Wednesday, 13 December 2017

WEDNESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2017

WEDNESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Cook Islands, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Fiji, and Samoa—Public Accounts Committees

Mr SPEAKER: I’m sure members would wish to welcome the members of the Public Accounts Committees from the parliaments of the Cook Islands, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Fiji, and Samoa, who are present in the gallery.

Points of Order

Chamber. Lobbies, and Galleries—Conduct in Chamber, Noise and Exiting Chamber

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a point of order about the general order of the House, and, in particular, the question around noise and people exiting the House. I wonder if you could give us some guidance on what the Speakers’ rulings in the past have been in this area, and in what way you intend to implement them differently.

I don’t want to relitigate yesterday’s incident because I know you wouldn’t want me to do that. But I do want to indicate that it has—you’ve exercised great restraint, in terms of the way that the House operates, during your time in the Chair, but at the end of question time there has been a fairly consistent level of noise that has overwhelmed, I think, the business of the House. So if you could advise us whether there is any new ruling or any particular ruling there that we should be aware of.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I know the member was indulging in some delaying tactics, but I will just refer the member to the ruling that I gave yesterday. It still stands. I am going to look to the whips on both sides of the House to exercise a bit more control over their members as they are exiting and, in particular, that they behave themselves.

Motions

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand—50th Anniversary

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate regarding the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand.

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

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I move, That this House mark the 50th anniversary of the delivery of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand, which laid the foundations for our no-fault accident compensation scheme that transformed our personal injury system and has improved the lives of millions of New Zealanders.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Programme—Tax Cuts and Tertiary Education Fees-free Policy

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne: “Building a truly prosperous country means sharing the wealth generated by our economy”; if so, under current law how much less tax will a teacher without children on the full-time average wage pay per year from 1 April 2018 compared to now?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. As for the hypothetical question the member has asked, the answer is $1,060. The reality is, of course, as the Minister of Finance has said multiple times, no one will pay more in income tax in the future under this Government than they do today. In fact, a majority of families will be better off as a result of this Government.

Rt Hon Bill English: So can the Prime Minister confirm that under the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Act 2017, which is currently the law of the land, as supported by National, the Greens, and New Zealand First, a teacher on the average wage would, from 1 April 2018, pay $1,060 less in tax if the current law was to continue in place?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have already answered that question, but, as I continue to point out in this House, it is a hypothetical question because that law has not come into effect, and it won’t come into effect.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware of just how many families are in a category similar to a teacher on the average wage, who would pay less tax from 1 April 2018 if the current law was allowed to continue?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m glad the member raised the effect on families. As we’ve said, we will not be proceeding with fully bringing into effect the tax-cut package that he introduced, because it gives $400 million to the top 10 percent of earners when, in fact, this Government’s priorities, which are different, will see 70 percent of families with children better off—70 percent.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are 1.2 million households who do not have children under the age of 18 and, in addition to that, that there are 700,000 superannuitants who would benefit from the reduction in tax that is currently on the law book in this Parliament?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Some of the individuals that that member has just referenced were deprived of the independent earner tax credit because that Government intended to cut it; that is not this Government’s intention. Equally, we have looked at what superannuitants are experiencing in this country, particularly in the winter months, which is why we plan to introduce a winter energy payment for superannuitants.

Rt Hon Bill English: Why did her Government decide that money should be taken from a teacher on the average wage and spent on what is now widely regarded as an ineffective policy of providing the first year of tertiary education free for the overwhelming number of young people, who are going to do it anyway?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, I would say that we have taken nothing away from income tax earners, because they have not received it. What we have made a decision about is that we simply did not believe that it is fair for you and me to receive a tax cut—[Interruption] I include you, Mr Speaker, in that reference—

Mr SPEAKER: No, you don’t.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —when, instead, we can prioritise 70 percent of families in New Zealand, including the children that those teachers teach. And that, I believe, is what those teachers would want us to do, as well.

Rt Hon Bill English: Why does the member believe, then, that it is fair to remove the tax reduction payable to a worker on the average wage in order to pay for my children to get a free year of tertiary education?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That member continues to take a very narrow view. Mr English’s children—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Prime Minister to resume her seat. I’ve tried to let this run, but I do, even with my good ear, want to hear what the Prime Minister says, and I’m having trouble doing that because of the noise that has just become excessive on my left.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve continued to point out, the majority of people who are likely to access one year’s free education will go into polytech, wānanga, vocational education and training, and apprenticeships. That will lift the labour productivity in this country—something his Government never managed to budge.

Rt Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister answer the question this time, and that is: if it’s unfair for a tax cut that might benefit members of Parliament, why is it fair to remove a tax cut for a teacher on the average wage so that my children can have a much larger subsidy to attend their first year of tertiary education?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, we have removed nothing from those taxpayers. Second of all, I would wager that a number of those teachers would welcome the idea of not having been burdened with student debt by making education more accessible. Thirdly, this is a Government that believes in universally available education and lifelong learning. That is something we are proud of.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister assure the country that it’s her programme and the Government’s programme to continue with economic and social justice in this country rather than to go on stringently flogging a dead horse?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the best will in the world, you couldn’t possibly have that question coming off either the comments made by the Prime Minister in answer nor the question in a primary sense.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the first part of it could very easily have come off a number of the answers that occurred. The practice of flogging dead horses—I think, later on in questions, we do have some things that are maybe not the Prime Minister’s responsibility. I’ll let her have a go at this one.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Has the Deputy Prime Minister explained to her why he voted for the tax cut package in the July 2017 Budget and is now going to vote against it in the next few days?

Mr SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister has no responsibility for his actions in a previous Parliament.

Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you had listened to the question—

Mr SPEAKER: I did; I listened very carefully.

Rt Hon Bill English: —it was “has he explained to her”. Now, that’s up to him, of course, what he actually said, but the question was “has he explained to her”, and that’s a question that deserves an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Deputy Prime Minister’s explaining something for which he has responsibility, or for which the Prime Minister has asked him about as Prime Minister, that might be the case, but there’s been no evidence of either of those.

Rt Hon Bill English: If nothing is being taken away from superannuitants, then why is the Government proposing a winter heating payment that corresponds almost exactly to the benefit of the tax cuts those superannuitants would get?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we want them to be warm.

Economy—Performance Measurement

2. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Finance: Does he support using a wider set of measures of success for the economy; if so, why?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do. While measures such as GDP are useful indicators of activity in the economy, they do not tell us anything about the quality of that activity. That’s why this Government has committed itself to measuring our success differently, to focus on improving the overall well-being and living standards of New Zealanders.

Paul Eagle: What reports has the Minister seen of support for this approach?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Both the OECD and IMF are urging countries to change their mind-set on how they measure success. As the deputy director of research for the OECD said when he was in New Zealand last week, it is a dangerous gamble to assume equality will take care of itself. He urged Governments to walk and chew gum at the same time when it comes to fiscal management and equality, and this Government is up to that challenge.

Paul Eagle: What specific actions is the Government taking to change the measures of success in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We will be drawing on Treasury’s Living Standards Framework and on the OECD and IMF’s work to underpin our Budget decisions. We aim to fully incorporate broad measures of well-being into Budget 2019 as a measurement and evaluation tool. In this regard, I want to acknowledge the commitment in the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party to create new sustainable development indicators. This Government will be leading the world in work on making sure that Budgets improve well-being.

Child Poverty—KidsCan Funding and Better Public Services Targets

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, sir. My question is to the Minister responsible for Child Poverty: Does she consider material—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Whole title?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry?

Mr SPEAKER: Responsible for Child Poverty—

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Poverty Reduction—sorry, sir.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does she consider material deprivation as an important indicator of children in poverty; if so, will her Government use it as one of their measures to show any reduction in child poverty?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Yes, and it is my intention that material hardship be used as one of the measures we hold ourselves to. I have today, in fact, signed and delivered a letter to Mr English with these details and others for the child poverty bill, which I’m very hopeful we’ll have cross-party support for in this House.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of that, will she then sign a letter and deliver it to KidsCan to give them some assurances that the $350,000 that they have been told from senior officials will be cut from their funding will in fact be delivered, when they actually do so much for children in material hardship?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: They were not told that by officials. I’m advised that that is not what they were told. What I can say, however, is that the $350,000 they were receiving was time-limited, because the last Government said it would run out in June 2018. In fact, the last Government also cut over a million dollars from their Nit Busters programme as well. This Government, however, has not yet made a decision on KidsCan funding, because we haven’t made any of our Budget decisions yet and it is still something that Ministers are considering.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of the fact that KidsCan has provided over 168,000 children across 700 mostly low-decile schools, why can the Minister not find a measly $350,000 to give them some certainty so they can make a real difference in these children’s lives?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said—[Interruption] As I’ve said, a decision hasn’t yet been made on KidsCan funding.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask the members behind the Prime Minister to be a little quieter. They are coming through her microphone, and that means we are having trouble, and the public is having trouble, hearing her.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A decision has not yet been made on KidsCan’s funding. As I understand, officials had a conversation with KidsCan, but it was not one that had been brought to Ministers’ attention. We haven’t made any Budget decisions yet. What I will say is that that funding that was being received wasn’t for food. The last Government cut their funding for food programmes some time ago.

Hon Paula Bennett: So can the Minister confirm that Government funding for the KickStart programme is in jeopardy; and, if not, can she confirm if its funding will continue for four years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is referring to the food programme that led to KidsCan’s programme being reduced, then again, as I say, we haven’t made any of those decisions yet. That is all part of Budget 2018.

Hon Paula Bennett: With the Minister’s commitment to reducing child poverty, will she maintain the Better Public Services targets, which are tailored to reduce hardship by using a multi-agency approach?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are setting ourselves the most robust targets on child poverty that will ever have been set by any Government. I am proud of that, and I am seeking that member’s support for that to be something that is set in legislation for future Governments, as well, because unlike the last Government we are determined to reduce inequality.

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

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order—the Hon Paula Bennett, who’s standing, as opposed to the member who’s sitting and taking her call.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, sir. My question was particularly around the Better Public Services targets and if the Government would be keeping them, and the Minister didn’t actually answer that in any way.

Mr SPEAKER: And I think I’ll get the member to repeat her question without the preface, which was out of order.

Hon Paula Bennett: Certainly. Can I ask if the Minister will maintain the Better Public Services targets, which are tailored to reduce hardship by using a multi-agency approach?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That Government never set a Better Public Services target to reduce child poverty, and, in fact, that is what this Government wants to do.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. She still hasn’t answered that question—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] The member will resume her seat. The question was certainly addressed.

Schools—Immediate Teacher Supply Package and Teacher Supply

4. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does he accept that there is a major shortage of teachers going into the 2018 school year; if so, what will he do to address it?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Sadly, yes—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Sadly, yes, and it is particularly acute in some parts of the country, particularly around Auckland. Today I’ve announced an immediate teacher supply package of $9.5 million to help get teachers into classrooms or back into classrooms for the beginning of the next school year. The funding, which has been approved by Cabinet and budgeted for, will support more graduates into permanent teaching positions, support experienced teachers back into the profession, and recruit more graduates into teaching.

Jan Tinetti: What initiatives are contained within this teacher supply package?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are many elements to the package, and they all interconnect, but three key ones are expanding the Voluntary Bonding Scheme to decile 2 and 3 schools in Auckland and into areas of subject shortage, covering the cost of teacher education refresher courses for those teachers who are fully trained but do not currently hold practising certificates, and providing financial support to recruit and retain teachers with a limited authority to teach into positions where schools have been unable to recruit fully qualified teachers.

Jan Tinetti: Why is this package being put together now for 2018?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The problems in this area have been growing for some time. We do need to take a longer-term view, but I have been convinced by the information that I have received from schools, particularly in Auckland, that urgent action is required to ensure that they have enough teachers in their classrooms for the beginning of the next school year. There are three things that are converging that make this particularly challenging: there is a growing population, there are increasing numbers of teachers over the age of 60 and nearing retirement age, and there has been a steady decline in recent years in the number of teacher graduates completing their training. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that that was going to come to a crunch point at some stage, and it has.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why has he prioritised $2.8 billion in education expenditure on students, rather than dealing properly with teacher shortages by extending voluntary bonding, in more Auckland schools and other hard-to-staff geographical areas specifically, in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are several points, the first of which is that teacher graduates are students as well, and future teacher graduates will benefit from the Government’s commitment to a first year of free post-school education and training. As for the previous Government’s commitments around the Voluntary Bonding Scheme, it would have been a nice idea, if they’d actually appropriated some funding to pay for it.

Economic Programme—Superannuation Rates and Winter Energy Payment

5. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it his intention that in the year commencing 1 April 2018, each superannuitant couple will receive $681 less in New Zealand superannuation payments than they otherwise would under the law as it currently stands?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It is this Government’s intention to repeal the tax cuts that have been legislated but have not come into force, which would have led to the changes in New Zealand super payments. But I have good news for the member: the Government’s Winter Energy Payment, which is part of the Families Package, will provide a significant boost to superannuitants’ incomes, and the details of that will be announced tomorrow.

Hon Steven Joyce: Why does he believe New Zealand super payments shouldn’t be increased and, instead, make superannuitants visit Work and Income and fill out another form for an additional cash payment for just five months of the year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not a matter of what I believe in that regard. Superannuation payments are indexed to the average wage. But I have further good news for the member, because this Government’s excellent plan for lifting wages will mean that in the future, no doubt, superannuation payments will increase enormously.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does this plan of the Government’s to increase wages mean that it will, within a year, increase wages by more than is lost in the $1,060 that average wage earners are losing as a result of his plans to change the tax package currently under law?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said many times to the member, average wage earners are not losing that, because they never had it, and if that member had been really serious about it, he would’ve made it come into force while he was in Government, not on 1 April.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is it his expectation as Minister of Finance that all coalition partners, including New Zealand First, will vote for his bill tomorrow, which takes away $681 a year in superannuation payments from superannuitant couples?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All the parties in this coalition Government are committed to lifting the incomes of New Zealanders and to making sure that we actually get some fairness. This Government has different priorities than the last Government. We actually believe that we should support families, we actually believe that we should make sure that the lives of working New Zealanders improve, and that’s what our package will do.

Hon Steven Joyce: How does he tell a working New Zealander that he’s improving their lives when, on 1 April next year, they’re going to not get the $1,060 that would have improved their lives, and, instead, paternalistic finance Minister Grant Robertson is going to determine—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! The member lost that one.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is it his intention that this Winter Energy Payment that he intends to introduce tomorrow will be universal and that superannuitants who go to, for example, the Gold Coast for their winter will still be eligible to receive a Winter Energy Payment, as if they’d stayed in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s just one more sleep for the member until he gets all the details of this, but I can assure him that the rules that apply around payments to superannuitants won’t be changing, other than the fact that they will be eligible for a payment that will offset the increase of cost of living and will make sure that they can stay warm in winter—something this Government is proud of.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a fairly straightforward question, as it was actually a specific example of somebody headed off overseas during winter, and I just—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. It was a straightforward question, and it had an answer. It was probably put in condescending terms and maybe not appropriately, but it was clear: the member will know tomorrow.

Primary Sector—Ministry for Primary Industries Restructuring, Mānuka Honey Standard, and Mycoplasma Bovis

6. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes.

Hon Nathan Guy: How does he reconcile his statement in the House last week that creating separate entities from the Ministry for Primary Industries will deliver lower costs when today he has confirmed additional ongoing operating costs of $2.3 million a year?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The lower cost will be felt by all the industries that were unfairly burdened with additional costs following the chaos at the border in China, where, through the last Government’s changes, from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), hundreds of millions of dollars of export meat was held up at the border, costing that industry millions of dollars. Those costs will not be incurred when the changes occur under us.

Hon Nathan Guy: Wait and see on that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a supplementary question?

Hon Nathan Guy: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: And the member will ask the supplementary question, not run a commentary on the previous answer.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is this the least-cost option of the four options presented, and has he been rolled by officials who convinced him to put expensive stickers on doors and leave MPI as almost status quo?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No.

Kieran McAnulty: What other statements does the Minister stand by?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We stand by statements that this Government is focused on getting better value from everything that occurs across the primary sectors, not simply driving increasing production at a cost to the environment and relying on additional output without any real net benefit to our country. We will get better value from the primary sectors across the board than that previous Government did.

Hon David Bennett: When the Minister stated yesterday that the test for mānuka honey did not include leptosperin, due to its potential to dilute over time, exactly how long does it take to dilute?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: While I’d like to claim to be a scientist, I can’t give exact figures on that, other than the leptosperin and MG, or methylglyoxal, components were not sufficiently scientifically robust to ensure the customers that bought high-value mānuka honey from New Zealand could be guaranteed that they were getting what they paid for. Our move yesterday was to secure the reputation of New Zealand as a trusted trader providing the goods that we say they are.

Hon David Bennett: What evidence does the Minister have that the dilution doesn’t take place?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can refer that member to a list of science, and I’m sure he’ll ask for it through an Official Information Act request. MPI took three years of extensive scientific testing to arrive at a draft recommendation and set of criteria. They were amended, following extensive consultation with the industry. I know everyone will not agree, but this puts in place the most secure scientifically robust definition for mānuka honey—something that hasn’t been done elsewhere in the world. We’re proud of it. It will uphold our reputation—something that that previous Government didn’t have the courage to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw the last phrase that he made.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I withdraw.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell the House when the standard was first promised, how many times it was delayed, and how come he was able, within 43 days, to produce one?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The previous Government learnt of this as far back as 2013. We were warned that our international reputation was at risk, not just for honey but in every product that we sold around the world. That Government chose to sit on its hands and not make the hard call, when necessary, after the scientific work had been done. We made that decision. We’re moving on.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred to a list of MPI science. I would request that he table that in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member is now trifling with the Chair. If the member thinks that the Minister was quoting from an official document at the time he referred to it, I think he’ll think that Santa Claus and his reindeer are going to wander through here soon.

Barbara Kuriger: On what dates were each of the five new Mycoplasma bovis - infected properties confirmed?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I do not have that information before me. I am happy to provide those dates to the member if she’d like to contact me after question time.

Barbara Kuriger: Does the Minister still agree with the statement in relation to Mycoplasma bovis that “Every animal on that property should be isolated and destroyed immediately, and while this seems drastic we must do everything possible to contain this and eliminate it from New Zealand”?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes, and when Mycoplasma bovis was first identified on the property—I stand by that statement. If that had occurred, perhaps it wouldn’t have been so widespread now.

Defence—Anzac Frigate System Upgrade Cost

7. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What reports has he received on cost pressures within Defence projects?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can inform the House that, unfortunately, as soon as I took office as Minister of Defence, I received a report that the Anzac frigate system’s upgrade project was experiencing a cost blowout. Costs in the project had increased to a point that the project was facing a budget shortfall of $148 million—

Hon Members: How much?

Hon RON MARK: $148 million. This represented an increase of 30 percent on the project budget of $491 million.

Darroch Ball: What were the reasons for this cost overrun? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: And the National Party have just lost a supplementary. [Hon Ron Mark stands] No—sorry, I couldn’t even hear the supplementary.

Darroch Ball: What were the reasons for this cost overrun?

Hon RON MARK: Cost overruns primarily occurred due to project management mistakes in estimating the cost of the installation of equipment and delays resolving the issue, which made an unacceptable situation worse. The previous Government was first informed of cost pressures within the project in September 2016—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right. We said, “Go away.”

Hon RON MARK: —2016, Mr Brownlee—when additional costs were first estimated at between $65 million and $74 million. And, for a year, the previous Government did not act to resolve the issue, despite multiple opportunities to do so and costs continuing to rise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Irresponsible to pay for that.

Hon RON MARK: This, Mr Brownlee, is not the hallmark of a fiscally responsible Government, as it always claimed that it was.

Darroch Ball: When was a final, fixed, firm price received for the installation phase of the project?

Hon RON MARK: Good question. Lockheed Martin Canada provided a fixed, firm-priced contract to that Government in June 2017—some three months out from the election. And, to my absolute disbelief, they did nothing—nothing, nothing. Because the previous Government did not act on the fixed, firm price, the contract offer had to be renegotiated. This has cost the taxpayer a further $8 million and has caused a delay of seven months for the introduction of the much-needed systems for the Anzac frigates.

Darroch Ball: What has the Minister done to resolve this cost blow-out?

Hon RON MARK: As soon as I received this information, I acted. On Monday, Cabinet agreed to provide the project with the funding it requires through a cost-neutral transfer from funds allocated to defence in Budget 2017. Because of the coalition’s commitment to fiscal discipline, defence has had to accept a manageable but real trade-off in capability because National allowed the cost to blow out. As we are experiencing costs across portfolios, this is but the worst example so far of this Government opening the books and finding runaway costs and fiscal holes, and that the previous Government was clearly asleep at the helm.

Darroch Ball: What reports has he received on historical project management capacity within the Ministry of Defence?

Hon RON MARK: Despite managing projects worth billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, the Ministry of Defence was massively under-resourced up until 2014. This was despite multiple reviews signalling that greater capacity was needed. Behind a facade of capacity lay a financial risk, and the previous Government ignored it until too late to avoid the significant errors made in the management of this project.

Education, National Standards—Removal and Replacement System

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the Treasury statement that the removal of National Standards should “be delayed until the new assessment framework is ready for implementation. This is to prevent a gap in systems-level information on the overall performance of primary schools and the foundational skills of reading, writing and maths, which are critical to later success in education and training”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): No, because if the member reads just a little bit further through the Cabinet paper, she will see that I am not at all convinced national standards provide that system-level information in a way that is robust and reliable.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he immediately release the new national administration guideline so that parents can see exactly what schools are required to report under the law; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new NAGS, or national administration guidelines, were signed by me on 12 December 2017 and will be in the next Gazette.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he confirming that he has already passed into law the national administration guidelines without consulting with parents and without considering adequately Treasury’s concerns, and when will he actually listen to the parents of New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We did listen to the parents of New Zealand. It was called a general election campaign.

Jamie Strange: Does the Minister see it as a good or bad thing that Government officials will no longer have access to national standards to guide policy advice and allocation decisions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Let me be very clear: I think that that is a good thing because national standards provided bogus data. It was problematic, and the officials should not have been making decisions about how to allocate resources based on bogus data, because, for one thing, it showed that students in Wellington should get more money than students in Auckland, because the criteria being applied were different in those two cities. The data was not a reliable basis on which to be making decisions.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he think it’s listening to the parents of New Zealand when a Stuff poll shows more than 50,000 people have voted and 87 percent of them are against the Government scrapping national standards, and when will he actually listen to the parents of New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If that member is relying on Stuff polls, it may explain why she’s sitting on that side of the House and not this side of the House. We have listened to the parents of New Zealand. They have told us that they want better information on their child’s progress at school—that they agree that national standards were fundamentally flawed and provided bogus information.

Police Resourcing—Recruitment

9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Has he received any advice from officials about recruiting 1,800 additional police over the next 3 years; if so, on what dates did he receive that advice?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes; 30 October, 13 November, 19 November, 20 November, 26 November, 27 November, 3 December, 4 December, 9 December, 10 December, 11 December, 13 December, and at other times informally when there’s good news coming through.

Chris Bishop: Why did he say, “The money is there” on 31 October, in relation to the 1,800 extra police, when he admitted in the House yesterday that he doesn’t know how much the extra police will cost?

Hon STUART NASH: I admitted to no such thing.

Chris Bishop: What advice, if any, did he receive from Nanaia Mahuta that prompted him to back-track on his plan to import foreign police officers to meet his 1,800 extra police commitment?

Hon STUART NASH: I had fantastic conversations with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, but we agreed that, if entirely possible, and the commissioner agrees it is, we want to recruit a police force that represents the communities they serve—more Māori, more Pasifika, more Asian, more women. This is what our aspirational target for the police service is, and we’re going to meet it.

Greg O’Connor: What advice has the Minister received on the recruitment drive currently under way?

Hon STUART NASH: The world’s most entertaining recruitment video is truly living up to its name. I’m advised that the video has been viewed more than 6.1 million times since it was launched, and it’s reached an estimated 14.5 million people. There has been a huge increase in applications, particularly diverse applications. As of this morning—where I also received some advice—there were 648 new applications made since the video was launched, with interest from over 2,000 people who are seriously considering applying. The first ever recruitment day for women was held over the weekend, where hundreds of women attended.

Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that the extra 1,800 police officers that he has committed to will all be sworn officers?

Hon STUART NASH: We are currently working through what this 1,800 officers is going to look like, but what I can tell that member is there are going to be 1,800 men and women out there keeping our communities safe and fighting crime. And what I would also say is that if that member wants to campaign for less police, be my guest.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member means “fewer”, but carry on.

Health Services—Southern Partnership Group

10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received about the Southern Partnership Group?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I have seen a number of reports on the Southern Partnership Group (SPG), including one in New Zealand’s largest independent daily newspaper, covering my decision to appoint Pete Hodgson and Stephen Willis to the group. The article notes that Mr Hodgson’s attributes will be “well deployed dealing with the vagaries of”—

Mr SPEAKER: OK, the member will now resume his seat, and I will remind him of rulings that I’ve given previously that for primary questions when a member is asked what he has received, seeing a newspaper clipping, even in an area for which he is responsible, is not receiving an official report. He can be asked primary questions only about areas for which he has responsibility or for reports for which he has responsibility, and that is not one of them. If the member has actually received a report about the group, the member can refer to it, but it’s not going to be about a newspaper clipping.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have received advice in my material prepared for Cabinet that indicated Mr Hodgson was very well-appointed for the role.

Rino Tirikatene: Why did the Minister decide to make changes to the Southern Partnership Group?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Strong leadership and local knowledge was needed to get the Dunedin Hospital rebuild on track. Pete Hodgson is a former Minister of Health and understands the complexities of the portfolio. He was also the member of Parliament for Dunedin North for 21 years and has an excellent grasp of the local issues involved. Stephen Willis has a nursing background and is Otago University’s chief operating officer and has managed significant health-related capital projects abroad.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Has he received any briefings or advice from the Southern Partnership Group since being sworn in as Minister of Health, and prior to the appointment of Pete Hodgson as SPG chair?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How will he ensure that he receives independent advice on the Dunedin Hospital rebuild, now that he has sacked the two members of the SPG who provided that perspective and replaced them with his close personal friend and Labour Party hack Pete Hodgson?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister will resume his seat.

Rino Tirikatene: What further reports has he received about the Southern Partnership Group?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have received plenty of compliments on the appointment of Pete Hodgson as head of the Southern Partnership Group. Votes of congratulations have come from across the political spectrum, including from members of the National Party, both former and present.

Beneficiaries—Reduction in Numbers of and Supporting People Into Work

11. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Of the 276,041 people currently on working-age benefits, how many have been on a benefit for more than 20 years and how many people will she reduce it by in the next year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): As of September this year, almost 26,000 people have been on a main benefit for over 20 years. It’s clear to me that anybody reliant on a benefit for over two decades faces many barriers to employment. It is highly likely that the vast majority of these do not have work obligations due to disability, ongoing illness, or because they are caring for others. Where any of these people can work, we will support them, but we will not be setting crude arbitrary targets.

Hon Louise Upston: How will the Minister reduce the long-term benefit receipt of the 67,891 people who’ve been on a job seeker benefit for more than one year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Some of the figures we weren’t able to get going back 20 years, but I do want to share with the member that over the last 10 years, 45,000 of the 63,000 who have consistently been on benefits had a disabling illness or a disability that impacted on their ability to work. We are committed to working with all communities to get them into meaningful, paid, sustainable employment, and, as I’ve said before in the House, one of the ways in which we will do that is by investing in upskilling and training and providing people with those opportunities.

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked about the 67,000 on a job seeker benefit.

Mr SPEAKER: And I think the question was addressed. It mightn’t have been answered to the member’s satisfaction, but it was addressed.

Hon Louise Upston: In regard to those on the job seeker benefit, how will the Minister—how—reduce the long-term benefit receipt?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re committed to providing people who find themselves in periods of unemployment with opportunity to upskill and train. Recently, we have announced that we will be making the first year free for anyone that hasn’t undertaken any study. That extends beyond just university training; that also includes polytechnic, industry training, and other opportunities. We want to encourage people who find themselves out of work to take up upskilling and training, because in the long term they’re more likely to go into meaningful, better-paid employment and be able to support themselves and their families.

Hon Louise Upston: How does the Minister reconcile her answers today with the briefing to the incoming Minister, which states that the Minister’s responsibility is for reducing long-term benefit receipt and supporting people into work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Given that the social policy evaluation and research unit report that was completed under the previous Government’s watch showed that a large number of people were ending up back on benefit after two years—having found employment but then ending up back on benefit—I think that our commitment to supporting people who are unemployed to take up upskilling and training is a better strategy for ensuring that they do not end up back on a benefit or become long-term welfare dependent.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does she plan to support people on benefits into work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government will support people into genuine paid work by focusing on education, upskilling, and training those who find themselves in need of support and on a benefit. We will be focusing on people’s potential and building skills and capabilities to help them into sustainable work. We intend for people to be better off, not just off benefit.

Hon Louise Upston: What advice has the Minister received about long-term benefit receipt and children in poverty and hardship?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Children in poverty and hardship benefit from having parents who have undertaken educational training and have higher levels of educational achievement. When parents role-model that in the home, then kids are more likely to go on and achieve in those areas as well. That’s something we as a Government will be supporting.

Health Services—Primary-care Access for Māori and Pasifika

12. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has she received on Māori and Pacific adults’ access to primary health care?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I’ve seen the first release of statistics from the 2016-17 New Zealand Health Survey, which shows that the number of Māori adults who reported not visiting a GP due to cost in the previous year was estimated to be 110,000, and the number for Pacific adults was 42,000. This is not good enough. We need to do better to reduce the cost barriers that our people have, especially in terms of early preventative healthcare services and treatment so that they do not end up in emergency departments.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How do these statistics on cost barriers to visiting a GP, for Māori and Pacific adults, compare to previous years?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Sadly, these reported numbers have remained stubbornly high, relatively unchanged since 2011-12. Again, I want to emphasise that Māori adults were nearly 1.6 times more likely not to have visited their general practice in the last 12 months due to cost than non-Māori, and for Pacific adults, 1.1 times more likely not to have visited their GP due to cost.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What are the Government’s plans to reduce the cost of primary care for Māori and Pacific adults?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We are committed to reducing cost barriers for visiting general practitioners, and we’re planning to reduce the cost, say, of visiting a GP by $10 for New Zealanders. This will go through the normal Budget process, and we expect that Māori and Pacific will be able to access cheaper GP visits next year. This Government is committed to ensuring that more New Zealanders can access primary care.

Urgent Debates Declined

Education, National Standards—Removal

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Nikki Kaye, seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s announcement yesterday that it had stopped national standards in education. The announcement is a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility.

The Minister of Education announced the end of national standards at 11.38 a.m. yesterday. An application for an urgent debate does not have to be lodged on the first sitting of the House after the event occurs, but not doing so will considerably weaken the case for an urgent debate—Speaker’s ruling 195/4. Previous Speakers have ruled that if a member does not raise a matter at the earliest opportunity, it may be taken as an indication that the matter is not of sufficient importance to qualify for an urgent debate—Speakers’ ruling 195/5.

The House has, generally, required applications for an urgent debate to be lodged as soon as the matter becomes known. Speakers have even accepted applications lodged within an hour of the House sitting where an event has only just become known, notwithstanding Standing Order 389(1). In my view, there was sufficient time for the member to raise the matter yesterday, before 1 p.m. While I do not know when she became aware of it, the announcement was made more than two hours before the House sat. This is a factor that I must consider when considering whether the issue is urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House.

In weighing the factors, I conclude that this matter does not warrant precedence over the other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined. If the matter is one of importance to the member, it could be debated during the general debate this afternoon.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I thought today it might be useful to reflect on the words of our new Prime Minister. Our new Prime Minister, three days before the election, uttered the prophetic phrase: “When you’re leading the charge, intention is reality.” That’s what she told New Zealand—when you’re leading the charge, it’s all about the intention. The intention is reality. And, as this Government is now fast working out, the intention is not reality at all. You actually have to do some work, and if the deeds don’t match the words, then intention is simply not sufficient.

We have some examples of that. We have the first example of this Government’s admirable intention to lift people’s wages. They think that people should earn more. There is probably no one in this House that doesn’t think that people should earn more, and that’s great. So what’s their first action to meet this intention? It’s to actually remove $1,060 from people who work and earn the median wage on 1 April next year. Money that was coming to them is—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the member to resume his seat. The Hon Nikki Kaye, Julie Anne Genter, Nathan Guy, and a couple of members on my right have been talking as they’ve been wandering around. I was specifically asked at the beginning of question time today to try and tidy this up. I expected the whips to help me. They’re not, but I would ask that they do. Now, Steven Joyce, resume your call.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So we have this situation where a Government that says it wants to lift wages—the first thing it does, effectively, is reduce the spending power of New Zealanders from 1 April next year.

And how long will it take for them to earn that $1,060 back? Well, under this Government, quite a long time. But that’s OK, because they might be using it for some great initiative—some great initiative that is going to expand the skill base of New Zealand. That’s another of their intentions—to expand the skill base of this country.

So they have dedicated $2.8 billion to tertiary students to expand the skill base in this country. The only thing is they’re not actually going to lift the number of students in tertiary education. This $2.8 billion is not going to add at all to the number of students studying this year, next year—it’s just not going to happen. So they’ve just thrown $2.8 billion against the wall, which happens to be, incidentally, more than the $2.4 billion they’re saving by cancelling the tax package that would have given that income to New Zealanders.

They also claim to support older New Zealanders, and they want to encourage older New Zealanders. Well, then, why are they removing the increase in super that came with that tax package? They’re doing it tomorrow, and New Zealand First is enabling it. That party apparently cares so much about superannuation and veterans that it is actually going to remove the additional superannuation payment that’s going to happen on 1 April next year.

So the deeds don’t match the words. But that’s all right—that’s only one example. There are other examples. We have, of course, the example that they were going to be very fiscally responsible and that all their Budget plans and their big spending promises were fully funded and fully costed. That’s what we were hearing about it, except now they are so tight that they can’t even afford to give $350,000 to KidsCan to keep an admirable programme going, because they have so tightly spent the money that they have absolutely no capacity to spend any more.

And they’re fighting over a whole range of things. The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) is being reformed—MPI is being reformed. It’s costing $17 million to indulge New Zealand First’s snitch on MPI—$17 million—and the Government that cares about lifting the quality and value of primary sector exports is taking this money from the research and development programme to lift the value and quality of primary sector exports. The $17 million to enhance paper-shuffling in Wellington—enhance paper-shuffling in Wellington—is taken from the R & D plan for the primary sector, and that is another example where their intentions are simply not meeting the realities.

It’s doesn’t stop there. There’s the billion trees that are only half a billion trees. There’s the immigration cull that Winston Peters was on about but is now very quiet about. It is also the houses that were going to be built, and now we don’t know. And then there’s the 1,800 police, and God knows when they’re turning up. This is a Government that’s fast learning that intentions have to be matched—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Listening to that contribution from Steven Joyce, I was reminded of a child’s nursery rhyme, because Humpty Dumpty has indeed had a great fall. He dug an $11 billion hole and threw his credibility into it, and everybody is still waiting for him to recover from that.

It is very clear that the former Government are having a great deal of difficulty getting their story straight as to what they think about the current Government. They want the current Government to be more transparent, and then they complain we’re being too open and honest about what it is that we are doing. Then they say we’re moving far too fast—far too fast—and then they say we’re not moving fast enough; we’re going too slow. Then they say we’re not doing anything—we’re not doing anything—and then they say we’re doing far too much. Then they try and say everything’s great—everything’s great—and then they say, “Oh my goodness, things are getting worse, things are terrible, things are terrible.”

They are struggling with Opposition, there is no doubt about that—as evidenced this morning by the fact that more than half the members of the National Party were too lazy to put a bill in the ballot for members’ day this morning. So passionate are they about the causes they came to Parliament to advocate that half of them couldn’t even put pen to paper and come up with a bill that they wanted to promote through this House. They are so lazy they could not come up with anything. So busy have they been trying to pull the rug out from under the current Government that they are failing to do their own job as the Opposition.

So let’s look at the success that’s happening on this side of the House, by contrast, because we had a 100-day plan. Let’s run through a few of the items in that 100-day plan: first of all, make tertiary education fees free from 1 January—done; increase student living costs by $50 a week from 1 January—done; pass the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, requiring all rentals to be warm and dry—done; establish the tax working group—done; establish the Pike River Recovery Agency, with a responsible Minister—done; introduce waka jumping legislation—done; and increase paid parental leave—done.

And there are many, many more that we are making progress on. Tomorrow we will introduce a Families Package into this House that will make New Zealand families genuinely better off and lift children out of poverty, and that is something that you’ll be hearing a lot more on from this side of the House tomorrow. We have already made significant progress to something the previous Government said could never be done, and that is banning overseas speculators from buying up New Zealand houses. It’s already practically delivered; we’ve got one final step to make that a reality. We’ve also made steps already to stop the sell-off of State houses—enough is enough. This Government is going to deliver on that. We’re going to stop the sell-off. What’s more, we’re going to build more, because when you’ve got a housing crisis you build more houses, and that is what this Government is going to deliver on.

We will have an inquiry into the shambolic state of New Zealand’s mental health services. Mental health is in crisis in New Zealand, and this Government is committed to addressing that. We will resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This is a Government that is going to make good on its promise to ensure that superannuation is available for the future generations of New Zealand—something that that previous Government failed to do. They kept kicking the can down the road and they failed to take precautions, to make the savings required to ensure that New Zealanders’ superannuation in retirement was secured.

We will introduce legislation to set a target for the reduction and elimination of child poverty in this country. That is something that this Government takes very seriously, and we are going to deliver on that. We will increase the minimum wage so that those New Zealanders who are on the lowest incomes struggling to get ahead can actually get ahead. That is going to be delivered by this Government. This is a Government that has made enormous progress after only seven weeks in office, and there is much, much more to come.

We’ve made a lot of progress outside of the 100-day plan. In education we have delivered on our commitment to scrap national standards. We have delivered on our commitment to start addressing the teacher supply crisis that we inherited from the last Government, and there is a lot more to come. This is a Government getting on with the job of delivering for New Zealand.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It was very interesting to hear the honourable member Shane Jones yelling out “Crisis! Crisis!” and that, indeed, was the tenor of the speech that we heard from the other side. This in a country that has been doing so well over these past nine years—a strong country with a strong economy that is well prepared to deliver the living standards that all New Zealanders have wanted. I look back with satisfaction on the efforts that we made over the nine years in Government, and, yes, we go away in Opposition to contemplate and think about the things that we can do better next time we get into Government, the next time the people of New Zealand give us that opportunity. But in the meantime we’ll be working very hard to hold this Government to account.

This week, after weeks of working through the previous Government’s legislation and scratching the order book very hard in order to find some things to do, finally the Government is bringing in some legislation of its own later this week to take away the $1,060 that 1.2 million households in New Zealand were looking forward to after eight years where the thresholds haven’t changed, and finally getting some tax back. That’s been taken away. It’s going to cost about $2.4 billion—about the same amount they’re going to spend on making it free for university students and tertiary students to go and have their first year free at university. People will be scratching their heads at the argument—the logic—used, because we’re being told that we shouldn’t be having tax cuts for wealthy people such as members of Parliament, but, by the same token, we’ll pay even more money for the children of those wealthy people to go to university and to go on and earn higher incomes throughout the rest of their careers, because that is the absolute priority.

There’s no question that student life can be tough, and it’s always tough financially as a student, and few would disagree that rising accommodation costs have made it tougher in these past few years. I’ve spent a lot of time speaking to student reps and students, and know the pressures that they’ve been under. That’s why the previous Government in the Budget this year lifted the accommodation benefit for students in order to make it easier for students to get by in the accommodation sense, and if I’d been returned to Government I would have argued for further investment over the next few years as surpluses have allowed.

But when we go about our spending in Government, we used to focus on targeted, well-thought-through spending on important issues, and on making sure that we were getting the most bang for our bucks. What we’ve seen from this Government has been the spray all over the place approach to public policy, so that you have $2.8 billion invested in tertiary education. And what are we getting for that? How many more students are we getting going to university as a result of it? What are we actually buying for the $2.8 billion over the next four years?

Well, we’ve got the Cabinet paper that gives us an answer: virtually no new students at all. In fact, we’ll hold steady. They’ve talked about the decline in students. Yes, there has been a very slight decline in tertiary students for the past three years, for two simple reasons. One is that there is a demographic drop. The parents of the country weren’t active enough 20 years ago, so that’s an issue. Secondly, there’s been a jobs boom in this country and so everybody has been finding it easier to get work. They’ve been hounded to get into work because there are so many jobs and that’s why there have been slightly fewer people in polytechnics and the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand area.

But as a result, we look at what’s going on in the Cabinet paper for the $2.8 billion investment. What are we getting? Virtually no new students. So you’re spending $2.8 billion on what you’re already getting—students going to tertiary education—because they’ve been doing it, and they’ve been prepared to make a contribution of their own because they know that the outcome is a good one for them personally, and that they’re going on to earn a higher income. So instead of targeting and focusing on getting those who had genuine barriers to getting into education, putting resources into getting them over the line, they’re spreading it everywhere, and that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

What about the things you could have done with the $2.8 billion? Well, there’s a whole lot of things, but, in the tertiary space on its own, what about investing in the quality of the institutions to ensure that New Zealand’s tertiary education remains world class? You need to continue to invest in that every day. There’s no new money—I’d be interested to see; maybe the new Government has found the money tree and they will find an extra billion dollars to do that. But I don’t see anything in the $2.8 billion investment in tertiary education that raises the quality of that education or enables the New Zealand university sector and the tertiary sector to continue to improve in order to create a world-class education that will genuinely make this country more productive.

So it’s a real missed opportunity and a perfect example of bad policy, and I hope over the summer that they go away and reflect and come back—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I just want to start by referring to the comments of that member, Paul Goldsmith, on this Government’s tertiary package, saying that it was a missed opportunity, saying that we shouldn’t be spreading money everywhere, and, instead, we should be targeting it. I just remind that side of the House that, actually, it was that Opposition that wanted to give broad-brush tax cuts to everyone in New Zealand, and I can’t see how that is targeted in any way. I just also want to remind that side of the House, because we’ve had this come up so many times in the past, that there are a number of members on that side of the House who had the luxury of getting free tertiary education. And it was good enough for them. And now here we are trying to introduce one year fees free, and all of a sudden it’s the worst decision in the world. All of a sudden they’re saying things like “These students should be prepared to make that contribution, because it’s an investment in their own future.” Well, actually, it’s an investment in the future of this country, so any good Government should be prepared to make that investment, and this good Government is prepared to make that investment.

I have been asked on a number of occasions over the past few weeks what it feels like after nine years to be in Government. I have to say it feels pretty good. It feels pretty good, because after nine years we have the ability to access information and advice. We don’t have to wait five weeks for an Official Information Act request to come through. We don’t have to submit hundreds of written questions and wait for the responses to come back. That advice is there. It feels amazing, because all of a sudden, after nine years of watching this country turn into something that we can’t even recognise, now we’re in the position where we can actually make decisions, turn back some of the bad decisions that have been made over the last nine years, and actually give some hope to New Zealanders who had given up hope that things could be any better, who had started to believe that homelessness was actually part of our everyday reality, who had started to believe that inequality would grow and that’s just how it was, who had started to believe that, actually, every day you do just need to struggle, and that’s how it is. Actually, it feels pretty good to be in the position where you can give people hope and make them believe and make them see that, actually, New Zealand can be better, and we’re a Government committed to making that happen.

My previous ministerial colleague, Minister Hipkins, talked about some of the things that have already been achieved under this Government, and the things that we’re committed to making happen in the first 100 days. How could we be ashamed of that? We’ve got a Families Package that ensures that thousands of families are going to be better off. We’ve got a tertiary package that is going to break down barriers to people accessing education. We’ve got housing strategies that are going to ensure that we can actually address the issues of homelessness and address the issue of affordable housing so that the reality of homeownership can be known to New Zealanders. And there are other things that are going on behind the scenes. Our focus is, of course, the 100-day package, but as Minister for Social Development and Minister for Disability Issues it is great to be able to work behind the scenes, being proactive about what the next three years will look like—as I said, looking at some of the things that we can unravel, but being proactive about what our future will look like as a country.

Over the past few weeks I have been hit up with a number of questions that are about employment, unemployment, sanctions, and what we plan to do. I just want to say it is so disappointing that the Opposition is so narrow-minded when it comes to beneficiaries, still wanting to put the boot in, still wanting to stigmatise New Zealanders who find themselves out of work. Yet under them, when they left office, 72,000 young people were still not in education or employment. Under them we still had unacceptably high rates of unemployment for Māori, for Pacific, and for disabled people. And that Government had no plan for those people—no plan for New Zealanders who found themselves out of work. The only plan they had was to reduce benefit numbers and to push people into whatever work they could push them into, no matter how meaningful, sustainable, or well paid that employment was.

Well, we’ve got a better plan for New Zealanders, actually. We believe that New Zealanders who find themselves out of work have the potential to go into better paid employment, more meaningful employment, and we want to support them to upskill and train so that they can do that. That side of the House doesn’t seem to take that strategy seriously, but in terms of the future of New Zealand it is important that we do take that seriously and that we genuinely invest in New Zealanders.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to actually put a few things on the record and to query a number of the things that the Government has stated. One of the things that concerns me is all of this talk, from the Prime Minister downwards, about a child poverty target, and, actually, no connection whatsoever to the fact that children in benefit-dependent homes are the children that suffer the hardest hardship. And yet, on no occasion has that side been willing to talk about how they are going to implement and—

Hon Peeni Henare: Nine years. Nine long years.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —deliver lower child poverty. So nine years—what did nine years bring? I’m so pleased that they are interested. Here is some of the information that I think makes an enormous difference to children living in hardship. The number of kids in material hardship has fallen by nearly 40 percent, to 135,000. That is a significant number, and the tax cut package that this Government is going to get rid of tomorrow would help 50,000 children—50,000 children. So I absolutely refute any comments from that side of the House that suggest the former National Government or the current Opposition don’t care about people.

Because I’ll tell the House this for free: the reality is opportunities for people come from work. Actually, this side of the House doesn’t think that work comes with a bad name. Whether you’re a tow truck driver, whether you’re a builder, whether you’re someone who’s starting your first job, or whether you’re one of the 1.2 million New Zealanders who will miss out—who will miss out—on $1,060 that they would have got from 1 April next year—don’t talk to this House about who cares and who doesn’t; 1.2 million New Zealanders miss out as a result of what that side is going to start doing tomorrow.

It’s a really interesting conversation, because another group that can be quite vulnerable in this community are those that are our older citizens. Unfortunately, that side of the House think they can spend their money better than they can. So by making changes and taking away a tax cut for those on the pension, not only will those on the pension lose over time, because it won’t be connected to the average wage—and that side of the House talks about increasing wages. We’ve got no idea how they plan to do it, but talk is cheap, so they keep talking about it. But it is the usual story. When that side come in, they think they can spend what you earn better than taxpayers can, which I think is the absolute height of arrogance.

I want to come back to what I started on in terms of child poverty, because in terms of teen parents, there are 57 percent fewer teen parents than in 2009. Something that the Government doesn’t seem to understand is that opportunities come for individuals through work. If you want to get an apprenticeship, guess what? A young person needs to have a job if they are to get an apprenticeship. So for all of the comments about—and, I must admit, it was fascinating to hear Minister Sepuloni talk about written questions, because there are very few answers coming back from them so far. But whether it is on-the-job training, whether it is the opportunity of a promotion, or whether it’s the opportunity for higher wages, those are the things that come when someone is employed.

So, absolutely, this side of the House cares about individuals—real people with real needs. That’s why we’ve used social investment to tackle things in a very different way to change people’s lives—change people’s lives. This side of the House actually focused on understanding more about real people with real needs—real people with real needs—and how to solve some of those challenges. Some of it was around employment, some of it was around mental health, some of it was around lack of educational opportunities, and this side of the House actually tackled those very hard issues.

I look forward to seeing the plan. I’m waiting for the plan, in terms of what the Minister for Social Development is going to do to support the Prime Minister’s ambitious target around child poverty, because the first thing that came on to the table was work for the dole, and they quickly swept it off.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s appropriate that you’re in the seat, actually, Mr Speaker, because I want to highlight a petition that was received in 2010. It was organised by NZEI Te Riu Roa, 38,000 Kiwis signed it, and I believe that you and the former member Catherine Delahunty received it. At the same time, we had 225 boards of trustees members. We had teachers, we had the New Zealand Principals’ Federation, and we had the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) who said that national standards were fundamentally flawed, they were confusing, and they were unworkable. They had no confidence in them. They were untried, untested, and they labelled children as failures, and what I really want to highlight is that the workload for teachers was going to be awful. So from 2010 to today—can I say that national standards are gone by Christmas.

I want to acknowledge Minister Chris Hipkins, because we listened. We listened to the sector. We listened to boards of trustees that had parents on them. So finally—finally—New Zealand has a Government that’s whakarongo mai. We are listening to the parents, to our stakeholders that are critical to an effective organisation of our education system.

I also want to highlight a comment by Melanie Webber from the PPTA—she’s the vice president. In May 2017 she said this: “It is a crisis if you’re a kid in school and you don’t have a teacher … [trained] in a speciality in front of you … no-one’s paying attention”. Well, guess what? We are paying attention, because the initiatives that were outlined today by our Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, are going to address the teacher supply package. Under the previous Government, according to their Minister Hekia Parata, in August 2016—at that point in time—there were 4,000 teacher vacancies. Four thousand—and what did she say? She said that that’s not a crisis; no, it’s just a shortage. It’s pretty much like the housing situation in every other aspect.

But what I want to highlight is what the former Government knew between 2005 and 2015 in respect of teachers aged between 60 and 79. In 2005 there were 3,608 of them, and in 2015 there were 8,434. So we had a 134 percent increase in teachers aged between 60 and 79. That Government knew that—did nothing about it. At the same time, between 2010 and 2015: in 2010 we had 17,000 young people training to be teachers, and in 2015 we had 11,000. We had a 6,000 reduction. That, actually, was a Government responsibility—to address the looming crisis.

I have to commend a couple of people in my electorate. The first is Karen McMurray, who is the principal of Randwick Park School and who, in August last year, organised, as the president of Manurewa Principals Association, for us to get together. They had vacancies then. All of the schools in my electorate had vacancies. Well, today, 65 percent of schools in Auckland have vacancies—40 percent across the country—and that Government, the previous Government, did nothing, as I’ve outlined, to address the crisis. Why? Because they wouldn’t admit that a crisis existed. And we’ve seen it in other sectors: 70,000 houses short, people living on the streets and in cars, and these are children who we want to have a great education.

So I want to talk about the initiatives that were outlined today, because what we have done in the voluntary bonding scheme is to now increase it to include decile 2 and 3 schools. That is specific and it’s targeted, because we know that there are some schools, like in South Auckland, that find it incredibly hard to find teachers. We are also focusing on teachers in science, technology, maths, and Te Reo Māori. Why? Because they’re the speciality areas where we lack the capacity, as Melanie Webber said, to make sure that our kids actually have a teacher, but not just a teacher; they have to be good teachers, and they have to be teachers who know their subject of speciality. So this Government, after 43 days, I am proud to say, is getting on with the business, and we are ensuring that the crisis is addressed.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I didn’t have the opportunity to speak in the Address in Reply debate, so I’d like to take this opportunity to start by thanking the fine folk of Hamilton West for doing me the great honour of re-electing me to represent them. Sir, I know it’s an electorate that you know well. I’m very proud to be now in a position where I have matched my good friend Martin Gallagher’s record of being elected four times to represent the seat, and, in fact, if I may say so, I am the first one to have been elected in four consecutive elections. So I am proud, and I want to advocate as strongly as I can for my constituents, albeit from the new position that I’m in, in Opposition.

Could I also congratulate the new Government, welcome all the new MPs, and congratulate them on their election. It is an exciting time to have been elected, and I’ve been very impressed by the maiden speeches that I’ve heard from across the House. I know that they’ve come here with the best of intentions, and I wish them well.

But if the members of the new Government—I’m sure that they are already quite concerned by the shambolic start that their ministerial colleagues have shown, because it seems that this is a Government full of grand vision and intentions but no fiscal plan. Very quickly they are going to squander the gains that we have worked so hard—through the most difficult positions that any Government ever faced—to get us into.

We came into office nine years ago, already in a domestic recession. The global financial crisis hit, and then we had the earthquakes. We had the Rena disaster. We had Pike River. We had all sorts of problems, yet we came through, and at the end of that time, in all the leading OECD indicators, we in New Zealand were seen as having done remarkably well and to have set a model for other countries to follow. Yet now, in this short space of time, we have a Government that is throwing it all away on some very extravagant and uncosted policies, and I really fear for the country. I hope I am wrong.

There have been a number of people who have said that National MPs don’t seem to be able to accept the election result. They’re quite wrong—we do. This is a legitimate outcome of an MMP election, and I was so proud of the gracious way in which the Rt Hon Bill English acknowledged that on the night that Winston Peters chose the Government. But therein lies the problem. My electors say to me, “Surely a basic tenet of democracy is that the voters should choose the Government—not Winston Peters.” Until you have a system whereby the voters can choose the Government, not one man leading a minor party, you do have a problem.

We will be a strong and constructive Opposition in the best interests of all New Zealanders. In my electorate I’m calling on the new Government to commit to some really important projects that will make such a big difference for our growing region going forward. One of the most important is to recommit to the Housing Infrastructure Fund, which is going to make an enormous difference in Hamilton, which has long needed greater balance in its growth. As the person who represents the southern and western suburbs on my side of the river, seeing the Peacocke Development going ahead after years on the drawing board—which will be enabled by the Housing Infrastructure Fund—is incredibly important, and I really, really urge the new Government to commit to it.

I also urge them to pick up the commitment that our party made, going into the election campaign, to extend the Waikato Expressway to the base of the Kaimais and also down to Tīrau. State Highway 1 is so incredibly important for the movement of freight, for safe commuting, and for a whole raft of reasons that it is absolutely vital that the new Government should make that commitment, and I’ve been really concerned that the new transport Minister has failed to commit to that and many other roading projects in recent weeks.

I make a strong plea for the Government to commit to the Southern Links project, which is so important, particularly between Taranaki, the King Country, and the Waikato. and I really hope that they will do that.

Can I also urge them to commit to the Waikato Medical School proposal. We have a critical shortage of doctors in rural areas—the hard-to-staff centres. The Waikato Medical School proposal is based on a well-proven model that is going so well overseas, and I strongly urge the new Government to commit to it.

Today, a number of members opposite have celebrated the demise of national standards. Well, let me just finish by pointing out why they came into existence. Parents were not receiving helpful reports in sufficient time to enable them to take remedial action when their children were falling behind in literacy and numeracy. Those are the foundation blocks for a good education, and to get rid of national standards without having anything in place is utterly irresponsible.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, my crikey! Isn’t it interesting to hear members of Parliament coming back to the House and making their first speeches. How would I describe that speech by Tim Macindoe? “Cry Me a River” is how I would describe that speech—“Cry Me a River”.

The speech opened up with “How great I am. I’ve done this, done that, done everything.” It was all about himself—how wonderful. And then it moved on, into that zone of grief—you know: “Unfair, not fair, we got more than you, it’s not fair.”

Well, actually, I’ve got a message for Mr Macindoe, as he makes his way, right? Be good in Government—be good in Government. Be competent. Don’t be the disaster that, unfortunately, we are now finding that last Government to have been. What am I speaking of? I am speaking of the revelations, the grenade, that landed on my desk when I became the Minister of Defence.

Brett Hudson: Your medals. You discovered you were wearing your medals incorrectly. That’s right.

Hon RON MARK: Well, that member can’t talk. He hasn’t got any medals, has he? So let’s talk about 148 million medals, 148 million of them, a blow out on a project that that National Government had responsibility—[Interruption] Well, actually, this is how jolly lazy they were. They didn’t even start this project. It was a Labour - New Zealand First Government that signed off on the business case for this project. What for? To upgrade one of our three top-tier assets in defence—our strategic assets: special forces, P3 Orions, Anzac frigates.

These frigates—and those members have gone silent now because they know—had fallen behind. The systems on board were outdated. We knew that in 2008—in 2008. So we signed off. And then this Government takes the helm—or not, it would appear. And then it has the responsibility and the privilege of seeing our men and women in the navy equipped with the finest equipment necessary (a) to protect themselves, (b) to protect other people, and (c) to be able to operate in a high-tech environment where the risks these days are massive.

But where are we, nine long years later? Well, the vessels still haven’t been upgraded. But worse, the project that would have seen that process start was stalled. Why? This Government knew, back in 2015, in 2016, and a few months prior to the election that they had a problem. What was the problem? Well, actually, the same problem that’s plagued defence and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for years, and which, unfortunately, I’ve been banging on about for 16-odd years in Parliament—poor project management.

But who was the Government that took over and was going to fix all that? National. What did they do? Nothing. In 2014 they finally started to accept recommendations that had been in reports time and time again, saying that the MOD is understaffed, under-resourced, and doesn’t have the capacity to manage these multibillion-dollar projects. But oh no, no, no. They sat there and did nothing.

Mr Brownlee wanted to stand up in the House today, in question time, or yell across the House, and justify his inaction. He says, “Oh, we rolled over too soon. We could have delayed. We could have held out longer.” What? Mr Brownlee bought all of the systems that are sitting on shelves in warehouses right now, with the warranty clock ticking down to zero. Is he seriously suggesting—that’s the mark, isn’t it? It’s becoming the hallmark of this “John Cleese” Government isn’t it, really? Just total incompetence and buffoonery.

So what? Is he suggesting that we go into another tender process, another due diligence process, and take as long as they did—another nine years—while all of these systems sit on the shelves? The warranties expire, and they become out of date again. Well, that sounds just like the National Party.

You know, it is one thing to come into Government with hope and desire to serve the New Zealand public and the citizens of this country as best as you can in the areas of defence and foreign policy. But, by crikey, I’ve got to say it doesn’t help us when all we are finding all over the place is fiscal holes and promises made without the money budgeted and decisions that haven’t been made, and the consequence of that is that now we are behind. So what? Do we sail these frigates into these areas where they are of questionable value, where there are questionable risks? That’s clearly a decision that the National Government of the past decided to go with.

If I was sitting on those benches, I’d feel ashamed. I’d feel ashamed of their inaction, ashamed that they didn’t take the advice in front of them, and ashamed that they didn’t do what we have just done—signed off, allocated the money, signed the contract, and got the project under way.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): I’m still a new MP but, from watching the last Government, I was under the impression that you need focused action to get results around here—the kind that would take you out of a global financial crisis at an internationally acclaimed rate. Ten thousand jobs a month for the last 18 months—a promise? No, actually, more than a promise; it was a policy. Actually, it was a plan; an active, live plan, live right now, to give back $1,000 to workers on 1 April. That particular plan is live, and it’s for the average wage worker—a figure to the tune of $60,000 that, perhaps, Mr Willie Jackson should take note of. There’s nothing more fundamental than a Government that can set and communicate their plan. Another way of saying that is, certainty. We need certainty in this country for our residents, for schools, for families—they require that.

Now, there are some things that we do know in this first term here, so far—just the few weeks that we’ve been sitting here in the House. One is that we’ve debated legislation and it’s been National’s legislation—largely procedural, but National’s legislation none the less.

But what is it that we do not know? Back to the topic of certainty—what is it that we do not know? How the Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund will play out. Is it a billion trees or half a billion trees? We do not know where the health sector is going. Why is it that in your 100-day list, there are only two things that relate to health: an inquiry and medicinal cannabis? What about the rest of it? What about police funding? Where’s that coming from?

And details in transport—let’s spend a little bit of time on that. We don’t know the details of transport projects all over this country. In question time, one by one my colleagues have stood up and referred to projects that they do not know about in the Waikato, in Hawke’s Bay, in Southland. And in my own area, the East-West transport link—a very, very big project. I’m not sure the Minister understands the problem that that is trying to solve.

The Onehunga industrial area—the Penrose industrial area included—is the largest industrial area in this country, and, every day, trucks to the tune of 8,000 go along both the Church Street and Neilson Street thoroughfares. The plan is to take trucks off suburban roads and alleviate congestion, thereby helping out, intrinsically, our economy in this country.

We don’t know what’s going to replace that. Where is the certainty? Is it the $750 million version that was announced by a couple of candidates during Labour’s campaign, for which I cannot find any written record today? We’ve had three years of planning on that—construction time and boards of inquiry to the tune of $50 million. Well, now it appears we’re going back to a $50 million drawing board. We’re forcing business owners to, once again, face uncertainty.

How about education? Reports are coming out tomorrow, Friday. I was once a school board chair. I know very well this time of the year. What is it that we will be faced with? What is it that we will understand is replacing national standards? One of the members across the way said that national standards will be gone by Christmas. How about we know by Christmas what’s going to replace national standards? We need certainty in this area.

We need certainty in building projects. Are we going to oppose building projects just on an ideological position of opposing public-private partnerships? And how’s this for certainty—or, should I say, irony? The Minister of Education said in relation to national standards, “if you force rushed change on to the education sector with little … consultation, you get an inferior product and students will bear the brunt”. Did he not see how fast they ran through their major tertiary policy without consulting the sector?

It seems one thing is certain here in an uncertain world, and that is our party polling numbers are going up. We have, and still have, public support. We provided certainty before, and we will do it again. The public have confidence in us, even in Opposition.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I’d like the members to picture a bustling, urban New Zealand school. A teacher stands at the front of the class of seven-year-old children. All of a sudden, a hot air balloon lands on the school field outside the window. The students rush to have a look. However, the teacher, burdened and exhausted by a regime of constant testing, re-testing, and assessment, calls the children back to the mat and continues teaching to a prescribed, standardised test.

During the past nine years, primary school teachers have felt more like administrators than teachers. There was no opportunity to embrace teaching moments, and this was primarily caused by two things: number one, national standards; and, number two, a lack of trust in our teaching professionals.

However, a new day has dawned. Grey skies have parted, allowing the sun to once again shine on our education system. This week, the Government ended the failed experiment that was national standards. Every parent, grandparent, teacher, and child will have an extra Christmas present under their tree this year. There will be a small box, and inside that box will be a note, and that note will say, “We will once again put children at the heart of our education system.”

Our teachers are once again being valued and trusted and respected as the teaching professionals that they are. We have a world-class curriculum. Now teachers will be empowered to get on with teaching the full breadth of it.

What do parents want? We’ve heard from the other side of the House that parents want national standards—that parents have always wanted it. Let’s have a look at that. What do parents want? The parents I speak to—and I spent six years as a teacher—told me they wanted a diverse, engaging education system—a diverse, engaging education system—and national standards does not deliver this. In fact, it does the opposite. It narrows the curriculum.

How do we know that parents want this kind of education system? We know this because in 2012 the National Government talked about removing specialist subjects from intermediate schools, and en masse—am I right, Mr Hipkins?—the parents rose up and said, “We do not want to lose the specialist subjects from intermediate schools.” So we know that parents want a diverse education system, and that’s what we will deliver.

I believe that national standards had a number of issues. And it’s incredibly exciting to say the word “had”—to talk about national standards in the past tense. Number one, as I said before, it narrowed the curriculum. It placed extra emphasis on literacy and numeracy, to the detriment of other subjects. The last Government were all about literacy, numeracy, and narrowing our world-class curriculum—areas like the arts, which promote creativity, teamwork, discipline, and problem solving, were cast aside. Our schooling system must instil a belief in what young people can achieve, then give them the tools to be all they can be.

National standards promoted dishonesty from teachers and principals. I personally know of teachers who fudged the data in order to make it look like they were doing a good job. And this was done out of pressure to show that they are moving their students. A principal once told me that she fudged her school’s national standards reports. After feeling somewhat guilty, she confessed at a meeting of other principals what she’d done. And, to her surprise, the majority of the other principals said, “We do the same thing.” So national standards—it wasn’t standard and it wasn’t national, as we’ve heard a lot of times.

People become teachers because of a passion for wanting to inspire and shape the next generation. When they’re forced to teach only a small percentage of our world-class curriculum, it’s no wonder they feel discouraged and disillusioned. National standards are not holistic. With testing being done only on literacy and numeracy, they’re ignoring the whole person—for example, they did not take into account any lack of family support, whether a student’s stomach was full, whether they’re sleeping well. Instead, it was a very specific assessment of their literacy and numeracy skills. Then on their school report they were crudely labelled as either a failure or a success. Ninety percent of an iceberg is under the water. National standards was looking at that little shiny bit on top and judging the iceberg just by that.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that has scrapped national standards. My teaching colleagues for years and years have been telling me, “Please get rid of them.”, and finally we’ve done it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I certainly won’t be going into the territory the last speaker, Jamie Strange, went into. That’s well beyond me.

The last three months have been very interesting for a backbench MP from the heart of rural New Zealand as the consortium of three have taken over the Government benches—and I congratulate them on that. I’m very pleased with the two portfolios I’ve been allocated. One relates to seniors, which, I guess, is appropriate for me. The other is veterans, which could be said to be appropriate to me too, but it’s not, in fact.

In fact, I was very interested in listening to the speech of the Minister of Defence as he pinned his medals to the mast, so to speak, or, in my case, “pinned his medals to the aircraft wings”. In fact, I live very close to Ōhākea, and I also have, in the Rangitīkei electorate, the Ōhākea, Linton army, and the Waiōuru bases—and Irirangi, of course, which most people don’t know, but it is a navy base smack in the middle of the Rangitīkei, which is a bit amazing to imagine. But defence is very clearly close to the heart of all those in the Rangitīkei.

It will be interesting to see how the legislative programme to be announced by the Government in the next few days does impact on, I guess, senior citizens in New Zealand—those holders of the gold card—and certainly how it will impact on veterans as well. I guess the other challenge for that sector of our community will come tonight in the early debate on the euthanasia bill, and that clearly has a different impact on older people, in my view, than it does on, perhaps, where it could get to with respect to other parts of our community.

I want to speak a little bit about the concerns that the people in the Rangitīkei have with the direction of the new Government. I think that concern is because of the unknown, not necessarily because of what we know. I think that when you consider that a large part of the electorate relies heavily on water, the environment, the dairy industry, and the agricultural sector, it will be very interesting to see where the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) gets to—and I see the Minister sitting over there—with this reform, or sort of partial reform, I suppose, of MPI and its bits, and how they are placed. MPI clearly is very important to our sector, and it’s going to be very interesting to see where that gets to—very important for us as well.

I think it will be interesting from an environmental perspective to see where the Government gets to with a lot of that stuff, because it is a pretty challenging issue—for our hill country, particularly; I think our dairy sectors have done very well in that area. The other area that’s of particular concern to people in the Rangitīkei electorate will be around our trade and the opportunities that are impacted, or could be impacted, by potential policy there.

I don’t know what the outcome’s going to be there, and I hope it’s all positive. I imagine it will be all positive. We’ve seen, ironically, the dollar drop a little, which has helped exporters to some extent, but, of course, it’s increased significantly some import costs for the agricultural sector, most noticeably fuel. We’ve also seen a bit of a drop in business confidence, which, whilst not reflected in any sales figures that I’ve seen to date, I think, is none the less cause for nervousness around the investment sector—certainly nervousness around investment decisions in agriculture.

I think the other area that’s going to be of particular interest to the agricultural sector will be where we get to with the conditions on foreign investment in agriculture and foreign investment in farmland. I think that’s going to be a challenging issue for us, because, clearly, land prices are fairly important to agriculture, and we certainly need to maintain a level of stability in that area.

It would be a great pity, I think, to see provincial New Zealand retreat once again, as in the past couple of years we in the Rangitīkei—and, I’m sure, many other parts of New Zealand—have seen our small towns rebuilding, our employment figures improving dramatically on the back of the construction sector, to some extent. Our deferred maintenance—that’s quite an interesting point, because an awful lot of deferred maintenance has created a lot of work in provincial New Zealand. I think that’s very encouraging for the country, because it certainly means that there’s a much brighter future for provincial rural New Zealand than perhaps we’ve seen in the past. The environmental factors, of course, are another area where I guess you could say deferred maintenance or deferred expenditure is making quite a difference.

Tourism is going very well in the Ruapehu district, to the north of my electorate, which, ironically, is heavily reliant on work visas and immigrants. In a growing economy this is essential for our future.

The other two issues I want to very quickly talk about are the Manawatū Gorge—critical to my region. There was an announcement made this morning that has delayed the decision. I think that’s positive because I think they’re probably considering some options that I think are preferable to, perhaps, some of the earlier options that were talked about. I think we’ll get a good decision—well, I hope we get a good decision—out of that. The other one is the Ōhākea air force base, which, of course, there have been some negotiations with Singapore on, and I think for our future in the Rangitīkei-Manawatū area, I think it’s most important that we get to a base with that. Thank you, sir.

JO LUXTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call in this general debate. This is my first time participating in the general debate, and I just have to say, what a fantastic time to be involved in education, whether you are a student, a teacher, or a parent of a child attending school. After nine long years, the clouds are lifting. The sun is starting to shine again on our education system. It’s been a long time, but, hey—help is finally here.

Isn’t it refreshing to have such a proactive, visionary, hard-working, and progressive Government leading the way on all things important to this country? Some members opposite might say we are spending all our time working on their legislation, but, I put it to you: we are simply cleaning up. We are tidying up the mess, doing the housework. And, believe me, there is a big mess to clean.

But, anyway, let’s talk about the really important stuff. Let’s get back to this progressive Government that is making things happen that will benefit all New Zealanders, in particular around the education space, an area that is near and dear to my heart. Without a decent education, what have you got? As I said in my maiden speech, “Education is the one thing that overcomes every disadvantage with which a child might be born.” Whether it’s first, second, or third chance education, it remains the most transformative influence in our lives. It benefits everybody, and to that extent education at any level is a public good. Fees-free post - secondary school education is going to be transformative for New Zealanders.

Let’s move on to national standards—something that is neither national nor standard. It’s a dog’s breakfast. How demeaning is it for a child to see that they are constantly below standard? What does that mean for a child? Will they think, “I am dumb. I am stupid. I am just not good enough.”? I don’t know. As an adult, I would probably think that, and I would think, “What is the point of even trying?” Education is about building children up—enabling them to be empowered, not beaten down.

As a parent, I found national standards pointless. They told me nothing about my child. I don’t want to know where they sit on a scale compared to other children. I’m not interested in others; I’m interested in my child and what his personal achievements and successes are—where he needs to improve, not where he isn’t good enough.

So national standards are gone, and I can hear teachers clapping everywhere. They’re clapping their hands in glee. Finally, they are free of national standards, which were forced upon them. We will do it better. We will work collaboratively with all stakeholders. We will build a better system, one that is more focused on the child’s progress—not one that will fail our children again, but one that will be transformative.

We are a Government that listens, unlike the previous one, which simply heard principals tell them of the shortage of teachers in Auckland and shortages of teachers with specific subject skills, such as science, Te Reo, technology, and maths. Well, this Government not only heard, but we listened. Now principals can rest assured that this Government has really listened and we have a plan and we will provide funding to the tune of $9.5 million to address immediate pressures. And believe me, there is much more to come from this progressive, hard-working, forward-thinking Government. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the debate on this bill to be taken as one question for the purpose of debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I put the leave to the committee. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part, and that the Hon Ruth Dyson’s amendments, inserting new clauses 5 to 7, as set out—

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We would like to see it debated part by part, in four parts.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That issue was put to the committee and there was no audible objection. If the members objected to that, then they needed to say that they objected to that. Now that it has been put and it has been accepted by the Chair, it is too late to go backwards.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sitting immediately behind the Chair, and have been asking and perhaps was not audibly heard, and for that I apologise. We had certainly intended to speak to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m going to take some advice.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are in an unusual situation. Yes, a member of our party did object to leave—as whip, I did not, but a member of our party did. I do believe she was sitting behind you and was not audible. I accept also that you’ve made the call that you have. Over to you what you wish to do, but I do wish to assert the right of the Hon Maggie Barry to insist that she did voice her objection.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And I take all of your interventions on board. I—

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If I might be able to assist—it’s known that I have very young and good ears, but during the general debate I was often able to hear the Hon Maggie Barry interjecting from where I am here. So it seems implausible that you were unable to hear her from there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I will just take some advice. Members, I apologise to the Hon Maggie Barry. I didn’t hear you put the objection, and I had continued with the question. I will continue. We will read this as one part.

Clauses 1 to 4 and new clauses 5 to 7

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Madam Chair, can I first of all acknowledge your ruling and say that it was consistent with the ruling that you made last week, which I didn’t enjoy very much. But I appreciate the consistency of you ruling, and I think that all members will be quite attentive to the questions that are being put from now on and will make sure that their voices are heard.

I’d like to draw the attention of the committee to two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. But before I do that, can I acknowledge that prior to the election, we had the second reading of this debate and a majority of this Parliament supported the progress of the bill. It was delayed at that time by the then Government, presumably with the intention of ensuring that after the election, they would be able to defeat it, and I am delighted that, actually, the position in support of the bill has strengthened since then. But I want to acknowledge the Māori Party and United Future, which were supportive of this bill prior to the election and have not been returned to this House.

But, regardless, I am really hopeful that we get a majority support and deliver the intention of the bill, which is to give residents who are living in a retirement village with a licence to occupy the eligibility to apply for a rates rebate. It’s a very simple bill—most members’ bills are. Not all that are on the Order Paper tonight are as simple as this, but its intention is very clear.

The new Minister of Local Government has been extraordinarily helpful in ensuring that the issues that were raised at the Local Government and Environment Committee in regard to this bill have been addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. It’s been hugely helpful, having gone from being a member without a department to being part of a Government that is then helping make sure that this bill is as robust as possible, and that’s the intention of the two SOPs that are presented.

The first one defines with much more specificity the definition of “residential property”, so that it’s very clear that it is just those living in retirement villages who have a licence to occupy and an occupational right agreement. I’m still having a bit of an argument with some people about whether you can have an occupational right agreement and a unit title, and maybe during the next little while—while we debate this—that will become clearer. Particularly, anybody in the House who has experience in property law might be able to answer that question—so, can you have unit title ownership, and can you have an occupational right agreement at the same time?

So the first Supplementary Order Paper clarifies the definition of “residential property”. It then talks about the process for providing the refund to ensure that of course the refund—i.e., the rates rebate—goes to the resident, rather than to the owner of the retirement village. I actually have a lot of confidence that the process of passing through the retirement village owner to the resident would take place, and this just clarifies that, in the end, the owner has to get the rates rebate. They pay the rates through the owner, and they need to get the rates rebate.

There are current examples where territorial or local authorities do refund the money to the owner of the retirement village, who then passes it on to the resident, and to the best of my knowledge—and I have made extensive inquiries about this—there have been no problems. So I’m sure that we can rely on the integrity of the owners to make sure that that happens.

I just would like to briefly mention the second SOP, which talks about the commencement date. Originally, in my bill as introduced, the bill would have come into force the day after Royal assent, and the amendment that is proposed in my second Supplementary Order Paper changes the commencement date so that the “Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, but only for the purpose of rates in a rating year that begins on or after 1 July 2018.” So I think that makes it clear when the rating year will start.

Can I just conclude my contribution on the SOPs by saying that, in my view, every single concern that was raised by the National Party during the select committee and during the second reading has now been answered by these SOPs. I doubt that there is a single contribution that will be made that raises further concerns, and I urge the National Party to move beyond partisan politics and think of the residents.

Many of the electorate members of Parliament have residents in retirement villages who are entirely dependent on superannuation for their income. They would certainly benefit from the money that comes from central government towards paying their rates in the form of a rates rebate. Their constituents—if they are electorate MPs—will be looking to them to stand up for low-income earners in retirement villages, and I would certainly urge the members to look at those two SOPs and support the bill in its final stages.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. May I first congratulate the member in the chair over there on the work that has been done to make what is quite a significant improvement to the bill in this committee stage. I’ve only just very recently been able to look at that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 10, but without question it goes a very long way towards tidying up some areas that had been expressed as concerns both within the Local Government and Environment Committee and also in the second reading.

Now, I know Ms Dyson to have been a very fair-minded chair when she chaired the Government Administration Committee, and I am sure that we could expect that she would be likewise as she sits in the chair this evening—because I do have some questions still. I mean, there are still some elements of this that I think, in effect, were raised at least in part by officials in the select committee stage that have not really been addressed.

The first of those—because it is tightly defined to a retirement village resident—points I would raise is that those villages, many of which now are the larger ones, are not simply villages; they are a combination of village, rest home, and hospital care for our elderly New Zealanders.

Now, if you were a resident there in one capacity or another—for instance, in the rest home part of that facility—and particularly if you are, even in part, privately funding that care, then without question you too are also sharing a burden of the overall rates for that facility. That individual—and particularly if they’re paying privately or partly privately—is bearing part of the overall rates burden. Without question, they are in a set of circumstances where they would not be considered to be terribly well off. So the same need exists for those individuals—and perhaps even more so, actually—as for those that do have the right to occupy unit titles or contracts. The bill just simply doesn’t help them.

I would think, actually, given that the mechanism in SOP 10 is placing the onus on the retirement village operator to make sure that the rates rebate is calculated out at an appropriate amount for each of those right-to-occupy holders, that it is a viable thing—certainly feasible—for them to do the same for residents in perhaps the rest home part of the facility, who are still, through their private payments, shouldering a burden, in part at least, on those rates.

That would give relief to people who are also in need. I think the member might want to consider that. It’s surely not too late to look at what could be. I mean, without question, SOP 10 has made quite a significant change and a change for the better. So I’d ask that question to the member Ruth Dyson—to consider that and give us the thoughts on that. I would suggest that simply the fact that it is complicated should not be the reason not to do it. A lot of legislation is complicated. Certainly, I would think—I would hope she would agree that the need is there. We wouldn’t really want legislation that’s either going to create new distortions or not address some of the other ones that currently exist.

But on that subject of the mechanism to affect the rebate through the village operator, I’d be very keen to hear if the member in the chair had actually spoken to an industry stakeholder group, or, indeed, with any of the village operators, as to the extent of the challenge that might present to them to have to work through this mechanism. They are going to have to calculate out for each individual or couple that might be entitled how much each of their respective share might be. They might have to factor in the use of shared facilities, which sit alongside of the unit that they actually have the right to occupy, and so they’re going to have some work to do.

Part of it, in asking the member if she’s had those conversations, is to, obviously, understand what the impacts are, but beyond that is actually what I think we would be loath to see, which is those operators applying an administration fee in the process of remitting the rebate, because they might well argue that there are additional costs that fall upon them to manage that process. It may be true that there are, so I’d ask the member just to reflect on what conversations she might have had or might be prepared to have, because we don’t want to end up remitting less than the full value of the rebate to those residents in need. So I’d just like to leave my questions at this stage at those, but I look forward to more contributions.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. I can’t add much by way of wisdom around the detail of this piece of legislation that goes beyond that of the member who’s put this up, Ruth Dyson. I’d just like to acknowledge her vision in bringing this bill into the previous Parliament and seeing, obviously, the need to change a piece of legislation that has been around since 1973. Much has changed in those following years, and I think that Ruth Dyson has done New Zealand proud to bring this legislation before the House and to point out some of the anomalies that run through a lot of payments, particularly for elderly people, across New Zealand.

The advent of this new form of retirement village is one that we need to look at more carefully. There’ll be growth in this area. We have to ensure that people moving into these villages have the same fair go and access to support—necessary support, I have to say—as everyone else. The reality is that—and it’s been pointed out in the recent water report—across the country, local government has let its infrastructure run down and pressure will come on ratepayers, regardless of who they are, into the future. We have retirees in New Zealand who have traditionally had a reasonable income and a reasonable standard of living, thanks to a superannuation scheme that has been supported over the years and boosted at times, by both Governments, I have to say—although, safeguarded more by Labour over the years. The fact is that there will be pressure on all ratepayers, and if we are to follow through with the rates rebates scheme, which this Labour Government is committed to, we want to ensure that it goes to everyone fairly.

This piece of legislation from the member does allow that to happen. I acknowledge her efforts and applaud her determination to keep this moving. I’m not going to hold up the committee for too much longer, other than to say that it’s a pleasure to work with someone who came to this House in the same year as I did—1993—and that we still have much to offer Parliament. This piece of legislation will be appreciated by thousands and thousands of people into the future who just want a fair go in their retirement.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair Williams. Thank you for this opportunity. I find it interesting as a Māori to be standing and speaking on a retirement villages bill, or a bill that, essentially, has a major impact on those in retirement villages, given that a recent report by the Whanganui District Health Board actually says that Māori and Pacific Island people are unlikely to go into retirement village homes.

This also raises another question—just as an introduction to my contribution on this particular bill. The sensible nature of this particular bill, introduced by the member Ruth Dyson, actually makes me think about the rebates mechanism on Māori land and how that, in fact, perhaps is something for other members of this House to consider as a member’s bill—to actually make that a lot easier for those owners of Māori land. I’m one, and I know my tuahine here, Willow-Jean Prime, is another.

But it’s something that I think can be considered when we think of the sensible nature of this particular bill—in particular, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 10. The mechanisms by which the rebate is offered back to the resident—I think the SOP sets out a pretty clear way of doing that. That’s important because, quite often, for many of the people who find themselves in retirement villages—for some of them, having read some of the reports and spoken to a few people who are in retirement villages, when they get in there, the last thing they want to be worrying about is some of these (1) financial burdens, and (2) just some of the administration it takes to make sure that they’re not falling into arrears, that they’re keeping up with the payments that are necessary for them to continue to stay in their retirement village. It’s the last thing on their minds. So I think it’s important that this particular SOP actually does set out a very, very good regime.

But I do have some considerations for the member in the chair around the administration of these particular rebates. One of those is actually when there is a member in the retirement village that has given power of attorney to whānau members, for one reason or another—I’m not too sure what the broad range of those reasons might be. But when there is, in this situation, a power of attorney—I wonder if there was any consideration, when the member considered this particular SOP, of whether there are any legal implications, or if there are any pitfalls, or if there are any ways that that particular person with power of attorney can be tripped up in dealing with (1) the retirement village, and (2) the local body council on behalf of their family member who’s in the retirement village. It’s just something that I didn’t see in this particular SOP or in some of the research that I was doing on this particular bill.

But for the most part, this bill is pretty straightforward in addressing what is seemingly an anomaly. The member the Hon Damien O’Connor has already mentioned how outdated the original Act is. It is important to remember that Māori and Pākehā alike are living longer. They’re living longer, and we want to make sure that for those who do intend on putting their families into retirement villages, it would be an easy process for them.

If I can raise just another challenge for some of the members, around how the health system and retirement villages in particular are actually catering for Māori and Pacific Islands people’s needs—but I’ll leave that challenge just on the floor, as an open topic of discussion for another point in time, perhaps.

But otherwise, it is a relatively simple bill. The question that I have to the member in the chair is just around the power of attorney for families. Otherwise, I look forward to further continuing this debate on this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just thank the members who have contributed in the debate so far. It’s really interesting and it’s great to have a topic that I’ve been involved in for so long debated in the House.

Can I, first of all, respond to the questions from Brett Hudson. I don’t think Mr Hudson was on the Local Government and Environment—no. Mr Hudson and I were on the same select committee, but I thought he may have been on two as well. So, in terms of the people who may still be missing out on rates rebate, I think that’s very worthy of consideration, and both Brett Hudson and Peeni Henare have raised that question.

I don’t agree with the proposal that rest home residents are in the same situation as a resident who’s in a retirement village unit, and that’s because a rest home resident does not have an ownership stake in the room they’re in. When they leave, they take nothing with them in terms of ownership. If you’re in a retirement village unit and you leave, you get a percentage of the money that you put into it. The owner of the retirement village takes their cut, but you actually get the rest. So if you say, “I’m sick of this retirement village, I’m going to move to Christchurch, because that’s a much better place than anywhere else in the country and I’m going to get a retirement village unit there.”, you would sell your retirement village unit and take most of the money and you could buy another unit in a better city than you currently live in, if you’re not living in Christchurch. So it’s really the ownership stake that, for me, is the difference between a rest home resident and a retirement village unit person with a licence to occupy.

The trick with this bill is really brought about by the fact that when Norman Kirk introduced this scheme in the 1970s, there was no such thing as a licence to occupy, an occupational right agreement. People either owned or they rented. That was the way the world was in the 1970s. So the legislation has not kept up with the change in property status, but that’s the anomaly that this bill seeks to fix.

In terms of the second point that Mr Hudson raised, which was the passing on of retirement village owners, I have had discussions with the retirement village owners association, the Retirement Villages Association. I’ve had discussions with individual retirement village owners about this very issue. They are 100 percent supportive of it. Their submission, which is on the public record, says that. They have no interest in taking any cut out of this.

Where the local bodies currently give a remission on rates to retirement village residents, in the way that this bill seeks to address, it is a very smooth operation. It’s not a rates rebate; it’s a remission and it’s paid for by ratepayers rather than taxpayers. So anyone from Auckland who’s here should be celebrating, because the Auckland Council is about to get some money back that they have been paying out to residents that they shouldn’t have been. So, Auckland ratepayers, here’s a little gift for you. I’m sure the mayor will be calling me shortly to pass on his appreciation.

Hon Peeni Henare: Merry Christmas.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, it’s a bit of a Christmas bonus. So I hope that answers the questions that Mr Hudson raised.

In terms of the points that Mr Henare raised, there was a review of the rates rebate scheme done in 2007, and it is well worth reading. And the very point that was raised in Mr Henare’s contribution is considered as part of that review, actually: what happens with Māori land—there are a lot of people who have ownership through Māori land status who aren’t beneficiaries of a rates rebate—and what could be done about that? So I’d invite the member to read that review and get a member’s bill into the House in the ballot. There will be one drawn early next year, and, if you’re as lucky as me, yours will be drawn out. I had three drawn out in the last term of Parliament, which is pretty well unheard of. I decided that I was on a winning streak so I went down the road and bought a Lotto ticket, and guess what? I won nothing. Anyway, so I’d invite the member to read it. But that very point that is raised is mentioned in that.

There are other groups that are also missing out: people who are in schemes such as rent to buy. They are counted still as tenants, and I’d be quite interested in looking at whether people who actually are investing in an ownership stake should be entitled to also apply for a rates rebate, and they’re often people on very low incomes.

The final point that was raised that I will respond to was the power of attorney. This has no implications at all. So a person who has financial power of attorney over someone else’s property would still have to receive the rates rebate but keep it in that person’s bank account. They can spend it, because of their power of attorney, but this will make no difference other than they’ll have more money to spend on behalf of the resident.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. Firstly, may I commend the member, the Hon Ruth Dyson, for this member’s bill. It is really an outstanding piece of legislation aimed at equal treatment, and that is really one of its great redeeming features.

Might I also say that what this is doing is putting on an equal footing different housing arrangements, and I think that is really important: that where there is a rates rebate we need to recognise that there are multiple ways of owning homes. As the member has noted, whilst this deals with retirement villages, there may be some other areas that warrant attention, and I certainly would commend that to the House. Things like joint living arrangements where the home is owned through perhaps a charitable trust—whilst it might not be immediately apparent that it’s owned by retirees and superannuitants, that nevertheless is the case. However, this is one important step in the right direction.

It’s also worth noting that, you know, retirement villages come in many different shapes and sizes, and certainly in my own electorate we have some very, very large retirement villages, housing thousands of people, many of whom are, to be quite honest, quite well off and probably don’t qualify for this rebate, but equally there are some others that are very modest, small, and family-owned businesses. I can think of one in Ōpawa straight away. Those villages cater to a very important sector—a needy sector—of the community.

So in terms of providing housing, I think sometimes we can focus too much on providing first homes. We’ve also got to be very focused on providing last homes, because we know that some of our older people do not have vast incomes or vast capital, and this is a very useful piece of legislation to make it a little bit more possible to still have a home you can call your own. As the member noted, there is a capital interest in a retirement unit, quite unlike a rest home or a hospital arrangement where you’ll be paying a weekly amount but when you leave that, there’s no capital return. It doesn’t go back on the market and be sold to another incoming resident by whatever arrangement. Rather, it is simply an occupation alone and not any kind of tradable interest in land.

Having said that, the Retirement Villages Act itself recognises multiple ways of having that interest in land. It’s worth noting, and I think the member was asking, perhaps a little pointedly towards me, whether they are mutually exclusive or whether they can run together. So, clearly, a unit title is one form of owning an interest in land. A lease is another. A licence to occupy is another. But you can’t do those things all at once. It’s going to be one or the other. Of course, one of the great things about the retirement villages legislation, and the Retirement Villages Act 2003, is it recognises any number of legal vehicles for a retirement village. The favoured one appears to be the licence to occupy, but a retirement village could be comprised of a number of unit titles or a body corporate or various long-term leases that are recognised as an interest in land. This is neutral, as I understand it, in that regard, so any of those arrangements would qualify.

If I may say, it is worth looking more carefully at some of our retirement villages legislation, as we do this. Certainly, through the Christchurch earthquakes there was some grave injustices as a result of the way in which insurance proceeds were paid out to owners of retirement villages. So whilst this is a very commendable step that irons out one wrinkle in this piece of legislation, in this framework, I commend this House to look a bit more carefully at some other aspects of it. But in terms of simply equal treatment of ratepayers, it’s not much to ask, and I’m exceedingly surprised that members on the other side of the House did not support this bill in its earlier stages. But, certainly, in terms of what we have here, it’s simply ironing out an anomaly. It’s saying that if you pay rates, one way or another you’re entitled to this rebate. And on that basis alone it’s a very good piece of legislation. Well done to the member. I commend it to the House.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I’m delighted to be able to take a call. Thank you very much, Madam Chair Williams. I didn’t think I caught your attention or eye, but tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

The Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill is actually the first bill I had the opportunity to speak on post maiden speech, in its second reading coming through the House. I just want to pick up on a couple of issues in the two Supplementary Order Papers that have been introduced into the committee this afternoon, and acknowledge the work by the member the Hon Ruth Dyson in adequately addressing some of the questions that came through.

In particular, I just want to turn my attention briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 9, which amends the commencement date to 1 July 2018. I understand that the concerns were—actually, our colleague across the Chamber, the member Brett Hudson, mentioned that he had grave concerns about the compliance costs. I guess the second point that logically flows on from that was whether or not this bill addressed any of the harms or the burdens that may be borne by those entities that would have to amend some of their practices. So I commend the member for introducing this Supplementary Order Paper that, as I understand it, is intended to give those entities and also the local authorities the mechanisms and the time to enable the relevant entities to amend their practices and give it time to come in.

But I was reflecting more broadly on, I guess, the people that will benefit from this bill. I think it was that chap, the 38th Vice-President of the United States—here it is, Hubert Humphrey—“The moral test of a Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those that are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those that are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the disabled.” Hubert Humphrey was actually the chief Government whip of his day when he was a sitting member in the mid-1940s in the United States—a member of the Democratic Party—and I thought it must be incumbent upon those that hold the regal title of chief whip to have a real penchant for social justice.

Actually, I just wanted to make a brief note, because I know that the honourable member sitting in the chair this evening, Ruth Dyson, has contributed her lifetime towards fighting for those most vulnerable within our communities. This piece of legislation that’s come through by way of a member’s bill is indeed another instance of that—those that are most needy within my communities, and actually within all of our communities.

The situation that we find ourselves in now is a lot different than it was in 1973. In 1973, in the heydays of Norman Kirk—he was at the helm, and when he introduced—

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have great admiration for Hubert Humphrey, Ruth Dyson, and Norman Kirk. However, I don’t see how any of them are relevant to a particular clause on this bill. The purpose of the committee stage is to address specific clauses of a bill.

Brett Hudson: I do believe that that matter is not a matter for a member to raise, but one for the Chair or the Speaker to determine solely.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Thank you very much for both your interventions. I believe that the member’s time has expired in any case.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Firstly, I’d like to address the member in the chair, who kindly did respond to the questions that I raised in my last intervention. Look, the first point I would make, Ms Dyson, is that you did point to the very tight definition of the bill, and that is true, but you’re well known to me and other members to be a very capable member—and, might I add, not one without some ambition. So I think it’s quite possible for the member in the chair to seize that ambition and, before the end of this committee stage, to look at amendments that might look to remove these distortions and pain of costs on other New Zealanders outside of retirement villages.

As the member did note when she was talking to Mr Henare, there are situations outside of retirement villages, such as people who are in rent-to-own situations. I would draw the member’s attention to the prospect that there are some New Zealanders out there who are not in particularly strong financial circumstances and might be in leasehold land arrangements. That raises the question, which I put to the member in the chair, about how leasehold arrangements fit in terms of rates rebates.

Well, actually, I had a look, and it is possible—not by default; by default, whoever is the owner of the land has the rateable unit and therefore has the rates account—for leasehold arrangements, for the rating unit to go to the person that owns the building instead, but it doesn’t happen by default. That is something that I think the member could look at to incorporate people who are in those sorts of situations, but also look at that measure of making sure that it’s not an onerous thing on the owner of the building, or the occupier of the building, to have to deal with.

That raises my new point, with respect to retirement villages, and that’s in clause 5 in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 10, which inserts section 7A. If I note, in section 7A(2): “A resident may apply for a refund of the amount”—a resident may apply. The member has a great intent with this bill, which is to help people who are bearing a burden of rates and who, if they were not in retirement villages, if they were living in their own homes with their freehold titles, would be entitled to some level of rebate on those rates. Through SOP 10 she has sought to tidy up a lot of the measures that caused concerns in the select committee stage, and also in the second reading—that is true.

But as the SOP stands, it places the burden on the occupier, the person with that right to occupy—that they have to be aware that they could be eligible for a rates rebate, even though they don’t actually pay those rates directly, from their local council. Then they must take the steps to determine their eligibility and then go through the process, through the filling out of forms and other steps that are set out in this SOP. That resident has to go through and take those steps to then possibly get a remittance back through the retirement village operator.

There’s no doubt that if they meet the criteria and they do those forms, very clearly, they would receive back that rates rebate. But I would suggest to the member that actually it would be a more workable and perhaps a more equitable—certainly a fairer—situation if the onus weren’t placed upon those occupiers in retirement villages to have to know what they might or might not be entitled to. Even if it were as simple as their operator having a duty to advise them of a potential entitlement, then they could then follow the rest of the steps.

I just think—given we are looking to help people who are in tougher economic circumstances than some other New Zealanders, given we feel that they warrant the rebate that other New Zealanders in similar circumstances outside of retirement villages can and do receive—that, really, we should look at the possibility at this stage of how we can make it as easy as possible for them to understand that they have a potential eligibility, and make it easy for them to get it. I think, Ms Dyson, that would actually strengthen your SOP. Even a small clause might just strengthen that and make it so much easier for those residents to be able to enjoy the benefit that you are seeking to give them.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member, the Hon Ruth Dyson, in whose name this proposed legislation comes before the House. I myself was not a member of the 51st Parliament, and so I didn’t have such complete access to discussion at the previous stages, including at the select committee stage. I was, however, a lawyer practising in the realm of property law, primarily, in that three-year period, and so I do have some degree of qualification and experience to speak on particular aspects of this bill.

A previous contribution has claimed that the bill is aimed at equal treatment, but I think it is worth noting that a rates rebate mechanism is inherently an unequal treatment, for very good reasons, of course. We don’t resile from the fact that the bill is well intentioned in seeking to alleviate some financial strain on vulnerable members of society, but it’s worth noting, perhaps, that a rates rebate is not available to all, by definition, and, pertinently, in relation to the specific clauses of this bill that we are considering now, it’s not equal even within the age bracket of those who might traditionally be in retirement villages.

I note that, while the general policy statement of the bill states that residents of retirement villages with occupation right agreements—or licences to occupy, as they are also variously known—in most circumstances pay rates indirectly rather than directly to the local authority, in fact, in my experience, it would always be the case that rates amounts would be paid indirectly. I’m not aware of any situations in which a person who is occupying a unit would be required to pay rates directly to his or her local council, because, of course, the ownership of the unit is the relevant measure for accountability and liability for payment of rates, as was observed by my colleague Brett Hudson, in far more eloquent fashion than I have just done, a few minutes ago.

So it seems to me, then, that rather than the focus on creating a complicated arrangement that requires a local authority to take note of who has been the underlying figure behind the payment of the rates amount, instead the local authority should simply only have to note that the rates have been paid, and perhaps it might be much more logical for the retirement village to be able to claim a rebate in the first instance, and, if so, to pass it on to the person who is occupying the unit.

I will also note that it is, in fact, required by law that persons entering into licences to occupy or occupation right agreements are advised by a suitably qualified lawyer. That lawyer certifies that he or she has provided such advice, and that would be a stage at which I would expect the lawyer would advise his or her client about matters such as outgoings—sometimes known as operating expenses—in relation to the licence to occupy. If it is the case in this individual contract known as a licence to occupy that the person who is occupying the unit has responsibility for, essentially, meeting that rates amount, that rates responsibility, then that is something that should be disclosed, must be disclosed, and I am sure invariably is disclosed, and, as such, is a matter of private contract between the person occupying the unit, if they should wish to sign such a contract, and, of course, the retirement village itself.

Also worthy of note is that such contracts invariably contain a so-called cooling-off provision—the ability for a person who is in that position of signing or potentially signing such a document to reconsider his or her position before it becomes effective and fully binding. My time is running out on this occasion, but I would be interested to hear the member’s comments on any of those aspects that I have raised.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. It was actually quite an honour and a privilege to hear from Brett Hudson that he would like to see people getting what they are entitled to. I would like it to be noted that in the news over the past few months we did indeed see I believe it was leaked documents from staff at Work and Income who had the directive key performance indicators to kick people off the benefit—i.e., not getting what they are entitled to. So that would very much be a signal in the shift of the culture inside the National Party and we very much welcome it, so I’d like to leave that point there.

Hon Phil Twyford: Long overdue.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Very much long overdue and a point which I am hoping to—and know that this Government will indeed be enacting as a matter of Work and Income culture.

So to bring it back to the bill, and to move my comments away from the points raised by Brett Hudson, I was pondering this bill actually the other day at dinner with my partner’s grandmother, who lives in a retirement village, and asking her for her opinion on it. She lives in Auckland and actually currently gets the rates rebate as provided by Auckland Council. The very purpose of this bill, as has been noted by a number of different members, is to provide an equity in that rates rebate to fix an anomaly in the law, which currently means that those who are living on lower incomes, perhaps down the road from those in retirement villages, are currently able to get a rebate that those in retirement villages who are on lower incomes are not able to get.

But so too currently is there an issue of geographic inequity. As I spoke about in the second reading, currently those living in retirement villages in Auckland, Kāpiti, New Plymouth, and Thames-Coromandel are able to receive those rates rebates, where those living outside of those cities are not. My question to the Hon Ruth Dyson would be whether there has been much consideration given to the changes that may happen, or the processes that are currently undertaken by those different regional authorities, and whether there would be much change in those processes, given the mechanisms as outlined particularly in those Supplementary Order Papers.

I also welcome—and the Green Party welcomes—those Supplementary Order Papers, which give a definitive outline of the machinery that would be used in order to provide those rates rebates, which, hopefully, quells the concerns of the National Party as were voiced, obviously, at the second reading, but so too in the majority report of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

So we are hoping that this bill, obviously, passes through the House, but I would very much like to hear the Hon Ruth Dyson’s opinion on whether she had asked or spoken to those different regional authorities about the impact that this bill would have on them and their current processes.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I take great pleasure in talking on a couple of points within the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I would like to look at Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the course of the time I have today in the committee. It’s interesting to note that it was back in 1973 that the Rates Rebate Act was first passed with the purpose of providing financial relief to those people. I note, in that context, that over 50 percent of retirement village people in those places are now solely reliant on superannuation, so this is no doubt coming as welcome relief to those people who are living on restricted incomes.

I have also noted that during this time that there weren’t really retirement villages as such with licence to occupy status, so that’s why we need to be able to move with the times by providing this bill. In 2007, we saw that the report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry noted that this area, in particular, needed to be addressed, so I wish to acknowledge Ruth Dyson in this excellent work, which I know is well needed. In fact, in my time during the election campaign, it was an issue raised in Hutt South consistently during candidate debates held at retirement villages. I acknowledge my colleague over there Chris Bishop, who was with me alongside, and I’m encouraged to note that he was very enthusiastic when responding to your bill as well, and the good work that it would do in that space.

But I do wish to follow up with a question. There were a number of people who didn’t clearly know whom responsibility lay with in terms of informing people of their rights for a rates rebate when they were residing in a retirement home. That’s what I’m interested to ask of you at this time—to know whether it is the retirement village owner, whether it’s local government, or whether there is another person with responsibility to ensure that everybody who is eligible for a rebate under this bill is fully informed of how they go about that process. If this is available, it is only fair that all those who are entitled take full advantage of that rebate.

It’s interesting to note how much times have changed since 1973. For a start, most of the new Labour MPs weren’t born. There’s been a big change in terms of retirement villages—360 of them, in fact, with 34,000 New Zealanders, and 80 percent of these currently don’t qualify for a rates rebate, because of the licence to occupy status that this bill looks to affect. It’s important to take note of what this does in terms of the housing crisis that New Zealand currently faces. It’s an important note that we need to make residential care for elderly as affordable as possible. I know there are many in Hutt South who live in large, four-bedroom homes who would like to retire to a more manageable property, but it’s often the costs that stop that move.

I know this is a small change, but it does take a step in the right direction of making elderly residential care more affordable to those who want to take advantage of it. We need to look at the flow-on effects of that. Making bigger homes available to New Zealand families will be a flow-on effect, by making residential care for elderly far more affordable in this space. I think that that is an important note to be looking at—the need for families to have homes and the need for those to be able to move in that space.

When we spoke at the candidates debate to residents of the Bob Scott Retirement Village in the Hutt, we received a number of questions from those Hutt South voters in terms of when they would see this change implemented and when they would see some relief in this space that they were not able to take advantage of, compared to those who own their own home. There was keen interest in that space to know when a clear decision would be taken. So I am heartened to see this great piece of legislation coming into force in the near future to enable those people to have clarity in knowing when they can get a rates rebate and giving them full access to the advantages that other homeowners do have. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Madam Chair Williams. Thank you very much for the call. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill, and I thank the member Ruth Dyson for continuing to support the bill through the House and for bringing it to the House’s attention in the first instance.

I want to pick up on some of the comments by the members of the Opposition around the rates rebate, about recognising that it’s targeted support for those that are in need, and so on, and about why this bill is so important. But can I just read, firstly, just a small quote from the Auckland Council’s website around rates rebates, because it’s of value. “Property rates rebate thresholds”—because I want to be clear about the thresholds that are required here. “The income threshold is $24,790 per year, but you may still be eligible if you earn more than that. Additional income allowance for dependents is $500 per dependent.” That’s $24,790 per year per one individual. Now, can I be clear that this affects more women than it does anybody else. There are more women who are living alone and having to pay these expenses, just because they tend to live longer. “You [may] need to provide evidence of income to assess your eligibility and the amount of your rebate.” So it’s just not a given. That’s the other thing I think we need to recognise—there is a process by which you have to prove eligibility to get the rebate.

I also just wanted to make sure that we pointed out—and these are some of the building costs that we are seeing in today’s environment for our older citizens—that in Franklin and Rodney, for example, when the rates rebate was originally introduced, they didn’t have water rates. That was part of their general rate. Since they have been pulled into Auckland City, that has been separated out. Their rates have not dropped. Their rates have continued to go up, and this affects those that are living inside those brand new retirement villages, now in Franklin and also inside of Rodney and Warkworth. On top of the standard general rate for which they can gain a rebate, they now have water rates.

Because it’s been raised about how this is a subsidy for some, I wanted to point out that the average rate in, let’s say, Warkworth in Auckland is $2,618 per year. The maximum rebate that anybody—a single individual, generally a woman, on $24,790 per year—can get is $620. That’s $12 a week. This is a support. This is a reaching out and a recognition by this Parliament that this is a support that our older citizens need. Nobody is denying that there are other citizens in different situations, and tomorrow we’re going to see an announcement by this Government to actually support those other citizens in their circumstances and in ways that are meaningful for them. But one of the other things—[Interruption] Well, it’s Thursday tomorrow, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure you knew that, Mr O’Connor.

But one of the other things that I think is important is that once we’ve addressed this—and this has been an issue for our older citizens for a very long time—one of the other things we have is actually that rates rebuilt threshold; that’s $24,790 per year. What we’ve had is we’ve had rates increasing through the roof. We’ve had the superannuation attached to the Consumers Price Index—thank you very much, New Zealand First—at 66 percent. Those two things have continued to go up, but the threshold has not gone up at the same counter. And it will affect the citizens inside of these retirement villages over the next few years. As their superannuation has continued to increase—and let’s remember that their water rates have increased, their food has increased, and their power has increased, which is why their winter energy payment is going to be so important when we announce it tomorrow—the threshold has not increased at the same level. So somebody three years ago might have got $500 for the whole of the year, but this year will get nothing.

So there is another thing to address, and while I absolutely applaud the Hon Ruth Dyson for picking up on this issue, which is an issue, there is another issue that needs to be addressed. I don’t think this will be the last time that we are discussing rates rebates in this term of Parliament. But, look, New Zealand First endorses this bill. Thank you very much for giving it your attention, and we look forward to supporting it through all stages.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I’d actually like to address the Hon Tracey Martin’s sudden discovery of fiscal drag—the thresholds that she alluded to. Of course, New Zealand First did support that in our tax legislation, but we understand they’re going to vote to get rid of that tomorrow. Fiscal drag’s a very important economic driver of costs, and it’s something that should be addressed on a regular basis. That’s why we passed that legislation in a tax bill.

However, I’ll go back to the bill that we’re discussing today, the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. I commend the member Ruth Dyson for the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I think SOP 9 would actually help the industry and residents prepare for that. That’s great. It’s a really important piece. SOP 10 does, I think, go some way towards the issues that were identified in the Local Government and Environment Committee process. You know, we did have, of course, the officials, even the parliamentary counsel, pointing out that the bill was unlikely to actually achieve its purpose, and shouldn’t proceed because of unintended consequences. I wasn’t on that select committee, so I’d really like some feedback from the member in the chair, Ruth Dyson. Does this actually address those unintended consequences that were raised by officials during the select committee process? For those of us who weren’t involved, that would be really important.

I think the fiscal cost of this, actually, is also quite significant. While it’s only $56 million, I think, from memory, at the moment, what this bill would address would be something like 10 percent of that, if my memory serves me right. But we’re predicting our population of people over 65 to increase from 700,000-odd to somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 million people by 2046. That’s a significant increase, but what’s more important is it actually goes from 12 percent of the population to 23 percent of the population, so you have a much greater number of people to be serviced or supported by fewer people who are out there in the working-age population. So I wonder if the member Ruth Dyson has thought about that. I would like to hear her thoughts on that issue.

It is a complex process to apply, and I don’t think this SOP actually truncates that or makes it any simpler than it was prior to the SOP, should it be adopted. So I wonder if there’s been much thought put into that. I’d appreciate hearing from the member in the chair; that would be really important.

I don’t think anyone in this House disagrees that we are trying to help people, and I think that’s really important. What it appears most of my colleagues on this side are doing is really trying to point out that we want legislation that works, that is easy to access, and that actually reaches the target that it’s intended to reach. Rather than just being a sort of helicopter approach, we want a more surgical approach that actually meets the target, meets the aims that we all want.

As I said, we are an increasingly ageing population. In my own electorate, 22 percent of the population is over 65, one of the highest rates in the country—and why wouldn’t it be, of course, because Marlborough’s such a fantastic place for people to retire to. It’s a Mecca—it’s a Mecca.

Hon Member: Oh, more advertising.

STUART SMITH: Yes, of course, advertising.

Hon Member: Plenty of wine to drink, apparently.

STUART SMITH: Well, that’s right. They’re over 21, or over 18; they’re quite entitled to go to a winery and enjoy a nice glass of wine and then go back to the retirement village. So I look forward to hearing some answers to my questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, and welcome to this debate. I’d just like to answer questions that have been raised by the last few speakers, starting with Christopher Penk. He asked particularly about the arrangements and how—I think “complicated” was the way he described them. I know this is a little different in that there is a third party involved rather than just straight owner and the local authority, but the Local Government and Environment Committee received submissions from the Society of Local Government Managers; the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand, which is the representative of the owners; the Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand; and Grey Power, all of whom supported the bill. They had some concerns, which, in my view, are addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper—could have been addressed by the select committee but weren’t—and they are very keen on making it work and making it work in the best possible way. I know that our local authorities are as well. They administer rates rebates for thousands of people already. It runs very smoothly, and there’s no reason at all why, particularly given the goodwill that’s been demonstrated, this won’t work as well. So I understand the concern that he’s raised, and I’m confident that it won’t be delivered. I’m confident that we’ve got players on board to make sure that it works really smoothly.

The Green Party member Chlöe Swarbrick raised the issue of the current rates remissions, which are given by four local authorities, and how this bill passing might impact on that. I think it’s a very valid question. I can’t say what Auckland Council, Kāpiti, Thames-Coromandel, and New Plymouth will do with their rates remission schemes—that’s a matter entirely for them—but it would be my prediction that once this legislation kicks in and covers their area, they will say, “Our remission scheme is no longer needed.” That would be my prediction, but it’s actually up to the councils in those four areas. At the moment, they are filling a gap that has been left by the Government, and once this Government fills that gap, it would be my view that they would be able to back off. Otherwise, the retirement village residents in those four areas will be advantaged compared to people in other parts of the country, and, actually, if you want to attract people from places like Christchurch to Auckland, a financial incentive might be a good place to start. It hasn’t been successful yet, but it may well be in the future. But that is up to them to determine.

The Hon Tracey Martin asked about the threshold level, and I think that she’s entirely correct. The National-led Government did nothing for nine years to update the rates rebates scheme, and I think they could have. Now, with a new Government, it’s an opportunity to have a look at the rates rebate scheme again—so is it fit for purpose, who else is missing out, what are the levels, and do they need adjusting? So that’s an opportunity, and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has already shown an immense amount of interest in this area, has been very supportive to me and the work that’s been done on this bill, and I have no doubt that she’ll progress it further.

Stuart Smith asked about unintended consequences. I can assure him that the only place further to go on the Supplementary Order Paper, in terms of defining the residents who will be entitled to apply for a rates rebate, would be to name them in a schedule. Seriously, the Supplementary Order Paper to this bill is belts and braces and beyond, so I’m really confident that any unintended consequences will not be delivered. This is sounder legislation than when I brought it to the House; that’s to be expected. I had the support of officials. That was denied to me at the select committee, in quite an unusual manner, should I say, but, as a result, I’m confident that it will deliver what is intended, which is giving residents with occupational rights agreements in a retirement village the right to apply for a rates rebate. It works for me, and I hope soon it works for the National Party.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, for the call on this very good member’s bill. In my call, I just want to talk about one of the very good submissions that was received by the Local Government and Environment Committee and then address some key points that arise out of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 9 and 10.

Before getting going on those, though, I do just want to pick up on one point that’s been raised in debate by members of the Opposition, and that is the notion that, somehow, it’s going to be overly bureaucratic for those people in retirement villages who will be eligible under this piece of law to fill out a couple of bits of paper to make it happen. The point that I just want to put on the record for those members is that in local government authority areas where there is currently a rates rebate scheme operating, that is exactly what people have to do now. I have to say that for those people, those older people on fixed incomes in particular, the prospect of having some support, to the tune of maybe $400, $500, $600 a year, is plenty of incentive to pop on down to their local council office to get the forms to make sure that they are eligible under the schemes that those councils run. I know that personally, from having worked in a local board office in Auckland. So I don’t see that as being an issue at all. Of course people expect have to confirm their details when they are going to be in receipt of support like this, and I don’t see that as being an issue at all.

One of the very good submissions that we received from the Property Council of New Zealand—well-known crusaders for social justice in our times—made a very, very good point. They noted in their submission—this is paragraph 3, point 2; this is fundamental to the bill, really: “The Bill promotes equitability.” As the Hon Ruth Dyson noted in her first reading of the bill, about 50 percent of residents in retirement villages are entirely dependent on New Zealand superannuation. I think this is a point that maybe has been missed a little bit in debate and in public understanding. There’s a little bit of a perception that nearly everyone who is living in retirement villages is pretty flush, and, actually, that’s not the case, and this points it out: over 50 percent of those people are reliant on New Zealand superannuation. Now, that is not a great deal of coin to live on, and what we do know is that, either directly or indirectly, every single one of those people on a very, very fixed low income does have to pay rates, ultimately, and that is fundamentally what this bill is about addressing.

The equitability point is very important, and I say that as a member who represents an electorate in Auckland where my constituents are eligible for the Auckland Council scheme, so they’re doing OK. But that’s a pretty ad hoc way to be supporting older residents who potentially face these costs on very, very limited incomes. So I thought that point was extremely well made by the Property Council of New Zealand, and the House should certainly be considering it at this stage of the debate.

I next want to turn to Supplementary Order Paper 10. This is really important because the fundamental objection that was raised by the then Government, now Opposition, at select committee stage, and a concern that was flagged up by officials, was around the need for there to be a very clear definition of a ratepayer of a residential property. There was a letter that was sent to Andrew Bayly, being the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which raised this point. That is exactly what Supplementary Order Paper 10 addresses.

Here we go. We have a new definition that addresses this. A residential property means “a rating unit under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 that is used as the usual place of residence of the ratepayer at the commencement of the rating year in respect of which an application for a rebate under this Act is made, but does not include any unit that is also used principally for commercial or industrial or business or farming purposes;”.

I just don’t think that we can get all that more specific than that. It ticks every single box in terms of the specificity of the property linking to the person making the rates rebate application. I’ve just got to say that I think some of the arguments that we’re drilling down into, in terms of trying to get more specificity around that, are really beginning to go down a rabbit hole. It’s very, very clear to me—and we hear that the officials support this—that SOP 10 addresses that one substantive issue that was raised at the select committee stage. I think that removes one of the singular causes of objection to this bill.

I just want to end with a question for the member in the chair, Ruth Dyson, who I know has worked tirelessly on this issue, and that is to ask her whether she thinks this will be the best member’s bill that will be passed in this term of Parliament. Thank you.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. Can I just acknowledge the member in the chair, Ruth Dyson, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is an important bill. We know we have an ageing population. As my colleague has already mentioned, we’re going to go from 700,000 to 1.5 million by 2046. So we need to be doing more for the ageing population.

The question is: what are those things that will make a difference to people’s lives? We haven’t previously supported this bill because we’ve sort of sided with what has been in the report from officials—that there have been real issues with the way that it was drafted. However, can I acknowledge, though, that the member has done some great work in terms of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and we are supportive of those SOPs.

I’ve got three questions that I want to raise and would like specific answers from the member. The first is just sort of a general one, in terms of costs. I wasn’t on the select committee, but I understand that the cost of the rates rebate scheme is about $56 million. This is supposed to account for about 10 percent of that. I’m not clear whether, as a result of the SOPs—I don’t believe there have been changes, but I just want clarity that there’s not a change in terms of that overall fiscal cost.

The other thing that I want to be clear on—I know previously, in other speeches in Hansard, colleagues have raised issues around the administrative costs of this bill. I think the SOPs will make it better, so my second question is: as a result of the SOPs, is this now going to be reduced in terms of costs? Have you got figures on that? I think you’ve been working with the Department of Internal Affairs. Do we have any greater clarity around that, because that is a real issue?

But the third issue I want to raise is that I’m really delighted that the Hon Phil Twyford is down in the Chamber, because he might be able to shed some light on this as well. I’ve been very passionate about the need for reform in unit titles legislation. A number of people across New Zealand fought very hard to work with the Government to get a working group up to have proposals of change that I think are relevant for this bill. But we’ve been unable, at the moment, to get a clear answer from the Government as to what’s happening with those proposals.

The reason that it matters is if there is a dispute around a unit title, for which there are—as I understand it, we’ve got about 14,000 bodies corporate. The number of units is I think, on average, under 10. But you’ve got hundreds of thousands of people affected by that unit title reform that needs to happen. The question for me, at an administrative level, is if there is a dispute around that, what does it mean in terms of rates rebates? I don’t know: was this considered as part of the official deliberation on the bill? But I would love to get some answers on that and ideally just find out whether the Government has plans to work on the unit titles legislative work, with this rates rebate bill. Thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Chairperson Tolley, thank you for the call on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. Often, when you are on House duty, you listen to bills and then there’s an opportunity when you hear parts of the bill that actually have some connection to you. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Peeni Henare. When he talked about the changing demographic profile of those going into rest homes and into retirement villages, he talked particularly about those who are Māori, and we know that for Pasifika that’s also changing—and also for other diverse groups, as well.

Why that point becomes quite important to the member is that the intent of the bill, in its general policy statement, is “to allow ratepayers of residential properties who are on low incomes to receive a rebate on their rates.” So the idea of the member, in putting this bill, was to allow those who were ineligible to have the opportunity to be eligible to receive the rebate.

So in terms of the intent of that, I believe that none of us across the House would disagree with that. But therein lies some of the challenges that then will come. As the Hon Peeni Henare talked about them—he talked about the power of attorney and the challenges that that causes. I just want to put it to the member that in the submissions that were held—and I can’t say; I was not part of the select committee and privy to being able to hear some of the submissions. But one of the challenges, in order to be able to see the changing demographic of those who are on a low income—and I know that Michael Wood talked about the ability, when you see a $610 or $600 rebate that’s available; it’s enough incentive to go out and to apply.

But to a number of those who are often on low incomes, who are working families, sometimes even though the incentive may be there, there may be a barrier to that. I wondered if the member may have heard from those in local councils who are administering this—they may have heard, for instance, that some of those low-income families may be of a different diversity, a different ethnicity. We’ve seen, time and time again, that things like, for instance, interpretation and translation become really difficult.

So while the intent of the bill is to provide that eligibility for those in that demographic profile and those on low incomes, has there been some thought to make sure that those whom we’re trying to serve, with the intent of this bill, will be met in that way? Were there any thoughts from the administrator, as in our territorial authorities—had they taken that into account? We’ve seen on a number of occasions where many of those in which there is intent to try and increase the accessibility—let’s take, for instance, in the local elections or the general elections—there’s been the move by those bodies to be able to ensure, in respect of these translations going into those communities, that we disseminate enough information, and actually we make it a bit easier for them to be able to apply for that as well.

The second point that I’d like to make in my contribution is just in regard to—the maximum rebate is currently $610 and the income abatement threshold is $24,470. I know that the Hon Tracey Martin was talking about the increase in that rebate and potentially what that could be for other eligible residents as well.

I suppose the intent—and, again, a question for the member: in the submissions, when there was the conversation with the territorial authorities in their administration roles, obviously the view is that this will now increase the number of eligible residents that are there to apply for them. What were the costings in regard to their own costs? As you know, when you are increasing volume, there’s the ability to create some extra savings.

So I think, in both ways, I’m just wanting to sort of get a sense that, again, we want to ensure that there’s accessibility for those whom we’re wanting to target with the intent of the bill. Secondly, if we want to ensure that potentially there could be an increase in the rebate threshold, were there other areas of savings that could have been had by those that are there as well?

I just want to, again, commend the member. Like the Hon Peeni Henare, I have seen in the Pasifika community, in particular, an increase in those who are now going into rest homes. I know there was time when there were cultural constructs where we wouldn’t normally see that. But we have to accept that that has become the reality in the changing dynamics of our families. Again, I suppose, and I put this to the member: if our intent is to serve those members who at times may find it really difficult in terms of translation and interpretation accessibility, have we ensured that those are put in place, and that it’s taken into account by those territorial authorities that they will put those mechanisms in place to serve those in need? Again, I just want to thank the member for her contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Simon O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Excellent! Persistence is a great virtue. Can I acknowledge the member in the chair, Ruth Dyson, for taking this bill through the House and I think taking quite a number of questions. I apologise in advance that I’ve got quite a few myself, and in many ways they start with the basics. That is not a reflection on the member or the bill in any way, but I’ve found—granted, not as a lawyer, but as a member of Parliament—that it’s easy to get taken with some of the bigger elements, but some of the more, I don’t know, basic, simple ones need to be addressed first. So it’s probably no surprise to the member or the committee that, like colleagues on this side of the Chamber, at this point I’m still not supporting the whole bill but am in support of the Supplementary Order Paper, and, in particular, I am referring to Supplementary Order Paper 10.

I think the Supplementary Order Paper overall, as an acknowledgment, is a great step forward, and I think the member in the chair has acknowledged the work that’s been done to bring it here. But I’m looking particularly around clause 4 here in Supplementary Order Paper 10. It begins with the definition of residential property. It’s a very basic question, but when I chaired select committees I found that often we are taking a Supplementary Order Paper or a piece of legislation and referring back to something in a previous time, and in this case we’re looking at an Act from 2002, which is about 15 years ago. So it’s a very simple question, as I indicated at the start—basics, really—but is the member confident that we are getting the right definition by referring backwards again? As an example, I know that in the Health Committee several times we referred back to an older piece of legislation to try to define a current piece of legislation and found that wanting. That’s one of the reasons we passed the health practitioners Act last year. So a simple question there: is she convinced that the definition of residential property, as defined in the 2002 Act, is sufficient?

Then, for me, it gets a little bit more technical because, in clause 4you’ll excuse me having to put my glasses on these days—you’re talking about “a rating unit”—or the member rather—“under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 that is used as the usual place of residence of the ratepayer”—and this is the important part—“at the commencement of the rating year”. So we’re talking about a very specific time. To try and illustrate what I’m getting at, and the clarity from the member would be welcome, if a person is in a retirement village on the day of the commencement of the rating year, whatever that day is, but then leaves the next day, do they qualify—do they still qualify? I’d be interested to know that.

The next element is: is there a need, perhaps, for an abatement regime? Again, to illustrate the point, it says here very clearly in Supplementary Order Paper 10 that: “the usual place of residence … at the commencement of the rating year”. So, again, a particular date. If they’re there a week or a month afterwards, do they still get to seek the rebate? Is that the entire rebate? Is it no rebate? Is it an abatement? Excuse me if we’re getting lots of “bates” into here, but how does that work out? I know it’s simple at one level but I think it needs to be quite clear.

Further on that, in clause 4(1)(a), it understandably talks about how the unit is principally not being used for commercial, industrial, business, or farming purposes. That makes perfect sense, but I’m turning my mind to my own electorate. We have a number of retirement villages. In fact, we have some aged-care facilities, and there are some questions around that distinction, too, but I can think of some of the residents in those retirement villages who do—well, not do; they continue to operate businesses, more in the professional services. So I’m thinking of the likes of accountants and lawyers. I’d be interested to know where the threshold kicks in around “principally”. I can understand if Bob is doing an hour of accounting work a week, but where do we tip the balance here? I wouldn’t mind some clarity from the member in the chair around that as well. Again, they’re basic, but I find—and I don’t know how the member herself finds it—but constituents tend to pick up on these simple and small things, and it’s often these that can trip me up.

The next is around, again, clause 4(1)(b). Very similar again around commencement dates. So, again, the member’s Supplementary Order Paper 10 talks about the retirement village—“a rating unit … that is used as a retirement village at the commencement of the rating year”. So my first set of questions was around whether the individual must be resident at the time of the rating year. We’re then now talking about the facility itself, and there are some multiple facets to this that I think are relatively important. The retirement village, according to this Supplementary Order Paper 10—[Time expired]

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): It is a privilege to speak today on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. It’s an issue that I’ve had some experience with. Like the member opposite, Michael Wood, I’ve also had the privilege of sitting on one of the local boards in Auckland Council and holding clinics helping retirees to be able to fill out their forms to apply for their rates rebate. I guess I echo what my colleague Brett Hudson was raising earlier, which was the whole application process and where that currently sits. Under this proposed bill, there’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that very helpfully puts in place an application process, which, I must say, is very similar to what is already in place, which is good.

But I guess the question is: how can we make it easier for those who are entitled to these rates rebates to actually be able to receive them without having to go through what is quite a complicated process? Now, I know many, many people know how they can apply for them, and they use the opportunity every single year, but how can we, as a Parliament, do something to make that easier?

I’d like to note that this piece of legislation is over 40 years old, and I think the wider point around it is that this piece of legislation should be reviewed as a whole. I’ll acknowledge the member for wanting to do something in this space, because it’s an important space. There are more and more retirement villages being built. There’s a new retirement village being built in my electorate, quite close to Pakuranga Park Village, a retirement village. And with an ageing population, these issues are issues that are going to come up more and more. So I guess the question is whether we should, as a Parliament, be looking at taking a broader, wider look at this legislation. I noted somewhere that that was one of the recommendations that came back through the select committee process, and whether that’s what should be happening with this particular bill.

Another question I’ve got—and it relates to the increasing costs that we’re seeing with local government. In Auckland, Aucklanders will be pleased to see that the council’s proposing not to charge the interim transport levy, which is going to be replaced by a petrol tax, but it relates to the costs of local government. I guess the question relating to this bill is the question of what the cost of this will be and the increased burden on local government as they go through their budgetary processes in the lead-up to next year. So this bill, yes, it comes into place at the same time that their new budgets will have to come into place in the middle of next year, but that’s something that they’re going to have to consider.

I was looking at the application process in SOP 10, under the proposed section 7A(4)(c)(iii) “that the resident’s rates contribution was made under a written agreement between the operator and the resident;”. I guess that raises the question in my mind around the fact that a lot of different retirement villages operate differently in relation to how much of the cost of the rates they apply to those who live in those villages. The question there is around these agreements. Some retirement villages will pass on the full cost; others will pass on a small amount of cost. How will that be included into the process for how much these retirement villages’ residents will get from the rebate?

So there are a number of questions that we have on this side regarding this bill. As I said earlier, I think it has good intentions. It’s one of those issues that are going to continue to grow as we have a growing elderly population, as more retirement villages are built. I would hope that at some point in the near future we would be able to look at the Rates Rebate Act and do a complete review so that we can resolve these issues in a proper fashion. Thank you very much for your time.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): The questions that were asked in the last four contributions were incredibly similar to the questions that were asked earlier in the debate, but there were one or two that have not been addressed, so I’ll try to address them.

The first thing, though, is that I just would remind members that what we are talking about now is people who live in retirement villages, not people who are in rest homes, and that cuts out quite a lot of the debate, because this isn’t about rest homes. This is about people who buy a villa or an apartment in a retirement village and, instead of getting a unit title, they have an occupational rights agreement, more often known as “licence to occupy”. That cuts out any of those questions about the rest homes and the contribution that Government makes.

We have been over the administrative cost. The unit title reform legislation that the Hon Nikki Kaye raised is not at all related to this. In fact, if it was related to this, we wouldn’t be having the debate, because this is about people who do not have a unit title. That’s the point of the debate: it’s filling the gap.

Finally, Mr O’Connor raised the question of definition, and the answer is no. If somebody moves out of the villa, whether it’s two days or two years after the start of the rating year, they are no longer eligible. You have to be resident in that property in order to be eligible to apply for a rates rebate.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. When I was the Minister for Seniors over the past three years, I had been very much aware of the issue around this particular bill, and I would like to draw attention to aspects of the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill.

When this bill first came before the House there were problems with it, and I think that the Supplementary Order Papers that the member Ms Dyson has put forward go, in some way, to making this bill more clear, more simple, and more straightforward. However, there are some questions remaining, and I would be very interested to hear how the member proposing this legislation would deal with those.

One of the things that has become very apparent is that the old regulations around people going into retirement villages meant that some of them, depending on their age and so forth, could be signing up for life. The capped service fee for life has been an issue for many of the retirement village owners that I have heard from, who have expressed concern at the idea of doing rebates on, effectively, what are fixed costs, which may well have been paid off by the residents after a period of a decade or two. Thankfully, people are living much longer and healthier lives. This is, of course, a good thing. It means, of course, though, that we have an ageing population. When people are in a retirement village environment, they tend to stay there. The villages are now expanding.

I feel that the capped service fee and the cost to the owners of these facilities is therefore going to be a growing problem, and I wonder if the member has given thought to how there might be some amendment or capacity for some of these villages, who, in all good spirit and faith, have signed people on to these capped service fees, and then find themselves unable to run their own facilities in the way that they want to, because they simply don’t have the money to do the work that they do if the residents aren’t paying it.

When we look at what has happened in the way that rates rebates are calculated—as the member pointed out earlier, there are of course a number of places around New Zealand that do things differently. I am, in addition to being the spokesperson for conservation in the Opposition, also the member of Parliament for North Shore, and I’m very well aware that the Auckland Council’s rates remission policy does enable the Auckland Council to remit the uniform annual general charge and, as well as that, the transport levy, which is a targeted rate for residents of retirement villages, although we are hearing more from Mayor Goff that that may go when the fuel tax, which will come in at some stage next year, comes in. So there is a level of uncertainly as to what exactly people will be paid back.

A remission that is applied to the rates of the retirement village where the applicant resides, where an agreement exists between that retirement village operator and the council—those benefits are passed on to the resident, but not in all cases. It seems to me that when we look at what occurred to the residents of Auckland in the last few weeks, which is where we went online and found out our re-evaluations, and, for many people in the electorate that I represent, people’s values for their land—not so much the improvements, but for their land—have gone up by up to 75 percent. Happy on the one hand, of course, that the properties have gone up in value; feeling a little bit sick and worried as to what may happen in June next year when the ratings come up.

The reason I’m giving this as an example is because, if the rates go through the roof—which people are fearful of—then the rates rebate rate is going to be negligible and is not going to make any difference to people on fixed incomes who are capital rich—their properties can be sold for a great deal of money—but don’t have the sort of disposable income that would allow them to meet the extra cost. In a retirement village situation, for example, if they’re not on a fixed-rate contract—and there are some variable contracts around New Zealand—they may then find that they are in a position where they are being charged too much.

So, with the land values shooting up in many parts of Auckland, I wonder how that is going to be accommodated—and those burdens, when it comes to people who are paying, goodness knows, $7,000 to $10,000 annually. If you extrapolate that out, in the area that I represent—Ryman Healthcare, for example, have just put in, or are about to commence building, a very large retirement village, and they will be doing a lot to ensure that they recover their costs. So will it then become prohibitive for people to move into these retirement villages? I feel that there are a lot of issues of this kind.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Abstentions 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Earlier, when the previous Chair was in the seat, I asked for the bill to be considered in four parts because there is so much information and material, as a result of a mishearing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So what is the point of order?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the point of order is that this is a substantial bill and we would like to continue to debate it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry, but the motion has been put and the Ayes have won. Although the debate for the bill was taken as one, we will be voting clause by clause.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 9 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Clause 3 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert new clause 5 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert new clause 6 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 November.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member like a call?

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: The member would like a call.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I was under the impression that Amy Adams was midway through her call, but apparently not.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if a member’s not in the House, I can hardly call them.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: You can ask. Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Iain Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If ever there was a bill that was a solution desperately looking for a problem, this is it.

Brett Hudson: That is uncharitable, Iain. That is very uncharitable.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is it. Well, it might be uncharitable, Mr Hudson, but it’s true, and the most important thing is to always speak the truth about the bills that we are debating in this Chamber.

The member brought this bill claiming that anybody earning over $150,000 a year ought to be able to contract out of taking a personal grievance, which is, essentially, diminishing one of the fundamental rights in our employment law for a huge number of workers. Now, the member suggested that this was only going to apply to senior managers and to chief executives. But the truth is that at that level, a huge number of people who are sort of at the middle-management level, or people who happen to be in industries where the level of pay is perhaps higher than most but who are not in senior management roles, are people who do not necessarily have more power or more cachet than other employees, and they would be swept up by this. There would be a huge amount of pressure put on people who fall into this category of earning more than $150,000 to accept the terms of their employment agreement and to accept the requirement to contract out of being able to take a personal grievance.

Now, what was interesting was that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—a couple of very interesting things came up at the select committee. One was that the member for Wairarapa stated that he would like to see the threshold actually be reduced to $75,000.

Alastair Scott: That’s right.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s right—the member agrees. He would like to see ordinary working people, earning not a lot more than the average wage, being forced to contract out of a—

Alastair Scott: No, it’s an option. It’s a choice.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: See? Now, this is where the National Party demonstrate their fundamental lack of understanding of how things work in the real world, because the truth is that for most people out there, they are presented with a contract, they are presented with the terms and conditions of that contract, and it’s “take it or leave it”. Now, if you’re at $75,000—if you’re earning $75,000—there is going to be plenty of competition out there for that job. For the National Party member to say he supports lowering the threshold in this bill to $75,000 and putting ordinary workers under the condition where they would be forced to accept a situation where they would have to contract out of being able to take a personal grievance, I think is a very dire reflection on the National Party’s approach to industrial relations. It just shows that they haven’t seen a single workers’ right that they do not want to undermine, and this is just another example of that, with this particular piece of legislation.

But what was really telling was that at the select committee, Business New Zealand came to submit. Business New Zealand are an organisation that I have a huge amount of respect for. They are helping this Government develop our industrial relations programme and are working very closely with this Government. They came in support of this bill, but they made one particularly interesting comment, and it was that the vast majority of people that the member in charge of this bill says that this bill is supposed to capture—the CEOs, the senior managers, the very high-level people—the vast majority of those people do not—

Brett Hudson: It’s not just the CEOs, Mr Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, if it’s not just about the CEOs and it’s not just about the senior managers, then, I ask the member, who is it about? Is it about the ordinary workers that the member for Wairarapa would like to see included in the bill? Is that who the National Party wants to see lose the right to take a personal grievance if they are unjustifiably dismissed? Because it sounds awfully like that is what the member wants this bill to be about.

But Business New Zealand came to the select committee and they said, “Look, in the vast majority of cases, chief executives and senior managers do not take a personal grievance. Instead, what they do is they settle differences through other means.” Usually, there is some sort of settlement or payout, they move on, and they go and get a job somewhere else, or whatever happens. But settlement is reached, the arrangement is terminated, and everybody moves on, which is, I think, exactly what the member intends—or at least, that’s what he says he intends, although his intentions have got murkier the longer I’ve been speaking this evening.

But that’s what the member intends this legislation to do—give senior management people the opportunity to terminate their relationship with their employer through means other than using a personal grievance. What it turns out—and Business New Zealand came and told us this at the select committee—is that’s exactly what happens right now. The law allows for that right now.

It’s exactly what happens right now, and this bill is completely pointless because it legislates in order to create something that already exists—and that would be one thing. If it was a bill that just kind of was rather innocuous and didn’t do anything and legislated to confirm something that already happened, then maybe on this side of the House we wouldn’t be so bothered by it. But, of course, what it actually does is it starts this process of undermining workers’ rights and of undermining the principle of being able to take a personal grievance in the event that an employee is unjustifiably dismissed. So it’s not just a bill that kind of doesn’t do anything; it’s actually a bill that can do a lot of harm but doesn’t actually create any good. It doesn’t create anything new. It doesn’t create an opportunity that doesn’t already exist. The senior managers and their employers already do exactly what is envisaged in this legislation, but what it does do is start to undermine workers’ rights.

That is why this side of the House will not be supporting this bill, and that is why we will always champion workers’ rights, we will always enhance workers’ rights. This side of the House—

Brett Hudson: Removing choice—removing choice, Mr Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —wants to see—no, we are not removing choice, Mr Hudson, because those people already have the choice. They already have the choice, and Business New Zealand came and told the select committee that they have the choice. The choice already exists. You are not adding any more choice by bringing this bill to the House. You are not adding anything at all. What you are doing is undermining workers’ rights.

Now, on this side of the House, that’s not the way we do things. We enhance workers’ rights. We want to improve the bargaining position of workers in the workplace. We want to ensure that as the economy grows and as we get more productivity, we have an industrial relations framework that ensures that the rewards of that growth, the rewards of that productivity, are shared with all workers, with everybody. And one of the most important ways we can do that is to ensure that we strengthen the position of working people in the workplace.

Now, we’ve had nine years—nine consistent years—of workers’ rights being eroded by the Government. What we don’t need is another member’s bill that is, frankly, silly, that doesn’t do anything constructive, and that only undermines workers’ rights even further. I know that’s the National Party’s modus operandi. I know that’s their reason for existing. It’s why they come to Parliament. Every time we have a National Government, we see workers’ rights steadily or, often, dramatically eroded, but it’s going to stop.

We’ve had it for nine years, and it’s going to stop now, and we’re going to instead start introducing legislation that enhances workers’ rights, improves their pay, and makes working people better off. So as we grow the economy, we’re finally going to have a Government that is going to grow the economy in per capita terms. We’re going to make sure that working people are actually better off as a result of growing that economy.

So I say to members: vote this bill down. Let’s see the end of it, and let’s instead get on with some industrial relations legislation that actually makes people better off.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I just want to give Minister Lees-Galloway a round of applause for that. That was a fantastic contribution, and the last time we were in the House, a fortnight ago, listening to this bill—I’ve never heard my name called out so often. It was a Clayton’s bill, as it was so eloquently referred to, which forced me to come down early to listen to the nonsense that we were hearing on that side of the House.

This is a bill that I can gladly say will be voted down tonight. I’m pleased that it’s waited until the 52nd Parliament to make its way through the House. We had the displeasure of listening to the absolute nonsense as it was going through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The vast majority of people that came in to give their advice in the select committee had a very, very strong opinion on this bill. It was described by one person as a solution looking for the problem, and I think that is an understatement. It was also described as a bugger’s muddle. Seriously—yes, it was. It was considered and spoken to and called “a bugger’s muddle.”

Now, it’s interesting to say the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill—goodness me, that’s a mouthful; if it ever went through, it’d have to be changed—really is a problematic bill. The purpose behind it—we haven’t quite got to substantiate as to why this has even made it as far as it has.

I understand Mr Hudson adopted this bill from Scott Simpson, so you’d sort of think that you’d be humble on it, but he actually seems to be getting right in behind it, and it reminds me of a Jordan Belfort movie—like The Wolf of Wall Street. It’s there purely and simply to look after big city money. In no way does this bill look after the workers and their rights, and, at the end of the day—

Hon Members: It’s not about workers.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: It is about the workers. It’s always about those workers, and this member in the House has the audacity to talk about something that’s going to benefit workers when it actually doesn’t do a single thing to benefit workers.

Look, I would like to consider a renaming, certainly in line with The Wolf of Wall Street—maybe “The Worm of Wellington”. He could be the “Brett Belfort” of Wellington, and certainly of this House with a bill like this.

And to suggest that people that earn more money are in a better place to negotiate doesn’t make any sense at all, and I can give you this example. We have had members of this House earning over $300,000 a year go overseas to negotiate, on the behalf of, and in the best interest of, New Zealanders, an agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), and they said, “This is the best agreement we could get. This is the best negotiation that we can come up with, and no changes can be made.” Now, this is the epitome of negotiators, according to the National Party over there, and yet despite their rhetoric of saying that the bill couldn’t be changed, in four days we had the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is the second reading. Can you come to the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —this is about negotiations, which is part of this bill, and it’s about people that earn higher earnings—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bring it to the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —that can actually negotiate those bills. This is exactly the bill.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak to the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: My point being that they were a bugger’s muddle when they came to negotiating that with the higher earners. They couldn’t—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member doesn’t speak to the bill, I’ll curtail his speech. Will he come back to the bill, please.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: The point is that people don’t always get themselves into a position to negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag, and that has been clearly articulated by the lack of negotiations that we’ve seen with the TPPA and the new agreements that have come through.

My point is this: this bill will have a negative impact on doctors, who are in part captured in this organisation of higher earners. We have heard from their medical practitioners’ union, who are extremely concerned. Doctors concentrate on people’s well-being and their health, and they should not be having to worry about whether or not their personal grievance can be negotiated out of a contract.

This bill’s intent is 100 percent designed purely and simply to look after the best interests of big city money, multinational corporations, and those people that aren’t always in the best position to negotiate themselves.

We’re talking about, and looking at, problems that all businesses face around this country. We talk about workplace bullying. Now, it doesn’t matter what age, wage, or where you sit in the scale of things, workplace bullying is a serious problem, and it doesn’t matter who you are; you are susceptible to that. And if somebody is going to harass you or henpeck you or bully you in your workplace, you must be in a position where you can take a personal grievance against that employer or the situation that you’re finding yourself in, otherwise what is the purpose of having workplace relations in the first instance?

And I have to say, when somebody is negotiating their workplace relations with the current rules and regulations, it puts a lot of power in the negotiating process onto the employer. With the 90-day work trial, obviously, if somebody refused to sign out of their personal grievances clause, that actually gives the workplace the power to let them go after 90 days without actually addressing the problem that may or may not be, and that is something that I’ll be discussing with the Minister later on this evening.

We as New Zealand First opposed this at the first reading. We opposed it through the select committee. We had a number of people on the select committee, some of whom I can call out, who were there to eat their lunch, or the lovely biscuits from our chair, Jonathan Young, who I thought did a great job of trying to mediate this. As far as David Bennett was concerned, he really was there for the free biscuits. We would hope to see, and I’m sure we will see, this bill get shot down at the end of this debate. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of my colleague Brett Hudson. I commend him for his initiative in bringing it to this House, and I have to say I am enjoying the discussion that’s been had on both sides of the House in relation to the bill so far.

The first thing to note is, surely, the situations in which this bill, or its provisions, will become relevant—that is to say, if it does become law. It will relate to individual employment agreements. The significance of those is, of course, in the name. So these are individual agreements; these are not collective agreements. These are agreements concluded between two parties, who we should presume, as a starting point, are able and entitled to make contractual arrangements on their own behalf, and that’s something to which I’ll return shortly, in terms of their ability and the presumption that they will, indeed, be able to do so. So that addresses, at least briefly, the aspect of them being individual employment agreements.

Second, as to them being agreements, this, of course, implies in the very term that the parties—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break. The House will be resumed at 7.30 p.m.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members, the House has resumed. Welcome back from the dinner break. When we broke for dinner we were debating the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. Chris Penk had the call. He has eight minutes and 28 seconds.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to resume my contribution on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. Prior to the dinner break I had mentioned a couple of aspects that seemed to me important regarding the fact that it is specifically individual employment agreements with which this amendment is concerned. In doing so, I began to comment on, and would now like to develop comment on, the fact that this is a choice that needs to be mutual between employers and employees.

Now, if we look at the intent, indeed the purpose, of the parent legislation, namely the Employment Relations Act, those specific provisions are quite specifically, if one views the history of that legislation, designed to ensure that vulnerable workers are protected, and it’s precisely in the context of that need for protection that we consider whether an amendment is justifiable. So the question is: will the people who are affected be vulnerable such that they need that protection, because, as a general principle, this House should pass legislation that is needed, as much as is needed, but no more? So we must always examine the extent of protection, in this case, and ask whether we are giving up something else in exchange for that.

Now, the amount that a person is earning or would earn under such an arrangement is regarded as something of a proxy for their non-vulnerability. I do accept that there are other measures that one might use in terms of valuing employment and indicating the ability of a worker to negotiate.

Hon Andrew Little: You’re out of touch. That’s why you got voted out.

CHRIS PENK: It’s a view that’s not necessarily shared by all across the House. I do appreciate that, and I look forward to the member’s own contribution on the legislation.

Now, it’s also worth noting, of course, what this legislative proposal does not do, specifically in the context of the bill having been introduced with a relatively broad scope in relation to workers or prospective workers who will be earning $150,000 a year. It was originally to have been quite broad in scope but was narrowed—rightly, in my view—to be explicitly not in relation to matters such as harassment, health and safety, and discrimination. It seems to me sensible to contemplate that a person might be in a position to earn high wages but could still be subject to pressure or abuse in those kinds of realms and that we should protect people in any case, whatever the other terms of their employment situation. So that seems to me a sensible carve-out.

In relation to health and safety, of course, it seems to me sensible to have accountability under that, and, of course, that’s not always the case in legislation or proposed legislation. Of course, some are quite happy to pass the buck on occasion, and there may be members in the House who would like to comment on that aspect in relation to other matters that are, or will be, before the House shortly.

I was interested to hear the comments of Mr Lees-Galloway previously in relation to the amendment bill—that it was both pointless and had the potential to do a lot of harm. It seems to me that these are contradictory notions, albeit he tried to justify that view in the sense of saying that it would be a general undermining but at the same time would achieve nothing. So it seems to me that that’s an ideologically motivated point more than anything, given that he went on to say that it doesn’t create opportunity. But, as anyone in this House, or, probably much more likely, in the real world, will know, opportunity has many different forms. Opportunity should also be measured in terms of opportunity cost. And there’s a considerable cost in the threat of litigation of a personal grievance nature; the dreaded “PG”—the dreaded “PG”, ladies and gentlemen, that hangs over the head of many an employer—and the uncertainty that relates to that is a winner only for certain classes of people who thrive on uncertainty, who thrive on conflict, and whose very raison d’être is to create such uncertainty wherever possible and to profit off that, albeit not necessarily in a pecuniary sense.

So it seems to me, having been in a position of practising law where, I am not ashamed to acknowledge, I was sometimes in a position of preparing cases or potential cases for clients where they felt that they had been perhaps entitled and able to bring a meritorious personal grievance case. Some of those were of greater merit than others. Of course, in all cases I represented their opinion, whether employer or employee, diligently, as I am required—indeed, all lawyers are required—but it did seem to me at the time that in some cases it was merely a method or a mechanism of creating uncertainty, creating a disturbance such that it would be easier and better to pay out the disgruntled worker a multiple or, rather, a fraction of the salary that they had been earning until that time.

Now, if a worker is earning as much as $150,000 a year—[Bell rung]—thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—or, indeed, more and that person exercises the rights that they will have under this legislation, then if they were to bring a personal grievance frivolously—

Hon Andrew Little: They can’t—they cannot bring a personal grievance under this bill.

CHRIS PENK: If they were able to bring a personal grievance, whether justly or not, then it might be a considerable amount of money that they might unjustly—if, indeed, it were an unjust claim—be able to seek from the employer. So it seems to me, in those situations—and I acknowledge with self-consciousness that I was part of that process once upon a time, in my former professional life—that the lawyers are the greatest beneficiaries in such situations, and Heaven forbid that we should do anything that does not keep the lawyers down. We should allow people to contract as freely as possible between themselves, except of course when we consider them to be sufficiently vulnerable that the protection of the law is required.

So it is that these proposals have been made, and I note that there was some commentary at the time that the legislation initially was passing through the early stages of the process, where there was some considerable benefit recognised by people within the various professions on whom this would have some impact, in particular—going back to that point I made before and only touched on briefly, but other colleagues may pick up further—regarding the fact that it is quite narrow in its scope. It’s not ambitious in the sense that it does not seek to limit other rights of employers—

Hon Andrew Little: It does—it takes away your rights—

CHRIS PENK: —and it’s specifically the words “other rights” that I think the member opposite may not have heard, and if he did hear that, and if he were—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure of mine to take a call on this, the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievances Provisions) Amendment Bill. Listening to the member Christopher Penk, who has just spoken, he suffers the flaw that so many National MPs suffer, which is that they just do not get the reality of the employment relationship and employment law. You see, the fundamental problem with this—well, there are two fundamental problems with this bill: one is that it assumes that because you are on an income of $150,000 or more, you have total control over your employment and your daily employment, and the way you go about your business. But that is not the case, and I could probably give names of fitters and sparkies and tradespeople around the country who earn that, or more than that, but who are under the instruction of an employer and do not have control over their workaday life.

The other failure of the National Party who are promoting this bill, in relation to this bill, is that they do not get that this bill removes the ability of somebody earning above that threshold, or at it—any ability at all—to challenge an unfair dismissal. It removes it completely. It takes away the common law right to take a claim of wrongful dismissal. So to help the members opposite, because some of them are new and most of them are ignorant, I am going to traverse the history of the personal grievance jurisdiction in New Zealand.

Here’s the thing: we actually have National to thank for introducing personal grievances, in 1970. In 1970, they introduced the idea of the personal grievance because, even then—a more progressive time for the National Party, admittedly—the post - World War II consensus National Party understood that working people needed to have the ability to challenge unfair dismissal without bankrupting themselves. It was very expensive to take a wrongful dismissal claim, and the remedies available to an hourly-paid worker or to a wage-worker were not that great—maybe a month’s pay, but that was pretty much it. You couldn’t pay your lawyers even if you won and you got a month’s pay. The National Government at the time was concerned about the growing number of strikes that were being taken to support workers who their colleagues thought were unfairly dismissed, and they introduced this law.

The Labour Government of 1972 then rewrote the Industrial Relations Act, as it then was. They beefed it up a little bit, they added a few more provisions in the personal grievance laws, but the personal grievance law became established as the basic rule of fairness in employment, and we’ve had it since then—we’ve had it since then. For nearly 50 years we’ve had this law, and what this bill does is it defines somebody’s rights on the basis of their income. Typical National Party value—it’s not about the human being, it’s not about your employment relationship or the level of control you have or don’t have over it.

The whole reason for the personal grievance law was to recognise that there was an inherent imbalance in the employment relationship: that if you were a worker, in addition to whatever statutory rights you had at the time, you were still subject to the common law duty of the worker to obey—the duty to obey—and the duty to act in good faith and fidelity to your employer, and all those things that were a constraint on the rights of the worker, in many respects. The personal grievance jurisdiction was introduced to bring some balance and fairness, and to allow workers to challenge unfairness if they got sacked unfairly, without bankrupting themselves.

Here’s the interesting thing that the members opposite might like to know, if they haven’t already learnt: the personal grievance jurisdiction at that time, and until 1991, when thanks to that National Government—it was confined to those who were employees under an employment agreement, whether it was collective or individual or whatever. So there was an acceptance that if you were the chief executive, you were in a different situation. I have some sympathy for that argument, but I do not have any sympathy at all for a bill that says your rights—your human rights, your employment rights—are totally defined by the income that you earn and not the reality of your employment situation. That’s the fundamental failure in this bill, that’s why it’s wrong, and that’s why it ought to be voted down, and I’m confident that tonight the House will do exactly that.

This bill makes it worse than the pre-1970 position that workers—and, for that matter, chief executives—were in. Even then, if you were a chief executive or a senior executive and you weren’t a member of a union or part of a collective agreement or an award, as they called them in those days, and had access to the personal grievance procedure, you at least had the right to go to court for a wrongful dismissal claim.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. This bill takes that away—this bill takes that away—the common law right to take a wrongful dismissal claim. I know the ACT Party will be concerned about that, because they are the party of the common law. Members opposite who know anything about the law will be concerned about that as well, because one of the fundamental principles of our system of law is that people do not lose rights just because of the status that they have, and that’s what this bill does—that’s what this bill does. This bill takes away any protection at all for the class of people that it defines. Even if it was confined to chief executives and senior executives, in its current terms this bill would be wrong because it’s unfair—that’s how hopeless this bill is. The author of it isn’t here to defend it and isn’t going to defend it, and did not, when he spoke tonight, provide any defence to it either.

You see, when you look at the submissions that went to the select committee about this, how disappointing it is that organisations like Business New Zealand—of course they welcomed this, because they, like the National Party, want nothing more than just those incremental erosions of workers’ rights. Well, I say this: the Government has changed. This is a new Government and we are going to restore basic rights and basic fairness to every employee, to every worker. They’ve had nine years of having them slowly and incrementally taken off them, and it’s going to change. It’s going to change tonight when this bill gets unceremoniously dumped because it adds nothing, it does nothing, it would discriminate against hard-working employees, and it does nothing for chief executives and other employers.

It is changing. Life is changing, and there is no place for a bill that discriminates against working people, as this bill does. I look forward to the vote in the House tonight, to see this bill sent where it belongs: in the dustbin of history.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I also felt like applauding that last speech. The Green Party, too, is very pleased to continue to oppose this piece of legislation, rather prosaically named Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. I’ve got to say that the lack of elegance in the title is reflected in a lack of elegance in the intent and substance of this bill, unfortunately.

The bill, which is in the name of the National Party member Brett Hudson—normally, I would acknowledge the member for their initiative and luck at getting a bill drawn but, unfortunately, the member whose name this is in was neither the author of the bill nor the one whose name it was in when it was pulled, so I can’t do that. Actually, I do feel a little sorry for him, being stuck with this rather unfortunate bill that is about to, thankfully, go in the rubbish tin this evening.

This bill has been through the select committee process, and in part the bill was improved at the committee. The bill that was first sent to that select committee enabled the employers of people earning over $150,000 not to ever be at risk of having a personal grievance taken against them, even in cases of sexual or racial harassment. Anyone that has been following the world news around Harvey Weinstein and the many, many, many other cases of sexual harassment would recognise the significant risk that was in the bill as it was initially pulled. I do commend the select committee for ruling out removing that right of legal protection for victims of sexual harassment, but it does tell us something about the ideology behind this.

If we acknowledge the extent of the problem of sexual harassment in our workplaces and how it affects people—primarily women—in all strata of the income spectrum, then we actually have to fundamentally recognise that imbalance of power between an employer and a worker that is at the heart of what is so wrong with this piece of legislation. If we need to protect people and give them a right of redress for sexual harassment, then we need to actually acknowledge that they may well be at risk of other malpractice—and I use “mal” broadly—in the workplace.

It’s important, too, to recognise that New Zealand has the second-worst level of bullying in workplaces in the developed world. A survey that was done—I think, last year—found that one in five New Zealand workers had been subjected to bullying. There was a recent survey done this year of senior medical practitioners that also found exceptionally high levels of bullying in their workplaces. So if we are to get on top of that culture and ensure safety for everyone in the workplaces in New Zealand, we need ensure that people have clear avenues for raising those issues and being protected and being able to have redress when things go wrong, and this legislation erodes those protections and those incentives to build positive work environments. I wouldn’t have thought anyone in this House would want that.

I would also like to speak to some of the provisions that were mentioned by the previous speaker on the downside of what happened in select committee. My understanding is that the select committee made some changes that decided to exempt the employer from any obligation to provide the employee with any information about a decision to dismiss them. So now, if this law was to pass, an employer could dismiss somebody earning over $150,000 a year without even giving a reason for it. And the person they were dismissing would not even have the opportunity—which was another change that was made—to be able to comment before that decision was made. It’s just, if you think about that power relationship that we acknowledge—I think you have to acknowledge—exists, that imbalance, and then to remove the right to even get a reason for a dismissal or to be able to comment on that decision to dismiss, it’s pretty clear that this legislation is tipping the scales too far in favour of employers.

I think it was mentioned by a member of the Government side that this would apply only when people were on individual contracts, but my understanding is that in the select committee process there was the decision to enable employees to opt out even when otherwise part of a collective contract. So, again, the protections and efforts to establish a standard, and good employment culture and practice in a workplace, which is often done through a collective agreement, can be undermined by this piece of legislation.

The assumption that we’ve heard is that if somebody’s earning over $150,000 a year, then they’ll automatically have sufficient bargaining power and the necessary skills to negotiate in their own interests, even when we have a culture of severe workplace bullying, even when we’ve had so many cases come to public attention of sexual harassment in the workplace that are experienced by high-income earners. We’ve had those cases, and yet if somebody is—they may have the right to take a sexual harassment claim, but, on average, the Human Rights Commission gets only 50 complaints of sexual harassment a year in this country and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment doesn’t record that data. So, when we know we’ve got one of the highest rates of gender-based violence in the world, we could expect that we have a much higher rate of sexual harassment, and we are not monitoring it and we do not have the systems in place to gather it, and here we are, looking—if that member had had his way—at changing the culture even more to make it more difficult for somebody to take a claim and to be able to be safe in their workplace. So I am very, very pleased indeed to be seeing this going into the rubbish bin.

I would just say, finally, that it is very pleasing to see and hear from members on the Government side, who are acknowledging that imbalance of power and our duty in this place to support positive workplace cultures and employment practices. That means setting some decent standards like we had when the personal grievance legislation was introduced, and protecting those standards so that we can actually make our workplaces that productive, enjoyable place where we all find meaning and get to contribute. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking to the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. This is, of course, a very interesting bill, and I’ve listened closely to the arguments that have been put forward tonight. I’ve got to say, listening to the Government’s side—and particularly from Labour and New Zealand First—looking through the arguments, I believe there’s a tendency to approach this bill purely from an ideological perspective; namely, they believe that the only type of employment contract that should be persuasive throughout New Zealand should be collective agreements. The second thing is that every employee should have the same type and conditions of employment. Thirdly, there’s a presumption that the State should impose these arrangements through the nature of employment laws that are in operation in New Zealand.

Personally, I’m not particularly persuaded by those arguments. Rather, I believe that we should be approaching this topic more from a principled position. I want to just raise five issues. The first one is: should some employees and employers be in a position to freely enter into arrangements? I note the point—and I just want to highlight the point—that it’s freely negotiated. There is no compulsion. I believe that it should. I believe this is almost a human rights issue and one that is appropriate for New Zealand. The second one is: do we have faith in our employment laws? As they currently stand, I do believe that we should have faith in our employment laws. They operate efficiently and effectively and have up to now.

The third issue I want to raise is: does the bill still adequately protect the rights of employees against illegitimate dismissal? I think there’s a little bit of confusion, and particularly that last speaker, Jan Logie, was particularly confused. The issue under the bill is that you can contract out only of unjustifiable dismissal. That’s the nature of the flexibility around this bill. What this bill does not allow you to contract out of is a whole raft of other issues that may relate to a personal grievance: namely, disadvantage, decriminalisation, sexual harassment, racial harassment, duress, and health and safety, as well as a couple of other provisions. So, in those cases, the employee is still at liberty to take an action against the employer if those situations occur.

Fourthly, does this bill create an element of power imbalance? I’ve heard some of the speakers—and particularly the former leader of the Labour Party—talk at length on this. I don’t believe that that is the case, for the following reasons: first of all, the nature of the employee that is involved in this discussion, and, obviously, it’s defined by an amount earning more than $150,000, which, as many people will know, represents only about 1 percent of all employees in the country.

Secondly, by implication and by association, I think it’s fair to assume those people in that lucky position to be earning more than $150,000 are often highly skilled people, have the ability to negotiate adequately on their behalf, and will willingly do so if they are given the opportunity.

Thirdly, the provisions around the bill require, first of all, if someone wishes to do this, that the employee first receive written advice—must get official advice—from a lawyer and that that lawyer has to certify in writing that they have provided advice to the employee around the nature of the liabilities that they may be entering into and the implications thereof. I think those elements are very, very important in terms of looking at the principles of this bill. I think the last thing is the protections that have been built into the bill around protecting further rights of employees. I think all that goes to make this a commendable bill and worth further discussion.

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

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I’m absolutely delighted to take this call on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. I don’t really know where to start. I know I have only five minutes, but there’s been so much rubbish coming from the other side of the House that it’s really going to leave me short of breath if I want to get everything covered.

The previous speakers on our side of the House have already eloquently covered quite a few of the aspects I wanted to talk about, but we might have to repeat them a few times because they don’t seem to be able to get through their heads as to what is really important in those arguments. Andrew Bayly, the previous speaker, mentioned all of the provisions that you can still challenge a dismissal on. Well, they are only human rights, and just because you narrow a bill to only not be able to challenge an unfair dismissal doesn’t make it a good bill.

This bill, in practice, still lets people in the position of a redundancy, a medical incapacity, or an alleged misconduct when it results in a dismissal be not allowed to challenge that dismissal. Somehow, the argument seems to be that you can consider earning $150,000 a proxy, but for what? The member for Helensville mentioned the proxy. He didn’t actually really explain what that proxy does. Well, I can explain what it doesn’t do. The proxy doesn’t actually take away the complete imbalance of power in the employment relationship.

Section 3 of the Employment Relations Act specifically states that there is an inherent inequality of power, and just taking that away with this bill is completely unacceptable. You can’t just say someone has a choice and that it’s voluntary whether or not you’re going to take up the option of waiving your rights to fair justice and access to justice.

You know, I live in the real world. I’ve worked in the real world. I’ve seen hundreds of instances where people were dealing with that inequality of the power relationship, and they were at the receiving end of it. I can only imagine that had they waived their rights at the beginning of the relationship, when they hadn’t put their mind to the fact that they might get into a situation where they lose their job, they would have been in really, really dire straits.

So saying that people have an option just because they start a new job and can then say, “Oh look, you know, maybe I’ll never get in trouble, whether it’s my fault or someone else’s fault, and maybe I’ll never need this provision.” is totally unfair to a brand new employee. Firstly, they probably don’t put their minds to that fact. Most people that start a new job are starting it very optimistically—like we are here—and very passionately. They never ever think they’re going to get in trouble, whether it’s their own fault or someone else’s, and so that is totally unfair to that person. Secondly, the person that has offered to waive their rights to fair justice or access to justice is in a very pressured environment where there may be other interviewees for that same job that are prepared to waive their rights. So that, again, puts undue pressure on them.

What this bill does, and someone asked—actually, I think it was the member for Helensville who asked, “How is this bill undermining?” If you’ve worked and lived in the real world, you’ve seen those instances of how this bill would be undermining. [Interruption] And, if you give me a second, I will explain it to you. But I guess you don’t want to hear it because it has already been told to you, but you still don’t get it. So, basically, what it means is that employees will be silenced at work regarding concerns they may have, whether that is bullying—and we just heard from the member from the Green Party that that is a massive concern in New Zealand. Whether it is bullying, harassment, equal pay issues, or health and safety concerns, anything that could be considered criticism—even constructive criticism—will go underground. It will stifle workplace engagement and undermine the open, transparent, communicative, and engaged workplace culture that we on this side of the House promote.

Your bill has been called “a dog of a bill”—I read it in the Hansard of the first reading. That’s exactly what it is, and that’s why we oppose it. It’s a clear sign of how much the previous Government disregarded working people’s rights and of how much they were an anti-worker Government. Thank you to all New Zealanders who voted for a change of Government, so that this Government can get to work, reverse the undermining effects made to working people’s conditions we’ve seen over the last nine years, and get some good stuff going on improving things.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well, that member, Marja Lubeck, hasn’t read the bill. That member has not read the bill. This bill affects only those who are earning over $150,000, for a start. That member earns over $150,000, and is able and capable of negotiating her own contract with any employer. I know she can, I believe she can, I trust she can, because I believe that those people who are earning over $150,000 have the ability and the capability to understand the contracts that they are entering into. In fact, I believe people who earn less than $150,000 also have the ability, the capability, the understanding to negotiate their employment contract.

And, yes, the previous speaker was right: there is pressure from employers on employees—to say, “Are you in or are you not? Do you want to do this or do you want that? Do you want the car? Do you want the superannuation as part of your benefit? Do you want $150,000 or $160,000?” That’s just the way the market works. That’s the way employment contracts work on an individual basis.

See, the difference between that side and this side is this side believes people have the capability, the understanding, the wherewithal to negotiate for themselves. We have trust in the individual. That side thinks that the people of New Zealand, particularly those who are earning over $150,000, are idiots. They don’t understand the contracts that they might enter into! They need the goodness of the Labour Party to help them out negotiating their individual employment contracts! Now, we are all earning over $150,000, and I believe most of us—no, let’s just say all of us, to give the benefit of the doubt—are capable of negotiating with a counter-party an agreement, and I’m talking about employer-employee agreements.

Coming to a couple of points Iain Lees-Galloway made—he had not read the bill, either. The fundamental difference here—

Brett Hudson: He sat on the committee, and he hadn’t read the bill.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: But he chose, and I am going to get to choice again, not to read and understand the workings of the bill—the amended bill, after it had gone through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were a number of changes that occurred in the select committee, and that was a good process, and I acknowledge the select committee work from both sides in improving the bill. It did need some work, and it has been worked on, and there are some good improvements.

But the fundamental problem Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has is that he does not understand that this is a choice for the employee. There is no obligation. There is no obligation to enter into this agreement. There is no obligation for the employer to force compulsorily the employee to join and create this agreement. It is an option. It is an option. It’s like cream on the cake. It’s like something you can have that you don’t have to have. It’s like dessert. You can have your main meal, you can have a good feed and be looked after well, but this option gives you the dessert—the cream on the cake—if you choose to indulge. That is the fundamental difference that that side has chosen not to listen to. They hear it, but they have chosen not to listen to it.

Now, the way I look at it, it’s like a prenup. Imagine a prenup. Now, that’s an option for those who—[Interruption] It is exactly that. It is an agreement to join together in an employment contract, but you are able, as you are in a marriage situation, to arrange for yourself a prenup, just in case it hits the fan, things don’t work out, and you choose not to be part of—whatever the marriage—

Kiritapu Allan: Relationship property Act, mate.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you—the Property (Relationships) Act. You can write this—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I would just caution the member about relevance. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well, my analogy, Madam Assistant Speaker, was that a prenup is the same deal, in going into the Property (Relationships) Act, as this option to create an agreement between the employer and the employee outside of the Employment Relations Act. That’s all that is. It’s just a choice. It’s an option. It’s something that individuals can choose to do if they’re both willing and agreeable—both willing and agreeable. So they’re both here and they’re coming together and they are agreeing. That is the fundamental problem that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has with this bill, because he has chosen to ignore that fundamental fact.

Just remember, if one is concerned about one party or another, that both parties have to consult—well, at least the employee; correct me if I’m wrong. But they have to take legal advice. They must take legal advice to be part of this mutually agreeable agreement. They can’t just stroll in and, somehow, one be coerced by the other to enter into this agreement. They must take independent legal advice. And, of course, if you’ve got independent legal advice, you’d think that legal advice would be advocating for the employee’s interests—the best interests of the lawyer’s client, the employee. That is also a fundamental point that no one on that side has chosen to read and understand and accept.

Now, coming to some of the points Jan Logie made—I think they were good points, and this is reflecting some of the work that was done in the select committee—it was noted that section 103 the Employment Relations Act 2000, which is what this bill affects directly; the bill should only apply to 103(1)(a). That is what has changed, and that’s the process that went through the select committee, and the result is that those things that are—the employee is still protected from discrimination against the employee, from being discriminated against in the employer’s employment, or from sexual harassment, racial harassment, duress, or being biased against because one is a member of a union. That has been absolutely protected—paragraphs (b) to (j) are totally untouched, totally unaffected by this bill. It only affects section 103(1)(a), and that relates to “that the employee has been unjustifiably dismissed;”, and that is the point. It’s a very narrow part of the Employment Relations Act 2000. It’s only a very narrow part.

There is consent from both sides to opt out, just as there is in a prenup. There’s legal advice that must be taken to ensure that both parties are protected, and the bill enables those who wish to enter into this arrangement to do so. That’s a great thing. Isn’t that a great thing, that people are able to do what they wish to do? They don’t need some nanny State to say, “You are not able to do this. You will take away the State.” That side of the House chooses to take away the option that an individual can have, with an agreement or a relationship with their employer, and that is unfortunate. That is extremely unfortunate.

So this is a very—

Brett Hudson: Tell us how unfortunate.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is so very unfortunate. Iain Lees-Galloway was right that I advocated and questioned—I asked the question in select committee: is $150,000 the right amount? Is that the right number to consider people able, to be with the capability of, to have the understanding of, and to have the ability to choose for themselves whether to opt in or out of this legislation? And I questioned that, because I think $150,000—personally, I think it’s too high. I think anyone should be opt in or opt out of this—

Kieran McAnulty: Rubbish.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well, you might say “Rubbish.”, but you’re not reading the bill, Mr McAnulty. You have not even listened to a single word I’ve just said about the protections that this bill gives to all employees, whether they’re earning $150,000, $200,000, or $250,000. Those protections are in place, and that is why—

Kiritapu Allan: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Forgive my ignorance as a newer member of this House, but my understanding of these debates is that the time must be spent debating new information and you’ve got 10 minutes to express new points. However, throughout the course of these 10 minutes, we’ve heard of matters that are completely irrelevant, including the Property (Relationships) Act, and the member just came back to that point now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for her intervention. I will allow the member to continue with his speech if he so wishes.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It would be a fine thing if those members on the other side actually read the bill and understood the protections that the bill afforded to all employees, notwithstanding the amount that they earn. I commend this bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced back in 2013, but I am so very, very thankful that it did not make it back to this House until we had a Government in place that actually cares about employees’ rights, so that it can be voted down—and it will be voted down tonight.

This is shambolic. At what point is it OK to take away a person’s choice, because, effectively, that is what this bill does? You might say that they may or may not contract out, but when you need that job, you will take that job, and there will be an imbalance of power—

Marja Lubeck: Takes the choice away.

JO LUXTON: Absolutely. Employment contracts are a type of relationship agreement. It’s about trust, and an employee should be able to trust that their employer will act in good faith, and this bill completely takes that away. Why should what you earn dictate the rights that you have in the workplace? This Government believes that access to justice is a fundamental right, and a good employer-employee relationship should be about having the ability to negotiate, to have discussions like adults, and to have the ability to work through issues, whether it be through mediation or through a personal grievance process. Surely, having the option to listen to each other’s point of view is a good thing and could actually work towards solving issues. All employees need to have the ability to take a personal grievance; otherwise, we will just see a complete imbalance of power.

So what this bill proposes, it’s ridiculous. Only certain employees would be able to take a personal grievance, based on their pay rate, and I find that unfathomable. I’m an employer—a living-wage employer, at that—and I would never ever agree to having this in any of my contracts for my staff.

Marja Lubeck: No, you don’t—she’s a good employer.

JO LUXTON: No, and why? Because I value my staff, I value their contribution to my business, and I value their rights as employees. This completely misses the mark when it comes to the “higher earners” argument. This is not just affecting middle or senior management. Think about doctors, lawyers, etc., who should all be able to speak out freely without fear of losing their employment. Also, people working in dangerous jobs—long hours; hard, unsociable hours, at that—they’re not necessarily in a better position to negotiate their contracts just because of their earnings.

This bill is ridiculous. Ninety-day trials already took away people’s rights to take a personal grievance in 2009, and this just extends on that further again. This side of the House will not support this bill.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me pleasure to speak on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. Well, that was quite a mouthful in itself. I want to, firstly, congratulate the member Scott Simpson, who drew this bill initially, because just to draw something out of a ballot takes a bit, so, I guess, from that perspective, he needs to be congratulated on that.

I also want to congratulate the member Brett Hudson, who picked this bill up from Scott Simpson, took it on, took it through the select committee—a select committee, ironically, that no longer exists, funnily enough. So whether they did such a poor job of this bill, or what happened, “Huddo”—whether you destroyed them, I’m not sure; but the very good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which was at the time chaired by Jonathan Young, no longer exists. But, none the less, the bill got through the select committee and has now come back to the House for its second reading.

I guess there are a few points I want to make. One is that I think it’s disappointing that the members on the other side of the House have chosen to misrepresent what the bill’s intentions were. Whether I agree with those intentions or not is irrelevant. I think the point is that if you’re going to speak on a bill in this House, you really should represent what that bill is about. So I think—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker, I didn’t really need to bring you into that at all. That was very bad. But I do think that it’s necessary to at least address the factors in this bill.

This bill, for me, is really about personal responsibility and enabling those people who feel they are capable of, I guess, addressing a situation of arranging their own employment relationships—it’s about giving them the opportunity to do that. One of the conditions of that bill is if they’re paid over $150,000 a year, which I think is pretty significant. Ironically, when you look around this House, and we’re all paid that amount, I wonder whether we’d all be capable of negotiating our own contract. I have come to the conclusion—probably not. But we don’t have to. As Andrew Bayly says, we don’t have to because this bill was entirely voluntary. It allowed people, on a voluntary basis, to enter a contract in good faith, with an employer.

I want to get to a few points that were raised by some of the Government speakers, or I guess the speakers in opposition to the bill, in a moment. As I said, it seemed to me that $150,000 was a lot of money. Ironically, it’s raining out there tonight. It’s the first time it’s rained since this Government has come to power, and I think that’s quite interesting. But from the farmers’ point of view, there’s not too many of them that get paid $150,000 a year. They may well be pleased with that rain. Hopefully, it’s raining in some other parts of New Zealand.

I want to speak about some of the points that Iain Lees-Galloway mentioned. I guess I take exception to the way he addressed this side of the House and spent his whole speech, basically, accusing this side of the House of undermining workers’ rights. I heard the last speaker, Jo Luxton, talk about the fact that she’s an employer. I’ve spent my life—and I don’t call myself an employer—working with people in all sorts of industries. I don’t recall a time, for a start, where I’ve ever paid someone the minimum wage, so I’m on her side on that. But I also think that most of the people that I’ve worked with in my lifetime are quite capable of negotiating their own contracts. They’re also quite capable of being looked after. I think it’s an employer’s responsibility—if you call yourself an employer—to look after workers in whatever environment they’re in.

I guess I don’t believe for a minute that I would call myself a worker if I was on $150,000. I’d be calling myself something else. Andrew Little spent the whole of his speech talking about workers under instruction. Well, I don’t think workers, as I know them, are under instruction. If you’ve got a successful business, workers are going to work with you. They’re not going to work under instruction all their life. If you’ve got people under instruction, they’re eventually going to rebel. I don’t blame them, frankly. I think that’s how the world works. So I take exception to the fact that both of those Ministers spent their whole speeches, basically, accusing this side of the House of undermining workers’ rights for the last nine years that this Government was in office. That’s certainly not the case.

An interesting point about the last nine years is that in those nine years those workers incomes or household incomes, ironically, increased by 50 percent.

Dr Duncan Webb: Rubbish! Flat line.

IAN McKELVIE: It’s not a white lie. That’s a fact. You should read the paper as well as the bill. So that’s a very interesting point. They haven’t even read their own information, and I think that’s a bit of a tragedy too.

Whether you agree with this kind of legislation or not I think is irrelevant. I think the point is that we all have the same aspiration in this House, and our aspiration is to create a better life for people—give people an opportunity to grow in whatever they do in life. If some people voluntarily want to accept a contract where they can negotiate their own terms, their own entry and exit, and, I guess, their own life, to some extent, then I think we should give those people that opportunity.

That, for me—and I had no part in the select committee or in the early debates on this bill—I think, from my observation of this bill, is what it was intended to create. It was certainly not compulsory. I think it’s people’s right at a point in life to negotiate, and the point in life that’s been picked in this bill—and whether you agree with that or not is another thing as well—was $150,000. I think it’s essential that we allow people that right. We’re not compulsorily making them do something. We’re not trying to, as Andrew Little and Iain Lees-Galloway both said, undermine the worker or take workers’ rights away. The whole intention of this bill is to try and enable people to get a contract together that allows them to work in an environment that they could enjoy and have some control over. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that when you’re in charge of your own destiny, you’ve actually got some control over your life. You’re not relying on someone else to control it for you.

I think the comment of Jan Logie was that this legislation is designed to suck the lifeblood out of the workplace. That’s absolute nonsense. I think that, clearly, that’s a misrepresentation of the intention of the bill. It’s a misrepresentation of the intention of the two people that brought this bill to the House. I think they did an outstanding job of putting the bill together. As I said earlier, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to agree with the principle of it or agree with everything that happens in it. In this place, we don’t always get to have a say on every part of the legislation that we end up passing. That’s just how a democracy works.

The scale of the job is far too big for us as MPs to be enabled to participate in every part of the putting together of a bill. So some things will always come through, in the course of a bill, that we don’t necessarily like, but that doesn’t matter. It’s the job of this House to pass legislation for the betterment of as many people as we possibly can.

Earlier in my life, I spent some time as a mayor. Ironically, you find a lot of the challenges, or the biggest challenges that I’ve seen in the workplace, relate to Government departments, to public entities. Interestingly, as a mayor you have a chief executive who employs people, and a lot of them are on this sort of a salary. But you have a chief executive who employs people, who then can’t get into the arbitration because they’re directly conflicted. As a mayor you can often end up in arbitration around contracts like this. I, frankly, didn’t enjoy it that much. I think it’s a very difficult situation to be in.

So I can see the point that Brett Hudson brought, when he brought this bill to the House. If you have a contract between two people, it’s very easy to resolve it; the moment you get to arbitration it becomes extremely difficult and, I think, actually, quite challenging. So I think the intention of this bill was to give workers, as Iain Lees-Galloway and Andrew Little called them—I call them something different; probably people—going into employment an opportunity to negotiate their own place in life.

I think, to sum it up, Mr Speaker—I see we’ve had a change since I started. I guess we get to the point where—I think there’s two things. I support the intention of this bill. I object to the fact that we’ve been accused of undermining workers’ rights for the last nine years. I think that’s certainly not what’s gone on. As I said earlier, we’ve got a 50 percent increase in household incomes in those nine years, so we haven’t done too badly. I personally object to the fact that we’re tarred, I guess, with undermining those rights of workers. I think that’s very unfair. I think the previous Government has done a pretty good job in relation to a lot of these things, and created an environment where both employees and employers can enjoy a pretty reasonable sort of a life. So that’s my contribution to this bill. I commend it to the House. May it go wherever it goes.

Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 28 June.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

Procedure

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I seek leave that all members who wish to debate on this in the House be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: I’ll just check—the member sought leave that the first reading of the debate on the End of Life Choice Bill be extended so that each member who wishes to can take a 5-minute call in the debate. Is that what the member said?

Simon O’Connor: That is far more articulate. But that is certainly the intention that I’m putting to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. That is not agreed to.

Bills

Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill

Referral to Health Committee

Mr SPEAKER: There was a question for the previous bill that it be considered by the Health Committee. With the indulgence of the House, I will now put that question.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

First Reading

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by the date that is nine months from the date the bill receives its first reading.

I have been approached by New Zealand First members regarding a referendum to give this bill its Royal assent if it passes through all stages. I want to put on record that I’ve pledged support for a suitable amendment. Whether there is such a referendum will depend on whether the committee of the whole House joins me in supporting such an amendment.

My fellow members, it is not pleasant to talk about painful death, but when our country’s laws do not work, it is incumbent upon us to have that discussion. Our laws surrounding end of life choice currently do not work and we must improve them. Let me explain why that is, using the people in this room. There are 120 of us here, and we can reasonably hope that the vast majority of us will live long lives and die easy, painless deaths. Sadly, some of us will get ill. Our illnesses may well turn out to be terminal, but we will be helped by palliative care to die comfortably, none the less. That leaves maybe half a dozen of us here who will die badly. Those half a dozen represent the 3 percent or the 4 percent who might seek an assisted death under this bill based on experience in countries where such legislation is in place, and based on the choices that New Zealanders currently make. Any one of us in this Parliament could find ourselves facing that situation.

I’m afraid to say that the options we would face in that situation are cruel. A person at the end of their life, suffering badly and unable to be helped by palliative care, can commit amateur violent suicide. We know from extensive studies of the coronial records of this country that 5 percent to 8 percent of New Zealand’s suicides were by people who were dying and wanted to take control of the end of their life. They didn’t want to die. They weren’t depressed. They weren’t suicidal, but they knew what was coming and they wanted control. One such person was Martin Hames. He was a staff member here in Parliament. He had Huntington’s disease and he killed himself. The only mercy was that he botched it and lived on for several days because that way he got to say goodbye to loved ones that he was not allowed even to tell what he was going to do under our current laws. The tragedy is that he did it many years before he would’ve liked to because he knew his capability was declining, and our current laws require him not to be assisted.

But there’s a second option that is not only legal but enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act here in New Zealand: the right to refuse treatment, including food and water. Remember, there are no safeguards when you make that choice, there is no accountability mechanism, but it happens legally; in fact, it is protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to New Zealanders every single day.

The third option is involuntary euthanasia, and surveys of the doctors in New Zealand by Auckland University medical school tell us that 4½ percent of New Zealanders who die, die when they are informally euthanised—given pain medication with the express intent of ending their life.

A final option is none of the above: you just suffer until the bitter end, writhing in a body that lives on but gives no comfort. I know people in this room have watched it happen and said, “Never again.”

That, colleagues, is the moral case for this bill. It is wrong that in 2017 under the laws made by this House we tolerate a status quo where people suffer needlessly. We allow under our laws violent amateur suicide, barbaric suffering, and informal euthanasia, all perfectly legal, but the choice that we don’t allow is the person in question who is suffering at the end of their life to make a choice, make their choice, safeguarded under the rule of law. The current situation is an absurdity.

But there’s also, other than a moral case, a legal case. I acknowledge Matt Vickers is here tonight, and when his late wife Lecretia Seales sued the Crown in Seales v Attorney-General the judge ruled “I would be trespassing on the role of Parliament and departing from the constitutional role of judges in New Zealand if I were to issue the law declaration sought by Ms Seales.” In other words, colleagues, the judge said that if it is to be, then we in Parliament must act. We sit in the highest court in this country and we cannot shirk our duty.

The final reason that you might support this bill is democratic. We’re here to serve New Zealanders, and the overwhelming majority of them, when asked time and again by reputable polling companies, say that they want choice in assisted dying. They want assisted dying to be legalised. Public support for legalised assisted dying is 75 percent. Let me put that in perspective: never in the history of this country have more than 40 percent of New Zealanders watched an All Blacks game; 75 percent is one of the most unanimous agreements that New Zealanders have.

I know some members are worried about opinion in their electorates and amongst those people that they represent. I understand some of them have been receiving a lot of emails, some of them even from Australia today, but can I suggest it would be much more difficult to tell the people you represent that you denied a discussion at select committee—when it’s 75 percent of them—than it will be to tell the minority that you think this country deserves a proper debate on an actual bill.

Those are the moral, legal, and democratic reasons why the status quo as we have it now is not acceptable. I’m sure members will have another question: if we don’t like the status quo, is it possible to improve it? More specifically, is it possible to design a law that gives choice to those who want it while safeguarding those who want nothing to do with this law whatsoever? That is the critical question. If it is possible, then there can be no objection to this bill that a member of Parliament is wishing to impose their own social mores upon others.

So is such a law possible? Perhaps the best authority is the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Court justices are conservative types and they don’t often agree with each other unanimously. With that in mind, here is what the court unanimously found in Carter v Canada after an exhaustive trial considering evidence from around the world where assisted dying laws had been in place. They said, “We agree … that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards.” That is the conclusion of one of the greatest courts in the world, having looked at all the evidence. Shortly after that ruling, the Canadian Parliament legalised assisted dying.

Closer to home, our own Attorney-General assessed whether this specific bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and he said, “There are multiple safeguards built into the process, including … stringent criteria for eligibility … the requirement for an independent second opinion and referral to specialist (if necessary), and the ability for the person to change their mind at any time.”

I would like to quote at much greater length from those two documents, but let me assure you that the conclusions I just read are the conclusions they reached after very fulsome consideration. I encourage any members who have not already done so to read the bill. They’ll see why the Supreme Court of Canada thought that such a bill was possible, and why this bill is one that gives people protection under the law and choice only if they want it.

This bill requires that a person be 18 or over, be a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident, and have either a terminal illness or a prognosis of less than six months or a grievous and irremediable condition. They must be “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;”. This wording is critical when it comes to concerns that some people have about disability. You have to be “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;”. It is not about your level of capability; it is about being in decline.

You have to be of sound mind—that is, you have to be able to understand the nature of the decision you’re making. Again, this wording is important. People with depression, for instance, by definition have a distorted view of the value of life, and therefore would not qualify.

All of this has to be signed off by two doctors, who must examine the patient. The doctor must seek to speak with the family members and others involved in the patient’s care to ensure that they can satisfy themselves there is no coercion at play. The second doctor is selected randomly, independently from the first, and if either doubts the patient’s mental state, they must refer the patient to a psychiatrist. Each case is then countersigned by a registrar at the Ministry of Health. The same registrar collects statistics and reports to this House.

There are those in this Parliament who say this is the worst bill that they’ve ever encountered. But I’ve challenged them privately, and they know they couldn’t name a better one. This bill’s been in the public domain since September 2015, and no critic has laid a glove on any aspect of it.

Colleagues, our fellow New Zealanders are suffering. I’m afraid to say some people in this House will suffer, and probably want the choices afforded by this bill. We don’t know who it will be, but in a way it doesn’t matter. Their suffering is needless, and it hurts all humanity if we allow it when we have a choice. Tonight, colleagues, you have a choice. The question is whether—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. I’m going to call the Rt Hon Bill English, but in doing so I indicate that he has indicated to me that it is his intention to split his call with Simon O’Connor. The Rt Hon Bill English—5 minutes.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to oppose this bill, principally for the reason that this House has defeated such legislation twice in the last two decades, and it is this: it removes a principle at the core of the law written to protect everybody, and particularly the most vulnerable, and that is the blanket prohibition against taking the life of another. That is at the core of our criminal law that protects everybody, particularly the most vulnerable. In removing that prohibition, which has been in our law for as long as this country has existed, this Parliament is taking a huge step.

I appeal to our members tonight. I’m sure we’ve all had the experience—I know I have—or know about the experience, of witnessing the suffering, the fear, and the anxiety of a dying person and those around them, and, sometimes, a difficult death. Alongside that personal connection, we have to weigh up, in our role as lawmakers—not just as parents or children or siblings or friends of those who we’ve seen die, but as lawmakers. Our role is not principally to alleviate suffering; our role is to ensure that our society has a set of laws that protect those who most need protection.

Did you know that in our law, section 179 of the Crimes Act, it is a crime to incite the suicide of another person, even if they don’t actually commit it—even if they don’t actually commit it? Why is that there? Because we don’t want people encouraging a depressed disabled young person to think that their life isn’t worth anything. As lawmakers, the reason there is a blanket prohibition is because you are not always the best judge of the value of your life, and the price that our community pays for enabling a doctor to take your life, free of criminal scrutiny, is that many other people are more vulnerable. Their lives will become more fearful, and they’ll become more subject to the pressure to make the judgment themselves that their life has less value and therefore they should make the decision. It is a slippery slope. That is why this bill, with its cold, technical, bureaucratic process of death, tries to look like it’s safe.

We have to weigh it up, and every Parliament up to now has said that the balance between what is enabled for an individual and the cost of that enablement to the rest of society is too big a risk to take. I put the case that as lawmakers that is the question that we need to weigh up: is the gain in personal autonomy—because the research shows people embark on euthanasia principally for autonomy reasons; they may not be suffering that much—worth the broader cost to our community? I don’t think anyone can, in their heart of hearts, believe that this bill will make life safer for the disabled or that it will make our community more warmly embracing of our ageing population. Who pretends that? It won’t—it won’t.

That is why I will oppose it and invite others to. You know, we’re not creating medical procedure here; we’re creating an exemption from the criminal law against killing for a specified group—that is, doctors, who do not want to carry this burden—under some conditions that amount to box-ticking. So I ask the Parliament to consider that very carefully—the removal of the blanket prohibition against taking a life, which should be subject to scrutiny and accountability.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I believe this is a sad day for the House. We are here talking about the State sanctioning killing of New Zealanders. This bill suggests that suicide is a solution under certain circumstances, and I stand today to reject this.

I spent two and a bit years chairing the Health Committee as over 21,000 Kiwis from across the spectrum spoke to us, and 80 percent, who had well considered it, said no. I’ve studied philosophy and human rights, I’ve been at hospital beds and hospices, I’ve seen more death and suffering than sometimes I care to remember, and, fundamentally, I do not believe doctors should be killing their patients.

Members of the House, this bill is about killing in two ways. The first is called euthanasia. It’s where the doctor takes an injection, usually something like phenobarbital, and injects it into you—only after they’ve sedated you, of course; couldn’t have the inconvenience of twitching. The other is physician-assisted suicide, where, again, they give you a massive dose of drugs. You take that yourself, at your own choosing—and hope that the kids don’t find it in the medical cabinet at the time.

This bill combines both of those. That’s almost unheard of in any other jurisdiction around the world. This bill before us tonight is the worst example of euthanasia legislation in the world. I say that as someone who has looked at every piece of legislation.

Where it starts, really badly, is clause 4. We hear it a lot: it’s all about terminal illness, up to six months. But the doctors, the medical people, will tell you that six months is just an indication; it’s not a guarantee. And the doctors will tell you too that they misdiagnose all the time.

They also talk in this bill about irremediable, grievous conditions. That’s incredibly broad, undefined. What is “irremediable”? What is “grievous”? Basically, it includes everyone, including those with disabilities.

But the bill also, rather insidiously, talks about suffering that a person deems intolerable—what you deem intolerable. Sorry, Mr Speaker—what members may deem intolerable. This is a clear indication that it is the courts who will be making decisions and choices, not this Parliament and certainly not the person.

In the debate in this space, I’ve often said, it’s between choice and public safety. Let’s be very clear: the current laws as they stand mean that no one will die against their will, but this proposed law that we consider tonight will make involuntary deaths possible. We know in this House we do not make things perfect, because changing this law will allow some to assist the suicide—well, sorry. People who choose to assist in suicide will put others at risk.

We know that this law applies to everyone. It does not apply simply to the rational and articulate; it applies to the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the vulnerable—all of us. Not everyone is fortunate enough to live with a loving, caring family. Not everyone has a doctor fully in tune with them and their needs. This law will apply to the depressed, the lonely, those who feel a burden, the disabled, the fearful. I should point out that these are the same feelings of a 16-year-old who is keen to suicide, the 40-year-old who has lost their farm, or the 80-year-old on the deathbed.

I repeat again, as I did a few months back, that you cannot stand in this House and decry the suicide of one group of people—say, the youth—and then encourage the suicide of another group—say, the sick. They are the same feelings that are there. And I don’t say it alone. It’s very easy for the media and others to attack, but, actually, this is the opinion of the major medical groups, the psychologists, and the youth workers. I add their voice tonight.

There’s a lot of talk about choice. Let me say one thing about choice: the patient in this space never makes the choice. If they did, there wouldn’t need to be doctors and psychologists and boards and panels. The doctors make the choices. The family makes the choices.

If you think I’m exaggerating, go and look up an example in the Netherlands recently. A woman with dementia who, yes, years ago, had said that she would like to die by assisted suicide, was held down after being sedated by her doctor and family—they put drugs in her tea. They sedated her, held her down as she screamed and yelled, and then they killed her. The doctor was able to report it, and they just said, “Oh, well, you acted in good faith, but she’s dead now.” So much for the choice and autonomy that she exercised.

And I’d point out too that if it’s about choice and autonomy, we all have it. If it’s a human right, all humans have it. There is a slippery slope, and one only needs to turn to Canada, which has already been mentioned, which is already pushing the boundaries.

There are no safeguards; there are just lots of criteria. Being 18 is not a safeguard. All the reporting comes after the fact. If you get it wrong, the person’s still dead.

Doctors don’t want to be part of this. The few that do will make a business of it, and there will be doctor-shopping. The conscience rights in this bill are a nonsense. If you oppose, the doctor must hand that person over to someone who will.

It’s a very, very poor bill, and, fundamentally—thousands of health professionals and others have argued in the recent public debate—this is an issue where the public safety will be put at risk. So I ask this House how many involuntary deaths and errors are we willing to accept through this law: one, five, 10—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Should the timing of one’s end of life be a choice? Who knows when? How do you know? A terminal diagnosis seems to be a criterion. How about an exhaustion of all possible treatment options? That means you’ve reached a point in the illness that you have where doctors can’t help you, the health system can’t help you, and, indeed, society can’t help you. If one is to die, should they be able to choose when and how in exercising a private choice or making a private decision?

We are “born free and equal in dignity and rights.” That was part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was the third declaration that the UN passed on 10 December 1948. It was expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 16 December 1966. Civil and political rights are defined as “a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.” What is repression? It’s restraint, it’s something that we’re prevented from doing, or it’s an inhibition of.

In June 2015, Lecretia Seales received the High Court decision of a case that she had lodged in December 2014. The High Court said that she did not have the right to die. Justice David Collins said that it was unlawful for Lecretia to be allowed a doctor’s help to die at a time of her own choosing. Lecretia’s response to this decision was—and I quote—“Isn’t this my body? My life?” Then she died. That was six months after she had lodged the High Court appeal for the court to enable her to end her life.

My support for this End of Life Choice Bill is based on the judgment by Justice Collins, and he highlighted that “the status quo is not ideal [and] that people are at risk of intolerable suffering and … of ending their lives earlier than they would otherwise.” He put this kaupapa back to Parliament and said that it was for Parliament to address these issues. Parliament makes the law and then courts only interpret the law, and that’s actually a principle of our democracy. We have rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament, and, actually, that’s why we are all here today.

A citizen of our country went to the courts for a right, and the courts have said that she didn’t have that right and that it was for Parliament to create a mechanism, to create an opportunity, for a person in Lecretia Seales’ position—someone with a terminal illness who’d fought that disease. She and her husband and her family fought it. She had treatment. Tumours were removed. She went into remission. She wanted to live. They were going to have a family. They’d engaged a surrogate. She wanted to live, and it came back—the cancer came back. When it came back, she had more treatment, and there was a point where we said, “We can’t help you any more. You are going to die.” So it’s up to us as a Parliament, now that the courts have intervened as much as they can, to provide a mechanism for people like Lecretia.

This isn’t about systemic change; this is about individual choice. I am standing up for Lecretia because her story moved me—a woman with much dignity that the courts said actually understood fully what she was asking for. She was competent, she was clear, and, with the support of her family, she wanted to choose a point at which her life would end. And why? Because she argued that her definition of dignity, which was her human rights argument, was actually about the respect that she was starting to lose for herself. She couldn’t care for herself. She couldn’t go to the toilet. People had to look after her. It was degrading for her, and I cannot see why, as a first step, we can’t allow this bill to go to select committee and have the discussion and fix this bill if there are issues with it. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill. Can I first of all just acknowledge, with deep respect, every single member of the House and the opinion that they will share. This is a conscience vote, and every single member of the House is taking it seriously. There is no flippancy here.

But I look around me and I see farmers and accountants and lawyers and debt collectors and teachers and journalists and social workers and religious leaders. Not a single one of us is smarter than the people who placed us here. Not a single one of us has more of a conscience or less of a conscience than the people who voted us here. This issue should go to them. This is too big an issue for this House to decide that 120 New Zealanders have more conscience or more right to have this conversation than they do.

I want to acknowledge David Seymour, and I acknowledge the work that he has put into bringing this issue—his belief, his passion for it, and, I believe, his true empathy for those who are in these circumstances. I want to acknowledge the commitment he has made to New Zealand First, and the commitment that New Zealand First has made to him. New Zealand First will be voting as a bloc in favour of this legislation at first reading, based on the commitment that Mr Seymour and the New Zealand First caucus have made to each other, and we will honour that commitment.

I cared for my great-grandparents, my grandparents, and my father all through their passing. It is probably my grandfather that I think of most with regard to this bill, of when dementia started to take him, and the nights that he would wake and I would find him in the hallway, petrified of where he was and who I was. And then in the morning, after we had calmed him and sat with him and then he woke, I remember he would say to me, “Trace, if I could push a button, I’d end it now.” Did he mean the dementia, or did he mean his life? I don’t know.

For me, this is something I need to grapple with. Every single one of us needs to search ourselves and speak to those around us and have a bigger conversation with New Zealand. I take on board the comments by Mr Seymour with regard to those who in the public domain have run polls to say that the country is in favour of this—or 79 percent is in favour. But I take on board Mr Simon O’Connor’s comments with regard to the Health Committee and the huge percentage who came and said they were opposed. The issue we have is that it depends on how you frame the question—

Hon Louise Upston: Which is why—

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —hence why—I can hear, Ms Upston—there is a way that New Zealand First believes that this bill, in its entirety, should be placed in front of the New Zealand public. That is, with a regulatory impact statement, with all the information that we—we, who are no better than they—use to base our opinion on, our conscience on. We may need to actually change some other pieces of legislation as this goes through the process of the select committee, to make sure that if and when this House votes for a binding referendum in the public domain, we give the public the same information that we are given and that we are going to make a decision on here this evening. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It was the late Ngati Porou kaumātua Amster Reedy who stated, “We bring people into this world. We care for them right from the time they are conceived, born, bred, in health, sickness, and death. The rituals still exist for every part of their lives.” Those rituals still will exist and we need to have faith in our ancestors. Euthanasia is foreign to Māori and has no place in our society.

In all my life, raised as a Ngāi Tahu Māori, I have never heard or known of a Māori concept that validates assisting dying. Witnessing the death of a whānau member is as intimate as it gets. To watch a painful death can be shattering; the indignities we may have to see our loved one suffer—unable to undertake the most basic human functions without support, watching their agony, feeling their helplessness and, often, their feeling that they are being a burden on their whānau—yet this is only part of the process. There is another side to death; that is the whānau side.

But death has never been a final ending for our people. It merely signifies the beginning of the journey to Te Rerenga Wairua and then onto the ancestral home of Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmamao. It is a life in the afterlife, where we gather once more with our tīpuna and our departed whānau, members, and friends.

The process of dying, for us, is a process of whānau. We hear of terminal illness inside the whānau. We know the time has come to mobilise and gather. We give the immediate whānau our physical, spiritual, and, if needed, financial support. The process of death is not just about a loved one, it’s also about our whānau. This process is an essential component of binding our whānau together. The act of caring for a whānau member is a process of learning, of grieving, of laughing, of despairing, of reminiscing, and of coming to that moment of peace when we can finally let them go. This process of death is as much for the living as it is for the dead. Many Māori see this as an essential expression of taha wairua [the spiritual side], or being a part of something that is greater than ourselves. The final act of dying is the point where the ancestors come to take that loved one home. It is a moment of extraordinary sadness but also joy, as we become aware that an ancestor is now in the room with us to accompany the loved one on their final journey.

In the debates throughout the country that have preceded this tonight, Māori voices have been few and far between because some Māori choose not to discuss such things and fear that their fundamental beliefs are treated as native superstition. To me, assisted dying is to fast-forward a process that ultimately denies our loved one the chance to be taken to their ancestral home and is, instead, left in limbo, on their own, in a transitional afterlife until their time finally arrives.

The real challenge is to ensure all whānau across Aotearoa have access to the full range of palliative care available to ensure that we can ease the passing of our loved ones and the burden of care that falls upon whānau, without resorting to artificially ending their life. Then, we will truly, here, have succeeded. On that basis, I cannot support this bill.

Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, rātou ki te hunga mate, ki te hunga mate ki a rātou; āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, tātou ki te hunga ora, ki te hunga ora ki a tātou.

[The lines are joined and linked, they to the dead and the dead to them; the lines are joined and linked, we to the living and the living to us.]

Let the dead be the dead and the living be the living. Kia ora tātou.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. I want to, firstly, acknowledge that there are people in the stands here who have taken great interest in this issue. I also want to acknowledge that there are people listening to this debate, and I just want to acknowledge that this is an issue where many people have a variety of views. Within the Pacific communities themselves, I am aware that there are those who do not support this cause, there are those who support it, and there are those who have no view on it because of the fact that when we talk about death we also must talk about birth, or the creation of life. From a Pacific perspective—or from my perspective—can I say that when we talk of death, there is a tendency for many of us to acknowledge that death is only a pathway to another life. But I want to lay out for this House, and particularly for those members who have joined this House this year, some of the background that I think is important for people when making their decision.

There have been two first reading debates in Parliament on similar bills on this particular issue. Both were unsuccessful. In 1995, members voted 61 to 29 against Michael Laws’ Death with Dignity Bill. In 2003, members voted 60 to 58 against Peter Brown’s Death with Dignity Bill. On 23 June 2015, this Parliament received a petition by the Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others, requesting that the House of Representatives investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation that would permit medically assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition that makes life unbearable. The Health Committee, which received this petition, formulated its own terms of reference in considering that petition. Since the petition asked for a change to existing law, the committee’s terms of reference were wide and comprehensive. To fully understand the public’s attitudes, it set out to consider all the various aspects of the issue, including the social, legal, medical, cultural, financial, ethical, and philosophical implications.

The Health Committee received more than 21,000 written submissions from individuals and organisations. They heard from the petitioner of the petition on 14 October 2015. They agreed to hear from more than 1,800 submitters who had initially indicated that they wished to appear before that Health Committee. Submitters were invited to meetings held in Wellington, Christchurch, and Auckland. Those who were unable to make these venues were heard by teleconference. They began hearing from submitters on 24 August 2016 and concluded oral hearings on 5 April 2017. The committee spent over 108 hours of hearing. In the meantime, Mr Seymour’s bill entered the ballot in October 2015 and was drawn on 8 June this year.

I considered voting in support of this bill to go to the select committee, but based on that information, which is available for all to see, I believe that I’m able to make a decision not to support this bill going into the select committee.

My personal experiences are probably irrelevant for what Mr Seymour is attempting to do, but from a Samoan perspective—who have grown up to value life and that there is a purpose to life and that if people do not experience the pain, they’re also unable to enjoy what joy is. If people do not accept the reality of death, they cannot then see the purpose of life. And for those reasons, I believe that there’s been sufficient consultation on this matter.

I want to finally say that our laws follow values. Our laws traditionally follow traditional values. I believe that one of the most fundamental values that we need to uphold is the value that life is sacred, and when we’re dealing with suicides, this is one issue that doesn’t balance out our desire to keep life valued.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. If there’s one thing that all of us in this House have in common, it’s that we are all going to die and all of our loved ones are going to die. And I’m sure that we all also agree that life is precious and sacred, and that all of us have an aspiration to have a long, healthy, happy life. We want that for our loved ones. We want that for our community.

We’re also not just individuals. Well, we are individuals in one sense, in that we want to have control over our own lives and some autonomy. We are also interdependent members of communities, and the health of our communities influences our own happiness and well-being. In recognising that interdependence and also our autonomy, I think it is incredibly important that we recognise the passion that is held on both sides of this debate.

I sat on the Health Committee when it listened to days and days of submissions on this very issue, and there are very strongly held views on both sides. I think it’s an absolute privilege to be here as a representative and to have the opportunity to consider the evidence, consider the weight of the views, and to cast a personal vote. That is unusual, actually, for the Green Party, because often we vote along with our party policy—and we do have party policy on end of life, but Mr Seymour’s bill goes further than our party policy.

The Green Party’s agreed party policy on this recognises that there should be a framework within which someone with a terminal illness who has less than six months to live can apply to have assistance to end their life, and that that be very carefully regulated to ensure that there’s no abuse of that power. But this bill goes slightly further than that, and I do have concerns about how broad the nature of the bill is. I want to voice the concerns I know are out there, particularly in the disability sector, that this bill as drafted is a bit too broad and may in fact jeopardise those who are more vulnerable, who are not in a position to make a necessarily fully informed, autonomous decision or who might feel pressure from others to end their lives early. But, having listened to all those submissions and looked at the evidence, I also think that there is a very compelling case that this issue isn’t about suicide. It’s about what happens when somebody is already very close to death.

Modern medicine has enabled us with an incredible ability to extend life, to the point at which we may question whether the quality of life is what we would want. So, understanding all of the concerns that I have heard, I do think that this bill should progress to the select committee. I personally would like to see it amended, because I do believe that the evidence, in other jurisdictions, is that it is entirely possible to have a framework in which people are secure that there is no risk of abuse. In fact, the evidence from jurisdictions that have physician-assisted dying show that it’s very, very small numbers of people who end up using it, so the idea that somehow there would be doctors out there licensed to kill people at will is very far from what I think we are actually debating with this bill.

I think we heard from enough people who raised the issues of how difficult it was and how unfair it seemed that, while we have modern medicine to enable us to extend life, when there was no choice, no option, but for someone to die, they weren’t able to have that death assisted in a way that made it more comfortable, made it possible for them to have family around them, and made it possible for them to avoid being in horrific situations such as what happens with things like motor neurone disease and other types of illnesses. So I will be voting for this bill to go to the select committee, and I’m sure that it can be amended in a way that would ensure the safeguarding of those with disabilities and other vulnerable people.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s been a lot of talk tonight about choice, with this bill, and how important it is for people to have choice. But I ask you to pause and consider this all very carefully indeed. To give choice to some is to take away the choice of thousands of others, and this is the kind of situation that we are seeking to avoid as legislators.

We have heard from Bill English earlier that it is our responsibility as lawmakers to try and prevent the wrong things from happening, the unintended consequences, and we need to be very careful, because one person’s choice and autonomy will be another person’s death sentence. Hard cases make very bad laws, and our law, in my view, should not be changed for a few persistent cases where it will expose far greater numbers of people to premature death.

As the Minister for Seniors over the past three years, I have seen up close the horrors of elder abuse, the scourge where family members inflict physical, psychological, emotional, and mental violence and neglect on their own family members. More than three-quarters of abusers are family members. A family is not a safe place to be, and the abuse of our elders, with an ageing population, is something we need to take into account with this particular bill. This bill will enable more people to predate on the vulnerable, with far too few—negligible, even—protections and safeguards.

I read the previous two bills that have come before this New Zealand Parliament, but this one is by far the worst. It is poorly crafted and drafted, in my view. It is irretrievable through the select committee process. We’ve consulted widely with medical and legal experts and believe that the Seymour bill and version is so fatally flawed that it couldn’t even be fully rewritten to prevent vulnerable people from being predated on.

So let’s look at what this bill actually requires. A person needs to self-assess that they experience “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that he or she considers tolerable;”. What does that mean? It is way wide open to interpretation. For example, an 18-year-old—it could be your son or your daughter or grandchild, a person with a significant disability or a chronic illness, including mental illness, depression, or schizophrenia. Once that person, by simply expressing the wish—and that’s the word that is used, wish—to contemplate suicide, then there is an obligation on the medical practitioner to take it further. This highly prescriptive bill has a regime all of its own that triggers an automatic series of mandatory steps that a medical practitioner is then obliged to follow with the sole aim of facilitating that person’s death. How can an 18-year-old—or an 80-year-old, for that matter—make such a decision in a mentally unwell state?

Of course, they can’t get help from the doctor, who’s not allowed to recommend other treatments or even encourage the patient to discuss it with family. This is the detail of the reality of this bill.

If the doctor has a conscientious objection and won’t assist with the suicide, the doctor is then obliged and required to provide the patient with the names and contact details of practitioners on a special list of doctors who dispense death, who will facilitate the suicide. If they don’t refer them to someone on that list, that medical practitioner will be liable for criminal prosecution. But here’s the strange thing. For any doctor on the list who does assist a suicide, the bill provides a full defence and immunity, as long as they’ve acted “in good faith and without [actual] negligence”. So the full force of the law will not come upon that person but on the one who exercises their own conscience.

It’s putting our medical practitioners in an absolutely impossible situation, which is why they’ve all objected so strongly. The New Zealand Medical Association, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine, nurses, geriatric medicine specialists—they’re all horrified by this bill and they’re on record with their objection on the basis that it is completely contrary to their code of ethics and relationship of trust with their patient. “Irreversible decline in capability” is used in the bill—essentially, that’s a definition of anyone living with a disability. So the clear message is, if you’re disabled in any way with an irreversible decline in capability, you’re better off dead.

The answer is not to coerce and to kill, as this bill dictates; it is to continue to invest in world-class palliative care, and that’s what we have in this country. Even if you are a person sympathetic to assisted suicide, this is not the bill to deliver it. And make no mistake about it, legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia is the exception and not the norm. New Zealand is on the right side of this. New Zealand law is adequate and has good provisions. We have world-class palliative care, and that is why I will never support this bill.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Tonight the House has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remove the invidious choice presented to some individuals under the status quo. It’s the choice described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v Canada: “people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering. A person facing this prospect has two options: [he or] she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or [they] can suffer until [they] die from natural causes. The choice is cruel.”—the choice is cruel. We have an opportunity tonight to begin to create a more compassionate society, one that upholds human dignity and protects the right to life.

My first point is that legalising assisted dying is morally the correct thing to do. Legalising end-of-life choice is supported by the values of a civilised and decent society rather than contradicting them. It upholds human dignity—the ability to end your life at a time and manner of your choosing, rather than in cruel and intolerable conditions. It recognises and affirms human agency and autonomy. Assisted dying places primacy on the individual and their choice to end their life with dignity.

But beyond morality there is a strong case for supporting this bill based on hard practical evidence alone. The status quo is manifestly inadequate. After reading the extensive evidence on this subject and talking to people in the community, it is clear that some people experience unbearable suffering at the end of their lives despite the best available palliative care. In the Seales v Attorney-General case, experts on both sides, for both the plaintiff and the defendant, concurred on this conclusion. As Justice Collins said, “Palliative care cannot … provide relief from suffering in all cases”, and extensive medical evidence was presented at the trial to support this conclusion. It’s worth noting this is a conclusion that the Palliative Care Council of New Zealand agree with.

It’s also abundantly clear from the evidence that people are already taking their own lives prematurely and that doctors are assisting in this already, except the system is unregulated. Now we have the chance to create a better system, one that is more transparent and has strong safeguards in place around the vulnerable.

My third point is that it is possible to design a system that stops terrible suffering by a few while avoiding harm to others, and that must, of course, be the goal of public policy and of this bill. Why do I say that? Because other jurisdictions have done exactly this, and I encourage members to go and read the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. What they found was that the risk associated with physician-assisted dying can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards. The court found this after an extensive and thorough review of the evidence, including cross-examination of leading experts from around the world. The court considered many of the arguments arrayed against this bill and against this issue tonight: that assisted dying leads to abuse and that it can create a slippery slope. Justice Smith, on behalf of the court, rejected this. She instead found that a properly designed system could “with a very high degree of certainty” prevent vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide.

I encourage members to go and read the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, because it is an extensive canvassing of all the arguments for and against physician-assisted dying. The court found that the prohibition on assisted dying breaches the right to life and encouraged—in fact, told—the Canadian legislature to design a solution that was consistent with the right to life. We have that opportunity with this bill now.

Parliament has twice considered voluntary euthanasia in the last 22 years. The last bill, in 2003, failed by just two votes; a lot has changed since then. Scores of countries and jurisdictions have legalised assisted dying. It is time the New Zealand Parliament considered this issue substantively and in a serious and rigorous way. The right place to do that is at the select committee.

Let me end by saying that in a modern and compassionate society the law should allow for a decent death. That’s what this bill sets out to do, and that’s why I’ll be voting for it at first reading.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak against this bill. At the heart of this bill is the question of choice, and yet we must all acknowledge that assisted suicide, or euthanasia, by whatever name we call it, is a choice to end all choices. It is, by definition, irreversible, the end; that it shares with any other form of suicide. As such, we should proceed exceedingly carefully before even considering whether safeguards, so-called, may mitigate some of the worst aspects of it.

It is this nature of choice that is being promoted by those who have brought this bill to the House that we must attack. We must understand clearly the concepts of undue influence and coercion that undermine choice and that play on the minds of those who are vulnerable, and those who are vulnerable are the very ones who would be wanting to access this in that moment of time in their vulnerability.

In their depression, people are vulnerable. To be depressed is literally to be pushed down. When one is pushed down, one is not capable of making good decisions. One is not capable of understanding fully the consequences of one’s actions, and yet this bill would allow people the ability to make, in that vulnerable state, in that vulnerable condition, a choice that would end all other choices.

So many of our fellow New Zealanders, young and old, have already made that choice; they have no further choices left. It is a subject that this House rightly concerns itself with and should continue to do so. We must do more to discourage suicide and other forms of ending life prematurely, and not encourage more of it.

Much has been said on the subject of dignity, too. Those in favour of the bill, at least to the first reading stage, have described a situation of a life that they say lacks dignity at that point. Disabled constituents of mine have said to me, “Do not let anyone tell you that certain conditions equate to a lack of dignity. They are describing my life.” They say to me, “This is my life. I am happy with it. I have dignity, and for anyone in the Parliament to suggest otherwise is, quite simply, intolerable.”

We’ve heard about so-called safeguards; for example, the suggestion that one might be able to exercise this choice if one has a terminal illness. One might have a diagnosis of a terminal illness but not, in fact, have a terminal illness. One may have a mistaken diagnosis or, indeed, a mistaken prognosis, and one might make a decision based on that. And if that factual basis is proven to be incorrect, what recourse then does that person have? The answer is none, because the person will have died. Our criminal justice system admits the possibility of mistake as to facts and as to law. Among other reasons, this is why we do not have a law of capital punishment; mistakes are made. If anyone in this House doubts that, they should ask Mr Teina Pora if that is so. If we allow people to be pressured into making a choice or to make the choice seemingly of their own volition but based on a mistaken assumption as to facts, and if the facts, so-called, prove to be incorrect later, there is no recourse, there is not opportunity to turn back the clock. They are, at that point, dead.

The intersection of our terrible rate of suicide in this country and our terrible record of elder abuse and neglect is this bill. There is much work we have to do in this Parliament on these subjects and, indeed, mental health in general. Will this bill encourage or undermine efforts to promote the real dignity, the real protection of life, the genuine role of the medical profession? I say, no; I say we reject it. And if you are in favour of euthanasia as a principle, I say to members of this House: this bill is not the one for you; it is far too broad. We should reject it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to all members who have made themselves available and made a contribution to this debate tonight. I’d like to briefly rebut some of the arguments that I’ve heard, attempt to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed, and thank those who have expressed support for this bill.

I felt, when I was listening to Bill English’s contribution, that we were talking at each other from different ages. The age when a blanket prohibition on all end of life was required as the cornerstone of our law may have been a good argument in 1995. It may have even been a good argument in 2003. It is not a good argument today because, as Chris Bishop so ably outlined, we now have almost a dozen jurisdictions around the world that have designed a law that does give choice to those who want it and protects those who want nothing to do with it whatsoever. We are like ships in the night: one speaking from 1995; the other speaking from 2017, when so much of history has moved on.

I heard from Nuk Korako that euthanasia is foreign to Māori. Well, I can tell members that the polling company that does all the work for Mr Korako’s party, Curia Market Research, has extensively polled the community to the point where we can drill down quite precisely to different groups, and the figures for Māori, or New Zealanders who identify as Māori, are that they support having choice by a ratio of 2:1—50 percent support, 25 percent opposed, 25 percent undecided.

I heard from Maggie Barry that choice would be taken from thousands of others. Well, again, that simply does not acknowledge the reality that times have moved on, that jurisdictions have legislated. Other jurisdictions have studied their experience exhaustively and found, actually, that it is possible to have a law that gives choice to those who want it while protecting those who want nothing to do with it.

We heard from Aupito William Sio that because there has been a select committee already, somehow New Zealanders do not want choice. Well, I make the point that that committee did not conclude with any particular recommendation. It did not consider a bill, and the people who submitted, many of them writing in a single line, do not reflect the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, who support choice. No member of this House, when polling in their electorate, would rely on a self-selecting sample to establish what New Zealanders really thought.

I hear the concerns of Julie Anne Genter. There will be a lot to discuss as this bill goes forward through to select committee, if members are agreeable to do that tonight. I’m open to having that discussion. While I think the bill I’ve drafted is pretty good—and it’s the first one that has got approval under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by the Attorney-General—I believe that we can all learn from each other and that a select committee process is likely to suggest improvements that will make this a better bill.

The question now, members, is whether or not we are prepared to allow that to happen. Are we content to live in a society where people are informally euthanised; where people refuse food, water, and treatment with no safeguard, no accountability structure whatsoever; where people commit amateur violent suicide years before they would have liked to have died because they knew that their capability was declining, and they couldn’t have done it later, so they had to do it alone without the assistance of anybody else? That’s the society that we live in. That is the society where doctors routinely use painkillers saying they have the intent of alleviating pain, but actually end people’s life.

Where is the protection for the sanctity of life in that world? And if anyone is happy with that status quo, how can they possibly oppose a bill that would give the protection of the rule of law to those people—those few people—suffering at the end of their life, who cannot be helped in any other way, to go through a safeguarded process that will allow them to choose how they go and when they go? Thank you.

A personal vote was called for on the question that the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a first time.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask members to resume their seats. I have a ruling that I want to give while we’re waiting for the tellers to come back. It’s been drawn to my attention that there has been some photography occurring in the lobby during the vote. Members will be aware, or some members will be aware, that during the last Standing Orders debate there was considerable discussion about photography in the House—whether it should be allowed or not. There was a wide range of views. I, personally, was in the minority that supported a liberalisation of the rules; that was not supported by the Standing Orders Committee.

The question is whether, when a vote is occurring, the lobby is, effectively, a part of the House. It is my view that in fact it is, and the prohibition within the Standing Orders Committee report, the continuation of that prohibition, does apply to the lobbies during a vote.

Now, at other times, if members want to take photos out there and they have the permission of the people involved—if they’re doing live streaming or they’re doing whatever they like that doesn’t involve other members—I think that’s fine. But in these circumstances, I think it is not appropriate to take or publish photos, so if members have done that, I’d appreciate if they got rid of them. Thank you.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 76

Noes 44

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think it’s a call, Mr Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’d like to move that the End of Life Choice Bill be reported to the House by the date that is nine months from the date the bill receives its first reading.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the End of Life Choice Bill be reported to the House by the date that is nine months from the date the bill receives its first reading.

Ayes 61

Noes 39

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.