Minister announce whether she intends to keep Whānau Ora as the key funding priority for her Government?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I don’t believe the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction has responsibility for that area.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, I shouldn’t have allowed it.

Economy—Tax Rates

3. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm that from 1 April 2018 people earning the full-time average wage who are single with no children, families with grown-up children, and young couples starting out with no children will all pay more personal income tax than they would do from that date under the law as it currently stands?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister explain how those people—people who are on the full-time average wage, who are single with no children, families who have grown-up children, and young couples starting out with no children—won’t pay more income tax from 1 April 2018 than under the law as it currently stands?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I’m advised that if a person were working for less than two months of the year on the full-time average wage, they would not benefit from changes in the tax laws that are due to come into force on 1 April 2018.

Hon Steven Joyce: So the Minister is saying that people who work less than two months of the year—

Hon Member: What’s the question?

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he clarify that he’s concerned only about people who are working for less than two months a year and not the 1.2 million people in this category that happen to work more than two months a year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I’m concerned for all New Zealanders, including the member, who might have wanted to put the word “annual” in his primary question.

Hon James Shaw: If the tax cuts outlined by the Hon Steven Joyce were to take effect, would that make it more or less likely that the Government would be able to prevent future mass poisonings like that which took place in Havelock North?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no.

Kiritapu Allan: What responses has he seen to the tax package that is currently in law and is scheduled to come into force on 1 April 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen the New Zealand Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom survey in which 70 percent of chief executives saw the widening gap between rich and poor as a major issue, and, given this, 56 percent of them did not support the previous Government’s tax cuts. I’ve also seen the response of New Zealand voters, a majority of whom supported parties that reject tax cuts that disproportionately favour the wealthy few.

Hon Steven Joyce: Supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: Just before the member does, I’d just like to discourage the clapping that is occurring—[Interruption]—and I’d like to discourage interjections from the Minister of Finance while I’m ruling. But I did notice yesterday there was both excessive barracking from my left and almost seal-like activity from my right, and it is to stop.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just on behalf of the Opposition, we just understand that they’ve had a bad week and they need to encourage themselves today with a bit of a handclap.

Mr SPEAKER: And Paula Bennett, that was not a point of order, and seeing we’re in question time, the National Party will lose two supplementary questions.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does the Minister appreciate that of the three parties in Government, two of them voted in favour of the previous Government’s tax package, and only one voted against, and only one campaigned against, and that party attracted 37 percent of the vote, which is nothing like a mandate for changing these tax initiatives?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, because I think, as all members will know, there was nothing in that that actually got us to what the Minister is responsible for.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the answer to the previous supplementary question, the Minister himself raised these matters and—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and the fact that one member breaches the Standing Orders and I didn’t intervene is not a reason for someone else.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s not going to—especially after the ruling that I’ve just given—dispute what I’m going to say.

Hon Steven Joyce: I just want to clarify if I could—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon Steven Joyce: —in a general sense, if I could, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member can’t. I want to make absolutely clear that there is no such thing and no ability in our Standing Orders to have a point of clarification, or to do the sort of interrogation that I believe the member was going to start, as to what the Standing Orders are. When I have ruled, that is the end of the matter.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now ruling that if a Minister introduces some new material into an answer, that cannot be used in a subsequent supplementary?

Mr SPEAKER: I want to apologise to the House for not stopping the Minister earlier and ruling it out. I should’ve, I didn’t, and I am ruling that irrelevant material introduced in either a supplementary question or in an answer does not give licence for further extension of things that are outside the relevance question for that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it his view and position that the coalition Government came to the view that an expanded, visionary, forward-looking economic programme was far more likely to deliver justice to the people of this country, rather than voting for something because there’s nothing else on offer?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I do. I mean—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Peters has just raised the election campaign and voting again, which is the very thing you ruled out in my supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, he actually referred to the—the substance of his question was around the policy of the coalition Government.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, the coalition Government believes that we need to invest in our public services to actually transform the lives of New Zealanders, to lift children out of poverty, rather than delivering a tax cut to members of this House.

Hon Steven Joyce: If the Minister is so obsessed about not delivering a tax cut to people who earn as much as members of this House—

Mr SPEAKER: Question.

Hon Steven Joyce: —can he explain why he wants to give people who earn as much as members of this House a $3,000-a-year baby bonus with no income targeting whatsoever?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because every piece of evidence I have seen says that the first years of a child’s life are the most important in their development, and on this side of the House we make policy based on evidence, not bad ideology.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he realise that the Government’s tertiary package, which he is so proud of, more than eats up the net savings from the tax package, and why does it make sense to give, for example, a nurse a few thousand dollars off their university fees for one year and make her pay an extra $1,000 a year in tax for the rest of her working life?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because on this side of the House we believe that we’re actually all in this together as a country. I want that nurse to go on and study, and I want her children to go on and become whatever they want to be, and we’ll back them to do that, unlike that party.

Hon James Shaw: I’m going to have another crack, Mr Speaker. If the Government revenues were to fall by a billion dollars a year or more due to income tax cuts, would that make it more or less likely that the Minister would be able to allocate enough funding to get homeless people out of cars and garages and into new homes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It would be much less likely that the Government would be able to address the huge social and infrastructure deficits that have been left by the previous Government. We will invest in strong public services, because that’s what New Zealanders want.

Tertiary Education—Fees-free Policy

4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reaction has he seen to the Government’s fees-free tertiary education policy?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Heaps, including the fact that 33,000 New Zealanders have already visited www.feesfree.govt to find out more about that policy. New Zealanders are excited about this Government’s commitment to cutting the cost for students and making education more affordable and more accessible for everybody.

Jo Luxton: What other reactions has he seen to the policy?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen responses from a number of groups, including the Tertiary Education Union, the New Zealand University Students’ Association, and others who believe that this policy is a positive step forward. But I was particularly taken by the comment from 17-year-old Denzell Christian from Aotea College, who said, “Coming from a lower income family any financial help I can get is weight off my shoulders and my family’s shoulders … this will be a huge help.” This Government is committed to supporting people like Denzell Christian to further their skills, to get a higher level of education, and to get ahead in life. We are going to be right behind them.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What performance metrics will he put in place to ensure that he gets a significantly improved outcome for this major investment?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The performance metrics that are already in place will remain in place.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Of the $2.8 billion extra tertiary spending budgeted for the next four years, how much extra money will reach tertiary institutions in order for them to continue to improve the quality of their offerings?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Budget hasn’t yet been delivered.

Roading—Priorities

5. 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. The Government is focused on getting better value for money from our transport investment. The East-West Link is a priority project because we want to find a more cost-effective option than the past Government’s $2 billion plan. Also a priority for the Government is improving rural roads, and particularly accident blackspots, given that we have inherited a road toll that has risen by 50 percent in the last five years.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is the Ōtaki to north of Levin expressway a priority for this Government, and does he support its funding from the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No existing and funded roading project other than the East-West Link has been altered by the Government. But I want to make it clear that it is not the role of the Minister of Transport to prioritise particular roading projects, because that would encourage pork-barrel politics. Prioritisation of particular projects is the role of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Tim van de Molen: Is the extension of the Waikato Expressway, from Cambridge to Tirau, a priority for this Government and does he support the funding from the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No existing and funded roading project other than the East-West Link has been altered by the Government. But I want to make it very clear that it is not the role of the Minister of Transport to prioritise particular roading projects, because that would—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That’s now becoming repetitive.

Marja Lubeck: What other questions has he received regarding transport priorities?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have received a written question from one Judith Collins asking if, and I quote: “If I agree—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely he can’t actually attack on a political point like that on a question from his own member, and also he should really have referred to me as the Hon Judith Collins.

Mr SPEAKER: I think what we’ll do is we’ll start the reply again, and the injunction for politeness will be enforced.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you. I have received a written question from the Hon Judith Collins asking if I agree with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s statement on 6 August 2017: “We’ll also build a Bus Rapid Transit service connecting the airport and East Auckland,”. Unfortunately, Mrs Collins seems to have forgotten that Bill English was the Prime Minister on 6 August, but she’s hardly alone in that.

Lawrence Yule: Is the four-laning of the Napier to Hastings expressway a priority for the Government, and does he support its funding from the National Land Transport Fund?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking of repetitive.

Mr SPEAKER: And because the member hadn’t started, that one goes back. Thank you, Mr Hipkins.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: My answer is the same as the one I gave to the question previous to the last one.

Mr SPEAKER: That’s all right.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m worried that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member’s finished. Thank you.

Hon Judith Collins: Will his Government’s roading priorities be affected by the needs of the more than 30,000 Aucklanders who have now been told that they can’t rely on public transport tomorrow, under his Government, given there’s yet another train strike?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government shares the concerns—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will now resume his seat. I think the level of interjection—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s right.

Mr SPEAKER: —from my left—Megan Woods has just given another two supplementaries to the National Party. The interjections from my left were not unreasonable—in fact, one of them was pretty witty—and Mr Twyford, as a front-bench Minister, must learn to deal with it and to just keep answering.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The coalition Government wants to see investment in a world-class public transport system, but, unlike the members opposite, we don’t want to achieve that by cutting the wages and conditions of the people who run the public transport system.

Primary Industries, Ministry—Restructuring

6. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: What specific costs were identified in the paper he received on 16 November 2017 in relation to creating separate entities for Forestry, Fisheries, Biosecurity, and Food Safety?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The paper outlined a range of options for consideration. Costs mentioned in the paper were initial estimates only.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. It was about specific costs. It’s not difficult, unless there is a public interest reason—

Mr SPEAKER: OK, the member will resume his seat. I will ask Mr O’Connor to address the question.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The costs were initial estimates only. The paper presents a number of options for consideration by Cabinet. It is not in the public interest to disclose, prior to Cabinet consideration, these final costs. Unlike the previous National Government, we will disclose figures that are accurate, not alternative.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now, I am going to rule that the Minister has indicated that it’s not in the public interest to disclose costs. That is all that the Minister needs to say, and there is no further questioning of—I mean, the member can have another supplementary, but we’re not going to question that.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why does he believe it is not in the public interest to disclose the estimates that he has received from the Ministry for Primary Industries?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Because Cabinet has to give due consideration to a number of options. We will not be rushed into a change process that does not deliver better performance in biosecurity, better performance in forestry, better performance in food safety—an outcome that will deliver, over time, lower costs than the previous Government incurred.

Hon Nathan Guy: Will all of these entities be completely separated and located outside of MPI’s central location in Wellington, or will the restructuring simply comprise of changing a few stickers on doors or floors to appease the Minister and New Zealand First?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No.

Hon Nathan Guy: To the Minister—[Pause in question] Does he—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve only got a limited time for questions in this House. [Interruption] Sir, can I be heard in silence. It’s a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely, because all points of order are to be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We’ve only got a limited time for questions in this House, and affording someone in this time to think up what he wants to ask next is not part of the procedure of this House.

Mr SPEAKER: My view is that there are a number of members who take a little time either preparing in their minds or getting the questions out. Frankly, I’d rather have thought-out questions than many of them that we get.

Hon Nathan Guy: Do the estimated figures that he has received, which he doesn’t believe is in the public interest to release to taxpayers and members of Parliament today, include expenses such as paying four new chief executives, leasing new building space, redundancies, IT systems, legal compliance, communication, branding—and the list goes on.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can answer any one of those seven questions.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes.

Hon Nathan Guy: Following on from that answer, to which part of the question?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can reassure that member over there that the Government is taking all possible cost into account. That’s why, until decisions are finally made, those are interim decisions and estimates, not specific costs of this restructure.

Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question, where, previously, the Minister answered “Yes.”, and then I asked him: “to which part of that question” did he answer yes? I’m not satisfied that the Minister has even addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am.

Veterans—Funding Support

7. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement made at the 101st national council of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association that, in regards to Government funding for the association, “I’m pretty confident that there will be discussions a bit later on which you might like the outcome of.” Today, I can confirm that the Government has agreed to make a grant of $250,000 to the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association, and, for the very first time, a grant of $20,000 to No Duff Charitable Trust in recognition of the health services they provide to veterans. This funding will be used to improve the delivery of services, including for the more than 20,000 contemporary veterans, to assist the RSA in professionalising their delivery model.

Darroch Ball: What reports has the Minister received about funding support for the Returned and Services’ Association between 2005 and 2008?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, can the member repeat the question. Sorry, I was just momentarily distracted.

Darroch Ball: What reports has the Minister received about funding support for the Returned and Services’ Association between 2005 and 2008?

Hon RON MARK: Unfortunately, that picture is not such a positive thing. I have received a report that indicates that the funding established by the Labour - New Zealand First Government ended in 2011, and that it was not renewed. In the five subsequent financial years, the National-led Government of the time made two one-off grants of $150,000, one grant of $172,000, one grant of $175,000, and in 2014 they gave no money at all to the Returned and Services’ Association. Quite apart from the funding levels concerned, and the uncertain up-and-down nature of the grants, that money had to be taken from other appropriations to veterans. As my colleague the Minister of Finance is finding across many portfolios, this is yet another example of the previous Government knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Darroch Ball: What is the Minister’s intent for future grants to veterans support organisations?

Hon RON MARK: In future, decisions on grants will be made through the Budget process in consultation with the Minister of Finance and my Cabinet colleagues. We will work to provide some certainty for these organisations, as they previously had under the Labour - New Zealand First Government. Of course, we wouldn’t be in this situation if it wasn’t for the previous Government scrapping the multi-year baseline grant funding.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did he whisper in the Prime Minister’s ear while they were attending the 101st national council of the RSA on 1 November 2017 that was clearly so successful?

Hon RON MARK: I can tell the honourable member that I simply pointed out to the Prime Minister the fact that under the Labour - New Zealand First Government, we put in baseline funding of $250,000 a year and that the National Government had scrapped it, and I asked her to have a look at it.

Hon Steven Joyce: Given the Minister’s support for veterans, does he support the cancellation of the previous Government’s tax package next week, which will remove the increase in veterans pensions that would otherwise have occurred from 1 April, which would obviously be of concern to veterans?

Hon RON MARK: Oh, I absolutely support the financial direction that the Minister of Finance is taking. As veterans know, it will be the policies that we advance in support of those veterans that will be of far more benefit to them than anything that Government ever did in the nine long years that they suffered under them.

Beneficiaries—Reduction in Numbers and Outcomes for People Leaving Benefits

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Social Development, and asks: does she plan to reduce the number of people on benefits; if yes, how does she plan do this?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, “if so”, I think—“if so”.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I’ll repeat the question: how does she plan to reduce the number of people on benefits, and if so, how does she plan to do this?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise. I might—can someone give me a yellow sheet? It appears that—no, I think she actually got it right.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. She said “how does she plan to reduce”, not “does she plan to reduce”, so there was a difference in the way it was asked. I think she may have said it right the first time—but just a bit confused.

Mr SPEAKER: Let’s just answer the one that was written down, all right?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Sure.

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she plan to reduce the number of people on benefits; if so, how does she plan do this?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Of course we do, but we intend for people to be better off, not just off benefit. One part of our plan for achieving this will be by investing in the upskilling and training of New Zealanders who find themselves out of work.

Hon Louise Upston: If the number on sole parent benefits is the lowest since 1989, how much lower in numeric terms or as a percentage will the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government reduce it?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re not going to set crude targets, like that side of the House did when they were in Government, because, clearly, those crude targets do not work, given that when they left office, there were 72,000 young people that were not in education or employment; given that when they left office, there had been a steady decline for four years of people going off benefit and into upskilling and training; and given that when they left office, 43 percent of those who had cancelled a benefit had done so because they’d obtained work, but 57 percent had not.

Hon Louise Upston: If the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister about child poverty targets to reduce the impact of child poverty, how many fewer children will live in benefit-dependent homes this year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, we’re not going to set crude targets, but what we will be doing is ensuring that the parents of those children are better off. I need to remind the Opposition that when they were in Government, one of their first moves was to cut the training incentive allowance, which supported many of the mothers of those children—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for a Minister to say, “We’re not going to rely on crude targets.”, but then go and rely on exactly the sort of targeting that she’s mentioning to give her answer?

Mr SPEAKER: I think it might have been marginal, but I think she was probably just within bounds.

Hon Louise Upston: Is she considering, in terms of her changes, the 100 percent sanctions on parents on benefit, which was in place under Labour, or the more compassionate maximum of 50 percent, which National introduced?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What we will be doing is reviewing the sanctions that are in place and ensuring that any that have not achieved the objective that they were intended to achieve or any that have negative implications for children will be reassessed and potentially removed.

Greg O’Connor: What is one of the strategies that the Minister is using to ensure that Ministry of Social Development (MSD) clients are successful at moving into genuine paid work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Strategically, we must reassess the culture of Work and Income New Zealand. As part of this, we’re looking at some of the more effective case managers and how they help people into work. What they have in common is that they are incredibly empathetic, build trust and rapport, and make the system work for their clients. We want this to be how all New Zealanders are treated when they require support from MSD.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue to focus on numbers without any care for the well-being of people?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not. Crude targets for simply kicking people off benefits do not work. I’m not interested in setting crude targets or simply counting people being off benefit as a success. We need to be thinking about improving well-being and work that is meaningful and sustainable. Unfortunately, under the former Government, 33 percent of those who had been surveyed by the social policy evaluation and research unit ended up back on the benefit after two years, having been on one, because they weren’t supported into sustainable employment in the first place.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What we got there, Mr Speaker, and we’ve had it a couple of times—and I accept I didn’t interject at the first available opportunity, but on this one I think I have—is questions from the member’s own side and then an attack on—

Mr SPEAKER: No. No. The member will resume his seat. That wasn’t an attack.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue to focus on pushing people off benefits—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: New Zealand First have just lost a supplementary, and it’s not one that can be transferred from the Labour Party to New Zealand First.

Jan Logie: Will the Minister continue to focus on pushing people off benefits without caring whether they are living in sheds, their children are going hungry, or they are being forced into unsafe situations because they don’t have enough money to survive?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve got pretty hard on the sort of questions that can come from this side of the House, and fair enough: you’re trying to cut some new standard. But there is no way that that question as it’s just asked meets any of the standards that you are asking us to accept.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask Jan Logie to repeat her question. I was momentarily distracted, checking that I hadn’t taken a question away from people who had none left.

Jan Logie: Happily. Will the Minister continue to focus on pushing people off benefits without caring whether they are living in sheds, their children are going hungry, or they are being forced into unsafe situations because they don’t have enough money to survive?

Mr SPEAKER: I am prepared to rule on it. I’m ruling that those situations are actual situations and it is not an ironic question.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not. This Government is putting people at the heart of every decision we make. We will not be pushing people off benefits just to make numbers look good. We will be building a culture where the services we offer—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to seek clarification on that. I think it was yesterday when we asked about forestry drug testing, as an example. You said that that required evidence of that. I’m just wondering how this one fits but that one didn’t. Can I seek your very learned guidance on that.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I listened very, very carefully to the question, and I ruled that it was completely within order and did not contain ironic expressions. Has the Minister finished, or is she—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No.

Mr SPEAKER: No. But I’d ask her to finish relatively quickly, please.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We will be building a culture where services we offer—

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

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member is now trifling with the Chair and will resume his seat. We will have the end of this answer.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government will focus on supporting people into genuine paid work, not penalising them with excessive sanctions that fail to achieve the purpose they were set up for. It’s a shame the previous Government couldn’t do the same.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. Just the reference at the end of the Minister’s answer in relation to the previous Government—I think there’s been a couple of those references in this particular series of supplementary questions. You’ve been quite focused, and I think rightly so, on making sure you draw that line. I’d just appreciate it if that’s going to continue.

Mr SPEAKER: I am watching very carefully, and I’m not using the previous Minister’s approach as my standard. I’m much tighter than the member used to be when he was a Minister, and I’m going to continue to try to be. The Hon Simon Bridges—a fresh point of order?

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

Mr SPEAKER: A completely different, fresh point of order?

Hon Simon Bridges: I’m certainly not seeking to trifle, Mr Speaker. My question is about authentication, not whether there are unnecessary epithets or anything of that nature. It was simply a question of—

Mr SPEAKER: So is the member now going to try and review a supplementary question that’s been asked and answered? [Interruption] Well, no, the member’s not going to try. But while I’m on my feet, I am going to make clear to Jan Logie that we don’t have political slogans clearly apparent in the way that she has. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just say, as a matter of seeking your clarification here, that Ms Logie set out her question in a way that the present Government could own up to it or not. That’s the way it was couched—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and—Mr Peters, if you can resume your seat—I have indicated to Mr Bridges that he is so late with his point of order that I’m not even going to bother ruling on it. We’ve gone past that point.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A new and fresh point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, two. The first one is I note that Mr Peters just asked for a point of clarification, which you previously explained today—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, yes. I got there eventually.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it was a bit of a long way round. The other point would be that it’s a little bit difficult when you rule that “We will now hear the rest of this question.”, when the member had been calling for a point of order before you made that ruling, and then to come around afterwards and say “Well, now you cannot go back to that.”, simply because it’s already been heard.

Mr SPEAKER: OK. Right, well, I want to assure the member that I had not heard Mr Bridges. He is not normally someone with a quiet voice, and can I ask him, if he does have a point of order—I don’t want to encourage him to have them—that he feels is a genuine point of order, to use his loud outside voice. Thank you. Right, we’re finished there.

Official Information Act—Reform

9. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: What reform is he planning to make to the Official Information Act 1982?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Act is almost 35 years old, and the public’s expectations about access to official information are greater now than ever before. [Interruption] And for the benefit of the members opposite, the Official Information Act is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, this Government will foster a more open and democratic society—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do want to ask—you know, I’ve just indicated that my left ear is not the strong one, but I’m having trouble using my right ear to hear that member. Can we have a little more hush. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ll try to use my outside voice, Mr Speaker. It will strengthen transparency around—

Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just note that the Minister in his response claimed that the Act was under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I refer that Minister, and your good self, to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) website, which is very clear in the delegations for the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) that all matters of official information and the Official Information Act are under the delegations for that Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: And I’m going to deal with that. It was a matter that was referred to because it was a question about where the question was going. The Act is administered by the Minister of Justice, and I think now I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he’s said enough or whether he wants to add something.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m happy to move on to the supplementary questions, Mr Speaker.

Brett Hudson: Under his planned reform, will it be the norm for the Chief Ombudsman to have to make a recommendation in order for documents to be released?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The approach that this Government has taken to official information is to look to the report of the Law Commission in 2012, which the previous Government did nothing about; the recommendations of the Chief Ombudsman in 2015, which the previous Government did nothing about; and to look to questions of attitude and behaviour, because that is the way we will change the effectiveness of the Official Information Act.

Brett Hudson: Will he and the Hon Clare Curran be in the meeting with the Chief Ombudsman to discuss the Chief Ombudsman’s recommendation with respect to the 33-page coalition document?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That’s not an area of responsibility.

Dr Duncan Webb: Can he point to any examples where the Government has released information proactively?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, Mr Speaker. This Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no. I’m, in a similar way, ruling that out. The proactive releases as opposed to a review of the Act—it is an area that is quite different and doesn’t flow from the original question.

Brett Hudson: Does he support the Chief Ombudsman’s recommendations with respect to the release of the 33-page coalition document?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to rule that out again, as I did for Ms Bennett earlier in the week, for the same reasons.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to say that I’m looking for clarification—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’ll repeat what I said earlier on. I’m yet to be convinced, and I have seen no evidence for the assertion made, that there is a 33-page coalition document, and there is certainly not a document for which this Minister has ministerial responsibility, and—

Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m just really hoping that Mr Hudson is not going to challenge me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to your uncertainty about the 33-page document, does that mean that you are not convinced by the admission to the House by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that such a document exists?

Mr SPEAKER: As I indicated earlier in the week, and I think what everyone was aware of, there is a document. What I have not been—no one has provided me any evidence that it is a coalition document that is a responsibility of the Government.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just on this issue of delegation—I’d ask the Speaker to have a look at the delegation on the DPMC website. It says “all work around official information”. It’s very clear, so—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Well—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I think I can probably help. I have the wording in front of me here, which says that the Associate Minister is responsible for all work around official information and the Official Information Act under the purview of the State Services Commission.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Drinking-water Supplies—Contamination, Havelock North

10. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Attorney-General: What evidence did the Report of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry: Stage 2 find regarding undue delay and prevarication in addressing poor drinking water quality?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The report finds that despite serious non-compliance with New Zealand water standards by many water suppliers, the Ministry of Health did not issue one compliance notice or take one enforcement action anywhere in New Zealand in the last five years, despite unsafe drinking-water causing many tens of thousands of New Zealanders to fall ill from drinking water that comes out of their tap each year.

Virginia Andersen: What does the report say about the Ministry of Health’s approach to the drinking-water regulatory regime?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Paragraphs 332 to 334 of the inquiry record that in January 2012 the Mayor of Tasman, on behalf of all South Island councils, wrote to the then Associate Minister of Health the Hon Jo Goodhew seeking clarity on defining the affordability test in the drinking-water standards. The Associate Minister did not respond until February 2013, a year later, then saying it was up to councils to decide whether they could afford to comply with the standards. This response exemplifies both the delays and the lack of care that have led to the situation that New Zealand now faces.

Virginia Andersen: What evidence is there of local government representatives attempting to stall the implementation of drinking-water standards to protect the health of New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In 2009, in his capacity as the President of Local Government New Zealand, the Mayor of Hastings and Havelock North stated that the standards went well beyond the requirements needed for clean drinking-water and that the time frame to implement the standards was too fast. Sadly, the last Government listened to Lawrence Yule.

Forestry—Government Tree-planting Programme

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Forestry: Does he agree with the statement in the Speech from the Throne, “This government is committed to a new planting programme, planting 100 million trees a year to reach a billion more trees in 10 years”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Forestry: Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government be counting, in its 100 million trees new planting programme, the 50 million trees currently planted each year to restock forests that are harvested each year?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The targets laid down by the Government were always targets to be worked through in collaboration with industry. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: As good as this Government is, I don’t think we ever thought that we would be solely responsible for the planting of a billion trees. We were always going to work with industry to do that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked, very simply: was the replanting of areas that are logged each year included in the 100 million target? The Minister made no attempt—

Mr SPEAKER: The member did address that question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will existing annual tree planting for restocking be counted towards his promised 100 million new planting programme?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Government’s target of one billion trees over 10 years was always going to include the existing initiatives of landowners, of farmers, of foresters—and we are very happy to work on an aspirational target that addresses issues around afforestation, climate change, improving water quality, and regional employment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not whether the trees were planted by the private sector or the public sector. It was a very straightforward question and that was—

Mr SPEAKER: And it was addressed. Further supplementary?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, the question has not been addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Next question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: No. Question No. 12, Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise the point of order—it’s highly unusual. The member’s calling for it, so we haven’t moved on. I’m just—I’m seeking to understand clearly what’s gone on here.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and to make it absolutely clear, the number of supplementary questions is entirely at my discretion. I have decided, because of the interjection from Dr Smith, that I will not allow any further Government or Opposition supplementaries on this question. I’m not taking away—if the members want to use them on the next question, they can, but not on this one, because of Dr Smith’s behaviour.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there are some very important questions that should be asked in this. I’m sorry that you’ve taken this. One of the new pieces of information that the Minister managed to give the House was the new collaborative way that the Government wants to work with all sectors, to see if they can meet the target, and I think it would have been appropriate if there had been an opportunity to ask him if he’ll put out a list of suitable species for home gardeners to put on their list of tree plantings to help the Government with their target.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry; as a result of that frivolous point of order, another one of the supplementary questions for the National Party has been lost.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a very reasonable request. When the Government’s most important flagship programme is around these billion trees—

Mr SPEAKER: No, Dr Nick Smith will resume his seat. [Interruption] He will resume his seat now. I have ruled that we are moving on to question 12 because of an inappropriate interjection by Dr Nick Smith when he had been called for a supplementary. If Dr Nick Smith intervenes again, on that question, it will result in a further loss of supplementary questions to the National Party.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the comment that I made, that, as a consequence, has—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Research and Development—Government Spending

12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What is her target for Government research and development spending over the next 3 years to help her achieve the coalition Government’s goal of spending 2 percent of New Zealand GDP on research and development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): All Government expenditure on research, development, and innovation over the next three years will be part of a wider plan to reach a target of an economy-wide expenditure on R & D of 2 percent of GDP over the next two years. It is our objective that a high proportion of the growth necessary to achieve this will come from increased business expenditure on R & D, because ours is especially low by OECD standards. But we recognise that businesses need support to do this, and that’s why we’re committed to expenditure on an R & D tax credit and we remain committed to increasing overall investment in New Zealand’s research, science, and innovation system.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What will be the Government’s share of her 2 percent of GDP target?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Currently, business expenditure makes up about 55 percent of our total R & D spend, which is extremely low compared to the OECD’s average of 68 percent. Our plan is to put an R & D tax credit in place so we can increase—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve a genuine interest in this topic and I was listening to the question, which I understand was in relation—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, no. The member will resume his seat. The member cannot have a point of order until the Minister has finished her answer.

Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, he can.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Simon Bridges will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s not going to relitigate the ruling I’ve just made.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well—point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think it might be safer if we let the Minister finish her answer.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue is that I don’t want to fall foul of your other ruling, so I must raise points of order at the first available opportunity.

Mr SPEAKER: And what I suggest that the member does, because it’s already in his in-box, is to read the ruling.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard your ruling and I understand. I do want to raise a point of order in relation to what has happened, but I understand, and I want to respect, your ruling that you’ve also given that I should not do it at this point of time, but I do want to come back to it. So I’m seeking clarification and your help, frankly, to understand how I should proceed.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member had read the ruling, what he would have seen is that it is inappropriate for him to relitigate it now. If he thinks I have made an inappropriate ruling, then he should seek to talk to me about it in my office privately. The ruling is very clear, and it’s consistent with at least 114 years of precedent.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Being an apologist for the Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, before that we’ll have Dr Smith stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you said in that ruling that was very clear was that members have a duty to the public and to this House to make points of order primarily, as I understood it, in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now resume his seat and, look, I don’t want the primary teacher to come out in me, but in the end, members, when they’re advised to read a ruling, should read the whole ruling to the end of the ruling and not quote parts of it back before they understand it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m going to begin my answer again, if I can remember the question all the way back. The current mix of R & D spending in New Zealand is 45 percent Government expenditure with 55 percent expenditure coming from business. It is this Government’s intention to lift business expenditure on R & D through measures such as the R & D tax credit, because that’s what successful, innovative countries across the OECD look like.

Hon Steven Joyce: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Are they both points of order?

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve listened to the answer in full. The question was in regards to what the Minister is going to do in relation to Government research and development. I believe the Minister answered by talking about what she wanted to do in business research and development. I wonder if she could be directed to the Government research and development.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can have another go, trying to address that narrow brief.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you. Total Government funding, as it was put in place under the previous Government on research and development, would put us on a track to have R & D at 0.5 percent of GDP. Our Government’s intention is to raise that expenditure to get that to 2 percent of GDP.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked for the Government’s share of her 2 percent of GDP target.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, no, I think that was addressed in the earlier part of the question.

Hon Member: No, it wasn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: It certainly was. There were even numbers there.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: So is the Minister committing that the Government R & D spend will be increased from 0.5 percent of GDP to 2 percent of GDP?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The coalition Government’s agreement was never to lift Government expenditure to 2 percent of GDP. The coalition Government’s commitment was to lift R & D spending across both Government and the private sector to 2 percent of GDP. The fact that the member cannot get her head around that shows—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume her seat. The member had answered the question and didn’t need to add anything on to the end.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I was listening very carefully to that answer—before the gratuitous bit—and I’m sorry, but in a previous supplementary the Minister has been asked, “What proportion will be the Government”—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I’ve ruled that it’s been addressed. In fact, I’ve stopped her for over-addressing it.

Hon Member: Supplementary question?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the National Party has run out of supplementary questions.

Bills

Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I move, That the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for consideration.

This bill introduces new elements of fairness and equity to the military justice system by amending the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, The Court Martial Act 2007, and the Court Martial Appeals Act 1953. These elements will bring the military justice system closer in line with the broader criminal justice system, including by enhancing victims’ rights. As a matter of principle, the Government believes that the military justice system should grant to our armed forces personnel the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the efficient and disciplined operation of the armed forces.

While the military justice system is, and must remain, separate from the criminal justice system due to the unique nature of the work, risks, expectations, and discipline imposed on serving members, it is prudent to review and update the system as necessary to ensure that those operating under the system retain the right to a fair trial and are respected throughout the judicial process. This includes both those who are accused and the victims of crimes. Between 2002 and 2006, during the fifth Labour Government, the New Zealand Defence Force undertook a major review of the military justice system to bring it into the 21st century and to increase both its robustness and its fairness. This review culminated in a series of legislation that came into force in 2009: the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Act (No 2) 2007, the Court Martial Act 2007, the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Act 2007, and the Defence Amendment Act (No 2) 2007.

Since 2009, it has become apparent that further changes should be introduced where transparency, efficiency, and consistency with the civilian criminal justice could be enhanced. This bill was developed and introduced under the previous Government on 15 August 2017. The bill makes legislative amendments in the following four areas of the military justice system: victims’ rights, notice of judicial appointments, Court Martial procedure, and onus of proof.

In the area of victims’ rights, the bill confers the same rights to military victims of serious offences of a sexual or violent nature to those rights they would receive in the civilian justice system as victims of the same crime under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. This includes the right for the victim to be kept informed and consulted in respect of decisions such as the granting of bail to the perpetrator. It will mean that the Director of Military Prosecutions will make all reasonable efforts to ascertain and provide the victims’ perspective before any decision on bail is made and informing the victim of any changes to bail terms, and of the impending or permanent release of the prisoner.

This change must be made to ensure equality of justice for those victims of serious crimes that take place under military service. It adapts the current system to the modern world and to the high expectations we rightfully have for the treatment of the victims of serious crime. The New Zealand Defence Force is currently undertaking a significant programme of education, standard setting, and a zero-tolerance approach around inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour called Operation RESPECT. This law change is part of operationalising this culture change for the victims of such offences. It’s about walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

In the area of giving notice of judicial appointments, the bill removes an unnecessary and inefficient process step contained in the Court Martial Act 2007. The Act currently requires the Chief of Defence Force to arrange for notice of any judicial appointments to the Court Martial to be published in the Gazette. Notice of the judicial appointment to any other court in the civilian criminal justice system is published in the Gazette on behalf of the person appointing the judge without need for such a provision.

In the area of Court Martial procedure, the bill aligns the provisions governing whether an accused in unfit to stand trial with those provisions in the civilian system—in particular, those in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The current situation is not fair, and it does not reflect equal justice under law in that mentally impaired people subject to the military justice system are not afforded the same rights as those who would be subject to civil law. An area of particular importance to those serving in uniform is that this will also include such mental disorders that have developed as a result of their service, such as post-traumatic stress injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The bill gives powers to the Director of Military Prosecutions or the prosecutor to object to the assignment of a particular military member to the Court Martial. This is important, for there could be an inappropriate relationship between members of the Court Martial and the accused, such as a conflict of interest or a personal relationship. Without this change, there is potential for a miscarriage of justice to occur. Under the Court Martial Act 2007, a substitute military member can be assigned to the Court Martial when a military member is not able to carry out their duties. This bill amends the Act to provide that a substitute military member cannot be assigned after the accused has entered a plea. Without this amendment, a substitute member of a Court Martial can currently enter a trial midway through, without having heard the preceding evidence or reviewing witnesses.

Finally, the bill makes a significant change to the onus of proof within the military justice system. Currently, members of the armed forces accused of a charge must prove on balance of probabilities any excuse, exception, exemption, or qualification they use as a defence to the charge. This is fundamentally unfair and unequal with the criminal justice system, which places the onus of proof squarely on the prosecution. Ensuring that our military justice system abides by the principle of innocent until proven guilty is essential to ensure that those who serve are not legally disadvantaged because of their place of employment.

To conclude, I believe this bill is a welcome and a necessary update to our military justice system, which will bring it further in line with the civilian criminal justice system by enshrining into law commitments to fairness, equity of treatment, respect and care for victims, and efficient due process. May I thank the previous Ministers of Defence from the previous Government. I acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell, who was in office at the time of the development of this bill from 2016 to 2017, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee for their work and their diligence. Can I also thank the Defence Force staff who were involved in the preparation of this bill in partnership with the Ministry of Justice and the Chief Judge of the Court Martial, and also those who were consulted on the policy underpinning the bill, including the New Zealand Law Society and Victim Support.

I welcome the opportunity to test the policy behind the bill through the select committee process, and I would certainly say that having been—may I conclude by saying that having been a member of the armed forces, and on both ends of the military justice system, these are welcome changes. I would anticipate—and it will actually go some way to dismantling, getting rid of, an attitude that was often referred to when young men and women were marched into the orderly room. It’s one word I won’t use in the House, but it was often described or heard, or evidenced, by the phrase “march in the guilty person”. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, in its first reading. I’m very happy and pleased to see that the Government has brought this bill back into the House so quickly.

I want to acknowledge all the officials that worked on this bill. There was literally a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that went into it. It’s a very comprehensive and well-written piece of legislation.

One of the most important of these significant improvements that have been made in the bill is around the incorporation into the military justice system of victims’ rights, under Part 3 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. I’m going to come to that a little bit later, just before I finish, but this will ensure that victims of specified offences have rights and protections in the military justice system that are equivalent to those that they would receive in the civilian system. Of course, this has been the primary objective of this piece of legislation, to get our military and our civilian justice systems a lot more aligned.

The bill also repeals a provision of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 that replaces the onus of proof of an offence of a specific charge on to the accused. This brings military proceedings into line with those in civilian courts. The bill also amends some aspects of the procedure of the Court Martial of New Zealand, such as aligning provisions relating to fitness to stand trial with the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and allowing a process for objecting to and substituting military members of the court martial.

Just very briefly, because I’m aware that we’re taking shorter calls today, I want to refer very quickly to new section 198K, which provides that the director must give a victim notice of the “offender’s impending temporary or permanent release from custody” or the accused’s or offender’s escape from or death in custody, and new section 198L: a breach by the accused or offender of any terms and conditions of release that relate to the safety and security of the victim or the victim’s immediate family, or that require the accused or the offenders not to associate with or not to contact the victim or any member of the victim’s immediate family.

These are fundamentally important for the victim’s own feeling of safety and well-being, especially when they’ve been the victim of a violent or sexual attack, or an offence of that nature, that they and their families are actually able to have the security in terms of knowing that they’re protected by the law from that offender. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill and also to recognise the great work that our armed forces have undertaken in the past many years. It’s somewhat overdue, I must say, to bring our armed forces’ discipline in line with that that they would find within the civilian criminal courts. As the honourable and gallant member Mark’s noted, it’s really important that members of the armed forces are accorded the same rights of criminal procedure as anyone else, and for far too long there’s been a sense that criminal procedure in the armed forces can be hard and fast and not adhere to due process. So this is a welcome reform, a reform that accords appropriate rights.

Probably the most important reform, in my view, is the repeal of section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, a quite extraordinary section, a section that provides that where an accused military member is charged with an offence against the Act and relies on some defence or excuse, exemption, or qualification in the provision of the offence—that is to say, an affirmative defence—then the onus of proof under that section lies with the accused person. Now, that is a truly extraordinary section. It reverses the usual onus, the usual burden, and it requires an accused person to, in fact, prove their defence. That is repugnant to our rights, and it’s been well noted that that kind of onus is not consistent—indeed, it’s not consistent with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 25(c) of that Act makes it very clear that the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right of every New Zealander, and it is very overdue that we now accord that right to military personnel who are accused of wrongdoing.

Indeed, in a recent case, or relatively recent—2007—of our own Supreme Court, the importance of that onus was examined. That’s the case of R v Hansen, a case concerning cannabis possession and the presumption of dealing. The Supreme Court there made it very clear that, indeed, even in a case of that nature, the onus lies on the prosecution to discharge the burden, even in cases like that where the defence was one of whether or not it was a quantity for supply. One would’ve thought that 1.5 kilograms was for supply, but the fact of the matter is the prosecution had the onus of proving that.

This is a thread that has run through all of our law, and not only our law but the English law and the law of the United States. You know, even tribunals—military tribunals and civilian tribunals—make errors, and we need to make sure that the scales are tipped very clearly in favour of the accused so that margin of error doesn’t fall foul. Indeed, even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges that in its article 14(2).

Of course, that’s not to say that the accused only has to raise the possibility of one of these affirmative defences. It still will be necessary for them to produce evidence or for there to exist evidence of self-defence, of insanity, or any other of the number of affirmative defences that exist. So it’s a real pleasure for me to recommend this bill to the House, which will effect that reform.

Of course, the other thing that this bill does, which is really important, is it brings to military tribunals the approach of civilian tribunals in respect of victims, because when there is a victim in a military environment, they are just as much of a victim as in any other situation, and, in fact, arguably their situation is even more trying.

So it is very good indeed to see the recognition of victims’ rights, the placing of the victim very squarely at the centre of the procedure, because clearly the victim has a very significant interest in being a part of that procedure. We know that perhaps in some instances, quite sadly, there’s a real interest in knowing when prisoners or offenders or the accused are released on bail, so new section 198J, in clause 19—the fact that when someone is released on bail is very, very important.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: He’s been here for a month and he’s already filibustering.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Goldsmith, you of all people should know how important it is that the victims of crimes are aware of what’s going on in their community. Look, it happens even in your community, Mr Goldsmith. No matter—yours and mine, both. It’s quite right; it’s quite right—

Hon Member: He lives in Remuera.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I know that. And, what’s more, the views of the victim are to be taken into account when bail is applied for, and that’s really important too. As the member Mark noted, the fact of the matter is that victims of crime have legitimate views and voices to be heard in the process, and it’s quite right that a military tribunal should take into account the views of a victim as to when—but, more appropriately, how—people are released on bail. Certainly, in terms of their ability to contact the victim or be in the vicinity of the victim, all of those kinds of things—we want to make communities feel safe. That is an important part of it.

Of course, the other really important part of the recognition of the rights of victims is the appointment of an officer to liaise with the victim: that important nexus between the judicial process and the victim. Obviously, victims are not—and did not anticipate becoming—familiar with the judicial and criminal processes. So the officer is someone to be alongside them, to assist them in understanding the process, to make sure that they can have a voice in that process; and the importance of that voice is really a fantastic innovation in a military tribunal. Of course, in those unfortunate events where there is an escape, or when an offender is not complying with conditions of release, or is in breach of bail conditions, the victim also has a right to know those matters. So it’s really important that the victim is engaged at every level.

The other factor in here, which is of importance as well, is when we have people who might be liable for deportation. We know that not all of our military personnel are necessarily citizens and if convicted of an offence, they are liable for deportation. It’s quite right that if that right is not exercised, then the victim has a right to know. It’s quite appropriate that they know whether that person still remains in the community.

Having said that, this is a bill that came from the other side of the House, but it’s clearly one that is timely. It’s one that does bring—and there is absolutely no substantial reason, particularly in times of peace, that there should be a two-tier system, that military personnel should have less rights, that victims of military personnel offending should have less rights. It’s absolutely appropriate and admirable that we have a single system of criminal justice that recognises both the rights of the offender to due process, so that the accused does get a fair trial, that the wrongly accused are appropriately discharged, and also the rights of victims.

Possibly, we’ve had an approach historically that says too much goes in the military—that a bit of rough and tumble is OK. Well, it’s not. It’s quite appropriate we recognise crime where it exists, whether it be civilian or whether it be military. So this bill is exactly what we need. I commend it to the House, and I look forward to the select committee. I am sure that process will improve it. I hope that there are substantial submissions on it, both from the New Zealand Law Society and the likes of the civilian sector, but also from the military, because I think that’s where we’ll get the most useful and informative submissions. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on this Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging the men and women of our armed services for the roles that they undertake to protect and enhance the Realm.

Can I acknowledge too the Minister of Defence, obviously, in his new role and for being the Minister to take this through, but I also acknowledge his thanks to the Hon Mark Mitchell, who was the originator of this bill and originally introduced it just before the election.

Most of the members who have already spoken have well articulated what this bill is seeking to do. It’s aligning, where appropriate, military justice with the civil criminal codes, but I think—importantly—keeping some separation as well. In the Minister’s address, he outlined why those separations are important, and I think the one that people are, at this point, particularly focused on is the whole area of victims’ rights, and that is important. But I think, also, it’s enhancing rights within the system itself and those accused, importantly—around where the onus of proof is.

So, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I’m really looking forward to this bill coming to us, so that we can actually tease it out in the select committee. I assume that with the end of the year coming so speedily, it will be in the new year, but we look forward to engaging with the public and the military, of course, in particular, to work through this bill and return it to the House in good order. Thank you for your attention.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Tuatahi, e tika me mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai i tēnei wā. E tika me mihi ki a koe, e tahuri koe i tō korowai rangatiratanga i runga i ā tātou i tēnei wā. Ngā mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai. I tēnei wā e tika me hoki ki a koe, ki taku hoa, Ron. Ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa i kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa i ngā wā katoa. Ngā mihi ki a koe mō tō whawhai mō ō tātou hōia i ngā tau kua hipa atu nei. Ngā mihi ki a koe e te hoa, e te hoa tawhito, koutou katoa, ā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, ā, tēnā anō tātou.

[Firstly, it is fitting that you are acknowledged, Madam Deputy Speaker, at this time. It is apt that you are congratulated, as you turn your leadership cloak upon us at this period of time. Compliments to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. At this moment it is right to go back to you, my friend, Ron. Compliments to you friend who championed this scheme at all times. Acknowledgments to you for your battle on behalf of our soldiers over the past years. Congratulations to you the friend, the companion of old, so to all of you I thank you and all of us once again.]

First of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, I haven’t had a chance to congratulate you on your new appointment. So congratulations, well done, ngā mihi.

I stand here today to pledge Labour’s support for the bill. I was going to say it’s got a great taint now because Mr Mark is advancing it, but I don’t want to be ungracious to the Opposition, and so I certainly acknowledge what the Minister of Defence, Ron Mark, said in terms of the work that the former Minister of Defence Mark Mitchell did. It’s only right and appropriate that we acknowledge some of that work. We’re certainly not ungracious on this side of the House. It was a non-controversial piece of legislation introduced into the House in August this year, which I think reflects the importance of having cross-party support.

As the Hon Ronnie Mark pointed out, the bill introduces new elements of fairness and equity to the military justice system by amending the Armed Forces Discipline Act of 1971, the Court Martial Act of 2007, and the Court Martial Appeals Act of 1953. In introducing these new elements of fairness and equity, can I say that I expect everyone in this House will wholeheartedly endorse these amendments.

As the honourable member said, the amendments will create a closer alignment between the military justice system and the broader criminal justice system. At the same time the bill enhances the rights of the victim, which, of course, we know is really, really important and is something that many of us have worked at out there in the communities in past years. This Government has a strong belief and an equally strong commitment to victim’s rights, whether they be within the civilian sphere or the military sphere. That’s what any Government, irrespective of its political bent, would expect, and this Government is committed to ensuring that we deliver on this expectation.

I want to pay homage to our armed forces and, on behalf of the House, express our gratitude and deep appreciation for the way in which they serve, without question, our country and its well-being. Sacrifice is not unknown to them—as Minister Mark knows more than anyone else—especially when they’re called up to serve on foreign soil. Often that means leaving behind their respective families and friends for months on end, and for some who are posted to hostile environments, that sacrifice is even more poignant. They serve in the proud tradition of those who served our nation in the theatres of war that our forces have been involved in: the Boer War, the two World Wars, and Vietnam, to name but a few.

When we talk like this—as Minister Mark knows—we often reflect on the proud history of Māori and their service. The 28th Māori Battalion is something that is dear to many of us who are grandsons and mokopunas of soldiers who fought in the Second World War—my own grandfather served as a captain with the 28th Māori Battalion—and it’s appropriate that we acknowledge that. We acknowledge that because what this is all about is the effort and the history behind all of this. Besides on the battlefield, our military have such a proud history of serving in a peacekeeping capacity, and their reputation for how they carry out this role is acknowledged internationally as being second to none. So we have much to be proud of as a nation in the calibre and quantity of our defence forces. I just needed to take that opportunity to acknowledge them. Ngā mihi nui e rau rangatira, koutou rā hei hiki, hei kawe i te kaupapa o Tūmatauenga.

[Huge acknowledgments esteemed ones of a hundredfold, you collectively are the ones indeed who will raise and bear the god of war policy.]

So, on the basis and sentiment that we agree with the principle that the military justice system should ensure that our armed forces personnel have the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system, the right to a fair trial and to be treated accordingly through this process, and fairly, is paramount. At the same time, we recognise the importance of keeping the nature of the military justice system intact because of the unique mahi—unique work—they are required to undertake, including the risks, disciplines, and expectations that characterise the military environment.

The honourable member who is moving that the bill be read for a first time has covered off the range of issues for review in this important piece of legislation, with a view to updating the system and, at the same time, making sure that the right to a fair trial is respected through the judicial process. Whilst not wishing to reiterate some of the issues, I’d like to just single out one or two for further comment. The first one, of course, is this court martial procedure. The current legislation, as it stands, is unfair with regard to an accused who is deemed unfit to stand trial, particularly in the light of the rights that exist for those who are subject to the civil law and who are considered unfit to stand trial. This is a major anomaly that needs to be addressed, and this bill provides for the opportunity to do that.

The other matter I want to highlight, because I think it’s important to the whole issue of fairness that I’ve been talking about, is the powers that this bill gives the Director of Military Prosecutions to object to the assignment of a particular member to the court martial in the event that there is an inappropriate relationship—as Minister Mark talked about—between members of the court martial and the accused. As the honourable member said, unless the legislation is changed to deal with this, the potential for a miscarriage of justice remains a major risk.

I want to also put the spotlight on the onus of proof issue. Under the current system, there is an unfair and unequal burden of proof on the accused in comparison to what exists in the criminal justice system, where the onus of proof is squarely on the prosecution. The bill provides the opportunity to address this anomaly and to ensure that the military justice system abides by the principle of being innocent until proven guilty.

I commend Minister Mark for bringing this forward. He has been a fighter for our people in the military for many, many years—having served overseas—and it’s wonderful, today, that we’re able to advance this issue alongside National. It’s good that we’re able to work in such a collaborative way to advance something that is very, very important in terms of not just our military but the whole of New Zealand.

New Zealanders—Kiwis—are watching us at this time. They see the disagreements and sometimes the behaviour in the House—probably from both sides—that they don’t always approve of. But when these types of bills comes along, it’s good that we can work in unison and advance this sort of kaupapa for the benefit not just of our military but of our communities, who are looking at us as leaders and representatives for them. So it was only right that Minister Mark acknowledged Minister Mark Mitchell—sorry; former Minister of Defence Mark Mitchell—and, of course, former Minister Gerry Brownlee.

This Government looks forward to feedback through the select committee process and to further considerations of this bill when it comes back to the House. I’m sure that at all times we’ll be looking to acknowledge the work of our brothers and sisters in the military, who don’t always get a good rap and don’t always get the support that they should get, but today we’re on track now in terms of according them the same types of rights that so many of us enjoy from day to day.

So, in conclusion, we on this side, like on the other side, support the bill being referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and we hope to refer it there for consideration. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to talk about the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I would also like to commend the former Minister, the Hon Mark Mitchell, for bringing this bill forward, initially in August, and the present Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, for continuing with that.

This is, essentially, an update to the system, and we’ve heard a lot about some of those aspects within the system that need to be amended. Although not having appeared in front of the system—because I was always a very well-behaved soldier, I did not have the opportunity to appear in front of it—I can certainly appreciate the need to update it.

Really, the key points that I want to touch on here are about enhancing victim rights. That’s a big one, especially given the service that the members of our Defence Force commit to their country. They absolutely should have comparable rights to civilians—civilian victims in particular. This is a great way to amend that and bring it into line.

Also, I appreciate the change to move to a system where they are innocent until proven guilty. This is another key aspect that aligns with the civilian system, and it is well overdue, quite frankly, especially when looking at the ability to stand trial as well. Another aspect of that, in particular, is members of the Defence Force who may have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. This is an often unique situation that is encountered in the defence forces. It is not so prevalent in the civilian situation. So, really, we’re looking at just bringing this more closely aligned to the civilian process, and although there are clearly some unique situations that are not encountered in the civilian setting but are encountered in a military setting, it’s important to have a lot of similarities in that space.

So I commend the bill to the House on that basis, and I’d just like to finish by acknowledging, of course, the fantastic work done by members of the New Zealand Defence Force and members of other countries’ defence forces who serve with our defence forces here and afield.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): The principal purpose of this bill, as has been repeated, is to bring our military justice system more closely into alignment with our civilian justice system—in particular, in terms of the rights of victims and in terms of some particular due process safeguards that are missing currently.

The rights of victims of sexual and certain serious violent offending to be notified has already been enshrined in our civilian justice system by way of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. In the military justice system currently, the only one of these rights that exists is the right of victims to be consulted on bail. They currently don’t have the right to be notified of, even, breaches of bail by accused persons or offenders that have affected them or if the offender escapes custody or is released. This is particularly concerning given the nature of the offences that are involved here, and there is a failure to really take account of the type of trauma—the kind of ongoing trauma—that victims of this kind of offending suffer.

So the risk of re-traumatisation for a victim who finds out that an offender who sexually offended against them has been released and that they didn’t know about it, the trauma that the family and whānau of that victim will suffer, finding out that someone has been released or has escaped custody where they have not been notified, is huge. We have an obligation, in any kind of criminal justice system, to protect those victims and their families from that kind of re-traumatisation. This bill will enhance those protections and bring the military justice system in line with what we already recognise as necessary in our civilian justice system.

In terms of the procedural safeguards, the requirement for two expert reports, for example, on any psychiatric challenge to the accused’s fitness to stand trial in the military system has been recognised, again, in the civilian system. It’s the only way to really know authoritatively if someone can be afforded the protection of that right—if they are, in fact, unfit psychiatrically to stand trial.

A particular note, again, in terms of the due process rights, we have the onus of proof, which for some reason—and I can’t figure out why—the military justice system has had reversed up until now, so that the accused person has the onus of proving his or her innocence, essentially, on a balance of probabilities, which is a perversion of one of the central tenets of our criminal justice system, being the presumption of innocence, which places, as a necessary component of it, the onus on the prosecution.

Now, the reversal of the onus in military situations really places at risk any guilty verdicts that result from that process. So the safeguard that says the prosecution has to bring the proof and prove the charges to any standard—whether it’s balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt—really does safeguard the verdicts, whether they are guilty or not guilty. This bill, again, brings our military justice system in line with those central tenets of our criminal justice system.

So the driving purpose of this bill, which is to update our military justice system and to make it fairer, both for victims and for accused persons, is really in line with the Green Party’s policy of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society, whether it’s in our military system or civilian system. I do commend this bill, thereby, to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s fortuitous that I take this call this afternoon, and I acknowledge my colleague the former Minister of Defence, the Hon Mark Mitchell, in bringing the efforts and the work together for this bill, which is now to be read for the first time.

It’s also fortuitous that I stand, based on the experience that I’ve had working as a criminal lawyer, a family lawyer, and a mental health lawyer for a number of decades, because there are relevant provisions that are addressed within this bill that align the military justice system with the entitlements of those persons who have fronted the civilian criminal justice system, the mental health system, and the Family Courts. We’ve heard the previous speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, speak specifically to a number of points, and I just relate my experience and the association that I have with this legislation.

The personal association that I have, too, is that my thoughts turn to my deceased brother, Lieutenant Colonial Waata Hipango, who was the commanding officer of the New Zealand Defence Force in Singapore, and he was killed over there in 1999. I reflect because there were times that I know Waata spoke, albeit briefly, about his role as a senior officer in a court martial—hopefully not appearing before the courts martial system, but as an officer who was dealing with some of the soldiers.

So this bill brings that into line—as has been said by previous speakers—with the civilian justice system. I just referred to those three areas that I touched on in terms of family law practice, and that aligned with my criminal law practice, as well as appearing as defence counsel. Victims’ rights—the significance and importance of victims is being addressed within this legislation. Having represented both victims and also the defendants—the accused—appearing before the courts, I say that this legislation brings it into line with those who I’ve represented in the past.

Mental health—we have talked about the courts martial procedure and the importance in terms of not only the onus of proof, which we’ve heard about, but the fitness to stand trial. In my days of representing many in the mental health system who appeared before the criminal courts, the significance and importance of the criminal procedure for mentally impaired persons—this is now being recognised under this proposed bill.

Finally, before I conclude and commend this bill to the House, I have touched on the victims’ rights, the mental health aspect of that, and the onus of proof. The importance of that is now no longer resting with the accused, but the onus is with the prosecution in bringing these matters.

So, in conclusion, I commend this bill to the House, and my thoughts turn to those many who have given active duty and service, and to those who still do today. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Raymond Huo. I understand this is a split call—5 minutes.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): This is a non-controversial piece of legislation. This bill is talking about fairness, equity, due process, and a necessary update to our military justice system. The bill seeks to amend the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, the Court Martial Act 2007, and the Court Martial Appeals Act 1953. These elements will bring the military justice system closer in line with the broader criminal justice system, including the enhancement of victims’ rights.

My learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb, in his contribution, gave a detailed analysis of the importance of the justice system, especially in respect of criminal proceedings. The onus of proof, for example, is one of the important factors. The bill makes a significant change to the onus of proof within the military justice system. The provisions that place the onus of proof in relation to a defence to a charge on the accused will be repealed. The current situation is unfair and out of step with the criminal justice system, and this amendment will rectify that.

As a matter of principle, the Government believes that the military justice system should grant to armed forces personnel the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system, to the greatest extent possible. Between 2002 and 2006, during the fifth Labour Government, the New Zealand Defence Force undertook a major review of the military justice system to increase both its robustness and its fairness, and to begin to align it with the criminal justice system. Legislation implementing the results of this review came into force in 2009.

I’d like to thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Mark Mitchell, the previous Ministers of Defence, who were in office across the time of the development of this bill, from 2016 to 2017.

The New Zealand Defence Force, in partnership with the Ministry of Justice and the Chief Judge of the Court Martial of New Zealand and in consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and Victim Support Inc, have identified further required changes to enhance transparency, efficiency, and consistency with the civilian criminal justice system.

The bill makes legislative amendments in following four areas of the military justice system: victims’ rights, notice of judicial appointments, court martial procedure, and onus of proof.

This is the first reading. I look forward to the submissions and the progress of this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Hamish Walker—five minutes.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Firstly, I’d like to start by congratulating the two Marks—the Hon Mark Mitchell and the Hon Ron Mark. It just shows what can actually happen—the positivity of this place—if we all work together.

National supports this bill. This bill was introduced in August and involves significant improvements to the military justice system. One of the most important of these, I believe, is the incorporation into the military justice system of victims’ rights under Part 3 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. This will ensure that victims of specified offences have rights and protections in the military justice system that are, basically, the equivalent to those that they would receive in a civilian system.

This bill also repeals a provision of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 that places the onus of proof for defence of a specific charge on to the accused. This bill also amends some aspects of the procedure of the Court Martial of New Zealand, and I believe these developments will only improve the military justice system.

I just want to bring your attention to clause 4, which repeals section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act. Section 3(2) is concerned with the onus of proof in circumstances where an accused who is charged with an offence seeks to establish as a defence any excuse, exception, exemption, or qualification contained in the provision creating the offence. The repealing of section 3(2) means the onus of proof is on the prosecution, although in some situations the accused may still have to raise an evidential foundation for the existence of the defence. I think this is the right choice and once again commend the two Marks—the Hon Mark Mitchell and the Minister Ron Mark for pushing this bill through.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe. Kia orana e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you very much for this opportunity, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, to speak on the first reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.

I too would like to take this opportunity, firstly, to congratulate the Hon Ron Mark. This is his first bill as the Minister of Defence. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell, who is also a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and has had responsibility for overseeing the passage of this legislation in the House.

I firstly wanted to make a comment about the New Zealand Defence Force, which contributes to the defence, security, and well-being of New Zealanders. We ensure that they are well trained and equipped, and I think that through this piece of legislation we are also ensuring that as members of our defence forces they continue to have duties, rights, and responsibilities as citizens of our country, and as human beings. Essentially, what we are giving them access to are philosophies that actually reinforce their rights and responsibilities, not only their roles in the military.

I’d like to highlight that the intention of this piece of legislation is to update the military justice system and to align it with the criminal justice system in certain respects, including by enhancing victim’ rights. But I specifically want to focus on the issue of the onus of proof and the history behind it.

For me, the reason I want to focus on the onus of proof really goes back to the history of military law—and I hope the House will indulge me. In trying to understand how significant this piece of legislation is—and I believe it is—I want to take us through a little history lesson, in some ways. Military law actually traces its origins to the prerogative powers of rulers. It was developed from the imperium of the magistrates in their capacity as commanders of military forces. Roman historian Tacitus—I hope I’m saying his name right—56 AD to 120 AD, noted that military justice was somewhat rough and ready and heavy-handed and raised very much within the individual commander. Some 400 years later it was formalised in a digest, the Codex Justinianus. It was really about the maintenance of discipline and to ensure it was enforced by ordinance or articles of war used by the Sovereign, or a commander authorised by the Sovereign, at the beginning of each campaign.

I tried to look for a campaign and found one. Cromwell’s army was famed for its discipline. He had his army between 1645 and 1660. It is said that it was so famed for its discipline because the articles that they created were vigorously enforced. So military law has always been about the discipline but also the compliance with those ordinances by the military personnel. So when we look at the whole issue of the onus of proof, actually in a civil context we are all innocent until proven guilty. So there is a presumption of innocence within our civil criminal justice system, and the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not the one who denies. The legal right of the accused in a criminal trial is also reinforced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is in article 11. The trier of fact, judge or jury, is restrained by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court.

I guess the kōrero around military law has been that there’s been a perception that you’re actually guilty until proven innocent, and that kind of stems from the history that I outlined. So if you disobeyed an order there was a military justice system. What happened within that system, from what I’ve been able to ascertain, was that there was a sworn statement in which one of your peers said they had knowledge of a crime that you had committed and that they had investigated that crime, and then you were charged. And it led to—[Interruption] Not you, Madam Assistant Speaker, but the person who was accused. Then it led to a court martial. The presumption of being guilty actually was premised on the fact that if you were innocent, there wouldn’t be a trial. So we’ve completely inversed what has been a longstanding tradition within the military.

I think the focus also on victims’ rights speaks to what I said before. So when you serve, and are a member of the New Zealand Defence Force, you don’t lose your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. So I think this piece of legislation is incredibly important and has come, as my colleague Raymond Huo outlined, from a review of the defence sector, and it is something that we should be incredibly proud of. I think that we should anticipate, therefore, that there will be some challenges possibly, because if this has been about maintaining discipline and compliance, then what we’re actually saying to the people who serve is that you also have a right to put up your hand if you disagree with something that’s happening and actually challenge those in authority.

Next year is the 100th anniversary of the Armistice. When we think about that, and that being about peace, we think about the people who in some of our history were asked to serve—our conscientious objectors—and said, “I don’t want to. I don’t believe in war. I believe in peace, and I will protest because I don’t think war and the activity of war is valid.” So, from my perspective, this also highlights those actions by our previous New Zealand citizens, our fellow citizens, who were, in that context, I guess, drafted into a system that was about defending and protecting us. So it opens up a whole other conversation, from my perspective, about service, about what security and well-being mean for everybody.

So as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill. I encourage people who are listening to think about making submissions, but I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. As a former member of the New Zealand Defence Force, a former lawyer, and now a National member of Parliament, what could be more exciting than to combine all those interests in speaking to this bill, which was, of course, introduced to the House by the previous defence Minister. I acknowledge him, along with the current defence Minister, for their shepherding of the legislation thus far, and I look forward with interest to the next stages of it.

I wish to address the notion of balance. It seems to me that the bill, while potentially with some possible improvements to be made at the select committee stage—we should always allow ourselves that possibility—does seem to me to provide some welcome balance in a couple of key areas. The first is between military and civilian jurisdictions, the balance being the alignment of those two, to the extent that’s appropriate. Previous speakers have made mention of that already, so I won’t labour that point any further.

Similarly, a balance between the rights of victims and offenders—naturally, in any justice system, criminal or otherwise, a balance between the rights of the parties involved is crucially important. In relation to victims, it’s already been well noted by a previous speaker who said that it should not make any difference to a victim whether an offence or an alleged offence took place within the military context or not. So it seems to me to be sensible, to protect the rights of him or her, to have the kinds of changes that this bill will be making.

Similarly, but on the other side of the coin, in relation to offenders, balance is somewhat restored between the traditional notions of onus of proof and, if anything—if I may make a side note, Madam Assistant Speaker—it seems quite telling, actually, that we’ve had this anomaly on our statute book for some time and it’s not been raised. It’s not something that I was aware of, and perhaps that’s a tribute to the sense of military discipline that our forces have, that they haven’t raised it before now.

Balance, too, between tradition and new ways: I acknowledge the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, for a very interesting treatise on the historical aspects of military law. It seems to me that some balance is needed to acknowledge the tradition and to respect that as far as is appropriate, but also to recognise that new ways are appropriate, even in an institution as traditionally focused as the Defence Force sometimes is.

Finally, balance between the separateness and the togetherness—between the worlds of the Defence Force, which in some ways is often physically separate but also recognises that it is part of the broader New Zealand society. So, again, it seems to me that the aims of the bill, and indeed its provisions, are very suitable in that regard.

Finally, please allow me Madam Assistant Speaker to acknowledge the members of the Defence Force, those who serve here and overseas. I hope that this amendment bill will find favour with them. I look forward to hearing their contributions and indeed those of others in the House, and other submitters at the select committee process. In doing so, I commend the bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Assistant Speaker, this is an extremely significant piece of legislation, and it’s probably a shame that it’s being dealt with sort of late on a Thursday, because it’s something that really the significance of which, I think, will sink home, not only to members of this House, those watching, but certainly to the armed forces. And I too acknowledge those who are out there now: some of them are on active service, but many of them will be going about the business of keeping those who are in the field out there, because the military is a great machine and, like many machines, the bits at the front line are kept going only by those behind.

The significance of what I’m going to talk about is that I’ve seen the evolution in my own previous organisation, in the police. That went from a quasi - military-style organisation, where, when you were asked to jump, you asked “How high?” without too much thought being given, to, ultimately, a situation where once those members of that organisation were given the right to understand democracy themselves, they actually were able to implement it much better. Now, the role of the New Zealand military, more and more, is becoming one of peacekeeping, which means that more and more we will be deployed to places where the rule of law has broken down, and where those basic tenets of democracy, which we rely on, will not be present.

Now, it’s quite ironic that we put members of an organisation that doesn’t enjoy democratic rights themselves into those very situations, and expect them to be examples in that field, or in those environments, of democracy in action. So this change, whereby members of the armed forces are going to be given what are essentially some basic democratic rights, is extremely significant.

In the past, what’s been used is the fact that—I mentioned before—much of what the armed forces do is in a conflict situation. In the past, that’s where many of these rules are set. And previous speakers, particularly those with military service, have spoken about that. However, what does happen is that that is used as an excuse in peacetime, and where the majority of the work of the armed forces is done, to deprive those people of basic democratic rights.

And, if we want to look at some basic democratic rights, such as the onus of proof, we only have to look at that. I mean, who can believe—and, I have to say I was aware before I read this bill that members of the armed forces had very few rights, but even I was unaware that the onus of proof rested on the defendant, the person charged, to prove their innocence. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I mean fellow parliamentarians—I’m sorry, the term of address escapes me now, perhaps such is my passion for this—that any group in today’s world can be denied something as basic as the right to have those who assert, prove, is quite incredible. So that that’s just being fixed only now says much: that it has been ignored.

I know myself, again from a previous life, that I’ve been involved in discussions with members of the armed forces, often quite senior members, who have realised that issues not only like this, but also just around basic rights of speech to negotiate have been denied. But as soon as any discussion comes up, it is immediately stifled for fear that—how can we possibly have soldiers going to war, who have a right or have any rights? Well, as I’ve talked about before, about where we put people into peacekeeping situations, this is more and more the role of our military. Those rules were enforced at a time when we did need, perhaps, the blind discipline to send people over the top at the Somme, knowing that nine out of 10 of them would be killed. Madam, I think those days, we would say, have passed.

I think, even just looking at some of the—as an amateur military historian, I look back and often, when we think of strict discipline in the military, we think of the Prussian machine, the Prussian military. And even when we look back as to why that discipline was imposed on the unification of Germany in the 1860s—around the time of Frederick the Great and Bismarck—actually, the reason that that discipline, that strict discipline, was imposed, was because those emperors at the time, and those leaders, understood that Germany, being in the middle of countries that they were going to be continually fighting with, needed to not only win the war—they knew they could always beat those that were around, those that they’d come in conflict with—but win the peace. And, actually, the discipline was imposed on them, not for the battlefield situation; the discipline’s imposed so that those soldiers behaved themselves after the battle was won.

I think, in today’s world where we do have the much more digitalised world where pictures of how people behave in even post-conflict situations—we see now photographs; we see film crews back filming in places where there are literally bullets whizzing over their heads. So the opportunity for army personnel or for military personnel to misbehave is considerably reduced.

So, again, I go back to the rationale for why we now should be giving our armed forces the same rights, or access to the same rights, as the rest of their fellow citizens. Just an example, there’ll be those who will think, all of a sudden, that the military are somehow easy on their own. I do recall a story some years ago when a member of the military was selected for a very prominent national team, and couldn’t turn up for the game—well, it was actually a test match. It transpired that he was actually in, I understand, Ardmore military prison for what was a relatively minor offence involving, I think, just a breach of some discipline on the military camp. Something that would, at best, have got a rebuke, got him six weeks in a military prison. That’s something that I think is a good example of why we just need to bring the discipline in our military into the modern world.

In doing that, I also compliment those who brought this legislation before the House: the Hon Mark Mitchell, followed up by the Hon Ron Mark. I’m sure that behind them were many advisers that have got us to this stage, even before we get to select committee. It’s a tribute, and I suppose, an indication of a change in thinking in our military that it has been able to get this far, because in the past I think that even the discussions that would have allowed us to get to this stage would have been stifled, and the necessity for that military discipline would have been dragged out.

So, in addressing, as I primarily have, the rights that are going to be given to the military personnel as a result of this, of course I should also address the roles of the victims in the military, because, unfortunately, in the past—and I’ve seen it—that same discipline and that same adherence to the hierarchy of rank have meant that those who’ve been victims have risked their career and had other risks by even bringing things to the fore. So, the fact that we now, in these situations, give victims the same rights as civilian victims have, is also an important part of this. It just shows the strength or, I suppose, the sensibility of this legislation—both sides of this being addressed—that we are not just seeking to cherry-pick one part of the legislation, and we are seeking to address everything, even the fitness to stand trial.

I wonder when we look now, and while we’re addressing and reminiscing at what happened in World War I, we do talk—and one of the previous speakers has talked about those who we now know were shot for desertion on the World War I front. I’m reminded of Abraham Lincoln, when he talked about the end of the civil war, and how the thing that hurt him most was having to have people shot for desertion. What we now know is about post-traumatic incidents that really would—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Stress disorder. PTSD.

GREG O’CONNOR: —have brought about those situations. So, PTSD—thank you.

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

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

The Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill amends the regulation of financial advice and other financial services. It will ensure that these services are provided in a way that promotes the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors, and consumers in financial markets. The bill does three main things. Firstly, it overhauls the current regulatory regime for financial advice; secondly, the bill makes changes intended to address the misuse of the Financial Service Providers Register; and, thirdly, the bill makes minor changes to address technical issues that have arisen since the implementation of the Financial Markets Conduct Act.

Over the past three years, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has undertaken a comprehensive review of the legislation that regulates financial advice. Prior to the current legislation being passed in 2008, financial advice was largely unregulated and investor confidence was low. While the current regime has made some positive changes in this respect, there are a number of issues that need addressing.

Financial advice has an important role to play in the lives of all New Zealanders. Financial products can be complicated and are not easily understood by consumers, so good advice can help bridge this gap. Financial advice can help consumers plan for life’s significant milestones, such as buying a first home or moving into retirement. It can be instrumental in helping everyday New Zealanders improve their financial position, and, given the growing balances under the KiwiSaver scheme, it is as important as ever that consumers can access high-quality financial advice.

Because of the complex nature of financial products, there is a real potential for harm to consumers as a result of poor advice. When making a decision about a financial product, many consumers need to rely on the information given to them by a financial adviser. As consumers put a great deal of trust in these people and institutions that provide the financial advice, it is important that they be held to appropriate standards of conduct and competence.

Following extensive consultation with industry participants and consumers, the ministry found a number of issues with the current regime that are preventing consumers from accessing high-quality financial advice. The current regime is unnecessarily complex and has set conduct and competency standards that are inconsistent across the industry. This has created a real disincentive to provide certain types of financial advice, and, as a result, consumers have struggled to get answers to simple questions such as: “Which KiwiSaver fund is the right one for me?” The complexity of the existing regime can also cause confusion for consumers, who are left to wonder what standards their adviser is held to. This complexity is a problem for financial advice businesses too, some of which raised concerns about undue compliance costs.

The Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill will overcome these issues and will improve access to high-quality financial advice for all New Zealanders. The regime puts the consumer at the centre of financial advice, and this will go a long way towards improving consumer confidence in this industry. The new regime establishes a level playing field of regulation for all who provide financial advice. It will ensure that consumers have the same protections, regardless of how or where they choose to access that advice. This includes a requirement for everyone giving advice to put the consumer’s interests first and to meet the standards of conduct, competency, and client care.

The bill also gives the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) the tools that it needs to effectively regulate financial advice. At present, only some advisers at large firms are subject to active regulatory oversight by the FMA. The new legislation will require everyone providing financial advice to retail clients to be covered by a licence, meaning they are actively monitored.

The bill strikes a balance between ensuring consumers can access quality advice and not imposing any undue compliance costs on the industry. To this end, licensing will be granted at the firm level to reduce costs on individual advisers.

The bill takes a flexible and technology-neutral approach, to allow for different business models and to futureproof the regime. This will enable computer-generated phone financial advice, known as robo-advice, to be given to consumers. Robo-advice presents an opportunity that will enable more New Zealanders to access financial advice, and regardless of how a firm decides to deliver financial advice, consumers will have the same products.

To encourage confidence in the financial advice, the bill retains the ability for consumers to access redress through the independent dispute resolution schemes. The bill also makes use of the flexible approach to enforcement that exists in the Financial Markets Conduct Act as it stands. The FMA will be given a range of tools so that it can deal with misconduct in the most appropriate manner.

Finally, the new regime will introduce simplified disclosure statements. Current disclosure documents are long, complex, and filled with jargon. Consumers are often left in the dark about commissions and other factors that may influence the advice they receive. The bill will ensure that consumers are given the key information they need to make confident and informed financial decisions.

I recognise that the new regime will involve significant changes for many in the industry, and I also understand that meeting competency requirements may take some time for some advisers who will need to balance study with work. The bill, therefore, seeks to enable a smooth transition to the new regime. Industry participants will have the time they need to upskill and obtain licences.

I have heard that there are some concerns from the industry about this bill, particularly from smaller operators in the market. These will no doubt be discussed at select committee. To those that have been following the review of the financial advice regime and the passage of this piece of legislation, I encourage you to provide a submission to the select committee, because we want to ensure that the legislation seeks the right balance between ensuring that consumers can access the financial advice they need and not imposing any undue compliance costs, particularly on those smaller businesses providing financial advice.

The ministry’s review also looked at the misuse of the Financial Service Providers Register. There have been instances of offshore entities registering here in New Zealand in order to mislead consumers by implying that they are subject to regulatory oversight here in New Zealand. This has the potential to harm New Zealand’s reputation and reduce confidence in the regulation of our financial markets. This bill seeks to address this issue by amending the Financial Service Providers Act, and these changes will require businesses to have a stronger connection to New Zealand in order to be registered. It will also impose additional requirements on businesses that have advertised their registered status in order to ensure that consumers are not being misled.

The bill also includes some minor changes to the Financial Markets Conduct Act to address technical issues that have emerged since the industry began operating under the Act.

In conclusion, the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill will implement a package of changes that will deliver positive outcomes for everyday New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): The Opposition will certainly support this legislation and looks forward to it going to the select committee nominated by the Minister just as quickly as possible. When I congratulated Mr Faafoi on becoming the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I said what an important portfolio it was—he’s essentially Minister for commercial law—and that sometimes it hasn’t had the emphasis that it deserves, because it’s a hugely important portfolio covering areas like competition law, intellectual property law, and areas like this.

To hear a first reading speech and members talking about the legislation sounds all very interesting and somewhat dry and dusty, but the reality of the matter is these provisions and this reform really do matter, and that is why I am so pleased that the Minister is getting on with this legislation, because it’s critically important. I’ll be looking at Part 1 very, very carefully when the select committee begins its deliberations, and in particular the new Subpart 5A, which imposes duties on persons giving regulated financial advice, and also the obligations on financial advisers for handling client money and client property.

I heard what the Minister said about the small operators and not having undue compliance costs put upon them. I must say, at the present time, and subject, of course, to what submissions there’ll be in the select committee, I err on the side of greater regulation than less regulation, because of what I have heard around this town and the lower North Island generally about the Ross Asset Management scandal. There was a man who stole millions and millions and millions of dollars from people—utterly wrecked their lives. Just a couple of days ago, I heard about a farmer in the Rangitīkei who had put money—sold his farm, put money—with Mr Ross. It’s all gone and he’s cleaning places in and around Feilding so he can put bread on the table. It all happened because this man was fundamentally utterly dishonest and corrupt and stole millions of dollars from good people, and all around Wellington his actions have consequences today.

So that is why what the Minister said is so important, why it’s so critically necessary to have these reforms, and why I’ll be looking very closely at them to make sure that people who do provide financial advice, that people who do take the funds of innocent people—at the very least, people get competent advice and aren’t ripped off as they were by that dreadful man, who is serving time in prison, but, frankly, the consequences of his actions will be felt for ever by some people. He’s simply ruined people’s lives.

So it’s a very good piece of legislation. I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I think the sooner the select committee gets on with it the better, and wouldn’t it be good if, in a spirit of bipartisanship, we just all shut up and put the bill to the select committee as quickly as possible.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well, I’m always very sad to disappoint the Hon Chris Finlayson, but I’ve got a good 10 minutes on the virtues of this bill. Often it’s customary at the beginning of these addresses to heap praise upon the Minister who’s introduced the legislation, and that’s generally appropriate. I think the Minister, in this case, has a well enough developed sense of his own value that I can leave that to one side.

Instead, I just want to track back a little bit to one of his predecessors, actually, because one of the interesting things about this bill is that it repeals the Financial Advisers Act 2008, and the Minister who introduced that Act was the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who at that time was the Minister of Commerce in that Labour Government—the fifth Labour Government—and is, of course, now the Mayor of Christchurch.

The reason that that piece of legislation was introduced at that time was because, prior to that point, we had something of a wild west in respect of our regulation of the financial services industry, and it became very, very apparent to this House, to commentators, and to many, many people who were badly burnt that there simply wasn’t adequate and coherent regulatory oversight of the sector. As the Hon Chris Finlayson just spoke of, that has huge consequences for people—huge consequences—and that was the significance of that legislation at the time and this legislation, which replaces it. We are talking about the regulation of a sector that we entrust—that we entrust—with the wealth, with the assets, of ordinary New Zealanders who are just wanting to do what we tell them to do in this House, which is to save and invest, and when it goes wrong, that turns their lives upside down.

So, at that time, the fifth Labour Government and Lianne Dalziel embarked upon a path of regulatory reform and brought in the Financial Advisers Act, and it brought things together. But what has become apparent over the 10 years since that time is that while everyone agrees that we need to have a coherent regulatory framework, not all parts of it have worked. It is entirely appropriate that in the years since then, the roving eye of the machinery of government has cast its eye over the sector and cast its eye over the workings of the Act and has determined that it is appropriate to look at a range of regulatory changes.

So what we have before us is a bill that amends both the Financial Markets Conduct Act, which was passed in 2013, and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008, and it actually repeals that Financial Advisers Act 2008. There are a number of reasons for this, and some of them have been well canvassed, but one of the ones I want to touch on at the outset is the fact that we know that at the moment, in part at least because of some of the quirks of the current regulatory arrangements, we have huge numbers of New Zealanders who would benefit from high-quality and appropriate financial advice and who simply don’t get it. They simply don’t get.

Some really interesting reports came out earlier this year from the Financial Markets Authority, who, of course, oversee much of what we’re talking about, and they in particular were looking into KiwiSaver. Of course, KiwiSaver is now the biggest vehicle by which New Zealanders save for the future—a great initiative of the previous Labour Government. I think something like $40 billion worth of assets are now piled up in KiwiSaver, and that’s great for New Zealanders’ future. It’s absolutely critical for the individuals who are saving within KiwiSaver, but also collectively for us, that those investment decisions are made well.

But what the Financial Markets Authority has uncovered—and I’ll read out the stat here: only three in 1,000 people who invest in KiwiSaver get personalised advice about their investments. Only three per 1,000—that’s 0.3 percent. Now, I don’t mean to be unkind, but that’s about the level of support that the ACT Party gets, and when you’re getting down to that, you know that it’s a pretty low number.

Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s harsh.

MICHAEL WOOD: It’s harsh, but it’s accurate. Only three in 1,000 get personalised advice.

Hon David Bennett: Only 10 times what you got.

MICHAEL WOOD: Ha, ha! I can tell the honourable member that, in my own electorate of Mt Roskill, I received 6,000 more votes than the ACT Party received across the whole of New Zealand at the general election this year, in fact. Only three in 1,000, and I think what we—

Hon Member: Not that you’ve looked.

MICHAEL WOOD: Not that I check on these things or anything. But what I can—

Hon David Bennett: It’s all about the party vote, remember.

MICHAEL WOOD: It is very valiant of the honourable member to come to the defence of David Seymour.

Only three in 1,000 people get that personalised advice before investing in KiwiSaver, and what that means is that huge numbers of those people end up simply putting their KiwiSaver investments into default funds. Now, default funds aren’t always the end of the world, but they’re always set up to be the safe, conservative place, with relatively low risk. For some people, that will be an appropriate investment, but, in fact, for many people it is not an appropriate investment, because KiwiSaver, by definition for most people, is a long-term investment, and it doesn’t particularly make sense to have your investments earning low returns over a very long term. If you’re a person at the age of 30, you’re potentially saving for 35 years into your KiwiSaver fund, and, in most cases, it’s going to make sense to take on a bit more risk, realising that you’ll ride out the ups and downs and be better off at the end of it. But because of that lack of quality advice, huge numbers are simply going into those default funds.

So just to pick out—and this is in the publicly available report from the Financial Markets Authority. At the ANZ bank, only 6 percent of KiwiSavers made an active choice about which fund they were going into; at the ASB Bank, only 1.5 percent; and at the BNZ bank, only 3 percent. That points to a lack of—there’s some sort of problem in the system. It’s not necessarily a lack of advisers who are capable of giving advice, but we have a system that is resulting in people not getting the advice that they would benefit from. So that is one of the real reasons we’ve got to get on top of this issue and ensure that New Zealanders who are investing are getting advice and are getting quality advice and know that that advice is in their best interests.

So what does the bill do? Well, it does a number of things. One of the quite interesting and innovative things that it does is that it introduces the capacity for investors to receive robo-advice—that is taking advantage of new forms of technology, and that isn’t necessarily talking to adviser at an office or over the phone but, potentially, through an app or through a computer program in which you might enter your risk appetite, your life situation, and your investment goals, and through a series of algorithms you can receive robo-advice about the best kinds of investment for your circumstances. It’s something that is in place in a number of other regulatory regimes, and I think it’s very much worthwhile this bill making provision, but I think it’s also worth saying—and I’m sure all members would agree—it’s the kind of thing we want to give careful examination to at the select committee stage, because, again, we are dealing with people’s life savings.

The Minister has given a very good overview of the way in which the proposed bill does seek to simplify and unify regulation across the sector. At the moment, we have authorised financial advisers (AFAs) and registered financial advisers (RFAs). The reality is that for most people who walk into their bank or walk into an investment shop and want to get advice, they don’t particularly know what the difference is. In fact, there’s been some feedback received, I think through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in their consultations, that suggests that people think that RFAs are qualified to a greater degree and perhaps they have a greater degree of surety about the advice they receive from RFAs. In fact, AFAs actually have to reach a higher standard of competency and be registered.

So the framework that comes through in the bill that is before the House seeks to recognise that problem, and so what we actually need is a unified framework. Any time that a retail investor, the ordinary mum or dad, or person who wants some investment advice goes to an investment adviser, they should know, and have the confidence, that that person acts in their best interests. That is enshrined in the bill.

That isn’t the case necessarily with all advisers at the moment. Investors should be absolutely certain that those people have a level of skill and competency that can be relied upon, and that should be enshrined through the bill, through a code of conduct and through competency requirements. They should know that there’s somewhere to go if it goes wrong. So through the bill we’ve set up various mechanisms that allow that, including a disciplinary process that allows for fines of up to $10,000. I do have to say, given some of the assets that are at stake, that it sounds to me to be maybe a little bit on the low side.

I just want to tag a couple of issues that I do think the select committee does need to have a really close look at it in its consideration. One is the difference between sales and service. When you talk to advisers in the sector, particularly the small guys, there is a real concern that sometimes sales and service get merged. There have been some pretty disturbing stories about big financial institutions incentivising RFAs at the moment to sell products to people. That is not acting in the best interests of the client, which should be paramount in the regulation of financial services.

The final thing we need to look at is that point of making sure that we’re not just having a regulatory framework that is good for the big end of town—the big banks that have huge numbers—but having one that actually also allows for a thriving network of independent, smaller investment advisers who can give very good quality advice to clients. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the next stage of its debate.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this first reading of the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill. I just want to take the opportunity to congratulate the new Minister, the Hon Kris Faafoi, for taking over the portfolio of commerce. As my colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson noted, this is a particularly important portfolio, and I’m just glad that he can draw on his extensive commercial experience in framing up and promoting and driving through some of the essential commercial changes we need to see occur in New Zealand over the next few years.

Just before I get into this key bill, I just want to remind the last speaker, Mr Michael Wood—who of course talked about the Hon Lianne Dalziel and her contribution to reforming the financial markets. I do note that she resigned and was succeeded by the Hon Simon Power. I think your sense of history is disproportionate to what has happened in terms of the contribution, in terms of driving through reforms into this area of the market. I think the member should remind himself of what happened and some of the key changes that took place under the National Government.

One of those, of course, was the formation of the Financial Markets Authority, which came into play in 2011, and what a great job that was. Then we had the introduction of the Financial Markets Conduct Act in 2013. For those who haven’t been involved in this sector, as I have, those changes brought about substantial improvement so that investors knew that they were getting the type of investment advice that they deserved. I have to say that, more recently, through the good work of my other colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith—this change that this Government over here is seeking to adopt and blend as if it’s their own, is in fact not the case because the Hon Paul Goldsmith spent two long years working through the details that these guys are now trying to capture and understand. That’s why we have such a good bill to talk about today. Then, of course, there was the Hon Jacqui Dean’s contribution.

So I am looking forward to being part of this debate, working through the good things that this bill seeks to achieve, which is making sure that investors get access to good quality investment advice.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. New Zealand First supports the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, introduced by the Hon Kris Faafoi.

Financial advice plays a very important role in the lives of all New Zealanders. Often for those known as mum and dad investors, good advice—high-quality advice—is instrumental in improving the financial position of ordinary New Zealanders. The financial world is not a very easy one to navigate. It can be very complicated and somewhat confusing for consumers. Sound, quality advice is crucial in successfully traversing the financial landscape.

We know that the purpose of this bill is to ensure that financial services are provided in a way that promotes the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors, and consumers. The current regime, which sets different rules for different classes of financial adviser, financial product, and advice type, is hindering consumer access to quality financial advice. The new regime will establish a much more level playing field of regulation for all who provide financial advice.

The bill requires all individual and robo-advice platforms giving financial advice to place the interests of the consumer first. It also maintains disciplinary measures for some individuals. Financial advisers will be subject to the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee. If a financial adviser is found to have contravened any obligation, the disciplinary committee will be able to censure, impose conditions, require the adviser to undergo training, impose a fine of up to $10,000, or direct the Financial Service Providers Register to deregister or suspend the registration of the financial adviser.

This bill, the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill, ensures that consumers’ interests will come first. We know that up until now, too many vulnerable people in need of financial advice that they can trust—and that’s really important; advice that they can trust—have found themselves being unknowingly exploited, and thus further lining the pockets of financial advisers who do not have their best interests at heart. Now, to ensure consumers’ interests come first, this bill makes legislative amendments to other Acts to ensure that the conduct and client care obligations of financial service providers and the regulation of financial markets remain fit for purpose. It also addresses the misuse of the Financial Service Providers Register.

We endorse the contents of the bill, which will lead to the improved quality of and access to financial advice, while at the same time it will remove unnecessary red tape and barriers to innovation for businesses. We also welcome the new regulatory regime for financial advice, which requires more stringent requirements for entities wanting to register on the Financial Service Providers Register, and we support this bill also addressing some technical issues that have arisen since the implementation of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.

The bill ultimately creates a new regulatory regime for the provision of financial advice. The new regime has been designed in response to the findings of the statutorily required review of the operation of the Financial Advisers Act, which regulates the provision of financial advice, and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008, which sets dispute resolution and registration requirements for financial service providers.

Of particular note, the bill gives greater confidence to consumers, because it provides minimum standards for financial advisers to adhere to. It requires anyone providing financial advice to retail clients to operate under a licence under Part 6 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. Now, to ensure this requirement does not impose undue costs on industry or Government, licences will be able to be issued at the firm level. The specific licensing requirements will be set in regulations by the Financial Markets Authority. The requirements will be flexible, depending on factors such as the size and nature of a firm and the services it provides, and on whether a firm engages financial advisers or nominated representatives, or is a sole trader.

This bill speaks to the values that are at the core of New Zealand First, and those values are why I am a member of this party. We speak on behalf of the many New Zealanders who want progressive policies and legislation that is in the best interests of all New Zealanders. We know that this bill will contribute to a better-functioning financial advice market that is fair, transparent, and fit for purpose.

In conclusion, the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill will protect investors from low-quality and poor financial advice. It will ensure that all financial advisers adhere to the same level of competency and compliance. New Zealand First supports this bill. Kia ora koutou.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill, and I congratulate this Government on bringing it before this House in its first 100 days—noting, of course, that it is a National Party and former National Government piece of legislation.

Members of this House, it’s actually easy to forget why this came here.

Hon Member: This speech is easy to forget.

LAWRENCE YULE: No, it’s easier to forget why we’re here today. In the global financial crisis, which was so well managed by this Government—the Government from this side, I should say—a lot of people lost a lot of money. A lot of people were ripped off, and so this legislation seeks to address that. Look at our banks. Our banks are very well run, some of the best in the world, and very few people lost money from the banking sector in New Zealand, even in comparison to Australia. But the advice that’s given in this space is actually not up to the standard that New Zealanders need or deserve, and this bill seeks to address that. It’s, in my view, tidy-up legislation, and it should occur.

As the Hon Chris Finlayson said, there are plenty of examples, particularly in the lower North Island, of where people have lost millions: hard-earned savings; farms have been sold. They’ve gone to get good, practical advice, and they’ve been ripped off. That’s not to say that all financial advisers are like that. This bill, though, tries to tidy up those people by bringing in some discipline and some accountability, which is prevalent in most other professions. If you look at how lawyers operate, if you look at how real estate people operate, they all have a set of rules and regulations that protect the individual—the people that we represent—in transactions.

And if you look at new section 431H in clause 27, it’s particularly about the duty to meet standards of competence, knowledge, and skill. And then if you go on to subsequent new sections of the bill in clause 27, new sections 431ZF and 431ZG are about protecting people’s money and property by ensuring that it’s used through trust funds and other mechanisms. I commend that to this House because, through no fault of their own, many of our citizens, that we represent, have lost millions.

I also commend this bill to the House because some of the “rabo-advice” that might have appeared quite futuristic five years ago is now widely—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Do you mean “rabo”, or “robo”?

LAWRENCE YULE: —robo-advice, sorry—now widely used by many people. Many people now use the internet to find out all sorts of things, and so this bill means that it’s non-specific.

I commend this bill to the select committee, but I do want it to be made clear that there are a number of small operators that are worried about this bill, so we need to find a balance with what is in this legislation, without unnecessary compliance costs. I’m happy to support this bill going to the next stage. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. Look, I rise to support this legislation. We want to see that all New Zealanders get access to high-quality, reliable financial advice.

We’d put it that this legislation is overdue. There were two reviews the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment conducted in 2008 and 2016. We’re glad to see this legislation introduced to the House. We need to make sure that the public interest is protected, with a group of advisers who are giving significant advice to people. We’ve seen some high-profile examples over the last 10 years where people have lost a huge amount of money because of situations like these.

One area in particular I’m quite interested in exploring in the select committee process is the provision of digital advice—or what’s called robo-advice in some of the briefing documents. Exploring that in detail, I think, is going to be quite important.

I want to give a little story. My wife used to work in book publishing, and now works in the IT computer software development sector in Wellington. An area she’s really focused on in the last year is chatbots, which is not full artificial intelligence but building algorithms so that the bot can communicate with the person communicating with it. You can see an example with financial services management, where it’s cheaper to, basically, build an algorithm to have it learn from some of the conversations it’s been having than employing people as financial service advisers. Now, how that applies to a consumer who maybe gets faulty advice is going to be critically important. Who’s the responsible party that can be held liable if bad advice is given? Is it the code writer? Is it the people who have been monitoring and updating the algorithm? Is it the agency that owns the algorithm—huge questions that we’re looking forward to exploring in the select committee.

We do question how moving information disclosure requirements from legislation into regulation is going to work in practice. Is that the appropriate balance that has been struck? But, all in all, this is a positive step forward. We welcome the introduction to the House. We look forward to the select committee process and submissions and improving the legislation in that forum, if need be. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m really pleased to take a stand on the first reading of the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill. I wanted to start on a lighter note but then get into a more serious conversation about it. I wanted to start by acknowledging my first financial adviser—that being my mother. She’s just left the House with the baby, so I’m hoping that she is listening on Parliament TV next door in the whānau room. But yes, mum was my first financial adviser, and when I look at this legislation that we are introducing to the House here, I don’t think she would meet a lot of those criteria. But I do want to acknowledge her.

I also want to acknowledge that, as the Labour Party, we understand that financial decisions can have a huge effect on people’s lives, and the wise use of money can dramatically improve people’s quality of life and their ability to support their family. In fact, we believe that financial literacy and budgeting is so important that we will create a school-leavers’ tool kit to equip school-leavers with vital life skills, including having financial literacy and budgeting skills, and where they can learn about things like KiwiSaver—which we have talked about in the House—tenancy agreements, and credit cards, etc.

But we need to take that a step further. In addition to that, we need to improve access to, and improve the quality of, financial advice for New Zealanders. We need to make it easier for people to access financial advice and to make more confident and informed financial decisions. In particular, people with simple needs or low levels to invest need to be able to access the financial advice that they need. So it is with that that I come to this bill, and those are some of the proposed benefits of this bill.

The overall objective of this bill is to promote the confident and informed participation of consumers, investors, and businesses in financial markets. I want to thank the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for their review of the Financial Advisers Act 2008 and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. In 2008, when these Acts were passed, bringing into effect the current regime and regulating financial advisers for the first time in New Zealand, the regime lifted professional standards by requiring financial advisers to be accountable for their advice and to meet minimum conduct obligations. It has improved redress by requiring those who provide advice to retail consumers to belong to a dispute resolution scheme. MBIE were required by the statute to review these Acts within five years of their commencement, and I want to thank MBIE and the many, many submitters. There were over 400 submissions, more than 800 survey responses, and many people who attended workshops and seminars.

The review found that, despite positive changes, there are a number of issues with the current regime, which are hindering investor confidence, participation in financial markets, and informed decision-making. The issues were that some types of financial advice aren’t being provided, and we heard that earlier, particularly around KiwiSaver, which was highlighted in an additional report. The current regulatory provisions are limiting the type of advice provided, and advice gaps are appearing in areas where it is expected more New Zealanders may want advice. That was most starkly highlighted by the lack of personalised advice on KiwiSaver. The member who spoke earlier Michael Wood highlighted those dim statistics.

The review found that the different levels of regulation that currently apply in the different situations have created a real disincentive for financial advisers to give personalised advice, but there were other issues, including the quality of financial advice, that may be suboptimal. Compliance costs are unbalanced, there are inefficiencies, and unnecessary complexity is preventing adequate consumer understanding due to terminology and definitions that are confusing, and disclosure statements that are unwieldy and that do not contain information that people need to make informed decisions.

It was said that the regime is overly complex. The various tiers of the advice and the advisers are not helpful for consumers and are frustrating for advisers—for example, having the term “registered” and the term “authorised” being used. Those two terms are confusing and perhaps indicate that there may be some form of hierarchy, which is not the case. Disclosure ensures that consumers have sufficient information about the person providing them with financial advice before actually engaging their services. However, current disclosure documents are too long, they’re too complex, and they are jargon-filled, and so they often end up not even being read, and even if the statement is read by consumers, it’s far too complex for most and does not contain the information consumers need to make informed decisions.

So what does the bill do to actually solve these problems? Well, in particular, to address the unnecessary complexity that is preventing adequate consumer protection and understanding, the regime will be simplified, as the bill removes many of the different categories and boundaries that existed in the Financial Advisers Act. As all financial advice will be held to the same standard, consumers will be able to get advice and be confident in the knowledge that it is held to good standards. The bill also requires everyone who gives financial advice to ensure that the client understands what the adviser can actually do for them, including what limitations there might be on the advice that they can give.

So carrying on the theme of modernising our legislation and making it easy to understand, I spoke earlier this week about the Trusts Bill on a similar issue. This bill will introduce more meaningful, plainer English disclosure statements, which are prescribed in regulations, and which will ensure that consumers can make better informed decisions.

Carrying on with the theme of modernising our legislation to accommodate the technological advances that we have heard about in the House this week, this bill is technology-neutral, and, as a result, it is believed that it will better enable innovation. For example, the bill enables robo-advice, and it is believed that robo-advice could significantly improve the availability of advice for those consumers who are not currently getting any financial advice at all. I’m interested in the submissions on this through the select committee process. In particular, this section is being amended to remove natural persons, which will allow flexibility for the use of technology and for future innovation.

In conclusion, I just want to conclude by highlighting that this is all about improving access to, and improving the quality of, financial advice for New Zealanders, making it easier for people to access financial advice and to make more confident and informed financial decisions—in particular, having people with simple needs and lows levels to invest being able to access the financial advice that they need. It is with this that I am happy to commend the bill to the House and I commend its referral to the select committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am delighted to be able to stand and speak to this excellent bill that is in front of the House, and to commend it to the House. You know, we grew up in a simple world, many of us—a world where the people who gave financial advice were accountants and lawyers and no one else much, and the sorts of things we invested in were fairly simple, too. It might have been shares, if you were lucky. It might have been, perhaps, that you owned a house, but that was about it. These days, things are a lot more complex, and even something that we have done as a nation to make the world a better place and to make New Zealand a better place—bringing in KiwiSaver—has created a whole lot more complexity, and people are, quite understandably, looking for financial advice.

It turned out that often the sort of financial advice you could get was the sort of financial advice that was handed out over the barbie, which said, “Do you know what, mate? Are you going to get some shares in that company down the road?” Now, this bill does not intend to capture people who offer that kind of financial advice. It’s not the sort of backyard conversation, and, in fact, that’s specifically ruled out. What it does intend to capture is people who give financial advice and who hold themselves out as financial advisers and are remunerated for doing so. By pulling together several sets of legislation, it is creating a regulated activity—creating a regulated field of endeavour—and saying that this is the way that people operating in this industry ought to conduct themselves.

I think one of the major themes of this legislation is looking out for the little guys; making sure that when the small investors—the people who have perhaps their KiwiSaver savings or a little bit of spare money to invest—seek financial advice, they can rely on the advice that’s given to them. There’s one particular aspect of this bill that I think is really very important indeed, and that is setting up a code of conduct for people operating in the financial advice industry.

You know, codes of conduct—professional codes of conduct—are absolutely common in any professional endeavour. Doctors have them, lawyers have them, accountants have them, and politicians perhaps don’t—and maybe we should think about that—but it’s clear that we do need one in the field of financial advice because we know there has been some pretty unregulated activity taking place there. Now, this particular bill doesn’t set up the code of conduct itself. So, in that sense, it doesn’t have the substance of the code of conduct sitting there, and that, we might think, is a problem, but I don’t think it really is.

I think that the real thing is that it sets up a really robust process for setting up a code of conduct. It’s got a process by which the Minister must appoint people to set up a committee that will write the code, and it explicitly addresses what the code of conduct ought to look at. It says that a code of conduct must specify the levels of competence and knowledge and skills that anyone who is holding themselves out as a financial adviser must adhere to. That is absolutely consistent with other professional groups, too. They set a standard that people must adhere to.

This bill also says that whatever code of conduct is devised, it must set standards for ongoing education of people who are operating in this industry. Again, that is exactly like other professional codes of conduct, and it is actually very important in this particular industry where new financial instruments are being developed all the time, where new ways of doing business are being developed, where more and more people will be seeking that financial advice just as more and more KiwiSaver funds mature. So that ongoing education component is very important.

But the important point about this code of conduct is that it sets a standard. It’s aspirational, and that’s really important. It says to people operating in this industry that you must operate in an ethical fashion, and here is the standard that you must achieve. It is asking the industry, as well, to regulate itself, to have a think amongst itself, amongst its own members, about what is acceptable conduct and what is not.

To me, that is the essence of a profession: people getting together and working out what works best for them and what works best for their clients—the little guys. That’s who this bill looks after. That is the reason why I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and talk about this piece of legislation, the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d like to congratulate the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Jacqui Dean for progressing this legislation, and, of course, now, the Hon Kris Faafoi for continuing with that.

Having spent a number of years in the banking sector, I can certainly appreciate that there is a lot of diversity and a very broad spectrum in terms of financial literacy amongst the wider public—from those who are very astute and fully understand the financial implications of decisions they’re making, through to those whose skills, perhaps, lie in other areas. From what I’ve seen so far in this role, perhaps that’s something the new Government could look to seek some additional advice on as well with their financial decision making—something I’m sure the former Government and us on this side of the House would be more than happy to accommodate them with.

There are a number of terms in here that are advanced and change through this. “Authorised financial adviser”, “registered financial adviser”, and “qualifying financial entity” have been substituted with the more consumer friendly terms “financial adviser” and “nominated representative”—a couple of important amendments to make, because this is really focusing around those people at the grassroots level who need this support and advice.

The other key one that I would like to touch on, though, is the robo-advice. Now, this one, in particular, I find very really exciting. Coming from the Waikato, this will be a really important opportunity for us. It’s a very strong rural area, and often it can be more challenging for people to travel and gain access to financial advisers, especially now that the Government is deciding not to progress with the strong roading plan that we had in the Waikato to provide greater connectivity within our region to those key centres to help enhance the growth opportunity within the broader Waikato.

So, although that’s disappointing, my constituents within the Waikato can have confidence that they will still be able to access advice through the new robo-advice options—in particular, because of the strong ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband initiatives announced by the former Government.

So it’s great to see a few amendments being made in this financial space to help those that need it most, and I look forward to watching this bill progress through the House. Thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora. Like my colleague Tim Van De Molen, who has just addressed the House, I too acknowledge the Hon Jacqui Dean in terms of the enormity and the immensity of the work and effort that’s been placed into this bill, and, furthermore, the fact that it’s been progressed by the now Government, recognising again those immense efforts that have been put before the House whilst in service previously as the Government.

I’m standing to speak on something that is familiar to me personally, as I’m sure it is to many people—not only those here in the House but those who may be listening from afar as an audience to this session this evening. Some of us may have been burnt in terms of the financial advice that we previously received, and as a result we have suffered some loss. So it is pleasing to be able to stand to speak on and address and recognise within the proposed legislation the significance and importance that’s placed in terms of professional standards to financial advisers.

Just glancing at the bill—specifically, clause 27, inserting new subpart 5A, which includes new sections 431G through to 431Q, is around the duties on persons giving regulated financial advice, the profession that I come from, and for those of us who as members of the House also come from professions, there are those standards of professional conduct. So it’s reassuring to see that this is being detailed for the first time within this proposed legislation.

Noting that this is what’s called an omnibus bill—in other words, that it is a piece of legislation that’s incorporating and addressing a number of amendments from a multitude of other pieces of law—those amendments, as has been stated by previous speakers in the House today, are to ensure that the conduct and client care obligations of financial service providers and the regulation of financial markets remain fit for purpose, whilst also addressing the misuse of the Financial Service Providers Register by offshore entities.

I note, as we are advancing into the evening towards the end of the session for the day, that standing to speak as the last speaker for the Opposition this evening can at times leave much less substantive material to address the House with, given the bill has been covered in quite some detail. Therefore, something lawyers are well known for in terms of lack of brevity—in this instance, I’m somewhat obliged to dispel the myth that is here, and succinctly say, my colleagues and the members of the Government have well addressed this matter before the House. And, in conclusion, I commend this bill in its first reading. Kia ora.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As somebody that is sitting on the select committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as well as the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it is my pleasure to stand here and speak on the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill.

To those people who have just tuned into Parliament TV or are listening via the radio, those people that may be a little bit, you know, not too familiar with how the process of Parliament goes—as am I, still finding my way as a new MP—this here is an omnibus bill. So this is a time-saving bill. This is the kind of bill where we can put through a series of amendments and do it all at the same time, rather than putting through consecutive amendments through different bills and taking up too much time in the House. This particular omnibus bill makes amendments to the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008, and it also repeals the Financial Advisers Act 2008, as well.

Before I go into the detail of this particular bill, I just want to take a moment to recognise the many Māori trusts and organisations around New Zealand that have money invested, that go to financial advisers for good, sage advice and hope that when they get there and they’re sitting around the table with somebody that has a whole lot more detailed knowledge about the financial sector and about investments and the like—actually this bill is something that is going to help those situations, because it helps to clarify and simplify some of those processes. We need to keep people in mind, I guess, as we are putting legislation through the House and make sure that it’s friendly for people out there—real New Zealanders—so that they get to understand it in a very simple form. That is exactly what these amendments seek to do.

The review has been undertaken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and it concluded there were a number of problems with the existing regime and also with the financial advice. The current regime was considered to be unnecessarily complex and did not adequately raise standards for all financial advice services. There were a bunch of financial services and advice also that wasn’t being offered. So the report came back, the conclusions were put forward—and I want to thank all of the people that have put their effort into this particular piece of legislation. As previous speakers have said, this is a bill that’s been going for quite some time now. So thank you to all of those people that have put effort into it, and also congratulations to the Hon Kris Faafoi for introducing this into the House and being the one that’s going to finish this—the job that was started quite some time ago.

In the bill, certain changes have been noted. Financial advisers will have to put the interests of their clients first. And isn’t that a lovely thing to have? Isn’t that a stake that you can put in the ground, first up? So just note, first and foremost, that financial advisers will have to put the interests of their clients first. In the bill, there will also be a simplification of categories of financial advisers. Previously they were a little bit convoluted, a little bit complicated.

Authorised financial advisers were a category, registered financial advisers were another category, and then there was a third category of qualified financial entities. All of those categories will be removed in this and will be replaced with either “financial adviser” or “a nominated representative”, both of which are a whole lot simpler to understand and to digest. Financial advisers will be licensed at the firm level, rather than at the individual level, which is also a plus, and disclosure requirements will also be enhanced.

A code of conduct working group has also been appointed, and I want to take just a little bit of time to thank everybody that was part of that working group. I want to just refer to them individually so that they get their dues for the efforts that they put in here. So I want to make a special mention to Angus Dale-Jones, who was the chair of this particular working group. He was also previously a board member of the Professional Advisers Association. I want to thank the chair for all of the work that he put into that particular piece of work. Barbara Benson was also on there too. She was a consumer and dispute resolution representative—a previous manager, teacher education, at the Education Council of New Zealand. So I’d like to thank Barbara for the significant work that she put into this particular piece of work. Brian McCulloch, a consumer dispute resolution representative—he was an independent consultant, an independent director at Utilities Disputes Ltd. I’d like to thank him for his work. John Berry, who is the chief executive officer of Pathfinder Asset Management—thank you to him for his work. Graeme Edwards, who is the general counsel and company secretary at the ASB Bank, should also be congratulated for the significant work that he put in. Paul Mersi is an independent consultant who was part of that working group. Rebecca Vanderbom is the head of financial advice delivery and service for Milford Asset Management and is also an authorised financial adviser. Shane Edmond is the head of private client services at Forsyth Barr and a member of the current code committee—

Tim van de Molen: Are you just going to say names for 10 minutes?

TAMATI COFFEY: Very good. And, finally, one more on that list. I couldn’t go without mentioning the great work that Therese Singleton did on that particular piece of work—the general manager, sales and advice, at AMP.

That code working group was appointed. They prepared a new code of conduct before the committee. They’ll also allow for the code of conduct to be developed earlier than would otherwise have been the case. I again would like to congratulate all of those advisers for their work.

As previous speakers have also mentioned, there is the robo-advice, which is being incorporated into that. I also just want to acknowledge all of the talk that we have had in the House this week, just about bringing our legislation, bringing our services into the modern age by using technology and IT, bringing that into legislation too. So robo-advice is definitely a big part of that.

This is a very fine piece of legislation that has had support from various submissions, which have been canvassed, as one of our earlier speakers talked about. There have been workshops held on this. There have been a lot of summaries on this. It’s gone through a rigorous process, and, for that reason, I think that it should be very much commended to the House, and I have no problems commending this particular bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): E tika ki te mihi ki a koe, e te tuakana, ka tae atu ki tēnei tūranga. Roa te wā mai i te wā i kōrero ki a koe e pā ana ki tēnei tūranga. Ngā mihi ki a koe! Tino whakahīhī a Rātana i tēnei wā ki te kite i a koe i reira, ngā mihi ki a koe, me tō tuahine Gaylene. Rawe tana mahi ki te kōkiri i te kaupapa e pā ana ki Te Rōpū Reipa. E tika ana ki te mihi ki a ia mō tana tautoko i a mātou i tēnei wā. Koutou katoa, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou!

[It is fitting that I acknowledge you, elder colleague, having attained this position. It’s been a long time since I last spoke to you about this position. Congratulations! Rātana will be very proud when they see you there, so congratulations to you, and to your sister Gaylene. Her work to champion the proposal relating to the Labour Party was wonderful. It is apt that she be acknowledged her for her support of us at this time. All of you, I commend you collectively!]

It’s good that we’re all into thankyous, because I think that’s a good way to approach the speeches at this time. So my first thankyou is to the—wonderful to see our great representative within our Māori caucus here as the Assistant Speaker. Some of us—no I won’t say that. I think he’s a great Assistant Speaker and, for us, we get a lot of pride out of seeing Adrian Rurawhe in that position, so mihi nui ki a koe [congratulations to you].

Also, since we’re into the thankyous, just before I get into the bill, I want to say it was really good to meet Harete over there—doing a great job for the area. Good to see National promoting Māori candidates. They haven’t been too good at that in the past, but now we’re—Harete probably should be promoted to the front bench, because the front bench has been embarrassing themselves in the last week. There’s no doubt about that, and poor Simon—Simon had a terrible time the other day, eh? Oh, it was terrible—“Jonesy” walked all over him and stomped all over him. And as for Mr Goldsmith, he needs to—

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be helpful to get back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, I’m coming back to the bill—right.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for his intervention. Tika rā! Me hoki mai ki te pire.

[Correct indeed! You must come back to the bill.]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Coming back to the bill—coming back to the bill—

Hon David Bennett: This is the worst speech out.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The reality is, though—oh come on, let’s not spoil it. We were going well. Kia tau te rangimarie.

[Let the peace prevail.]

Come on. You’re sounding like the front bench, OK? Actually, you should be on the front bench. They did such a terrible job this week—terrible job. But, kia ū ki te kaupapa [stick to the topic]. Do you know what that means? Stick to the point, all right?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, I do know what that means.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Not you—sorry, sorry. Mōhio au i tērā, Mr Assistant Speaker. Rawe tō mahi!

[I know that, Mr Assistant Speaker. You are doing a fine job!]

I want to just come back to the point that I was saying, which was that this is a very important piece of legislation, because, if we look at it in a Māori sense, we need good information—we need good information. And people on this side and on that side—that’s why I mentioned; I didn’t just say “Kia ora” to Harete over there, who’s the new member over there—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And the member needs to use the full name of members.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Harete Hipango—a beautiful name. Married to someone I used to play rugby with. Yes. He wasn’t a bad rugby player, too. But, anyway—

Hon Member: It’s not entirely relevant, but it’s true.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It’s true. I’m saying this because Māori need good advice. We know this, Mr Assistant Speaker; you’ve been a previous Treaty negotiator. Tamati knows this. Kiritapu knows this—and we need good advice and we need this type of legislation, and sometimes I feel—

Hon David Bennett: Why isn’t he reading the speech?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don’t need to read the speech. We’ve heard some of the kōrero. Harete—she was talking about it, and Deborah was talking about it. This is about the underdog and giving the underdog an opportunity. And that’s a fact. And who are the underdogs? Māori—being ripped off constantly. They’re being ripped off constantly, and if you go through the Treaty settlements process, sometimes I wonder if tribes should’ve been compelled to get proper financial advice—proper financial advice. You know, I’ve even had the odd relation—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, we agree—lose a whole Treaty settlement. I won’t say his name tonight, because he might come looking for me. He lost a whole Treaty settlement. Why? Because he thought that he was a wonderful financial adviser. And who suffered in the end? Our constituency. So we need a piece of legislation like this for the underdog—for the people who’ve been ripped off by National Party supporters, and probably members.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I’m serious here, because the reality is that this bill gives us an opportunity—

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to that comment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member takes offence to that statement, and the member should withdraw.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw. Thank you, sir. I withdraw, and I’ll apologise. No doubt, though, you have to question the political affiliations of some of the people who would rip off your average person.

Anyway, coming back to the bill—we’ve got to stick to the subject here tonight. You know, I commend everyone—like Tamati did. He must have commended every single person on that committee. He was even looking for people to commend. But well done to Tamati. I didn’t know he was such an orator.

But, anyway, coming back to the bill, this is all about conduct, you see—conduct. So what’s the story here? There are some amendments to the financial markets area. In that area the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 significantly reformed New Zealand’s financial market laws relating to a wide range of financial products and services—so, I mean, that’s good, you know. As expected, given the size and complexity of the regime, technical issues have emerged as industry began operating under the Financial Markets Conduct Act regime, and this bill makes some minor changes to that Financial Markets Conduct Act to respond to these technical issues.

So having an area like this where financial conduct is being examined, is being practised, and is being put out there is essential if we are going to get changes out there in the industry. As our lawyer and fine MP Deborah Russell said, this is an opportunity for the underdog. Are there benefits? Well, here are some of the benefits: the bill will improve access to, and the quality of, financial advice for New Zealanders. As I said, with some of our iwi, some of our tribes—well, things have got a lot better, but some of them, in the early Treaty settlement times—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Yeah, back in the day.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You know this, eh? Most of them are your relations. But they needed absolute financial support and should have been compelled to get it before they started spending some of that money in areas they should never have touched. [Interruption] Absolutely. So the bill will improve access and quality financial advice for all New Zealanders—not just Māori—and it will make it easier for consumers to access financial advice, and to make more confident and informed financial decisions. In particular, consumers with simple needs or low levels to invest will be able to access the financial advice that they need.

The other thing in this bill that is really good is that it will level the playing field, because it’s really hard if you’re Māori, if you’re in the Labour Party, if you’re—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s true—it’s true.

Fletcher Tabuteau: There’s some rich fellas in the Labour Party.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It’s all right if you’re in New Zealand First, you know? You can get a big flash house, like Shane Jones, you know, but if you’re in the Labour Party, this is a tough area. So the bill levels things out for some of the lefties, basically, who’ll be able to get access to some equality in terms of the whole financial situation.

I’m sick of it. I remember when I was young and you had every sort of rip off trying to sell you financial advice. So this bill will be a level playing field for the industry and reduce—I think this a really important area—undue compliance costs through the introduction of the firm-based licensing regime. So, you know, I think that’s good for everyone.

The main point, I suppose, is that the bill creates a new regulatory regime for financial advice, and every New Zealander—it doesn’t matter what colour: Māori, Pākehā, Pacific Islander, Labour Party, or even National Party—even though there’s some questions about who’s giving the financial advice out, needs good financial advice.

So I commend this to the House, and I commend the committee who’s been working on it, and I hope that we’re all in unity and support with regards to this bill. Kia ora anō tātou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): The House has made excellent progress this afternoon, and with it being 4 minutes to 6, I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any member against that? There is.

Bills

Maritime Transport Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I move, That the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is with great pleasure that I speak on the third reading of this bill. It’s somewhat ironic for me, as a Green Party member who voted for the bill at first reading. As Opposition members, having heard the submissions in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, we were compelled to change our vote because we heard such informed submissions from affected parties that saw certain problems with the legislation. Unfortunately, the Government of the day—the National Government—didn’t see fit to listen to those submissions and so the Green Party voted against the bill at the second reading. But now that we are in Government, the three governing parties were able to agree to substantive amendments, which passed this week and have substantially improved the bill, and I am quite happy to see it enter its third reading now.

A significant aspect of the bill addresses the risks associated with drug and alcohol use in the commercial maritime sector. The bill empowers the Director of Maritime New Zealand to carry out non-notified drug and alcohol testing of maritime personnel in safety sensitive positions when there is good cause to suspect impairment or there is some indication of there being risky operations and activities. As reported back to the House after the select committee process, the bill would have required all commercial operators to have drug and alcohol management plans that provided for random drug-testing of personnel in safety sensitive positions.

However, submitters on the bill expressed significant concern about the cost implications and the practicality of mandatory testing for the small and often remote businesses that make up the majority of the maritime sector. It was also noted that existing legislative mechanisms already provided for the management of drug and alcohol risks and there was no evidence of a substantive problem with the smaller operators. I therefore recommended, by way of Supplementary Order Paper 6, the removal of the requirement for mandatory random testing and the need for operators to have drug and alcohol management plans. I’m quite happy to say that the amendment got support from the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party, and will sufficiently address any safety risks and allow the Director of Maritime New Zealand to ensure that there is testing where there is cause to believe that there are risky situations or impairment. So we’ve substantially improved the bill in that respect.

The second part of the bill is about oil pollution compensation. The bill gives effect to the Supplementary Fund Protocol, under which an additional tier of compensation is available to deal with the damage caused by oil spill damage from tankers. This will increase the compensation potentially available in the event of a tanker spill from around $411 million to just over $1.5 billion, and that is very appropriate, and, I think, long overdue.

The bill also contains miscellaneous measures to improve the operation of existing provisions in the Act and address minor anomalies by way of amendments.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.