Tuesday, 30 January 2018

TUESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2018

TUESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

Republic of Korea—National Assembly, Deputy Speaker and Delegation

SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Shim Jae-Cheol, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, and his delegation from the Republic of Korea, who are present in the gallery.

[Applause]

Obituaries

Hon James Patrick (Jim) Anderton CNZM

Gail Helen McIntosh

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 7 January 2018 of James Patrick (Jim) Anderton CNZM, who represented the electorates of Sydenham and Wigram between 1984 and 2011. Mr Anderton was Deputy Prime Minister from 1999 to 2002. During his membership of this House, he held a number of ministerial positions, including Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Minister of Forestry, and Minister of Agriculture.

I also regret to inform the House of the death on 4 January 2018 of Gail Helen McIntosh, who represented the electorate of Lyttelton for the National Party from 1990 to 1993.

I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect in their memory.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the death of the Hon Jim Anderton.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, that this House note with sadness the passing on 7 January of Jim Anderton, former Deputy Prime Minister; that the House pay tribute to his service to the electorates of Sydenham and Wigram and to the Parliament, Government and people of New Zealand; and that our condolences are tendered to his family.

On behalf of all New Zealanders, I rise today to pay tribute to a man of enormous character, compassion, and integrity. There have been very few people like Jim Anderton in New Zealand politics. Jim spent his life in public service, in the best sense of the word. He was motivated by his profound sense of compassion for people, from his belief that the dignity of people mattered the most.

Jim also married a strong sense of pragmatism to his beliefs. When I attended Jim’s funeral in Christchurch, we heard from his family and those closest to Jim that for him, words were never enough. He knew that action—real action—and concrete, practical change to people’s lives were what mattered. Because of this, he leaves a legacy of enduring accomplishments. From his years as a city councillor, to being a reforming president of the Labour Party whose organisational legacy endures today, to founding two political parties, through to his service as a Cabinet Minister, Jim was a man who got things done.

My colleague Andrew Little described Jim as always deeply principled, thoughtful, and determined to do the right thing. He was a man before his time, a true progressive. He was at the forefront of anti-nuclear policy and of the anti-racism movement during the Springbok tour in the early 1980s, and was committed to social justice. He will be remembered as a statesman who delivered a number of lasting legacies.

We have Jim to thank for Kiwibank. He was also the person who made sure that the Government didn’t ignore the regions, playing a big part in ensuring economic development also happened outside of our main centres. That reputation is also why he was such a beloved local MP to the people of Sydenham and Wigram, whom he represented unfailingly for nearly 30 years. Jim will be remembered as someone who always stood up for his principles and the people he represented.

I want to finish today by reading a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, whom Jim was fond of, that he read in his final speech in this House. I think it sums up Jim’s approach to politics and to life. It reads: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs; who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deeds …”.

Jim spent his life in the arena. He spent his life doing great deeds for our country. It often was hard and always is, but we are a better country because he kept trying, he got things done, and because he wouldn’t back down.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I rise on behalf of the National Party to join with the Prime Minister and others in this House in paying tribute to our former member Jim Anderton.

I first met Jim Anderton as the National Party hopeful standing in the seat of Sydenham in 1993. I have to concede it was not an embracing encounter, but it was one that I did learn a great deal from. Jim was standing for NewLabour at the time, having won the seat as an independent in 1990 after making what must have been a very difficult decision for him. The people of Wigram most certainly appreciated the fact that he stood on his principles and stood very much for the things that mattered to them. It was, I think, that palpable respect for the man and for his principles that saw him so well regarded throughout those 30 years in both Sydenham and Wigram.

On that campaign trail, one of the shared campaign events that we had was a school fair. We had the opportunity to put our heads through a board and have $2 punters throw large wet sponges at our faces. I’d have to say, it remains a mystery to me how many of those local punters had simply fantastic accuracy when it was my turn, but completely lost their arm when Jim was in that position. Afterwards, I was totally drenched—soaking wet—and standing there, and Jim just turned to me and said, “You should have stood on the left side.”

That makes the point, I think, that in politics, the method, the philosophy, or the activity of political engagement I think will see anyone choose a political party that best fits them, but so often the principles that drive them are similar, and the outcomes that people want are similar. And Jim, I think, did have quite an appreciation of that.

I must say that, over time, I came to have a great deal of respect for him, particularly post the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch. Initially, as a local member he was willing and keen to work alongside those who were in the reconstruction, to do whatever he could. In particular, I would point out the way that he embraced the difficulties that small businesses had in meeting their obligations at the time. In 2011, when there were some moves made to support those businesses, Jim was one of the first to phone up and endorse what a good idea it was. Through all that time he was also willing to phone up and give you—or give me, in many cases—an opinion about what should be happening, and he was typically firm but also not in a screaming sort of way, but in a smart and well-thought-out way. I very much came to appreciate that.

He also willingly accepted the chair of the temporary stadium arrangements that we have in Christchurch and has, for the last six years, presided over a body that’s actually kept its head above water—quite unique in New Zealand. He did that without any recompense whatsoever, but simply because he deeply believed that it was something that the city and, as he put it, the people need.

His work to save the Christ Church Cathedral is well known and there will be various views on that, but you cannot help but admire the man’s tenacity and his determination to see through an idea that he thought was worthwhile. So he made his mark on New Zealand. He made his mark in this House.

I would like, on behalf of the National Party, to acknowledge Carole, his wife, and the family, and to make the comment that I think the tributes that were paid to him at his funeral by his family, despite everything else he achieved in life, were perhaps the greatest mark of the man he was.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We wish to pay our respects to Gail McIntosh’s family and, on behalf of New Zealand First, pay tribute to the late Jim Anderton and acknowledge his remarkable service as a parliamentarian and his commitment to public life. Simply put, Jim Anderton committed his life to public service, from serving on city councils through to holding senior ministerial portfolios, and even in later years he remained active in his home town of Christchurch, or the city of Christchurch, focusing on local government and on the restoration of the cathedral.

Whatever you thought of his politics, Jim Anderton was a man of principle and that’s not common in modern politics in the Western World. He held true to his principles, from the very beginning to the very end. Along the way, he was a fierce critic of the ravages of the neo-liberal agenda and a strong advocate of economic development and the Government’s involvement, and, in particular, regional economic development. He believed in the sovereignty of his country, and we should remain grateful for his role in Kiwibank and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

He led an alliance of five political parties, and that could not, from a little personal experience, have been easy. It’s an irony indeed that we speak today, at this time, bringing the waka-jumping legislation through its first reading in the House. New Zealand First adds its voice and pays respect to Jim Anderton’s contribution to this House and to the people of New Zealand. We say thank you to his wife and his family.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Kua hinga he tōtara o Te Wao Nui a Tāne. Kua hinga he rangatira o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa.

[I acknowledge all of you in this House. A tōtara from the great forest of Tāne has fallen. A chief of the New Zealand Parliament has passed on.]

A mighty tōtara has fallen: a rangatira of this House, of progressive politics, and of Aotearoa New Zealand. It was with huge sadness that the Green Party learnt of Jim Anderton’s death. He was a great defender of the underdog. He stood up for New Zealanders hurt by the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, and he devoted his life to public service and to ensuring a fair deal for all.

When he formed, first, the NewLabour Party and then The Alliance, which of course included the Greens for a time, Jim Anderton also played a big part in ensuring greater proportional representation in our Parliament. His success in leading those challenger parties paved the way for more diverse views to be given a voice in the Parliament and in our Government.

Jim Anderton made and shaped decisions affecting a huge span of life in New Zealand, from establishing Kiwibank, supporting regional development, and, more recently, in the Christchurch rebuild with his work on the stadium and his work in achieving a commitment to repair and restore the Christ Church Cathedral. A deeply Catholic man, he gave his all to restoring the city’s Anglican cathedral.

As Minister of Fisheries, he stood up to the industry. He introduced regulations around the South Island that reduced the number of Hector’s dolphins being drowned in set nets. He had a huge range of achievements.

So our enduring memory in the Greens of him will be the stand that he took on principle—consistently, passionately, and effectively—to defend and advocate for a fairer and more egalitarian way of life for all New Zealanders. Our condolences go to Jim’s family, friends, and supporters, and especially his wife and political partner, Carole. He was a family man, as well as a huge servant of the public.

Ki a koe e te rangatira, e Jim, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[To you, most esteemed Jim, farewell, farewell, rest in peace.]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to give our condolences to Jim Anderton’s family and pay tribute to his life and career. It’s no secret that Jim’s early career was inextricably linked with the ACT Party’s founders and much of the history that went on in that time—albeit, perhaps, in what you might describe as a symmetrical way.

I have to say that due to that symmetrical and inextricable link, we see in Jim a kindred spirit. We have a great admiration for somebody that comes to the House with a sincere and genuine belief that our role here in Parliament is to make New Zealand a better place for all people through better public policy, and we have great admiration for somebody who is able to use their time in Parliament to leave lasting policy legacy—something that the vast majority, sadly, never achieve.

So with that, I’d like to leave our condolences for Jim’s family and pay tribute on behalf of the ACT Party to a great man and a great contributor to this House and to New Zealand.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Climate Change—Adaptation

1. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What is he doing to help New Zealand adapt to the effects of climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I thank the member for her question. Last month I released the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group’s stocktake on the risks and impacts of climate change, as well as renewed guidance to local councils on sea level rise. In April of this year, the adaptation technical working group will release its second report, which is on policy options to respond to the challenge. I think this will form a good basis for the much-needed strong national direction that we need to take on dealing with the effects of climate change on farmers, on local communities, and on infrastructure in New Zealand.

Marama Davidson: Why is it important for our communities to adapt to the effects of climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I think sometimes in New Zealand we think of climate change as happening somewhere else to someone else in the future, but as the mercury hit 40 degrees in some parts of New Zealand yesterday—while I acknowledge that it’s been a spectacular summer for many people, it’s pretty obvious that we can’t ignore the very serious impacts of climate change in terms of droughts or more frequent storms, floods, and fires. My visit to Dunedin yesterday brought home the very real concerns that people have got in that city in particular about the threat of rising seas and increasingly severe and frequent flood events.

Marama Davidson: What did the Minister learn in Dunedin yesterday about communities facing the effects of climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW: My visit yesterday gave me an opportunity to meet with the Greater South Dunedin Action Group, the mayor and city councillors, the chancellor and vice-chancellor of the university, and the local member of Parliament, Clare Curran, to look around some of the low-lying areas of South Dunedin and central Dunedin. It’s immediately apparent to me that this is a community that is deeply engaged with the questions around the need for a long-term strategic plan to deal with the effects of climate change and to adapt to it. I was very encouraged that that community is looking to take a leadership position and see it as an opportunity to get ahead of the adaptation challenge, and then to offer the lessons learnt to other communities around the country that will also be dealing with the same set of challenges.

Marama Davidson: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress being made on adapting to climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No, I’m not satisfied at the moment. I think that there have been a number of very significant and really useful pieces of work, some of which were initiated by the previous Government, such as the stocktake report and the coastal hazards guidance that I referred to before, which give us an indication of the scale of the challenge. Certainly, there are some councils and organisations around the country that are leading on this, and I do want to acknowledge their work, but I have to say I do not think that we are there yet. It’s very clear to me, particularly after this summer, that we need a more comprehensive nationwide risk assessment and to plan as a country rather than to leave it up to individual councils. That is why I’m making adaptation to the effects of climate change one of our top priorities of work for our programme this year.

Social Services Targets—Government Measures

2. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does her Government intend to retain the Better Public Service Targets to reduce the number of people on a benefit by 25 percent, reduce the number of serious crimes being committed by 10,000, and reduce the number of children hospitalised for preventable conditions by 25 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): No. We will have our own system for monitoring and reporting on performance against our priorities. Our targets will reflect our different priorities from the previous Government and will look beyond simple measures and, in fact, to underlying causes.

Rt Hon Bill English: Did the Prime Minister consider past success of selected targets that addressed areas of persistent social dysfunction, such as reducing welfare dependency, reducing reoffending rates for criminals, holding the numbers of children affected by child abuse, and lifting educational attainment among Māori and Pacific students?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think it’s fair to say that probably all Governments share an ambition for reducing crime and improving employment. Our point is that we have a set of priorities that get to the root cause of some of the issues that we’re seeing in New Zealand. A great example, for instance, would be our ambition to measure and target directly issues like child poverty. That’s getting to the root cause of an issue rather than just some of the symptoms, as past Better Public Services (BPS) targets did.

Rt Hon Bill English: Why does the Government persist with the view that poverty in New Zealand is purely a function of income, when the evidence is overwhelming that low educational achievement, family violence, long-term welfare dependency, and serial criminal offending have a huge impact on persistent deprivation and material hardship?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the evidence points to material hardship as being one of the most consistent drivers of poor outcomes for children. We’ve never argued that that in and of itself was the only issue that needs to be looked at, which is why, of course, we’re also requiring—and will, as a Government, focus more broadly on—a child well-being strategy for the very reasons that the past Minister points out.

Rt Hon Bill English: So can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government is therefore going to abandon a focused approach to social dysfunction, caused by the factors that I’ve referred to, and limit its approach to addressing deprivation simply to the measurement of income?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, because, in fact, as the member well knows, we’ve also included material hardship as one of the things that we would like to include and hold ourselves to account on. Our point is that we, in fact, want to be broader in the accountabilities we hold ourselves to as a Government. The BPS targets that the last Government had were quite narrowly focused. They looked at symptoms rather than root causes, and in some cases were manipulated and didn’t lead to improved outcomes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will it help in the efficacy of future measurements that she discovered family and child poverty before she entered Government, not nine years after it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. We have long held a view, based on research and evidence, that if we wanted to improve the well-being of children we could not ignore poverty as long as the last Government chose to.

Rt Hon Bill English: Has she seen comments by the State Services Commissioner, who said that the Better Public Services targets achieved real results: “More kids are getting immunised. Fewer kids are being physically abused. Participation in early childhood is on the increase. [And] 40,000 fewer working age people are receiving benefits compared with three years ago. That’s a whole bunch of things that change lives.”, and why does she think that achieving those things doesn’t change lives and ought to be stopped?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This Government has no problem with the issue of targets, with priority setting, with goals as a way to drive the focus from the Public Service and the Government. Our point is we will have our own. In fact, the last Government changed their own targets several times during their time in Government, and it will not surprise the member that we have a different set of priorities—a broader set of priorities—than them.

Rt Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government’s priority is the measurement of income only, and the other factors that determine material hardship and deprivation reflected in the targets set by the previous Government are now going to be ignored by the new Government—factors such as persistent—

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member—[Interruption] Order! I’ll just ask the Leader of the Opposition to shorten his questions up to one or two, rather than three or four.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Rt Hon Bill English: Has the Prime Minister seen the data that show that maternal and baby care are much more likely to be satisfactory when mothers enrol with their lead maternity carer in the first trimester of their pregnancy, and has she instructed the Public Service to stop focusing on that measure, which was initiated in May last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am being very consistent in the point here that we need to be much broader in the goals that we set ourselves. I take, for example, the rheumatic fever Better Public Services target that the last Government set. That did nothing to resolve the long-term driver of rheumatic fever, which is cold, damp, overcrowded housing. In the same way, if we want to improve maternal outcomes, we have to look at the barriers as to why women aren’t enrolling with lead maternity carers, and they are complex and often involve deprivation.

Rt Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that the target that was set to lift to 90 percent the proportion of women enrolled in the first trimester with their lead maternity carer has now been abandoned, and if so, why?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have our own set of priorities. They will be replaced, and they’ll be released in good time.

Rt Hon Bill English: So can I take it, then, the Prime Minister is confirming that target has been abandoned, and people working in social and health services are no longer to be trying to enrol women earlier? And if she has abandoned it, what other measures has she taken to ensure that those women who weren’t enrolled will get better maternal care in the next 12 months?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The implication that those who work in our health services will no longer be interested in the health and well-being of pregnant women in New Zealand is, frankly, an insult. Of course they are, but we’re also saying that this Government’s priority is that those mothers also have decent housing, that they are free of harm and abuse, and that they have decent incomes. We want to get to the root cause of problems, not just the short-term issues.

Child Poverty Reduction—Government Measures and Reporting

3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?

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

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her statement that “My Government will have a key focus on reducing child poverty.”; and, if so, how many children will be moved out of poverty due to her mini-Budget announcement at the end of last year, given Treasury have admitted they got their analysis wrong?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, absolutely we stand by our ambition to improve the well-being of children and, particularly, the incomes of the households they live in. As the member will be aware, Treasury has acknowledged that there were issues with their modelling, and that the numbers that we used at the time of the mini-Budget were inaccurate. We’re waiting for those figures to be redone, and, as soon as they are, we’ll provide them. My understanding is that the effect of that modelling error is far-reaching, and has affected the last Government’s numbers as well.

Hon Paula Bennett: So if reducing child poverty is her priority, then when will she be able to tell New Zealanders what her package will actually be able to do? It’s been weeks, and over a month, and I would’ve thought that would be a priority—to be able to give the numbers.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, look, as the member knows, we actually released what we believed to be the impact at the time. Treasury has since said that their modelling was incorrect. That affects the last Government’s numbers as well, so my question to the Opposition would be: what impact would your Budget have had? It is a plague on all our houses. We wait keenly for that information, because I’m as keen to share it with this House as the member is.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was purposely not political. I’m just interested in when we might have a number. I freely admit that it was when the Opposition was—

SPEAKER: And—[Interruption] Order! I heard the Prime Minister say that the material is not available yet and would be released when it was. I don’t think one can be more specific than that.

Hon Paula Bennett: How will the Government monitor and report whether organisations that work with vulnerable children and receive taxpayers’ funding are making a difference?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Accountability in that area is, of course, important. What we’re talking about at the moment, though, is the accountability of the Government to make sure that we’re directing resource into doing all we can to lift families on low incomes out of deprivation and hardship. But, of course, we keep organisations to the same transparency and accountability standards as any Government would.

Hon Paula Bennett: So will she or any of her Ministers be putting in a bid to increase funding for organisations that are working with vulnerable children for this year’s Budget?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our focus on vulnerable children is consistent. In fact, we’re proposing that we retain the action plan around vulnerable children that the last Government floated. But Budget bids will be revealed at the time that the Budget is announced.

Hon Paula Bennett: So will the Prime Minister or any of her Ministers actually put in a bid to retain the funding for KidsCan, or increase it, when it does such crucial work for New Zealand’s children that need it most?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve already outlined in past questions, that will be made clear at the time Budget bids are revealed as part of Budget 2018.

David Seymour: How will the Prime Minister convince the public that the Government’s new statistical invented poverty measure is more credible than the last one?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In fact, there is an internationally robust set of measures used by the OECD, used by UNICEF, that only seem to be in dispute by ACT.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3—Tamati Coffey.

Tamati Coffey: Ah, that’d be 4, but thank you. Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: That’s—

Hon Members: Oh!

SPEAKER: Well, you’re certainly not Paula Bennett.

Government Financial Position—Reports

4. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the Government’s finances?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week, Treasury released the financial statements of the Government for the five months to November. These showed core Crown tax revenue of $30.4 billion—$530 million higher than forecast. The operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) was a surplus of $125 million, against a forecast deficit at the time of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) of $457 million. When gains and losses are added to the OBEGAL result, the operating balance was a $2.4 billion surplus—$0.7 billion higher than forecast.

Tamati Coffey: What does the increased core Crown tax revenue indicate for the wider economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s early days, and, as Treasury states, it is too early to establish with certainty whether this will persist. However, it’s pleasing to see business profits and economic activity holding up as the end of the year approaches. This is in line with a positive business sentiment regarding their own activities, which history tells us correlates to future GDP growth.

Tamati Coffey: What do the financial statements show in terms of core Crown net debt?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government is committed to a responsible debt reduction track so that net debt is below 20 percent of GDP within five years of this Government taking office. The Government accounts showed core Crown net debt was 22.2 percent of GDP at the end of November, against the HYEFU forecast of 22.5 percent.

Business Confidence—Actions and Reports

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that you’ve allowed this question to be put down to the Minister of Finance.

SPEAKER: That’s absolutely right.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: However, your ruling prior to Christmas was that the Minister had no ministerial responsibility for the types of reports that are referenced in this question. So my question to you is if the Minister gives an answer to, effectively, the first part of the question, which is around business confidence, but not the second part of the question, which is of course linked to the first part of the question, about the specific reports, is that in order?

SPEAKER: Well, we’ll see.

5. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the current level of net business confidence as expressed by each of the ANZ Business Outlook survey and the NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Let’s see. There are many measures of business confidence, and, overall, I’m hearing that firms are confident about the prospects for their own businesses. I do acknowledge that confidence about the wider economic environment is not as high. In terms of the specific surveys raised in the member’s question, as these are not Government surveys, and I have no role in their collation or methodology, I therefore have no ministerial responsibility for the specific details within them.

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

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I want the point of order. What I want is Mr Joyce to ask the question again.

Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that opportunity. What is the current level of net business confidence as expressed by each of the ANZ Business Outlook survey and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s (NZIER’s) Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion?

SPEAKER: And before Mr Robertson answers the question, I will indicate to him that it is an acceptable answer to say that he has not seen or read those reports, if that is the case, but if he has seen and read a report in an area for which he is responsible, then he will answer the question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not challenging that ruling—

SPEAKER: Not at all!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —but just to be clear that that is a different ruling than the one you gave last year.

SPEAKER: No. I have looked very carefully, as the member is aware, at the ruling that I gave in that area. I’ve looked at it for two reasons: firstly, because it was a matter that was referred to me, and, secondly, in respect of this question. Ministers are not responsible for the reports, and they do not receive them, but if they have seen them, they can be questioned on them.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Fair enough. The surveys the member refers to were for December 2017, a month in which a new record was set for New Zealand exports. The ANZ Business Outlook survey showed that a net 38 percent of businesses have a negative view about the year ahead, a slight bounce from November, and similar to the levels seen in 2015. In terms of their own activity, businesses are reporting a net 16 percent positive view. The NZIER Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion for the December 2017 quarter gave a headline reading that continued a downward trend that began in December 2016, showing a net 11 percent of firms expect economic conditions to worsen in the coming months. In terms of their own expected business, they reported a net 18 percent positive view.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is the Minister aware exactly how long it has been since the ANZ Business Outlook survey had net business confidence so low—negative 38 percent and negative 39 percent—in the last two monthly surveys respectively?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information.

Hon Steven Joyce: What is the current level of net small business confidence, as expressed in the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey, and how long has it been since the level of small business confidence has been so low in that survey?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that information with me.

Hon Steven Joyce: What does the Minister think has changed within the New Zealand economy over the last five months that has led businesses to report that their own activity outlook is now less than half what it was in August last year, despite the global economic outlook improving over the same period?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Businesses have, as I said in my primary answer, generally a net positive view of their own future prospects. That’s what correlates with overall future GDP growth. I believe that businesses see that there is a positive year ahead both for the global economy and the New Zealand economy. What I would say is that there was a trend that began in December 2016 of declining confidence in the overall economic conditions, which coincided with the event involving the former Minister becoming a Minister.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does the finance Minister accept that firms’ own activity confidence, which he’s mentioned a couple of times in his answers, has also halved in the last few months?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can say about the confidence that businesses have in their own activity is that it’s come back up from September 2017 and it sits above the long-run average.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of the questions, so I waited until the end. Last year, you ruled that a Government backbencher could not ask a Minister whether they had seen the reports of the nature that we have just mentioned, and therefore they could ask only if they had received the reports. You’ve now indicated that if a Minister has seen a report, they can be questioned on it. So my question to you is how can a member establish whether a Minister has seen a report if they’re not allowed to ask them?

SPEAKER: I think the appropriate way of doing it is to ask, as the member did, a question that is in the core area of the Minister’s responsibility and have a second leg that can help establish it. Before the member asks, I just want to indicate to the National Party that they do have two additional supplementary questions as a result of interjections from Government benches while the member was asking previously.

Hon Steven Joyce: Has the Minister considered that instead of offering counter-statistics, he should take steps to reassure businesses and improve their confidence, which has obviously dropped in the few months since the Government has taken office?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re working closely with the business community to make sure they understand the direction of travel of this Government and to make sure they understand our desire to lift exports, to diversify the economy, and to grow jobs that actually deliver to all New Zealanders. I do note that there is a range of surveys about confidence in the economy that come out. If we look at the surveys around employee confidence and consumer confidence, they’re doing well.

Hon Steven Joyce: Rather than those sorts of responses, what action is he going to take to reassure businesses that this Government will respond to their concerns about Government policy changes in areas like employment law, immigration law, infrastructure commitments, resource management laws, housing laws, investment rules—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to rule the question out and ask the previous Minister to rephrase it in areas that are Mr Robertson’s responsibility.

Hon Steven Joyce: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What action is the Minister actually going to take to reassure businesses that this Labour-led Government will respond to their concerns in a whole range of policy areas that affect business, including such things as investment rules and tax law?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, we’ve appointed a tax working group, which contains a range of representatives of businesses, including the chief executive of Business New Zealand, Kirk Hope, who, I noticed the other day, when speaking about our Government policy, said, “This decision shows the Government has an understanding of the needs and pressures facing small businesses.”

Employment Relations—90-day Trial Period and Law Changes

6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why has the Government decided to retain 90-day trials for businesses with fewer than 20 employees?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government has decided to retain 90-day trial periods for small businesses because, in the context of a bill that restores a range of workers’ rights that were stripped away by the previous Government, we believe this policy strikes the right balance between the rights of working New Zealanders and the needs of small business.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the chief executive of Business New Zealand, which the finance Minister just quoted, when he said that “The reality was [that 90-day trial periods were] enabling employers to take chances on, in particular, younger and less experienced workers and [give] them a shot?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I certainly respect the views of Mr Hope, but in this case the evidence that was commissioned by the previous Government doesn’t really back that statement up.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he read, then, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment research report into 90-day trials, which found that a third of employers surveyed said that the 90-day provision has led them to hire people that they otherwise would not have?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I certainly have read that report, and I would note that a lot of the research commissioned by the previous Government surveyed the views of employers but never once asked the views of workers.

Marja Lubeck: What have been the reactions of employers and workers to the announcement of the employment law changes?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Both businesses and unions have welcomed the collaborative and constructive approach that this Government is taking to industrial relations. The Minister of Finance has already quoted Kirk Hope, so I will quote Chris Lewis from Federated Farmers, who said that “This bill will give farmers renewed confidence. The decision is especially good for small businesses.”

Hon Amy Adams: In light of the information in my previous supplementaries, why does the Minister want younger, inexperienced, and vulnerable workers to miss out on opportunities to prove themselves amongst the 70 percent of New Zealand jobs that will now be excluded from 90-day trials?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is simply not the case. There is one robust piece of research into 90-day trials that was commissioned by Treasury, and it found that there was absolutely no impact on hiring intentions or on job opportunities for young, vulnerable workers.

Hon Amy Adams: So under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, is the Minister confident that New Zealand will continue to create new jobs at the rate of at least 10,000 new jobs a month, as it has for the past two years?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am confident that New Zealand will continue to create new jobs at a pace that is reflective of the global economic conditions.

Hon Amy Adams: So in the employment law bill that the member has now tabled in the House, can he confirm whether the 20 employee threshold applies to 20 full-time equivalents, or does it penalise those using job share and part-time arrangements by taking them over the cap?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It will apply exactly as it was introduced by the National Government back in 2010.

Teachers—Teaching Council of Aotearoa

7. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Is the Government committed to raising the status of the teaching profession and giving it more control of its own affairs; if so, what actions is he taking to fulfil this commitment?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely, yes. Today the House will be debating the first reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. This bill restores democracy to the teaching profession, giving teachers the right to elect the majority of members to the governing body of their own professional organisation. This is yet another step this Government is taking to begin to restore trust and confidence within the teaching community.

Jan Tinetti: How will the different parts of the teaching profession be represented on the Teaching Council?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’ll be seven elected representatives on the Teaching Council. They are a representative of primary teachers, secondary teachers, and early childhood teachers; a representative of teacher educators; a representative of primary and secondary principals, one each; and a representative of early childhood leaders. Teaching is a diverse community and the membership of the council reflects that. The balance of six members will be appointed by the Minister.

Jan Tinetti: What advice has he seen about the merits of the current provisions for the Minister to appoint all members of the Education Council?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When these provisions were introduced, they were overwhelmingly opposed. We saw quotes, including “Democracy appears to be so inconvenient for [the previous Government that] the only way they can control and corporatize education is to legislate [it].” This Government believes that the teaching profession deserve to have the same autonomy that we give to doctors, to lawyers, to nurses, and to many other professions. We trust teachers, we respect them, and we believe that they should have a say in how their profession is governed.

Education, National Standards—Removal

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: As of the start of the 2018 school year, how many schools are keeping National Standards in place?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): National standards are no longer an instrument of Government policy. The Ministry of Education does not require schools to fill in paperwork about any tools they might choose to use to assess and report on students’ progress, whether they be AsTTle, PaCT, national standards, or any other tool. I have been clear that schools should choose an approach that works best for their communities whilst ensuring that parents receive clear and regular reporting.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he now saying that no school is allowed to keep their system of national standards?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Given that he can’t tell the country how many schools are keeping national standards, what information enabled him to make the claim that the vast bulk of them do agree with getting rid of national standards?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I read the newspaper, I watch the television, and I receive a huge array of feedback from those working in education.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When does he expect to give a clearer direction to schools about what will actually replace national standards, given the statement by Sandra Smith, principal of Linwood North School, who said, “We haven’t [had] any clear direction from our new Government as to what is to replace national standards.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d advise her to open her email, because she received advice from the Ministry of Education’s regional director before Christmas about the removal of national standards and what schools should do in place of them. She also received a range of advice from other professional organisations in the educational community about what should replace national standards.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his answer and his statement in response to the criticisms of the Government by the principal of Linwood North School that “Well it could be a communication issue, I suspect. Or it could be a bit of politics. Not every school in the country is going to agree with this.”, is he accusing all schools that have chosen to keep national standards of failing to understand him or being political?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, and no.

Mental Health Services—Funding

9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: How much money was appropriated in Budget 2017 for mental health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Out of the $16.7 billion budgeted for Vote Health, I’m advised by the Ministry of Health that it’s impossible to say how much was appropriated for mental health specifically.

Matt Doocey: Were the Prime Minister’s doubts correct about the $100 million put aside in a contingency fund for mental health in Budget 2017 when she said to media, “You’re assuming it was real.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is about appropriated expenditure. The member is now raising the issue of unappropriated expenditure.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and while I understand the background of the member, and the fact that as a former Treasury official, he has very good knowledge about the difference, I think we shouldn’t expect every member of Parliament to have that detail. I think that question comes close enough.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry, Mr Speaker, would the member please repeat the question, in that case.

SPEAKER: Sure.

Matt Doocey: Were the Prime Minister’s doubts correct about the $100 million put aside in a contingency fund for mental health when she said to media, “You’re assuming it was real.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes.

Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, where is that $100 million being redirected to, considering that amount was set aside solely for mental health in Budget 2017?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That money was not appropriated.

Matt Doocey: So is the Minister saying that he has received no advice from officials that the $100 million does, in fact, exist, and that advice has been given to the Prime Minister?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I might be able to assist the member. The money has not been appropriated. There was a contingency fund in the fiscal forecasts and the previous Government had taken no decision on any initiatives that it had spoken to. There are some initiatives that clearly were in their infancy—poorly thought-through some of them—and, over nine years, it had not taken any action on the front that it was advertising.

Matt Doocey: Which of the 17 mental health projects identified by the previous Government in concert with Government agencies, the Chief Science Advisor, and the mental health sector will be missing out as a result of this redirection of money?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Some of those ideas, which I state again, were in their infancy, had some useful evidence behind them. We will develop those ideas that had useful evidence. This Government will get on with the job of making sure that mental health is a priority. It won’t take us nine years to make a meaningful difference in mental health.

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I get an answer that clearly outlines which projects?

SPEAKER: In fact, if I wanted to take the technical approach that the Minister did at the beginning, I would have ruled the whole question out. I think it is very hard to get an answer about unappropriated expenditure. You can’t take something away that hasn’t been given.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s a difference, obviously, in wording in the nomenclature here, but it’s important that the House doesn’t trip itself up on it, because some money can be set aside in a contingency fund and not necessarily be finally appropriated. I appreciate that’s a fine distinction but I think, to the public, money being set aside is actually set aside, and the fact that it’s yet to be finally appropriated is a technical distinction which the Minister is—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I did spend quite a lot of time dealing with these matters, and I give him an absolute assurance that lots of money that goes into contingency funds don’t make their way to the things where they may. That is not taking something away, because it hasn’t yet been given. The decision to appropriate is that decision.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he has discerned a pattern of announcements with respect to the contingency fund not yet appropriated in a number of areas of medicine and elsewhere as well?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There have been a lot of promises made under the previous term of the previous Government without the delivery that was needed to deliver on those promises. This is an unfortunate pattern—the member is right.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you don’t like me reflecting on your decisions, but I do like to occasionally reflect for a short period of time—

SPEAKER: The member is getting a bit of latitude—first day back.

Hon Steven Joyce: Well, I am just concerned that this is, indeed, a debatable point. There’s no doubt that the money was set aside. It was announced; it’s in the Budget documents. My colleague is attempting to question the Minister on what happened to the money. I appreciate he is hiding behind the lack of an appropriation, but it is actually in—

SPEAKER: On that note, the member will resume his seat. What I would like is for the member if he is going to make a point of order, to make it around the Standing Orders and around Speakers’ rulings, and not to reflect on other members or attempt to make political points. If he does, he’ll be stopped immediately.

Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well—sorry; I’m actually part way through hearing the Hon Steven Joyce. Can we let him finish? He’s finished has he? Right.

Rt Hon Bill English: Well, if that’s the criteria, it’s this: the Speaker has no role determining whether questions are in or out of order depending on whether the money is in a contingency fund or appropriated. It’s not the Speaker’s job; it’s a debatable matter for the House. That announcement was made in this House as part of a Budget. It’s legitimate debating material. It was widely publicised, welcomed by the sector. With respect, it is not your role to say the question can’t be answered on the basis of the technicalities of appropriation. It’s simply wrong.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second point made by Mr Doocey was: where has the money gone that was set aside? That was the second question, and the rest of it just fell apart after that.

SPEAKER: Order! I will stand up. I wouldn’t have put it quite like that, but technically, right back at the beginning, the honourable Minister was correct. I was probably a little kinder than I should have been, to let a certain number of questions run. Whether something is appropriated or not, we had an assurance from the Minister, so at that point it is not a debating matter or at question time when the Minister’s word has to be taken. I probably should’ve stopped two or three of the other supplementaries from Mr Doocey, but I decided—I know that people are very interested in this area of policy—notwithstanding the fact that technically they were not well expressed, I decided to let them go so that there could be comment on them in the House.

Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the technical basis on which you would’ve ruled the questions out of order?

SPEAKER: We had an assurance from the Minister that the money had not been appropriated and we had further questions from Mr Doocey that worked on the basis that they were.

Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where does it say in the Standing Orders that Parliament can’t discuss money that has been announced, is placed in a contingency, but is not finally appropriated? That would be a Standing Orders’ innovation that, in 27 years, I’ve never heard.

SPEAKER: And I didn’t so rule. [Interruption] Mr Hipkins is probably lucky that I wasn’t standing up, because he might have been standing up.

Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the ruling?

SPEAKER: The ruling was that, actually, Dr Clark was accurate in his comments at the beginning. The initial question and some of the obviously well-prepared supplementaries flowed from a question of appropriation, and Dr Clark did point out that the supplementaries were, in fact, about money that failed at that first hurdle.

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

SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?

Hon Steven Joyce: Yes, it’s a fresh point of order in relation to the same question. Dr Clark, in his answer to that question, said that he couldn’t say how much had been appropriated for mental health, and yet we are now talking about the level of exactitude about what is and isn’t appropriated, which would suggest, with respect, that he could say—because you’d know what was appropriated and what isn’t. He can’t have it both ways—on the one hand, saying he knows exactly what is appropriated and what isn’t, but he’s unable to answer the primary question.

SPEAKER: I think the member might reflect on that, and he might want to come and see me afterwards and I’ll give some further explanations.

Mental Health Services—Inquiry and Policies

10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to improve mental health in New Zealand?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On 23 January, the Government announced details of our ministerial inquiry into mental health and addiction services. The inquiry will report back to the Government by the end of October. It represents an important step in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of our community response to mental health and of the response of the broader mental health system.

Dr Liz Craig: What’s the scope of the inquiry into mental health and addiction services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The terms of reference of the independent inquiry are deliberately broad. It will have a particular focus on equity of access to quality service and better outcomes. Nothing is off the table. We know that we have a problem with mental health in this country and that our suicide rate is shameful. This inquiry will look at all factors that may contribute to this.

Dr Liz Craig: Apart from establishing an inquiry into mental health and addiction services, what other plans does the Government have to improve mental health for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The inquiry is a vital step towards improving our approach to mental health and addiction, but we won’t just wait in the meantime. Where we have evidence-based policies that can help right now, we will act. This includes pushing ahead with our plans for more school-based mental health services and lowering the costs of visiting a GP by $10 for all New Zealanders. We know that GPs are often the first port of call when people face these issues. It will not take us nine years to make meaningful gains in mental health.

Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Changes and Process

11. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Will he release the full text of the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the national interest analysis before it is signed on 8 March this year; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): New Zealand is pushing for the release of the text as soon as possible. The formal text, in English, is currently being checked to ensure it reflects what was agreed last week. The English text will then be translated into French and Spanish, which is important to the countries that don’t speak English as their first language. These translations will then need to be legally verified, and all of this has to be completed by 8 March. In the meantime, the 2016 text is available in detail, as is a summary description of the suspensions agreed. In respect of the national interest analysis, I’ve directed that that be released prior to 8 March.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he telling the House and the public that they should read a text that was published first in 2016 that his party hasn’t voted for?

SPEAKER: Order! Just before the member answers, I will indicate that a further two supplementaries have been granted to the National Party as a result of Government bench interjections.

Hon DAVID PARKER: What I’m saying is that the bulk of the text is in this form of this long-published agreement, that the suspensions have been well described, and that there is nothing being hidden from the public.

Hon Todd McClay: Will he put the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) text before Parliament for debate and a vote prior to signature, as proposed in a New Zealand First member’s bill, which Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First all voted for, in Opposition, last year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The 600 pages of text have already been before this Parliament. The suspended provisions are well described on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade site. I don’t envisage that the revision, including those two, will be put to Parliament before it’s signed on 8 March.

Hon Todd McClay: When claiming that the agreement has some of the highest standards ever negotiated by New Zealand, were the Treaty of Waitangi, labour, environment, or market access provisions improved in the revised TPP agreement?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the Treaty provision, I would say that most Māori were most concerned that the Treaty provisions be given effect to not just through the Treaty clause but through companion legislation, which did something that’s very important to Māoridom, which is protect the New Zealand land homeownership market as a New Zealand market. Māoridom suffered a greater decrease in homeownership rates than the general decrease that was experienced under the last Government.

Hon Todd McClay: I ask again: when claiming that the agreement had some of the highest standards ever negotiated by New Zealand, were the Treaty of Waitangi, the labour, the environment, or the market access provisions improved in the revised TPP agreement—the actual clauses, not anything else he may claim to have done?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The market access provisions are substantially unchanged. We did have to parry attempts by both Japan and Canada to push back New Zealand, but were successful in opposing those measures. There are significant changes in the agreement, including the breadth of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. For me, the most significant point is that we have managed to do what the last Government said was impossible, which is to protect New Zealanders’ right to control who buys our homes, at the same time as having trade agreements.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he received regarding the compatibility of a ban on overseas house buyers with our trade agreements, including the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have read a number of reports incorrectly claiming that we had to choose between banning overseas buyers and our trade relationships. That’s clearly not the case. One report claimed, and I quote: “A ban would force New Zealand to renegotiate many of our trade agreements. We would be likely to lose some trade access as a result of renegotiations, which would harm New Zealand companies and Kiwi jobs.” The same member who said that last month said the TPP is now not going to be signed because Canada has decided they don’t want to do it. Sadly, former Minister Todd McClay was wrong on both occasions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that we have taken the totally unacceptable, in terms of sovereignty, on land and house acquisition in this country, and on the investors disputes provisions—we’ve taken them from the unacceptable to the acceptable, so much so that even Donald Trump’s now talking about joining back in?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Indeed, we have made major improvements. I’ve already covered the land ones. The ISDS clauses are narrowed as to scope. Under the last Government, a foreign company building the Waterview Tunnel could avoid New Zealand courts and take the New Zealand Government to court through an ISDS tribunal. They no longer can.

Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister give the business community an assurance that the Government has a majority to pass the revised TPP legislation, or will he be seeking support from the National Party to help get the agreement over the line?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can give the business community that assurance, unless the National Party resiles from what it’s already said in the media.

Export Sector—Mānuka Honey

12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Food Safety: Why has the definition of mānuka honey changed from the definition previously announced by the Ministry for Primary Industries on 11 December 2017?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Food Safety): The change is a result of new information from industry that showed that the definition for identifying multifloral mānuka honey was initially set too conservatively and would exclude legitimate multifloral honey from meeting the definition. The definition for monofloral mānuka honey remains unchanged.

Hon David Bennett: What consultation took place with the industry on setting the more stringent December test?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Consultation on this issue since 2013 has been exhaustive. I’ve met industry representatives on numerous occasions, and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been working with the industry, which resulted in new information placed before MPI last week, which encouraged MPI to make the changes and, indeed, work to a point now where industry is right behind a definition for mānuka honey.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question, and it was: “What consultation took place with the industry on setting the more stringent December test?” The consultation that happened in the last week does not—the test was set in December. We are asking what consultation that Minister took with the industry in setting that December test, and that was a very specific question.

SPEAKER: Leaving aside the royal “we”, the member can ask that supplementary again.

Hon David Bennett: What consultation took place with the industry on setting the more stringent December test?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Lots.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot use the word “lots” as a response to a question in this House, and if he does, then maybe he needs to explain it. That’s just inappropriate, and he’s just using this House—

SPEAKER: Member, sit down. I think he just did, and I think, at this stage of question time, given the fact that the member had two cracks at it, I think he’s probably made his point, and I don’t think I should intervene. Is there a further supplementary?

Rino Tirikatene: When was the issue of fraudulent New Zealand mānuka honey in the export market first raised?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This information was raised by international trading partners in both Britain and China in 2013. Every month since that time, New Zealand’s reputation has been at risk, and the former Government—including that former Minister—dicked around, sat on their hands, and did nothing. We’ve made a decision. We’ve made an alteration as we’ve needed, and now we can assure the honey industry, and this House, and New Zealand exporters that people who buy mānuka honey offshore will be getting what the label says.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify what the member actually said in terms of it may have been an unparliamentary remark.

SPEAKER: I’m not absolutely convinced, but if the member thinks he made an unparliamentary remark he will withdraw it.

Hon Member: Well, it wasn’t on the West Coast, but here it is.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, it’s not on the West Coast, no. If the member’s offended I’ll withdraw the remark.

SPEAKER: No. I think the member should just withdraw it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I withdraw it.

Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister received advice since legal proceedings were brought against the December definition that the necessary consultation requirements haven’t been met?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No.

Hon David Bennett: Why didn’t the Minister ensure adequate consultation before the more stringent definition was released as to the mānuka honey definition?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There was adequate consultation.

Hon David Bennett: Which test can consumers and markets have confidence in for mānuka honey: the stringent test the Minister announced in December or the lower test announced yesterday as the result of legal proceedings and a failure to consult?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: They can have absolute confidence in both. The first one applies to monofloral mānuka honey, and the second one will now apply to multifloral mānuka honey.

Hon David Bennett: Mr Speaker, I wish that the member would actually confirm that there are two tests now because he—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Has the member got a question?

Hon David Bennett: This is a point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not starting off like one.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said he has got two tests: the test in December and the test released yesterday. The two tests are different. How can he have confidence in both tests for one of New Zealand’s export industries?

SPEAKER: It’s not my responsibility to explain the difference between one flower and several flowers, but I think that’s what the member was saying in Latin.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not actually a difference in that he had a test in December for one product and a different test now, so could we have a supplementary question on that?

SPEAKER: Look—no; the Minister will sit down for a second. If the member wants, if the member can get a tight supplementary that goes to that issue, which is then further explanation, the member can have one more. Away you go.

Hon David Bennett: How can there be two tests for the same product: one released in December that is more stringent and another test released yesterday in which the Minister relaxed the requirements for identifying the ingredient in that test?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There’s one test; there are two different standards: one for multifloral mānuka honey, the other for monofloral mānuka honey. The people who buy that offshore will now know the difference and it will be backed by scientifically backed research and testing.

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

SPEAKER: The member is testing me, but have a go.

Hon David Bennett: The minister obviously doesn’t understand that he set a percentage threshold in December of—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I think the member’s had quite a lot of tolerance today.

Ministerial Statements

Drought—Extension to Southland and Parts of Otago

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I seek leave of the House to make a ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: No, you don’t. You just make it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: On 23 December 2017, a medium-scale drought was announced for parts of the Taranaki, Manawatū-Whanganui, and Wellington regions and extended to include the Grey and Buller districts on 10 January 2018. While some rain has been received in many regions, alleviating some of the drought conditions, Southland and Otago have received little rain and are experiencing record temperatures. Some further useful rain is predicted for this week—and I’m hoping that my announcement might bring that rain on—for much of Southland and Otago; however, the impacts on farms have already occurred and will take time to recover from. Pastoral farmers in these areas have limited options to mitigate impacts of the drought, including record-low groundwater and river flows, irrigation restrictions, stock-feed deficits for coming months, and resulting loss of income.

I can now announce a further extension to the medium-scale drought event to include Southland, Invercargill City, and Gore districts, and parts of Otago, which include Clutha, Queenstown Lakes, and Central Otago districts. The classification triggers additional funding of up to $130,000 for the local rural support trusts and industry groups to coordinate information and recovery support to rural communities. My colleague the Minister of Revenue has welcomed the activation of the Inland Revenue Department’s income equalisation discretions for this drought, and Inland Revenue will also consider hardship situations. Affected farmers should contact their accountant in the first instance. Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): It’s very appropriate that the Minister has made that decision today to extend the medium-scale adverse event for those particular regions in the South Island. What has been fascinating in the last few months since the general election—and we heard it from the Green Party this afternoon, talking about climate change—is that, on this side of the House, the National Party has been very supportive and instrumental in making sure that regional water storage projects get up and going. On average, they take about 15 years to get concluded so that water flows.

If this Government was really serious about drought mitigation, then they should be standing up and supporting projects to ensure that more water is captured, particularly when you think about alpine water flows in the South Island, where there’s an abundance of water. On average, 5 metres of rain falls in the Southern Alps, but we don’t have enough water storage in this country. Now, there’s real confusion out there amongst the primary sector about whether this Government is going to support the projects—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to interrupt the member now and indicate to him that a debate—the first point is that I have encouraged Ministers to make their statements and announcements in the House. I think it enhances the House to have that done. It’s a practice that has not been that common not just in the term of the last Government but in the one before, as well. But one of the rules is that when an announcement is made, the response is directly about that announcement. It’s not the chance for a general traverse over agriculture or water or storage policies. It’s that announcement—what’s happened today—rather than something that is more general, and I’m going to ask that member to restrict himself, because I think otherwise what he’ll have is that one of the members who follows might be even more inappropriate.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, Mr Speaker, thank you for that clarification. The importance of today’s announcement covers three or four things. One is support for rural support trusts. They do a fantastic job, and I congratulate Neil Bateup on getting a recent honour at New Year’s time. He’s a fantastic leader in this space. The other thing it does for farmers that are finding it really, really tough is they can go into a Ministry of Social Development office and seek some financial hardship help. That’s really important. The bar for farmers to meet that is incredibly high. Also, there’s some taxation flexibility.

But fundamentally, when you actually open yourself up to what can the Government do to mitigate these prolonged summer dry periods that we are all experiencing right now, particularly in the areas that the Minister of Agriculture has just alluded to, it is support water storage projects. In my view, this announcement doesn’t go far enough, because what farmers and growers want to hear from this Government is are they prepared to support projects that are in the pipeline? There’s a big review under way. It’s caused a huge amount of uncertainty, because you can’t just acknowledge the support, which is actually very small, to support rural communities that are experiencing very drought-like conditions right now unless you are prepared to acknowledge that water storage is fundamentally important as well. We collect only about 2 to 3 percent of rain that falls in this country, and what this Government should be doing is acknowledging those projects that are now stalled because the review is under way. The pipeline was full. The handbrake has gone on these projects. They don’t know—

SPEAKER: All right. Thank you. I thank the member for his contribution.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The first thing I’ll do is congratulate my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor, for taking the measures that he has taken with the speed that he’s taken them, and for having full regard to the fact that out there in regional New Zealand and in farming New Zealand they’ll be grateful that they’ve got a Government that actually doesn’t just talk but does something when it’s required, and far more expansively than what we’ve been hearing from some members in this House today. For example, the freezing works in Southland will also be—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You made a ruling it had to be right on point as to what this specific announcement was today, and not wider issues. He’s now talking about freezing works.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry, I’m not across the exact effect on freezing works of these grants. There may or may not be an effect, and I’m prepared to listen.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for that—

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

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Peters. Mr Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: I think this goes back to the earlier discussion before. You are across irrigation issues, and you entered the debate there and sat Mr Guy down, but you’re not against freezing works when Mr Peters speaks. That seems very strange to me, and I’d like you to reflect on that.

SPEAKER: I will certainly reflect on that, and I invite the member to go back and look at the Hon Nathan Guy’s speech and see the proportion of it that referred to today’s announcement and the proportion that was on other matters. [Interruption] I’m pleased, even if the member is interjecting, that he’ll do that, but I do want to remind Mr Peters, while I wasn’t indicating that he was out of order yet, that I think Mr Bridges and myself both sensed he might be heading that way.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, he couldn’t be more wrong. The reality is that the freezing works in Southland are covered by this decision made by the Minister of Agriculture, because—surprise surprise—the river levels are down. Therefore, they cannot acquire the water, and local bodies are now allowed a more expansive approach to ensure that they can carry on doing their business. It pays to know what’s in a portfolio before you get up and make an idiot of yourself.

So I want to thank Damien O’Connor, the Minister of Agriculture, for that, and say that it’s no use whingeing about what you didn’t do. The reality is, in the coalition agreement, preparedness and irrigation for the future are covered, and in the meantime we’ll get on with running the country soundly in the interests of provincial and regional New Zealand.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill affirms a democratic principle that sits at the heart of our MMP system, and that is that the proportionality of party representation in Parliament is paramount. It is the proportionality of party representation in Parliament that determines Government, that determines Opposition, that determines the resources and entitlements of parties in Parliament; 2.6 million voters, and more, in New Zealand, out of 3.3 million who are enrolled, have a stake in this legislation. Those 2.6 million voters—their vote counts and must count, because it is their vote in a general election that is the collective decision of a nation, that establishes this Parliament for the three-year period following the general election, and that establishes the composition of this Parliament and, therefore, everything that happens within it and around it and about it.

Those 2.6 million voters cast their verdict, and we must be bound by that decision. That’s what this legislation is about. As MPs, we make a bargain with the electorate. We turn up as electorate MPs or even as list MPs, and we say, “Have confidence in me. Vote for me and the party I am part of because this party most clearly aligns with my values and you can trust me to behave in accordance with that, and I can be trusted to acquit myself in line with the values of the party of which I am part.” That’s what the bargain is. Every general election we do that, and so that decision, that verdict, by all voters who vote is absolutely critical and is absolutely fundamental.

And there is only one question to pose in relation to all of that, and that is this: what right does an individual MP have, in light of the bargain they have struck with the electorate, and in light of the bargain that every single party who is represented in Parliament has struck with the electorate, to stand in the face of 2.6 million voters and to distort and undermine the decision of those voters? That’s the fundamental question this legislation, effectively, seeks to answer. And what it says is that individual MPs do not have the right to undermine and overturn and distort the verdict that has been cast by 2.6 million voters. That’s the fundamental point.

And there is only one party that, of course, has been the beneficiary of equivalent legislation to this, and that is, of course, the ACT Party, which, as was earlier acknowledged in today’s proceedings, is a party that had its birth from the Labour Party, because we are a party that generates principled party leaders, by and large. But to get back to the point, what this bill does is establish a process for MPs who decide, in the course of a Parliament, that they no longer align with their party—to put it in neutral terms. Some will say the party has left them; others will say they have left the principles of the party.

But in any event—you know, we can phrase it how we like, but it allows a process for MPs who’ve reached that point to then deal with that situation. If they are an electorate MP and they resign from their party, they resign from Parliament, and they can then make a choice about whether they go back to test their mandate and the strength of their values and their local electorate’s understanding of their values by contesting a by-election. For a list MP, because of the way the list works, it means that the MP resigns from Parliament—or may well be expelled from their party—and they are, therefore, out of Parliament, at least until the next election, when they have the choice of organising their own party around their own values and seeking election.

This legislation, as I said, is very similar—almost identical, in fact—to legislation that was passed by this House in 2001, but with one difference, and that difference arises out of the consideration of that legislation by the Supreme Court and the decision called Prebble v Awatere Huata, and the Supreme Court at that point considered the equivalent legislation, and what was interesting in that decision was that the Supreme Court made it clear that compliance with party rules was absolutely fundamental, and was what, in fact, got the ACT Party over the line, in terms of triggering its rights, if you like, as a party under the legislation at that time.

In consulting over this piece of legislation amongst the coalition and support parties that make up this Government, the Green Party raised that issue about the rules of the party and the right of a party in compliance with its rules to have an involvement in these decisions. And so it was no difficult step at all to add in a provision in this bill that is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and consistent with, frankly, the obvious, which is that parties, in the way they manage their MPs, their representatives in Parliament, must comply with their own rules. It was clear from the Supreme Court that compliance with party rules was sine qua non for the court when it came to applying this legislation, and that is now reflected in the legislation, and will happen.

It is interesting seeing some of the commentary and the editorials in the last month or two over this legislation, and just how fundamentally ill-focused some of that commentary is, because the one bunch of people that the editorial writer for the Dominion Post or the New Zealand Herald and some of the other commentators have failed to acknowledge in their comments is the 2.6 million voters. They’ve talked about parties; they’ve talked about party leaders. They’ve talked about party leaders as if the actions of a party leader, under this legislation, stands on its own—that a party leader is free to do what they wish. But that is not correct.

There are five constraints on a party leader when it comes to exercising the rights of a party leader under this legislation. The party leader has to have formed a belief that the actions of the parliamentary member of their party have caused a distortion in the party’s representation in Parliament. The party leader has to have put that belief to the recalcitrant MP. The party leader has to have given 21 days for that MP to respond to the allegation. The party leader is required to have got the backing of two-thirds of their party caucus before giving a notice to Parliament. And, finally, in all respects, the party leader has to have complied with the party’s own rules. It is pretty clear. It is pretty clear that the party leader does not act on their own; the party leader is a cipher for the decisions and the judgment of the parliamentary wing of the party they are representing.

There are safeguards in this legislation, and I go back to the fundamental point that what this is really all about is ensuring that, with the MMP system—and, really, the whole principle is summed up in the name of the electoral system that we’ve got: MMP, mixed-member proportional system. And it’s summed up in the fact that in the Electoral Act 1993, it is very clear. What is the crucial vote? It is the party vote. It is the party vote that counts. It is the party vote that determines representation in this Parliament, and it is not for any single individual MP—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: To stand up and have their own view. What a union view. What a union view.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how well-thought—to overturn and undermine the verdict of 2.6 million voters. It’s not for Nick Smith to stand up, on a day when he might discover his principles if he had any, to decide that he is better and bigger than 2.6 million voting New Zealanders, because that’s the logic of those who oppose this legislation.

This legislation is about enshrining a principle. When you come to Parliament as an MP, this is not a place where you get to indulge your personal habits. You’re here on a point of principle, and you’re here to fulfil the bargain that every single one of us—those of us who are at least principled and understand what a principle means—subscribes to and offered ourselves to the electorate as upholding, which is the values of our party.

Now, there are some loose cannons around in this Parliament, even to this day—even after 21 years of MMP. There are some loose cannons who think they come to Parliament to indulge their personal and individual passions. That’s not what parliamentary democracy is about. The Supreme Court was very clear that what is absolutely essential to MMP is party representation, and this legislation upholds that principle and it puts the party and the party responsibilities and the responsibilities of MPs to 2.6 million voters at the heart of this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to, and, before I call the next speaker, can I just remind New Zealand First of the rules about advertising in the House and ask that those be removed or turned around. OK? It is a rule of the House.

Darroch Ball: That’s not advertising.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is advertising, and the Greens in the past have been asked to remove it, and I’m asking New Zealand First to remove it.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say that this is a devastating day for democracy. It is a devastating day, because you have in the House today a bill introduced by the Labour Party—by the Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government—that puts political party dictatorship into our electoral system.

That’s what this is about. Make no mistake. This is about making political party apparatchiks more important than the voters who put us here. You can listen to all of the tub-thumping, angry, vein-popping speeches from the Minister of Justice, but I will take you through report after report, finding after finding, that make it absolutely clear that these laws go to the very core of what it is to have an effective democracy. I am not going to let this opportunity go by without making it absolutely clear that these laws that they propose take our democracy backwards. There is no doubt in any sensible person’s mind that the only reason this bill is here is because it is the price of governing with Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party. This is the desperate clinging to power by a man who doesn’t hold an electorate, by a party that has no electorates, promoted by a Minister who doesn’t have an electorate, because they don’t understand what it means to represent a community.

Let’s be really clear: in MMP, voters have two votes. They vote, of course, for the party of their choice and they vote for the electorate member that they want to represent them. Now, if you listened to the Minister of Justice’s speech, he made it very clear that, in his view, the only vote that should matter at all is the party vote. Well, actually, I absolutely reject that. I come to this House, very clearly, to represent the wishes of the 65,000 voters in the Selwyn electorate, who I have the privilege of representing now for my fourth term. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me make it quite clear to you, and this House, that my job is to do my best for the people of Selwyn, who put me here. Now, if that, at any point in time, should seriously conflict with my party, my responsibilities, first and foremost, should be to my community. This is not about some sort of self-interest in promoting our own agendas; this is about MPs who come here on behalf of communities being allowed to represent those communities.

And this is not a theoretical, esoteric argument. This happens. Time after time in this House, we have seen principled members who have crossed the floor from their party, because they’ve said, “You know what? I understand that, but my community won’t accept that, doesn’t like it, and does not want me as their representative to do it.” Actually, I think the voters and communities who put us here as electorate MPs want us to know that, first and foremost—first and foremost—we represent those communities, those voters. The day that members in this House are more scared of what the party hierarchy would do to them than they are of looking after their communities, communities lose and voters lose. That electorate contest matters, and the Minister of Justice would have it as completely irrelevant. It isn’t irrelevant who wins an electorate contest, it isn’t irrelevant who voters choose to be their representative, and electorate members absolutely have a duty to their electorate. It is their electorate that will judge them, and it is their electorate who will decide if they are not doing that job well.

I want to remind this House of a very, very interesting report written by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who represent 173 different parliaments and who have looked into these very laws in some depth. They made it clear that “the full and effective”—and I’m quoting—“exercise of freedom of expression and association …”, which is what these laws attack, and they make that clear, “are fundamental human rights.”—fundamental. They go on to say that they are a cornerstone of democracy.

So I want to hear why Winston Peters and Andrew Little think that they know better about why they are getting rid of a fundamental human right that goes to the very heart of our democracy. I can tell watchers of this programme and listeners to this House the answer: they’re getting rid of it because it’s politically expedient. This was the price of power, and they have no compunction whatsoever about destroying fundamental aspects of our democracy to feather their own nests. If there’s anyone in this House who’s pushing their own personal interests and agendas, it is the members voting for this bill, because this is about keeping them in power, not looking after the voters.

It also might be interesting for members in this House to know that in countries that have brought into place laws like this, where those countries have constitutions these laws have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they destroy the inherent right of MPs to stand up for the communities who put them here. They limit the MPs’ critical mandate that we have as a cornerstone of a parliamentary democracy.

Now, things like political mandates and parliamentary mandates and the operation of our system might seem like, sort of, highbrow concepts, but let me be very clear: these are at the very core of what it means to have a free and fair democracy. We don’t have some party leader in a back room who can override and re the decision of voters, and nor should we. Electoral laws should seek to prevent the excessive use of parliamentary party control. Electoral law should be about stopping political parties having excess control over their MPs, and yet in this Parliament here today we have a Government that wants to limit that exact right, the very free mandate that each of us have because our communities put us here individually.

On the ballot paper, it said my name. The community elected me to be their representative, and I will represent them in every vote I make in this House. I will not allow a party apparatchik somewhere to decide that they know better. In fact, it’s been my experience that party decisions are often enhanced and evolved thanks to strong members who do stand up for their electorate. I have seen, in my own experience, strong electorate members stand up and say, “I don’t think that decision’s right. It isn’t right in my community.”, and, as a result, quite often the decision changes. Now, will that happen if we have a system where that could lead to your dismissal from this place? We won’t, and that is a tragedy and it is absolutely wrong. Our job is to protect democracy. Our job is not to pass laws that weaken it just so that those parties can cling to power. It is an absolute abhorrence.

I think the Parliament would be interested to know that one of my colleagues, Dr Shane Reti, has inquired as to whether the passing of this law will see us downgraded in the World Electoral Freedom Index and has received a response from that body making it very clear that these laws will see New Zealand downgraded internationally in the World Electoral Freedom Index. We’re also expecting a very similar response from Transparency International. Now, I find it hard to believe that the first electoral action of this new Government is something that will take us backwards in the very international standings that New Zealand has been so well regarded in for so long—so well regarded in for so long.

The very first action of Andrew Little is going to deliver a downgrade to New Zealand in its World Electoral Freedom Index standing, and I think that is appalling for a country that for so long has prided itself on being fair, on being balanced, and on running an excellent democracy. But that’s what we have. Under this legislation, we will join the ranks of countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, the Philippines, and others. That’s who New Zealand First and Labour want us to emulate. That’s who they seek to emulate. Let’s be very clear: this is about clinging to power.

I want to save one of my last comments for the Greens, because I have sat in this House and listened to the Greens express very strongly their absolute opposition to these sorts of laws. Time and time again, they have used some of their strongest language and expressed in the most ardent terms how opposed they are to party-hopping legislation, and won’t it be interesting to see whether, suddenly, a ministerial warrant is enough for them to make their most deeply held principles expedient. They are dispensable when it comes to staying in power.

That is appalling for a party that used to tell us how principled they were and how much they clung to the things that mattered, that democracy was at the heart of everything they do. Almost the first thing they do in this House is wipe all that away because it means they get to be in power. They get a seat at the big table. Every principle is expendable—I think that is shameful. I think it is utterly shameful. At least Winston Peters has always made it clear that he thought he should have total control over his entire party—he’s consistent. It’s abhorrent, but he’s consistent. But the Greens have given up their strongest-held principle because it means they get ministerial warrants. Anybody who has any belief in the integrity, the principles, or the belief in democratic freedoms of this new Government should watch this debate to follow the progress of this bill, because it is a tragedy.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What an extraordinary speech. This is not a Parliament of 120 independents; this is a Parliament based on parliamentary party systems, and it’s something that we hold dear in our country. I’d like to remind that member that when she was elected in 2008, she was elected because she belonged to a party, not because she had some extraordinary set of characteristics that made everybody want to vote for her. If I was the party president listening to that speech, I’d be thinking, “What is her commitment to her party, and what is her commitment to the values that underpin her party?” What an extraordinary speech from that member.

Not only was that an extraordinary speech for the arrogance of the words that were spoken; it was an extraordinary speech because of the hypocrisy of those words—the hypocrisy of those words—because that party, when it was in power, spent nine years consistently undermining and eroding democracy. Environment Canterbury—the refusal of that previous Government to have an elected set of members for that regional council. The Southern District Health Board, the constant erosion of democracy, the lip service paid to the Open Government Partnership, the lack of investment in public service broadcasting—just a few tiny examples of nine years of a lack of commitment to democracy.

In 1993, when MMP was established, when New Zealanders voted in a new system on a referendum to change their voting system from first past the post to mixed-member proportional representation, it was the most dramatic change to our electoral system since suffrage. The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown in the public trust and confidence in politicians, and I want to refer to a measure of public trust and confidence in politicians called the Edelman Trust Barometer, which is an internationally recognised measure. It produced a report based on the New Zealand barometer in early 2017, when that party was in Government. It showed a growing lack of trust between the public and institutions, including Government, where nearly half—47 percent—believed that the system was failing them. They expressed a sense of injustice, a lack of hope, a lack of confidence, and a desire for change.

Well, they’ve got change, and they’ve got a Government that is committed to values and committed to the principles of democracy and the principles of proportional representation that New Zealanders voted for in 1993. That previous Government refused to take account of a Law Commission review into MMP, refused to countenance making changes, which helped to contribute to the eroding public confidence in their Government.

So this Government is a progressive Government. This Government is a determined Government. This Government is a Government of values and principles that will uphold democracy; that will have a programme of strengthening democracy. This is the beginning of that programme, and for those people listening here today, they can be assured that this is not an ad hoc measure. This is the beginning of an ongoing programme of strengthening democracy. This week marks the Government’s first 100 days in office. We have delivered what we said we would deliver, and those 100 days is a foundation for a wider agenda.

I am pleased to support this bill. It does aim to enhance public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. Over time, we have struggled with MMP and what it means and how it adds value to our electoral system. We believe that this bill gives people more confidence in the integrity of our electoral system; that is why it has been introduced. A similar bill was introduced in 2001 because of the issues that undermined democracy and undermined public confidence. That bill was given a five-year course; it had a sunset clause. This bill doesn’t, and I’m pleased it doesn’t.

I’m also pleased with the measures that have been included that have made it more robust and that ensure that if there is to be a removal of a member and the member’s seat, there has to be a 75 percent vote within a caucus to do so. That is robust. That does give the public confidence, and I think it does restore some integrity to our electoral system.

The criticisms of this bill from the Opposition, of it somehow being an affront to democracy, are shallow and hollow, and they reveal an arrogance of a party that truly does not understand MMP. They demonstrated that when they ignored the Electoral Commission’s recommendations to abolish coat-tailing provisions, where a minor party gifted an electorate seat by a major party can bring in other unelected MPs on their coat-tails and also by lowering the threshold of votes required to secure a party representation in Parliament to 4 percent of all votes nationwide. Those recommendations were made by the Law Commission; that previous Government completely ignored them. That they have the temerity to get up today and give an exposition to this Parliament on the absolute sanctity of the electorate MP as being somehow more important than the party vote shows a manifest lack of understanding and judgment from that party.

An essential component of our MMP system is that it gives voters the ability to decide the proportionate share of seats a political party should receive in Parliament. Political parties represent a set of collective ideas that are agreed to by their members. This is the basis of our political system; it is based on collectivism. It’s based on giving confidence to the public that we adhere to a set of values that they’re prepared to vote for, and when they cast their votes, they expect us to uphold those. They expect us to represent them. They expect us to be honest. But they don’t expect us to think that we’re somehow bigger than that collective set of values, and if we do, then we should go back to the electorate and ask for a mandate—a mandate. That is the core value of our electoral system. We are not a party of 120 independents. We are a Parliament based on party systems. The fact that that Opposition doesn’t get that is perhaps one of the reasons that they’re in Opposition.

I’m pleased to support this bill. It’s a step towards a stronger democracy. It’s part of a wider programme to strengthen our democracy, to put a value on democracy. I’m pleased to support this bill.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): We’ve heard a lot of words this afternoon, and I must say I really enjoyed the Hon Amy Adams’ speech. That’s the only one I have, so far. Everything else, frankly, has been complete rubbish.

There is one reason why we are here today debating this bill, and that is because that is the price of going into Government with New Zealand First. So let’s be frank about it. That’s the truth. They’ve said that; we know that, so let’s not try and sugar-coat it. That is the price. The reason is because they have such a terrible history of keeping their members of Parliament as members of Parliament who do exactly what they’re told. I’ve heard some rubbish this afternoon from someone who is an electorate MP and therefore should know that as an electorate MP you are voted for by the electorate, in your name, and if people want to vote for—[Interruption] And I understand the New Zealand First members are all saying, “What’s that?”. Well, they wouldn’t know, because the last time they had an electorate MP it was in Northland, and look what happened there.

Now, let’s just talk instead about this difference. So we’ve heard, this afternoon, arguments from the Hon Andrew Little, who has never been an electorate MP, who told us today that, actually, electorates mean nothing. Well, that tells us one of the reasons why Jonathan Young, year after year, election after election, kept increasing his support and the party’s support in New Plymouth. But let’s just go back to the nub of all this.

This bill does a lot worse than the 2001 bill. It goes well past party votes and party membership. This one actually hits at the very heart of our democracy. It says that it’s not just that an MP might decide that they have a different view altogether from their party and they can no longer vote for their party or be a member of their party; it goes well beyond that. It says this: if a party leader has decided that that MP no longer fits that party, would actually by their actions harm proportionality—what that means is crosses the floor; that means decides not to vote with the party—

Darroch Ball: It doesn’t mean that at all.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That’s exactly what that means—that’s exactly what it means. And, the party leader having decided that, they get two-thirds of their caucus to agree. Well, how many in New Zealand First’s caucus are not going to agree, no matter what? The fact is, of course they are. We all know they’re only there because of their leader. We all know that, but unfortunately they’re not going to disagree. So what that means is that not only are we giving all this power—Parliament wants to give all this power—to the party leader, but actually now it’s going to bring the courts into Parliament and the workings of Parliament so much more.

We have, when we were in Government, been absolutely rigorous in maintaining the separation of powers between the executive, Parliament, and the courts. What we are seeing under this coalition Government is that they are happy to throw Parliament and the happenings of Parliament up to the courts, so that, in fact, whether or not that particular party leader has decided that an MP should go because they might not vote the way that the party wants them to, whether or not that affects proportionality will now be up to the courts to decide. That is not a happy state for this Parliament and it is not the right state for this Parliament.

I was surprised to hear an electorate MP like Clare Curran dismiss being an electorate MP. I don’t know about her, but I certainly got, as Judith Collins, more votes in the Papakura electorate than even the great New Zealand National Party, and there’s a reason, because electorate MPs work, alongside with some list MPs as well, for the people who vote for them. To hear Andrew Little say that electorates don’t matter, well, say that to Greg O’Connor. Say that to Greg O’Connor. Do electorates matter, Greg O’Connor? I think the answer is yes. If Greg O’Connor thinks that Ōhāriu doesn’t matter, well, I just think Brett Hudson’s going to have fun next time.

Let’s go to the Attorney-General, that person who is now the Attorney-General for the second time, David Parker.

David Seymour: He’s a list MP.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, it has been pointed out that he is a list MP, which is fine, and, of course, he once held a seat and they threw him out. So this is what it says. He says in his report that, “By empowering the leader of a political party to cause an MP to vacate their seat the Bill has the potential to cause”, and I quote this, “a chilling effect on an MP’s freedom to express themselves inside and outside the House and also limits their ability to exercise their freedom not to be associated with a political party.” Then, further on, he takes some more pages to say pretty much the same thing and says, “Yes, but in the balance and everything else, I think it’s all going to be fine.” Why? It’s because otherwise David Parker is out of a job as Attorney-General, because otherwise he won’t be in Government. And we all know that that’s true, so let’s not sugar-coat it.

What else have we heard here? Oh, well, we know what the price of the Greens is. The Greens have always been completely opposed to this sort of legislation, every single time. Even when The Alliance were voting for it in 2001, along with Helen Clark’s Labour Government—there is a theme here really, isn’t there; power and control—the Greens didn’t like it at all. And why didn’t they like it? Well, because they apparently used to think that you could have different views, but we now know what their price is. It’s not just a price of ministerial warrants, no, no, no. It’s actually, apparently, a Parihaka Day, and, from their latest MP, Ms Golriz Ghahraman, that’s going to be the deal breaker. Well, it’s fantastic. See, we know this because memos have been released, so we know that this is what’s going on.

When we look at some pieces of legislation that I have seen pass in this House that have been enormously contentious—let’s just take prostitution law reform. That was an enormously contentious piece of legislation that was brought into this House by the former member Tim Barnett and promoted by Helen Clark when she was the Prime Minister of this country, and every Cabinet Minister was forced to vote for it. A few people on the Labour Party side had some gumption to do something about it. One of those was Ross Robertson, MP for Manukau East. Ross Robertson always voted on conscience issues in accordance with his electorate, which is a very socially conservative electorate. Under this legislation, Ross Robertson could be forced to go back to the electorate. I happen to think that they would probably stand up for their MP in that case. And why, by the way, should the New Zealand public have to pay for that cost? Why should the electorate miss out on the MP of their choice because of that particular party’s wish to be in Government with New Zealand First?

It is actually a very sad day when we hear a Minister of Justice standing up supporting this legislation. I know he’s entitled to have his view, as we all are, because in the National Party we’re still allowed to have views. We do, in fact, as a party, enable and allow members of Parliament, on issues that they feel strongly for or against, to vote against the majority of our caucus. We do allow that. We do allow that, because we believe that people are chosen, either on the list and voted in through the party membership or through their electorates, to represent those electorates and/or the party. What we don’t ask them to do is to park their brain at the door when they come into this place. We expect members of Parliament to think; to think about who is electing them, to think about who they’re representing, and to have the courage to say, like Ross Robertson did to Helen Clark, “No, I’m not going to do that.” He had the courage to do that as a strong electorate MP with a great conscience—and why he was here. I would hate to see that happen again: that somebody—Cabinet, members of Parliament—was forced to vote against their conscience on a conscience issue because the party leadership has told them, “There is no such thing any more under this coalition Government.”

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Contrary to popular belief, usually I like hearing Judith Collins speak, but unfortunately this time—she’s just been speaking for the last 10 minutes—she squeezed out 10 minutes of utter rubbish. It’s been nothing but scaremongering, and it’s the same from Amy Adams as well, actually, but it was a little bit more arrogant from Amy Adams than it was from Judith Collins, or maybe it was just the way that she debated her points.

It’s bluff and bluster, because the question that I’ve got to put to each and every National Party seat holder—let’s say seat holder, electorate MP—who is sitting there is: hands up, which one of them believes that they won that seat and that they would win that seat if they stood by themselves and not for the National Party? Put your hands up. And I’m going to name you. I will name you. For those that can’t see, Dr Nick Smith—for those who can’t see, we’ve had one sheepish hand go up, one sheepish hand go up. And that’s the level of commitment that those members who are going to stand up and have stood up just previously—Amy Adams and Judith Collins have—to what they actually had to say. They didn’t believe a word they were saying about the fact that their priority number one is their electorate, not the party. There is some sort of arrogance emanating from that National Party. They’re standing there and they actually, truly believe—they truly believe—that they’ve got where they are just because of them. Just because of them—just because of them. That’s what we’ve heard in two different speeches so far, and I’d like to hear what the rest of the speeches from the National Party are going to say.

One of the other things that Judith Collins said was that this is about New Zealand First and about Winston Peters being a dictatorial leader, but the irony of it all is that there has been only one time that the previous law was used and taken to court, and that was by the ACT Party. That wasn’t by New Zealand First. That wasn’t by Winston Peters. That wasn’t by any party of the Government. It was by the ACT Party. What the Supreme Court said there was exactly what Minister Andrew Little has said in his opening speech and what this legislation is standing for and what our message is. It is absolutely our obligation not just as the Government but as this House and as a country moving forward in a robust democracy to ensure that what the voters voted for on election day—the proportion that they voted for, because that’s what they did in the MMP environment. [Interruption] Dr Nick Smith can talk about any other democracy in the world that he likes, but what we’re representing here is MMP. The most important letter in that MMP acronym is P for proportionality—mixed-member proportional—and it is our responsibility to ensure that this House maintains what the voters voted for, whether Dr Nick Smith or whether any other member of the Opposition likes it or not. That’s our responsibility.

Like I said right at the start, there’s a whole lot of bluff and bluster, because when it boils down to it, it only boils down to this: we need to make sure that we maintain that proportionality. If we cannot see this legislation go through this House, we cannot guarantee the people of New Zealand—the voters—the robustness of the democracy that they voted for and the method of the democracy that they vote for, which is MMP.

This legislation, contrary to what National Party members are saying, is at the heart of what our democracy in New Zealand is about. It’s about upholding the integrity of MMP. Now, any member that refuses to see that or disagrees with that is doing one of two things: one, they’re playing politics, which I assume is what’s happening with the speeches that we’ve heard so far from the National Party, or, two—and it could be a possibility, but I’ve got more respect for Amy Adams, and for Judith Collins, as well—they have clearly not read the bill properly. They have clearly not read the bill properly, because this bill, in the way that it’s written, and even when it’s got precedence of going through the courts—precedence of going through the Supreme Court. Even they said that the proportionality of Parliament must be upheld, and that is what this legislation does.

The absolute cheek of the National Party to say this is an affront to democracy. Mr Macindoe, I believe, said that it undermines democracy. The only thing in the last decade that has been the absolute affront to democracy are the jacked-up electorate deals that the previous Government have done in the Epsom electorate and in the Ōhāriu electorate. That is the absolute affront to democracy, and they’ve got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and start judging a piece of legislation that wants to uphold MMP and wants to give the voters of New Zealand what they voted for. It’s a disgrace—absolute disgrace.

First and foremost, like I said, this is about maintaining party proportionality. No one in this House is independent—understand that—and that is for a very good reason, very good, logical reasons. We have had many competent, want-to-be MPs that have stood as independents—and, likely, more competent than a number of people sitting in this House today—but they’re not here today for one very good reason. They were not attached to a major party. That’s a fact, and no one from the Opposition can stand up and argue against that point.

Therefore, in our MMP environment, the priority is not about—like Amy Adams and Judith Collins said, from their point of view—the electorate. If they believe that it is, let’s say that they have a principled issue that they believed that they need to represent because they have said it was the number one priority in their electorate, then they have a chance to resign, go to a by-election, and take that principled cause or stand to the people, away from the National Party and away from any of the other parties. That is what you call a mandate. I tell you, it’s happened before. The Rt Hon Winston Peters did exactly that. He resigned and he took his principled stance to the people, and they voted him back in. That’s what you call a mandate. That’s what you call representation and understanding and ensuring that the people, and what they voted for, get what they want in the representation in this House.

The Minister, Andrew Little, spoke about—I think he gave five reasons. One of the other issues and comments that the National Party has brought up is about the legislation giving too much control to the leader, and that’s absolute nonsense. The second reason I gave was that they, clearly, haven’t read the bill properly. They clearly haven’t read the bill properly. You need to get two-thirds support from your caucus—two-thirds support from any party’s caucus—to agree with the leader that that letter needs to be sent.

You know, it’s funny. I don’t know what sort of caucus the National Party runs, but in New Zealand First we have a very robust—

Hon Ron Mark: A whipped puppy caucus.

DARROCH BALL: —democratically run caucus. We can say whatever we want with our opinions, but we know that we’ve got the party to thank for us being there. In fact, the deputy leader, Ron Mark, said that the type of caucus that the National Party has is a very whipped one, and that’s true.

I know I’m running out of time, Mr Assistant Speaker, but there are two main considerations that need to be made when approaching this legislation and whether one would like to support it or not. The first one of all is understanding what the people voted for on election day to represent them—to represent them. The second is: is it our responsibility to ensure that we maintain that level of proportionality? In a robust and fair democracy, it is our absolute obligation to ensure that is the case, and it can only be addressed robustly and properly through legislation such as this.

Like I said, I think it’s quite arrogant—to be honest—of the National Party to stand up and to say, and imply quite strongly, that they are here because of themselves and not their party. They have an obligation to the voters who put them in the seats that they are in. That is why New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation going through. It is a very principled piece of legislation that ensures the robustness of New Zealand’s fair MMP democracy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is an awful bill, and anybody that has a genuine love for this Parliament and for our long-established principles of democracy needs to fight this bill with every bone in their body. It strikes at the very core of where our Parliament functions and at those Kiwi values of free speech and those values of respecting diversity.

The problem is not just clause 5 in this bill, which gives the power for a party leader to dismiss from this Parliament any member—that’s bad enough. That’s bad enough. What really worries me is the change in culture of this Parliament from a House of representatives into a House of party poodles. You see, those who claim that somehow what’s in this bill is very straightforward because we have MMP have not been able to answer this very basic question. There are 183 Parliaments in the world; there are 125 of those that have proportional representation. Is there a single democracy that we would want to associate ourselves with that gives the power of party leaders to sack members out of their Parliament?

Darroch Ball: Scaremongering—scaremongering!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’ve checked. I’ve checked—yes, it’s true, Mr Ball. They have these laws in Zimbabwe. They do have these laws in Zimbabwe, but can I say to the member for New Zealand First that Zimbabwe is not my model of democracy. And when Mr Ball, and Mr Little, and Ms Curran say that members of this Parliament are often—and almost always—elected on a party ticket, that is equally true of the mother of all Parliaments, the House of Commons. It is true that the vast bulk of members in the House of Commons are elected only because they have a ticket with the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. Does that mother of our Parliaments, one of the greatest democratic institutions for more than 400 years, give the power to party leaders to dismiss MPs from the House of Commons? No, it does not, and it would be a tragedy if it did.

You see, what’s really upset me in the introductory speeches is that members opposite believe this Parliament is just a Parliament of parties, that individual representatives don’t matter—that you’re irrelevant. If that is the case, why don’t we just have five members sitting around a board table, each with a sort of union-type card vote, representing the number of votes for the House. Why do we bother with all of the expense of having 121 thinking, challenging members of Parliament if we really believe that that is the system?

The Inter-Parliamentary Union represents 178 Parliaments around the world.

Darroch Ball: Not MMP.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says they don’t have MMP. Actually, 23 do; 100 of those Parliaments have party vote - type systems. In every one of those democracies there is a tension between the views of the political parties and the individual MPs, and things get difficult when there is a falling-out in the party, but only in some of the most ramshackle, awful places are such laws promoted. The courts in Europe have struck down the very sorts of laws that are being proposed here.

Let me read exactly what the Inter-Parliamentary Union said. It said, “These laws create political party dictatorships.” It goes on to say this: “While party loyalty and discipline are necessary, they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that party, since these are fundamental human rights.” This isn’t some arbitrary organisation; this is the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been around for 150 years as societies have tried to develop the rules to make our Parliaments effective democratic institutions. I bring to the attention of the Parliament the view of well-respected New Zealand constitutional law expert, Professor Andrew Geddis, who says using this law to quash internal party disagreement comes at far too great a cost to our parliamentary democracy.

Let’s be honest about where the origins of this bill come from. Winston Peters has a deep-seated resentment over the fact that half his caucus walked out during the first Government under MMP. Apart from the politics, I would say that the reform of MMP was always going to cause some anomalies and difficulties in those early years, and it is, firstly, a bad reason to simply take issues and events of over 20 years ago to justify such fundamental change. But I do have to say, I find it obnoxious that in the rules of the New Zealand First Party, if any member of that party is to resign from the New Zealand First Party they are required to pay $300,000 to their party—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: $300,000. And could I give a very real, contemporary example, because members of New Zealand First have argued in this Parliament that it’s all about integrity and the integrity of electoral result. Well, let me give a very real practical issue. The New Zealand First Party campaigned in the last election with heart and soul saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a scam. They ran up and down the country and they said, “Vote for us and we’ll oppose the TPP.” Now, in that 600-page agreement, we know there have been some minor changes to two pages. If a New Zealand First MP had integrity and wanted to stand for their electoral mandate, they would vote against the bill before this Parliament and actually stand truer to the New Zealand First Party position than would be the flip-flop that has occurred so often in Winston Peter’s career. That would be showing integrity. There is no question of that occurring if this law is on our law books, because such a member of Parliament would face their dismissal from the House.

But let’s just reflect on the history when we talk about integrity. I ask this question of my own colleagues: was Derek Quigley, when he was a rebel, closer to National Party values and what people voted for than Rob Muldoon? Was Jim Anderton closer to Labour Party values than was the Labour Lange-Douglas Government? If we look at such an example, more recently, Hone Harawira split with the Māori Party out of concern that the Māori Party—[Interruption] The member might agree with them. We can look at such examples as Kennedy Graham and David Clendon in terms of their concerns about the issues of benefit fraud and honesty, and how they connected with the Green Party. An honest reflection on the history of dissidents in this Parliament would not show that these are self-interested people who are disconnected from principle. I think an honest reading of history would actually say that they are closer to the principles on which they were elected.

I want to conclude by challenging the Green Party. The Green Party wants to champion human rights in all corners of the globe for others. My challenge to the Green Party: there’s no more important place to champion human rights than in this Parliament, the heart of the New Zealand democracy. I ask those Green Party members to go and look at the speech content of the founding leaders of the Green Party when this absolutely identical bill was introduced into the Parliament. I say absolutely genuinely to the Green Party: to vote this bill on to the law books of New Zealand will be an embarrassment for our democracy, and will be an embarrassment in terms of our human rights, which your party so adequately and, in my view, rightly champions. I plead with the Green Party to stand up for the values that matter and to ensure that this Parliament remains a House of Representatives.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill aims to preserve the proportionality of Parliament as determined by voters at the last general election during that electoral cycle. The bill seeks to address the very real problem when an MP, whether elected to an electorate or in Parliament on the list, ceases to represent that political party, unilaterally undermining the democratic system.

Under the MMP system, and in particular for the Green Party, the party vote is the most important in determining the make-up of Parliament and ultimately the Government. It is crucial that the decision of the voters, through the party vote, to determine the share of seats that each party receives in this House, is preserved. Equally, where a candidate has been elected under the banner of a particular political party in their electorate, according to that party’s rules their seat takes place in the context of the proportion of the seats that that party has received. Therefore, an electorate MP ceasing to represent their party or resigning also detrimentally affects the proportionality of the seats in Parliament.

We celebrate a system where every vote counts. We can have true diversity of thought in our Government and in our House of Representatives. This Government has been heralded as the first true MMP Government because even minor parties have a voice in our Government today.

This bill seeks to rectify the defect in representation that arises when members defect or are otherwise ousted by their parties. At the moment, no system exists in our electoral laws to address this problem. So even when a member resigns from his or her political party, even if they joined an Opposition party, consistently voting against the policies of the party under whose banner they were elected, they remain in Parliament, taking up a seat from the proportion of seats that was ascribed to that party, based on the votes that that party received at election time.

The approach sought to be adopted by this particular bill is to allow the member resigning or ceasing to represent that party to give notice on his or her own account to be ousted from Parliament, or that the notice is lodged by the party leader. The bill does allow for an amicable separation, of course, where neither the party or the member file the notice.

But the Green Party has always fostered deep concerns for this type of legislation, and our concern has always been that in seeking to preserve the proportionality of Parliament, laws like this can give too much power to party leaders. They can quash not only legitimate dissent within political parties but they can actually contribute to this exact problem—the problem that the bill is trying to address, which would be that in trying to uphold the integrity of the party against breaches by a party leader, the member could be ousted.

We hold tight to those concerns, but because of those concerns, when we engaged with the process in this bill we asked that tighter controls be inserted around the power of party leaders to oust members. We wanted checks and balances around that discretion. I am happy to report that new section 55C, in clause 5, now applies a reasonableness standard, which in law is objective. It’s reviewable.

The initial draft of the bill required only a belief, a simple subjective belief, on the part of the party leader that the member no longer represented the party. The new standard, and it is a high standard—it’s applied by the High Court in its judicial review jurisdiction—would require the party leader to show reasonable cause for believing that the member he or she seeks to oust no longer represents the party and actually does undermine the proportionality of Parliament. This isn’t going to be a simple one-off vote against the party or speaking out on one issue. That’s not the standard that the court usually would apply. It would have to be something really significant, and it would have to be established by the party leader.

In line with the Green Party’s concern that the discretion of the party leader be reviewable, the bill now also requires that the party leader give written notice to the member outlining any rules of the party that are relevant or the party leader says are relevant to the notice, and that the party member or the member of Parliament has 21 days to respond, presumably to challenge that decision. Of course, as others have said, the party leader’s notice must also first actually have 75 percent support of the caucus.

Once a list MP is ousted under this process, the ordinary rules apply, and so the next candidate on the list would come in under the party banner. If an electorate MP is ousted, it would trigger a by-election in the ordinary way, and that MP could, in fact, very immediately receive a renewed mandate to return from his or her electorate.

So the Green Party will be voting for this bill at its first reading, to send it to the select committee. We want to ensure that the concessions that we’ve won on this bill are preserved. We do so while shouldering considerable concern within our party and our caucus about the implications of this bill on our democracy and the critical role of MPs to speak out with freedom and without fear of expulsion.

Many of our MPs and members come from a radical position that relies on the freedom of speech and speaking truth to power. We value those freedoms. We value them in our political system and in this House. All true and great change has relied on people standing up bravely against an oppressive status quo, regardless of how many they offend or disagree with. That process is valuable. Any further changes we can secure to this bill in the select committee will hopefully, in some way, come to protect the traditions of radicals and those standing up for truth and human progress. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that was an interesting speech from the Green Party member, Golriz Ghahraman, who’s just resumed her seat. She concerned herself largely with the minutiae and the technical, process-based changes that the Greens claim to have secured for the process of this bill—the massive dead rat that the Green Party has to swallow in voting for a bill that their founding leaders, Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, rightly described, back in 2000 and 2001, as a constitutional outrage.

Well, how times have changed—15, 16, 17 years later. At the price of being in Government they have sold themselves out to vote for this, quite frankly, disgraceful piece of legislation. I say that it is unconstitutional—and I don’t mean unconstitutional in the sense that it breaches our written constitution, because, of course, we don’t have one. I don’t say it’s unconstitutional in the American sense of the word, in terms of breaching our supreme law, but I say it’s unconstitutional in the sense that it severs the connection between electorate MPs and their electors, and replaces their accountability to party leaders.

I say it’s unconstitutional because it is an affront to the human rights of MPs and because it unnecessarily breaches the comity between Parliament and the courts, and enmeshes the courts in the internal proceedings of this place. We as parliamentarians have always been very keen to preserve and protect our privileges.

So let me start with that first point, about severing the connection between electorate MPs and their electors. What this bill does is it makes MPs accountable, not to the people who put them there, i.e. the voters, but makes them accountable through their party leadership. What is the consequence of doing that? The consequence of doing that is actually quite profound. It sounds like a small change when you give party leaders the ability to essentially kick people out of the party caucus. It sounds like a small change, and it can be dressed up with high-sounding language around preserving proportionality, but the consequence of that is quite a stark one and a severe one in that it disincentivises people from speaking out on matters of conscience, matters of principle, and matters of policy that they care deeply about. It means that there will be no divorcing from the party line, and that is, I think, something that we will come to regret in this Parliament if this bill goes forward. What it does is it makes party leaders too powerful and it means that the people who put us into this place, the people who put us here—their power is diminished.

As my colleague Nick Smith said in his very worthwhile contribution to this debate, this is not a Parliament of parties. We have a mixed system here. People are accountable to the voters who put them here.

The second point I want to make is that this is an affront to human rights, particularly of MPs. I am staggered that this bill has not attracted a section 7 report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; I am staggered. There can be no doubt that the bill unjustifiably affects the freedom of speech of MPs and the freedom of association of MPs. Why? Because, very simply, what it does is say that there are enormous sanctions for exercising your freedom of speech if people who are in a slightly more powerful position than you—i.e., your party leader—do not like it. This place is the home of freedom of speech.

Andrew Falloon: It should be.

CHRIS BISHOP: This place should be, as my colleague says, the home of freedom of speech. We have enormous privileges. When every MP walks into this House we are protected by parliamentary privilege. What I’m saying right now—I’m protected by parliamentary privilege from legal action about what I say. So this place is the bastion of free speech in this country. You should be entitled to say whatever you like in this place, and no MP should be afraid to speak out on matters of principle or conscience or policy, or afraid of the consequences of doing so, but that’s what this bill does.

As my colleague Nick Smith pointed out, the Westminster Parliament, from which this place derives at least its historical power and historical precedents—the mother of all Parliaments, the Westminster Parliament, does not have a provision like this and they never will, because the Bill of Rights 1688, section 9, preserves absolutely the right to freedom of speech in this Parliament, and that is a part of New Zealand law. I am, frankly, staggered that the Attorney-General has signed off on this not being a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. When something unjustifiably breaches section 14, the right to freedom of expression, the Attorney-General is required to come down here and place on the floor of the House a report that says so. I am staggered as to why that has not happened, because it is an unjustifiable breach of that right.

What is the problem this bill seeks to remedy, or asserts that it remedies? It is the distortion of proportionality when MPs decide to leave parties. Well, by privileging the proportionality as determined on one particular day—that is not a big problem. That is not a problem that should be remedied in the way that is proposed by this bill. By-elections affect proportionality. When the National Party lost the seat of Northland soon after the 2014 election, I did not hear New Zealand First members coming down and saying, “Well, three months ago the National Party was entitled to 59 seats and now they’ve got 58, so we’ll have to give a top up from somewhere else.” No—no one said that. New Zealand First members rightly took the extra seat and they voted against us at various points during the parliamentary term. That’s fine, but that was only three months after the 2014 election, so it can’t be—

Darroch Ball: What’s that got to do with it?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Darroch Ball says, “What’s the point?” The point is: this bill seeks to preserve proportionality as at one day—i.e., the election day of the previous election—and it says that at no point can that proportionality ever be changed. Well, that’s not the current law—that’s not the current law. We indulge the distortion of proportionality once by-elections happen and other events happen, so that can’t be a problem, or it can’t be a problem that is anywhere near significant enough importance to be solved by this bill.

The third point I want to make is about the entanglement of the courts with Parliament. We have a constitutional tradition in this country in that the three branches of government respect the various parameters of each branch, and that’s particularly true when it comes to Parliament and the courts. The Parliament does not get involved in the running of the courts. Judges have enormous independence from Parliament and from the Government of the day, and that’s rightly so—the judiciary should be independent and should be non-corruptible, and that’s completely correct.

Likewise, the judiciary respects the appropriate bounds of Parliament. What goes on in this place, and the way in which party caucuses conduct themselves, and the way in which legislation is made is rightly left to our devices. The privileges of this House are extremely important and have been guarded over many years by members far more senior than me. What this bill does, though, is it basically encourages—in fact, it essentially obliges, through force of law—the courts to get involved in the internal processes of this place.

We saw that with the one example of when an Act similar to this was on the statute book, which was in the Prebble v Huata case, when the courts had to go into enormous interference and hear evidence about what was going on here—this deeply unedifying spectacle of Court of Appeal justices, as I think it was then, hearing evidence about the internal processes of the ACT Party caucus, which was a bit larger then than it is now. So what I say is that we don’t want the courts enmeshing themselves in the internal processes of this place; they should stay well alone. But, in fact, by passing this law not only are we encouraging the courts to do that but we are, essentially, obliging them to do that.

I want to finish my contribution by just reflecting on something that Ms Ghahraman said in her contribution that was absolutely right—she’s absolutely right. She’s actually voting in favour of the bill, but the point she made is actually one in opposition to it, which is that some of the greatest social changes that have come about through this Parliament, and some of the most progressive changes—as she talked about—and some of the things that have led to law changes have happened when MPs have stood up and divorced themselves from their parties and railed against the status quo or railed against something that their party didn’t agree with.

That is completely correct. That is an argument to vote against this bill. That is not an argument in favour of the bill, even though the Greens seem to be voting in favour of it; that is an argument for the proposition put by our side of the House, which is that an MP’s freedom of speech should always be preserved, and their ability to vote against their own party on matters of conscience or principal or policy is one that is sacrosanct in this House. As my colleague Nick Smith says, we have a Parliament not of parties but of members.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. There’s been a real—what shall we say—confusion in this debate concerning what the matter is we’re actually talking about, so I’d like to bring it back to the point. This bill is not about stopping freedom of speech, it is not about stopping list members like myself being able to stand up and speak my views; this is a bill about preserving the electoral integrity of this House.

We know, quite rightly, that the most important vote under MMP is the party vote—the way that this House is composed, the number of seats in this House—and that is the fact that those members opposite fail to acknowledge. They are still operating under a first-past-the-post system, and they have not moved with the times to understand that things have now changed. We need to reassure the voters of New Zealand that they get the people in this House that they voted for and that the shape of Parliament remains that way.

That does not mean I cannot stand and speak my views. I was voted into this House as a person who represents the Labour Party, and I stand on that basis and those principles. I believe that should I ever, God forbid, be shaken from those principles, I should not have this seat in this House. Members of the National Party fail to have the faith in their own party to believe in any values or principles, because there are no real principles there to hold things together.

This bill preserves democracy not undermines it, as the members opposite would say, by ensuring that voters get what they vote for. I’m not actually sure what the real reason is that the National Party is not supporting this bill. We’ve heard “undemocratic”, we’ve heard “unconstitutional”, but it does not stop free speech in any way. When was the last time I heard anybody from the National Party speaking out against their own party? When did that happen? When was the last time we heard someone speaking out against, when they were whipped? There is no restriction now, because the truth is that MPs can speak about it.

So let’s look at what some of the real reasons might be for their not supporting this bill. It’s anti-MMP, what I hear today—every speech we’ve heard is anti-MMP: how electorate MPs prevail; how people think that they should be elected on their own merits and their own charisma, not upon the principles that underpin the party that they’re voted for, the brand that underpins who they’re elected for in that part. It shows that it’s still operating under first past the post, and it’s probably why those members are sitting in the seats opposite: because they’ve not been able to operate effectively in an MMP environment.

There’s another reason, I reckon, there too—there’s another reason. It’s a bit of a “get out of jail free” card up the sleeve. If things get really rocky towards the second or third year after Bill goes, maybe there are a few members opposite who want to jump ship, and so you’re keeping that one free so you can leave if you want to.

The reason for not supporting this bill is because there’s not a view that we need to move with the times and be able to show the New Zealand public that we should be able to have enough faith that the people in this House represent those that voted in the election. As a list MP, I believe that is important and it’s important to show that we have that faith.

Two-thirds of caucus is required for that change to happen. There won’t be someone standing up on their soapbox speaking out, and the next day they’re turfed out. Two-thirds of the caucus vote is required for that process to kick in, and nobody has spoken about the importance of that.

There’s a real reason under looking at how the times have changed and how MMP needs to evolve. This is an important change to give New Zealanders that reassurance that we know that those in this House stay in the parties that they are in. I’m proud to have a bill that does that, and that is why I strongly support this bill and commend it to the House.

MATT KING (National—Northland): It’s quite ironic, really, this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Kieran McAnulty: Why’s that, Matt?

MATT KING: Because it has no integrity. It could be the “Winston Peters (Save My Party) Bill”. It could be the “Brendan Horan (Never Again) Bill”. You might recall Brendan Horan. He was ousted by Peters, on flimsy evidence, but he was able to stay on as an Independent because this law wasn’t in effect. Well, you’ll recall that Brendan Horan was actually cleared of any wrongdoing by the police. We all know what happened in the 1990s. New Zealand First MPs with principles—there are some apparently, in the past—jumped off the sinking Winston ship. He doesn’t want that happening again, so he’s made sure, as part of coalition negotiations, that he included this affront to democracy.

I look across at those New Zealand First MPs—I see there’s only one of them in the House today. I know they can’t seriously believe that this is good for them—seriously. If they cross swords with their leader, Mr Peters, they are “gone-burger”. No ifs, no buts; they are gone.

You say you need two-thirds of your caucus to vote to back him up. Well, just under half of your caucus are Ministers. Who appoints them? Mr Peters. So you are hardly going to go against the guy that’s given you the job. So who in their right mind is going to disagree with Mr Peters? I say none. He can control his flock. He can round them up. They have to do his bidding. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. I feel true sympathy for where the New Zealand First MPs find themselves. I would not want to be a New Zealand First MP right now. It’s a precarious position to hold.

As for the Greens, I thought they were a party of principles. In the past, they opposed this legislation. They not only opposed it, they opposed it vehemently. I’m highly amused at hearing them try to argue for it now. I quote a staunch former Green MP, Rod Donald, who stated, “[We are] fundamentally opposed to this anti-democratic legislation, … MPs must retain the right to be answerable to their own consciences … Anti-defection legislation is designed to gag outspoken MPs and crush dissent,”. But after the benefit fraud affair, now I see their principles are up for sale—for sale to the highest bidder to stay in power. The Greens are willing to do it in exchange—

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is getting ridiculous. That member is now questioning whether our principles are for sale, and that’s exactly what he said. He’s been talking about New Zealand First members’ lack of principles and lack of integrity throughout this entire speech, and that last statement that he made, implying that our principles are for sale, is not acceptable.

Hon Simon Bridges: Firstly, that member can’t even spell “principles”. Secondly, he didn’t say that. He did not say that, and the member should be more accurate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I totally agree with the point that’s been made by the Leader of the House, but I’d like you to reflect on the contribution that was made by Darroch Ball during his speech. It was very robust. It made all sorts of comments that members on this side of the House could take offence to. For him now to block the speech from my colleague on the basis of being sensitive would be inconsistent with his own contribution.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you for the contributions. The particular points that I heard were actually spoken about the Green Party, immediately after you rose, Mr Ball. There has been some robust discussion, and I don’t see why that should not continue. There was not any specific allegation, and so I’m going to take that in the broadness of the debate, and I think Mr King can carry on.

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may not have realised, but the clock was still running for a good 30 seconds while this was happening, and, whilst it is a boring speech, I think it’s fair to Mr King that he be given that time back.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, the member can’t stand and take a point of order on that. It is the sole judgment of the Speaker to decide, and I will ask the member to conclude the speech when I’m ready. Thank you.

MATT KING: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—great decision. The Greens are willing to do it in exchange for a national holiday, believe it or not.

Former Labour Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer stated that MPs should not be coerced by standover tactics in closed rooms by party leaders. I find it interesting as a newbie MP to see this coalition Government twisting and turning, backflipping, and bending over to accommodate their quite opposing views just to stay in power. It’s only been five months; it’s going to be a hell of a ride with these guys.

Arguing for this piece of legislation is like putting lipstick on a pig: you can’t dress it up any other way. It’s overriding democracy to maintain your political position, and it’s an abuse of power of the worst kind. This is not what the voters wanted or need. It effectively stifles the freedom of expression in the House, a freedom that has special constitutional value. My voters in Northland want me to be able to speak freely when representing them in Wellington, and speak for them I do. This law would mean I would have to march in tune purely to my leader—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. I will call Greg O’Connor, a five minute call.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I stand in support of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Given the discussion around integrity, which has gone at a relatively low level, can I bring the discussion up a little? This whole debate is about the integrity of this House in the eyes of the public, the very people who we are here to represent.

During question time, we welcomed a Korean delegation, which I was privileged enough to address last week. They were fascinated by our MMP system. The old adage is that the best way to learn is to teach, and I found it a very valuable exercise to explain our system to them. They were somewhat incredulous, particularly around our list members coming into this House, and the fact that people can be here holding important positions who haven’t won an electorate. As someone who does hold an electorate, I felt quite empowered to explain their value, and the essential nature of list MPs, to this House. What it does is it brings skills to this House that we may not have otherwise. It brings a minority or a representation, a cross-representation, to this House that we wouldn’t have otherwise. And it was quite fascinating, albeit through the quite laboured skills of an interpreter, to actually see the look on the faces of these Koreans as they started to understand how MMP works and the value of it.

This brings me to this legislation. Winston Churchill often is quoted in various ways around his description of democracy, so I did take time to find out what he did actually say, and what he said is, “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.”—sin and woe, something that the members opposite seem to be wallowing in as I stand here. “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except [for] all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;”. So it behoves those of us who are here, who are at the core of our democratic system as elected representatives, whichever way we come to this House, to do all we can in our power to preserve that democracy.

We are now in the 22nd year of MMP, which includes eight elections, and the fact that the new Government has broken new ground in the formation of this current coalition Government just shows how we are evolving MMP, how we are developing an understanding, and, as my Korean counterparts—colleagues—there understood in its basic form, we are operating at another level. I’m not worried that no other Parliament in the world has this system, because no other Parliament in the world is as evolved or developed. I suspect that many of them will have this very legislation in time to come, because it is good legislation.

We are talking about the integrity of this House before our public—before those who send us here, those who look to us. Treachery of the type that has often been seen here—there’s an old saying; I was looking for the source of the saying. It’s said that often those who love the treason hate the traitor, so those members over there in Opposition would encourage this sort of treachery. They would love to see this traitor, but they would have nothing but despite for such a traitor.

In fact, I’m reminded, as I was looking through for quotes that actually backed this up—for those who may be familiar with “The Frogs of War”, in a confrontation, Argit: “Attea, don’t shoot me. We had a deal.” Attea, as she shoots him: “You had a deal. I had a whim.” And that is the sort of whim that this legislation is intended to stop from happening. And the core of this legislation is to preserve the integrity of this House. The strength that we bring to our parties, we come here from different places and we bring—it’s the strength of the combined talents we have that is the core of our talent, and when we take away a part of that we lose something. So I commend this bill to select committee, and hope the select committee sees the wisdom of it. I look forward to seeing it back before this House, and I believe that the majority of New Zealanders watching this will love to see this pass. It will give them the integrity that this House deserves.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, this debate has been a little bit like a water-skiing contest in a shark tank. There’s been so much shark jumping from every side of the House. I’ve never seen the likes of it. We’ve just heard Greg O’Connor attempt to do a rendition of Sir Winston Churchill. Well, I can tell Greg O’Connor that the people will be sitting around in the pubs of Ōhāriu thinking, “That man is no Sir Winston Churchill.”—no question about that. And then we had Amy Adams telling us that this bill will make New Zealand like Uganda, or the types of countries that Donald Trump likes to speak of in Africa. Well, I can assure the people at home that this bill is not the end of democracy. Nick Smith told us that we should fight this bill with every bone in our body. Spare us the melodramatics. Then we had, perhaps best of all, poor Andrew Little, who had to spend eight minutes of his speech—the eight minutes after he said everything he could think of to say in the first minutes—trying to fill in the full ten.

The truth is that this bill is not really an affront to democracy. It returns us to the rules that we had for the first nine years of the MMP system. It’s not the end of the world as we know it, but it is also completely unnecessary and rather stupid. The truth is that the only reason that we are having this particular bill is one paranoid man who’s been voted out of three electorate seats—that is all three that have elected him; you’d think he might have got the hint after the first one, or maybe the first two, but the people of Northland, thanks to the very able Matt King, had to really give him the message last year—who has chosen a Government, and who has form for falling out with people.

As David Farrar very well set out on his blog last week, Winston Peters has hand-picked around 30 members of Parliament to join him in the New Zealand First caucus, and he has fallen out publicly with—these are just the ones we know about, people that he picked to come into Parliament that he publicly fell out with—more than half of them. In a former life I was an electrical engineer, and one thing we’re good at is maths and basic arithmetic. This Government has a majority of three. There are nine New Zealand First members of Parliament. If Winston Peters’ form is that he falls out with half them, then 63 minus 4 is 59, and this Government will be over in a term, just based on the number of people that Winston Peters publicly falls out with in any given term of Parliament.

So the reality of this bill is that this Government, just on the basic numbers, is sunk because Winston Peters is pathologically unable to get on with people that he brought into Parliament with himself. This bill is necessary only because Winston Peters cannot get on with people, even with his own caucus; cannot trust people; and is paranoid, so much so that he has used his political capital to get the Labour Party and, most surprisingly, the Green Party to vote to change the electoral laws of New Zealand. That is the take-out from this bill.

All electoral systems have their flaws. There is no perfect electoral system, and this one won’t be much better or worse than what we’d otherwise have. But what you can take out of this bill, and what the people at home watching this debate can take out, is that it’s a sad day for our great democracy to be at the whims and paranoia of a man who pathologically can’t get on with his own colleagues, who’s been kicked out of three electorates and sacked from three different Cabinets—and there’s one more to come this election. This Government would fall without this bill, entirely because Winston Peters cannot be trusted by the people that he sits in caucus with. What a shame. The ACT Party will be opposing this bill.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): This bill goes against centuries and centuries of thought on democracy and Parliament. Actually, I say to the members over there—Darroch Ball is laughing—this bill was a constitutional outrage even before Winston Peters was born, Mr Ball. It absolutely is wrong at every level, and can I say from the outset, I don’t actually believe that Andrew Little believes in this bill. I think he knows, even as its sponsor, that it is the wrong thing to do at every level and that it goes against centuries and centuries of constitutional thought that this Parliament here is based on. But what he knows is it is the price of the ministerial limo that he drives in. He knows that it is the price of being in coalition with—and I agree with the member David Seymour—the Rt Hon Winston Peters, given the chips that he has on his shoulders, and possibly other parts of his body.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our form of—Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m sorry. I won’t do that again. Our form of Parliament has evolved, and we heard here from I think it was Ginny Andersen, the member over there—“Well, we’re MMP now.” Our Parliament, no doubt, has evolved from first past the post to mixed-member proportional, but we cannot deny the history and the constitution of this country, as informal as it may be, and what it means for us today. And we are absolutely based on the views of Edmund Burke and the, as they say, “Burkian” view of things going back to 1774, when he spoke as the member of Parliament for Bristol.

He made quite clear the importance of constituents, the importance of the role of members of Parliament, and I want to quote. He said “But his unbiassed”—that is, the member of Parliament—“opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you”—and by “you” he was talking about constituents but, of course, it is also his party, I would suggest—“not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” And he goes on and talks about the role of a member of Parliament and the need to exercise his conscience.

And the members opposite laugh, but that now is part of the constitution of New Zealand. Centuries have evolved, and this is absolutely part of our constitution, I would argue. We come here today as MPs, as he said, look, hundreds of years ago, to exercise our individual judgments, not only to our constituents, whether we’re list MPs or elected MPs, but as members of parties—our individual judgments as members of Parliament, not, ultimately, those of others: our constituents, not them, and not our parties either.

And, of course, we have now, for centuries, listened to others, as of course we should, and grouped up with others. Parties have evolved. They didn’t use to be there. But what is true is that, despite that, we still need to rely, ultimately, on our individual judgments. When this bill changes that, it is changing part of our constitution. Because, if that’s not the case, I say to the New Zealand First members—and I say it to them because, actually, the Greens are doing the wrong thing, and I’m coming back to them, and Labour’s doing it as the price of the agreement that they’ve signed up to. But if that is not the case, we might as well not be here. If, ultimately, all that matters is what their leader says, why are they here?

Darroch Ball: Rubbish. That’s rubbish.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Darroch Ball might as well be a sheep controlled by the sheep dog, a television controlled by the remote control, because, ultimately, if all that happens is he has to do what his leader says, which is what this bill does, then what a waste of time, ultimately, members of Parliament are. And we see this all the time. The most obvious is the conscience bills, where we vote according to our conscience. I note on the euthanasia bill where, actually, we started to see—and we saw it with New Zealand First. They simply vote on party lines on that issue, like the sheep that they are. They may well behave like that, but I certainly don’t. And, by the way, I have never crossed the floor in this Parliament and, actually, I hope, in a way, I never have to.

They’re rare occasions, but it is outrageous—it is outrageous—that Chris Hipkins, with a smile on his face as the price of the ministerial limo he now gets into and drives back to Lower Hutt, or wherever it is that he goes, is the locking in of something that means MPs in this House are now sheep, robot, remote-control people to their party. I think that is a crying shame.

And I say to the Māori MPs in the Labour Party: you’ve been here before, actually. I’m talking to you, you know. You shouldn’t be signing up to this, because you know—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can I just remind the member not to bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The members know that they’ve been here before, and they don’t want to be again.

And I say also to Labour MPs on the right of their party—we just head from former police union man, Mr Greg O’Connor, but, actually, on the right of the party, the Stuart Nashs of this world: you don’t want to be rolled over by a bill like this, which actually means, fundamentally, when you feel strongly on an issue, you don’t get to have your say, rare occasions that they are.

Hon Dr David Clark: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I didn’t. I made it quite clear that I was referring to the right-wing members. I know there’s not many left, Dr Clark, but the right-wing members left of the Labour caucus, dwindling—

Hon Willie Jackson: There’s none.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, Willie Jackson says, “There’s none.” There’s probably never a truer word spoken in jest, but there you go.

And so why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? Why are we going against centuries of political and constitutional thought so that members of Parliament, ultimately, are treated like sheep, led by the old sheep dog? Well, as I said, Andrew Little won’t agree with it, but we’re doing this because of one man’s—

Darroch Ball: Ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —historical grievances. Well, Darroch Ball laughs. I don’t know if he knows he’s got GPS trackers in those flags on the finials right there so he knows where you’re going, Mr Ball. I say, having dealt with the New Zealand First MPs—

Hon Member: Well, well.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It’s tough crowd. They’re not in much good humour, are they? I say to the other MPs in the other parties—to the Green MPs over here—they should go back and read the debates on this bill in the late 1990s, in the early 2000s, where, to a person, the Green MPs in this Parliament, the Rod Donalds, the Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Nandor Tanczos—actually, literally, every member of Parliament you would hold up now as Green MPs, as ones you follow and think did the right thing, all spoke strongly against this bill. [Interruption]

Chlӧe Swarbrick, as a new member, looks on at that. Well, I say it’s a pretty serious issue, actually. There’s two decades—oh, more than two decades. There’s three decades of vehement opposition to this, and you’re selling your principles as a result of this bill. I say it’s a real shame that the Green Party is doing that. We know why the Labour Party is doing it—the ultimate political pragmatism from them to keep their seats and their limos. And in New Zealand First—well, some of them probably don’t even know what they’re doing themselves. But, as we’ve heard before, ask the former weather man from Tauranga, and he won’t be the last. Ask the many NZ First MPs. You have, as members of Parliament, signed away those rare occasions where you feel really strongly about something as members and want to come to this House and voice your view.

Can I finish on a more optimistic note—because we will be opposing this bill, given how bad it is. I’ve one hope, and that is, actually, that the courts will read down these provisions and the way they deal with members of Parliament. I note with great interest—and it’s a shameful little thing that they’ve done—that the Attorney-General here has not provided a section 7 report on this bill. He has not Bill-of-Rights-vetted it, and I know—and may all of New Zealand know—the reason for that. That’s because he knows it would not get a clean bill of health under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

And I say, when this bill comes, as it will, eventually, to the courts, that they will have the temerity and the integrity to actually—where Parliament couldn’t, because of the pragmatism and the compromise on that side—uphold the rights of individual members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Thank you.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I’m actually really delighted to take a call on this bill, the Electoral Integrity Amendment Bill—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Shame on you.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —no—because I’d like to set straight a lot of the scaremongering and the bluff and the bluster that we’ve heard from members on that side of the House. They’ve talked about how they’re staggered. I think the member Chris Bishop mentioned that about 10 times—that he’s staggered at this bill. Others have mentioned that they’re ashamed, or that we should somehow find this bill shameful.

What I’m staggered by is the level of scaremongering, and as the last member, I guess, to take a call on this bill, I’m going to set them straight. I’m actually going to give those who are watching this at home a little bit of a summary of all the fairy tales that have been told by members opposite, and then go into a little bit about the bill, actually, because I wonder whether any of those previous speakers from across the House have actually read the bill. I’m going to go into what the purpose of this bill is, because it’s been reduced by that side of the House into pro - freedom of speech versus anti - freedom of speech, and that’s absolutely not what this is about.

So let’s begin with what we’ve heard so far—a quick summary, because, really, we haven’t heard much of much value from that side of the House. But, anyway, what we’ve heard from the member Chris Bishop, for example, is that this breaches human rights; that it disincentivises people from speaking out about matters of conscience, which it absolutely does not do; that it’s not a Parliament of parties, as though we are a Parliament of about 120 Independent members, which we’re absolutely not; and that it’s about freedom, that it’s the bastion of freedom of speech, and that this bill is actually going to somehow change that.

We’ve heard from the member Amy Adams that MPs—electorate MPs, she said—are here in the House, first and foremost, to serve their communities, and that I agree with. We are all here in this House to serve our communities: the New Zealand public, the voters who have put us in this House to serve them. Let’s not forget that. Let’s not make this out as though it’s breaching the human rights of members of Parliament—which is, in fact, what one of the members opposite said—because it doesn’t.

It’s actually here, and I get into, now, what this bill aims to do. The purpose of this bill is to uphold public confidence in the integrity of this Parliament, as the name suggests. It’s about the integrity of members of Parliament and of the system, the very system that has elected each and every one of us. Let me put some of the members—actually, most of the members—who’ve spoken from the Opposition benches straight. If they actually think that they won their electorates on their own steam, not because they were aligned with, or members of, a party that has a particular philosophy, that is supposed to have specific values that they uphold, then, newsflash, I have some information for them: they probably haven’t read it, although it’s throughout this bill, but they can actually come back and be elected as Independent members of Parliament. So there is recourse for them. This bill does not stop anyone—any one of us—from speaking our mind. We have conscience votes for that particular purpose. It does not allow some sort of mythical dictator to throw us out of Parliament at his or her whim. It does not do any of that.

The member Judith Collins mentioned in her speech that this bill will give a party leader the right to throw out a member if that member crosses the floor in a vote. That, ladies and gentlemen, is scaremongering. The member Matt King talked about backflipping on this side of the House—Government members backflipping on this legislation. That was the one point, perhaps, that he made that I’d like to call him out on. We have been absolutely consistent on our position on this bill, because it also enhances and it maintains the proportionality, as members on this side of the House have said. It’s about MMP. Perhaps, if members on that side of the House actually understood how MMP worked, they wouldn’t be on that side of the House. But that’s a debate for another day.

So what is MMP, for those who are watching? In our Parliament, a party’s share of the seats in this Parliament roughly mirrors its share of the party vote. So what that means is the people, the New Zealand public, who are electing us to office and electing parties into Government, who have the final say as to what this Parliament looks like in terms of proportions, also have the right to know that that proportionality will be maintained throughout the term of Government. That is what this bill does.

How does it do it? Well, actually, before I go into that, why is this even important? It’s important, firstly, because it’s a matter of accountability, as I’ve already said, but it’s also important because when the proportionality of a Parliament changes, the degree of influence that that party has in this Parliament also changes, and it changes in a number of ways. For example, the number of oral questions that a party has allocated changes when the proportionality changes. Funding to that party—parliamentary funding of parties—is dependent or based on proportionality of that party in Parliament. The leader’s budget, per-member funding that is allocated to parties—all of that changes, and all of those are important components of the amount or degree of influence that parties have in this House.

Now, I mentioned that I was going to actually put some of the members straight in terms of calling out the scaremongering and, actually, maybe going into a little bit about what the bill says in terms of how this will happen. So what is the process that’s outlined in this bill for when seats become vacant in the House? There are two ways that this can happen. The MP’s party leader or the MP themselves who’s leaving the party can decide whether to activate the power—and that’s the other point that’s quite important in this bill, actually: it doesn’t automatically trigger. It needs to be triggered, and it will be triggered only when the proportionality of the Parliament is in jeopardy. The way that happens is that either the party leader or the MP who decides to leave can trigger that by writing to the Speaker. The MP’s seat becomes vacant when they have notified the Speaker in writing that this will happen.

In order for the party leader to use this power—and, again, we’ve heard from members opposite that at a whim, or at the drop of a hat, a party leader can stand up and throw a member out. That’s not how it happens, actually. It’s quite clearly laid out in the bill that, firstly, the party leader, in order to use this power, has to reasonably believe that the member of Parliament has acted in a way that distorts, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality or party representation in this House, as it was determined at the last election. They’ve got to give the MP written notice, and the member then has 21 working days to respond, probably to put their case forward and to discuss it. The party leader also has to have two-thirds of that MP’s party agree, or the caucus agree, that that member in question should be removed, if it comes to that. So there are actually quite a few safeguards that are listed in this. There’s also a point where the leader has to have complied with party rules as well.

The other point that I’d like to make—and this is specifically to the member Nick Smith, I believe it was, who mentioned that there are no Parliaments in the world that have such legislation. Well, I have actually been at a number of events with members from the National Party speaking to members of our very strong Indian community in New Zealand, where they have waxed lyrical about how India is the world’s largest democracy, probably in an attempt to win over some of these communities. Do they, then, realise that India has an anti-defection Act, which came into play in 1985 and is actually very similar to the bill that we’re discussing today? So, perhaps, if this is something that you’re so vehemently opposed to, don’t go out to our Indian communities in New Zealand and pretend that you think that the country that they whakapapa to, that they come from, is the world’s largest democracy and is all things good. Maybe let’s not have that hypocrisy.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

The bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This bill makes three key changes: it provides people who have a terminal illness a statutory defence to the charge of possessing and using cannabis, it will allow us to make regulations to set quality standards for medicinal cannabis products, and it removes cannabidiol from the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it is no longer a controlled drug. This bill does not make any changes to the recreational use of cannabis.

This bill will make medicinal cannabis more readily available and will help bring relief to people suffering a terminal illness or to those in chronic pain. New Zealanders are compassionate people. No one wants to see people suffering, and medicinal cannabis is an option that allows some people to find relief. The bill will give more people the choice to access medicinal cannabis should they wish to. While New Zealanders are able to access medicinal cannabis products now on prescription, there are few quality products available, and they are expensive. It can take weeks to import them, and there is a shortage of medicinal cannabis products available worldwide. New Zealand now has the opportunity to be a part of the solution.

A major part of this bill is the development of a medicinal cannabis scheme. This will include an advisory committee to review the current requirements for prescribing medicinal cannabis, setting minimum product quality standards to improve patient safety and give medical practitioners confidence, and allow for the domestic cultivation and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products. In time, this scheme will lead to a greater supply of quality medicinal cannabis products worldwide, including products made here in New Zealand. The bill will allow for quality standards to be set for all medicinal cannabis products, whether produced domestically or imported.

It is vital that quality standards are set for all products. Medicinal cannabis products that are not produced to a quality standard may be unsafe, and when we don’t know the composition of the products, they may contain potential psychoactive effects. Products may contain contaminants such as pesticides. Health practitioners are right to be cautious about prescribing these products. The medicinal cannabis scheme will assist us to alleviate these concerns by supplying products that will have a quality associated with them that is a known composition. Under the medicinal cannabis scheme, manufacturers will have to show that the composition is true to label and products are free from contaminants. As a result, there will be trustworthy quality standards.

We consider that health practitioners are best placed to decide whether a person would benefit from medicinal cannabis. This is why we will continue to require a prescription from a health practitioner to access medicinal cannabis under the scheme. We also have international obligations to meet under United Nations drug conventions. The convention requires a Government agency to oversee the cultivation and manufacture of cannabis product produced domestically. This agency will be within the Ministry of Health. We will establish a medicinal cannabis advisory committee early this year. Currently, aside from Sativex for specific cases, health practitioners must get approval from the Ministry of Health before they can prescribe cannabis. The committee will review this requirement and will look at information needs for patients and health practitioners. This advisory committee will include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and consumer representatives. The development of the scheme and agency will be a key focus throughout 2018.

The scheme will take time to develop and implement. We know, however, that in the interim there will be people with a terminal illness using illicit cannabis. That is why this bill establishes a defence to the charge of using and possessing cannabis or a cannabis utensil for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Giving the terminally ill a statutory defence for the possession and use of illicit cannabis will mean they are not criminalised in their final days. This is the compassionate thing to do while the medicinal cannabis scheme is established. Terminally ill people are likely to rely on family, whānau, and friends to source illicit cannabis for them. We do not propose extending the statutory defence to cover the range of people who could supply cannabis to terminally ill people. This would greatly widen the scope of the defence. We want to keep the scope narrow, as it’s intended as a compassionate measure until the scheme is established. I intend to address supply through the development of the scheme, which, once established, will ensure quality products are readily available.

The bill will also remove cannabidiol from the list of controlled drugs. Cannabidiol is a substance found in cannabis that has potential therapeutic value and little or no psychoactive properties. The bill will make it a prescription medicine rather than a controlled drug. The change to the legal status of cannabidiol responds to the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which considers drug classification issues. They found that based on the low risk of cannabidiol and its potential therapeutic value, the proposed change would be reasonable. This change will bring New Zealand into line with other countries such as Australia, who made a similar change in 2015. The World Health Organization late last year, about the time we announced our intention to legislate, noted that cannabidiol could have therapeutic value and did not carry any addiction risks.

This legislation will not please all of the campaigners for medicinal cannabis, but it goes further than any previous Parliament has gone. It represents real progress in making these products more widely available. This bill is a real step forward that all Government support parties are pleased to sign up to. If Parliament wants to go further, it has the opportunity when it considers a member’s bill in Chlöe Swarbrick’s name. The public will also have the chance to have their say when the Government bill is considered by the Health Committee.

To reiterate, the bill will develop a medicinal cannabis scheme, it will introduce a statutory defence for terminal illness so that people are not charged for possessing and using cannabis, there will be some regulations set to make sure that medicinal cannabis products in the supply scheme meet quality standards, and it will remove cannabidiol from the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it is no longer a controlled drug. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): It’s a great pleasure to be able to take a call on what is a bill of high public interest throughout the country. I commend the Minister on bringing this bill to the House. It was rather politically driven on his part, in the sense that the Labour Party had made this commitment to introduce medicinal cannabis legislation in their first 100 days, and he’s just got it under the bar. But I was very intrigued by his speech, and I will come back to that shortly.

As an electorate MP in the Northcote electorate, I’ve had extensive contact with people from a wide range of backgrounds with a wide range of views on medicinal cannabis, but there is no doubt that this is becoming much more of a mainstream issue and that people have an interest in being able to access these products when they are experiencing, sadly, a terminal illness. There’s also, of course, people who are wanting to access it for a wider range of medical complaints, as well. It’s also been an issue that’s had a great deal of public exposure through the sad illnesses of Helen Kelly and Paul Holmes and Martin Crowe—three very public figures who all said in their latter days that they had accessed medicinal cannabis. So there’s no question that this is an issue that the Parliament has to deal with and that it’s of great import to tens of thousands of people across the country. The Minister canvassed what is in the bill, but I think it would be true to say that he added in a lot there that he claims is in the bill that there’s actually virtually no mention of.

So, just to recap, this bill is a long way from perfect. Yes, it introduces that statutory defence for someone who is in the last 12 months of life with a terminal illness, so that they have a legal defence for the possession of cannabis or any cannabis product or the utensils with which to use that product. It also puts in place a regulation-making power for a potential future scheme, but it’s absolutely silent on the scheme. And I was intrigued to hear the Minister—he didn’t take his full 10 minutes. He only managed to go for just over eight minutes, which is a bit of a surprise, considering that this is in his top two priorities in health; the only priorities in the 100-day plan, and this was one of them. But he made out that this bill talks about setting up a scheme for access to medicinal cannabis, and I’d invite people at home to go around and have a look at the bill. It’s available on the Ministry of Health website. It does not talk about the setting up of a scheme. It is completely silent on that. My concern about this is, it’s not clear whether the Minister really knows what that scheme will look like.

I can say that he must have his officials tearing their hair out, because he was out there around New Zealand, campaigning big on medicinal cannabis. He said to people that the Labour Government would increase access to medicinal marijuana for the terminally ill and those with chronic pain and chronic conditions. Of course that created a huge wave of expectation, and there will be many people who, when they read this bill, will be bitterly disappointed. As Bill English has said, this is a Government long on intentions but actually very poor in the delivery. That’s what we’re seeing in this bill. It’s a hollowed-out, weak bill that goes nowhere close to delivering on what Labour had promised.

I think, actually, to a certain extent there’s exploitation around the confusion about what medicinal marijuana actually is. If you go out and talk to someone in the street, they would naturally expect that when David Clark was going around the country saying he would deliver medicinal marijuana that that would mean that people who were terminally ill would be able to smoke loose-leaf marijuana to alleviate their pain and symptoms. Of course, that is not what this bill is doing at all.

Medical marijuana encompasses a huge range of products, right from those that have undergone clinical testing—which is how we treat any new medicine introduced into New Zealand—through to what we call non-pharmacological grade, which are medical marijuana products that haven’t met any accepted standards here or overseas. And then there’s this very confusing term cannabidiol. Marijuana has two components. There’s the THC, which is the psychoactive component, and then there’s the non-psychoactive component, which is cannabidiol. There’s a change there in this bill. Of the three changes, we’ve talked about two of them. There’s the regulation-making power. There’s the effective decriminalisation for possession of marijuana, although it’s silent on the quantity for terminal patients who are using it for their own use. But then there’s this thing that the Minister has been heralding—how they are changing the classification of cannabidiol.

It’ll be really interesting to understand how that is any different to what the last Government did under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Regulations, passed in about June 2017, where cannabidiol was no longer a controlled drug. All this is, from what I can see in the legislation, is just a tidy-up of the legislation to reflect the regulations and existing practice. So, when you take that away, what you’re looking at is a pretty hollowed-out bill.

The last Government had already taken some action on medicinal marijuana. Peter Dunne did a very good job as the Minister then, and I want to acknowledge his contribution. In December 2016, he removed some of the bureaucratic restrictions around access to marijuana, and Sativex, one of two products available in New Zealand, no longer needed ministry approval for sign-off. He then, in February 2017, signed off non - pharmaceutical grade medical cannabis. That delegation was moved from the Minister to the Ministry of Health.

I want to acknowledge at this point the family of Alex Renton, who have campaigned over a long period for medicinal cannabis. That was a very sad case where young Alex had a condition, status epilepticus, and his mother and supporters petitioned for him to have access to Elixinol oil in the hope that that might alleviate some of his symptoms. Sadly, though, he passed away.

But David Clark has said, and this is pretty much from his press release, actually, “We wanted to make sure that medicinal cannabis is more accessible to people with terminal illness or chronic conditions and the piece of legislation [here] will make progress.” Well, I can tell you it absolutely doesn’t, because when you look at people who are using medicinal cannabis for a terminal illness, this is not going to result in one more person accessing medicinal cannabis. The other thing is, he’s got a half-baked scheme here. He’s legalising possession, but where are these people—the middle-class, elderly, terminally ill patients of Northcote—meant to get their cannabis from? So it’s a half-baked scheme, which doesn’t go far enough.

It’s very clear it’s the result of that political pressure to get this over the line within 100 days. If you don’t believe me, have a look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), because that’s very clear about what this bill does and doesn’t do. It actually says there’s been massive time pressure here. It actually says the legislation has had to be rushed to get it under the bar for 100 days. It says there will be a paper in March 2018 that will lay out the description of this medicinal cannabis scheme, which the Minister was talking about as if it’s actually in the legislation. It’s not. The scheme has not been designed. All this gives is a regulation-making power. So you can see this is a heck of a long way from perfect, and there are some major weaknesses in the bill.

The RIS also goes on to look at it. It says that when you score this bill against its intentions in terms of increasing equity to medicinal cannabis, in terms of quality and safety, and on compassionate grounds—and this is exactly what it says in terms of impact analysis—well, this is the same as doing nothing, in terms of increasing equity to medicinal cannabis; it’s the same as doing nothing, in terms of improving quality and safety, but on compassion it is much better than nothing.

Although this is a poorly designed, politically driven bill, on balance we have to be mindful of the needs of those terminally ill people. So, in the end, compassion has to win out over a very poorly designed piece of legislation. National will be supporting this bill but we’re expecting to see some big changes, some big improvements, and we will have some very big questions when this comes to the select committee. Thank you.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. The Hon Dr Coleman spoke about how this is a bill that does not introduce anything new, that it doesn’t even introduce a scheme, and that somehow it is the same as what the previous Government had. This legislation will address what is a difficult and complex issue for individuals, as well as for families, as well as for the medical community.

The Hon Dr Coleman referred to the regulatory impact assessment, which is what I would like to refer to as well now. Under the heading “Problem Definition” it says that “Despite a legal pathway, access to affordable medicinal cannabis products remains problematic.”, in this country and that there is sometimes a reluctance by medical practitioners to prescribe medicinal cannabis. In addition to that, there is not affordable medicinal cannabis either. It is not quite that easy to access medicinal cannabis.

One of the things that other speakers have spoken about are those folks that have tried to access medicinal cannabis; Helen Kelly being one of them. For her, it was also pretty difficult. As part of our 100-day plan, this Government committed to making medicinal cannabis more available, especially to people who are suffering from terminal illness. Can I say that we are a compassionate, caring Government. While we were campaigning, all three of us—Labour, the Greens, as well as New Zealand First—we were getting a lot of feedback from people saying that this is an issue they wanted us to address. We have listened and, yes, we’re introducing a scheme.

Can I just reiterate what the honourable Minister of Health spoke about. The medicinal cannabis scheme that this bill actually introduces is a first. It’s a scheme that will have an advisory committee. It will review the current requirements for prescribing medicinal cannabis—that’s the first thing that the scheme will do. Second, it will set a minimum for product quality standards to improve and ensure patient safety—something that we currently do not have. Third, we would allow for domestic cultivation and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products. Again, this is something we need to address here in Aotearoa.

We know that none of us wants to see people suffer. None of us wants to see people in pain, especially those with terminal illness. “Terminal illness” is defined as those who are in the last 12 months of their lives. As a compassionate, caring Government, it is incumbent on us to make sure that those whom the medical profession actually says have a terminal illness—they have only up to 12 months of their lives to live—can ensure that they can access something to help them with pain. We know that they can access medicinal cannabis right now. However, we know that not all of them that can, actually do have access.

Can I also say that the framework that this bill will introduce will ensure that it will have these things. First, it will introduce an exception and a statutory defence for terminally ill people to possess and use illicit cannabis. It will also ensure that those who have cannabis utensils are also exempt. Second, it will provide regulation-making powers to set high-quality standards to ensure that the products being manufactured are safe. Third, it will ensure that schedule 2 of the principal Act has it so that cannabidiol (CBD) and CBD products are no longer classified as controlled drugs. These will become prescription-only medicines, and that would reflect the advice that we got from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in 2017. So it’s important to reiterate the point that this legislation does not make any changes to the legal status of recreational cannabis use.

As I said earlier on, most of us have watched loved ones have pain—those with terminal illness—and the way that people actually deal with terminal illness and pain is very different. I have relatives whom I’ve seen in pain. The way that they actually deal with terminal illness and pain is that at one extreme, they don’t even want to take medication, not even morphine. For some of my relatives, it’s like their statement that they are strong to the end. That’s at one extreme.

On the other hand, though, we do know that when people suffer from terminal illness and they have such chronic pain, many of them can’t even sleep at nights. People have told us that even though they take medicine and even though they take morphine, they still are experiencing so much pain, and that medicinal cannabis is what actually helps them to sleep. We do know that there are people that suffer from depression, and we do know that those with terminal illness towards the end of their lives actually don’t have such good quality of life. However, they tell us that using medicinal cannabis does assist them, especially towards the end of their lives. Medicinal cannabis, through this bill, will offer that option of relief. It will enable our people in Aotearoa New Zealand to have the best quality of life in the time that is left to them.

Indeed, as I alluded to before, and as other speakers have, we have examples of people who have spoken really strongly about the use of medicinal cannabis. Helen Kelly is one such example of a person who lived so bravely, so openly, with terminal illness, and she devoted the last part of her life to campaigning for her fellow New Zealanders to make their lives better. She felt for ordinary people for whom medicinal cannabis might make a real difference.

I want to just end with a quote from one of many interviews that she made, and this is something that Stuff actually covered. At that stage, she was suffering from tumours, she had a broken back, and she had only a few months to live. I quote her: “I’ve still got all the symptoms of coughing and being weak but living without pain is sensational.” She was taking 10 milligrams of slow-release morphine twice each day, but by bedtime the morphine had stopped working and she was aching. I quote her: “If I took nothing I reckon my pain would be seven or eight out of ten. If I just took the morphine my pain would be about five out of ten but if I take both, my pain is nothing. [It’s only the cannabis] that gives me relief, it lets me sleep all night.”

Introducing this bill is really relevant to a whole lot of people, and this is why it’s important for us to pass it on after first reading, so that it’s open to the public for them to come and give us their recommendations about how we move forward. This is something that is of huge importance to a whole lot of people, and it is incumbent on us to ensure in terms of the legislation we end up with, not just as Government but as an Opposition, that members of the public can come and let us know how it is that they would like us to move forward. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, a bill that clearly has public interest and a bill that we will support but that we do have some issues with. Certainly, I’d like to start off by saying I do not believe this cannabis reform is the second or even the first most important issue for the New Zealand health system. I think there are much more important issues to be dealing with than cannabis reform. So I want to lead off with that.

There are three parts to this bill that I want to talk to. The first is cannabidiol—that’s what I’ll call it—which is the non-psychoactive component. It is something that probably counteracts the THC component, and it may well do. It is not readily available and has been used for addiction treatment, as an anti-inflammatory, and for some neuropathic pain resolution, as well. We agree that this should be moved to a different schedule and be more readily available. In fact, we did that in 2017. We did that so that it no longer requires Ministry of Health approval, and we had people, like the New Zealand Medical Association chair, Dr Kate Baddock, who were very supportive of that move—so no issue with the cannabidiol.

The cannabis framework—the second part to this—we do want to talk to for a moment, because we’re hearing for the first time the issue that loose-leaf cannabis may be part of this scheme. That’s probably an important thing to put in the bill, Minister, but to bring it up here for the first time is kind of a bit late. But that’s OK, we can work that through select committee, because what we’re hearing—and we’re happy to have the dialogue. Don’t get me wrong. It is a dialogue that New Zealanders want to have and that we want to have too: what place, what role, might cannabis have in pain relief and routine prescribing medicines? We’re ready to have that dialogue, but we’ll need a lot more filling out as to what it looks like in this bill.

So what we’re hearing is that there’ll be domestically cultivated and manufactured cannabis. That would presume that it’s also leaf cannabis. But one of the interesting questions is: where do you source it from? Well, if we go to a statement in the Taranaki Daily News, it tells us: “Eventually patients with a prescription would be able to access medicinal cannabis products at a pharmacy.” That’s kind of interesting—at a pharmacy. So if you’re going to be able to cultivate cannabis, pharmacies are going to be dispensing loose-leaf cannabis. That’s going to need a lot of thought. I’ll come to those who weren’t consulted, but if that is in the vision, I think you should’ve consulted with pharmacists, as well. I’ll go to the list of people you didn’t consult—we can see who you did—but, surprisingly, if pharmacists are a key here, they weren’t consulted.

If it is loose-leaf and if it is going to be smoked, let’s look at that. How is that going to work with our smoke-free New Zealand goals? What’s that going to look like—yeah? How is that going to align with those goals? How is it going to recognise that cannabis, when it’s smoked, is often mixed with tobacco—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to return and continue the narrative on this bill, which I’ve broken down into three parts.

First of all, the very first part, the cannabidiol, I’d already explained that it has our support. In fact, we did most of the heavy lifting—we think, anyway, previously—so completely happy with that. We understand that there are very few preparations on the market, but hopefully they will eventually come to market—so, yes, no trouble there.

I was then discussing the second part, which was the cannabis framework. We were hearing for the first time, in the Minister’s narrative, that potentially this could also include loose-leaf marijuana, and I was recalling an article from the Taranaki Daily News saying that yes, the medicinal scheme will have marijuana dispensed by pharmacists. I was making that case, OK that’s kind of interesting. So pharmacists could be dispensing loose-leaf marijuana. Where that took me to was if that marijuana is then going to be smoked, what are the implications for the Smoke-free Environments Act, what are the implications for second-hand smoking? There’s a whole lot of depth to this whole discussion that isn’t at all apparent in the bill. I do understand that the select committee fills this out and fleshes it out, but I would’ve thought important statements like that, that maybe loose-leaf marijuana is part of the medicinal scheme, should be included up front. If pharmacists are going to be dispensing, they should be consulted, you’d have thought.

So let’s then move on to compassionate cannabis. In a very general sense, let’s talk about who wasn’t consulted in this area. Compassionate cannabis—that’s what I’ll call it—introduces more cannabis into the community, and we can talk about how that might be but, regardless, there potentially is more cannabis in the community. You’d have thought corrections might be worth speaking to; that’s one agency you might’ve wanted to talk to. Maybe WorkSafe and the Occupational Safety and Health Service might’ve been worth speaking to, maybe transport; a lot of terminal care patients are still able to drive. Maybe transport should’ve been spoken with, and certainly pharmacies, as I said.

Let’s break out the compassionate cannabis discussion a little bit more. So for terminal care patients, terminal in the last 12 months of their life—probably doable; other jurisdictions have, but challenging. As a doc, I’m telling you it’s challenging to say you’d take a guess as to how long people might be able to live, but not insurmountable. Other jurisdictions have figured it out; I’m sure we can too, generally coming up with a list of conditions that might lead into that sort of discussion.

Now then, consideration of compassionate cannabis: again, a very strong indication that it’s going to allow cultivated leaf. That’s going to create some of the issues that we talked about before. Again, where would you source it? Would it be from a marijuana clinic or from a pharmacist? Do you grow it yourself? What’s that going to look like? These should’ve been at least put up there for discussion points in the initial regulations.

I’ve already mentioned some of the issues of smoke-free New Zealand. I also wanted to consider for a moment, if you just picture the logistics, let’s say it’s dispensed from a pharmacist. So you go to the pharmacist, you meet the criteria, terminal care, it’s dispensed from a pharmacist, you pick it up, you go to pay for it, you hand across your credit card. No, you don’t, because those of you who know the American system know they don’t accept credit cards. Credit card companies won’t touch this with a barge pole. It’s a cash-only economy. But that’s OK, because you’ve spoken with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Revenue. Oh, wait, you haven’t. That’s right, this is news to you. This is the first time you’re hearing that it’s cash-only in the US, because the credit card companies won’t touch it. That’s kind of interesting. You’d have thought if you consulted further you’d have found out those sorts of things.

I think what’s also interesting in your medicinal cannabis scheme is that one of the criteria is that it’s beneficial to the patient. What are the criteria we have for compassionate cannabis? That they are terminal in 12 months. Do I hear or see any indication that it might be beneficial? Zero. This would be the only jurisdiction in the world where there is no requirement for a doctor or any registered medical practitioner to also say, “The patient is likely to benefit.” Do we really want that prize? Do we really want to be the only jurisdiction in the world that says, “Nah, the only criteria you have to have is that you’ve got 12 months’ life expectancy.” That doesn’t make sense. That would’ve been an easy thing to put up front, because almost certainly that is something that the select committee will come to.

I think, in summary, this just shows this bill’s been hurried, clearly to meet the 100-day requirements and the 100-day targets that they’re looking to reach. I’ve pointed out a number of things. In summary, we support the cannabidiol. Personally, the cannabis framework we’ll also support, and I support it, too.

I just want to give you an indication of how I’m thinking of it: it’s just a drug. Cannabis is just a drug, like any other medicine. It’s just a drug. It’s just a medicine. Therefore, it needs a half-life, it needs a metabolic profile. Show me how much you take, what it does in your bloodstream. It’s just another medicine. On that basis, I’m happy to support it through. As it initially looked in the legislation, it’s all around quality standards, it’s all around a quality product. Well, show me a quality medicine and absolutely you have our support.

Compassionate cannabis, the third part to this—I understand the principle to it, a lot of work needs to go into this. It’s way too vague at the moment. There are things we’re hearing today that are new to us that we’ll need to think on. That’s going to need a lot of work to have my support to this and for our support, but we’re certainly ready to have the dialogue in this whole discussion. We’re not afraid of the dialogue and the discussion around medicinal cannabis, but it needs a lot of work. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi o Te Tau Hou ki a koe. A very happy New Year to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill.

Medicinal cannabis is an emotive and controversial subject. Most people have a position that fits into one of two categories: either they’re emphatically for it or they’re defiantly against it. Now, either of these positions forms a point of view that is steeped in emotion. Those that are against medicinal cannabis say that any form of change to the law only provides the hippies and the dopers with a pathway to legalisation. However, those of us who have watched loved ones pass from cancer and other illnesses like that understand the desire to help and support a less painful end of life phase. New Zealand First believes the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill shows compassion to those dying in terrible pain. Now, this is why New Zealand First will support this piece of legislation.

Just taking a look at the general policy statement in the bill’s explanatory note, the bill will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It will introduce an exception and a statutory defence for terminally ill people to possess and use illicit cannabis and to possess a cannabis utensil. It’ll also provide a regulation-making power to enable the setting of standards that products manufactured, imported, and supplied under licence must meet. We also note that it will amend schedule 2 of the Act so that cannabidiol—that’s the CBD—and CBD products are no longer classed as controlled drugs.

Like many people, I have a story to tell. I’m not a doctor, and I acknowledge the doctors that have spoken in the House today already on this topic, but I have a personal story relating to cancer and the passing of my mother. My story is like many of those that have this very same story; it’s not a unique story, unfortunately it’s a very common tale. It’s a story of a slow and an excruciating end. It’s about the darkness of pain that strips dignity, the darkness of pain that bears humanity, and the darkness of pain that brings unbearable suffering that in the end removes life itself.

As a child, I watched in horror as breast cancer wiped the laughter and the joy from my mother. Her creative spark of life was extinguished as survival for the quest of healing became her sole focus. As one of five children, we watched our very own worst nightmare unveil itself in broad daylight. My mother had five children, and we watched Helen’s pain and suffering, and it was so great that we were sent away to a safe place, farmed out to the care of family and foster homes as our mother went about the business of trying not to die. She was in such intense pain that the adults at the time decided that it was much better for these children, these five Marcroft children, to not see their mother in this state. But I wonder, if she had been able to access something like medicinal cannabis, something that was going to be able to alleviate her pain, maybe her children would have been able to stay with her during her final months. Maybe she wouldn’t have been on her own, without her children, as she faced her death. And perhaps the agony that she braved wouldn’t be for ever imprinted in my DNA or in my heart.

Thousands of New Zealanders die every year from cancer. We don’t know how many choose to use medicinal cannabis for analgesia, for pain relief, but we do know that more research is needed. There is a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence, and strong research needs to sit alongside this. This bill is a tightening of the focus around the use of medicinal cannabis. It’s a very good start. It’s a small shift, and it will enable more time to investigate all aspects of this issue.

New Zealand First is very interested to hear at select committee from all manner of submitters. Law changes must be made to reflect the changing values and needs of a just society. This piece of legislation will do exactly that. New Zealand First is supporting this bill also because it legalises CBD but not the psychoactive substance THC.

Just looking now at a piece of science, and this is from the New Zealand Medical Association—their medicinal cannabis position statement. It reads: “The leaves and flowers of cannabis contain ... at least 100 different phytocannabinoids: the two major constituents [being] tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is responsible for most of the psychoactive properties of cannabis, including effects sought by recreational users. CBD has ... properties and may moderate some of the psychoactive effects of [the] THC.”

Also to note, although I may not be a doctor I have a most excellent general practitioner. According to my doctor—Dr Kate Baddock, who is also the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association board—in her commentary on cannabis, in the NZMJ Digest of July 2017, she writes that “CBD is well tolerated in doses of up to 1500 mg a day and has a role as an anticonvulsant in intractable epilepsy, and as a muscle relaxant for spasm as seen in multiple sclerosis. As CBD is an allosteric modulator of both the mu- and delta-opioid receptors, it also has a role in alleviating chronic pain.”

This is the thing. It’s the chronic pain and the potential criminal convictions. These are the two issues making criminals of dying people. These are the emotive issues. This is the issue that has galvanised a population. These are the issues that have made headlines in our media.

I would just like to tell you Andy’s story. Andy was a 60-year-old New Zealander. A very average, typical Kiwi. He, of course, suffered cancer and started wasting away. He was really distressed that the only relief he could find was by smoking some marijuana. He hated the fact that he was committing a crime, and so he told none of his friends or his family about what he was doing, but it was giving him some pain relief. Also, he was wasting away. He had no appetite, and it stimulated his appetite. So he was able to have some dignity at the end, through using an illegal substance. All his friends—he thought they didn’t know, but they actually kept his secret, as well. So they too were part of that little conspiracy. He never talked about smoking the weed, but he was able to find some relief from it.

The fear of prosecution was a reality for everyone involved in his story. So here we have a group of family, and also a group of friends, keeping Andy’s cannabis secret while he literally, over a period of time, died before their eyes.

There are those who will point to a lack of research into CBD, and that has merit, because it’s difficult to measure an illegal activity with accuracy. The scientific community will be keenly watching this space, along with Australia and 25 other countries who are legalising CBD for medicinal use.

So now I’d like to sum up New Zealand First’s position on this bill. We support the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. We support the aim to reduce the pain and suffering of those afflicted with terminal illness. We believe the bill reflects the values of many New Zealanders, and it balances compassion and the obvious legal problems with a very reasonable approach. We support the decision to allow only CBD and not THC. We do not support blanket legalisation of all cannabis. We point to the overwhelming evidence of the harms of THC to our country, specifically to our developing youth, and the harm of drug-driving. We hope, though, that the scientific community provides more research. With better understanding comes better application of sensible laws, and we support the approach of a regulatory body to produce standards for domestic production and imported medicines.

So we believe that this bill will take a small step, not a giant leap, and New Zealand First will support this bill, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. Kia ora koutou.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. The speaker who has just sat down, Jenny Marcroft, is absolutely right. There’s been so much discussion about this issue and about this bill, that some of the things that we’ve talked about tonight, that we expected to see in the bill, aren’t there.

During the 2017 election, Labour actively campaigned on introducing legislation, and I quote what they said, “Legislation to make medicinal cannabis available for people with terminal illness and those in chronic pain.” When asked on one of the TV debates, the leader Jacinda Ardern—she was asked, “Would Labour legalise cannabis for medicinal use?” And what did she say? “Absolutely; yes.”

But this bill, which was rushed through so it could get into the 100 days, so that Labour could say they’ve got some runs on the board, so that they could be seen to be trying to keep their election promises, does neither of these things. And it’s actually contrary to the Minister’s statements. It does not make cannabis available for people with terminal illnesses and it certainly doesn’t even attempt to consider people with chronic pain—absolutely not.

All it does is create a statutory defence for the possession and use of illicit cannabis by people who are terminally ill and expected by the doctors to die within 12 months. But that doesn’t make medicinal cannabis legal. It doesn’t address access. It doesn’t address availability. It doesn’t address the quality of the product. And it certainly doesn’t address affordability. It doesn’t even provide a legal way for terminally ill patients to get the medicines that they require.

What it does do is to say that if you’re terminally ill—very, very ill—and you can manage to negotiate to purchase and possess cannabis, the State won’t convict you. This bill has been rushed. It’s ill-thought-out. It’s all about feel-good, but it will make very little difference to the status quo, and it is certainly not what the Labour Party promised. In fact, the Dominion Post, in their editorial, called it “a halfway house of legal and moral horrors”, and I agree.

It’s no wonder that campaigners who believed Labour’s election rhetoric have been hugely disappointed by the outcome, especially because the bill completely ignores anyone who needs medicinal cannabis for pain relief or any other specific purposes—in fact, anyone that’s not in their last year of life. Of course, the vast majority of people who want this option are certainly not dying right now. Campaigners would rather see a wider definition—a definition that includes those with on-going severe or debilitating conditions, as well as the terminally ill, and I would support that. From my experience of working in the disability sector, the needs of those people should be included.

The other two parts of the bill really have no real effect for anybody who wants medicinal cannabis right now. There is an intention to set up a medical cannabis scheme, but absolutely no detail—the work hasn’t been done—and then there’s the confirmation of the regulations that were passed last year that cannabinoids are no longer considered a controlled drug. So National does support this bill, but sees it for what it is: an interim measure; a stop-gap. It’s no real hard solution. There’s much more research to be done and much more work that is needed.

Just listening to the discussion in the House, nobody wants people to be in pain as they die, and this bill, while untidy and ineloquent, is a step forward. But what we really need, and what we were falsely promised, is far more far-reaching legislation—legislation that tackles legal supply, quality of product, affordability, and particularly a mechanism that appropriately matches patients with medicinal needs. Just loosening up the availability of illegal loose leaf, which isn’t quality controlled and is often smoked—which is another health hazard—doesn’t cut the mustard.

The key, of course, is to separate and utilise the cannabidiol, which has the potential therapeutic effect, from the THC, which has the psychoactive component, and for that we need a lot more research and work. So National sees this bill as a tentative step in the right direction, and I support it to go to select committee, where we might beat it into some sort of shape. Kia ora.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill.

This is an issue that is very close to my heart. As health spokesperson for the Green Party, I spent most of 2017 campaigning to legalise the medicinal use of cannabis. As part of that campaign, I met with and spoke with many, many patients who are currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, who are currently forced to break the law in order to get relief that has been far greater for them than what is commonly prescribed. It has fewer side effects, and it should be something that is affordable and available, legal and safe.

The more one looks into the issue, the more it is completely unfathomable that we have, for so long, denied patients access to what is a low-key, effective, and very safe plant that can reduce serious symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, and migraines; that can reduce nausea and stimulate appetite; that can assist with sleep—and all of that with far fewer harmful side effects than many legally available and commonly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.

Last year I met a man who has been paralysed for nearly 20 years due to a spinal cord injury, and he’s been bedridden most of that time. He was on a huge cocktail of expensive, prescribed pharmaceutical drugs that left him in a fog and pretty much incapacitated him. Many of the drugs that he was taking led to other harmful side effects, which led to a series of other complications. Now his life had been completely transformed by a group of very kind and compassionate New Zealanders who put themselves at risk to illegally supply him with medicinal cannabis products, which had enabled him to stop taking as many pharmaceutical drugs and to be much more aware and engaged with his friends and family. When you see that first hand, it’s extremely difficult to understand why it is we continue to take a very punitive approach to this one particular plant, cannabis. It doesn’t make any sense.

Now, I want to be clear that the medicinal use of cannabis—because many people are confused about this—does not involve smoking weed, and it certainly doesn’t involve smoking it to get high. I met, through my campaign, a number of women, for example—some of whom are patients themselves—who were producing a range of products at home using very precise recipes. These products included cannabidiol (CBD) oil, tincture of cannabis, balms, which you just rub on your skin that relieve pain, and a range of edible products like chocolate, cookies, brownies, butter—usually with strains of the cannabis plant that are very high in CBD.

These products are currently illegal, but they have been legal in overseas jurisdictions for more than a decade, and so we have plenty of evidence that they are safe, and they would be even more safe if they were able to be regulated. Some may say, “Oh, but they’re home-made. The dosages of THC and CBD may vary slightly. Don’t we need a pharma-grade product that we can purchase from the chemist?” Of course, the actual quantities of CBD and THC could be tested well enough without it being pharma-grade, but it’s notable that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have legalised the medicinal use of cannabis have not relied simply upon pharmaceutical-grade products, which are very expensive and still have a lot of research to be done.

Canada and 29 US states have legalised the medicinal use of cannabis, beginning about 20 years ago in some of them. Those laws allow for home cultivation and production, and they have rules around it about the number of plants that patients are allowed to grow, or who’s allowed to grow them on behalf of the patients. They also have laws that have set up standards for commercial products that recognise that cannabis is a safe herbal remedy, and while there will doubtless be a role for pharma-grade medicines, particularly for very precise issues like treating children for seizures where you do need very specific dosages, most of the medicinal use currently happening illegally in New Zealand is by adults. Many of them—in fact, I think the largest share of them—are women who are between the ages of 40 and 65, and they’re using it for conditions like chronic pain, and pain treatment is very subjective. It’s the sort of thing that people simply work out with their doctors. It’s a trial and error process. The specific dosage isn’t that important, because there is no risk of fatal overdose, and that is quite contrary to many of the alternative products that are available to them, like prescription painkillers or sleeping aids.

Now, the good news about this bill, and why the Green Party is happy to support it, is that it will set up a medicinal cannabis scheme, and despite what the National Party members have been saying tonight in their speeches, this goes way further than anything they did in the nine years they were in Government. So, finally, we will be able to have domestic cultivation and production of the types of non-pharmaceutical grade medicinal cannabis products that have been available overseas for over a decade. This should make them more accessible and affordable to many patients, provided they have a prescription from a registered medical practitioner. And it will, of course, support a new sustainable industry in New Zealand, and will enable the possibility of advanced research that could lead to more pharmaceutical-grade products being available. So this is very much a step in the right direction, and the Green Party will be supporting it for that reason.

However, as has been noted by many National Party members, this bill does not go far enough to protect patients and enable choice, and so I look forward to many of the members who spoke tonight on this bill voting for the Green Party’s member’s bill in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick tomorrow, which does go that step further. Fundamentally, the medicinal use of cannabis should not be a crime, and what happens in this bill is there is a legal defence, so if somebody is taken to court on their deathbed, they’ll be able to plead not guilty on the basis—or plead for a compassionate approach because they’re on their deathbed.

But what about that man I told you about that has been bedridden for 20 years? He wouldn’t be able to plead such a defence, nor would the people supplying him with products. Many, many people wrote to me during the campaign last year and told me about their specific circumstances. Some of them were patients who suffered from multiple sclerosis, who have been using cannabis illegally, again, for the last year or two, who have to deal in the black market, who have to rely on other people sometimes to take their own safety into their own hands and be at risk because they have to deal on the black market. So this defence—it isn’t enough. That’s why I would plead to all members in this House to seriously consider voting for Chlöe Swarbrick’s member’s bill tomorrow so that it can go to select committee and be heard.

My partner’s 96-year-old grandmother told us last year that she remembered going to the chemist in Milford in the 1930s to pick up her mother’s prescription for cannabis and lighting it for her to inhale to alleviate her asthma. There was never good evidence to make this type of medicinal use illegal. Instead, it was a moral panic in the middle of the 20th century that was led by the United States to make cannabis illegal. And that restricted the ability, for nearly a century, for scientists and medical professionals to properly study the potential health applications of this very useful plant. What we do know is that it is broadly safe. There’s no risk of fatal overdose, there’s very low risk of physical dependency, and it’s a far better alternative, for some people, to what is currently available as a pharmaceutical product.

I thank the Government parties for at least making progress on this issue. I hope that this House will seriously consider taking an approach that is modelled on the successful approach that has been adopted in other jurisdictions and proven to work, which is simply to no longer criminalise the medicinal use of cannabis. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Happy New Year. It’s great to be back. It’s great to see you back in the seat this year. My intention is not to take up too much of the House’s time. It’s clear that there is a lot of support for this bill. I just want to point out a few key points, for me, that, as a member of the Health Committee—if it does go to that select committee, which I’m assuming it will—I would like to explore a bit further.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark. I wish him well this term for his endeavours in the health portfolio. It is something that’s dear to a lot of people’s hearts, quite rightly, in New Zealand. When I used to work in the UK, they used to say that the Brits didn’t really have much of an affinity to religion other than soccer and the National Health Service (NHS). I’m not sure we are as fanatical about our district health boards as they are of the NHS, but it sure elicits a lot of emotion, and quite rightly, because we are talking about people’s health and their well-being.

This debate is about severing a somewhat highly charged debate around recreational use as against medicinal use. What I’d like to explore in the select committee is around this term “medicinal cannabis”. There’s a lot of thought out there about whether cannabis can go through the process that other medicines do. Can it truly be measured around efficacy and effect or is it just a cannabis product? I’m looking forward to exploring that.

What we do in the broader cannabis debate—we’ve got one side that says, you know, “It’s all bad.”; we’ve got one side that says, “It never hurt me; I’ve been smoking all my life.” The answer is probably in the middle, really—and it’s understanding that, in fact, it’s quite a circular argument but we can learn.

My feeling is we should proceed very cautiously around any liberalisation of cannabis, even in the medical realm. We should proceed cautiously because there is still very little evidence. But, in saying that, we don’t need to be doing things in isolation. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Nowadays there is a lot of international policy that we can be learning from, and there is an accruing field of international evidence. I really do hope in the select committee that we will have time to start to understand other jurisdictions and where they’ve moved and what we can learn from that.

I’m not too sure when it says in the bill that “measures are intended to approve access to medicinal cannabis and are guided by the principles of fairness, quality … safety, and compassion.” I think the pure fact that they have to reference the Government’s 100-day plan multiple times in the start of the bill—I think this is more about a bill that’s trying to fit into the box of the 100-day plan. In fact, it’s probably quite hurried, it’s quite rushed, and, in fact, I think the Government could have actually said, “We don’t have it right, here. We could’ve waited a bit longer.” But, of course, they’ve got the 100-day plan and they want to comply to that and—you know, perception’s reality, and it’s all looking good, but I think it’s going to have to be knocked round a lot more in select committee.

I want to drill down a bit more around this issue around chronic pain. There seems to be a bit conflicting advice—you know, it’s not going to operate in the chronic pain area—around the lack of a definition, but when you look at Ministry of Health guidelines, there is terminology around severe or debilitating conditions that could be used rather than the terminal 12-month mark at the moment. So I’d really like to explore the chronic pain bit a bit more. Of course, the diagnosis of 12-months’ terminal illness is going to be problematic in itself. How do you accurately reflect when someone is in the last year of their life?

I’d also like to hear from the police in the select committee. It sounds like they have said that it’s essential the provisions are workable—I did read that somewhere—and, quite rightly. I think we are going to set up a situation where, potentially, it might take more resource of police time to fully investigate whether someone has a valid defence of why they are using cannabis at this time.

As you can hear there are a lot more questions. It feels like the bill will be passed tonight, and I’m looking forward, through the select committee process, to really knock this bill into shape, which, potentially, it should have come to the House in in the first place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Dr Liz Craig—five minute call.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thanks, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to be speaking on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, which is going to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

In speaking, I would like to acknowledge a wonderful colleague known to many of us, and that was Helen Kelly. In the months before she died in 2016, of cancer, she shared her journey with many of us in New Zealand. I think in that way, she became a very powerful advocate for medicinal cannabis, because what she found is that, even though she was on strong opiates, it was really only with cannabis that she could become pain free.

In the last few weeks, I’ve been contacted by quite a large number of people, as have many of us. Many of them don’t actually have a terminal illness; what they’ve got is chronic neurological conditions: you know, spinal injuries, cerebral palsy—either sharing what’s happening to them or their families. A lot of them have been sharing the fact that their standard pain relief is not working and the transformational effects of having access to cannabis.

I was particularly touched by a gentleman who contacted me yesterday. He was talking about the fact that he’d been prescribed morphine, he’d been prescribed tramadol—a whole lot of class A drugs. None of them were working and he was just getting lots and lots of side effects, and so he was using cannabis. He was saying that using cannabis relieved his pain for three to five hour blocks at a time. Some of the language he was using: “and then just the pain returning, the pain that won’t stop day or night.” What he was also talking about was just that whole stress of having to get his family to go out and access that cannabis for him, and the difficulty that was creating. And, again, talking about them risking their freedom “being taken away for me and my pain”. So this is a real issue that we need to do something about.

This bill will go a long way towards addressing this issue. The first thing it’s going to do is it’s going to create that overarching regulatory environment, so that we can put in place standards for the production of medicinal cannabis. That means that users will have access to high-quality product.

The other thing is that we’ve got this world-wide shortage of usable cannabis, because the problem is it’s really hard to do big, randomised control trials in overseas countries where cannabis is actually illegal. So we’re actually operating in an environment where we’ve not got the actual evidence base that a lot of other drugs have in terms of a pure agent and its effectiveness and being able to do trials where you withhold it or give it to one group or another.

What this bill will do is it will give manufacturers a clear set of standards so they can have confidence that if they invest in their research and development and they meet those standards, they can actually have a product that’s marketable. In that way, it will open up the doors for us to create a domestic manufacturing base so that we can get on and grow but then manufacture standard cannabis products.

The other thing it’ll do is it’ll amend schedule 2 of the Act so that cannabidiol is no longer classified as a controlled drug but just as a prescription medicine. Some of that’s already been addressed in the regulations, but this then just sorts out the legislative side of it. And, while not specifically mentioned in the bill itself, within that regulatory environment the plan is to set up an advisory committee, and that advisory committee will be doctors, nursing staff, users, and stakeholders really having a look at how we then prescribe in an effective and safe way in terms of how we move forward.

But the problem we’ve got is it’ll take a little while to get this set up. I think Australia’s doing something similar, and it’s taken them just over two years to get to a point where they might have some product on the market. And so in the meantime the bill introduces a statutory defence for terminally ill people, so that if they are using illicit cannabis they don’t have that fear of prosecution for what they’re doing in terms of pain relief. I guess the question, though, that has come a lot up a lot is: does this bill go far enough? Because it confers those protections for those who are terminally ill, so likely to pass away in the next year—but my question is—when we get select committee, I’d like to have a look at whether we can expand that to those with chronic neurological conditions, cerebral palsy, and some of those other severe conditions, and consider whether there’s evidence enough to be able to extend those protections to them.

So I think it’s a very good bill. It takes it a lot further than we’ve been to date, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Simon O’Connor—a five-minute call.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I’m pleased to take a call on this Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. Look, it’s no surprise to the House that I’m opposed to recreational use of cannabis, which is why, actually, I support, at this first reading, this bill. I support this bill for a very particular reason to go to select committee in the first reading: because if it’s done right the bill actually has the potential to clearly delineate between recreational, effectively, pot smoking—for whatever good reason or intention or otherwise—and cannabinols that are used in a proper medical fashion.

The key part of the bill that the Hon Dr David Clark’s put forward, and why it gets my support, again, at this stage, is it seeks to set up a proper regulated framework for using cannabinols. I’m not going to get into all the technicalities. I know a lot of people are throwing out the various acronyms, and so forth. I don’t think we should be bamboozled by them; in fact, I encourage people to go and look at them closely—but we are talking particularly about cannabinols. So what we want here is a framework that treats this product—this plant—like any other real medicine, and I want to put on the record that there is absolutely nothing exceptional about cannabis compared to any other plant that we derive pharmaceutical products from.

So, as I say, we have a real opportunity here, Minister, to be able to create a proper framework, because real medicine works in a scientific framework. It’s a framework that’s rational. It’s repeatable. It’s measurable. As I say, it’s a framework that’s scientific. It’s medical. It’s pharmacological. It’s a framework that does not, and never does, accept anecdotes and hearsay. It’s a framework where quality and quantity are accurately known, where medicine is properly dispensed and titrated. Put, perhaps, simply in another way, putting the word “medicinal” in front of something doesn’t make it a medicine, OK? There is a medicinal LSD push in the UK at the moment, and I may have joked somewhat to Green Party members that “medical meth” is really good for depression—briefly!

So if we are to develop, Minister, a regulated framework where cannabinols are treated like any other proper medicine, in the rational, reasonable, scientific sense, then I think we’re on to a winner. I suspect the Minister knows that already, as do those who have worked in the health field, because we have the likes of Sativex and Tilray, and they’re making a real difference in really particular areas. If that’s not where this bill goes—if we fall into, effectively, a deliberate delusion that is using the suffering of some to justify the recreational pot use of others—then we are in, I would suggest, a rather abusive situation. As I’ve said before, you don’t smoke medicine any more than you huff ibuprofen. So we do have an opportunity here. I commend the Minister for bringing this. There are multiple problems, I would suggest, with a whole lot of elements in the bill, but this particular area, the opportunity to create a proper medical, pharmacological framework, is a real opportunity for people.

I suspect my final comment may be out of scope not so much of this reading but of the bill. It comes down to funding what’s already out there. There are proper medical, pharmacological products out there in the cannabinol space. Getting access to those through funding is probably the first pragmatic step in moving down the line of just making this particular, non-exceptional plant available.

Let’s take what is out there already, the likes of the Tilrays and the Sativexes—I’d better be clear. I don’t have any particular links to those products: they’re ones that are accepted at the moment. Let’s find the funding for those. And I’ve been out in the community over the last few years, when I was chair of the Health Committee. It was one of the things that was very clearly articulated: let’s have the funding for it first. So on that very particular point—that we have a framework potential here to be developed—I support this bill to select committee, and will follow it closely.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Happy New Year to you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to stand and take a call on this, the first conscience vote of 2018. Indeed, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill is part of one of those polarising conversations. We heard it throughout the elections. Weed, pot, dak, reefer, hunas, buds, spliffs, cones, Mary Jane, marijuana, and cannabis—drop those words into a conversation at a dinner party and note the division at the table. However, this bill is not about the decriminalisation of marijuana. Wherever people sit in that debate, that is not what we’re discussing today. The Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill is about a very specific set of people using cannabis and cannabinoids. This bill provides a sensible step intended to provide improved access to medicinal cannabis for those that are terminally ill.

This bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and we’ve heard this. This bill amends the Act by defining cannabinoids, or CBD, as no longer classed as a controlled drug. I googled “cannabinoid oil”—and I knew I was going to have trouble saying that—and, my goodness, there’s a huge body of information on this product. I agree across the floor that we have insufficient evidence at present. However, it looks hopeful that we have a drug to support those who are terminally ill. This bill also defines what cannabinoid, or CBD, is. There’s four parts to that, and each of those four parts must be included in order for a cannabinoid to actually be a medicinal drug. That, as we’ve heard about, is the medicinal, non-psychoanalytic. In legal terms, therefore, cannabinoid is defined cumulatively in four sections.

Before we get to that product, we need to look at the situation right now, however. Before we get there, we need to look at what we need to do now. The second definition in this bill is incredibly important. This is where the users of cannabis are defined. This bill provides, we have heard, that those who are terminally ill—in this context those persons who can reasonably expect to die within 12 months—are able to use this product. I, like every person here today, would not like to be in that position, and we’ve heard some of those stories today. We do not want to see these people criminalised in the last year of their life. The Labour position—having listened to the community, we have adopted a compassionate view that people who are suffering from terminal illness need access to medicinal cannabis to alleviate their suffering. This is fair. This is the right thing to do, and I believe across the floor we have agreement on that. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness and wishes to use, they can access this form of pain relief. Always remember, taking CBD or cannabis products is the choice of that person who is terminally ill.

This bill also addresses the care of the terminally ill in the near future. This bill makes it clear that you are no longer going to be criminally liable for smoking or using marijuana products. This bill, therefore, gives (a) a defence for the possession of cannabis products, and (b) a defence for the possession of utensils. Please note, however, budding growers out there in Aotearoa, this bill does not make it legal to supply cannabis. We’ve had and heard that.

So, therefore, this bill needs some serious consideration. This is a weighty matter, and I urge members to support this bill to select committee so democracy can be served with people able to have their say. I note also that I sit on the select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, and I commend the Minister. Good on David Clark for bringing it to the House.

I pose the simple question: why shouldn’t a dying person be able to smoke a little dope? What is the gain for the rest of New Zealand in trying to stop them? Because that’s been the policy of New Zealand for quite a long time—60, 70, 80 years now.

I think you can assess any policy by asking three simple questions: what is the intention of the policy, how effective has it been, and what have the unintended consequences been? Well, the effect of prohibiting dying people from smoking cannabis has been ineffective. The intent is to prevent people from smoking cannabis. Well, the effectiveness of it has been almost useless. We know that many, many people in New Zealand smoke cannabis in spite of the law, and we know that many dying people with terminal illnesses also smoke cannabis, so it’s been ineffective. But when it really falls down is when you start to examine the unintended effects of a prohibition on dying people smoking cannabis.

What it’s meant, as we’ve heard from earlier speakers, is that they have to deal with the black market—that they create demand for black market production, that they fund criminal elements in the process of acquiring the cannabis that they smoke, and that they create a product that is more concentrated than it would otherwise be. There’s an incentive for illegal smugglers to create more concentrated products that are easier to smuggle for the value they provide—that’s why the prohibition in the US gave us moonshine, incidentally—and they provide products that are more dangerous because the people supplying them, well, they don’t exactly comply with the Consumer Guarantees Act and they don’t usually give refunds.

So we have a policy on the statute book of New Zealand that prohibits dying people from smoking cannabis and, in the process, is completely ineffectual in achieving its stated aim and, at the same time, forces people to go on to the black market, which they fund—enlarging the criminal sphere—to acquire products that are more highly concentrated and more impure and dangerous than they would otherwise need to be.

I think it’s fair to say that the prohibition on dying people smoking a little dope is nuts. And it’s the right thing to do for this House to be removing that prohibition and, at the same time, introducing a framework that allows people to access that drug of choice, in that circumstance, in a safe and legal way. This makes us a better society in so many ways—not just the compassion for those people who are suffering, but the erosion of the criminal sphere that is forced, by definition, to supply this product.

But the thing about politics is that once you accept the principle, suddenly you find yourself having to ask other questions. And an obvious question in the context of this bill is: why do you have to be dying—not just suffering but dying—in order to access cannabis, which has been accepted, if you support the bill, to be something therapeutic for people in certain conditions.

Why is it that it seems, under this bill, New Zealanders get up to one year of smoking cannabis if they develop a terminal illness? What about all of those people who all the same principles I’ve discussed tonight already apply to? What about those people with chronic illnesses who tell us—and it’s up them to decide; not up to Medsafe, or the Food and Drug Administration, or anyone else to decide—that smoking cannabis alleviates their symptoms? Why don’t we consider, at the select committee stage, expanding the scope of this bill to include people with long-term chronic illnesses that may not be terminal in 12 months?

Maybe people should vote for another bill on members’ day, tomorrow night. But, for now, the ACT Party proudly stands in support of this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I just wish to take a short call. I acknowledge that this is within the 100-day plan, and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and the Minister of Health on bringing it forward.

I also acknowledge that, while this wasn’t National Party policy, this side of the House is, in principle, supporting this legislation. And while I’ve heard a lot—and I acknowledge the leader of the ACT Party in his recent comments, because I agree with him—there is a lot of, in this bill, talk about compassionate grounds, and we’ve heard other speakers talking about cancer and suffering. But, actually, this bill does not deal with what I’m most concerned about on top of that, which is pain release from seizures and other things that people have on an ongoing basis.

So, Minister Clark, as you sit here in the House and, as the bastion to nurse this through select committee, I think we have a unique opportunity here where every single party in this House actually supports the essence of this legislation and we should use the select committee process to get it right. And I think you can probably get the whole House’s support if we can find a way of allowing for medical marijuana to be used for chronic pain relief, as well as on compassionate grounds. And I think various colleagues have spoken about treating this as another medicine, and I think that’s how we should look at it. I’m very moved by anecdotal evidence of the difference it can make to certain types of suffering.

As a newbie coming into this House, I’m going to watch with interest how this particular bill goes through the select committee and how it comes out the other end, because I am optimistic that we can find a solution that all parties will support. I think—to the Minister—if the select committee does its job properly, we can have a medical cannabis scheme and we can deliver medical marijuana in a very cost-effective way.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to the bill going through the select committee process.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. What an incredibly special piece of legislation to be speaking on in this concluding speech on the medicinal cannabis law reform bill. I want to commend my colleague Dr David Clark for bringing this law reform to the House.

And, just for our knowledge, the call for law reform came in 2011. Our Law Commission, recommendation 134, in a report titled Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 actually highlighted that, as a Parliament, we needed to address this issue. So our law reform will enable us to join countries such as Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, half the US states, and, from two years ago, New South Wales and Victoria.

The interesting thing about the law reform as it stood within those countries has also been the development of economic opportunities. So by 2025, the medicinal cannabis export market is tipped to be valued at nearly $60 billion. So there are opportunities that come from this piece of legislation in addition to what we’re trying to do, which is to provide a remedy for people who have terminal conditions where, actually, cannabis is providing the relief that they need to exist, to live with chronic pain, and to live with a circumstance that is incredibly debilitating. I have to admit that I have lived in a household with someone who had a chronic condition and they had to have marijuana almost on a daily basis to be able to exist. That person worked full-time; they participated fully in society, but for them to get a decent night’s sleep, actually, they had to use marijuana. There wasn’t anything else that could mitigate the devastating consequences of their particular illness.

So in preparing for the debate tonight, I looked at when there was the first recorded mention of cannabis in any form of encyclopaedia, and I found a reference. It was published in 2700 BC, and it was an encyclopaedia by the Emperor Shen Neng called The Great Herbal. I was talking to my colleague Raymond Huo about it. The classification of cannabis as a medicinal plant, as a medicinal, medical, and therapeutic tool—in cough syrups, as a digestive aid, as a pain killer—actually, throughout our history, is recorded. It was only in the 1930s that we changed that designation and there was a prohibition. In addition to cannabis, there was a prohibition on opiates. But the reality of cannabis is that it has historically been used and recognised for its medicinal qualities.

I think the problem that we all have today is that some people don’t use it as a medicinal tool or a medicinal aid. Some people do like using it for recreational issues and for spiritual purposes or whatever, and it’s not medicinal in nature. I think it’s really important to focus on the purpose of this piece of legislation and the purpose of using cannabis as a medicinal tool. I noted some of the comments by my colleague Simon O’Connor, and I know that as a previous chair of the Health Committee they addressed a petition under the name of William Rea—remember that petition?

So this Parliament has actually dedicated quite a bit of time to that Law Commission recommendation, to the call from the public, and now we have a Government and a Minister who has responded, and we have prioritised this issue. So we make no—what’s the right word? We’re really proud that it was included in our 100-day plan. Some people may criticise us for that and say this isn’t a priority, but the reality is it is a priority, and for us to stand with people in our community, those with terminal illnesses who need the support of this product, I think, is incredibly important for them.

We have heard about people who have got multiple sclerosis, we’ve heard about people who’ve got dilating blood vessels, and there are issues about people who have bone growth issues, and medicinal cannabis does provide a protection for damaged brain cells, it does interfere with certain types of cancer cells, it prevent seizures, and it controls muscle spasticity. There are so many remedies and treatments—or ailments, I should say—that medicinal cannabis is effective for that it just seems, you know, beyond time that this Parliament is actually addressing this issue.

I did manage to find one piece of clinical research, and it was from a Canadian study. The researcher was Dr Mark Ware, who’s also an associate professor from McGill University in Montreal. What they did was they looked at how marijuana could relieve chronic nerve pain—so, people who had injuries, people who had undergone surgeries—and the reality of the evidence was that having three puffs of this product, this cannabinoid product, reduced pain and people were able to sleep better. So anybody who actually has any issues about cannabis being used as a medicinal aid really needs look at the evidence.

From what I’ve heard in the House tonight, there seems to be general consensus about the issue. I certainly look forward, as a member of the Health Committee, to hearing the evidence. I’m pretty hopeful that the Parliament will pass this issue, because, like many people, I have watched and heard from people who are most affected by a lack of access to medicinal cannabis.

One of the things I did want to highlight in my contribution was that the Australians have now approved for their cannabinoid or their medicinal cannabis products to be exported, and that was literally on 5 January. So if people are worried about a supply, then they need not be, because we have access just across the Tasman, and it’s one of the things I think we should be collaborating with our Australian cousins on, because they have an aspiration to be the number one medicinal cannabis supplier in the world, and I do think there’s an opportunity for us to collaborate and work with them.

I just wanted to highlight that we do have some clinical trials being undertaken in New Zealand, in Ruatōria, by Hikurangi Hemp. It’s a medical research project. I think their products are about to be harvested in the next couple of months, and by the end of this year they are hoping that they will have a product that you spray, pretty much like Sativex, that can be used in our own market, that’s home-grown, and that we can export to the rest of the world. Jan Logie and I were talking earlier, because Manu Caddie I think has gone on Facebook—it’s a crowdfunding initiative, and they’re asking for different flavours. But the innovation and the opportunity that this piece of legislation provides also provides that broader context and that broader ability for us to stand up in the world and contribute to what is an emerging and growing issue.

I think that natural products and the whole alternative to pharmaceutical products is another issue that we all should think seriously about, and if we want to talk about regional development opportunities, this is potentially one of those.

So I won’t delay the debate much longer, and I really look forward, with my colleagues, to hearing from New Zealanders. So this is a plea: please make submissions, please talk about the relevance of this legislation to you personally, to your family and friends, but also let’s highlight the potential opportunities that now sit before us as a nation. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This is a very good day for the teaching profession in New Zealand. This Government has a clear vision for teaching and the profession in New Zealand. It is a vision of a profession that is high-quality, that is highly trusted, and that is highly respected—one that enables our children and young people to thrive and that supports them in doing so. To achieve this vision, we know that the teachers and the Government need to work together in partnership. We know that teaching is a collaborative process, and therefore we need to recognise that in the way the profession is regulated.

This bill is yet another step in our quest to build on that partnership. The council’s purpose, as defined by law, is to ensure safe and high-quality leadership, teaching, and learning for children and young people in early childhood education, in primary schools, in intermediate schools, and in secondary schools. The council has a role to raise the status of the teaching profession and ensure that quality teaching is a guarantee for young New Zealanders.

In my view, the name of the council should reflect that very purpose. This was something that the profession itself expressed very strongly when the former National Government established the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. Overwhelmingly, the profession that is regulated by the council wanted to see the name “teaching” reflected in the name of the organisation, and this bill delivers on that. We have listened to the profession. We know that they want to be recognised as the teaching profession, and therefore we will be ensuring that the name of the Education Council is changed to the Teaching Council to reflect that.

To some extent, the Education Council was somewhat misleading, because the Education Council does not regulate all of the educators. It does not regulate many, many parts of the education workforce. It does regulate the teaching profession. That is its job, and that is the title that should be used, so we will change that name. The council has a role to raise the status of the profession, and, as I mentioned, we need to work in partnership with teachers, but teachers also need to play their part in that vision being realised by being positive ambassadors for their profession and supporting the vision of teaching as a positive, rewarding, and valued career choice. It is much more difficult to get teachers to buy into that when they don’t have any say or democratic control over that organisation. It is one of the few professions that we do that to, and we’re going to change that with this bill.

When the Education Council was created, the then National Government made the decision that the Minister would appoint all nine members to the governing body of the council. We don’t do that for nurses, lawyers, doctors, or many other professions, and, in fact, I can recall a debate in this Parliament when the then Labour Government was regulating real estate agents and the then National Opposition went to great lengths to ensure that real estate agents had the ability to elect their own representatives. I think it says everything about that former Government’s priorities that they were willing to die in a ditch to ensure real estate agents get to elect their representatives but not teachers. This bill changes that, and for the better.

This bill changes the composition of the Education Council from its existing nine members to a total of 13 members. Seven of those will be elected. The majority of them will be elected by the professions. We have designated positions for primary and secondary and early childhood educators, a position each for the teachers, and a position each for the leadership of those professions—so principals or leaders in early childhood education—and we have a position set aside for teacher educators, because, again, they are an integral part of the partnership that goes into building a high-quality, highly trusted, and highly respected profession. The balance of the membership—the six remaining members—will be appointed by the Minister. That is important because we want to ensure that we get a diversity of representation and a diversity of views on the council. By allowing the Minister to appoint the balance of the members, we allow for any representational deficits that might come out of the election to be remedied, and we do give the Government some ability to still have an interest in what is the partnership. But we are recognising, in the make-up of the council—seven elected representatives; six from Government—that the balance should tip in favour of the profession, in favour of the democratic representation of the members who are being regulated by this bill.

It’s important to remember that this organisation has the ability to levy members—effectively, to tax teachers. At the moment, the Education Council, as it is now known, is going through a consultation process on what their fees should be, and they are proposing a significant increase in the registration fees for the teaching profession. What remedy do teachers have if they disagree with that? At the moment, they have none, because they have no say over who governs them. Under this bill, if they are dissatisfied with the decisions made by their representatives, they will be able to replace, through a democratic election, more than half of the council. So, in many ways, this is about allowing the council to have the respect and mana within the profession it regulates to do the job that it is there to do effectively. How can the body build the status of the profession if it does not have the support of that profession? And we know that that is currently the case.

The council has done some very good work, and I want to pay tribute to the current members of the council and to Graham Stoop, who is the current leader of the organisational side of the council. They have gone to great lengths to build the trust and confidence of the profession, and they have done some good first steps. For example, the work that they have done around changing the registered teacher criteria is, I think, a positive development. I think the work that they are doing now around looking at the quality and value of initial teacher education and how we can ensure teachers are better prepared for the classroom when they finish their initial teacher training—those are things that the council should take a leadership role in, they are taking a leadership role in, and their ability to do so will be strengthened if the profession itself feels a greater sense of ownership over the work of that council.

An election is not too much to ask for the teaching profession. It is not going to be the be all and end all of this work. This is a first step—it’s actually not even a first step; we’ve already taken steps prior to this, but it is another step on what will be a long journey towards building the status of the teaching profession.

I want to make just a word of caution to members on the other side who, in previous debates on this matter, have accused members on this side of the House of being union lackeys, among other things, and talking about our union mates, as Nikki Kaye has done in the past. I want to remind the aspiring Leader of the Opposition, who already seems to have assumed the position, that, to them, they may be our “union mates”; to us, they are teachers, and no Government can achieve what it is setting out to achieve in the education system without having teachers on side.

Teachers are the people who work with young people, who work with children every day to help them realise their dreams and aspirations. We stand side by side with teachers, we back the profession, and we’re willing to trust and respect this profession in a way that the previous Government were never willing to do.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to stand and speak to this piece of legislation. The first thing I’d like to say is I actually agree with the last comments of the Minister, whereby he talked about the value of the profession, and I think many members in this House will remember fondly the impact that their teachers have made in their life, but where we want to disagree with the member is that we also respect history, and I want that member to go back and read the workforce advisory report and the report around the convicted sex offender that led to the changes that the previous Government made around the Education Council. I went back and had two reads, actually, of the report, and I want to quote some things back to that member, because what he could’ve done—what he could have done—is come to the Opposition and had a conversation in terms of the composition of the council. We did not have that from the Minister. We didn’t have that reflection on history.

I want to remind him of who was on that workforce advisory group—John Morris, Pauline Winter—and that report was very powerful in terms of what it said and the reason that we had the change to a composition, skills-based body. It was really clear: now is the time for industrial advocacy organisations to back the support for the establishment of an independent body capable of self-regulation and self-review. That’s why we ended up in the situation where we created this independent body so that we could have and resolve—there were significant financial issues. There were issues around regulation. There were issues around review. That report goes through these significant issues.

That’s why we made the changes, and what the Minister could’ve done is come to the Opposition and said, “Let’s have that conversation, in terms of elected members versus a composition of a skills-based approach.” But we didn’t have that. So what we now have is a Minister that spends several minutes talking about the name change of this organisation, and this is his priority rather than recognising that the whole reason the body was created was to reflect that significant piece of work done by John Morris and people like Pauline Winter.

The second point I want to make today is that this is a case where it’s typical Labour Party. We are seeing an increase of this body to 13 members. I do want to acknowledge, though, that the member has kept the fact that there is not going to be all of the body elected. That is a positive move. I do want to acknowledge the fact that the member has also ensured that this body retains its statutory independence.

But I want also to take a moment to say: why would the member fix something that is not broken? We have had to bail out the Teachers Council, under the previous Government. We’ve had to make these changes. But I want to acknowledge Graham Stoop, and the member did acknowledge the existing Education Council. They are doing a fantastic job. They have proceeded in terms of the code of ethics and responsibility.

That work has happened. In fact, I just had a look at a number of their reports. They’ve submitted on a range of pieces of Government policy. They have had, I think, over 2,000 submissions. They’re doing incredible work, and they’re doing incredible work because they are focused on what is good leadership, what is good governance, and what is also good education policy. Again, they are born out of a significant piece of work that says the previous Teachers Council got into financial difficulty, didn’t have the ability to self-regulate, to properly self-review, and that’s how we ended up with this body.

We on this side do not believe the Government has made the case for this new composition via elected members. We think there was a significant piece of work done, including involving what was a convicted sex offender, to lead to the changes for the Education Council that we now have. We do not see the case in terms of spending more, when you’ve got precious education funds, on expanding the body to 13. We also think that the existing Education Council have proved that they are doing a stellar job by the engagement that they’ve had.

Finally, I do want to address again comments by the Minister. He’s made the point that they are consulting around fees, in terms of teachers. The point that I would make to the Minister, which he does understand—and if he was listening, he would acknowledge it—is that the previous Government has had to bail out the Teachers Council. That is one of the reasons why we are in this situation, and the reason why we now have this situation where teachers’ fees may be going up is that the last Government had to put in a significant amount of funding. I think that when we go out there and we talk, as we all do on the hustings, to nurses and to doctors, we should have a little bit of equality here. We should have a body that is able to fund itself, and that is part of the reason why we ended up making the governance changes, moving to a skills- and competency-based type of model. And I do think, finally, that it is incredibly telling that this is the piece of legislation that we have from the Minister first up off the bat.

We don’t have clarity around national standards. We don’t have clarity around what’s happening with the decile system. We have a whole group of children in partnership schools that have not a frickin’ clue about what their futures are. Instead, the Minister spends several minutes talking about the name change of a particular bill. In my view—and I will go back to the beginning of his speech if we want to talk about education priorities—it’s this side of the House that cares about some of our most disadvantaged kids in partnership schools. It’s this side of the House that cares about having financial viability. It’s this side of the House that wants an Education Council that has skills- and competency-based members. And to have the Minister, as his first piece of legislation, be dealing with this rather than some of the bigger issues in education is, I think, disappointing.

Finally, I do just want to acknowledge all of the teachers in New Zealand and also make the point that this isn’t about this side of the House not valuing input. In fact, actually the previous Minister, through the appointments process, had significant engagement, as I understand it, to ensure that we had a number of registered teachers on this Education Council. So I want to acknowledge what the previous Minister has done in that regard. Thank you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, I am absolutely excited and delighted to be speaking on this bill here today. In fact, I was just so excited all day that this was coming up because, as an educator of 28 years’ experience and having seen the lowest morale in the profession that I have ever seen over the past few years, this is the most important part of education at the moment. If we have a low morale in our workforce, then we have the biggest problem that we have. And we are addressing that as a Government here today, and that is why it is so exciting to be here and be speaking on this bill here today.

Along with the education amendment legislation that was set up, teachers have had to go through a lot in the last few years. They have had a lot taken from them, but they have persisted because they have believed in their profession and they have believed that they are always putting the learner at the centre and they believed in kids. But that has become harder and harder and harder. And, as a principal, the lowest point that I ever saw teachers get to was when the Education Council was set up under the Education Amendment Act 2015, a couple of years ago. It was a real kick to teachers. It was where teachers said, “The Government doesn’t care about us. We don’t matter to them anymore.”, and we felt low. As a teaching profession, we felt lower than low.

This was a punitive approach and seen as a punitive approach to control us as a teaching profession. But as any behavioural psychologist will advise, a punitive approach never brings out the best in anybody. In fact, it actually brings out the worst. Was that what we were after, as a country? I think not. Teachers want the best. I go back to it. Teachers want the best for their students. They want to always put the students at the centre. Teachers saw the establishment of the Education Council as a sign that the Government did not trust the teaching profession to have any role in governing itself, that the Government, at that time, saw the teaching profession as being inferior to other professions, who had a say in their governing bodies: professions such as doctors, lawyers, and nurses.

Why were teachers not afforded that same responsibility at the time? Every single teacher—every single teacher—can tell stories of how they have to defend their profession to people outside of teaching. One thing that we’ve always had going for us is that we knew the Government of the day, no matter what political stripes that Government had, always had the teachers’ back, until the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced, and that’s why morale got so low.

One such story that happened to me was quite some time ago—many years ago, in fact, near the beginning of my career. I was talking to a National MP at the time, who told me that he did not want his sons to become teachers. When I inquired why, thinking it was probably because of the safety around males in teaching, which is something that we were addressing at that time as well, he said “No, it’s because teaching’s not seen to be a good enough profession.” My answer to him at the time was “I love what I do. I am passionate about teaching. And you know what?”, I said to that person, “I can do what you’re doing. And you know what else? You can change that perception. You can do something about that.” Well, guess what? I’m doing what he’s doing and I am here today, and that’s why I’m so excited. Because we are not only taking a step to give democratic rights back to our teachers once again, we are actually taking a step to change the status of teaching here today. This is a step in the right direction to change the status for the better for our teaching profession.

Today, the Government has made a statement with this bill. Today, we say teachers matter. Today, this Government takes a step in raising that status and in letting the teaching profession know that we will work with them, not against them. Today, we let our teachers know that we trust them as professionals. We’ve heard our Minister, the Minister of Education, talk about partnership and working as partners with our teachers. Well, we are here today saying that we want to work as partners. We trust and respect the knowledge, but with that comes the aspect that in any good partnership you need to trust and respect the knowledge and skills that each member of the partnership brings. Teachers must trust us. We are going to pledge that you will be able to trust us. The teachers will be able to trust us, and we will trust the teachers.

But there comes a warning with the building of that partnership, and I have said this before. When we have such partnerships, there will be challenging times, because we would challenge each other and there will be times when we feel uncomfortable. But that is great, because any teacher will also tell any one of us in this room that the uncomfortable times bring out the best in our students, bring out the best in our learning. And the uncomfortable times in any partnership will bring out the best in our teaching profession and the best in this Government. I am looking forward to the journey that is ahead of us.

I can remember a quote a few years ago from Dr Jean Mitaera at a conference that I was at: “What we plant today [is] their harvest tomorrow.” What we are planting today is our children and future learners’ harvest tomorrow. Raising the status of the professions and the steps that we are taking today is how we are making things better and harvesting good learning outcomes for our children tomorrow. We are putting the learning needs of our children and our students firmly back into the centre.

Thirty-two years ago this week, I walked through the gates of Christchurch Teachers’ College. Four years after that, I graduated with my Bachelor of Education and my diploma in teaching, and I have been proud from that moment to call myself a teacher. No matter what journey I took in education, I have been incredibly proud to stand up and say, “I am a teacher.” The last few years have been difficult. They were the most difficult of my career because, suddenly, I didn’t feel valued.

I was proud to be a teacher. Today, I am exceptionally, exceptionally proud to be part of this Government, which is putting teachers back at the centre, and I am exceptionally proud that we are taking a journey from this moment to say that our teachers matter because we are putting trust and faith back in our teaching profession. We are going to reap the harvest with our learners and see better outcomes for our children. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this bill, which we won’t be supporting, but I listened with great interest to the speech of the previous speaker—Jan Tinetti—who talked about teachers being at the centre. I presume she meant the centre of the education system. I always thought it was the pupils who might also be at the centre of the education system, which is what we’re supposed to be focusing on, and growing them.

It sort of makes me reflect on this bill, which really is, to be honest, scraping the barrel somewhat. I came in and I went to have a look at this first piece of legislation from the new Minister of Education. I was expecting a rather thick, well-thought-out piece of legislation that the Government had produced, and I found this sort of three-page affair that looks like it’s been written on the back of an envelope prior to the election. It’s a member’s bill that has been found—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Good things come in small packages, Paul. You should know that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and it’s true. We don’t measure the quality of our legislation by the kilo, and this really takes that to the nth degree. So we have this—

Hon Chris Hipkins: It’ll be one more piece of legislation than you’ve managed to pass.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, that’s not true. Actually, I’ve had a number that have been passed. But anyway, you’re trying to divert me from what is a simple question where we have this little piece of legislation that’s been thrown together by an Opposition member. Really, he thought, “Well, what could I repeal that the National Government has done, and put it in a member’s bill?”, and he thought, “Oh yes, we can focus on rearranging the appointment process for the Teachers Council, because that’s a major issue.” And yeah, I’m sure it’s an issue of great interest to some people, but it’s probably not the No. 1 education issue confronting, certainly, parents of children who are starting school this week and they are very focused on very great outcomes. But that’s what we’ve got.

That is what we’ve been delivered here as a new Government bill—a member’s bill that’s been scraped from that, brought into the Government’s legislation, and presented as one of the things that they’re working on in their 100-day plan. It shows, to me, a Government that isn’t very well prepared for office. They have spent nine years in the wilderness in Opposition pointlessly and have arrived with very little in their bag in terms of detailed research about what they can be doing to deal with the big issues of the education sector, which are around continuing to raise achievement.

Obviously, everybody’s focused on getting back to school at the moment, and the question that keeps coming back to me from the community is: “Well, hang on a moment. I don’t remember people marching in the streets wanting to get rid of national standards, but they’ve gone.” We’ve heard these fine speeches about the partnership with teachers and the partnership and trust that this Government is going to develop, yet we didn’t get any sense of that partnership or that communication with the people who are at the school over whether or not they wanted to do away with national standards. It was just a fiat from high from this new—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can you come back to the bill, please.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sorry. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, I will, but I was really referring to the—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Or come to the bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there’s not much in the bill to talk about, really. I mean, it’s a very short piece of legislation that rearranges the appointment process for the Teachers Council and renames it, and that is the extent of it. So, at a time when we’ve got the new Government spending $2.8 billion on free education—and we’ve heard today that there are actually no new students coming as a result of it—this is what we’re talking about. We’re rearranging the appointment process for the teacher’s council and renaming it.

I personally think that’s a bit of a metaphor for this Government. They’ve arrived here, they haven’t been spending their years in Opposition thinking up some clear ideas of how they would advance New Zealanders’ education and keep on raising those standards so that New Zealand children coming through the system are well prepared and continue to be well prepared to engage in an ever-increasingly competitive world.

The final thought I wanted to make was that the one part of the speech where I did absolutely agree with the Minister was the fact that we all want and incredibly value our teachers. I am a son of a teacher—a son of a maths teacher of 20 years. We know the passion and commitment they all make to their profession, and we want the very best for all teachers so that they do a great job of educating our children. So I reject any suggestion that the previous Government didn’t have the interests of teachers at heart. We certainly did, and we want the very best for the profession and for the profession to succeed in the interests of everybody in this country.

So at the start of the school year, I want to wish them all the very best for what we believe will be a highly productive year, and I just wish the Government was a little bit better prepared on coming into Government to tackle some of the big issues, rather than some of the perhaps second-order issues as dealt with by this bill. Thank you very much.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it’s very telling that Paul Goldsmith, the previous speaker, talked about “thick but not very well thought out”, and I’ve got to say I agree with him with regard to the speech he just gave. What it showed was a lack of understanding about what this bill is really about.

What happened with the previous Government was—and I think it’s very interesting that the Hon Nikki Kaye talked about the fact that the last Government “bailed out” the Teachers Council. What that meant was that the Teachers Council previously—before the changes that were made by the past National Government—was under so much pressure when it came to nominating and electing individuals for more responsibility, the profession was so abused, distressed, and pressured that they couldn’t feel that they could do that. So what did the previous National Government decide to do? They took away democracy altogether. That’s what we at street level call throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What the current Minister has done is to say that we will support and come up with a medium. So what we’re going to do, apart from removing some of the pressures—e.g., reporting on national standards that were neither national nor standard—is make sure that we do a review of NCEA so that our secondary school teachers are actually able to concentrate on teaching and learning and not on tick-boxes; work with the profession to remove some of the administrative pressures, so that they can feel free to stand for election and they have the time to think about representing their profession on bodies such as this; and, at the same time, make sure that the Minister can appoint for those specific areas where we need nuances.

Because if you look at the bill, what the bill has done is said there are several elected positions that hit the mainstream areas of education. But I have delegations, for example, around children in care. I would like to lobby the Minister of Education to make sure that one of the representatives on the Teachers Council would be somebody who understands what are the educational needs of children in care. I also have delegations as an Associate Minister of Education around children who have disabilities or other challenges inside of education, and there is a space for the Minister in the six people that the Minister would appoint to that body to actually be able to have a representative there so that voice can be heard.

Let’s be clear—teachers pay for this body. I think there’s an old saying that he who pays saves, or something like that, right? Right, so teachers pay for this body. At the end of the day, under the legislation that the previous Government passed they were going to have not only no representation on the Education Council, they were going to have increased delivery of things that had previously been done by the Ministry of Education through the Education Council, and teachers were going to have to pay for it but with no elected representation. What this Government believes is that it is appropriate for this profession to be trusted as other professions are trusted to elect their own members to their own council. If they’re paying they should be able to put a percentage of the representatives on to that body.

The New Zealand public has consistently said that teachers are among the most trusted of the public servants—because that’s who teachers are. When you cap public servants what happens is policemen and nurses and doctors in hospitals and teachers are part of those under that pressure. Teachers are among our most trusted public servants, except by the previous Government. The previous Government decided that they were not a trustworthy profession to elect their own body. So instead of working with the profession and saying, “How can we make it easier for you to have this democratic body?”, they threw it out. This Government does not believe that is appropriate, so we will change and pass this piece of legislation.

New Zealand First has an issue with this bill. This bill was originally drawn as a member’s bill from the ballot. It perfectly matches what New Zealand First campaigned on, what the Green Party campaigned on, and what the Labour Party campaigned on, except for the name. The Minister of Education understands that and it’s a conversation, a topic, that has been discussed. At the moment it is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill 2017. We will lobby, and we understand we can work constructively with the Minister of Education, to amend the title of this bill to “Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill 2017”—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Oh, that’ll make a big difference. Oh that will make a huge difference.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —to better reflect what is the appropriate description of our nation. And Mr Tim Macindoe is going to decide that that is the pivotal point of the bill that he’s now going to discuss going forward. But that’s OK—that’s OK.

I do want to acknowledge Graham Stoop. I want to acknowledge Graham Stoop. I want to acknowledge the Education Council that was put in place by the last Minister of Education. They stoically held back the previous Minister of Education and the direction of travel she wanted to go in. They stoically resisted any attempts of dictatorial behaviour by consulting with the profession to try and create what was the shift from a code of conduct to a code of ethics. Again, another way that the previous National Government dismissed what are professionals, what are grown-ups, what are people who are highly trained. If we intend to lift the status of this profession then all parties in this House must recognise the high quality, high level of training, and the professionalism of this institutional body and the people that they represent. The National Party over the previous nine years destroyed that level of trust between the profession and this House. This Government intends to replace it.

The one thing that I would say about the Education Council is that I think it’s very, very, unfortunate that a member of them decided to go and try and open some charter schools. I think of the good work that was made by Graham Stoop and other members of that council—when a member of that council betrayed the trust of the profession by deciding that those who were participating in what is a world-leading education system could not be trusted alone and that they were going to go off and create a charter school. I think that was disappointing. I think it was unfortunate for that particular person, who is actually of high quality.

So at the end of the day New Zealand First will support this bill. We will support it because we’ve always supported it. We have supported the recognition of the teaching profession as a profession—as a profession. The number of times I’ve sat in an Education and Science Committee where a National Party member has told me that actually anybody can teach. The number of times I have heard that—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Rubbish. What rubbish. I sat on the committee with you. I never heard that.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: If I had 10c for every time I had heard that, then I would be a rich woman today, Mr Macindoe. And actually I’ve heard another member of that select committee at the time I was sitting on it tell me that it doesn’t matter what school you went to, it’s the colour of the tie you have on. So therefore, I think what we’ve got is, this is a Government that has decided that we refuse to just dish off democracy because it might be easier. We refuse to just chuck off democracy because a dictatorship is easier to do and possibly cheaper. We believe in this profession. We believe in actually working with our teachers. We believe that through a collaborative environment, a collegial environment—which is a very education word—through a collegial environment, we will do better for our children. So New Zealand First will support this bill. We support the Minister and—

Simeon Brown: Yap, yap, yap.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —we support, Mr Brown, the teachers of New Zealand, and they should know it. This Government campaigned on it, this Government is delivering for it, and that Opposition tried to crush them.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, and, of course, I rise in opposition to it.

But before I do launch in to the substantive part of my speech I do want to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the privilege of electing me to be the chair. We can debate the hows and whys of how that came about but I take that role extremely seriously. I am quite prepared to facilitate an environment which is a safe environment to discuss ideas. That’s what politics is all about, especially in the education space.

I’m not sure what that previous speaker was getting at but I know that the members on this side certainly do value teachers. I have some of the best teachers in New Zealand based in my electorate. I’m talking about the Peter Hopgoods, the Stan Tiatias, the Katie Pennicotts that have received awards for throwing deficit learning out the window and making sure that the kids in their schools have every opportunity to achieve their hopes and dreams through a magnificent platform of education.

So, look, I’m not sure what that previous speaker was getting at but, certainly, we value education, and, as the chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee, I take the ideas based in this portfolio very, very seriously. To the new members, again, “collegial”—it’s an important word. We are doing work on the select committee creating that safe environment to talk about it, but also there will be contention. I think this is one of these bills that does create tension. The reason for that is because we have seen so much change with this new incoming Government in the education space that I believe that this bill—albeit somewhat small and albeit that it seems to, on the face of it, prima facie, simply change the make-up of the Teaching Council—I think, given the changes that are going on, has more wide-reaching ramifications and needs to be considered.

So if you look at some of the changes that this Government has already brought in, in my opinion quite hastily and without consideration—you’re talking about the abolition of national standards, without any fixed ideas about what it is going to be replaced with. You can debate the pros and cons of the free tertiary fees—you can debate that, depending on where you are—and the abolition of charter schools. We have to look at the cornerstone of what keeps the teaching profession on a level peg and what maintains that standard. The cornerstone of that is this Teaching Council. So at the very same time as these wide-ranging, sweeping changes throughout the education portfolio, we are now looking at changing the teaching council and the make-up of that.

We need to look quite critically at these changes. I don’t want to come from an ideology. I want to really debate the merits of how our kids are going to be given that platform to achieve. But if you’re going to start making changes to this council at this very time—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker; I used the word “you” and I saw your eyebrows raise. If you’re going to change the make-up of this council at this stage, I think it is reckless, because we need to keep things consistent. As a parent, I want to know that things in the education system are kept consistent for the time being, until we know what we are getting.

As a parent, while I value what teachers provide—my goodness; some of them are saints, absolutely—I need to know that my children will go to school and be able to compete on a global stage. The only way we can understand that is if we know exactly how they are achieving. And yes, Minister, there will be some teachers that can adequately explain that and will have the experience to give feedback in an appropriate manner, but without national standards, of course, we won’t be able to know where those children pitch, for example in New Zealand and then the world.

This council is the very cornerstone of what maintains standards in the New Zealand education system. We are changing that at the very time that things are changing with this new Government in the education space. I think this bill is going to need some very rigorous analysis at the select committee. I think that the other initiatives that this Government has raised are going to need some scrutiny. But, like I say, while I value the profession of teachers and the work that they do in preparing our young people for the future, certainly this Government needs to be held to account. As part of that, the teaching profession also needs to be held to account to achieve whatever standards are put in place through this vehicle. We need to scrutinise this further. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am absolutely pleased to rise in support of this bill, for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, and stoked to be kicking off the year—

Simeon Brown: Stoked.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —with this being my first time to speak in the House in 2018. Simeon, you can watch out for my bill tomorrow.

This is a good, common-sense bill, and we’re stoked to be supporting it as the Green Party. I would like to commend my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, obviously the Minister of Education, who has shown himself to be incredibly effective and collaborative with all of us, these three parties who do make up the Government.

I find this bill to be incredibly timely. My little brother started his first week at intermediate school this past week. A few months ago, I spoke in my maiden speech about the utter privilege I have to help improve this system that he is navigating, as the Greens education spokesperson. I feel that weight very much today. But I must say, this is one example of those improvements.

As I’ve said before, this is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation. I don’t see it as a bad thing that it is light, but, indeed, I believe that it is very weighty in terms of the reforms and the kinds of shifts that this will deliver for teachers and for the teaching profession. Basically, the Green Party believes that teachers should have a leadership majority in their own professional body. I’d very much like to acknowledge, as well, the very personal speech delivered by my colleague Jan Tinetti, who, I would like to state, I believe is the only teacher who has so far stood to address the contents of this bill.

The changes heralded in under the previous National Government in 2015 were against all of the advice and protests by the sector, interestingly enough. It created a bit of an anomaly, as far as professional bodies go. We have nurses, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents, all of whom elect their own representatives, and it only makes sense that teachers—should we value them as the people who are teaching our youth, the citizens and leaders of tomorrow—should have that same right too.

This actually also serves to politicise the council—those changes that were made under the previous National Government in 2015—as noted by the New Zealand Educational Institute, one of those unions that the Opposition seems to fear so much. At the time, they issued a press release asking how can it be independent when all of its governance is elected by a politician.

We also had the previous Minister of Education, the Hon Nikki Kaye, stating that these appointments to this council should be based on skills and competency. In her opposition, she stated exactly this. I would ask what is inconsistent here in this proposal that teachers elect their own representatives. Does the National Party not trust teachers? Well, to provide at least the Green Party’s stance on that question, we do. We believe that showing that trust looks like restoring the democracy that was eroded in 2015 by that last National Government. It is presently possible, actually, as well, under section 380 of the current Act, as inserted by the previous National Government, that four out of nine members of the council are non-teachers. That should be something that those in this House should be wary of. When we are talking about a body that deals with the teaching profession, surely they should understand the nuances and the day to day of that teaching profession.

The changes that we are moving towards will see that six members are appointed by the Minister, but the majority—seven of them—will be elected by the teaching profession themselves. They will be from the primary, secondary, and early childhood education sectors, which are all crucial in representation. I would, however, mention that the purpose of the Teaching Council, as noted in the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill, is “to ensure safe and high quality leadership, teaching, and learning for children and young people in early childhood, primary, secondary, and senior … schooling in English medium and Māori medium settings through raising the status of the profession.”

The Green Party would just like to note, on that point, that there is no guarantee of Māori representation on that council in the bill’s current form. So we’d very much like to see something like that raised in the select committee. And I do look forward to working with my colleagues, including the chair of that select committee, Sarah Dowie, through those issues.

I’ve always found it quite fascinating that there is a different skill set required in getting elected versus doing the job that one is elected to do. I think it’s quite pronounced here in this House. We go around campaigning, and our skill set that is required there is to talk, to shake hands, and to convince people that we are capable of doing the theatre in here.

But then we are elected, and, sure, we do that theatre, but we’re also expected, obviously, to do all of that backroom work—that invisible work—and I’d say that many of us, before we come in here, are not quite aware of what that looks like.

So there’s a massive inconsistency there, and I’d say, as was mentioned previously by one of the National Party members yelling at me across the House, that teachers have a thorough understanding of their profession and the skill set required to get elected, and demonstrating that, versus doing the job on the Teaching Council of Aotearoa—potentially Aotearoa New Zealand—is very similar.

So, fundamentally, this is a partnership between the Government and teachers, and it is about recognising the value of teachers in our society and affording them the very common-sense, straightforward ability to elect their own representatives on this Teaching Council. For that reason, the Green Party is very happy to support and commend the bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker, and a very happy New Year to you and to all members, many of whom are looking tanned and, I hope, are feeling rested after a wonderful holiday. Could I say to Chlöe Swarbrick, I’m very pleased to hear her acknowledging the merits of the teaching profession as a former secondary teacher. I was also pleased to hear her acknowledge that, currently, on the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, the majority of members are teachers, so I’m not sure quite what problem she thinks that she is going to solve.

I must admit, I came to work this morning not particularly looking forward to putting on a suit, because, as we’ve all sweltered over recent weeks, the idea of a suit and tie wasn’t very appealing, but here we are in a rather nice, air conditioned building, and I’m actually quite enjoying the temperature. In fact, after listening to Government speakers for the last hour or so, I think I’m going to sleep very well for the first time all year tonight, and I’m really looking forward to it.

Members opposite will recall, no doubt to their embarrassment and shame, that before Christmas, in this supposedly really important 100 days of action, they spent almost every day in this House filibustering on bills that they’d inherited from the previous National Government that were totally non-controversial, that everybody supported, and that we were quite happy to see go through quite quickly. But oh no, they slowed them down because they had absolutely nothing of their own to introduce.

And here we are, as they come towards this supposed milestone, the completion of their 100 days of office, and they have, in their desperation, dug down into the bottom of the barrel to find a former member’s bill, which is called, what, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. But, wait, we’ve just heard from Mrs Martin that the really exciting addition is going to be putting “New Zealand” on at the end of that title. That’s really going to be important.

I cannot believe that this Government, in its 100 days of action, is still, here in the new year, incapable of coming up with something that is really of significant moment. If this bill is the highlight of their 100 days of action, they are in deep trouble. As the Hon Paul Goldsmith alluded to, they are doing it only because it was a member’s bill that was already drafted, and they had nothing else ready to go.

So let me ask my colleagues: was this topic a big issue on the campaign trail last year?

Simeon Brown: No.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No, I didn’t think it was. Do our constituents raise it at our local events or when we bump into them at the supermarket or at our meetings in our electorates?

Simeon Brown: No.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No? No, they don’t. More importantly, will this bill help the new Government to fund their extravagant policies and to improve the quality of teaching in New Zealand?

Simeon Brown: No.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No, it won’t. That’s what the Act it will replace was designed to do, and it’s worth remembering that the previous Government allocated serious money for that purpose. There was a very genuine and significant commitment.

Or is this just another sop to their union backers, this time especially from the NZEI Te Riu Roa, who write their education policies and are demanding payback for all their effort from the campaign trail last year? Yes, of course that’s what this is about. So the highlight of the Government’s 100 days of action will be passing the Statutes Amendment Bill and, now, changing the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council. Wow, hold the front page, what an amazing record!

Hon Chris Hipkins: As opposed to the pumpkin?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha, ha! Yes, well, at least my pumpkin was doing something purposeful. At least my pumpkin was growing, Mr Hipkins, and now I know—here we have an admission from the Minister of Education that he joined with Jamie Strange. They were both out there in the dead of night with their knives and their sickles, severing the stem of my pumpkin, and I’m distraught and I’m devastated. Mr Hipkins, I’ll be back, I tell you what. There’s more where that came from.

The Hon Nikki Kaye, in leading off the National Party’s position on this bill, made the very serious point that the original Teachers Council was not achieving what it should have been. That is why we in the previous National Government made the changes that we did. I was on the Education and Science Committee when we considered that bill, and I want to say to Mrs Martin, who made a fatuous, ridiculous claim before, that I’ve never, never heard anybody argue that anybody can teach. I’ve never heard that view expressed—not once.

I am very happy to acknowledge the fact that we have an excellent teaching profession in this country, and I agree with Jan Tinetti that the vast majority of teachers I know and with whom I’ve been proud to be associated have always felt a great deal of pride in their profession and pride in their work and, in particular, get absolute joy out of nurturing young people into doing the very best they can and becoming fine young people. That’s what makes teaching so rewarding, and so I don’t think there’s any distinction or difference of opinion about that, depending on which side of the House you’re on.

But all this bill does is reverse necessary changes that the previous Government made to ensure that the council had more scope to invest in leadership as well as teaching, and some of the initiatives that were introduced under the Hon Anne Tolley and then the Hon Hekia Parata and carried on by the Hon Nikki Kaye were making a very significant difference. They were not demeaning, as has been inferred by some of the speakers opposite; instead, they were saying this is such an important job, such an important profession, that we need to ensure that we do everything we can to lift the standard of teaching to the highest it can be, because the children of this country deserve nothing less.

That’s why I was very proud and pleased to be able to support it. Through our original plan, $200 million was set aside for development programmes that would have been transferred from the Ministry of Education to the Education Council. So it was a very significant commitment by the previous Government. It was over three years; it would have been starting this year.

We oppose this bill that the new Government is introducing, adapted from a member’s bill, because it reverts to an old model that hadn’t been working well rather than a skills and core competencies approach to lift the quality of teaching. I lament that, and I urge the Government to reconsider.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe. I’m rising to take a call on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. As a brand new backbench MP with no first-hand experience in education, I didn’t have much knowledge to the background or context of this bill, but I have to say that reading up on all of the history, I’ve learnt a lot in a very short amount of time. It’s a real privilege to speak to this bill, as I understand, from all the readings and from the previous—some very passionate—speeches, how important this bill exactly is.

It also makes it clear to me how out of touch the other side of the House is in trying to diminish the importance of this bill, because, clearly, it is very important. So no, it may not be a very lengthy document, as has been pointed out, and, at first glance, it would seem to be only about three points—the name of the bill, the number of reps, and how they are elected—but, more importantly, it gives teachers back the right to choose their own representatives from amongst their own peers, thereby restoring trust, respect, and democracy. To try and trifle with that—to make it sound somehow less important—is just astonishing to me.

In New Zealand, there are many professions that have their own governing bodies. Lawyers are one of them. The New Zealand Law Society, for example, was established about 150 years ago, in 1869. Teachers had to wait a lot longer to get their profession recognised, which is quite ironic because, as has been pointed out by Tracey Martin already, teachers are, arguably, a more trusted profession than lawyers are.

The year I immigrated to New Zealand—1989—was the year the Teacher Registration Board was established, and that became the New Zealand Teachers Council. The council reps were elected by their peers. This showed evidence of independence from Government bodies and provided for a degree of self-management. But then, in 2015, that big change happened that Jan Tinetti talked about, and the name of the Teachers Council changed to the Education Council. It made it smaller and it made it completely Government appointed. That change to that governing body gave teachers substantially less control over their own profession and undermined the teaching quality. It made it very clear, from the speeches we’ve heard, how devastating that change actually was, on top of a lot of the other changes they had to deal with.

While the teachers contribute 90 percent of the Education Council’s funding, they actually, under the current Act, have no say on the election of reps on their governing body. I would imagine that that change at the time signalled that the Government was reluctant to surrender power when it came to standard setting and accountability processes and, pretty much, that the Government didn’t trust the members of the teaching profession to be able to put aside any self-interest and ensure that they would promote the public interest. It must have been really disempowering to those who are part of that profession and seen as a way to control it.

In the current Act, as has been pointed out, there are no elections, and all nine positions are being appointed by the Minister of Education. To me, it just doesn’t make any sense to have the teaching profession represented by a governing body where a large number—up to four out of nine—could be non-teachers. It is also undemocratic that the teaching profession is not able to elect its own representatives, and it actually seems completely inconsistent with the democratic processes we champion in New Zealand as a democratic country.

It was only in 2009 that nurses were able to elect members of the Nursing Council, and the rationale at the time, I quote, was “to give nurses a greater say in decisions affecting scope of practice, competence, and safety.” That should be exactly the same for teachers. This is about the people that we entrust our children to and who are preparing them for the future, the people who are making sure that the next generation can be the best they can be. So we should stop treating the teachers like children, and trust them by creating the conditions to get the best out of them.

This bill does exactly that. This bill gives teachers a direct vote on membership of the council. It restores trust. It restores democracy. And yes, perhaps the message of this bill does fit on the back of an envelope, but it actually says, “We trust you, unlike the previous Government.” Therefore, I support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): The increase in council membership—a 45 percent increase, to be precise—will of course have an increased cost attached to it, but I’m not going to talk about that tonight. I’m going to talk about how seven of those 13 spots will now be elected. If the Government has a problem with ministerial appointments, why aren’t all of the 13 new positions going to be elected? Why keep still nearly half as ministerial appointments? Why not go the full distance?

If it’s about lessening ministerial influence, then why allow the Minister to appoint the chairperson? The Minister of Education said in question time in the House today that he wanted to restore democracy. Well, why not let democracy take place amongst the council itself, and let them elect their own chair? And why is there no representation from the New Zealand School Trustees Association? Want to cover the bases? Then, where is the parent rep on this body?

It has been the Minister’s reputation to date that the right people be appointed and pushed for next-level performance. The Minister, of course, has been, and is, responsible and accountable, and there has been a very tight safeguard regime in place to prevent cronyism in the current council make-up. It is interesting, is it not—especially in light of what’s been said on the other side of the House—that 66 percent of the current council make-up are teachers. Sixty-six percent, currently, are teachers. That doesn’t sound like cronyism to me. In fact, it’s definitely not punitive control, as one speaker on the other side of the House said tonight.

So where is the need for change? Does the Government think that the current council isn’t professional enough, doesn’t know the profession, or doesn’t have enough depth?

Would it be of interest to the Government to know that on the current council, some of the make-up of that body right now includes a professor at Auckland University who is a member of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority brainstorming trust. There’s one who is a Sir Peter Blake Leadership Award recipient for Māori development in education. Another is head of an audit division at BDO. Another is someone shortlisted for the overall New Zealander of the Year Award for her services to education. Does that not sound like expertise? Does that not sound like expertise enough?

We do not need to shake up things again. The expertise is there.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is split call. Jo Luxton—five minutes.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m absolutely thrilled to stand and take a call on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. What we have before us here in this bill is a sign that this Government is prepared to listen—that this Government is prepared to listen to those most affected. This Government recognises that it is time to raise the status of the teaching profession in line with all other professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, and allow them to determine how their profession is led.

This bill seeks to change the name, composition, and appointment of all members to the Education Council. It seeks to rename the Education Council to Teaching Council, which, to me, immediately gives mana—and rightly so—to teachers in Aotearoa. The purpose of the Teaching Council is to ensure that we have safe and high-quality leadership, teaching, and learning happening for our tamariki in all levels of education—early childhood, primary, secondary, and senior secondary schooling. At the moment, the council is made up of nine members, all appointed by the Minister of Education. Now compare that with other professions, such as the nursing profession. Their council members are elected by nurses themselves. Teachers I have spoken to have described the time when it was changed to allow the Minister to appoint all members of the council as a real slap in the face. It basically told them they were not capable of managing their own council. This bill recognises teachers as professionals, and the fact that teachers have an understanding of what is happening at the chalkface.

When I spoke with Sarah Davis, a secondary school principal at Timaru Girls’ High School, she told me that she had been infuriated by the fact that the current Education Council had been appointed without members of the teaching profession having any say. This is a body of which there is no choice but to be a member if a teacher wishes to maintain their registration, and this body has significant influence in the sector. Her concerns are also around the fact that these people are making decisions around the profession without necessarily having any real knowledge of the profession at all. Sarah believes that this bill will allow the teachers to have an opportunity to have a greater say in things, and it will provide a voice within the relevant teaching sector. The council used to have teaching representation on it, and it makes no sense as to why it changed to the model we have today. In her view, this bill is long overdue, and is on track and exactly how it should be.

This bill restores democracy to, and is a big step towards restoring trust and confidence in, the profession. New Zealanders place a high value on democracy. We have the opportunity to vote and elect a party or parties to represent us in Government, but teachers don’t have that opportunity, and that is simply wrong.

This bill means something more for the sector that I have been strongly involved in, and have been in for over 20 years now: early childhood. The fact that there will be representation of an early childhood teacher and a leader from early childhood finally—finally—acknowledges early childhood teachers and the fundamental role they play in educating our young tamariki, and it shows that early childhood teachers are seen as professionals in their own right. It acknowledges the importance of quality in the early childhood sector rather than the emphasis placed on quantity by the previous Government, who clearly don’t value early childhood teachers or the sector, as we saw when they froze funding for several years.

This is one of the first and vital steps that show this Government sees early childhood teachers as professionals. One of the next steps will be the return of the 100 percent funding to centres who have 100 percent qualified staff. It is only fair and it is only right that early childhood teachers are seen as teaching professionals. For too long, I believe, early childhood teachers have been undervalued, almost seen as the poor cousin to primary school teachers. Many of my early childhood teachers have struggled with the way they are perceived, and morale at times can be very low. I couldn’t honestly say how many times I have been called a glorified babysitter or chief nappy changer or heard, “Gee, I wish I had a job where I could sit around and do nothing but play all day.” How derogatory are comments like that?

I studied hard for three years to gain a qualification and be a professional early childhood education teacher and it is heartbreaking to have comments like that thrown in your face when we work so hard to educate our tamariki. So to have the opportunity to elect their own representatives to the Teaching Council, early childhood teachers are valued as the professionals they are. I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s good to be back. Spare a thought for the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins. Nine long years ago, sitting in a dusty hall in Wainuiōmata, a Labour electorate committee—almost entirely consisting of teachers—made him a member of Parliament by selecting him in a safe Labour seat. Nine long years ago, thinking, “What will he do to make the education system for New Zealand children better?” And he gets there. He gets the limousine up to Government House and he’s made a Minister by the Governor-General. He has the power. And what does he do? What does he do? He allows teachers to elect their own professional body. Well, seven of them. Seven of the 13—not all of them. But he allows the teachers, not the students—this has nothing to do with students; this is all to do with teachers. He allows the teachers to elect their own professional body. What an achievement for Chris Hipkins after nine years of waiting to make a difference in Government!

But I digress. It is actually a serious matter here. People in the Epsom electorate, board of trustees chairs, principals, and parents tell me every day that they are approaching this 2018 school year with great trepidation, because schools do not have enough teachers. They tell me it has become almost impossible for somebody on a teacher’s starting salary—or even near the top of the scale—to live in central Auckland and actually get to work, with either housing costs or commute costs, in an economical way, and the result is shortages of teachers and the result is the principal has to go in and teach a few classes. They have to take four classes, split them up, and reconstitute them into five—there’s Michael Wood. He knows. He represents a central Auckland electorate. It’s a pity he hasn’t been heard in caucus, because he should have been raising this issue.

What is the Government doing about this? What is the Labour Party doing about this problem? They’ve seriously tried to argue that more people will enter the teaching profession if they can actually elect people on to the Education Council—but wait, there’s more—it’s going to be renamed the Teaching Council. That is going to turbocharge the teaching profession! That is going to make education better for all New Zealand children—or not.

What they should have done is taken the billion dollars that they’re going to be spending every year, rewarding those kids who do do well in our education system—they should have taken that billion bucks a year for free tertiary education for those kids who do do well, those ones who tend to be from decile 10 schools, those ones who tend to be overwhelmingly white and Asian, the ones that I represent in Epsom; they should have taken the money away from giving them a benefit of free tertiary education and actually put the money into paying good teachers well.

You can spend as much time as you like saying you can elect your own council and we’ll rename your council, but what this Government could have done tonight, what Chris Hipkins could have done after his years and years of waiting to finally hold the ring, is seriously improve the payment of teachers, not patronise them; show them they’re valued with cold hard cash instead of giving that money to the most privileged people in New Zealand: those who are already accessing a tertiary education.

That’s what this bill should have been about tonight. It should have been about alleviating the very real and tangible teacher shortage that we have in central Auckland by paying teachers properly, instead of trying to buy them off by simply changing the name and the constitution of an organisation that, I would guess, doesn’t figure too greatly in most people’s decision to enter or stay in the teaching profession compared with the chronic problem of underpayment.

That’s what a Government could have done, but, sadly, we’re going to have this trivial change, a sop to teachers, ignoring the needs of students, ignoring the real needs of the education system, patronising teachers with a small, artificial change to their arrangement—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. Your time has expired.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and happy New Year. I’m pleased to rise to contribute to this debate, the first reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. Can I just acknowledge some of the passionate speakers from across the floor here. I listened intently and I respect their views and there was a lot of passion. I had hoped to come back this year to that level of passion in education bills that were perhaps talking about what is going to be replacing NCEA, perhaps the decile system, and, definitely, what we’re going to do with charter schools.

Because when it comes to passion, well, I could stand here and go on for a very long time about charter schools. I won’t, but I would just like to say that in my electorate this week, I’ve got Vanguard Military School students coming back for the new year at school. The new recruits are coming back. Some of them are getting up at 5.30 in the morning to travel on a train and two buses to get to school in their immaculate uniforms. They’re proud of their school, they’re proud of their achievements, but they are terrified about what is going to happen to them next year when their schools are due to be closed. I wish that we were standing here having some positive news about those charter schools or what’s replacing NCEA. Instead, what we get is this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill.

This is a case of the Government saying, “Out with the old and in with the older.”, and, unfortunately, in this case the older is a flawed model that was found wanting by an advisory group and by a review. This bill seeks to bring back the Teachers Council of 2002, a council that in 2010 was described by the Education Workforce Advisory Group as lacking “capability and the capacity to carry out its functions and it was not best placed to carry out its functions. It had no ability to self-regulate, to self-review, and it was not the best body to serve teachers.”

We need to remind ourselves of why these changes took place. Not only were there serious difficulties with the Teachers Council, but there were financial irregularities as well, requiring the previous Government to bail them out. A subsequent review saw changes of membership of the council. It was identified that there was a need for highly competent people with skills, knowledge, and experience to lift the quality of teaching and leadership. At this point, I would just like to point out to Ms Luxton, who was so passionately talking about the need for early childhood education people on that board, that Clare Wells, who’s on the board, has been the chief executive of New Zealand Kindergarten. So actually there are people who are on this board currently who have the skills, the experience, and the knowledge to run a council that is actually achieving things for teachers. So we moved away from that older model that was an elected member approach to a skills and competence approach, and, as Nikki Kaye said, the council are doing a stellar job.

Hon Tracey Martin: Ah, the democratic model. Careful—you don’t want democracy to get in the way of a good dictatorship.

ERICA STANFORD: Democracy—much like the waka-jumping bill that we’ve had earlier. This current bill is a giant leap backwards. It is forgetting the learnings of the past, ignoring the findings of the review, and this bill seeks to undermine the importance of skills, knowledge, and experience to put us back in a place in time where we had no confidence in the Teachers Council. Mr Hipkins’ proposal to continue to appoint just six members to create better representation simply isn’t good enough.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.