Thursday, 1 February 2018

THURSDAY, 1 FEBRUARY 2018

THURSDAY, 1 FEBRUARY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Vanuatu—Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and External Trade, Minister

SPEAKER: I am sure members would wish to welcome the Hon Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and External Trade from the Parliament of Vanuatu, who is present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House adjourns until Tuesday, 13 February, when the Child Poverty Reduction Bill will have its first reading. Other bills to be considered in that week will include the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Customs and Excise Bill. Additional bills will be introduced and will receive their first readings.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I just inquire from the Leader of the House, at what point is it likely we’ll run out of Government work and we’ll be able to get on with more members’ bills?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Just before Christmas, the member who just spoke was criticising the Government for not following proper Cabinet and Cabinet committee processes. I can assure him that there are a number of bills completing the Cabinet and Cabinet committee process, as he will see over the coming weeks.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Fiscal Strategy—Living Standards Framework

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What role will the Living Standards Framework play in the Government’s economic strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This Government is committed to pursuing productive, sustainable, and inclusive economic growth that improves the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders. As part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party, we are committed to the creation of sustainable development indicators. The Living Standards Framework will help put the well-being of people and the environment at the centre of our policies, and lead to policies that will allow for an economy where we work smarter, make better use of our resources, and where the benefits of growth are spread across all New Zealanders and, indeed, all regions of New Zealand.

Dr Deborah Russell: What difference will this make to how we measure success?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will measure its success by assessing whether all New Zealanders’ living standards rise together and that they are all sharing in the dividends of growth. As the Prime Minister said last night, the Living Standards Framework will inform the prioritisation of Budget proposals, as well as measure the success of the Government’s programmes. An example of this are the child poverty indicators contained in the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, introduced to Parliament this week, which future Ministers of Finance will report on as part of their obligations under the Public Finance Act.

Dr Deborah Russell: What are the next steps in further developing this approach?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re building towards the Living Standards Framework being a core part of both the preparation and the delivery of Budget 2019. This will be New Zealand’s first true well-being Budget. As part of this, Statistics New Zealand, under Minister James Shaw’s leadership, is working with Treasury to develop the new measurement and success indicators. Further, today I’m pleased to announce that, as part of these efforts, we’ve given the go ahead to Treasury to co-organise an international conference on well-being in September with Victoria University of Wellington and the International Journal of Wellbeing. This conference will draw to New Zealand the leading organisation and thinkers who are working on this topic to share their research. This will put New Zealand at the forefront of making sure that Budgets are truly about well-being and living standards—something the Opposition clearly opposes.

Child Poverty Reduction—Government Measures to Address

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why is her Government being less ambitious than the previous National Government with her target to reduce material hardship, particularly given her statement on Tuesday that material hardship has been one of the most consistent drivers of poor outcomes for children?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In response, the Government has not reduced its targets. It’s increased its ambition massively under the change of Government, and how can you possibly talk of having a target when, on 22 January this year, the New Zealand Herald was carrying a report that goes to the core of poverty, where the richest 1 percent of Kiwis got 28 percent of all wealth created last year, while the poorest 30 percent of the population—the very people we’re speaking about and addressing in our policies—got just 1 percent of that wealth.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that her Government’s targeted total reduction in the number of children in material hardship over the next 10 years is 70,000, like announced yesterday, and that over the last five years of the National Government, the number of children in material hardship fell by 85,000?

SPEAKER: The member can choose which of the questions he answers.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, let’s address the second question, because—

Hon Simon Bridges: “Let’s”—the royal “we”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Pardon?

Hon Simon Bridges: Your Majesty.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you’re talking about the state of the nation; I’m talking about the state of her leadership.

Hon Grant Robertson: He’d know all about that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All right? And you’d know all about that. First of all, the previous Government’s so-called measurements have been also called into question by improper Treasury measurements, and we’re waiting round to find out what they really meant by that as they relate to our improper advice from them as well, which they’re currently working on. When we know that, we’ll be able to speak with exactitude about what our targets and numbers will be.

Hon Paula Bennett: The numbers of 70,000 that the Government has announced that they want to reduce material hardship over the next 10 years, by 70,000; National’s record over the last five years—

SPEAKER: Order! We’ll go right back to the beginning. Two of my very good predecessors indicated that questions start with a question word. So that would be a good way to start. The member hasn’t got close yet.

Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry, sir. I’m just trying to clarify, because the Minister is mistaken on a question, so I’m just trying to get a clarification here. So in light of the Minister’s answer, can he please explain how the reduction made over the last five years of the National Government of the number of children in material hardship, falling by 85,000, was not a prediction by Treasury, but, actually, it was in the Ministry of Social Development’s household income survey, which has been used? So we’ve seen a reduction of 85,000—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That’s enough.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, I do not believe for a moment what that member is saying—

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I don’t, because there’s great doubt as to the veracity of what she’s saying already.

SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I was listening, and I did hear the member say that he doubted the member’s veracity, and that is something that has been—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, what she was saying—not her.

SPEAKER: Well, I think if he doubted the member’s veracity in the House, it might even be worse. So I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw that comment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise, and say this: I think there is an enormous—not a grain of salt but a bag of salt that’s got to be laid around the comments by that member. More particularly, I do not think this is the right place to litigate the National Party leadership challenges at this point in time.

Hon Paula Bennett: Keep deflecting, old man. I raise a point of order.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I’m going to deal with it first. What I would like is silence in the House while I indicate that that was very unacceptable. The member knows it, and, as a result of it, four questions will be deducted from the National Party.

Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave to actually table the household income survey, which, yes, is publicly available, but I feel that since, actually, my character is being called into question in this House for my lack of honesty—and that is actually why I made that comment—

SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I took action to require the withdrawal of the reflection on the member’s character. I dealt with it. The member should have left it at that.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue is that directly after the Deputy Prime Minister withdrew the remark, he launched into a political attack on the member around party politics, and that’s what led to this. So I can understand that what then followed wasn’t acceptable, but four supplementary questions, it seems to me, given the behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister, is a very harsh call.

SPEAKER: Yes, it might well be, but it’s been made. Further supplementary—Paula Bennett.

Hon Paula Bennett: Well, actually, I sought leave, Mr Speaker, to table the household income survey.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’m declining to put that leave.

Hon Paula Bennett: OK. Is she committed to reducing the number of children in low-income households by 100,000 in three years, like the National Government committed to, or 100,000 over 10 years, like she announced last night?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, this Government came to power very aware of the problem, and it didn’t take nine years to get around to thinking about it. More particularly, we are setting out to put together a political consensus to reduce poverty in this country as fast as we possibly can. We know it’s not going to be easy. Long-term targets are good, but the difference is that, in the terms of family incomes—and poor incomes, in particular—and the quality of homes in which they—

Hon Anne Tolley: Answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am answering the question. I know that the facts are remote from that member. That’s why she’s at the backbench now. My point is we are addressing the incomes and the accommodation levels, and when we put those together you will see sound Treasury measurements that show we’re making great progress. As for Anne Tolley, if I were her I would just keep quiet, because she’s on her way out.

Jo Hayes: Will her Government commit to continuing to spend $130 million on Whānau Ora to help reduce child poverty, particularly in Māori and Pasifika whānau?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say we will take the best policies—if there are some sound policies from the previous administration—with us. We’re prepared to look with open minds as we always have, given where we stand when it comes to sound thinking and collegiality, and if there are sound policies in Whānau Ora we’ll take them forward. But, you know, you cannot possibly mean to be sincere—how should I say it generically?—on that issue when Māori housing ownership declined by 38 percent under their administration.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is she planning to do another families incomes package over the next three years, which could lift another 50,000 children out of child poverty, as National plan to do, or has she spent all the money on fees-free tertiary education, which hasn’t seen any increase in tertiary enrolments.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the Government’s working on its current package, and we’re not going to be forecasting the next package until we’ve got this one well under way. That is a possibility, but not at this point in time. However, the turn-around in the economy is such that we could be quite confident of possibly doing what the member says, given that Mr Rutherford, in today’s New Zealand Herald, says that our opponents are concerned that the economy is going so well that they need a turn-around to help themselves in the future.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do just want to confirm—I may have missed it—that those answers were on behalf of the Prime Minister by the Deputy Prime Minister, or is it the case that the Deputy Prime Minister has already assumed the role, in his head, of Prime Minister.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, no. Well, I really don’t think that I need the member—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I correct that, then. It’s important for the public out there—

SPEAKER: Well, I think I can rule on it, and I just want to give a bit of a warning to the National Party shadow Leader of the House that we’ve had one example of quite disorderly behaviour resulting in a loss of questions, and frivolous points of order could well be treated the same way. That was a frivolous point of order.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I appreciate the point the Speaker’s making, but I genuinely do want to understand that the answers are on behalf of the Prime Minister, and I haven’t heard that.

SPEAKER: I will make it clear to the House: at any time the Deputy Prime Minister becomes the Acting Prime Minister, that will be made clear to the House. As the member is aware, that could happen for a substantial period of time later in the year but also when the Prime Minister is overseas on official business. I really think that the member is not very serious in the comments that he makes, and it’s a bit dangerous. I think what he’s going to see is that when he does that, he causes other problems.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made it very clear in the answer to my primary question that I was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. You see, over here we try and make a Prime Minister successful, not try and depose them.

Rt Hon David Carter: Is that not frivolous?

SPEAKER: Well, I think given the fact that we had two frivolous interjections from my left and one from the right, we’ll just call it all square and we’ll go on to question—

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So I completely accept that my comments were out of order, and your ruling, sir, of course, as you expect in this House. But as I put something in front of my question and was punished, it seems that it’s quite acceptable for extra bits to be put on unnecessarily that are inciting the politicising of the answers to the questions that we’re getting in this House today, and that’s acceptable, at some level, to you.

SPEAKER: I think the member is absolutely aware—and yes, yes, people are evening it up pretty quickly—that the question she asked, even after the totally unacceptable piece at the beginning was dealt with, was still highly political. The rulings that a number of my predecessors have made are that when people ask those questions in a political way, they should expect a political answer. With straight questions, short questions, I will be more interested in protecting members. We now go on to the Hon Steven Joyce. Do you want to have a go?

Government Financial Position—Business Confidence and Job Ad Numbers

3. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the accuracy of all his answers to oral questions to date?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, incorporating any clarifications I have made.

Hon Steven Joyce: When the latest consumer confidence reports from ANZ-Roy Morgan and Westpac McDermott Miller both show consumer confidence going down in the final quarter of 2017, will he correct his answer from yesterday when he stated consumer confidence is up?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will check that and if necessary that is what I will do. What I do know is that the McDermott Miller survey does show that employees are feeling optimistic—

Hon Steven Joyce: No, consumer confidence—consumer confidence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, no, but you quoted the survey, Mr Joyce, so I’m just letting you know that in that survey employees are feeling optimistic about their future.

Hon Steven Joyce: When Statistics New Zealand reported economic growth for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 calendar years at 3.6 percent, 3.5 percent, and 4 percent respectively, will he now correct his answer from yesterday when he stated economic growth was going to lift to an average of 3 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was in relation to forecasts that were made by Treasury—

Hon Steven Joyce: Lifting it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was in relation to forecasts made by Treasury.

Hon Steven Joyce: When the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) quarterly survey of business opinion shows businesses’ outlook for their own activity at exactly the same level in September 2017 as it was in December 2016 but then declined in December 2017, will he now correct, for the second time, his answer yesterday when he stated, and I quote, “I can confirm that business confidence in its own activity has increased in recent surveys. It has gone down over a period of time, beginning, as I said yesterday, a trend that started in December 2016,”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are two surveys that’ve been the subject of debate in the House here. One of them is the ANZ survey. Businesses’ outlook about their own prospects in the ANZ survey increased between November and December. The other answer I gave was in relation to the downward trend in the NZIER quarterly survey of business opinion own activity measure, where there has been a downward trend from December 2016.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does the Minister stand by his answer on 15 November last year that he relied on official reports, not bank economists’ reports, to substantiate his comment, and I quote, “it will be possible for us to meet our goals within our Budget responsibility rules,”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, that was the advice from Treasury, and that is the advice that appeared in the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU).

Tamati Coffey: Does he stand by his answers relating to the health of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do, in particular the answers relating to Standard & Poor’s description of the New Zealand economy under this Government being wealthy and resilient. Further evidence of this can be seen in today’s ANZ Job Ads report for January, which sees a 3.1 percent month on month, seasonally adjusted increase—the highest monthly lift in three years. On this side of the House, we are very positive and optimistic about the New Zealand economy.

Hon Steven Joyce: Given that he stood, in his previous answer to me, by his answer on 15 November 2017, how does he explain the fact that the official reports from Treasury that he cited and provided in an Official Information Act request subsequent to that date were not actually written at the time he answered the question in the House?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That advice was the advice that was coming through. It was formalised in the HYEFU and BPS.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he consider, in light of all those answers, that one simple way of boosting consumer and business confidence would be for the finance Minister to answer questions more accurately and reassure New Zealanders he knows what he’s actually talking about?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All of us in Parliament, as we begin a new term, are learning our jobs. There will be errors and mistakes from time to time. The important thing is making sure that you’re humble about it, that you understand the new role that you’re undertaking, and you don’t attempt to undermine your leader.

Hon James Shaw: Does the Minister stand by his statement that there’s no $11.6 billion hole in the Government’s finances?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, I most definitely do stand by that statement. And, in fact, I understand that there is still now only one living human being who believes that that statement is correct, and he’s on his way out.

Hon James Shaw: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Before I do, I will indicate to the National Party for planning purposes that they’ve got two of their supplementaries back as a result of an interjection from my right then. Thank you, Mr Mark.

Hon James Shaw: Would the Minister agree that the assertion of an $11.6 billion hole could only come from someone whose talent in economics, if he has any, is with the truth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe a statement like that would primarily come from his—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to that particular statement from the member and ask that he withdraw and apologise.

Hon James Shaw: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Steven Joyce: I also seek leave to table my academic record, with seven successfully sat economic papers, and invite the member to do the same.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I—the member will resume his seat. That member’s academic record has caused me problems in the past. And my understanding is that it has already been tabled—I might even have done it myself. We will now leave it because it’s already been tabled.

Hon Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House for there to be a further debate on Mr Joyce’s academic record. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m not going to take the member seriously.

Native Freshwater Fish—Preservation and Protection

4. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What plans does she have to protect freshwater fisheries and their habitats?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Under this Government, the Department of Conservation (DOC) will be able to do its job and implement its statutory responsibility to protect and preserve indigenous freshwater fish. The Green Party’s confidence and supply agreement includes a commitment to significantly increase DOC’s funding so that it can protect freshwater habitats and the threatened native fish species that rely on them. It’s part of this Government’s effort to tackle the biodiversity crisis.

Gareth Hughes: What actions are needed to protect the 72 percent of our native fish that are at risk or threatened with extinction?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: DOC needs to be involved in much more local restoration work, especially in relation to fish spawning sites, ensuring culverts and river works don’t obstruct fish passage and migration. It needs to protect and restore wetlands, and ensure river flows are adequate for fish to thrive. We’ve inherited a regime from the previous Government where there is no explicit Government funding that focuses on protecting freshwater biodiversity. That needs to change, because our native fish are in crisis.

Gareth Hughes: What role will the Department of Conservation take in Resource Management Act advocacy for freshwater fish protection?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I’ve asked the Department of Conservation to ramp up its work to implement its statutory function to advocate for conservation, and in fresh water, that means getting more involved with council planning and resource consent processes, because councils need DOC’s science and technical expertise on native fish if they are to make good decisions so that our native fish thrive.

Youth Justice—Pre-charge Warnings

5. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his Government’s Justice policies?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he continue to stand by his Government’s policy that detention only should be used for young people as a last resort?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he also stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that every child who is caught by police should be arrested, charged, and convicted?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is a misrepresentation of what was said.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, how does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s statement, which would see the end of pre-charge warnings for young first-time offenders, with his answers to the previous questions and his stated desire to reduce the prison population by 30 percent?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The answers were given in the context of questions about why the Government was reviewing the Better Public Services (BPS) targets for reoffending and reducing crime, and, of course, we’re reviewing those Public Service targets and the Government’s failure to meet them. For example, National’s target was to reduce violent crime by 20 percent between 2012 and 2018. Instead, it went up by 3 percent—a complete failure.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did listen very carefully to that question, and I can’t see how the wider context that the question might’ve touched on answers, in any way, the question I have put, which puts a very direct statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday and asks the Minister how it’s reconciled. He went off on a completely different tangent about BPS targets that I didn’t go anywhere near.

SPEAKER: Yes, and one of the problems with how it can be reconciled is that people can have very wide opinions about reconciliation. I think, probably, in the first few words of the answer, the Minister did address the question, although I do accept that it didn’t help us much.

Hon Amy Adams: Was the Prime Minister wrong, then, to describe in the House yesterday that the policy of this Government is that every young person apprehended by police should be arrested, charged, and convicted.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That, again, is a misrepresentation of the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on behalf of the Prime Minister—

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments. The Deputy Prime Minister was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. That makes them the Prime Minister’s comments under Speaker’s ruling 175/7.

SPEAKER: And that’s exactly what the Minister acting for the Minister of Justice just said. He said, “The Deputy Prime Minister … on behalf of the Prime Minister.”—that’s exactly what he said. The member should listen for a little bit longer before she stands up. Any further supplementaries?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Speaker, I hadn’t finished my answer before the point of order was taken. The reason these misrepresentations are important is that the effect of failing to meet these targets that the prior Government set for themselves means that they left a Budget hole of a billion dollars in the corrections portfolio because they predicted low prison numbers growth, when, in actual fact, they have grown hugely and the cost of those additional prison beds has not been funded by the previous Government’s Budget.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Listening to the answer from the Minister, I’m just wondering whether the ruling that you made late last year about critiquing the previous Government in an answer to a question—does that still stand or not? Because at that time you were very clear that we couldn’t refer back to the previous Government. The Minister was responsible from the time only that they’d taken up the warrant and could comment only from the time they’d taken up the warrant. We had quite a discussion about it, you’ll recall, and I’m just wondering whether that’s now changed. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, I’m happy to deal with it and say that this whole series of questions, as it started yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition, went to the question of the previous Government’s targets and whether they should be kept to. It was the responses to that that were the basis of the member’s questions. I think it is fair to take it in the whole context.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—a fresh point of order, then, if I could. I’ve looked at the primary of this particular question, and it makes no reference to the previous Government’s Better Public Services statements, and it actually talks about the Government’s justice policies in relation to—

SPEAKER: And if that was the case, especially when the member asking supplementaries quoted yesterday’s statement by the Deputy Prime Minister acting for the Prime Minister, then it must take it back to yesterday’s question. What is relevant is not only what’s in the primary, but it can be widened out by the supplementary, and the Hon Amy Adams certainly did. [Interruption] No. The point of order has been dealt with. If there’s a fresh point of order, Amy Adams, you may have one.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t mean to trifle with you but I am struggling to understand, because I want to get this right. I understand entirely your ruling that the supplementary question can widen the scope of the primary, and yet I was very careful in my supplementary to only refer to a very specific comment where the view was expressed by the Prime Minister that young people should be treated in a very specific way. It wasn’t in relation to BPS targets; it wasn’t even about targets. So I just want you to clarify that ruling, and that while the supplementary extended it when it only talked about a very specific comment that was made, how that brought into play everything else that had been discussed as part of a different question.

SPEAKER: Sure. And, very briefly, it was the context in which the comments that the member quoted was made. The comments were made in relation to BPS targets, and that was the point that members were making, and debates around that. I think it’s not unreasonable when someone quotes specific wording from a ministerial answer that the context of that answer be allowed to be referred to by the person who has to respond to the quote that the member used.

Businesses, Retail—Crime Deterrent Subsidy

6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What is he doing to support crime prevention for high-risk retail businesses?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government has removed some of the barriers in accessing the $1.8 million fund for crime prevention measures by increasing the subsidy for at-risk retail businesses. Police were allocated $1.8 million by the previous Government to put towards high-tech crime deterrence, such as fog cannons, for identified at-risk premises. However, only one business accepted the co-funded option. Two businesses were fully funded as part of the pilot programme. Due to almost zero uptake, it was clear that this fund was not being utilised in the way in which it was intended.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many more businesses have taken up this subsidy since the Minister has reviewed the subsidy?

Hon STUART NASH: Since the available subsidy was increased under this Government in November last year, we now have 17 more businesses who have accessed this fund and a further eight are awaiting fit-out. This is a clear improvement on the one business under the previous Government. One of the main reasons for the change is that myself, the Minister of Justice, and a number of Labour South and West Auckland MPs met with and listened to a delegation of dairy owners, got a feel for the issues and, as a result of the feedback, I adjusted the scheme accordingly.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What are the Government’s longer-term plans to reduce crime and improve public safety?

Hon STUART NASH: As clearly signalled, this Government is striving towards an extra 1,800 police into our community and to fight organised crime. We’re going to ensure that the police have the manpower and womanpower and the resources to ensure New Zealanders feel safe in their houses in their communities. By targeting at-risk youth and providing them with options and opportunities away from crime, we remove the need to catch them at a later stage. We believe that investing in our youth—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s more than enough for something that is, sort of, marginally relevant.

Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the policy announced yesterday by the Prime Minister in question time to cease the policy of providing pre-charge warnings to young first-time youth offenders?

Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t see how that question has any relevance to preventing crime in high-risk retail businesses.

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

SPEAKER: No, I have ruled the question in by not ruling it out. The member will answer it.

Hon STUART NASH: As far as I’m concerned, the Prime Minister announced no such policy at all yesterday.

Chris Bishop: Does the Minister agree with the statement of the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, then, that “This Government does not believe in fictitious policies such as telling the police that when they catch someone offending, warn them and don’t charge them?

Hon STUART NASH: What I do believe is that the police work incredibly hard with our communities to ensure that youth are given opportunities away from crime, because what we do know is that spending $100,000 a year to keep someone in prison is not a good investment in our youth.

David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that $1.8 million is 0.1 percent of the $1.8 billion in tobacco excise tax, the collection of which is what endangers small-business people in the first place?

Hon STUART NASH: No, I cannot confirm that.

Health Services—Funding and National Bowel Screening Programme

7. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What are his priorities in the Health portfolio?

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

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why is the further roll-out of the National Bowel Screening Programme being delayed by a year, meaning that thousands of New Zealanders will not have their potentially treatable bowel cancers detected and people may die as a result?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Delays are another example of the previous Minister’s refusal to listen to officials and the sector about the bowel screening programme. Had he been listening, he would have heard that there was a lack of capacity in some district health boards (DHBs) for colonoscopies. Had he been listening, he would have heard that the IT system critical to success was missing key milestones. Had he been listening, he would have heard that workforce planning wasn’t in place. This is a Government that listens and delivers.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How does that explanation square with the Taranaki Daily News of 18 January reporting him as saying that the National Bowel Screening Programme would be “delayed for a year due to insufficient funds to run the programme.”, and why is he telling different stories to different people in different places?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I think the member will have a better go.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member’s not going to dispute my ruling, is he?

Hon Grant Robertson: I just want to go back to the Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders about there being two parts to a question, in which a member can answer either part. One of the parts of Mr Coleman’s question asked whether he was telling different stories to different people, and the Minister rejected that part of that question. There were two parts to it.

SPEAKER: I could well have made a wrong ruling, and I almost certainly did. But the member will still answer.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member’s statement in the second part of his question.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What health priorities is the Minister aware of that have not been adequately funded, or funded at all?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, where do I begin. Primary healthcare has been woefully underfunded for a very long time, as have DHBs, which now have a combined projected deficit of $178 million.

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In mental health, the previous—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Point of order.

Hon Simon Bridges: I don’t have it before me, but Speakers’ rulings are very clear that a Minister cannot attack the Opposition through a question from his own side like this by referring back—very clear. I can find it.

SPEAKER: No, no. I think it’s fair to say that the Minister is running through issues that he is currently dealing with.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Primary healthcare has been woefully underfunded, as have DHBs, which now have a combined projected deficit of $178 million. In mental health, funding has failed to meet need over the past decade. Less than 5 percent of the $14 billion in anticipated capital expenditure projects over the next decade have been appropriated for. This Government is committed to ensuring New Zealanders have affordable access to quality care, and funding health better is an absolute priority.

Matt Doocey: Well, in light of that answer, is he aware both the finance Minister and Treasury have confirmed there is $100 million in a contingency fund set aside to fund additional mental health services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am intrigued that the member wishes to revisit the “Bungle of All Budgets”, where $38 million was misallocated. DHBs didn’t know two weeks before their financial—

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —plans were due how much money they were getting, and the money—

SPEAKER: Order! A point of order, Matt Doocey.

Matt Doocey: The question was, “Is he aware …”.

SPEAKER: Righto. Well, the problem I’ve got now is that I’m assuming that the Minister was building up to—I mean, he was certainly addressing it, but building up to an answer. What I’m going to do is I’m now going to ask the Minister to give a very direct answer to the question.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, I am aware that a contingency had been set aside of funding that had not been appropriated, because that Government had not funded a single initiative in that contingency package. They hadn’t even begun to do the policy work on it. It’s a complete—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —embarrassment for them. It will not take this Government nine years to make—

SPEAKER: Order! A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This place must not be allowed to lose its character, and—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —one of those features is a preparedness to hear and listen to answers that we hope are generally being put to questions in this House. What we had here was a Minister getting up to define the difference between contingency and actual appropriation, and a barrage of jeers coming from over there because they don’t want to hear the truth.

Hon Simon Bridges: I think the point here is the Minister answered it very succinctly, and then he went on to a whole lot of crazy extraneous stuff that brought the House into disorder.

SPEAKER: Well, can I say to both the senior members that they were going very well—and probably also to the Minister—early in their interventions and three of them lost quite a lot of sympathy by the way they continued.

Matt Doocey: Can he confirm that this money will be used for mental health over the coming months while the mental health inquiry is proceeding?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There was no money allocated, so of course I can’t confirm it’s going to be used for anything. Nothing cannot be used for anything.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How can he justify delaying bowel screening and delaying new mental health programmes, just because he’s made so many big health promises that he’s now short of $200 million and he can’t afford to spend money on these vital services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the assertion in the member’s question.

Transport—Funding and National Land Transport Fund

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): To the Minister of Transport—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think Nick Smith and Megan Woods might have—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It was actually me.

SPEAKER: Was it you? I apologise. I just—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I apologise, sir.

SPEAKER: I think I get acclimatised to Dr Smith and think it’s him. Can the pair of you be quiet. We’ll call that even, and we’ll go to the Hon Judith Collins without interruption from either side of the House.

8. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Transport: From what source, and in what proportions, is the National Land Transport Fund funded?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The current Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, revised in February 2017 by the past Government, requires revenue raised from the land transport system to be used for land transport purposes. All revenue from fuel excise duty, road-user charges, motor vehicle registration and licensing fees, revenue from Crown appropriations, management of Crown land interests, and tolling are accounted for in the National Land Transport Fund. The fund’s revenue for 2016-17 was comprised of 52 percent fuel excise duty, 40 percent road-user charges, and 8 percent motor vehicle registration and other revenue.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he tell the New Zealand public that the national land transport funding for roads would not be redirected to rail when he had already written to some stakeholders saying that the Government is “exploring how rail investment is incorporated within the Government policy statement and the National Land Transport Fund.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: To clarify for the member, what I said was that funding for a particular project or funding band for different transport modes in the National Land Transport Programme cannot be changed by the Government of the day. Those decisions are made at arm’s length by the New Zealand Transport Agency board. However, a new Government, with a new enlightened transport policy, can set new priorities and change the funding bands in the land transport programme, and that is exactly what we’re going to do.

Jamie Strange: Supplementary? [Interruption]

Hon Judith Collins: The Lord loves a trier, doesn’t He? If, as the Minister of Transport states, 100 percent—pretty much—of the National Land Transport Fund is paid for by car and truck owners, should they expect this money to be spent on roads?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Roads, like all other transport—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Roads, like all other transport modes, are funded from a variety of sources. Local ratepayers, for example, contribute $1.7 billion in the current three-year period. And yet, some people seem to believe that road taxes should be spent only on roads. The member’s argument is totally illogical.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clearly about the funding that comes into and from the National Land Transport Fund, not local roads that are paid for, primarily, by ratepayers. Can the Minister please address the question correctly.

SPEAKER: I thought he addressed it. He mightn’t have answered it, but he addressed it.

Jamie Strange: Supplementary, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Jamie Strange—and he won’t be stared down.

Jamie Strange: I’ve had the look, Mr Speaker. Does the Government intend changing the past Government’s requirement that funds in the National Land Transport Fund be spent for land transport purposes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you. The new Government policy statement on land transport for 2018 is being worked on. We aim to have the draft GPS out for consultation in March. However, the current requirement that revenue raised from the transport system be spent on land transport aligns perfectly with this Government’s ambition for funding a badly needed rapid transit system for Auckland that will make a serious dent in traffic gridlock, unlocking massive productivity gains, and so that requirement is very unlikely to change.

Hon Judith Collins: Why should road users nationwide, who contribute $3 billion a year specifically for roading, watch this Labour - New Zealand First Government spend it on an Auckland tram up Dominion Road?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I would have thought that the member would know that rail delivers $1.3 billion a year in reduced road congestion. It saves $63 million a year in road maintenance. The Northern Busway, built by the former Labour-led Government, has taken four lanes of traffic off the harbour bridge every morning. Surely she can see that that’s good for motorists.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Minister prepared to confirm that the independent New Zealand Transport Agency, which oversees how the $3 billion paid for by New Zealand - wide road users, will still be able to operate independently from the Government, when the Prime Minister’s mentor, the Hon Dame Annette King, is appointed to the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency board?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: All I can say is that that member is sadly misinformed.

Children in State Care—Historical Abuse, Royal Commission

9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What were her key considerations when establishing the inquiry into historical abuse in State care?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): The key consideration was to establish an independent process to listen to those affected and allow the truth to be heard. We want those New Zealanders to know that their Government cares about what happened to them. We want to learn from what happened to them. I hope we can ultimately provide some closure. That means making sure that the truth comes out and that everyone—those involved and the public—feels confident that it has. As the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, has rightly said today, survivors of abuse in State care will have the deep hurt they experienced investigated and acknowledged by this new inquiry.

Angie Warren-Clark: What will the process for the inquiry be from here?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The inquiry was formally established today. The first phase will include a period of consultation on the draft terms of reference, led by the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand. The inquiry will be supported by an independent secretariat, which Sir Anand will establish soon. As the Minister of Internal Affairs, I will report back in late April on the final terms of reference, additional inquiry members, the budget for the inquiry, and details of the survivor advisory panel. The inquiry is then expected to begin to consider the evidence.

Clayton Mitchell: Why did the Government choose a royal commission of inquiry?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Royal commissions are reserved for the most serious matters of public importance. Cabinet agreed to establish a royal commission to acknowledge the seriousness of this issue and to signal that this Government is committed to investigating at the highest level. This also provides the best assurance to survivors and their families—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Minister to sit down. I can understand why members got agitated by the interjection. This is a very serious matter and I understand why members were offended. But I think it is also important that the Minister is given a chance to outline the process for persons outside the House who aren’t as familiar with it as some members.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. So Cabinet agreed to establish a royal commission to acknowledge the seriousness of this issue and to signal that this Government is committed to investigating at the highest level. This also provides the best assurance to survivors and their families of the independence of the inquiry process.

Water Supplies—Storage Projects

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Nathan Guy: What is his Government’s policy on supporting water storage and irrigation projects given that seven regions have been declared in a drought this summer?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government supports water storage. We also support farmers when they need it, and I was very happy to declare a drought three times, in three regions that need it. On the basis of my success—and that rain followed—I have to say it’s probably cheaper to fly me round the country than it is to build big storage schemes to get water on the ground.

Hon Nathan Guy: Given that there are two coalition agreements—one with New Zealand First that states “honouring existing agreements” and one with the Greens that talks about winding down Government support for irrigation—and then Shane Jones, who’s publicly stating he will support localised water storage and irrigation schemes, is he not surprised that officials that were in front of the Primary Production Committee are hearing from stakeholders and themselves that they are confused and that there’s a huge amount of anxiety because the Government won’t step forward and say publicly which projects they support and whether the funding will be allocated, or robbed for stupid things like student—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m faced with a bit of a problem because the member did have a question that went well beyond a question, but there were also, I think, three interjections from my right during the question. So I think what we’ll do is we’ll add another supplementary for the National Party on an on-balance basis, but I’m going to ask the Hon Nathan Guy, if he does get a further supplementary question, to make it one that is a question and not a rambling statement.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Government does support water storage. We have said quite clearly, however, that we will wind down Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd because we believe that the money that the National Government gave to schemes was unnecessary. We believe there will be water storage projects in the future, but farmers and industry are going to have to work through the best ways of developing those. The coalition agreement between our coalition partners is quite clear. The member quoted them himself, and we stand by those.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is he aware that five localised projects are construction-ready in 2018—two in April, two in June, one in August—totalling 45,000 hectares—

SPEAKER: OK, that’s enough—that’s enough. The member’s asked a question.

Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, I did ask a question, but I was just concluding my sentence with another very important point in terms of context. I would have appreciated you allowing me to finish my question.

SPEAKER: I can appreciate that the member might have appreciated that, but what I’m trying to do to members of the House—and as far as written questions, people have done it very well today—is encourage members, when they have asked a question, not to add material that is unnecessary to that question being answered.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I am aware of five projects, and probably more, that farmers around the country would like to have. Those five projects are at different stages of development. They are not ready, as that member states, and can I say that Ministers are working through this extensive decision-making process, and the member’s just going to have to wait for the decisions to be made. We’ve been very clear and up-front with Crown Irrigation Investments; I think they are comfortable with our position.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is he aware that if these five projects aren’t funded, as the commitment has been made by Crown Irrigation and the Ministry for Primary Industries this year, the Crown—the Government—will be exposed legally and morally?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware of different stages of development for all those projects. I don’t accept the position put forward by the member over there. We will work through this very carefully, mindful of the legal obligations to the Crown.

Hon Nathan Guy: While the Minister publicly stated, “I think [the Waimea Dam] is necessary” in September last year, will he support other irrigation projects or continue to be no friend of the farmer, as he’s already publicly stated since he became Minister?

SPEAKER: No, no. I mean, first and last calls: it’s both out.

Local Government, Minister—Written Questions Responses

11. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does she stand by her answer to written question 15168, where she said she’d received no correspondence from the Whangarei District Council between 26 October and 28 November 2017?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Jami-Lee Ross: How then can it be that her office replied to correspondence from the Whangarei District Council from 7 November 2017 when the council asked to meet with the Minister?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member can’t understand the difference between an invitation and a piece of correspondence, he might want to ponder that a little bit further.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does the Minister still stand by all of her answers given yesterday, where she said she’d received no correspondence from the Whakatāne District Council, when clearly she had replied to it, as demonstrated yesterday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is referring to the document that he tabled in the House yesterday, which he described as “correspondence from the Whakatāne District Council” and then sought leave to table and was given leave to table, he was, in fact, referring to an invitation the Minister had received from the chair of Local Government New Zealand’s zone 2.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is the Minister telling the House that correspondence received from the office of the Mayor of the Whakatāne District Council isn’t from the Whakatāne District Council?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Not if he’s acting in a different role.

Jami-Lee Ross: When can councils and the public have any confidence that this Minister will start taking her job seriously?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Minister does take her job very seriously, and she’s not spending her time obsessing about the difference between correspondence and invitations, as the member seems to be.

Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a letter to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, from the Whangarei District Council on 7 November 2017.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Is there a group? If so—

Jami-Lee Ross: This is the last one. There’ll be more next week. I seek leave to table a letter from the office of Nanaia Mahuta to the Mayor of Whangarei dated 27 November 2017.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Customs Service—Role in Harm Reduction

12. LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Customs: What advice has she received regarding the role Customs plays in reducing harm to New Zealand families, whānau, and communities?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): I have been advised that each year the use of illicit drugs costs this country $1.8 billion in social harm and Government interventions. The social cost of amphetamines alone is close to $350 million. Every year, each frequent user imposes $15,000 on their whānau and friends. The cost on families and communities is astronomical, and this Government is absolutely committed to bucking this trend and reducing harm. Customs’ role in this is vital, through their focus on stopping the illicit importation of methamphetamine and disrupting the ability of organised crime groups to influence the market and profit from this smuggling activity—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. She’s well and truly answered the question.

Louisa Wall: What advice has the Minister received regarding the role customs plays in reducing harm to New Zealand families, whānau, and communities?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: We believe seizures made offshore last year, before they reached New Zealand, prevented $57 million in potential social harm. In 2015-16, 34,000 New Zealanders reported using meth—1.1 percent of the adult population—but the disturbing thing is waste water results indicate actual use is much higher. Māori are three to four times more likely to use amphetamines than non-Māori in 2015-16. Declaring a war on P is a priority for customs.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the following rules relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee be adopted as a sessional order:

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

1 Definitions

For the purposes of these rules,—

Intelligence and Security Committee means the Intelligence and Security Committee that is continued by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017

intelligence and security agency means—

(a) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service:

(b) the Government Communications Security Bureau.

2 Conduct of committee’s proceedings

Subject to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, the proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee are conducted in accordance with the rules and practice of the House.

3 Referral of bill or other matter to committee

(1) The House may refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee any bill or other matter relating to an intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 287 to 296, 298, 300, 318(3), and 329(1) apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

(3) The Clerk may allocate to the Intelligence and Security Committee a paper presented under Standing Order 265 concerning the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4 Referral of petition to committee

Despite Standing Order 370, every petition relating to an intelligence and security agency stands referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration and report.

5 Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for intelligence and security agencies

(1) Despite Standing Orders 337(2) and 342(1), the Finance and Expenditure Committee must refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee the Votes or appropriations contained in the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for each intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 330(1), 338, 340, 342(2), and 343(3)(b) apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

6 Annual reviews of intelligence and security agencies

(1) Despite Standing Order 345, the Finance and Expenditure Committee must allocate to the Intelligence and Security Committee the annual review of each intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 346(2), 348(1)(b) and (3), and 349 apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

7 Examination of policy, administration, and expenditure of intelligence and security agency

In addition to its consideration of Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and annual reviews, the Intelligence and Security Committee may, at any time, examine the policy, administration, and expenditure of an intelligence and security agency, and may report to the House on such an examination.

8 Reports of Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) In addition to its reports on business considered under Rules 3 to 7, the Intelligence and Security Committee—

(a) presents an annual report to the House on the activities of the committee:

(b) may report at any time on a matter relating to intelligence and security that it wishes to draw to the attention of the House.

(2) Subject to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, Standing Orders 243 to 252 apply to reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee and are to be read as if they were reports of a select committee.

9 Confidential proceedings of Intelligence and Security Committee

Standing Orders 114, 380(4), and 386(3), which relate to references to committee proceedings in debate, questions and replies, apply to proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee as if it were a select committee.

10 Restriction of select committee briefings and inquiries relating to intelligence and security matters

Despite Standing Order 189(2), no select committee may receive a briefing on, or initiate an inquiry into, matters related to an intelligence and security agency, unless the House approves that briefing or inquiry.

11 Copies of records of Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Intelligence and Security Committee must provide to the House a copy of all records held by the committee in relation to the performance of its functions under section 193(1)(a) to (d) of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

(2) A copy of a record provided under paragraph (1) must be provided only after protected information is removed in accordance with the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

(3) A copy of a record provided under this rule is maintained in the custody of the Clerk as a record belonging to the House. Standing Orders 10 and 11 apply and are to be read accordingly.

I further move, That under section 196 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: Hon Amy Adams and Hon Christopher Finlayson, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 194(2)(c) of the Act; and Rt Hon Winston Peters, Hon Andrew Little, and Hon James Shaw, nominated by the Prime Minister under section 194(2)(d) of the Act.

Through the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House exercises oversight and review of the intelligence and security departments—namely, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Motions similar to these are brought to the House in the early months of every new Government, but this is the first time that they have been under the authority of the new Intelligence and Security Act, which was enacted last year.

The Intelligence and Security Committee is created by statute, rather than by the House itself. It is not a select committee, but the first motion now before the House establishes procedures that allow it to act, in most respects, as if it were a select committee. It creates a sessional order that allows the Intelligence and Security Committee to consider bills and petitions, to conduct estimates and annual review examinations, and to carry out other security functions that are usually within the remit of select committees. The proceedings of the committee are largely conducted in accordance with the rules and practice of the House. An Office of the Clerk staff member acts as clerk of the committee.

The second motion before the House today concerns the membership of the committee. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are automatically members appointed by section 194 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. That Act has introduced flexibility around the total membership of the committee, which can now consist of five to seven members. This allows the membership to better represent our MMP Parliament.

After the process of consultation set out in the Act, the Prime Minister has nominated the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon Andrew Little, and the Hon James Shaw. The Leader of the Opposition has nominated the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Chris Finlayson. Thus, the committee will have a great depth of experience on which to draw and will represent the full range of views on intelligence and security issues from across the House. I recommend that the House endorse these nominations.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker, I thank you. I rise to speak in support of Government motion No. 1 and look forward to serving again on this committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee has become a critical part of the oversight and checking of a core part of our democracy, and that is the operation of the intelligence and security community, of course. As a result of the review carried out by the last Government in 2013, the operation of both the committee that we’re discussing today and the wider oversight framework that that committee plays a part of has become significantly strengthened.

It is not an exaggeration to say that we live in a world, unfortunately, of increasingly diverse and complex threats to our economy, to our people, and to society, and we live in a world where intelligence and security agencies like the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau are a very necessary part of our society and they have the privilege of having unique and potentially very intrusive powers. Now, while those powers are absolutely necessary and warranted, it’s equally important for the confidence of society in those organisations that there is proper accountability to this House and to the public more widely.

The committee sits, of course, as part, as I said, of that oversight framework, making up the committee, the inspector-general, and the Commissioner of Security Warrants. I have been fortunate to sit on the committee for some years in the previous Parliament along with the Hon Christopher Finlayson, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Hon Andrew Little, and it will be enjoyable to have the opportunity to work with them again. The committee in my experience has always worked carefully and constructively and with the best interests of New Zealand in mind, and we look forward to welcoming the Hon James Shaw and, of course, the Rt Hon Bill English and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, as Mr Robertson has said, in their roles, of course, as automatic appointees as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.

This is an important motion. I appreciate it won’t be one that is of particular interest to the media or perhaps the public at home, but this committee does have that critical role of carrying out oversight, often in secret. And while that secrecy is necessary and warranted, it does mean that there is an extraordinary level of confidence that needs to be placed both in the protocols of the committee and the selection of the membership to it. It is important that you have members with experience, with integrity, and with a working knowledge of the legal systems and the operation of our Intelligence and Security Committee. In my experience, as I’ve said, the committee functions very well. It is an incredibly important committee. I would want to take the opportunity to repeat my desire that the committee does look to operate in public and to disseminate as much of its findings and conclusions as it can so that the public can learn more about the ways in which our intelligence and security community works.

I would like to commend the two agencies that make up the intelligence community for what I’ve seen is their very genuine desire in recent years to be more open with the public about the nature of the work and the extent of the threat. I think that sort of openness has helped New Zealanders to better understand the threats that we face and the way in which we respond to them. I think that has been helpful and I certainly hope that that openness and transparency continues in so far as is sensible, in light, of course, of their ultimate objective, which is the protection of New Zealand and New Zealanders. With those words, I am pleased to support the motion.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): In our country’s democratic system, one of Parliament’s most important functions is to serve as a check and balance on the actions and behaviour of the executive. This debate is not meant to be a backslapping exercise but to deal with the realities of the truth. There is no area of greater sensitivity or secrecy within the executive’s various operations than intelligence and security matters. The Intelligence and Security Committee serves therefore as a crucial guardian of the guardians of New Zealand security.

Too long under the last Government the guardian was sidelined—not asleep but just left out. The committee barely met, even as more intelligence-related issues raised massive concerns about the conduct of those core institutions. Once secrecy becomes sacrosanct in this respect it invites abuse. That laissez-faire approach will end, and it needs to, and it will, under the new membership, no longer continue. New Zealanders need to know that their parliamentarians are keeping a check on the policies, administration, and expenditure of the intelligence agencies. The leadership of the newly constituted committee will ensure this function is performed diligently.

There’s an old saying that the success of democracy depends on the enlightenment of its people. The people should know what’s going on and public officials should keep the people informed in the area of intelligence and security. This concept is a most challenging one, so it’s been encouraging to see, for example, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security exhibit leadership over some of the conduct of our intelligence agencies and their policy interpretations or misinterpretations. The Intelligence and Security Committee will offer strong support to the Inspector-General in her role. In the famous words of John Philpot Curran, “The condition [in] which God [gives] liberty to man is eternal vigilance;”, and that’s what we’re going to do.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): It’s no secret that the Green Party has had a complicated relationship with the Intelligence and Security Committee. For almost 20 years, Green Party MPs have been calling in this House for this committee to be reformed; for it to much more closely reflect other select committees in Parliament, in transparency, accountability, and membership; for it to move away from operating as a secret meeting, reflecting the old days of first past the post; and for it to much more represent and honour the realities and intentions of MMP. That is why we’re endorsing the membership of the committee before the House today. We’re really pleased that the Prime Minister has chosen to include representatives from every party on this side of the House. It is unfortunate that National has chosen not to include ACT Party leader David Seymour so that every party in Parliament could be represented.

Despite that, the make-up of the committee being endorsed today is a victory for us. There are representatives from every parliamentary party with more than one MP, and it’s roughly in proportion to the number of MPs each party has in the House. During the latest update of the Intelligence and Security Act last year, we got an amendment to the membership clause that requires now that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have regard to the proportionality of parties represented in Parliament. It is a joy to see that come to fruition today.

We had hoped for a bigger committee, to more closely mirror the other parliamentary committees, but we’re heartened that the current size of the committee is as big as it can be with the constraints of the Act as its stands. The Green Party believes that this is a healthier, more democratic, and more balanced representation that will, in turn, provide more robust oversight of agencies that otherwise operate under a cloak of secrecy. It means that the committee is now likely to have a broader range of views represented on it, including those who are questioning or sceptical of the methods and activities of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies.

We were last members of this committee through our then co-leader Russel Norman in 2014, during a time most New Zealanders will remember was very controversial for New Zealand’s security agencies. As a member of this committee, we did our best to ensure that the committee operated as a true watchdog. The Green Party sought, among other things, an inquiry into John Key’s appointment of Ian Fletcher as the head of the GCSB. We asked for an inquiry into the Five Eyes network, and we were the only member of the committee who asked questions about the financial reviews of the GCSB and SIS. That is what effective oversight looks like.

And there’s room for more reform. In other jurisdictions, committees like this operate with far more members, far more independence in their oversight. We’d like to see, for example, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security become an Officer of Parliament, like the Auditor-General or the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who report to this House of Representatives rather than the executive alone.

The Green Party intends to be an effective member of this committee, to do our best to give the public much better oversight of the security and services than we have seen in the past. We will bring cautious and, at times, sceptical scrutiny of the committee’s work and the spy agencies’ activities. We will also treat our responsibility on the committee with appropriate discipline and the code of conduct that is required.

We are pleased to accept the Prime Minister’s nomination onto the committee, and we will be voting for the motion.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of these motions. I think that we’re very lucky in New Zealand to have a pretty good solution to the problem of who watches the watchers. And, of course, it needn’t be said that various States at various times in history have fallen into tyranny due to a failure to solve that problem. I think the people on the committee will do a fine job, in the tradition of New Zealand, of being those who watch the watchers.

I can’t help but reflect on Golriz Ghahraman’s comments regarding the size of the committee, and give my thanks, ironically enough, to the Leader of the House, who very magnanimously offered to expand the committee to a membership of seven, in order that there might be an ACT Party member on the committee. I think it won’t have escaped members that, from time to time, despite its small size, ACT brings to the House a unique perspective that sometimes makes debate more interesting and, dare I say it, a little bit better. There was an opportunity for that to occur on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as well. It’s unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition decided, for reasons best known to him, that he would rather block, or veto, that expansion. If he could not have three National Party members, then he would rather have only five members on the committee overall—an odd decision for the Leader of the Opposition to make, but I’m sure that a lot of his colleagues will be reflecting on decisions like that in months to come.

So, Mr Assistant Speaker, I commend these motions to the House, and thank you very much for your time.

Motions agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to implement the Government’s 100-day commitments on workplace relations. The proposals are designed to provide greater protection to workers, especially vulnerable workers, and to strengthen the role of collective bargaining in the workplace to ensure fair wages and conditions.

For too long the employment relations system has been failing too many people in New Zealand. Low wages, limited pay increases, and a steady erosion of conditions became prevalent under the previous Government. Recent economic growth, while welcomed, is worryingly supported by increasing volumes of low-paid work, rather than through building the skills, innovation, and productivity that drive a high-wage economy.

The reforms set out in this bill begin to give effect to this Government’s vision for a highly skilled and innovative economy that delivers good jobs, decent conditions, and fair wages for a fair day’s work. An effective employment relations framework balances the need for employers to have flexibility in how they run their businesses while providing safeguards and rights to employees. This bill rolls back a number of the previous Government’s amendments that weakened employees’ rights at work and tipped the balance too far away from the principles of basic fairness.

This bill contains 14 amendments to the Employment Relations Act. They can be grouped into two main categories: the provision of a set of minimum protections for the workforce as a whole, and strengthening the role of collective bargaining and unions in industrial relations. Minimum standards are key to ensuring vulnerable workers are not taken advantage of. We want to ensure that all employers treat workers with decency and respect.

I first want to address the issue of trial periods. It’s fair to say that there are differing views about trial periods, which is why we have worked closely and collaboratively with our partners in Government to reach a position that limits 90-day trial periods to employers with fewer than 20 employees. I’d like to thank the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party for a constructive discussion on these issues.

Research from the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust has indicated that small businesses are the most likely to use trial periods, and we hear from business organisations that employers can be encouraged to hire workers if trial periods are available. However, the same research from Motu suggests that the evidence isn’t strong. What is clear is the need for more research on the impact, both positive and negative, of 90-day trial periods, to complement the Motu research.

I note with some degree of disappointment that the previous Government, essentially, failed to canvass the views of workers on this issue, although, frankly, I’m hardly surprised. As we account for the benefits of 90-day trials to employers, we must also account for their costs to New Zealand workers. They can lead to uncertainty and anxiety for new employees. When employers do dismiss people on trial periods, this may cause significant distress, exacerbated when workers are not provided reasons and where they believe the dismissal is unfair. The lack of a process for workers to challenge the dismissal may worsen their experience. It may mean that some employees face difficulty in finding subsequent employment if they are dismissed under a trial position without knowing the reason. In future, they may have to account for that dismissal, which may harm their future employment prospects.

Employees may also become risk-averse about moving jobs, if it means moving from a job in which they have protections against unjustified dismissal into one where they can be summarily dismissed. That may make the overall labour market less flexible and may also harm employers who have a less engaged and less productive workforce. The position we’ve reached will mean that trials will be limited to employers who appear to be gaining the most relative benefit out of them, while limiting their scope, to ensure that as many workers as possible are protected by the standard provisions around unjustified dismissal.

Small businesses employ approximately 29 percent of employees in New Zealand. The remaining 71 percent of employees will have access to personal grievances for unjustified dismissal, from day one. Larger employers usually have more sophisticated hiring systems in place, they are better placed to manage the risks involved in hiring new employees, and the harm of an underperforming employee is considerably less than that for a small firm.

We do need to learn more about the effects of trial periods. I plan to undertake further research on the scale and use of 90-day trials, the number of dismissals, and its impact on employees and the economy, to ensure that trial periods are working appropriately.

Elsewhere, to enhance minimum standards, the bill restores an employee’s right to a minimum number and duration of set rest and meal breaks. The previous Government took away this right, nickel-and-diming Kiwi workers. We are restoring it. This will give employees enough time to rest, refresh, and eat during working hours and be able to continue to work safely. I recognise that there are limited circumstances where, for safety reasons, it will not be possible to provide breaks in this way. The bill includes a narrow exception for those businesses that provide an essential service, where the continuity of the service is critical to the public interest, and the cost of replacing the employee with a person sufficient to cover the break is unreasonable.

We are also bringing back an employee’s right to request to return to their position as the primary remedy in unjustified dismissal cases, where practical and reasonable. While this is rarely used, it is important to move the starting point for resolving disputes away from payouts so that the real possibility of a return to work is considered as the first option. If the relationship can be saved, this is better for workers and employers. Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act contains an important set of protections for workers in industries with a history of driving down their conditions to rock bottom, where contracts change hands frequently. The rules provide critical protection for vulnerable workers, such as cleaners and caterers, by allowing them to transfer their employment, with the same terms and conditions and entitlements, to an incoming employer when a contract that affects the work they are doing changes hands.

The previous Government introduced an exemption to the Act that meant small to medium sized employers (SMEs) did not have to offer a transfer to existing employees on the same terms and conditions, or at all. This bill proposes to repeal the SME exemption, to restore the right for employees to transfer on the same terms and conditions. Together, these proposals will make New Zealand workplaces fairer and safer.

The second set of reforms relates to collective bargaining and union rights. We want to put in place a fairer framework for workers to bargain for better terms and conditions. Collective bargaining and union relations are critical elements of success for some of our most successful companies. The previous Government weakened the collective bargaining and union recognition framework. This has led to worse working conditions for many New Zealanders and a more unequal society. The bill proposes to remove the ability of employers to opt out of multi-employer collective bargaining at the outset of bargaining. The current opt-out undermines the object of the Act to promote collective bargaining, and has been seen as inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under ILO Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Bargain Collectively. Employers could still conclude a single-employer agreement after multi-employer bargaining, but the change will mean that they at least have to come to the table and discuss the merits of a possible multi-employer collective agreement.

Changes by the previous National Government allowed employers to deduct wages for partial strikes. In some instances, this has resulted in employees losing pay for low-level action such as wearing a T-shirt instead of wearing their uniform. Pay deductions for partial strikes is an unfair restriction on collective action. This bill proposes to repeal pay deductions as a response to partial strikes. We also propose that collective agreements must include pay rates. This amendment follows recent case law that held that refusing to include pay rates in a collective agreement did not equate to a genuine reason not to conclude bargaining. Pay is a key term of employment, and the ability to exclude pay from collective bargaining runs contrary to the very purpose of the Act. This has been a challenging drafting exercise, and I encourage members of the select committee to listen carefully to submitters on this aspect.

This legislation restores minimum rights for all working people, and it improves workers’ bargaining positions in the workplace. To lift wages, we must not only grow our economy; we need to ensure that we have an industrial relations framework that shares the growth amongst the people who earn that growth. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): The Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which has just been introduced by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, will take New Zealand backwards—have absolutely no doubt about that. There is nothing in this bill that will, ultimately, be good for New Zealand or the workers of New Zealand. About the only thing that I agree with in the speech from the Minister was where, at the end, he agreed that a good industrial relations framework is critical to a strong and growing economy. I agree with that, but you cannot, I say to the Minister, simply announce that this bill will help workers and insert fairness into the workplace, and make it so. You have to look at what the bill actually does and the impact that it’s going to have on jobs, on costs, and on workers in New Zealand.

That is what we’re seeing time and time again from this Government. They start with a high-level “motherhood and apple pie” statement about saving the world and then expect no one to question the detail, the plan, or what it’s actually going to mean. I am going to try and do that, because I think this is important. This is a bill and this is a framework and this is an industrial relations plan from this Government that is going to cost jobs in New Zealand. It is going to increase the costs of the goods and services that are supplied and produced in New Zealand. I have no doubt it’s going to lead to more industrial action and more strike action, the likes of which we haven’t seen in this country for many years.

I’m going to start with the changes to the 90-day trial period, and that’s certainly one of the changes that’s received a lot of attention in the media. It’s one of the easier-to-grasp and sort of sound bite - type issues. Look, I welcome the Government backing down and now allowing businesses with 19 or fewer employees to take that. That’s a good start, but I want to question this—well, I want to question several things, but, first of all, if the Government now acknowledges that allowing very small businesses to take a chance on a younger or more vulnerable worker is a good thing, why would you cut off that opportunity for 70 percent of the jobs in this country? And, look, the Government likes to quote the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Trust report in saying that’s the reason it’s all—well, even the Motu report, which, by the way, we don’t accept the methodology of, and we absolutely dispute that it’s in any way consistent with the findings of the growth of jobs in this country. But even that report acknowledges that the 90-day trial periods have lifted the employment rate in the construction sector by more than 10 percent. Now, the construction sector is largely made up of businesses with well more than 19 staff.

The other point on the 90-day employment rates that I just cannot make head or tail of is why you would set it up—given that this is a Government who’s bringing them back; they can do it any way they like—so that it punishes businesses that choose to employ more part-timers and women who job-share, because, at the moment, if you employed 15 people full-time, you’d be exempt, but if those same 15 full-time positions were job-shared or made up of a number of young mums or vulnerable workers working part-time, they’ll be subject to the Act. They’ll be subject to not having trial periods, and you know those businesses are going to say, “That’s too hard, I’m sorry. I’ll only go with the fulltime-equivalent.” It’s simply not fair.

Meal breaks—now, I have to challenge the Minister. He misled this House, in my opinion, by suggesting that, currently, workers are denied reasonable meal and rest breaks under the Act. That is simply not true, and I would also challenge the Government to show this House—we’ve got lots more speeches to come—any quantitative information that suggests the rest and meal breaks changes are creating a problem and that people are missing out on breaks. In fact, I have come across any number of workers who’ve said to me, “Look, frankly, I would far rather finish my five-hour block quickly, do my work in one fell swoop, have an apple or a muesli bar at my desk, and get home to my kids to meet the school bus. If you make me take a half-hour lunch break and a 15-minute smoko break, that just means I either get paid less or I miss the school bus.” How is that good for workers?

To me, this is about the Labour Party infantilising the workforce and the businesses of New Zealand. They don’t treat them as adults who can have sensible conversations about how you set up the work day in a way that’s fair. No business wants workers who are tired and rundown and not able to do their job—

Hon Member: And starving.

Hon AMY ADAMS: And starving—that’s exactly right. But we do treat them as adults who can actually work out for themselves what makes sense, and I challenge, again, the Government to point to examples that justify this change, taking away flexibility from the entire sector simply because it doesn’t meet their ideology.

And I want to make one other point. We’ve seen a few comments from businesses saying, “Well, at least they’ve backed off the 90-day trial periods for small businesses. It’s not much, but we’ll take it.” But how many of those small businesses know that with the other hand, the Government has now imposed a whole lot more cost on small businesses who are currently exempt from the business restructuring rules? So, on the one hand, they might’ve been able to keep what they’ve already got, but, on the other hand, they’re being taken backwards as more costs now go on small businesses that they don’t currently have in restructuring. Where is New Zealand First standing up for small business there? Nowhere to be seen.

Under this legislation, unions can require businesses to start bargaining at any time they like, no matter how long has gone, and, as we heard from the Minister, they can force businesses to take part in multi-employer discussions. So no longer can a business say, “Let’s have a sensible discussion between me and my workforce, and the unions if that’s what the workers want, about what goes on in this workplace.” Actually, employers, with this bill, are going to be cut out of bargaining for their workforce. And you wait till the second part of the changes when they’re cut out completely. Already in here, businesses will be forced to accept whatever deal is done by other people, and I don’t think that’s right. And let’s be really clear: this is not just about “Hey, come to the table and see what the deal is.”, because the bill also says that once bargaining starts—and, remember, you have no choice about that as a business; you have to take part at any time—businesses may not leave the table until a deal is done.

So that’s a bit like saying, “I’m going to buy your house, and guess what? You have to keep negotiating with me until I’m happy with the price. You don’t get to choose. I’m buying the house, and you may not leave this negotiation until I’ve decided the price is right.” How is that a negotiation? How is that fair? That is simply requiring businesses to sit at the table and lose productivity at their own cost while their business suffers, until the union decides they’re prepared to conclude their deal. That is not fair, that is not reasonable, and that is not a negotiation.

Now, this bill also makes businesses become union recruiters. When you hire a worker now as a business, you’re going to have to make sure you’re explaining to your workers why they should join the union, how they go about it, and, oh, by the way, you have to put them on the collective contract for 30 days, whether they want it or not. Never mind what the worker wants—never mind what the worker wants. You have to put them on those terms negotiated by the union. You have to give them the forms to sign up to the union. Their details—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Please don’t bring the Speaker into it.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Oh, I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker. You are quite right. The employer has to provide the information about the union. The employer has to put the worker on the union terms. The employer has to provide the worker’s details to the union. And why should they? Workers in New Zealand and businesses in New Zealand are grown up, so deserve the right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the union. If the unions have a value proposition that makes sense, the workers will join. Why are you forcing workers to take part? If the unions can’t sell their offering to the workers themselves, then they should give up and go home just like the Labour Party.

Unions can now come and go from business premises whenever they like without notice, without consent. Now, again, you should—Mr Assistant Speaker, I apologise. I challenge the Government to show me where it has been a problem that unions haven’t been able to get reasonable access to the workplace. We know it hasn’t, because it’s guaranteed in the law. But reasonable access is not enough. They want to be able to come and go as they choose.

I wonder how many businesses know that union members now get to have to be paid by the business for doing union work. So the unions are forcing businesses to recruit for them, they are forcing businesses to pay for them, they’re forcing businesses to let them come and go as they like, and we now also have businesses being required to pay for partial strike action. So let’s be really clear about this. Under the heading of “Industrial action”, a workforce that’s not happy with their union negotiated terms and decide they want more can say, “I’m going to only work part of the day, and you have to pay me for all of it.”—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker; the business. The workforce is entitled to not do their full job. [Interruption] And, look, they’re clapping. They think that’s great. The Government thinks that it’s great that workers shouldn’t have to do their job but they should still get paid for it.

Businesses won’t invest under these circumstances. Jobs don’t just exist. Jobs exist because businesses and New Zealanders work hard, they take a chance, and they invest. When you force those businesses to pay for the unions, to recruit for the unions, to give the reunions free reign to their premises, and then the unions decide, without even including the business necessarily, what the terms are, why would business in this country grow? They won’t. This is a framework that will cost New Zealand jobs. It will harm New Zealand workers, and we oppose it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora. Kia ora tātou. Ngā mihi o Te Tau Hou ki a koutou. Wishing you all a happy New Year. What a shocking contribution from that member, Amy Adams. It reminded me—and I need to remind National Party members—of their shocking history in terms of workers and industrial legislation. Who will ever forget the infamous Employment Contracts Act, which that lot over there would have been celebrating? A disgraceful, disgusting Act that discriminated against workers, Pacific Islanders, Māori—yes, and you’re not looking, are you? They’re not looking, because they are hanging their heads in shame. It was the most shameful Act in the history of industrial legislation. [Interruption] Yes, it was, Mr Goldsmith. [Interruption] Yes, it was—yes it was. So the essence of the Act and their history, which Amy Adams talked about, is “Workers can do it on their own.” This is what she talked about: labour market flexibility. And you know what that means? It means you, Mr Goldsmith, he—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Don’t bring me into the debate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry, sorry. My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. My apologies. That meant that in the workplace—this is the essence of what they did to us in the 1990s. I know first-hand because I was a union official fighting—

Hon Steven Joyce: Can we talk about the current bill?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh no, this is all about the current bill. You know—

Hon Steven Joyce: Well, it would be good if you would.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Hang on, Mr Joyce. This is all about the current bill.

Hon Steven Joyce: No, it’s not.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh yes it is, because this is where it came from—this is where it came from. And you don’t want to talk about it because you’re a part of it. You were one—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh yes, I keep slipping up—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): It would be helpful if the member spoke to the Chair, and then you would avoid that.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m talking about this today because it’s important to talk about the history. I came into this House because of that lot on the other side representing workers—

Rt Hon David Carter: Which time?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 1999. And we drove their dirty, filthy Employment Contracts Act out of existence—out of existence—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member needs to come to this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: But, Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m coming to this bill. This is where it all came from.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I will—[Interruption] Order! We are 2½ minutes into the member’s speech and the member needs to speak to the bill, not his history of coming to Parliament.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: With respect, there’s a background—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I hope the member is not going to question my ruling.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, no way.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Very good.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m not like some of the people on the other side. I never would do that. But it’s important because some of the history here is being repeated—it’s being repeated—and we heard that in the member Amy Adams’ speech today when she talked about labour market flexibility and she talked about employer rights. She’s not talking about union rights, and that’s the essence of this bill. We’re talking about an amendment bill that confirms workers’ rights, that confirms union rights. That’s what this bill is all about, and the National Party are not interested and don’t want to know about it.

I’m saddened when I hear this nonsense about how dare we stand up for workers. That’s what the National Party is saying. So I want to commend our Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, for his courage in bringing this to the House, because we got it right a few years ago. National get in, and then they stuff it all up. And it’s all about taking workers backwards, back into history—“Never mind the meal breaks. Let’s get a 90-day trial in.” This 90-day trial is perfect. It’s perfect.

Employers—if they don’t want to work with it, what are they doing in business, you’ve got to ask yourselves. See, most of them on the other side wouldn’t know, because they haven’t been employers. No, they’ve been here. They have no background—no history. I had an employment force of over a hundred, and did I use the 90-day trial? Very rarely—very rarely. In fact, I had to argue against my own managers in terms of it, because I thought it was a piece of legislation that acted against workers’ interests. They should be able to go to a job—a big job—and have some security. That’s what the 90 days is all about—to have some security—because if they don’t get that security, at the end of 90 days one of Mr Goldsmith’s friends would say, “See you later. Away you go.” That’s what they do, because it’s all about productivity, isn’t it, Mr Goldsmith? It’s all about productivity—“Move on, and get out.”

So I think that we’ve got the right balance in terms of the 90 days. We look after the small employer—unlike the other side—and I think, in terms of bigger employers, they must face and look after the obligations they have. So, again, I think we’re on the right track. We’re trying to correct the mistakes of the past.

Hon Tim Macindoe: The member has no idea what he’s talking about.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m coming to the speech now. So in terms of the bill, it has a much more balanced focus, and I just want to briefly address some of the elements in the bill. I support—[Interruption] Look, I got a bit worked up when I heard that sort of nonsense from one of your senior members. I mean, it was shocking really. I know she’s a contender for leadership, unlike some of the members on that side, but there was no need for that sort of abuse against some of our union members and workforce.

But some of the areas that the Minister has talked about I think that are important are the collaborative effort of the Government parties who have worked closely to develop the proposals, particularly the 90-day trial period, the fairer share of the growth in the economy, the better rate for workers—which wouldn’t concern the other side—better union-employer relationships from which a better work environment and more productive outcomes are achieved, and, of course, we’re making serious progress towards honouring the Government’s election promise to lift the minimum wage to $20 by 2021.

We’re also breathing real life into the equal pay for work of equal value kaupapa—an initiative that I worked on in the mid to late 1980s with the Northern Clerical Workers Union—and this key area of tackling worker exploitation is very important. I know that the National Party always say, “Give us an example.”, but when we invite them to come out with us, they never come. We’ve done that through the years.

As well as that, we’ve got the introduction of the fair pay agreements, and the list goes on. So I salute our Minister in terms of what he’s trying to do, and I think the balance is right.

In terms of the meal breaks—I mean, these are considered fundamental to ensuring a workforce is properly revitalised, energised, and fully productive. It is beyond me why and how the previous Government could legislate against a fundamental right like that in terms of meal breaks. It just seems like everything’s on the table when it comes to workers’ rights. When it comes to fair pay in terms of workers, everything seems on the table from the other side.

What upsets me—and it really was exemplified in Amy Adams’ speech today, her kōrero today—was that she’s so shocked and National are so shocked and horrified that we would dare stand up for workers and unions in this country. What’s actually wrong with that? What is the problem? We stand here proudly in support of workers and unions in this country. As the Minister of Employment, I am proud to stand by them.

Do we support business? Of course we support business. Businesses are not going to collapse, as in the dire predictions from the other side. We heard them in 2000, when we changed the dirty, rotten, filthy Employment Contracts Act. We heard all the predictions of “Oh, the workforce is going to cave in.” Nothing changed. In fact, things flourished between 1999 and 2008, and between 2008 and 2017 things went backwards in the workplace. Things went backwards in the workplace.

So I just think this is such an opportunity to rectify things. It is amending all the mistakes and nonsense that were put out by the previous Government, who are on record, really—we heard it again today from Amy Adams—in terms of, basically, saying “Who cares what workers want? Who cares what the workforce wants? It’s all about our mates—Mr Goldsmith’s mates out in Epsom and around Auckland. It’s not about your average, ordinary Kiwi.” I say today, shame on you, Mr Goldsmith, shame on the National Party, and we’re going to fix your mess. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): Well, that was an interesting contribution from Minister Willie Jackson, where it was not only a history lesson, in fact, for much of the first half of the speech, it has to be said—I think it is now dealing with issues that are 27 years ago, which is about as current as Willie is—but it was also a history lesson in attitudes. It’s ironic that the party that spent so much time discussing the future of work is now spending so much time on the history of work, when, actually, the world has changed. The current Minister of Finance, who was the former shepherd of the Future of Work Commission, professed that he understood that, but this bill has absolutely no understanding of how work has changed, how people approach workplaces in the 21st century, and it just goes to show, actually, because it can’t even divorce workers from unions.

Unions now literally have just 10 percent of private sector workers, and yet all we hear about—all we hear about—from this Government in regards to this bill is unions. Well, actually, 90 percent of workers don’t belong to unions any more. Let’s talk about those people for a minute. Let’s talk about those people, and let’s talk about the New Zealand economy and how it’s been helping workers. Over the last two years, 245,000 more people have got jobs in this country. That’s an average of 10,000 new jobs a month. We’ve never had a job creation streak like this. And, we now have, as further evidence of that job creation streak, the highest proportion of adults in New Zealand in work today, or at least in the last household labour force survey—we’ll see in the next one. But it is the highest ever. More people have the opportunity to work and be paid than they have ever had before, as a proportion of the adult population in this country. On top of that, we have the third-highest rate of adult employment in the developed world. Think about that: the third highest in the whole of the developed world—in all those OECD countries, the third-highest rate of employment.

So, with the greatest respect for the incoming Government, there is a high bar for change. Now they, rightly, will talk about wages, because that’s an important part of the story as well. Wages have been rising at twice the rate of inflation in this country over the last several years. Everybody wants wages to go higher—everybody. That’s important. We want to see New Zealanders become wealthier and more prosperous, and it’s been proceeding under the current employment relations settings better than it has for years—better than it has for years. So, we have the highest rate of employment, we have the highest rate of job creation, we have the highest rate of wage growth, we have some of the best-performing statistics of our labour market in the developed world. That sets a very high bar for change—a very high bar for change, indeed.

So let’s now look at what those changes mean. The first change is to take something that New Zealand small and medium sized businesses are using to give new workers, workers on the edge of the labour market, workers who’ve been unemployed for a significant period of time—giving them the opportunity to take on those people and lowering the risk a little for them and for those people, and giving them access into a job for the first time, with these 90-day trial periods. And it’s working. I’ve read that Motu report, and with the greatest respect to the people at Motu, the problem is they didn’t talk to the employers about how important it was for them. If you talk to any small business, and medium-sized businesses, you’ll find that most say to you that they—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: You’ll listen to the anecdotes but not the real research.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It’s built on a false premise, Mr Lees-Galloway. It doesn’t compare a counterfactual; in fact, it says it can’t compare a counterfactual. That’s the problem with the research. But anyway, the more important story is these small and medium sized businesses. And the bit I don’t understand, which I hope a Government speaker is now going to explain—and perhaps the New Zealand First speaker might be able to that for us—is how to make a distinction between 20 employees or more, and 20 employees and less. If 90-day trials work, they work. If they don’t work, they don’t work.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: You did it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: You’ve got to actually land on it—and to walk away, as Mr Lees-Galloway said, and say “Employers of over 20 people: you’ll be fine because you’re a big company.” Well, with the greatest respect, companies with 20 staff are not big companies. Companies with 20 staff are generally under massive pressure. You’ll generally find that those—you know, they’ve got lots of work to do, they want to bring on more people, they don’t have the systems of a really big corporate; they just want to hire somebody and give somebody a chance and see if it works out so they can be added to the team. And it’s been so successful in bringing people from the margins of the labour market into the labour market. And we know, because we have the highest rate of employment that New Zealand has ever had. So it’s working. And the test is on the Government to prove that it needs to change.

Then we have the rather interesting set of, shall we put it politely and say “initiatives”, for the union officials who support, of course, and campaign for the Labour Party. This could perhaps be charitably described as some sort of quid pro quo for their help with the election campaign. These are a grab bag of 10 things that shift the balance in favour of union officials. Not workers—nothing to do with workers; it’s about union officials. Remembering that only 10 percent of private sector employees now choose to belong to a union, the bar is high for saying to those people—the other 90 percent—that you must now be linked in to the union, as these changes do.

Then we have, with the greatest respect, the misleading suggestion about meal breaks. The law was changed to allow meal-break timing to be negotiated. That’s what the change was, and it was in response to concerns in particular about air traffic controllers but also other industries. It was a simple change. It did not remove meal and rest breaks. It did not do that, and anybody who stands up in this House and says it did is simply being factually incorrect.

One of the reasons this economy and this country have been going well and been delivering higher wages, more job opportunities, and growth is because we have all been working together. We haven’t gone back to the old-style union tub-thumping approach that we have seen from Mr Jackson here in the House this afternoon, harking back to 1970s-style trade unionism.

Jamie Strange: 1990s.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, 1970s—which is now nearly 50 years out of date. We have got together and moved ahead because we have encouraged our small businesses—and virtually all of New Zealand businesses are small on world standards—to get out there, work with their people, take risks, and get ahead. And that has been successful for workers because of that information I provided. That has been very successful. And we know these businesses are worried. I hear it all the time, that this is one of the key things that is driving business confidence lower. We have improving international economic conditions. Our businesses should be as confident as, right now. They should be just absolutely going nuts with confidence, and yet their confidence is down dramatically. It is negative. And small-business confidence is the worst it’s been since the height of the global financial crisis.

How does that make sense? It can only be because of something that the Government is doing. And this is one of the things the Government is doing that is upsetting New Zealand businesses that are striving hard to succeed, striving hard to hire more people, pay more people, and make a success of life—working in New Zealand. This bill is bad. There is a high bar. The Government must demonstrate why it should proceed.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to start my contribution on behalf of New Zealand First by thanking the member across for having a very calm approach to this subject, Amy Adams for her passion, and, of course, Willie Jackson for his passion, but also for the work that’s been done behind the scenes to get this bill into the House in 100 days. I think that’s very, very commendable.

I think it’s the first proof of how MMP can work very, very well for this country. When we first sat down and looked at some of the ideas that our coalition partners had, and discussed those, we realised that we needed to sit down and work through some of those differences. It is no surprise to everybody that New Zealand First did ensure that we kept the 90-day work trials for small and medium sized businesses. The question that the Hon Steven Joyce raised is, if we think that 90-day work trials actually work in some cases, why didn’t we leave them in there in their entirety?

He mentioned the small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The SMEs are a measure that the National Government actually introduced—small to medium sized businesses, with under 20 employees. You didn’t give any clarity about whether they were going to be full-time equivalents (FTEs) or if they were just going to be employees in general. Maybe that is something that this new coalition Government can look at, moving through in the future. We certainly will ask this of submitters, as it goes through the select committee, to find out how practical and realistic that is. That is something that could be raised.

I want to also discuss and bring up the point that Amy Adams made about this compulsory opting-in for a month while a new employee gets their feet on the ground, gets their legs under the table, and understands what’s happening. Well, I said the same thing to the National Party when they brought in compulsory opting-in to KiwiSaver. You had a month’s trial and then you could decide yourself, as an employee, that this is either “good for me” or this is “not good for me”. If it’s good, they stayed on and they contributed to the KiwiSaver programme, or they opted out.

My point is that it gives people choices. They’re not going to be disenfranchised in any way by being part of a union. In actual fact, they will get natural higher rates, through those unions. I myself, in my early years of working, when I was working in the apple pack-house and I was working in other areas, I joined the union for a short period of time, and then I realised, “Do you know what? I can do this on my own.” I negotiated my own individual employment agreements—[Interruption] This is my point. Then I realised I had the strength of character and I could go and negotiate. But to actually have that option there, for workers to understand what the unions are offering and what I can go and get for myself, is giving them the flexibility and the job security, which is very important.

Raising wages in this country is something that I am proud of as a New Zealand First MP and that we negotiated hard for in this coalition agreement, to make sure that we work towards a living wage economy. When I spoke to the Deloitte’s BusinessNZ seminar, and they did a survey after we announced the fact that we were promoting a living wage, and we would move there with tax incentives and packages for businesses, to ensure they could pay for it, it was very well-received. In fact, 91 percent of the people that did the survey also agreed that we need to work into a living wage. This coalition agreement, as quickly as practicably possible, is working towards that.

We need to look at raising the bar, and I will tell you why. Raising the living wage—which is not part of this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but just to give an oversight of what this will also add to—will actually stop the brain drain of Kiwis going to Australia. Raising wages, which this bill does actually do, by these agreements that we have inside this—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a long bow.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: It is a long bow. But it also will create higher productivity. This bill is designed to do that. We want to get better productivity. When we look around the world, in the OECD, New Zealand’s productivity is one of the lowest of First World countries. I want to acknowledge the fact that when the Hon Steven Joyce mentions the fact that we’ve got the third-highest rate of employment—the third-highest rate of employment—again, I get back to the standard. The previous Government encapsulated that data by saying, “If you work one hour a week”—just one hour a week—“you’re deemed to be employed.” And yet, when I go and test that theory in the real world, “employment”, to anybody that understands it, means that you can look after yourself sufficiently and you don’t need to be beholden to the Government or the State to top you up with a supplement or a boost.

So we’ve actually got a false data collection when we say we have the third-highest employment rate in the world. In actual fact, because we capture anybody that’s got a job for an hour or more, that’s not real employment because, guess what? Taxpayers are paying for that top-up. We have got a State-dependent country at the moment. There’s a lot of people, even those that are employed, that need extra help and support.

Moving ourselves up by using all mechanisms that we possibly can, including the unions and what they add, will help New Zealand and New Zealanders stand on their own two feet. It’s going to give more PAYE and GST to the Government, to get back to core business. It’s going to make more cash available, more money in more people’s pockets, so businesses will be richer. There will be more profitability.

So this doom and gloom of how bad this bill is, we say goes against what we are hearing in businesses. In actual fact, I’ve got some remarks. Hospitality New Zealand commends the fact that New Zealand First has negotiated the 90-day work trials remaining. That’s important. It’s huge for people in business. We’ve got here Tenby Powell, the founder of the SME Business Network, which has more than 11,000 members. He’s also welcomed the decision. He says here, “We are thrilled that the Government have chosen to retain the 90-day trials period for small and medium sized businesses. It’s a very pragmatic solution, in a tough employment environment.”

Now, even Minister Willie Jackson said he also employed people, and it was commendable to hear the fact that he had used 90-day trials in the past, as have I with my businesses. The vast majority of businesses do use them in the manner that they are designed to be there for, and it does give a little bit of certainty. We go back to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We’ve got to get the right balance between employer and employee. This bill takes that step to ensure that that balance is there—that the needs of the employer looking for skilled, dedicated, and flexible staff is at the absolute forefront of anybody employing anybody, and that the employee’s needs of having job stability, safe working conditions, and good remuneration packages are part of that balance.

So New Zealand First is proud to be supporting this. The meal breaks that we are winding back the clock on—when I first came into this House, this was one of the first pieces of legislation that came through. To me, the irony of that is that we were putting through the health and safety plan, which was all about ensuring that workers in their workplaces were going to be kept safe and sound, and yet part of that safety was ensuring in high-stress jobs, in dangerous jobs, that those workers could actually stop, rest, prepare themselves, have a meal break, and then continue on with their work.

There are exemptions in this bill that will actually allow certain businesses to have that flexibility for their workers. If there are other businesses not included, we’d like to hear from them if they think they should have that flexibility, but we’ve got to think of the safety of our workers. This ensures safety first, making sure that when people do go to work, they do come home safely at the end of the day.

I understand what Amy Adams has spoken about, and I agree with her, to a degree, that that flexibility, in some cases, is very, very pragmatic. However, it’s a little bit too prescriptive, and we can find workers being bullied into situations and forced out of their meal breaks, which is not the intention of what we were trying to achieve.

I’d like to just conclude by commending this bill through the House to select committee, where we will be paying very, very close attention to what the submissions are, and if we can improve this bill in any way, we will certainly have our eyes and ears wide open to that. But we’d just like to say that those 90-day work trials are very, very pragmatic, and despite the fact that there are a very, very small number of businesses who abuse this regulation, we will be collecting data.

I have to say, we are not trying to hit with a hammer all businesses, but, unfortunately, the data had not been collected for the last nine years, and so we’ve got a bit of work to do to find out specifically—is it industry-focused, is it employer-focused, and which employees are actually getting caught up with these bad business practices? We certainly are very, very pro-business. They are the lifeblood of this country, as too are our workers. That fair pay for fair work is the balance that we are going to strike and that we have got with this bill, so we commend the bill to the House.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with raising a comment that the previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell, made at the start of his speech commending the coalition Government for bringing this bill together within its 100-day plan. And, absolutely, they’ve brought it together—in haste. They’re brought it together based on an ideological whim, and it’s based on the 1970s.

It’s based on the bad old days, where they are amending a set of tools in our industrial relations tool box that are pragmatic and have had the effect on the ground—on the ground. I have heard from my constituents, because we’re real MPs—we go and we listen to businesses, we go and listen to employees. They are amending tools in the tool box that have had the effect of growing this economy and allowing businesses to take chances on people in a tight employment market, and growing job supply and allowing people to get ahead. I think that’s pretty rich, from a coalition Government that say that they are the champions of the most vulnerable. Well, I say to them that if you cannot create jobs in New Zealand and enable people to have the skills to get into work, to earn some money, to feed themselves, to house themselves, to look after their family, then you cannot call yourselves champions at all.

When we were in Government, we made pragmatic changes to our industrial relations law that created 245,000 jobs in the past two years, and part of that was the 90-day trial. I absolutely oppose the fact that this coalition Government is going to make amendments to the 90-day trial period. The reason for that is because we have such low unemployment in this country.

We’ve heard from previous speakers on this side that the 90-day trial period is about giving young people a chance—absolutely. Absolutely it is. When a young person enters the workforce, they are unproven. They need to be given the space and the time to prove themselves so that an employer can say, “Yes, I need this person, I want to take a chance on this person, let’s give it a go.”

But also, when you have an unemployment rate in New Zealand that is less than 5 percent, and, let me allude, down in Southland and Invercargill it’s less than four percent, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with regard to skills—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—and finding resource, which is the human beings that we need to work. Part of what employers do is they create attractive employment opportunities, and they give people who want to have a change in career a chance. The 90-day trial period is exactly what that is about—so people that may be in one industry and have absolutely no experience in another can put together their CV, modify it so that they can highlight their transferable skills, and they get given a chance. And that’s wonderful, because it means that they can be employed, be valued—obviously, feel reward from their work—earn money, and keep their family. That’s what a fair society is about. But here we go, based on a whim, the coalition Government is starting to make these changes that are unproven and have absolutely no regard for small, medium, and large sized businesses.

The other thing I want to talk about in this bill is the changes to the rest and meal breaks. I’m going to highlight the problem with this with a story. In Invercargill, I know a young hairstylist, a very good young hairstylist that has won awards. She’s very, very good—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Ria Bond?

SARAH DOWIE: No, it’s not Ria Bond, unfortunately. It’s another lady. She’s won awards, and she took the chance to start her own business. I think that that is fantastic. She’s very young, but she was exceptionally good—and still is exceptionally good—at her trade. She started this business. She—let’s face it, when you start your own business—was working herself to the bone. Hairstyling—look, I’m not trained, but when you put a colour on—I’m going to break it down in very simple terms. When you put a colour on, you have to go away and leave it for a time, but when it’s time to come off, it’s time to come off. So you need flexibility—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, again. The employer needs flexibility in the workplace to make sure that operations can run smoothly.

Getting back to the 90-day trial, she’s taken on people on the floor—young people—to help her out. But, again, with those rest and meal breaks, she needs the flexibility to be able to say to the young person that’s working, “Look, you”—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I’ve done it again—“Please, employee. You go and take the colour off. I’ll take my break.” She comes back, she does her work, and within that lull time the employee will go away and take her meal break. Now if that has to be structured, I’m not sure how that’s going to work when she’s got more than one client in her chair.

Stuart Smith: People will end up with green hair.

SARAH DOWIE: They will end up with green hair, Mr Smith. You joke, but that is a practical example as to how our changes, when the National Party was in Government, have helped business to innovate and be flexible and achieve. Because of that, she thought, “Right, well, I’ll give it a go. I’ll start my business. I’ll take on extra people, but I can modify my operations to make it work.” So I think, in select committee, the coalition Government are going to find themselves held to account on several of these changes, because we know what business is saying, and we will test them as to what they think works.

Some of the other changes—I would like to talk about forcing businesses into contracts across an industry. Well, I can hear what the fishing industry are going to say about that straight away. I work quite closely with the fishing industry down in Southland. Given the size and shape of the fishing industry, yes, the fishing industry is very wide, but within that there is so much variation as to how the fishing industry operates. If collective bargaining and terms and conditions are forced on employer to employer and business to business—whether it be small, large, or medium, or with respect to pāua or finfish fishing—I can see what the answer is going to be with respect to my constituents. What they’ll do is they’ll go to ground. They’ll shut down. They won’t take that chance on that extra person.

Hon Stuart Nash: Oh, rubbish!

SARAH DOWIE: Well they won’t, Mr Nash—they won’t. They’ll go to ground and they’ll consolidate, and they’ll make sure that the core functions—if they can protect the core functions, they will protect the core functions. They won’t focus on growing while this coalition Government is in power—they won’t focus on growing. They’ll go to ground, Mr Nash. You know it too. I’m looking into your eyes, Mr Nash, and I can see the doubt. I can see the doubt in your eyes—absolutely, Mr Nash. They’ll go to ground and they won’t be taking on those extra people, and they won’t be expanding.

What we will see is that this economy will go to rack and ruin. Jobs won’t be created; jobs will be lost. Our families will not be able to get a job, they will not earn money, they will not be able to house themselves, and they will not be able to care for their family. And that, Mr Nash, is not a fair society.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a great pleasure for me to rise and offer the Green Party’s support to this bill in its first reading. I do want to specifically congratulate the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for getting such a substantive piece of legislation into this House, with a good deal of consideration in the process, within the first 100 days. This is an important signal to the country on where we are going and where our values lie, and I, for one, am incredibly proud to stand in support of this.

For too long, our laws and Government rhetoric have dehumanised people, trying to turn us, basically, into nice compliant cogs of industry. We have been told that we are employees and consumers—hardly ever, citizens. Most New Zealanders that I know have at times shed blood, sweat, or tears for their jobs. Many of us spend a huge amount of our lives at work, and yet, despite this, working people are all too often described and treated as a cost to business.

The relationship between employee and employer is not equal. An employee can’t fire their boss, they can’t cut or change their hours, and they can’t send their employer into an unsafe situation. We’ve been told for years now that we need to reduce costs for business, even up the playing field, and provide more balance in the employment relationship. The strange thing though about this is that almost all the changes we’ve seen in this House have tipped the balance more in favour of employers.

The change of direction has led us in recent years to a low-wage economy, too many workplace injuries, and burgeoning inequality. This was led by the employment reforms, and started by the employment reforms, of the 1980s and 1990s—partially clawed back by the last Labour Government, but then, again, undermined by the last National Government—and they’ve created barriers to working people acting collectively to balance that power against their employers.

We’ve heard so much this evening that echoes the view, or that just reinforces, that the National Party sees workers working together as a problem. They see unions as a problem, and this was so clearly demonstrated in the laws they introduced to this House where National decided that a guarantee of tea breaks was an unnecessary privilege for workers. They decided that partial strikes, even to the point of wearing a badge, was too much power in the hands of working people, and that needed to be balanced by enabling employers to cut those workers’ pay. National decided that union representatives having access to workplaces without an employer’s permission was unfair to employers. Our poor, poor employers—they’ve been having such a hard time at the hands of these difficult, difficult workers! Surely, when we know that this is starting off as an uneven playing field, this perception is unbalanced.

We’ve been told that all these changes were necessary, that if workers waited we would ultimately benefit from those gains of business, and that those gains would be shared and we would all be better off. We’ve been hearing that again and again throughout this debate, and yet what we have seen over the last nine years, particularly since the global financial crisis, is that what we knew was a pattern that when employment goes up, workers’ wages also used to track up as well—there was a connection between those two things. But that has been disconnected under the policies of the last Government and many, many working people are now struggling under working more hours but not getting the financial benefit out of it. While productivity has increased, their share of that profit has not been returned to them. It has gone to profit for the businesses, or the owners, or the shareholders, and not the people doing the work. This bill is the start of fixing that to make sure that the people who are actually creating the wealth get a share—a fair share—of that benefit.

We know that we have a lot of work to do. I suspect that most New Zealanders will know that feeling of resignation, at best, or resentment—not even at worst—in the face of low wages, insecure hours, and stressful conditions. This has become the norm in our country. It shouldn’t be, and it doesn’t need to be. It’s really hard to challenge these things on your own. It’s been really hard, even for people in unions, to challenge these things under our current laws. It doesn’t need to be that way. Our job in this House is to represent the best interests of all of our people, not a small, select, privileged group. That is why we need good employment laws that support workers and their unions.

The National Party often tries to undermine unions, and, man, we have heard that tonight. They suggest that this side of the House—I’ve heard it particularly targeted at the Labour Party—are just union lackeys. They keep on talking about referring back to the 1970s and how we’re out of touch. But, really, their rhetoric just shows how out of touch they are. Even the International Monetary Fund, once the flag-waver of neo-liberalism, has now recognised that the decline in union power has been responsible for the increase in income inequality around the world—even the IMF has recognised that. Their analysis found that the impact of declining unionisation is felt across the entire income spectrum. This is critical to this bill, which is about rebuilding the ability for unions—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak to the bill.

JAN LOGIE: —to get access to workers and to be able to organise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak to the bill.

JAN LOGIE: This is the bill. It is core to this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There’s nothing about the IMF in the bill.

JAN LOGIE: As the Minister introducing this bill said, there are two key areas this works on: one is about working standards, and the second point is about improving the ability for collective bargaining and union access. This is critical to this bill and the opposition that has been expressed against it. Their analysis found that loss of unionisation was a key contributor to the top income share, as well as loss of income in middle and lower income workers. Reducing their bargaining power and de-unionisation has necessarily increased the income share of corporate managers’ pay and shareholders’ return. That is something that almost every New Zealander recognises when we look at the television and we see the people around this. We see this inequality that has been created by the policies of the previous National Government, and that is why it is so great to stand in this House to be able to start unwinding that, to return the ability for workers to join together to create some sense of balance and collectivity and community in their workplaces.

I do also want to challenge the idea that may be perceived by some that this is anti-business. I’ve managed many workplaces and been responsible for staff, and when those workplaces—and all of them have been, thankfully—became unionised, I benefited. I found out problems before they became a problem for me. We created a positive culture in our workplace, and we ensured that everyone was able to have a say. Without a union supporting that, it doesn’t happen, and we all suffer. Our workplaces suffer, our families suffer, and our society as a whole suffers.

This bill is the very first step in turning that around and restoring our well-being and the fairness and community back to this country—values the Green Party values highly.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I’m very delighted to speak on this piece of legislation. Can I start at the outset by acknowledging that this is a very important piece of legislation for the House.

This side of the House has launched a campaign called Protect NZ Jobs, and the reason for that is not that we don’t care as much as the Government do about the rights of workers, but what we do understand is that when you get that balance wrong, if you lead to increased costs to businesses and you muck with the 90-day trial period—when members do that with pieces of legislation, then jobs are lost. That is the reality. We live in a country where many small businesses are mums and dads working their butts off. They are not making huge amounts of money. So, from this side of the House, what we will be doing with this campaign is to make it clear to New Zealanders where the costs are and what will happen in terms of jobs.

The other point that I want to make is that I do want to make the point that we need to be honest about what the Labour Party’s intentions are here. I want to quote a Labour MP—Madam Deputy Speaker, it’s very difficult to hear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just ask—all members are entitled to speak in this House, so interjections should be rare and reasonable—and, to quote an earlier colleague, preferably witty—but not a barrage. It is difficult for me even to hear.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I want to quote Clare Curran, actually. Clare Curran—and it is an important point. We are debating a piece of legislation that significantly increases the rights of unions, and I do believe that the Labour Party are conflicted. The reality is the Labour Party have a mechanism for their leadership for which unions have a percentage of the share of the vote, and this is what Clare Curran said about this. Clare Curran said a discussion was needed about unions and party members continuing to say who leads. The reality is there is a clear conflict there, and I think we need to put that on the table to New Zealanders.

They need to be aware of that, because this bill—let’s walk through. And, again, it is about a balance. Unions can do a great job, but when you look at this bill, the number of privileges—the increased privileges—to unions is very significant. I do want to list some of them: forcing businesses to accept multi-employer collective agreements, even when those businesses were not part of the negotiations; requiring businesses to sign up to collective agreements, even if they don’t agree to them; forcing businesses to pay unions for representing workers who are not even members—the list goes on. So I do want to raise that point.

The next point that I want to make is about young people. The reality is—and I do want to acknowledge the Government. The Government has shifted around the 90-day trial period, and that is a very important point. What we know is that that 90-day trial period has led to some young people getting a job that wouldn’t have been offered to them, because people have been prepared to take a punt on them.

What members on this side of the House will be asking at the select committee is why would you allow only small businesses, or why would members allow that only to small businesses, when it’s working? It’s created jobs. Solo mums, a number of people returning to the workforce, and a whole lot of young people have got jobs as a result of that. Why wouldn’t we continue to keep that policy in place?

The other point that I want to make here and now is that while we are debating this legislation, this is only part one, and we know on this side of the House—and what we’re concerned about is that we have a situation where we’ve had 10,000 jobs created each month. We’ve got ourselves out of a terrible situation around the global financial crisis. We’re a national of small businesses. We’ve got this legislation, we’ve got changes to the minimum wage—all of this adds significant cost and can lead to a loss of jobs. But this is only part one.

We know there is another agenda here. The Labour Party campaigned on that—minimum redundancy protection, protection for dependent contractors, abolishing youth rates, reducing—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak to the bill. Speak to the bill.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The point is that in a nation of small businesses, this matters. The choice for a mum and dad business to keep going can be the difference of a couple of hundred bucks a week—or a policy like 90-day trials. And this is part one.

We are very concerned. That’s why we are running a campaign to ensure that New Zealanders know that that side of the House are tipping the balance that will lead to a loss of jobs, that will lead to costs for businesses, and that will lead to some of our most vulnerable workers not getting the opportunities that they deserve. As I have already said, I think that New Zealanders do need to know. They do need to have absolute transparency about the conflicts of interest that exist on the other side of the House.

This is not a level playing field. This is a situation where the other side of the House actually have union votes in terms of their leaders. We know that our existing Prime Minister was able to not go through that process because it was three months before an election process, but I think it is something on which we need to have a public discussion about.

This bill is totally loaded towards privileges for unions, and the reality is if you get that balance wrong, then jobs are lost and costs happen, and that is not about fairness.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, can I just draw the House’s attention to Speakers’ Rulings, on page 49. Now, I’m not saying that the previous speaker broke those, but you do need to be aware of those Speakers’ rulings when you’re talking about the motives of a Government.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was looking for those.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Page 49.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with immense privilege that I stand here to take a call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill—

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do apologise to the member for interrupting her as she’s getting under way, but could we just clarify that this is a split call?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. It is a split call. It’s a five-minute call, with a bell at one minute, and a National call for the second five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK: In 2011, I was halfway through my employment law papers, and, at the same time, the then National Government introduced some changes to the Employment Relations Act. I remember at the time thinking they were a real attack on working people, and also, as a second-year law student, I felt that they were completely disregarding the object of that Act, which actually states that you should recognise and also address the imbalance in the employment relationship—the power of it. So I never would have thought that six years later, I would be standing here talking about a bill that is going to make such a huge difference in the lives of working people, and not just working people but their families, their communities, their representatives, indeed, and their employers as well.

Now I know there’s been a lot of scaremongering going on about how these changes are going to take us back to the 1970s, but, actually, these changes are a sign of us being a very modern Government, because they will give us an opportunity to improve, modernise, and innovate the workplace. In effect, the good employers won’t even notice any difference, because they are already doing all these things. They will actually find that these changes will benefit them, because what it will do is it’ll make it much harder for bad employers to go into unfair competition. But the bad employers, the ones who have boosted their incomes and profits by raiding the pay packages of their workforce, they are the ones who are going to feel the impact of these changes. So this bill is the first step in righting a lot of these wrongs. This bill is about restoring some basic human rights of workers: the right to be treated fairly and with dignity and the right to feel respected and to be valued.

The previous member had asked us about an example of the rest and meal breaks, saying that it was all made up, so I’ve got a little example here that is factual—you can check it. As soon as the changes to rest and meal breaks became law, instead of having two paid breaks in the morning and in the afternoon and an unpaid break in the middle of the day, production run times were increased. So there would be only one break—one paid and one unpaid. This means longer hours on the production chain, standing on concrete in gumboots, doing repetitive and strenuous movements. These people I’m talking about work either in freezing temperatures in the chillers or in extreme heat in the slaughter and boning rooms. They have their arms and hands above their heads for hours on end, and there’s heavy lifting that takes its toll on longer runs. Toilet and water breaks are actively discouraged because it means stopping the chain.

The outcome for these workers is fatigue and more injuries, and it gets worse as the day wears on because, with overuse of backs, shoulders, and wrists, and with fatigue, there’s also an increased risk of knife wounds. This is an example of the meat industry, and the Talley’s AFFCO workers are looking forward to rest and meal breaks being restored as soon as possible. There are plenty more where this came from.

A comment was also made the other day about it all being about jobs and that the first priority is just about having a job. How uninspiring—having a job. Never mind what the pay and conditions are, don’t worry about job security, minimum standards, health and safety—working people should just be grateful they have a job. Well, some of them have more than a job. They have two or three, and that’s because one job doesn’t pay the bills. They are not choosing to take more than one job; they are doing it because they need to survive.

Now, there’s an E tū member, and she’s a cleaner. She works three shifts between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. Her husband does the mid-afternoon and evening shift, and he’s a security guard. They’re both on the minimum wage. They work their butts off, and they still can’t afford to pay for their family of two children. They can’t even spend time with their family. So when you’re talking about how it’s all about this job creation and how wonderful it is that we have all these jobs, these are the people you’re hurting. They’re hard-working Kiwis—people that can’t get ahead. We have people that put their heart and soul into jobs looking after our most vulnerable in healthcare, in disability, and, after 19 or 20 years in their jobs, they’re still on $17 an hour.

Now, this is what this bill is addressing. Yes, our working people are not commodities. They are, first of all, people. They have human rights. They have lives outside work. This bill is a good start to changing that, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I invite Marja Lubeck, the member who’s just resumed her seat, to come to my city of Hamilton and come with me to visit a whole range of small businesses and light industry, and meet with people who are working in jobs in Hamilton. I think the thing that she will find that is most clear is that the vast majority of employers recognise that the greatest single resource they have is their staff, and they do their level best to look after them to ensure that they are valued, because they know that it is a huge cost to any company, to any business, when staff change. Therefore, to suggest that all employers—as she seems to think—are these appalling, Draconian characters who are determined to deprive the workers of their rights is just utterly fanciful. It is so divorced from reality. I can’t believe we’re still having to listen to that sort of argument in this House.

Today, we’ve heard an extraordinary range of speeches. The Minister who introduced the bill gave a very sort of measured declamation, largely because he was able to read his speech, but, essentially, what he was saying was that this is a bill that reintroduces compulsory unionism by stealth.

That was followed by one of the finest speeches I’ve ever heard in this House, and that was delivered by the Hon Amy Adams, who gave a very, very thorough analysis of some of the many deficiencies of this bill, including the fact that it will cost jobs, including the fact that it will increase cost and disruption within business. If it is now so appropriate—and even Willie Jackson argued this—to retain 90-day trial periods for small businesses, it is totally illogical to suggest that those who employ more than 20 staff should not have the same opportunity.

She made the point that the bill forces businesses to become union recruiters, and if I have time I’ll return to that, but that very fine speech was followed by one of the most appalling speeches I’ve ever heard in this House: the extraordinary, incoherent, totally contradictory, and largely irrelevant contribution of the man who calls himself the Minister of Employment. It was, as I say, one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard, and to show how appreciative I am, in one sense, of that, I ask the Labour Party to send a transcript of that speech, or maybe a video link, to every business, every employer, every small-business operator in this country, so that they can see what the Minister of Employment actually said, supposedly to justify this bill. He likes using the word “disgrace” a lot. Well, that speech was a disgrace. That contribution was utterly incoherent. Seldom has a Minister demonstrated greater ignorance of his portfolio than the Hon Willie Jackson did about half an hour ago.

Well, this bill is a recipe for a return to the regular industrial disruptions of the 1970s, which New Zealanders, overwhelmingly, don’t want to revisit, and I am old enough to be able to remember just about every Christmas when, it seemed, right on Christmas Eve, the Cook Strait ferries were suddenly on strike and families who were looking forward to a holiday on the other island from that in which they lived suddenly couldn’t travel because union power was asserted in a way that destroyed their holidays.

And I’m sure some of us of a certain age all remember the Māngere Bridge and how long it took for construction of that particular major piece of infrastructure to be completed. Far longer than the time actually spent progressively working on building was it held up by disruption, and business productivity in this country was regularly negatively impacted by that sort of union activity. This bill will take us right back there. That is why it is so serious. That is why the National Party is petitioning for the protection of workers’ rights, which, supposedly, members opposite care about but which, in fact, this bill will put at risk. It will damage productivity; it will damage the employer-employee relationships.

So while this may well be Labour Party payback for the great union support that they got at the election, it is unbelievably retrospective and negative, and it will cause major, major problems. I oppose it with every fibre of my being.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I’m so excited to support this with every fibre of my being. What a marvellous bill. This bill brings back fairness in the workplace. It brings back the fair go for the worker that that side of the House gives lip-service to whenever there’s an election campaign but does absolutely nothing for when they’re in Government—in fact, they reversed the rights that workers have fought hard for over generations in this country. That side of the House is not interested in the low-income worker. They are not interested in people that are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week and struggling to make ends meet. All they’re interested in is making sure that it is easy, at every single opportunity, to undermine workers’ rights in this country, because that is not their interest. But I am proud to say that this is a Government for all of New Zealand, and that includes workers as well as small-business owners and those that employ people.

I say that from some experience. I have been an employee. I have been a director of a company that hired hundreds of people in Wairarapa. I know both sides of the story, and, in fact, the business that I was a director for was in hospitality—one of the industries that pays the lowest across the country. But I tell you what, in a small rural community, where small businesses often depend on people’s capacity to spend—when households have discretionary income, small business does well. How can you turn there and say to New Zealand—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hey!

KIERAN McANULTY: I apologise. I’m still learning the rules, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a bit of a shame; I was getting a bit wound up there, too. I apologise, anyway.

How can that side of the House say that they are the party of small business, when it is small businesses in towns like Waipukurau and Waipawa and Dannevirke and Masterton that are looking up and down their main street and seeing empty retail shops because people don’t have the money to spend in their home towns because they’re working hard every hour that they can and they are still struggling to feed their families. This is the result of nine years of a Government that has spent every time it can to undermine the rights of New Zealand workers.

We have heard previous speakers. One that was the most notable, I think—it was talking about the minimum wage, and the Hon Nikki Kaye was saying that the previous Government increased the minimum wage. This is a factual statement. But what is also true is that this is a case of something being a good idea when they come up with it and a bad idea when we come up with it. In the nine years that the Labour Party were in Government, every single time we proposed increasing the minimum wage, that side of the House argued against it. The point of this is that when they are in Opposition they speak for their mates, and when they are in Government they give workers lip-service, and we’re seeing exactly the same thing here today.

We heard arguments about the 90-day bill. We heard that this will hurt small business. I’d propose that that side of the House haven’t even read the bill. It’s clear in this bill that there are provisions in this to look after small business. But the question I want to pose is that if we are moving, as we propose, from 90-day trials to making sure that businesses that employ people can do so on a probationary period on the basis that at the end of that period they need to provide a proper and decent reason for why they are not continuing that employment, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with treating people with dignity and respect and saying to them, “Look, I’m sorry. You weren’t able to meet what we previously agreed. You are not suitable for this job, and this is the reason why we’re not going to continue this employment.” That option is still available to them.

But the option that is no longer available to them—which most employers do not do but some do, and that is enough to make it wrong—is they hire someone for 90 days and, for whatever reason, be it a whim or be it exploitation, they say, “Right, you’re down the road.” If what that side of the House says is correct, which is that they want to see 90-day trials used to help young people get work experience and build confidence and have a chance and actually build and make something of their life, how on earth are they going to have confidence and learn something from an experience of working for an employer that exploited them, gave them no feedback, fired them for no decent reason, and kicked them down the road? Their arguments are not logical. They do not make sense. The fact is that they want to keep 90-day trials because the only thing that they want to preserve is some employers’ rights to get rid of workers without fair reason.

We’ve heard today from that side of the House about unions. They don’t like talking about unions. They don’t like what’s in this bill that gives unions and workers the rights to collective bargaining, because they know that collective bargaining is the best way for workers to ensure that they get their fair share of production. It is not just us that are saying it. It is the likes of the IMF, an internationally renowned and recognised organisation that has reversed its previous position and is now saying that the only way for working people to have a fair go is to ensure they have the right to collective bargaining.

I want to pose a question to this House: why is it that the National Party hates workers’ unions but loves Federated Farmers? Federated Farmers is a union. It is an organisation that represents its members, and that’s what a union is.

Hon David Bennett: No, it’s not.

KIERAN McANULTY: We’ve just heard the best contribution from the National Party to this debate all day. We’ve had senior members, former Ministers, former Ministers of Finance, former Ministers of Education, former Ministers of Justice, and the Hon David Bennett from Hamilton has come up with the most logical thing they’ve said, even if it didn’t make sense: “No, it’s not.” I felt like I’ve gone back to primary school. “No, it’s not.”—yes, it is. The point is that Federated Farmers is an organisation whom I support and this Government supports because they are group that represents their members. We don’t pick and choose. We don’t get into Government and say, “We’re going to support workers and trade unions, but we’re going to put in measures to clamp down on lobby groups and other membership organisations like Federated Farmers.” because we believe in the principle of people being able to get together collectively and lobby for their interests.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Freedom of association.

KIERAN McANULTY: Freedom of association. We don’t pick and choose on this side of the House. I am looking at the member for National in Northland, the National member from Northland, a favourite on this side of the House, Matt King—

Matt King: You’ve got my attention now.

KIERAN McANULTY: —yes, yes—who used to be a police detective and a member of the Police Association, a unionist, and there he is. He’s very quiet, uncharacteristically quiet. Police know that it is in their interests to make sure that they have an association—just like a trade union, just like Federated Farmers—to ensure that their collective interests are advocated for, and yet here he is advocating against a bill that just wants to give other workers the rights that he enjoyed. You can’t pick and choose.

This bill is designed to, and will, ensure that the workers of New Zealand will have a fair go and that small business and small employers of New Zealand will still reap the benefits of decent conditions and a productive workforce. Also, what this will ensure is that people know that we are working towards a principle, an egalitarian principle that this country was founded on, of a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work. That is no longer the case now after nine years of the previous Government. But this Government, this Labour-led Government, is committed to reversing the damage that the National Party has done and to actually giving Kiwis a fair go.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Interesting to hear that contribution from the previous speaker, Kieran McAnulty, who waxed lyrical about the freedom of association and the freedom of expression and said that you can’t pick and choose about your principles, and yet, a couple of days ago, voted for the waka-jumping legislation, which was the complete opposite. How can he stand up with any sense of dignity when he’s so compromised and makes no sense? It’s all part of what is a morally and intellectually incoherent Government that we’re dealing with.

One of the puzzles that we’ve got at the moment is why business confidence should be falling at a time when the global economy is going strong and the New Zealand terms of trade are higher than they have been for a very long time. When the economy is booming and the prospects for New Zealand are great, why is business confidence falling? Well, I suppose you can find an explanation by watching the Minister of Employment’s speech in this debate, where he waved his arms around and talked about the terrible history of the 1990s and said the essence of this bill was about union rights and this was all going to be the solution to our problems. You can understand why business confidence is falling.

Then we heard from Mr Jackson saying that—he talked about the shocking history of the National Party in this area. Well, if the history that we’ve seen for the last two years, where 245,000 new jobs have been created in this economy, is a shocking history, it’s a shocking history that I’m proud of, and it’s one that’s made a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders.

We hear constantly this talk about treating workers with dignity and respect. Well, there’s no greater dignity and respect to be gained than by getting a job, and that is what this economy has been delivering over the past few years—245,000 new jobs, or more than 10,000 a month. We’ve seen the average wage grow by $1,300 a year since 2008. It now sits at $60,000 a year. So we’ve seen great wage growth, we’ve seen a jobs boom, we’ve seen wage growth, and we’ve had the overall economy continuing to boom. So that’s the shocking history of the National Party, and one that I’m very proud of.

Where do jobs get created? They get created by individuals and companies taking a risk and making an investment. You are either investing in hiring a new person, building a new plant, or starting a new business. It’s all taking a risk and making an investment. They do that only if they have a level of confidence that that investment is going to pay off, and that’s why it’s so important to have a stable and predictable Government and one where people know where they stand. That’s what we’ve had for nine years in this country, and I do hope that it continues.

I hope that the Minister responsible for this bill does genuinely listen to the submissions that come through the select committee process over the next few months. I hope he listens carefully and is willing to respond, as he has demonstrated, I guess, through the negotiations with New Zealand First about the 90-day trial and winding that back a fraction. I hope he will continue to listen. He referred to robust discussions, and my understanding is that they were more than robust—they were ropey. But if he continues that process and listens to the submissions that we get, we might make some progress.

What they don’t seem to understand over there is the irony of the Minister of Employment coming out a couple of weeks ago about how he is going to spend $13 million by giving it to community groups in order to help some of the most marginal young people into work, and then, at the same time, this bill greatly weakens the 90-day trial period, which will make it more difficult for the most vulnerable people to get access to work.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: You can’t back that up. That’s not true.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is the truth. It is pure common sense. If you are taking a risk and taking a gamble—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: You cannot back that up with any evidence at all.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, just look to human nature. If you’re taking a risk or you’re taking a gamble about whether to hire a new person and you’re confronted with the possibility of hiring somebody who is unskilled, hasn’t had any job experience, might have a few social issues, and hasn’t got a great education, and you want to take that risk, would you be more likely to take that risk—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wouldn’t.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —if you had the opportunity of a 90-day trial? Well, I think the answer is obvious. Yes, you would be more likely to take that risk, and you are taking it away—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am not.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —through this legislation. Quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are not taking it away. This Government is taking it away, and taking away the hopes and dreams of many young people to get into the workplace.

The other thing that we need to bear in mind is that the continued progress that we’ve had in this country, the strong economic growth that we’ve had in this country, results only from New Zealand remaining internationally competitive. We live—like it or not—in a big, bad world out there that is highly competitive. New Zealand businesses compete in a highly competitive, fast-moving international context. We need to continue to improve our productivity, and we need to ensure that our businesses remain competitive. The only way to have sustainable increases in incomes over time, such as we’ve seen over the past few years, is for businesses to be more productive. There’s no magic to it. You can’t just wave your wand and say, “Legislate over the long term for higher wages.” It has to be generated by a stronger economy. That comes from investment, and the investment comes from a confident business sector prepared to make that investment, and that is why there’s such a concern that we’re seeing a reduction in that investment.

Now, I want to refer to the comments made by this Government’s own officials on this legislation. If we refer to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) agency’s assessment of some of the risks involved in this, what they tell us is that we may well see “reduced employment due to changed incentives on employers to hire new workers”. So that’s interesting from the officials. That is one of the potential outcomes of this legislation—reduced employment.

A second potential outcome is “an increase in industrial action and protracted bargaining due to the need to conclude agreements and include wages in collective agreements”, and everybody in the country is well aware of the uptake of industrial action that we’ve seen since the election—the train strikes, the public transport strikes, which are dreadfully undermining the public’s confidence in public transport. We’ll see more of that to come, and I just hope that they will think very carefully about this bill and the impact that it will have on “an increase in industrial”—I’m just quoting here from the officials’ report on what the potential outcomes are of this legislation.

We’ll also see “an increase in partial strikes as removing pay deductions for partial striking may remove the disincentive to take partial strike action”. Well, again, that’s pretty common sense. If you can go on a go-slow or not be around for half the day but you continue to be paid, well, it’s very likely that we’ll see more of that activity.

Then we see here that “reinstating the right to prescribed meal and rest breaks could lower firm productivity by not accounting for the necessary flexibility to avoid business interruption.” The previous Government had brought in some extra flexibility. We see here that “There could be safety risks for essential services if breaks [are not] mandated. Insufficient flexibility [will] produce significant non-compliance among employers.”

So I think there’s a lot for the select committee to consider. I’m looking forward to hearing from submissions. I do hope the Minister and this Government will genuinely listen to not just their funders and friends within the union movement—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can anticipate the point of order. I did refer members earlier to page 49 of Speakers’ Rulings. You cannot imply that a Government is funded from an organisation that is influencing what they’re doing.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I regret that implication. I will continue on by saying that I do hope that this Government and this Minister will listen carefully to a wide range of opinions and particularly take note of the views of those people—the employers—who are taking that risk and that gamble and that real chance when they invest in a new job. I hope that they will listen to the needs of them in terms of having some certainty around the industrial relations climate that we’re inheriting.

So we look forward to the discussion, but I am deeply concerned about many of the things that have been outlined by MBIE as they’ve gone through the potential costs of this bill. Thank you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Kia ora koutou to the House. I am absolutely delighted to be here speaking on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill this afternoon. I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway has done in bringing this bill to the House in such a short time. We’ve heard criticism of that short time here this afternoon, but this bill—along with the work that our coalition parties did, and our New Zealand First and Greens have helped here with—is a really, really strong piece of legislation.

I’m excited because, today, we are taking steps to restore fairness and equity to the workplace. We are evening out the playing field in the workplace, because over the last few years that playing field became less and less even. Workers have struggled and found it hard in the last few years.

We’ve just heard about the 90-day trial period, and that has caused a great amount of controversy over its time. I’ve just heard a whole lot of arguments about it. I want to acknowledge my colleague Kieran McAnulty when he pointed out that some of the members haven’t even read what’s in this bill when they’re talking about it.

But I’ve just heard the previous member from the other side, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, talk about the hopes and dreams that the 90-day trials brought to these people. Oh! My mouth just dropped, because I’m going to tell you about the hopes and dreams—I wasn’t going to tell this story, but I’m so incensed that I’m going to tell this story of the hopes and dreams that were dashed, under the 90-day trial, of one of my former pupils. The hopes and dreams of how he was employed in his very first job under the 90-day trial and, the last time I saw him, how excited he was that he was providing for his family in that job, and how excited he was that he was going forward in that job. On day 89, without any warning, he lost that job, and two weeks later, thinking he’d brought shame to his own whānau, he took his life. That’s what the hopes and dreams of the 90-day trial period did for that particular pupil. So don’t talk to me about hopes and dreams that that trial causes for our young people.

Also, I’ve heard about statistics here this afternoon. I’ve heard about 245,000 jobs created in the last two years. Statistics can tell a very skewed story when we hear them like that. Actually, let’s take another statistic. Statistics New Zealand, in September last year, said that unemployment was slow to get to acceptable levels. In fact, we had slipped to 13th in the OECD. If we had 245,000 jobs, why was that the case? And what is the quality of those jobs?

Actually, I heard an invite by the Hon Tim Macindoe over there. I heard that invite for our member here to go to Hamilton. I would give you the same invite to come and visit some of the families—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would love to visit.

JAN TINETTI: Oh, I’m sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s just been part of it today—sorry. I invite the Hon Tim Macindoe to come and visit some of the families that I have worked with over the past few years. Those families have got lower and lower quality of jobs in that time. Those families are taking more and more jobs on and working more and more hours at minimum wage levels, while costs are going up through the roof, just to survive. Come and visit those families. Come and talk to those families who are taking those jobs on and who never see their families. Mum and dad are team-tagging because they are having to take on so much work just to make ends meet.

Come and see those parents who are absolutely shattered after working those hours, who have not been allowed to have meal breaks. We’ve heard about meal breaks here. We’ve heard “Oh, that was because of our airline people, our traffic controllers.” But what it caused was that anyone could be put into a situation where meal breaks were taken from them. That is a right for most of us that we feel we need, but meal breaks were taken from these families. I have seen people absolutely shattered after working hours and hours and hours and not having a meal break in that time.

Come and see those people that have been told not to come back to work. In one case I had a parent asked not to come back to work the next day because they’d asked about joining the union.

Marja Lubeck: All the time.

JAN TINETTI: All the time, that is happening. So, this bill is a good-news story for families. Collective bargaining has the ability, and is the best mechanism, for increasing wages in this country—increasing wages for our families so that they can be families again. This is what this bill will do, and it is good news for the children.

Good employees and good employers won’t mind these changes. In fact, they will welcome them because they are already enacting this. When employers and employees are able to work together on equal terms and treat everyone with dignity and respect, everybody benefits. I’ve been a union member for all of my working career, but I have also been an employer over that time too, and I encourage any of my employees to join the union. I am incredibly proud that I had a high union density. In fact, when I left that job, I had 100 percent union density in my staff. The unions are not scary. The unions make the workplace better. My workplace was better because of the strong union involvement in my workplace.

Strengthening union involvement and openness is crucial to achieving better conditions for workers in New Zealand. I have seen, multiple times, when we have brought unions in to support workers—and I’m going to tell a story. When I first went to my last school, I got a union member in to look at my teacher-aide wages because I felt they weren’t on the right level. I had to pay $20,000 in back-pay in that time. That was the best amount of money I have ever spent, because I got that back in spades. Union involvement gives our workers what they deserve, and a good employer will buy into that. Even some of our most successful companies in this country are finding that having a better working relationship with unions is a strength to their company.

What the other side of the House is thinking is going back in time. They talk about us going back in time. But they don’t understand that that relationship has moved on plenty, over the years. The unions are a fantastic place to support our workers and also our employers. They want to see good working conditions. They want to see good employer-employee relationships.

Then I’ve heard over there about collective bargaining. Another aspect that I’ve been involved with over the years is that I’ve been a member leader of collective bargaining for the last 10 years. Negotiating collective agreements is always going to be hard, no matter what Government you’re working under. It’s a hard time. Members’ expectations are always going to be higher than what can be afforded to be given out. But it’s important that we have an absolute strong commitment to continue on and find a way through.

I think of my own situation. I was negotiating on behalf of the principals. If there was no duty to conclude—and this would be the same for any workforce, but I’m thinking in particular of the educators—imagine the chaos that would occur, and that was the possibility. Before we bring this in, that is the possibility and the reality of what could happen now.

This bill strengthens so much for workers. It strengthens so much for workers. It makes our country a much more fair and much more equal place. On that, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 30 January.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, when we were last debating this, Erica Stanford was speaking, and she has 5 minutes, 55 seconds remaining to speak. I take it, by the fact that she’s not here, that she’s not going to continue, so I call the last speaker, Jamie Strange.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take this call this afternoon. I’m certainly honoured to talk on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Hon Chris Hipkins has done on this bill. He has listened to teachers over a number of years, and now that he is the Minister of Education, he is bringing in bills that show he has been listening to the profession.

Simeon Brown: For teachers, not children.

JAMIE STRANGE: If you’re speaking about children, the member for Pakuranga, have you left school yet? My wife and I have four children—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I’d rather you just spoke about the bill.

JAMIE STRANGE: I apologise. My wife and I have four children in the education sector—three in primary and one in early childhood education (ECE). I want the best for my children and all students in this vitally important area. The benefits of education are wide reaching. It creates opportunity for people to succeed.

The purpose of the Teaching Council is to ensure safe and high-quality leadership, teaching, and learning for children and young people in early childhood, primary, secondary, and senior secondary schools, in English medium and Māori medium settings. It stands to reason, therefore, that the governance of the council should be directly elected by, and representative of, the teaching profession, as well as having appointed lay representatives. The name should reflect the central role that teaching plays in quality education. This bill is about teachers having a voice in their council. We talk a lot in education about the student voice. We have student councils. In fact, I’ve just completed a 20,000-word thesis on innovative learning environments. [Interruption] Thank you. I finally got there. A key aspect of innovative learning environments is students actively participating in their education. This bill is about the teaching professionals, whom we value, having a voice.

We’ve heard a number of points in this debate so far. So, number one, we heard from the opposite side of the House that there’s been a lack of consultation on this bill. Well, I can assure those on the other side of the House that something happened back in September; it was called a general election. The teachers voted for change. I spent a lot of time in classrooms, and in every classroom I visited, the teachers were excited about the Labour Party policies, and they clearly voted for change.

Number two, we’ve heard about teacher morale being at an all-time low over the past nine years. I can attest to this. I was a school teacher at a local school, Berkley Normal Middle School in Hamilton, for six years. We were very fortunate to have our Hamilton East member come in and visit—and I appreciate the Hon David Bennett visiting. I even let him play soccer once, didn’t I, David—although I’m not sure he really helped the team. However, the Hon David Bennett—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but, really—I appreciate he’s a new member. First of all, we use full names in the House. Second of all, it is the first reading and I really would like you to address the bill.

JAMIE STRANGE: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. So we would have National Party MPs come in, and they would say, “We value teachers. We listen to teachers.” But they weren’t listening on national standards, they weren’t listening on class sizes, and they weren’t listening on removing representation from the Teachers Council. The teachers wanted representation on the Teachers Council, quite clearly, and, for a lot of teachers, this legislation was a final nail in the coffin of not being listened to. But I can assure the House and those watching at home that this Government will listen to teachers, and this is one way that we’re doing it, and I’m proud of that.

This bill is part of taking a step change to change the status of teaching. Our teachers do a wonderful job. They’re incredibly hard-working; many of them work well into the night. In fact, when I was a teacher, most of my colleagues would come in on a Sunday. They work in the school holidays. They’re incredibly hard-working, and we will value them by listening. Teachers are among the most trusted public servants, and this Government is passionate about rebuilding trust rather than having a low-trust model. I’m not sure why the National Party hate teachers so much, but that’s a question that will have to be asked. A number of professionals have the opportunity to have representation on their boards, including doctors, lawyers, and nurses. Real estate agents have representation on their board, but school teachers do not have representation on their board, and that’s what this bill seeks to address.

Now, I’ve got a lot of friends who are real estate agents. I value them really highly, but surely teachers should be at least equal with real estate agents—surely.

Hon Member: How many? How many friends?

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: We’re not counting our friends at the moment.

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! There was some talk by a previous speaker, the Hon Tim Macindoe, around his pumpkin being destroyed. Some of you might have missed that story, but he raised—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t really want to hear it unless it’s in the bill.

JAMIE STRANGE: Well, it’s not exactly in the bill, but I was just referring to what he mentioned. I’ll be very quick. I think the pumpkin is a good metaphor, because squashed pumpkins are what a lot of teachers have been feeling. But I’ll move on—I’ll move on.

Another aspect of this bill, a key aspect—

Hon Member: No, I want to hear about Tim.

JAMIE STRANGE: —ha!—is around democracy. Sure, the point was raised early in this debate that some members on the Education Council were formerly teachers, and that is accurate. However, what we’re talking about is—we’re talking about democracy. We’re talking about giving teachers the opportunity to democratically elect representatives from their field.

Hon David Bennett: They’re compulsorily unionised.

JAMIE STRANGE: I’m not sure if Mr Bennett knows about democracy, but I’m sure in his caucus he’ll find out soon enough.

There’s another key aspect I’d like to raise in my last three minutes, and that’s that this bill renames the Education Council the Teaching Council. People say, “Well, what’s in a name?”

Hon Member: Speaking about a pumpkin.

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha! What’s in a name? I should know. Jamie Ross Strange is a name that tends to stick in people’s minds, for better or for worse, and, actually, I share two-thirds of my name with the member for Botany. I’m sure he’ll be honoured around that. But the key aspect here is that the word “teaching” is going back into the teachers council, and that’s what this bill does: it puts the word “teaching” back in the title, and that’s a very important aspect of this bill.

What’s the purpose of the Education Council, which will be called the Teaching Council? It supports the processes to make sure teachers meet and maintain the necessary standards—

Hon Member: Of pumpkins.

JAMIE STRANGE: —needed to teach—and grow pumpkins. Look, who knows best what teachers need? Who knows best what happens at the chalkface? Who knows? Teachers know—absolutely. Who knows best how to make our education system work well for all New Zealand kids? Who knows best? Teachers know best, and that’s why I’m proud to say this Government will put teachers back on the Teaching Council.

We’re going to have diversity on the council. Some of the key areas where representatives will be chosen from include early childhood, the primary sector, and the secondary sector. We’ll have a teacher in the field of ongoing teacher education—professional development. We’ll have a principal from the primary sector, a principal from the secondary sector, and a leader in the ECE area. [Interruption] Ha! I would particularly like to talk about the ECE aspect, because early childhood has been under siege for nine years.

Hon David Bennett: What about a principal from a charter school? Where’s the charter school principal?

JAMIE STRANGE: We’ll talk about charter schools in a few months, Mr Bennett. I’m sure you’ll take a call on that one. I’ll be looking forward to hearing it. But early childhood—it’s important our kids get the best start in life, and we will have representation from the early childhood sector on the Teaching Council. I’m proud that that will be happening. We’ll have a representative from the primary sector—who have welcomed the removal of national standards unanimously, and we appreciate their support—the secondary sector, and the other sectors I mentioned.

In conclusion, this Government’s vision is for the teaching profession to be of high quality, of high status, and respected. The key point here is that this Government will listen to teachers, and we are listening to teachers. Teachers have said they’ve wanted this for a number of years, and the teachers finally have a Government who will listen to them. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

First Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: I move, That the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

I move that the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill be read. The bill is a long overdue reform to conservation legislation, which had its beginnings back in 2002. It introduces an infringement system to better protect conservation values, while ensuring that people do not risk criminal convictions for simply committing minor offences. I acknowledge the former Ministers of Conservation and Justice and the former Attorney-General for their work on this bill, which was introduced under the previous Government. I hope National will continue to support the bill.

The bill does not change what is illegal. It provides another tool—infringement notices—for dealing with lesser offences under conservation legislation. Infringement notices will sit between formal warnings and prosecutions, and may be appropriate for many offences. The bill should make compliance and enforcement systems more efficient and effective because it gives the Department of Conservation (DOC) and council officers—in relation to reserves—this additional enforcement tool.

I, and I’m sure other members of this House, want to see our national parks, public conservation lands, marine reserves, and indigenous plants and wildlife kept safe from illegal human activities, but I don’t want to see people prosecuted and get a criminal conviction for a minor breech of the whitebaiting regulations or for dropping litter in a park. I also want a better deterrence tool to achieve protection for conservation than offenders simply receiving a formal warning.

The bill amends eight Acts, namely the Conservation Act 1987, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, and the Wildlife Act 1953 by inserting a new part in each of those Acts with a new set of infringement offences that duplicate existing offences in conservation legislation. These new parts enable warranted DOC officers and local authority officials—in relation to the reserves that councils administer—to issue infringement notices for less serious breaches of the offence provisions. The recipient of such a notice would be liable to an infringement fee, rather than a court summons and a potential conviction.

In general, each offence in the current law—fishing in a marine reserve, for example—encompasses a wide range of offending. Somebody who fishes in a marine reserve inadvertently, and does not catch any fish or do any harm to the reserve, may well be suitable for an infringement notice. Conversely, someone who deliberately flouts the rules and poaches fish from it is likely to merit prosecution action. The bill will make the treatment of less serious offending under conservation legislation consistent with the approach to enforcement we already have under our fisheries, biosecurity, and resource management laws. It should also remove unnecessary costs to the court system.

The bill also provides for DOC’s warranted officers to require information in evidence, if needed, for a prosecution or an infringement notice, as currently there is no such power in the Conservation Act. This is an essential part for an effective infringement system, and is already present in other Acts.

The bill has been drafted so that those committing serious offences, such as using a firearm in an unsafe way, obstructing enforcement officers, or causing significant harm to conservation values, would not be able to be given infringement notices and would be prosecuted. These offences were identified in consultation with the police and the Ministry of Justice.

Before the bill is enacted, DOC will develop further procedures around the use of the compliance tools and how the infringement system will operate. These procedures will ensure that Māori customary rights are respected when doing enforcement work. The seriousness of offending criterion in the guidelines will recognise whether a particular species is a taonga species and the impact of the offending on wāhi tapu or other sites significant to Māori.

The intention is not that warranted DOC enforcement officers will issue tickets on the spot; rather, these warranted officers would collect information and pass it to a group of trained enforcement specialists, who would then decide how the alleged offence should be dealt with: no action, a warning letter, an infringement notice, or a formal prosecution. This approach is designed to ensure consistent treatment. The actual infringement fees will be set in regulations.

One particular issue the Minister of Conservation would welcome public submissions on, and select committee consideration of, is whether Fish & Game councils should have access to the infringement notice system. The bill, as introduced, enables DOC to use infringement notices for managing the Taupō sports fishery. It does not, however, currently provide for Fish & Game—which is a non-governmental agency—to use infringement notices to manage other sports fisheries, such as trout and salmon elsewhere in New Zealand, or game-bird hunting, which it is responsible for. Care is needed in giving non-government agencies the power to issue sanctions because, unless the infringement notice is challenged, the courts do not sit between the enforcement agency and the offender to safeguard due process and provide a check on the exercise of power.

The Minister has explored, with officials, some safeguards that could be used if Fish & Game councils were given the power to issue infringement notices. One option would be to give Fish & Game rangers only new powers to collect information from suspected offenders, to then pass on to DOC’s enforcement team to decide whether a notice should be issued and to issue it. This would, however, place a cost on DOC to manage some fish and game enforcement work.

The Minister would welcome public feedback and the select committee’s consideration of the implications of this approach and whether there are other options for delivering a more effective and efficient system for fish and game management, while ensuring the interests of the public are protected. So rather than proposing a specific solution to Parliament in a Supplementary Order Paper, the Minister of Conservation will be asking the select committee to consider the issue and then provide either an amended bill for Parliament to consider or a report setting out why no changes to the bill are needed in relation to fish and game.

I believe this bill will make the enforcement system for conservation legislation more effective and efficient, make better use of DOC’s enforcement resources, and, by keeping less serious offences out of the courts, save court time and resources. I commend the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak at the first reading of the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. Naturally, National supports this; it was our bill. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has wanted it for a number of years, and I would have to say, with my predecessor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and myself when I was the conservation Minister, that DOC were very persuasive and eloquent in outlining the advantages to its rangers to have an infringement system that didn’t take up so much of their time.

In a nutshell, over the years, DOC rangers who want to be out there protecting nature, safeguarding nature and our environment, particularly across the public conservation lands, have had an inordinate amount of time spent chasing up people, and the infringement system, as outlined in this bill very comprehensively, and the regulatory impact statement as well, outlines how thoroughly DOC have thought this one through and how much time and effort it will remove for DOC rangers spending time on non-essentials and concentrating on their core business. So it’s an excellent piece of work—long overdue, as I said.

I think that this is a bill that will, by making the fines smaller—because, of course, we have changed, in the last Government, the range of fines that have been available to use for DOC and for the Crown for really bad offences. The Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Act in 2017 was a case in point, and people in this House may recall the publicity around the jewelled geckos and people smuggling them out in their underpants, and so forth. The international market for some of our unique national taonga is such that they have been targeted. It was essential to up the ante and make New Zealand less of a soft target for these international poachers, and that’s what we did and the fines were dramatically increased. We upgraded the language, as well, of the 1953 Wildlife Act to give the DOC rangers extra powers, which, again, they felt they needed.

With due consideration to Fish & Game and other NGOs and other entities, the DOC rangers are public servants that have a duty to the public that is well understood and well enshrined, and it has been a very interesting exploration, with any of the infringement systems that we have changed and updated, to see how broadly we can allow those powers to be used by other individuals rather than just, for example, the DOC rangers. But there are some compelling cases, perhaps, that we can discuss and flesh out in select committee when it comes to this particular legislation.

The proposed infringement system, as has been outlined by the previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, will involve things like the minor breaches around fisheries regulations, camping in the wrong place, dogs being let off the lead in prohibited areas, and taking plants from our national parks. I’m not minimising these offences, but on the scale of things, it is appropriate to use an infringement system rather than the more heavy-duty tools, which was really all that was available to DOC rangers until this piece of legislation was put forward.

It is an omnibus. It does change eight pieces of legislation, were it to pass, and I believe it will pass. I think that the NGOs that have consistently assessed DOC’s work assessed the need to protect our nature. The Environmental Defence Society and others have been carefully examining what powers DOC rangers should have, and I think it’s fair to say there is widespread agreement for an infringement system that addresses the minor—were time-consuming but should be less so—offences, but in a way that makes people aware that if they transgress, they will be held to account.

So I think that across the parties I’d be surprised if there’s anyone who’s against this. I would be surprised if there was any real opposition from anyone, really, to this, because it is sensible and a long-overdue measure. I think that, in the same way that we have been updating across successive Governments the powers of DOC and its ability to do its job well and as efficiently as possible and concentrate on its core business, this is the kind of measure that fits very neatly into those updates and reforms.

It’s also very similar to what’s already happening across fisheries, for example, with the Resource Management and Biosecurity Acts, transport legislation, and animal welfare legislation, as well as health and safety. So to be able to apply this as well to the conservation estate is eminently sensible. DOC deals with a wide range of offences and have trained rangers and grades of trained rangers that really will rise to the occasion with this, and it will make the big machine of DOC work that much more efficiently.

Implementing a fine system will create a very sensible middle ground to deal with making people aware that they’ve had an offence but not making them criminals, and I think that’s another distinction that is important, because people were fighting the fines and the other mechanisms that DOC had at its disposal as a tool. They were fighting them because they didn’t want a criminal record. The stakes were high, but for an infringement system the tendency, I think, will be to admit the wrongdoing, to get on with putting it right if you’re caught as an individual—not, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. But if people are caught, then they can just get on with it and not risk having a criminal conviction, which is a problem for a lot of people—it has been in the past.

The rangers will be freed up to work in the parks to do what they do so terrifically well. So I don’t believe there’s much need, really, to take up more of the House’s time on this. It has been explained what the bill will do. The impact statements have been very carefully thought through. I think that this is a comprehensive omnibus bill that is long overdue, that is very much needed, and I think we should just get on with and send it through to the Environment Committee, where we will look forward to examining it in some detail. I’m a member of that committee, and the chair and the rest of us will pay close attention to the submissions.

As the person acting for the Minister from the Greens said a moment ago, the submissions are deliberately asking for people to talk about Fish & Game and the broadening out of these powers and whether others should be allowed to do it. That presents some gnarly questions, which are best teased out in the engine room of a select committee.

So I look forward to it coming before the Environment Committee in due course, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Hon Maggie Barry and the prior Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, for the work that they did on this bill, and acknowledge the fact that this is a machinery of Government bill that is coming out of the machinery of Government as a consequence of your efforts, rather than ours. I thank you for that.

Can I also make a comment on the Environment Committee, which I’ve had the pleasure of sitting on a number of occasions, and note that I think the Environment Committee is often one of the best-peopled committees in the House—

Fletcher Tabuteau: You would say that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it’s because of the importance that New Zealand attaches to it. I’ve sat on a lot of select committees, and I’ve always been impressed with the level of capability that sits on both sides of the fence, if you like, on the Environment Committee the whole time I’ve been in Parliament, which started when I had a bit more hair, 15 years ago. So I’m sure that this bill will be well considered—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And it was a different colour.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —when it gets to select committee. And I have some suggestions—I didn’t hear that. What was that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As was mine.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! Oh, right.

The key aspects of this bill have been addressed by prior speakers. I want to make a couple of comments about some aspects of it that I have personal experience in. I didn’t do a lot of prosecutions as a lawyer, but my firm used to do a lot of work for what were acclimatisation societies, and then the Fish & Game councils, and I did prosecutions on a lot of these minor offences.

I think one of the things that is mentioned here about both the complexity of process for the prosecutor and the difficulty of the process for the accused is actually right. The idea that someone who’s charged with a minor offence, whether it’s a camping offence or, you know, running a dog in an area that they shouldn’t be in—you know, I’m not wanting to diminish the fact that these things ought not to do be done, but they ain’t murder. And within each of those offence categories there will be a spectrum of activity, some of which should just have a warning, some of which should have a full prosecution—and I’ll come back to that with the trade and endangered species stuff—and some of which should have an infringement note that sits in the middle.

For just about all of the ones that I used to do for the Fish & Game Council, they should’ve been an infringement notice—fishing without a licence. Really, you know—do we really want to force either the Fish & Game Council or the accused to go into a court process where someone ends up with a criminal conviction rather than paying a fine for an offence notice? Really? Really? Let’s get a bit practical here.

What’s the difference between this and the parking fines that are dealt out by district councils? What’s the difference between this and the broader powers in respect of traffic infringements that used to be handed out by councils before all of those things were centralised to the Ministry of Transport and then, eventually, into the police? It’s not so many years ago that there were a lot of other classifications of driving offences that were prosecuted by some councils.

And I think we’re in danger of being too precious about some of these things if we say that there’s some special status that relates to Crown employees in the Department of Conservation compared with trained employees of a statutory authority, Fish & Game—because they are a statutory authority. No, they’re not the Crown, but Parliament has decided that, in this area of governance, it’s going to delegate, instead of to a council—a regional council or a district council—or instead of delegating it to the Department of Conservation, they’re delegating that function to Fish & Game.

Now, are Fish & Game to be trusted in these areas? Well, they seem to have done all right in the prosecutions, in their exercise of prosecutorial discretions in the more serious route that they can already take, so why can’t they be trusted in this? Is it because of this idea that, somehow, they’ll be subject to judicial oversight, and without that judicial oversight, they’ll be irresponsible? I think that is wrong. They haven’t needed to have judicial oversight of some of their other functions.

You know, their decisions as to whether they advocate for things before councils, which are probably—you know, they have serious effect on public and private property rights. They do that, and they’ve done it responsibly. In fact, I think it’s probably true that an amazing proportion of New Zealand’s river protection work that’s been done in New Zealand actually hasn’t been done by the Department of Conservation; it’s more often been done by Fish & Game. That’s true—if you look at most of the conservation orders throughout the country, they’ve been done by Fish & Game, and it’s a minority of them that has been advanced by the Department of Conservation.

Hon Maggie Barry: Public accountability, though.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, they do have public accountability: they’re accountable through their Minister.

There was, with respect, a ridiculous decision, I thought, that was taken by the last select committee when we were actually asked, in respect of their ability to seek information for a prosecution—the pedantic advice that came from the Crown was that the Fish & Game Council could not be allowed to require the person to give their date of birth. They can require their name, they can require their address by law; they couldn’t be required to give their date of birth. What a nonsense, because the prosecutorial guidelines that they have to meet when they file a prosecution include that they’ve got to give the date of birth of the accused. It was absurd. It was absurd advice, and I was one of those who thought at select committee we should fix that, despite the officials’ advice to the contrary. But that was nonsensical.

The very things that are there for the prosecutorial guidelines that applied to them, including the date of birth, they couldn’t gather, and that has practical consequences. John Smith sometimes lives in the same house as the father of John Smith, John Smith. So how do you distinguish between John Smith and John Smith both living at the same address if you cannot ask for their date of birth? So that’s how pedantic these things have become in New Zealand, and I, personally, think that the select committee should look favourably at the idea that Fish & Game councils should have this.

There are lots of Fish & Game Council employees out there. They are already paid for. There is no additional cost to the State or to Fish & Game. There’s lots of these people. They have a training regime that was explained to the select committee last time, in respect of their exercise of discretion. There was one issue in respect of putting people at risk in respect of firearms offences, which I think the committee should look at. I wasn’t sure about that one myself. I can understand that there might be concern about that, but I would’ve thought that’s an issue for Fish & Game to have a look at through their lens as an employer of these people, rather than for Parliament to say they should not have this this infringement offence.

So I think I’ve probably covered the main points that I was going to make in respect of that. They are a statutory authority, they are fulfilling a statutory duty, and they have a jurisdiction in respect of things that, effectively, no one else is policing. So if they’re not policing it in an effective way—we all know that the court processes are hugely expensive, and we don’t want to put unnecessary burdens on either prosecutor or accused in terms of the cost of those functions, and we don’t want unnecessary stress to be faced with them.

Returning to the discretion that’s going to have to be exercised, assuming this legislation does eventually get approved by the select committee and Parliament—and I think the former Minister, the Hon Maggie Barry, was right that this legislation is likely to pass through all stages, eventually, in this House and become law—a discretion has to be made. It will have to be exercised by those that have these powers—or they’ll have more than one power; they’ll have a power to decide whether they issue an infringement notice or whether they go down the more serious route. I certainly think that the department should be funded to take prosecutions, not just infringement notices, in serious cases. The law should be enforced.

I know the last Minister, so I’m not sure which Minister would have seen the cost of prosecutions of some of those people who were stealing our jewelled geckos—you know, our rare and endangered species—and smuggling them overseas, or birds eggs, or—you know, there’s some real ratbags out there in the world. Some of them have very, very low ethics, and they will come and they will threaten our endangered species, and when we catch them, I think the ministry should be sufficiently funded to actually throw the book at them, because I think it’s abhorrent that they would be trading in New Zealand’s endangered species. In terms of criminal offences, it is such a deliberate act. It’s so planned, and we have threatened species. So, with those comments, I support the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to join with other members and endorse the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill that’s being introduced with this first reading, and indicate National’s strong support for it. It’s a bill that was introduced by the former Minister, Maggie Barry. It’s a bill that’s going to end up with better conservation outcomes. It’s a bill that’s actually going to be more just for people that commit offences across the various conservation statutes. And, actually, it’s a bill that’s going to save the taxpayers money. So it ticks all three of those issues.

But I can’t help commenting that here we are in the middle of the first 100 days of the new Government and they’re so bereft of new ideas and legislation that within that 100 days we’re passing National Party bills. It just reinforces how ill-prepared the new Government was for taking up the role of office, and long may the new Government advance legislation that has been advanced by us. It’s a reinforcement of how much was in the pipe from the previous Government and how vacant the new parties opposite—

Kiritapu Allan: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has been speaking for almost 2 minutes, and we are yet to hear of the substantive matters addressed in the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker is the judge of that. I appreciate the point and I’ll ask the member to continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite are so sensitive on this point that in the first 100 days it’s National legislation that they are putting through this House. Let me come to the issues of why it’s good legislation that my colleague Maggie Barry has raised, and that is around the issue of the infringement offences. What we want is better conservation outcomes. Here’s the dilemma: you’re a Department of Conservation (DOC) official, you’re out on the Marlborough Sounds—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not. Ha, ha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and the person is offending against the marine reserves law by fishing within it. And the choice is to either turn a blind eye, give the person a warning, or to spend more than $20,000 on a full court prosecution and give that person a criminal offence.

I’ve had the facing of constituents who have committed, actually, in the big picture, relatively minor conservation offences—you know, they’ve had a dog in a reserve where they’re not meant to, they’ve assumed that they can have their 4-wheel drive vehicle in a particular area and haven’t been able to, they’ve misjudged the boundary of the marine reserve and next minute they’ve got a criminal offence on their book that means that if they ever want to travel overseas, it’s like they’ve committed something really serious.

So the concept in this bill of having infringement offences and instant fines, in my view, is going to result in better conservation outcomes. Why? Because the DOC official or the Fish & Game guy is going to say, when somebody has done something wrong, “Actually, you do deserve an instant fine.”, but it actually is not good use of taxpayers’ money. It’s my prediction that there will be a lot more people that actually end up being prosecuted under these eight different conservation Acts than occurs currently. That means people think they’ve got a better chance of being caught and being fined, and so it is my view that you’ll get better conservation outcomes.

Secondly, it’s my view that it will be more just. It will be more just, because, actually, if somebody’s got a dog in a DOC reserve or a local government reserve that’s inappropriate, it is actually unfair for them to go through the full expense of engaging a lawyer, where the penalty becomes out of scale with the level of the offence, simply because of the bureaucracy of having to go through a full court hearing.

And here’s the other part: we as taxpayers spend a huge sum of money on our court systems. We all get frustrated as constituency MPs sometimes at the delays and the expense of that process. This bill eliminates that and that’s why it’s a good bill this House should support.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.