Wednesday, 21 February 2018

WEDNESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2018

WEDNESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Ministerial Statements

Cyclone Gita—Impacts

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence: I wish to make a ministerial statement on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence and all members of the coalition Government on the effects of ex-tropical Cyclone Gita. I wish to—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Just to make it absolutely clear: the Minister wishes to make a ministerial statement. That’s all she needs to say. If you want to say it’s on behalf of, that’s fine, but it’s one Minister making it, not the entire Government.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I wish to inform the House that severe weather associated with Cyclone Gita occurred across many areas of the upper South Island and lower North Island last night and will continue throughout today. The impacts of this weather event have been felt mainly in the regions of Nelson-Tasman, Taranaki, West Coast, Manawatū-Wanganui, Canterbury, and Wellington, with high winds, flooding, and slips occurring in a number of districts. Although the weather is easing, the effects are still being felt as the cyclone moves slowly across the country, including in South Canterbury and Otago, which are currently experiencing heavy rain and even snow in some areas.

Today, the Minister of Civil Defence, Kris Faafoi; the MP for West Coast – Tasman, Damien O’Connor; and the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management, Sarah Stuart-Black, will be visiting some of the affected areas in Hokitika, Nelson, Westport, and Greymouth.

Yesterday, seven states of local emergency were declared in Christchurch City, Buller district, Westland district, Grey district, and Selwyn district, as well as the Nelson-Tasman group and the Taranaki group. Many roads were closed due to the severe weather and remain closed today, including the State highway north and south of Kaikōura. A number of people in the Nelson-Tasman, Selwyn, Westland, and Buller districts spent the night in emergency accommodation. Thankfully, most will be able to return home today.

Approximately 5,000 residents and 1,000 tourists in the Golden Bay area are isolated due to slips on the Tākaka Hill road. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is currently assessing the damage to the road, but it is unclear when the road will be operational. The NZTA is doing everything it can to restore the route, although this may take several days.

Thousands of homes across Taranaki were affected by power and water supply outages overnight, and work is being done as quickly as possible to restore these services.

As the weather has improved, most states of local emergency have now been lifted. As at 1 p.m. today, states of local emergency remain in place in Selwyn district, New Plymouth district, and the Nelson-Tasman group. The next few days will be about assessing the damage across affected regions. The main points of focus will be on the clean-up and recovery, doing detailed damage assessment, including aerial reconnaissance, and supporting communities and travellers who are isolated or affected.

The Government has been monitoring the situation throughout, and providing support and advice to the local responses across the country. A number of agencies are working together to manage the response and recovery from this event including local government, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the New Zealand Defence Force, and the New Zealand Police. People can keep themselves up to date with the latest news through the civil defence emergency management groups’ social media and websites and the websites of MetService and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

I know you will join me in expressing that our thoughts are with all of those affected by this emergency. I am pleased to see that local authorities and civil defence emergency management groups were well prepared for this event, and I acknowledge their efforts and their dedication. Communities have also responded brilliantly. It was great that so many people took steps to keep themselves and their families safe and listened to the official advice that was given.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the National Party spokesperson for civil defence, I’ve watched closely as New Zealand has prepared for the coming of ex - Cyclone Gita over the past few days. It has been encouraging to see councils and Government working together in order to support their communities and facilitate aid where necessary. I would like to acknowledge councils and mayors who were proactive in declaring a state of emergency. However, I am sure that some will reflect on that decision-making process over the next few months and the wisdom of that declaration.

I think, once again, it has become apparent how important it is for all New Zealanders to have a plan in case of emergency and to review those plans on an ongoing basis. There are those who say that the potential of ex - Cyclone Gita was overstated. However, those who’ve had their properties damaged would not agree. For our own safety, we need to take note of the warnings from the professionals, who have access to the most current information. I would like to thank the emergency services, who are, for the main part, volunteers who have left their families and properties to protect others.

While this storm is still active over the lower South Island, for many of the affected areas, the worst has passed and the clean-up is just getting under way. I hope we can continue to support our communities with their recovery efforts. All our thoughts are with those who have been affected by this event.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. On behalf of the Green Party, let me just add my support to what the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and MP Stuart Smith have said just now. To those people in Golden Bay, Nelson, Kaikōura, the West Coast, Christchurch, Taranaki, and other parts of the country who have borne the full force of Cyclone Gita, we send our condolences and we hope for a swift recovery. To those who’ve been evacuated from their homes, we hope that you can return soon. And to the people of the emergency services, civil defence, and the Defence Force, we send our thanks and gratitude. As a country we rely on your professionalism, expertise, and experience to pull us through the most trying of times, and once again you’ve carried out your duties admirably. So thank you for that.

Thanks too to the ordinary people who checked on their neighbours and helped out in their communities. It is at times of emergency when we support our neighbours that the strength of our communities and our ability to look out for one another are most clear. The only thing that can counter the strength of a storm like this is the strength of our people and our communities.

The clean-up for weather events like this can take some time, far too long after the wind- and rainswept journalists have left town, and requires communities and local and central government to work together. For that reason, I am very pleased that the Hon Kris Faafoi, our civil defence Minister, is travelling south today to inspect the damage and to offer this Government’s assistance to mayors and officials from affected regions. I would also like to thank the media for helping to keep the public informed during what was a frightening time, particularly those reporters, camera people, and photographers who had to file their stories outside, braving the elements.

It has been a summer of exceptional weather, and I’m informed by MetService scientists that there is now a clear scientific link between extreme weather events like this and climate change. As we face this changing climate together as a country, the spirit of community and care for one another that we see when disaster strikes will become all the more important.

In closing, I’d like to specifically acknowledge the people living in an area where a state of emergency has been declared: Christchurch, Buller District, Grey District, Selwyn, Westland, Tasman, and Taranaki. Our thoughts are with you today.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence: I assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor the situation as it develops and transitions into the recovery stage. Events like this can be distressing and place significant strain on families and communities. I once again commend the actions that have been taken by individuals, local authorities, volunteers, emergency services, and civil defence emergency management groups to prepare for and manage the consequences of this severe weather event.

Finally, I too want to thank, on behalf of the Government, the volunteers and communities of people who support each other in a time of need such as this. Their resilience is our encouragement.

Motions

Jewish Community, Wellington—175th Anniversary

MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the 175th anniversary celebrations of the New Zealand Jewish community in Wellington.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that procedure? There appears to be none.

MELISSA LEE: I move, That the House acknowledge and congratulate the Jewish community of Wellington on their 175 years in New Zealand and acknowledge the indelible mark that they have made on the culture and spirit of our nation.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Motions Without Notice—Process

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been some discussion for some time around motions in the House without notice—and the member consulted with all parties and we agreed to the notice about the motion just passed and we supported it. However, I do wonder whether you would give some consideration to a more streamlined process for considering these in light of the fact that they do seem to continue to recur. I wonder whether you might consider a ruling that foreseeable events should be the subject of a Business Committee decision as to which are put to the House for a motion and which are not, and only unforeseeable events, or very recent events, should be the subject of a motion with leave. I think it’s important that we consider the fact that there are a range of these issues that come up from time to time and we actually need to be fair to groups around which ones get the attention of the House and which ones do not, and the only way to do that sensibly is to consider them altogether.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Mr Speaker, before you respond, can I just say that I think that that would be a matter outside of the Speaker’s ability to rule, simply because members should always be free, as they are elected freely—whether they are constituent members or list members they are equally elected into this House freely and unencumbered—and should be able to seek the leave of their colleagues at any time for any matter that they think the House should consider. While it might be useful to have a discussion at the Business Committee and we would be participants in that, I think I’d be reluctant to see a hard and fast ruling that starts to contain the rights of members in this House. I think we’ve had too many hints of that happening, even in this week.

SPEAKER: Well, I was just about to agree with the member. Can I suggest that there is a pretty easy compromise that sits here, and that is that we do put on the Business Committee agenda an item whereby members can put things forward. My expectation would be that members who have foreseeable events would do that. I won’t stop putting the leave for matters going forward to the House, because it is the right of members to seek leave, but it is my expectation that the House would be less likely to approve leave for those matters whereby notice had not been given by the Business Committee. Does that sound all right?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’ll have the discussion first.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Charter Schools—Ministers’ Conflicts of Interest

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can she verify that the first project to be funded under its regional development fund—reported to be announced this Friday—has gone through the right cost-benefit analysis and probity checks, given that no funding approval process has been published yet?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we’ll be making those announcements on Friday. I know the member will be as eager as, particularly, members of our local government community are, and I can assure the member an appropriate process has been applied.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of her answer to oral question No. 1 yesterday regarding whether her Ministers have appropriately declared any conflicts of interest with the Cabinet Office in relation to charter schools that “Certainly, on every occasion that it’s been raised with me—a specific case—I’ve been assured by Ministers that the meetings they’ve undertaken have been specific to their portfolio”, what have been those instances and what declarations were made?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The instances in which they’ve been raised have predominantly been in this House, and in those cases the Ministers have talked about the subject matter that pertained to those meetings or, in the case of Mr Davis, he spoke about representing the Northland region as an MP at the time of the meetings that he had.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is she then satisfied that all of her Ministers have appropriately declared all conflicts of interest with the Cabinet Office in relation to charter schools and that there have been no other conflicts that have not been declared?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly, that is my expectation of Ministers—as it will have been for every past Government—because, of course, we are all obliged to follow the Cabinet Manual.

Hon Paula Bennett: Given the Cabinet Manual makes it clear that perceived conflicts of interest should be managed in the same way as actual conflicts, is she satisfied that all of her Ministers have declared any perceived conflicts of interest to the Cabinet Office in relation to charter schools?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our Ministers in question have spoken openly about the meetings they’ve had, the basis on which those meetings have been had, and the content of those meetings. They’ve made it public here, let alone being required to declare that with the Cabinet Office. They’ve made it public here in this House, which is incredibly important as well. I will point out that these are also Ministers who have been accused of not engaging with those schools, and then, on the flip side, have been accused for then engaging with them.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she checked in the last two weeks around conflicts of interest with the Cabinet Office about her Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My expectation is that every conflict of interest is advised. The very question implies that I don’t have confidence in my Ministers, and I do.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s the third question in a row that I’ve asked that hasn’t been answered. I did—very precise there.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ve been listening very carefully to the questions. I’ve been looking very carefully at the primary question and thinking very carefully about the answer to that and the second supplementary, and I think I’ve been quite liberal in allowing any of them. They have been addressed.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does that mean that you’ll allow me to ask the questions, but the Prime Minister doesn’t actually have to answer them?

SPEAKER: What it does mean is that the Prime Minister has more latitude in addressing the questions if they’re at the margins of being in order or not and—in this case, I think—slightly outside. I have been kind to the member in letting her ask them, but I’m not going to be tight on the Prime Minister when she clearly did address them, even if she did not supply an answer that satisfies that member.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister checked with the Cabinet Office about conflicts of interest about her Ministers in the last two weeks?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, I’ve seen no need because they have spoken openly about the status in which they have engaged with those schools. None of the Ministers that they’ve questioned on the other side of the House have any responsibility for charter schools.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of paragraph 2.60 of the Cabinet Manual, which states, “Ministers should avoid situations in which they or those close to them gain remuneration or other advantage from information acquired only by reason of their office.”, why has she allowed her Associate Minister of Education to continue to meet with partnership schools in their electorate?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is an accusation that I would defend my Minister against. He has no direct responsibility for charter schools. He is not involved in the negotiation of charter schools, and the documents that have been asked about here are public.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! There were four interjections from the Opposition after I called the Deputy Prime Minister. They lose two supplementaries. They’re lucky to only lose two.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister assure the country that she takes these questions of conflict of interest very seriously, seeing their origins come from a party that has conflicted offshore, onshore, in the boardroom, and outside?

SPEAKER: No. No, that’s—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s wrong with that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister’s asked what’s wrong with it. It involves an area that has no responsibility. The questions from the Opposition are not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You took two supplementaries off us for some response that you observed from us the moment the Rt Hon Winston Peters stood up to ask a question of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: No, when he started asking it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I beg your pardon?

SPEAKER: When he started asking it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I’m not sure that that was the timing, but I’m not disputing the decision you made. I’m simply asking you to accept that that type of reaction is likely when it’s easy to anticipate that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to offer some complete irrelevance, trying to distract from the situation the Prime Minister’s in.

SPEAKER: Well, I just ask the member to try and control himself and his team.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know, and the Deputy Prime Minister well knows, that under Standing Order 120 it’s unparliamentary to make an improper reflection on the motives of a member, which he clearly did in that question. I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise for that question.

SPEAKER: And that’s a matter of judgment for me, and my judgment is he did not.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the barracking from the New Zealand First benches was louder when the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked his question, did you take that into account when you made your decision about the National Party’s supplementary allocation?

SPEAKER: Well, as the member knows, my hearing is much better in my right ear than my left ear, and I heard a lot of barracking from the left, and saw at least four members barracking from my left. As I indicated, I thought the National Party were relatively lucky to lose only two supplementaries. And I did not hear the noise from my right.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling that Standing Order 120 was not engaged. However, I do take offence at the inference, and, on that basis, ask that the Deputy Prime Minister be required to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. The member cannot take offence on behalf of others. And I do want to remind David Seymour that his points of order in the last couple of weeks—or this week and last week—have come very close to trifling with the Chair. He’s suffered some punishment for it. I just hope that he could learn from his lessons.

David Seymour: I’m sorry, but I have to be clear that I’m taking personal offence, not on behalf of anybody else.

SPEAKER: Well, to take personal offence, the member has to be mentioned, and he wasn’t.

Housing—Brightline Test and Advice on Government Policies

2. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the policy advice he receives?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): I do have confidence in the advice provided by officials, although it will not surprise the member that I do not always agree with that advice.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his answer to a supplementary question to question 3 yesterday when he said, “The irony of that member raising it—because it’s the same advice that was provided to that party opposite when they introduced the two-year brightline test.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Extension of the previous Government’s brightline test was an election commitment and was not the result of policy advice since the Government was formed. I would note that Treasury did provide advice that the longer the period that the brightline test applies, the easier it will be for the Inland Revenue Department to collect revenue from property speculators. The longer the brightline test also means that it is easier for taxpayers to know whether a particular residential property sale is taxable. I would finally also note, and to the member’s point, that in 2010 Treasury provided advice on a brightline test for residential property with a minimum of a five-year period, as a base-broadening option for Budget 2010.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A fascinating answer, but it didn’t address the question. My question was simply this: did he stand by his answer to yesterday’s question?

SPEAKER: I certainly got that impression from the answer.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was he aware that that advice expressly stated a three- to five-year brightline option had the greatest risk of capturing sales that were acquired without an intention of resale, and was emphatically not officials’ preferred option; and, if so, isn’t that the greater irony?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Treasury provided advice suggesting that a minimum of a five-year period was the best response.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that all the advice provided to him from officials—

SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask Ms Genter and Mr Bishop to stop their private conversation and let Mr Woodhouse ask the question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned that all the advice provided to him from officials indicates that KiwiBuild may simply substitute the effort from the existing construction pipeline at high fiscal cost to the Crown but only of marginal benefit to housing supply?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have outlined a policy to cope with the constraints on ramping up home building that we inherited from the previous Government. I’m confident that we can deliver on our promises. As to when the capital will be drawn down, when and how it’s going to be drawn down, I’d refer the member to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development if he wants that detail.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why have both Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department advised the Government that policies such as the five-year brightline test, the healthy homes legislation, and proposed negative gearing will make life more expensive for renters at the very time when house prices, particularly in Auckland, are stable or declining?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t think the member characterised that advice correctly, but I’ll state again that I do have confidence that officials strive to provide the best policy advice they can, given constraints such as time and the quality of data available, and that policy advice can evolve over time, as new and better information comes to light. However, I will not necessarily always agree with that advice.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he concerned about the negative advice piling up against the Government’s policies: the Inland Revenue Department saying a five-year brightline test is too long; the Reserve Bank saying KiwiBuild will add only a quarter of the houses promised; residential construction slowing; and Government policies leading to higher rents—or does he know better than his officials?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I disagree fundamentally with the member’s characterisation of the advice we’re receiving.

Education—Work Programme

3. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How does the Government propose to go about making changes to the education system?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The broad and ambitious education portfolio work programme that I released today will champion a high-quality public education system for all New Zealanders. Education is a portfolio where success depends on broad engagement and shared ownership, and achieving successful change will not happen by dictating what ought to be done—at least, not most of the time. We will work in a way that respects and engages, and draws in educators, together with parents, whānau, iwi, employers, and the wider community.

Jan Tinetti: Why has he seen the need for such an extensive programme of change?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealand has an education system that we can be very proud of, but the way that we work and live continues to rapidly change, and therefore the demands that we have of our education system also need to change. Too many of the current educational policies are focused on the accountability and compliance mind-set rooted in the 20th century, not the current one.

Jan Tinetti: How does he intend to involve the wider public in these changes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A whole-of-portfolio education summit will be held in May. It will be the keystone national conversation about what New Zealanders want their education system to look like in the future. I want children, young people, adult learners, their parents, their families, their communities, teachers, researchers, and education leaders at all levels, including employers and industry, to participate in these events, and the summit will provide that opportunity.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What consultation, if any, did he have with the tertiary sector about the Government’s decision to devote $2.8 billion entirely to student support?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Every one of them got a vote in the last election.

Health, Minister—Disclosure of Information on Proposed Rural Medical School

4. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his answer in the House yesterday to a question regarding a third medical school specialising in rural medicine that “I don’t think it’s in the public interest to give further information on that matter”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I appreciate the high level of interest in ensuring that we have the workforce required to deliver the health services New Zealanders expect and deserve. However, it is not in the public interest to explore, in this House, the proposals currently under consideration.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What criteria does he use to determine whether a matter widely and extensively reported in the Waikato Times and through other national media outlets is in the public interest or not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I use the usual considerations that Ministers apply.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What possible issues of national security or individual privacy would cause him to answer a question on a third medical school by saying, “I don’t think it’s in the public interest to give further information on that matter.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I note that the member skipped over some of the usual reasons, such as privacy and commercial sensitivity, that occur in the list of reasons that a Minister may look at to declare something not to be in the public interest. In fact, it is not required that a Minister declare exactly why, but I note that the member has carefully avoided those that are most likely.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with Derek Wright, acting CEO of Waikato District Health Board, who told the Health Committee this morning that there is a lot of public interest in a rural medical school?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We have had an issue with producing enough GPs in this country, and particularly getting them in rural placements. That is an established fact. The previous Government failed miserably to address this in any way. We have pledged to increase the number of GP training places. We’re doing something about this issue, unlike the previous regime.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he deny telling Otago Medical School and Otago University that this Government will not support a third medical school?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: OK, we’ll check that one.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Sorry—just under my breath. I withdraw and apologise, OK? Pre-emptively—all right?

SPEAKER: Lucky.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Have his advisers pointed out to him that it’s not a good idea to dodge legitimate questions in the House by pulling the first thing out of your brain that comes—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That question’s gone.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Could I rephrase it?

SPEAKER: No. The member is a very senior member, a long-term front-bencher, and he should know better.

Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Market Access Gains and Environmental Provisions

5. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What additional market access gains has his Government achieved in the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I presume the member is referring to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which is a different agreement from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I know there’s been some debate about this matter, but I think we’d like to hear the answer to the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you. I presume the member is referring to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a different agreement from the TPP and, for example, doesn’t include the USA. Changes to market access were not on the table, but during negotiations there were repeated attempts by larger countries to pare back our market access. We strongly rebuffed those attempts and emerged with market access intact, while making significant improvements in other areas. We’ve narrowed the ability of overseas corporates to sue the New Zealand Government in overseas tribunals. Perhaps the most significant changes that we have ensured, this Government and any future Government retain the right to restrict the sale of homes to overseas buyers.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he still agree with Andrew Little when he said, “The deal on dairy is hopeless … and the rest amounts to not much”; and, if not, why didn’t he try harder to improve market access for New Zealand exporters?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is true that the prior Government were limited only in their excess in their efforts to improve dairy access, a view that I think is not just the view of Mr Little but is the view of Fonterra. Unfortunately, by the late time that we became involved in these negotiations, market access issues had already been closed. What we were successful in doing was doing a far better job than the prior Government in respect of investor-State dispute settlement clauses and protecting the right of New Zealanders to control who owns our homes.

Hon Todd McClay: Given that New Zealand market access remains exactly the same in the revised TPP as in the original agreement, does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said yesterday, “We pushed hard and made good gains—massive gains”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member is quite incorrect in that. For an obvious point of clarification, the new agreement doesn’t include the USA.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he agree with the Prime Minister—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you would allow Mr McClay to ask the question again, because, clearly, the answer given by David Parker was not the answer intended for that question. To simply say that market access has been expanded by the removal of the US is an absolute nonsense, and even he wouldn’t agree with that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’ll recall the meeting at Skycity where all 12 parties signed an agreement where the United States was included. That apparently has escaped Mr Brownlee’s knowledge.

SPEAKER: I think we’ll just carry on with supplementaries.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the TPP has the highest level of environmental protection of any trade deal New Zealand has signed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. I acknowledge the former Minister’s solid efforts at advancing the CPTPP, but I also note his failure to address New Zealanders’ concerns about overseas buyers of homes, which he was happy to waive and sign away for ever—we’re not willing to do that.

Hon Todd McClay: Why then did he agree to water down environmental provisions in the revised TPP in Vietnam in November—in particular, in the trafficking of endangered species.

Hon DAVID PARKER: This agreement makes absolutely no derogation from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the other agreements in respect of trade in endangered species. In respect of other aspects of environment, it has the first enforceability mechanisms that we’ve ever had in a trade agreement—for example, against illegal fishing and subsidies of unreported fishing.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he agree with his co-protester and trade expert Professor Jane Kelsey that, “There is virtually nothing I can find that”—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will ask a question that does not have extraneous matter in it, and I think the member knows what part of that did.

Hon Todd McClay: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with trade expert Professor Jane Kelsey that, and I quote, “There is virtually nothing I can find that is a significant concession. Basically it’s the same deal. Labour has, effectively, agreed to a text that it said initially it would not support the ratification of.”?

SPEAKER: I’m going to let the Minister answer it, but I am going to say to the member that he should be careful about including matters that are the subject of debate or argument as a fact at the beginning of his question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: If it was the same agreement, there wouldn’t be a full treaty examination process nor new legislation nor a new national interest analysis. The member is being disingenuous.

Government Financial Position—Fitch Credit Rating Outlook for New Zealand

6. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand’s Sovereign credit rating?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Last week Fitch Ratings released its latest credit rating outlook for New Zealand, which reaffirmed New Zealand’s AA+ local currency and AA foreign currency long-term credit ratings, both with a stable outlook. Fitch said, “New Zealand’s ratings are underpinned by very high governance standards, a strong policy framework and institutions, and a commitment to prudent fiscal management.” Fitch was the third of the three major international credit ratings agencies to reaffirm their sovereign ratings for New Zealand following the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update from Treasury and the coalition Government’s Budget Policy Statement on 14 December.

Dr Deborah Russell: And what did Fitch say about the Government’s financial position?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Fitch noted that the Government’s “Adherence to prudent medium-term fiscal management continues despite the near-term expansionary fiscal policy.” It also said it is important that the Government is continuing to maintain fiscal discipline while focusing on a policy programme to address social issues. Under our Budget responsibility rules, the Government will reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office.

Dr Deborah Russell: And how did Fitch factor the Government’s policy programme into its review?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Fitch noted the Government’s policy programme to address social issues, including the families package, KiwiBuild, lifting the minimum wage, and restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund. It said that, as a result of these initiatives and others, fiscal policy will turn more expansionary and bolster growth. Fitch said GDP growth is expected to remain solid over the next few years and above that of similarly rated countries.

Agriculture, Minister—Cabinet Applications for Biosecurity Funding

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

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Barbara Kuriger: When he stated yesterday at question time that “at each occasion I’ve been to Cabinet to request funding for biosecurity, … my colleagues have looked very positively towards that.”, on how many occasions has he been to Cabinet asking for biosecurity funding?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I’d like to remind the member that in December 2017, $9.3 million was approved for the ongoing Mycoplasma bovis response to address this issue. That’s the result of his approach to Cabinet.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not my question. My question was on how many occasions he has been to Cabinet.

SPEAKER: I think the member got more than she asked for.

Hon Member: For once.

SPEAKER: Well, the member has been informed of one, and how much was got. If there’d been other approaches the answer would be incomplete, wouldn’t it?

Barbara Kuriger: When he stated, “I have confidence in my colleagues to fund this system properly”, what funding, if any, other than that quoted by the Associate Minister then, had his colleagues agreed to fund to tackle the stink bug issue?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: As I said in the previous response, $9.3 million was secured. Can I remind the member that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is under pressure, and people are working hard, due to several large biosecurity responses. The Government has committed as part of the coalition agreement to ensure the biosecurity net is working well, and we thank our hard-working team for that.

Barbara Kuriger: Can he explain what his colleague the Rt Hon Winston Peters meant by “the confidence of the funding and the firepower to get on top of these biosecurity incursions”?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Unfortunately, I have no ministerial responsibility for the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if the colleague could explain what was meant.

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] One of us stands up at a time. The member certainly got that question addressed. The answer could have easily been yes or no, and it was certainly addressed in more detail than that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The whole issue of this latest incursion, the stink bug, is quite a problem, potentially a very big problem for the New Zealand economy. So when we got the answer first up that there’s only been one application to Cabinet for money that was about the current problem in the dairy industry, unrelated to the stink bug, and then no answers, really, about what might have been discussed by Cabinet around the prevention or the spread of the stink bug, I think it would be unreasonable to say that that question was addressed.

And a further point would be that when you’ve got the Deputy Prime Minister saying, “Look, there’s no problem with funding—plenty of money for all this sort of stuff.”, and we note that there is no money, because it would have been mentioned here today in the answers to the questions, it is not unreasonable to say, “Well, what do you mean when you say that there’s plenty of resource?”, while we note that there is actually none being applied particularly to this problem.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In an endeavour to sort this matter out, I seek leave to be able to answer that question put by that member, because I was the one she was quoting. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, the member is effectively seeking leave for another member to ask the question again. It’s already been answered. The member might want to—if the National Party would like to re-ask the supplementary question and have the Rt Hon Mr Peters answer it, then I’m happy for that to be put to the House. Is there any—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There’s a difficulty here—I shouldn’t be speaking now, obviously, because we’re in the middle of a point of order, but I’m trying to be helpful, because I know that the Deputy Prime Minister’s eager to answer this. But the problem here, of course, is that we are in short supply of supplementaries today because—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: All right. OK. First of all, I’ll deal with the member’s point of order. The first is that if members expect to have detailed responses in very specific areas, then general primary questions don’t help that. I think it’s fair to say that it is pretty hard for an Associate Minister outside Cabinet to be across all of the details of a particular Minister’s responsibility without notice. So in this case—does Nathan Guy feel all right?

Hon Nathan Guy: Yep.

SPEAKER: Good. The next point that I would make is that people need to be very careful when they ask supplementary questions with regard to other Minister’s statements, asking whether they could explain, or whatever, because it’s a very general question, and, as I indicated earlier, it could have been answered by the member saying yes or no. It wasn’t asking the Minister to give the explanation; it was just a request as to whether they could or not, so it’s a matter of getting the wording for that right as well.

Now, having said that, what I’m going to do is I’m going to put leave to the House for Barbara Kuriger to be granted an extra supplementary in order to ask a supplementary to the primary question along the lines she did earlier, to be answered by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is this: this was a question set down for the Minister of Agriculture. There are two major incursions into New Zealand at the moment that it would be reasonable for the public to expect the Minister of Agriculture knew a great deal about. One of them has been well discussed in the House in days prior to yesterday, and the other one was brought up yesterday. I don’t think it needs to be further expanded when it comes to a question that you have made very clear when those questions are asked about Ministers standing by their statements—they must relate to statements made as a Minister. So it is not unreasonable for us to expect that the Minister of Agriculture would be all over the virus affecting the dairy herd, and the stink bug, which could have a huge detrimental effect on the New Zealand economy, and to have got the sorts of answers that we’ve got today is unacceptable. To turn round and say now we have one extra supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister to explain why he said there’d be lots of money available when there isn’t, I think is a little unreasonable.

SPEAKER: OK, well, that’s very good of the member, but I think to characterise the statements of the Minister of Agriculture, since he’s been Minister, as only being on two subjects is unreasonable. I have heard him make lots of comments, some of them right at the margin of his responsibility.

Barbara Kuriger: To the Deputy Prime Minister: yesterday in question time when he said, “the confidence of the funding and the firepower to get on top of these biosecurity incursions” when he asked his supplementary question to the Minister, I want to know: how many times has he been made aware of papers that have been brought to Cabinet on this issue?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since my colleague has become responsible for biosecurity issues, he has thought of nothing else, knowing full well that we inherited a regime of 171 biosecurity incursions. As a consequence, I can ensure that member that all my Cabinet colleagues and myself are witness to the level of commitment that he is making to ensure he has the funding come the next Budget.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: how many times has the Deputy Prime Minister had Cabinet—

SPEAKER: I sought leave on the member’s behalf to ask a question similar, and that one was “could the Minister explain the attitude or the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister?”, and that has certainly been addressed.

Education (Māori Education), Associate Minister—Charter Schools, Conflicts of Interest

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What recent discussions or meetings has he had to progress opportunities for young Māori in our education system?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): I met with officials as recently as yesterday to talk about our Māori education work programme, which, for the first time in nine years, is focused on ensuring young Māori succeed as Māori.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Did he attend a meeting to help progress young Māori with the Minister of Education and representatives from He Puna Mārama Trust at Waitangi?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said, on 13 February, that “I’ve been working closely with He Puna Mārama Trust, the CEO and the senior manager there and we’re very confident that together we’ll make sure this transition happens very easily with very little fuss.”, can he confirm that he’s had several conversations with the trust, including helping them out with fund-raisers?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I can confirm that I have had a conversation around the publicly available information that the Minister of Education proactively released.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In his capacity as Associate Minister of Education, has he had any discussions or made any declarations with the Cabinet Office about potential perceived conflicts of interest?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, because there are no conflicts of interest. I have no delegation—no ministerial responsibility—for charter schools. As the local MP, I am responsible for ensuring that constituents in the Tai Tokerau, who are bombarded with misinformation from the Opposition, are provided publicly available information to dispel the mistruths.

Hon Nikki Kaye: If there is proof that, in his discussions about young Māori, he either engaged in negotiations around partnership schools or provided perceived preferential treatment, will he resign as Minister?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member needs to provide evidence. Put up or shut up.

Provincial Growth Fund—Progress and Benefits

9. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What progress has been made on the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The rate of progress is best described as blistering. The Provincial Growth Fund is a cornerstone policy of the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First, and more will be announced in Gisborne when Poverty Bay feels the love on Friday.

Clayton Mitchell: How will the Provincial Growth Fund benefit New Zealand provinces?

Hon SHANE JONES: For many of the provinces moving from a historically comatose state under the last regime, they—in particular, Tai Tokerau, Tai Rāwhiti, Manawatū, Whanganui, and West Coast—will be early recipients of well-thought-out, well-tested project financing options to address historical infrastructure neglect and a host of other projects that have been gathering mould on the shelves over the last nine years.

Clayton Mitchell: Will the fund be available to all provinces?

Hon SHANE JONES: Whilst there are some surge areas—such as the west, the east, the south, and the north—Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington, at this stage, are not conceived to be target provinces. But every other province is more than welcome to make an application, and they will find a great deal, in contrast to the last nine years: friendliness and finance.

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Disclosure of Meeting with Radio New Zealand

MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave for this question to be held over until the next question time when the Hon Clare Curran is available to answer this question.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

10. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she believe it is important for State-owned broadcasters to be independent?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Yes.

Melissa Lee: Does she agree that maintaining the independence of Radio New Zealand includes full disclosure of any meetings the Minister has with RNZ’s head of content?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, and the Minister has corrected the written answer that she gave, which was referred to in the questions yesterday.

Melissa Lee: If she does believe it is important for State-owned enterprises to be seen as independent, why did she have secret breakfasts with the RNZ head of news that she did not include in her answer to written question No. 19129 last year, when it was asked?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If it was a secret breakfast, it wouldn’t have been in a particular cafe in Wellington that is known to be frequented by half of the parliamentary press gallery and lobbyists. It may be quite a revelation to the members opposite that, occasionally, Ministers meet with journalists and those involved in the news media.

Melissa Lee: Did she discuss the need to correct her answer to written question No. 19129 with the Prime Minister prior to her correcting the answer this morning, after wrongly answering the question yesterday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure whether she discussed it with the Prime Minister; I do know she discussed it with the Leader of the House.

Employment, Minister—Statements

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Employment: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement in the Manukau Courier that there is a “crisis” in New Zealand employment?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many jobs has the New Zealand economy created in the past year while it has been in crisis?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have those figures with me.

Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Announcements and Improvements

12. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade and export growth?

SPEAKER: Just before the member answers, National just lost two supplementaries, thanks to Nathan Guy, from tomorrow.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Today the Government published the full text and the national interest analysis for the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA). It will deliver significant benefits for New Zealand workers and exporters, particularly in meat, kiwifruit, and wine sectors, as well as small business. It’s conservatively estimated the agreement will boost New Zealand’s real GDP by between $1.2 billion and $4 billion annually, whereas if New Zealand does not sign up, we’ll suffer a net GDP loss. The national interest analysis finds there will be a net positive outcome for employment and no negative impact on social regulation, health, human rights, the environment, or the Treaty of Waitangi. This is a progressive agreement that’s good for New Zealand, and I thank our trade negotiators who have worked so hard on the agreement, as well as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their leadership in critical aspects closing the deal.

Rino Tirikatene: Why did the Government publish the national interest analysis before the CPTPPA is signed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Governments are not required to publish the national interest analysis until after a trade agreement is signed and tabled in Parliament, but this Government believes it’s critical the public are informed about the impact of the agreement as soon as possible. It’s been less than a month since the negotiations were concluded, and officials have worked day and night to get the national interest analysis completed and out to the public. There will be a rigorous treaty examination process before we ratify the agreement, with multiple opportunities for the public to have their say, as well as debates within this House.

Rino Tirikatene: What significant improvements has the Government made in the CPTPPA compared to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA)?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Under the CPTPPA, Pharmac is fully protected. We’ve narrowed the ability of overseas corporates to sue the Government in overseas tribunals. We would have liked to remove investor-State dispute settlement clauses completely but we couldn’t, given the late stage in which we took over negotiations.

Hon Steven Joyce: Did nothing. Come on, Sir Humphrey, sit down! Sit down, Sir Humphrey!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Perhaps the most significant change is that we have ensured—

Hon Steven Joyce: You’re not convincing anybody. Come on, Sir Humphrey, sit down!

Hon DAVID PARKER: —that New Zealanders have the ability to control the sale of their homes to overseas buyers now, Mr Joyce—

Hon Steven Joyce: Sit down, Sir Humphrey! Sit down!

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and into the future, and compared with where that Government was leading us, we have secured the outcome for New Zealand.

David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Order! Before that member has a supplementary—and I will give him one—I do want to say to the Hon Steven Joyce that this is an important issue, and to suggest that Ministers don’t have the right to answer and to address them in the terms that he did is unparliamentary and it’s not becoming of a member as senior as he is. [Hon Steven Joyce rises] No, I’m not going to entertain discussion on that.

David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the so-called CPTPPA is simply the exact original text of the TPPA plus a four-page cover letter?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There are 22 changes from the TPPA and we have protected the right of New Zealand to control who owns our homes. We pressed strongly for these changes that were made because they’re important to New Zealanders. If the member cannot comprehend the difference between the two agreements and why we sought to gain the changes that we’ve made, particularly around homeownership, it demonstrates that he’s really out of touch with what New Zealanders want.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, is it not a fact that since the substantial changes have been made, the Americans who were opposed to the original deal, the TPPA, are now expressing interest in coming back in; and is that not some evidence of a substantial change that was concerning both their country and our country on issues of sovereignty?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think that the Deputy Prime Minister has hit the nub of the issue. New Zealanders and Americans were concerned that the prior form of the agreement unduly encroached on the ability of future Governments to do what was in the interests of their people. I think the most obvious example of that was that as the deal was proceeding, New Zealand was going to lose the right to control who buys New Zealand homes. We’ve fixed that.

David Seymour: Is it not the case that because the original TPPA text is all still completely intact under the CPTPPA, if the Americans were to try and re-enter the deal, as the Deputy Prime Minister has hinted, they would be able to reactivate perhaps all of the conditions that were struck out?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, the member is completely wrong.

Ian McKelvie: I seek leave to table evidence that we are neither comatose nor mouldy in the Manawatū.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member might want to be a little bit more specific in the form of the documentation he proposes to table. I presume he’s not going to sit on the Table.

Ian McKelvie: I was going to table myself, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The experience from a very long time ago is that that’s not helpful. Does the member want a point of order, or is he just standing up?

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just confirm that the term “Sir Humphrey” is now an unparliamentary term?

SPEAKER: I think it’s a matter of context and during question time when a serious matter is being addressed, continued interjection, and the interjection—it was partly the term used but more the suggestion—I think made five times by the member, that the Minister should sit down is an indication that he is not showing due respect to a Minister answering a question.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Today’s debate is about leadership, something we on this side of the House understand. Once, so did National, when they were led by giants like Keith Holyoake, who stayed close to the ordinary people, or people like Muldoon, who understood the needs of ordinary people—not this ideological lot that’s gone on since they passed.

They’ve never been the same. You know, you’ve got Jim Bolger begat Shipley begat English begat Brash begat Key, and back to English again. They all learnt, as Alan Greenspan said, to mumble with great incoherence.

And what did New Zealand get as a result of their nine years of service: inequality, homelessness, an economy propped up by rampant immigration, and a property bubble, a property bubble fuelled by hot money coming from all sorts of nefarious places. But they couldn’t give a damn, and so what did we inherit—inequality, the premier symbol of an unbalanced economy and failed economic theory.

As the New Zealand Herald reported, the richest 1 percent of New Zealanders received 28 percent of all wealth created last year—1 percent got 28 percent—and the bottom 33 percent got 1 percent. The Ewen McKenzie lookalike can smile and laugh over there, but we regard it as dramatically serious. This is not a rock star economy. It’s not leadership. It’s a dereliction of duty, and the members opposite are responsible for it. They spent their time manipulating the Government’s balance sheets while chronic underfunding happened in every area of the economy. Biosecurity, roads, rail, hospitals, schools, foreign affairs, offshore in the Pacific—underfunding, when we needed to be stepping up to play our role. They’re guilty of total dereliction of duty, and they stand there today, wanting to be on this side of the House.

Can I just say this. What was their reaction to defeat? Well, then, by turning inward and fighting over their third different leader in just 14 months—their third different leader in just 14 months. Now, to use racing parlance, this is not a field with depth or breadth. After 12 years of English and Key, you’ve got five candidates, all with their hands up. Not one of them rates 1 percent in the polls. Five—not one of them rates 1 percent in the polls. They’re all takers, acceptors, bludgers, and bleeders of the party’s persona. They don’t build the party—no, no. They just suck the life out of it. All five don’t rate 1 percent.

But, you know, just shortly after the election, I started giving their odds out, and today I’m bringing the odds up to date. At 500:1, you’ve got the member for Tauranga. Now, I’ll tell you why he remains an outsider. It’s because he’s the type of politician who, because he never believes what he says, is astonished when others do. Then, when he announced his leadership, he started talking like a long-forgotten singer called Little Richard. He started talking in the third person. Now, when people start talking about themselves in the third person, they have an ego problem. [Interruption] Oh yes, oh yes. They have—[Interruption] I know; I’m a psychologist, part-time. They have a recognition-hunger problem when they start talking in the third person. So I’ve had to take his odds out to 500:1 still.

You know, when you get up and you go to a meeting by yourself to announce your own challenge—all lonely—it looks like, “Well, there’s my caucus. I must rush after them. I’m their leader.” George Bernard Shaw, who knew about Steven Joyce’s ambitions, said, “He knows nothing and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” Mr Joyce has ended up in an $11 billion hole, and he’s digging himself deeper—[Interruption] No, I can handle the polls. We create polls. Mr Joyce, we don’t bleed polls; we create them. Unlike him, all the dirty tricks in the world—that’s what he’s famous for. Behind the scenes, “black ops”, every dirty trick in the world, and I hope he makes it. I hope he makes it. He’s at 500:1.

Then you’ve got Mark Mitchell. He’s playing a real long game. He’s challenging for the fourth and fifth and sixth leadership changes—that’s coming. He should be very careful, because he might get what he wants too soon. But I’ve got to say to him, he has been an experienced hostage negotiator, and in that one sense, he should be out at 10:1 right now, because he’s got odds on him. In his caucus, he’ll need it.

Then you’ve got Amy Adams, who started out strong in the “Rose Garden Stakes”—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave for an extension of time.

SPEAKER: The member has sought leave for an extension of time. Is there any objection to that? There is.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): If this Parliament, or anyone watching it, ever wanted an example of what mumbling with incoherence means, they should just look at Winston Peters’ contribution this afternoon. In many ways, it typifies what the problem is for the current Government. It has nothing else to talk about other than its opponents.

This Parliament has been sitting for quite a number of weeks now post the installation of the new Government, yet, if you pick up the Order Paper, you will notice that of the 43 items that the Government currently has under consideration, 25 of them are National Party bills.

Hon Member: What?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Twenty-five of them are National Party bills. One of them has been unanimously agreed by Parliament, and another five have been recently introduced as bits of work started by the previous Government’s Ministers with no changes. Then there are all the fill-up bills, like the cartels bill yesterday—one simple provision. We don’t agree with it. We’re pleased they put it in front of the Parliament and they’ll do it, but if they were a busy Government, they would not have needed to take the time they did to push that through. It could have been done through other means that are available inside this Parliament.

But no, we have a Government so inactive in actually getting stuff done but very, very active in putting out the spin about the very little they’re doing that we are in danger of having to rewrite the parliamentary programme because there’s not enough to fill it up. I might say, let’s stand by for a whole lot more ministerial statements, let’s stand by for all of the Treaty legislation to be back on the floor of the Parliament during normal parliamentary hours, and let’s also see a whole lot of other inconsequential matters brought before the whole Parliament in a filibuster. I don’t want to be too harsh on these people, but I look at what we’ve got here, and it won’t be long before we get to a list of inquiries and reports from select committees that have been well considered by parliamentarians and don’t usually need the scrutiny of the House because they’ve had so much before, but they will be making their way back on to the floor of the House.

There has been much talk today by the Government about their successes in changing the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership to a new document. It is not a new document. What we are seeing released today is a new agreement that agrees to set aside, or suspend for now, some provisions in the 2016 text—only some provisions. What people need to understand is that all of those provisions can go back by a majority of countries any time after the 8 March signing. So there is a whole lot of hoodwinking going on because while this side of the House supports that agreement because it will mean an extra $4 billion dollars into the New Zealand economy in a relatively short time, that side the House opposed it but now know that without it the New Zealand economy is in severe difficulty.

Then we come to the issue about “Oh, we found some tricky way to get over the overseas buyers coming in to buy homes in New Zealand.” This is another complete nonsense. The bill itself, when it goes through the House, will have three tracks in it—three tracks that allow foreign buyers to buy assets, to buy land, and to buy residential houses in New Zealand. And, worst of all, the second track actually encourages foreign investors to invest in residential building projects in New Zealand at what is known in the industry as the wholesale point so that they can profit, ultimately, and speculate, ultimately, and take their profits on the completed developments—a whole track in the bill to allow that. So what we’ve got is a whole lot of suggestions and good intentions coming from the other side about what they want, but no delivery when you start to look at the really hard stuff.

And I noticed, too, the Deputy Prime Minister just saying, “Well, there’s so much that’s got to be spent across the New Zealand economy in all sorts of ways.” That means taxpayers have to pay for it. So that will mean also that we can look forward into successive Budgets—knowing how much they’ve committed of the freeboard that exists so it can be seen four years out—to extra taxation being put upon New Zealanders. No question—they will need to do that or they will need to severely trim their policy pictures.

So for this Government to start saying that they are so good, so clever, so progressive, and so out there is completely wrong. And, in my last second, might I ask why are they now hiding Ministers from the House?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and might I just say that it’s been an absolutely fantastic start to the year for this Labour-led Government and for our coalition partners and our confidence and supply partners. It’s actually been a fantastic first 100 days. We have a Prime Minister that appeals to all of New Zealand—to men, to women, to young people, to children. We have implemented a raft of changes to make New Zealand a better place for all in housing, in health, in mental health—which has been sadly neglected—and in education. Now, the best education Minister in the last 10 years has just launched a package that’s going to make changes to education that are going to lift educational achievement. We’ve made changes to the paid parental leave. We’ve introduced the Families Package. We’ve introduced student allowances, the winter energy payment, one-year free tertiary, and, most important of all, we’ve introduced child poverty reduction targets.

But let’s go to the start of the year, and, from a Māori perspective, I just want to talk on the fantastic day that we had at Rātana—the day when the Government walked on together, surrounded by hundreds of supporters, looked on by hundreds of other supporters. I have to apologise to all the people that came on with us who couldn’t all fit in the tent. They had to spill over out into the sun and sit on the grass. But it was a fantastic welcome, and the Prime Minister was roundly welcomed. We did have the opportunity to see the Opposition be welcomed on after us, and I’m sure all 10 of them had a fantastic welcome as well.

Then we go to Waitangi, and the Prime Minister was there for five full days. Now, I read the Leader of the Opposition’s newspaper reports—his comments in the newspaper—about how it’s going to be a total flop, or how the Labour Party’s going to turn up to Waitangi and we’re going to have a horrible reception from the Iwi Chairs Forum there, and we’re going to go there and dictate to the iwi chairs. I saw that the Leader of the Opposition got as far away from Waitangi as he could—in fact, he got down to Bluff. The only reason he wasn’t on the Auckland Islands was because there were no Waitangi Day celebrations organised down there.

But, instead, what happened? The Prime Minister turns up, and peace breaks out at Ngāpuhi. The Prime Minister was welcomed with open arms. We went to the Iwi Leaders Forum, where we didn’t dictate to them. We didn’t talk about what we’re going to do to them. Instead, we spoke about our shared priorities and how we’re going to work together to achieve them.

The Prime Minister met with real people. She met with the Māori Wardens. For the first time in history, a Prime Minister has turned up and had a pōwhiri from Māori Wardens, just to recognise the fantastic work that they do in our Māori communities, and you should have seen the look of joy on their faces. We met with the Māori Women’s Welfare League.

The Prime Minister diverted for two hours—a side trip—to meet the waka crews, and it was the Prime Minister’s idea that her Ministers and the MPs serve breakfast to the people, instead of what Prime Ministers previously have done, and that’s having an invite-only breakfast for the elite. That’s because our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is a Prime Minister for the people. She’s warm, she’s generous, she’s authentic, and the nation loves her.

Then we look across at the National Party and we look at their problems. Well, their problem is themselves. Who do they have to appeal to the masses? Who is warm and kind and generous? Well, Judith Collins is putting her hand up to lead the National Party, and “warmth” and Judith Collins’ name shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence, unless, of course, you’re talking about the heat that the members of the National Party caucus who don’t support her are going to feel.

Then you have Simon Bridges. I like him. I like Simon Bridges, and I’d back him. He’s a Māori, so us Māoris have got to stick together, and he’s a genuine “Mar-ree” from Tauranga. All he has to do is work on his Te Reo. Other than that, he’s tūturu as. And, in fact, the National Party needed him at Waitangi because they missed the briefing. They turned up, they sat down on the taumata, and the part under the gazebo that was reserved for the kaumātua and kuia was taken up by all the hangers-on MPs in the National Party, and it didn’t go unnoticed.

Just quickly, while I have time—Mark Mitchell. Now, here’s a man with warmth and authenticity. He’s got a great back story, he’s a truly decent bloke, and he co-captained the Parliamentary “Golden Oldies” Rugby Team at the last Parliamentary Rugby World Cup. That alone should lift Mark Mitchell’s stocks, and I wish him all the best in the leadership thing that’s going on with the National Party.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Well, I mean, listening to that, I feel pretty sorry for poor old Kelvin Davis, actually. I mean, he was talking about the first 100 days of the Labour Government. He’s been pretty much asleep for 98 of them, but has just woken up in the last two to face up to a massive conflict of interest.

This is the Associate Minister of Education who, of course, is supposed to be opposed to charter schools, but he will meet with his favourite charter schools based in his own electorate. I think there’s going to be more and more questions about poor old Kelvin’s muddled thinking. I’m very much reminded of when we were in the same rugby team about 30 years ago, when Kelvin had to move from flanker to prop because he couldn’t remember the line-out calls. And that’s the reality of it.

I would have thought they could have found someone better there to fill their number two slot. But look, this is a light and fluffy Government, and I urge everyone to go out and buy a copy of American Vogue this month, because it’s the most substantial document you’re going to get out of this Government this term. It says it all—you’ve got the Prime Minister there, surrounded by a sea of incompetent Ministers.

We’ve heard from David Clark today, struggling away to try and explain why, in answering a direct question on a matter of incredible significance to people in Waikato, he says it’s not in the public interest to answer it. I couldn’t find any reason to do with an individual’s privacy; any issue of commercial consideration, considering the proposal for a third medical school is just at a very conceptual stage; and certainly not any issue of national security that would mean that David Clark could not answer a direct question. I can see by the look on Mr Speaker’s face, as well as the look on many other Labour members’ faces, that they’re pretty much in agreement on that.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows he doesn’t bring me into the debate like that.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: But look, health is a serious matter, and that’s why it’s extremely concerning that today David Clark has gone back on his promise, made in September, for a $20 million rare diseases fund—$20 million to fund medication for rare diseases. Of course, there were thousands of families right across New Zealand that were buoyed by the news that $20 million was going to fund drugs for rare diseases—families struggling with crippling diseases like Pompe disease, and families with young children with genetic disorders. David Clark gave them hope. Some of them probably voted for Labour on that basis, and today, he announces it’s been scrapped. Well, that is an act of political treachery, which the electorate will not forget.

This Government, in health, is all about cancelling things and rolling them back. What we heard about today—we had the Bay of Plenty District Health Board before the Health Committee. The bowel-screening programme in the Bay of Plenty is being delayed by a year, but the officials there, the chair of the district health board (DHB), said they were ready to go, and they could not understand why the Minister has stopped that programme. They said it was, actually, not something that they had any line of sight on, but they were ready to go. That’s a similar story we’ve heard from other DHBs who want to be able to roll out that screening programme. They’ve got the resources. They’ve got the organisation. But the Minister still can’t explain to the House why that programme is being delayed for up to 10 DHBs, when it’s gone ahead for many others.

The problem with this Government—it’s not confined just to health. If you look at education, why won’t Chris Hipkins stand up to the union bullies and say, “Yes, charter schools are delivering for some of the most needy children in New Zealand.”? Why is this Government cancelling charter schools? Why are they scrapping national standards? They are not in touch with what the public wants. They are not in touch with what is going to work for the children and the families of New Zealand. I can tell you, as a parent myself, getting that report from the school that tells me how my children are doing has been a source of great reassurance. Labour needs to tell us what they’re going to do instead.

Winston Peters—he was complaining about the state of the economy. Well, in actual fact, he’s been handed the greatest economic conditions in a generation. It’s up to this Government to explain what they are now going to do with those great economic conditions. So what I would say to them is that the ball is in their court, but I’m pretty sure they don’t know how to play with it.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. First, can I just acknowledge the whānau out there who have come through the storm, weathered the storm. We wish them all the best with their recovery. Also, I’d like to pay tribute to Te Raumoa Kauiti, the direct descendant of Kauiti, signatory of the Treaty of Waitangi, who currently lies in state on Kauiti Marae, Waiōmio, Ngāti Hine. I bid him farewell.

Well, that was interesting. The former Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman actually spoke about needy children, and the needy children on that side of the House now are the National Party backbench. I think of Simeon Brown. All of a sudden, members on the backbench have the loudest voices they’ve ever had. Not only are they scrapping at the front door for the leadership; they’re scrapping at the back door. There are members on that side of the House who, I’m sure, are wondering, “Oh my gosh! I’m back here for another term, under a leadership I do not want to be with.” There are members—and I think of them—good members in a former Government, now all of a sudden wondering, “Where is my place in the National Party moving forward?”

I want to pay respect to former Minister Nicky Wagner on that side, who I’m sure is one of those who’s actually sitting there, thinking, “By crikey! If this person takes over, I could be out the door.” I think of other Ministers of the past who actually think, “Well, I’ve made my contribution. Do I need to sit around and watch the blood spill across the floor in the National Party caucus room?”

I’m sure some of those former Ministers, right now, are looking around, troubled by conversations happening between Alfred Ngaro and Todd Muller right now, doing the numbers—doing the numbers amongst themselves, thinking, “Don’t worry. The first night we’ll let them kill each other off, and we’ll come in and sweep up the mess and take over the leadership.” So I want to say to Alfred Ngaro, “Slippery tuna [eel], my friend.” We mentioned it yesterday—you and Todd Muller. I’d be scared to see you two sitting next to each other.

I want to take the words of my uncle, the member the Hon Shane Jones, who said the start by this Government has been “blistering”—blistering. The member for Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, has talked about the great achievements made by our Government. We have spent most of our time fixing the problems ignored by that side of the House—by the former Government, the National Party.

Mental health is one of the biggest issues affecting our people. As Minister for Youth, I’m really encouraged that the current Minister of Health heard the voice of the young people, installed a young person on that commission of inquiry, and is really keen to make sure that the future generations of this country get the services that they need, by doing a full inquiry and making sure that rangatahi, into the future, are strong, resilient, and also prosperous. And I’m excited by that.

I look at the current Minister of Education, who has a clear vision, a clear package detailed today for all of the country to see—knowing that our people don’t simply learn in silos. In fact, the lifelong journey of education goes from the cradle to the grave, and I want to acknowledge the current Minister of Education and his efforts in that sector.

So where are things going? As Minister for Youth, I’m excited about what we want to do for rangatahi. There are key priorities for us: youth recognition, youth engagement, youth representation, and youth transformation. What we saw from the last regime was a lot of happy dinners and backslapping, telling them how good they were at making sure that young people were prosperous. What we noticed when we took over was, actually, that was simply rhetoric. There was nothing transformative for these young people—nothing whatsoever. So what we’re committed to do is actually push for young people’s voices across all of Government. What my job and my office do for the Ministry of Youth Development is actually increase the quota of young people on boards and represent our people across not just local government but central government, business, community boards, and sports boards, and we’re encouraging our young people to find voice there.

I’m also excited by the work that the sector is doing. There are some great organisations out there who are doing good work for rangatahi. I want to make quick mention of Dean Lawrence from the Spirit of Adventure Trust, who hosted me, and I look forward to working with them into the future to make more opportunities for our young people. Very shortly, I’ll be hitting the road to places like Murihiku, where I’ll be engaging with Māori and Pasifika trusts down there to talk about opportunities for rangatahi.

I’m inspired by this Government and the work that we are doing meeting the lofty aspirations set by our country, and I know that everyone on this side of the House is working hard to achieve it. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to acknowledge the storm recovery that’s going on out there, and I am thinking of all the people that are doing the clean-up today.

I would just like to thank the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, for his offer of the lessons on party leadership—because that party over there are experts on that—but I just want to say, no thanks—not thanks, we’ve got it all under control. On that note, I would like to acknowledge our current leader, the Rt Hon Bill English, who’s put in 27 years of fantastic service, not only for our party but for this country and for the Government of New Zealand over that time.

There are some things in the House this week that I’ve found rather interesting, and the first one of them was around the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA). We’ve heard a lot—it doesn’t matter whether you talk about health, whether you talk about education, whether you talk about DIRA; whatever you talk about, all we hear about is reviews. So it was really interesting, the other night, to hear that another review is being done, of one that was done only two years ago. We don’t know what the terms of reference are of this review, but one thing I do want to pick up from the other night—I think we did have a good exchange around the rural-urban divide. James Shaw added a lot of value to that contribution when he said he was making a commitment to work together to help close up that rural-urban divide, and I am going to work and hold James Shaw to account on that one.

The other thing that’s come up this week is the conversation about the third medical school. We heard Dr Coleman say before that the Minister said that it’s not in the public interest to talk about this. Well, I can tell you that the people who work in rural health, the rural health association of New Zealand—they have a lot of members from all around the country, and they’ve made the case that rural health involves 600,000 people. So 600,000 people make up New Zealand’s largest city, which just happens to be scattered all over the place, and I’d like David Clark to explain to us at some point why this is not in the public interest. These public, these 600,000 people, are very interested in their primary healthcare, and we see these proposals for the medical school as some way of moving forward to get more doctors in our rural areas.

The biggest thing—the biggest thing—of the last week is that we have had issues in biosecurity with the stink bug, we have had issues in biosecurity with M. bovis, and there’s a number of other things going on like myrtle rust, and we cannot get any answers out of the Minister. We have been asking questions. We have been trying to get funding on behalf of people who are looking to find out where they head to next on the whole M. bovis thing. I went down to the Southern Field Days last week, and I spent some time with the very good local MP, Hamish Walker, and he has been trying to get answers. Nathan Guy and I have been trying to get answers, and these farmers just simply do not know what the rules of the game are.

So I would actually make a call out to the Hon Damien O’Connor to please answer our questions. I have been very upfront with Damien O’Connor and I have told him that biosecurity of a serious nature like we currently have in this country on a couple of issues is no place to play political games. I’m not interested in playing politics in this; I’m just interested in getting answers for our industries with M. bovis, with the stink bug. I don’t want to play games. I’m saying, “Hey, we’ve got to fix this.” This is a national interest thing.

Now, we know that that party over there, who are currently calling themselves the Government, made up with two others, are very seriously going to run out of money for the 51 promises and wish lists that they’re up to. We know that money’s not hugely available after giving it all to the students. It should be available for things like M. bovis, but we’re not getting answers out of that one. So I would call, again, for the opportunity to stop playing games over something that is so serious for New Zealand and for New Zealand’s economy, because biosecurity is not a game. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Mr Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the work of all the emergency workers around the country yesterday. We had a very peaceful day in Wellington. The rain was falling straight down, which is very unusual here—no wind, but it did pick up by the evening. But elsewhere in the country, people were working hard all day, working hard all night, and working hard again on into today to look after their neighbours and to keep themselves safe. There were about 1,300 calls to emergency services, so our congratulations to all those people who worked so hard. We live on the edge in this country—close to the edge—and we need to be prepared for those disasters. The people who worked yesterday showed us how it’s done, and our thanks to them.

There is another group of people living on the edge in this country at the moment. It’s somewhat sad, as I look across the House at the shattered, shivering shards of the National Party—shattered into factions, shivering in fear because they don’t know what’s coming, and shards flaked off, useful for nothing except, perhaps, as tokens for counting the votes. They are factionalised and split.

For years and years, they told us that they were united. They told us that they were holding together, but it turns out to have been paper-thin. There are deep fissures in that party—five of them, in fact, that we know of so far. It’s quite unclear as to which unknown fissure is going to come out of the cracks. You know, we’ve got Amy Adams and Simon Bridges—or “Who?”—who have been dodging interviews with the media. There’s no one endorsing them in the mainstream media, and it’s not quite sure who else might be endorsing them either. It’s quite clear that they are no match for our own media-friendly PM, who never refuses an interview. I don’t know why they think they’re putting themselves forward.

Then, of course, we have Mark Mitchell and Steven Joyce, who came out of the blocks late. I’m not sure if they’ve got any support at all. I think, possibly, neither of them can count. I mean, that’s old evidence in the case of Mr Joyce—possibly 11.7 billion-year-old evidence—and then there’s Mark Mitchell, who thinks that two words equal one. I’m going to give them a hint when it comes to counting, and it’s something that all these invisible candidates need to remember: your imaginary friends don’t have a vote.

Now, of course, Judith Collins—well, she’s probably got no delusions about how many friends she’s got. She’s counted them all up and figured that she’d better come out of the block straight away with the blunderbuss approach—sweep them all away in her path.

It’s an unedifying group of candidates, and I’m sure it will be an unedifying spectacle in the next week. There they are: divided, self-obsessed, dragging themselves into fighting in contumely. It is such a contrast with this side of the House, a side of the House that is a united team with a leader and three parties working together for the good of all New Zealanders.

And what have we achieved working together? You know, we’ve been accused, this afternoon, of the light and fluffy approach. But I tell you: is this list of achievements light and fluffy? We’re helping families. We have passed our Families Package and it’s going to help about 385,000 families. That’s not fluffy; that is committed work for New Zealanders. We have passed the extension of paid parental leave, so now parents will get 26 weeks’ paid leave. That’s not light and fluffy; that’s a real achievement for parents.

We are increasing the minimum wage to $16.50. I guarantee you that minimum wage workers don’t think that is light and fluffy. We are tackling the housing crisis that that divided lot on the other side ignored for nine long years. That is not light and fluffy; that is serious action to help New Zealanders. We have restarted the New Zealand Superannuation Fund contributions—that’s serious money; nothing light and fluffy about it—making up for the $20 billion of foregone profits in the nine long years of that team over there. We’re getting health back on track. We’re getting that mental health inquiry going, and we’re making sure we’ve got that medical cannabis legislation in place.

And, just today, we have announced a major review of the way we do education in this country. The old approach has been there for 30 years. It was time for something fresh and new and solid—a real Government, a real team that is achieving real things for New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): On one hand, this Government talks about being kind, about being caring—take note, debaters—and also about being responsive to our young people. On the other, it gives the most vulnerable a kick in the guts when it shuts the schools that have just got them excited about learning—when it shuts partnership schools. The schools of New Zealand have already failed those young people, and now the Labour Government is failing them again.

SPEAKER: Order! I just want to say to Dr Webb, I may have closed quite a few schools, but I don’t think I’m responsible for the group that’s being discussed, and he should not indicate that I was.

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The school system has already failed these young people and now Labour is failing them again. These kids are devastated, and I know how they feel, because I worked with so many of them when I was a teacher in Christchurch at Hagley High School and Hornby High School. I really enjoyed teaching these kids. I found the job challenging, I found it motivating, and, at times, I found it frustrating. The vast majority of young people can learn, and they learn well. You can inspire them, you can motivate them, and you can cajole them into learning. The key here is being children-, pupil-, and student-focused—focused so that you can engage them and their families. Successful schools will always be student-focused. The day that they get more concerned about how they run the school, how they have the systems, what their conditions are, and too rigid about what they think young people need is the day that they fail.

Now, New Zealand, of course, has many, many successful schools, and we have really high-achieving young people at that top level. But we have had, for many years, a long tale of underachievement, particularly of Māori and Pasifika kids. Now, that is not good enough. We have to do something about that, we have to lift their achievement, we have to motivate them, we have to engage them, and we have to get them learning. This is what partnership schools are doing right now. They are making that happen for these particularly vulnerable children. They have been particularly successful for Māori—particularly successful. We can ask Peeni Henare. We can ask Willie Jackson. We can ask Kelvin Davis. These schools are giving kids a learning experience that they’ve never had before, and, to quote Mr Henare, a “blistering slap and shutting the schools is not what we want to do.”

From my teaching experience, I know that every kid can and actually wants to learn. No kid is a lost cause. It’s just low expectations, inflexible systems, and not giving them the right support at the right time that lets them fall through the cracks. Now, Labour says they’re getting rid of partnership schools because they don’t have registered teachers, they cost too much, and they don’t follow the curriculum. That is not right. The real reason they’re getting rid of partnership schools is that they are bulk funded and they can contract teachers at different rates. And that is the kiss of death—bulk funding and contracting teaching rates are absolutely non-negotiable for the unions and Labour and teachers’ unions.

I support partnership schools. I support them because they’re life changing for some of these most at-risk children—absolutely life changing and remarkably effective in getting them into learning. Every New Zealander deserves a good education and that education needs to be specific for those needs, and partnership schools are another way of delivering that. It’s about being kind, it’s about being caring, and it’s about being responsive to young people. Labour needs to walk the talk. Talk is not enough; you have to do the action. These young people deserve our care, they deserve our support, they deserve our investment, and they deserve the opportunity of learning, even if it’s in a partnership school. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I apologise for my misstep earlier on, but—

SPEAKER: No. The member doesn’t refer to points of order that have been dealt with.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —there I go again—I was furious that the member on the other side who has just finished speaking, Nicky Wagner, suggested that this Government was closing schools, when she presided, herself, in her former electorate, over a school in one of the most impoverished communities, and she said nothing. She stood by, she let them struggle on for years by themselves, and, ultimately, the last Government did close it down, as it did a whole lot of other schools.

Hon Member: We haven’t closed one.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: We have closed no schools, but this is not about that.

This general debate is about what is going on here, now, and where we’re headed into the future. This party, and this Government, is headed somewhere exciting, under a real leader—a leader that brings a breath of fresh air. When I look over the other side, I must say, it’s with some dismay. I can understand, of course, why they’re down in the mouth.

Hon Member: No, look. There’s Mr Yule.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: But for Mr Yule, with his absolute optimism—which I worry about sometimes; he must be missing something—there’s a real disappointment; there’s a lack of substantive engagement. All they can talk about is the Order Paper. The fact of the matter is that this Government is making real steps. Now, while they’re just disorganised and, as Dr Russell said, fractured—they are shards flying everywhere; icy shards, at that. Whilst some of them might be doing some organisation—there they go, Mr Ngaro in the corner organising again—the fact is that this is a party, and over there that party has forgotten how to make an argument. They’ve descended into petty squabbling.

It was disappointing to hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee earlier, who was entirely misrepresenting the overseas investment legislation. The fact of the matter is we do want investment into building in New Zealand, and if foreign investors want to build our houses for us to sell, then that’s a good thing, and that’s what the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill does. It’s entirely appropriate.

But, you know, when you do look at what we’ve got on offer on the other side, it’s a real worry. What a collection of awkward bedfellows. It’s surprising they’re a single party themselves. They’re probably not. You look at what they’ve got: the queen of conservatism from central Auckland, the emperor of individualism from Epsom—well, the member based in Epsom, anyway, for now—and, of course, the prince of pro-life puritanism from Pakuranga. There’s a tragedy. I suspect there are no big gay rainbows over the latter electorate any more. As for the leadership, well, this party has been speaking in broken English for five months, you know, and I can understand that—broken English.

I wonder about the leadership debate that they’ve got on their hands. Is it going to be “Bluffer” Collins? I don’t think so. “Morticia” Adams? Probably not. “Bridges to Nowhere”? Oh, you know, maybe that’s the best choice for you.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will refer to members by their proper names, please.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, sir. But this is to be expected. This is to be expected of a party that ran out of ideas. The fact is that that party ran out of ideas and ran down the country. That’s what you’d expect of a party with an insidious ideology, an ideology that really is Randism ramped up far. The fact of the matter is that this Government has got a lot of work to do because of the decay that happened.

This Government is rebuilding families. The families package that is being passed by this Government will start there, by putting money back in the pockets of genuine hard-working New Zealanders—not this dog-whistle hard work that we hear from the other side, but people who are doing our cleaning, people who are building our houses, people who are driving our buses. They’re hard-working New Zealanders, and you know what? This Government’s taking a leadership position on wages with looking at CEO wages in the State sector. We need to even that out. We need more transparency, and we’re focused on education from top to bottom. This is about real learning and real teaching in real classrooms. I’m very proud to be part of this Government. This Government is taking New Zealand on a leading role in the way it measures how we’re doing and the way it engages with the world, and I’m very proud to be part of it. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thanks very much to the “fluoride front runner”, Duncan Webb, over the other side for those interesting remarks. There are a few things that characterise this Government. Number one is backflips. It is galling to hear members of the Government stand up and laud the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. I’m a relatively new member in the House, but I have been around long enough to remember Labour members opposite and New Zealand First members opposite marching outside electorate offices, marching down Queen Street, and standing next to Jane Kelsey and saying that this was the worst trade deal in New Zealand history, that it compromised our sovereignty, that it destroyed Pharmac, that it didn’t allow New Zealand to regulate in the public interest, that Jane Kelsey’s analysis should be listened to, and that we must reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. And then, a few months later, what happens? Twenty-two changes out of a 5,000 word document, and all of a sudden it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. All of a sudden we hear David Parker standing up in Parliament saying that it’s a progressive deal, that it makes good market access gains for New Zealand for our avocado industry and for beef. And he’s right; he is exactly right. It just would be nice to have some consistency.

He paid tribute to Ministers and to our trade negotiators, and I want to echo what he said. I do want to pay tribute to Todd McClay and Tim Groser, who spent so many years negotiating this very complex deal. I want Labour members to be consistent and endorse what Jane Kelsey says now, because do you know what Jane Kelsey says now? Jane Kelsey says that, fundamentally, this is exactly the same deal. You can add the words “comprehensive” and “progressive” in front of it all you like. This deal is pretty much exactly the same deal as was negotiated by the National Government, and they should endorse it.

Hon Andrew Little: Another backflip.

CHRIS BISHOP: So that’s number one on the backflips front. Then we hear Pike River, and we hear the Minister of Justice talking over there. Well, I remember during the election campaign, and before, the deeply obnoxious politicisation of this issue, and I hear members opposite saying, “We’re going to go in.” In fact, Winston Peters offered to be the first down the tube—first into the drift. “I’m going to go in.” Now what do we find? Now we find that, actually, they received exactly the same advice in Government as National did, which is that it’s an extremely dangerous, toxic working environment, and the new position is, “Oh, we’ll only go in if it’s safe.”—we’ll only go in if it’s safe. Well, that is the position of the National Party. We all want to go in there, but we can go in only if it’s a safe environment. So the Labour Party is now endorsing exactly the position the National Government had.

Then we hear all the claims around open Government. Clare Curran and the Ministers opposite say this will be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand history. That is a very bold claim. I just want to repeat that: the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand history. Well, that lasted probably, I don’t know, 45 seconds before the questions for written answer started to not be answered, before they refused to release information about people they were meeting with, and before the Official Information Act denials started. This is not the most transparent Government in New Zealand history, and if they start as they mean to go on it will only get worse.

The second thing that characterises this Government is incompetence—absolute incompetence. You’ve seen this every day in question time. You see it with Kelvin Davis standing up and Grant Robertson whispering the answers to him. It’s just embarrassing for the deputy leader of the Labour Party. You see it with Willie Jackson, the Minister of Employment who doesn’t know how many jobs we created in the New Zealand economy in the last year, doesn’t know the unemployment rate, and doesn’t know how he’s going to decrease youth unemployment. You see it with the verbal diarrhoea from Willie Jackson in response to Paul Goldsmith every single question time.

The third thing that characterises this shambolic Government—and this is the most important—is lofty ambition and rhetoric that is actually matched with regressive policy that punishes the people Labour claims to stand for, and nowhere is this more evident than around charter schools. They are furious about charter schools. One thousand kids, failing in the traditional system, most of them, who have gone outside the traditional mainstream system—actually gone to schools set up by Labour members, set up by Peeni Henare and Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis—who are now largely succeeding outside the mainstream system, and nothing angers them more. Isn’t it weird? There are 1,000 kids at Vanguard Military School and at South Auckland Middle School, kids that Labour claims to care for, kids that have failed in the mainstream system. Isn’t it weird that 1,000 kids—

Hon Andrew Little: You don’t believe in them. You never did.

CHRIS BISHOP: —1,000 kids, most of whom are now succeeding—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to ask my learned colleague to stop bringing me into the debate.

CHRIS BISHOP: There are 1,000 kids in schools that are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations, and the Labour Party wants to shut them down for no other reason than ideology. I find it disgraceful. I find it disgraceful.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I like a bit of politicking as much as anybody else in this House, but if I can just take us to the forest for a little moment here. Everything is political, though. Everything is political, and we have a political responsibility to respond to one of the greatest biodiversity crises of our time. Yesterday, Auckland Council voted unanimously in favour of supporting the Waitakere rāhui, led by Te Kawerau ā Maki, the iwi of the Waitakere Ranges, who placed the rāhui in a response to kauri dieback, which is killing our tūpuna rangatira—killing our trees. I am so relieved to see that Auckland Council finally came to the right decision to support the rāhui, for all of our sakes, for the forest’s sake, and for the generations to come’s sakes.

The rāhui is put in place to protect kauri. The rāhui is providing a protected sanctuary status. It is not a restriction, it is not an exclusive tool; it is about understanding that we need to give the forest time to heal. We need to give the forest space for the scientists and the mātauranga Māori to work out what the best way is of making sure we have even got kauri for generations to come. My speech today, therefore, is focusing on a celebration of the leadership of Te Kawerau ā Maki in persevering through and making sure that they did all they could to rally the community to protect the kauri in the Waitakere Ranges. We all have to follow that leadership here in this House. We now have to look honestly at what we can do and what has and has not happened where the kauri have become so sick today. Could this have been prevented, and what do we need to do from here?

I want to talk about the rāhui as a tool, as an attempt to do the right thing. That is all that the rāhui is, and Te Kawerau ā Maki have been working for five years with leading scientists to answer the question: what is it that we have to do to make sure we are stepping up to our whakapapa obligations? Those scientists and community experts came back and all said the same thing: “We must close the forest.” They all said the same thing, and Te Kawerau ā Maki put their cultural whakapapa tool in place to do exactly that.

Now, if there is any doubt about the science of what is happening here, can I just be very clear that it is irrefutable that most of the disease that is killing the roots of our kauri is within 50 metres of tracks. It is soil-borne pathogens that are carried by shifting soil. Yes, there are other factors, including animals, that can also carry the disease, but most of it is human-borne and human done. We need to take that responsibility to fix it, and on this the mātauranga Māori and the science align.

We have such an incredible opportunity here to make sure that all of our workings are with iwi at the table, not as an afterthought, to make sure we have got the best conservation plan for Aotearoa that we need. The infected kauri have more than doubled over five years. This is a crisis of epic proportions, and we can do something about this. I want to acknowledge those who have known to do the right thing, even without being told by an Auckland Council closure. They even had consent, but they put off their events—the Hillary Trail, the Whatipū Lodge; they knew that they also needed to do the right thing and they stepped up. Those leadership community initiatives can be seen, and they took the lead of Te Kawerau ā Maki.

We have an opportunity here in this House to look honestly at our systems, at our funding, and at our support. How could we have helped the Auckland Council to come to the right decision earlier? How can we help here in our departments to make sure that we are giving kauri their due?

We have to think about respecting Te Tiriti, respecting mana whenua, respecting mātauranga Māori, respecting our generations of children to come, respecting the trees. Respect the rāhui. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging and congratulating the organisers for the Pyeongchang winter Olympics and Paralympics, who have helped grow cultural understanding and the spirit of international friendship across the global community. I had the distinct privilege of attending the opening ceremony at Pyeongchang, and it was an absolute honour to see the joint entry of the two Koreas, united under one united flag. I guess, the word—I was moved—“moving” was the smallest word that I could possibly find. I mean, it was absolutely emotional for everyone who was actually present and, I’m sure, for millions of people watching around the world, and long may the peace in the peninsula prevail.

I also want to take a moment to speak about my motion at the start of question time today. For many people around New Zealand, acknowledgments of this nature are incredibly important. Members do not always get informed that a date is coming up, because many days are important to many different people and different ethnicities, and some dates do in fact shift depending on the lunar calendar, for example, from year to year. We as members in this House have a duty to get their voices heard on important views and news and anniversaries, particularly when the Government is not listening, perhaps, to them or celebrating their occasions in person or in action.

Talking about action, I’d like to follow up on the comment that my learned colleague Chris Bishop actually commented about. This Government and this Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government), the Hon Clare Curran, have actually said that this Government will be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand’s history. For reference, I guess, she has in fact used the phrase “open and transparent” about 16 times since she entered Parliament, “transparency” on its own about 54 times, yet we are not seeing it come to light in this Government, which appointed her as the Minister for this very matter. Through her actions, the actions of this Government, holding up ministerial briefings and secret documents that govern their agreements—they’re betraying the people of New Zealand and the transparency and accountability we all believe in. Actions actually speak louder than words. Actions have far more substance than their words, and this Government’s word seems to only be “spin”.

Just to clarify, just an example today, this morning, the Hon Clare Curran had to correct her answer to her reply to written question No. 19129 (2017), a question she actually answered five days late of the due date, which was about 63 days ago when it was due. Tail between her legs, months after, she should have given the full story to this Parliament and to this country. Now, she didn’t front up today despite being front and centre this morning, just down the hallway in Parliament, at the Parliamentary digital showcase, where she was actually there. The people of New Zealand were wanting to hear about these serious issues from the Minister herself—she didn’t front up.

The thing is it was a very simple question. The question was “Has the Minister met with Board members or staff of TVNZ or RNZ since 1 December …?” That was a very simple question. “Did she or did she not meet with the head of content of RNZ?” was not the question; it was “Who did she meet with?”, and she failed to declare the meeting that actually happened, and she was seen. If there was nothing there, if there was nothing discussed, why would she omit to disclose the meeting? I mean, it seems to be the habit of this Government to sort of claim that a meeting isn’t really a meeting. I mean, you know, when you meet someone, I guess, Mr Assistant Speaker—if Mr Assistant Speaker and I met at a coffee shop, for example, will we actually declare that we met? The question was: did she meet? “Who did she meet?” was the question, and she failed to disclose it.

It seems that failing to disclose and do the prep work is the trend of this Government, and this Minister had to go back and do the job again in issues such as the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer as well. Like the question that she had to amend, she is now going back because she did not find, among the 60-odd people from international leaders in the technology world—she says there was no one suitable for the Chief Technology Officer. She really is—she’s a shambles.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 31 January.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I stand to finish my contribution to the ironically titled Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill. I’ve only got about two minutes left, as you note, to articulate the rationale behind the Green Party’s opposition to this bill. My contribution today to this debate builds on that which I spoke of on the evening of our last members’ day, across the sands of time, on the evening of 31 January. This House rose in the middle of the point I was making about my own member’s bill that had been voted down previously that day. My point related to Parliament’s fallibility. I was speaking to the fact that while 78 percent of New Zealanders were in support of growing and/or using cannabis for any medical reasons, such as to alleviate pain, only 39 percent of this Parliament in a conscience vote voted for that.

This is an example of the divergence of the views of our public and our Parliament. That is valid and it is fine and, arguably, also to a certain extent, healthy. However, it is only healthy so long as the public can express their difference of opinion with this House and seek to push us as their representatives to update our views.

Historically, an incredibly effective way of voicing this difference of opinion, of mobilising for change, and of generating public discussion, is through protest, which brings me back to this bill. This bill fundamentally, systematically reduces the power of the public. It reduces citizens’ ability to collectivise, to congregate, and to make their voices heard.

I want to make it abundantly clear that this proposed piece of legislation will also have a disproportionate effect on Māori protest, of which we have a rich history. In 1977, Ōrākei Māori Action Committee occupied Bastion Point for 506 days, more than 200 protesters ended up being arrested, and 10 years later the Waitangi Tribunal supported Māori claim to the land and the Government supported it.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just checking the time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s not working. The member has 24 seconds remaining.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: None of this is to neglect the rest of Aotearoa’s illustrious history of protest, political pressure, and eventual progress. The suffrage movement, women’s fight for the right to vote; the Springbok Tour; homosexual law reform; the Vietnam War—this country, as we know it, was built on protest. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand fundamentally opposes this bill.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on this bill, which has already been mentioned as being an interestingly named one—“Freedom of Access”, when it’s exactly the antithesis of that. This bill has three main things that it sets out to achieve. First of all, people who obstruct enforcement officers or fail to give their correct name and address can be arrested without a warrant. It also widens the scope in which an enforcement officer can remove and seize property.

Let’s look at the background of this bill. In 2007, we had an international movement by the name of Occupy, and this bill, which was first brought to the House under the name of the member Mike Sabin, was drafted in response to a series of occupations we saw across New Zealand. We saw them in Aotea Square, Christchurch, Dunedin, and also here in Wellington. It was part of a global protest movement after the Occupy Wall Street occupation happened. It was a protest that brought global attention to its cause, and that cause was economic inequality. It was part of the public response to the global financial crisis, which left many people without money. It was part of the public protest around the subprime mortgage crisis, which left many people homeless. It was part of a global push to protest against economic inequality.

So let’s get this straight: the National Party’s response to New Zealand’s participation in a protest about corruption, about the perceived undue influence of corporations on government, is to increase the powers of authorised officers to seize property and to arrest people who don’t give their correct name and address. If I have ever seen a piece of legislation that shows the true colours of the National Party—in terms of their inability to understand inequality, their inability to understand the rights of New Zealanders to protest, and the sheer out-of-touch nature of what this National Party shows.

But wait, there’s more—there’s more—and it’s not a set of steak knives. Local government powers are already able to do this. So what it’s trying to do is put in extra powers where the Local Government Act already provides for an offence to obstruct local council officers. Furthermore, the Local Government Act already enables officers to seize and obtain property in a public place that’s in breach of a by-law.

So here’s the final nail in the coffin: the only difference between the existing law and what this member’s bill provides is that it’s failed its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. The member’s own colleague, the former Attorney-General the Hon Christopher Finlayson, has ruled as the Attorney-General that it is inconsistent with section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Let’s have a look at what that says, in section 22: “[Everybody] has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.”—because this protects human dignity. So this bill attempts to override section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in order to do that.

So, to wrap up, let’s get down to the point that if there is economic inequality, if there is social unrest, people have a right to be able to protest, and that is why the Labour Party does not support this bill. We believe that people have a right to protest. This bill is an embarrassment to the National Party because it gives an insight into their true colours, the idea that you can sweep it under the carpet if it looks a bit messy. Well, that doesn’t wash here. If people want to protest, whether it be in Moutoa Gardens, Aotea Square, or outside my front door, there is a right for people in New Zealand to do that, and no two-bit, limp-wristed member’s bill is going to have a crack at section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is why I will not be supporting this member’s bill and nor will the Labour Party.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak to this member’s bill, which was first proposed by Jonathan Young. I wasn’t scheduled to do this, but I actually do have some knowledge in this space, based on my role in local government over many years. Actually, even the Hon Ron Mark will recall conversations where councils are pitted against public opinion, public use of land, and how they have to sort things out. The gentleman in the rear, Su’a Williams—that’s correct, isn’t it—will know as well. Anybody that’s in local government will know that, actually, this can be a problem. And I’m not limp-wristed and half-baked, as the previous member, Virginia Andersen, just said. This bill is actually a reasoned response when the public are concerned about something, and, actually, the law is not clear. If it was so clear, then police would’ve cleared a whole lot of things off properties in the past.

I want to remind members of this House how we would actually get to a position of using this law. I agree that everybody has a right to protest—no problem—and if you think of the Parliament out here, we have lots of protests here. We might actually have a lot more in the next three years, but we’ve had a few in the past. So people protest, but would we think it’s right that people can actually occupy outside? I bet there would be big debates in this House if people sought to occupy that on a permanent basis.

Actually, what happens—and a council is no different—is the public, who actually have public spaces, have a tolerance for protest but they do not have a tolerance for occupations, and what normally happens is they then lobby their local councillors. They say, “Actually, this isn’t right. This is our space, we want to use it. We don’t want it occupied. Can you do something about it, Mr Mayor?”—or Mrs Mayor, or Miss Mayor. Generally, what happens is the council will go and look at its legal rights, and, actually, its legal rights are unclear. Then the council will get legal advice, spend a lot of money—“What can we do?”—and find out it’s quite difficult.

I remind members of this House that the Dunedin City Council’s trespass order was controversial. It cost them a lot of money, it was legally unclear, and the police did not know how to act. Auckland Council also issued a trespass notice on 28 November 2011, which was immediately followed by an injunction. If it was so clear, nobody would even take an injunction, but it is a contested piece of law. Wellington City Council has also had a very similar example in 2012, which went through a whole injunctive process.

We’re not talking about stopping people from protesting. What we’re talking about is the public being able to exert its rights as the owners of that property, to make sure there aren’t occupations and structures and permanent things left there. Actually, as the bill is written, if the property or placard or some sort of fixture is there for more than five days in any 12-month period—in other words, that’s the level of permanency—this law allows for it to be removed. Actually, the member Mr Eagle, who’s in the Chamber now, will also be aware, in his local government role, that sometimes this can be difficult. And I acknowledge him for being here now.

We also say that, actually, if the law says that officers of the council can seize property and things with specified notice—and if you go and ask members of your community who have seen these things play out, who have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on legal cases, you’ll see that, actually, what they want is to prevent occupations but to allow people to protest—and to stop wasting money on unnecessary lawyers’ costs.

So I commend Jonathan Young on bringing this to the House, and I actually think, rather than the previous speaker’s emotional terms about “limp-wristed” and “not working”, that this is actually a very reasoned response to an issue that arrives from time to time and which, actually, our community doesn’t like. I urge the opposition, who happen to be the Government at the moment, to support this bill.

Hon RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, it’s my privilege to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and say a few words on this bill, which only requires a few words. I’d have to say that having been a mayor of a fine council in Carterton for some time, at first I looked at this bill and thought there might be some reason to support it. I thought, from the perspective of the constituents of the Carterton district, that if people were erecting buildings and camping and causing all sorts of troubles in Memorial Square, the people, the residents of Carterton, might object and might think that this bill could be useful.

But, on further analysis, one finds a couple of things. Firstly, the current law does give councils the power to remove people who are causing damage, who are interfering with other people’s right to passage safely, who are erecting illegal structures on the property, and that leads one to look a little deeper. It’s quite astonishing, when one looks a little deeper at the report from the Attorney-General. I’m looking at the bottom of page 4, 5—4? And I find the signature of the Hon Chris Finlayson, Attorney-General, July 2017. So I thought to myself, having worked very closely with the Hon Chris Finlayson as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—I was in the capacity of the lead negotiator on a Treaty settlement—why, I found him to be a very honourable chap, a very accurate chap, very well read—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Modest.

Hon RON MARK: Modest, he is too—very modest. But a person who does understand law—probably why he ended up as the Attorney-General, probably. And what does he say about this bill? Well, in a nutshell, at the bottom of his four-page, three-page, four-page document, it says, “Conclusion. [24.] For the reasons set out in paragraphs 5-14,”—that’s not insubstantial, is it—“I conclude the Bill appears to be inconsistent with s 22 of the Bill of Rights Act and that the inconsistency cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” Now, if the member who’s tabled the bill, the member who’s put this bill up, is doing so contrary to the advice of one of his senior former Cabinet members, then why would he put it up? Why would he put this bill up? So one does not have to—

Chris Bishop: If that’s your standard, vote against the teacher bill.

Hon RON MARK: Oh, Snapchat. Did I hear Snapchat? It wasn’t my phone; it’s turned off. But—

Chris Bishop: You’re a grub, mate.

Hon RON MARK: Ha, ha! Look, I only say that probably the grubby thing behind this bill, Mr Bishop, is the intent.

So when one thinks of Moutoa Gardens, when one thinks of Bastion Point, what does one see in common? What does one see in common? Well, protests—Māori protests over land. I have my deepest suspicions that this bill is not necessarily targeted in the way this member would have us believe it’s targeted; it’s targeted at something else, in which case I would remind the House of this. Freedom of right of expression and of peaceful protest is something that’s ingrained in this society and in this House. We support people’s right to protest and demonstrate. And if they are so disempowered that they feel the need to stand and occupy land to make their point, then we defend that right. We only put on that a couple of caveats: that they harm no one, they harm no one’s property, and that they peacefully demonstrate and make their point known.

Actually, if I was to come right the way back to Carterton and consider again the situation I might envisage occurring in Memorial Square, you know what I think would happen? Most Carterton people would defend someone’s right to express their view peacefully, if they felt that that was the only way they could be heard. Thank God, it never happened under my time as a mayor. We led a very peaceful, law-abiding, loving, caring district and the council was much loved. I guess that was reflected in the fact that I got re-elected unopposed, unlike some people who had to fight tooth and nail and for their sins ended up here in Parliament, Mr Yule—and probably regretting every moment of it now. But I would have to say to the member who tabled this bill, “Nice try. We know what’s behind it. We don’t support it.” Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Brett Hudson on behalf of Jonathan Young, in reply.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on behalf of Jonathan Young in this reply. It is an opportunity just to correct some of the terminological inexactitude that has been heard in this House from members opposite.

First of all, this bill does not prevent protest. It does not prevent freedom of expression. It does not even prevent freedom of access—particularly because this is about council-owned land—to make such a protest. It’s quite interesting, listening to the parties opposite, particularly the red and the green parties, which clearly evidence in what they say that when they think of rights, human rights, with respect to these activities, the only rights they consider are the rights of protesters. The rights of other law-abiding citizens to go about their lives and also to have access to those public spaces, to use those amenities and not to have their rights unduly impeded, is not something that is considered at all by the members opposite. That’s a real shame, because while we absolutely support the right of freedom of expression, like any right it is balanced by the rights for all New Zealanders, not a particular group.

There was a point made that apparently the law already covers this stuff. It would be wonderful if, in practice, it did, but both the inaction and previous statements by the police show evidence that they themselves are concerned about the powers and how they should exercise them under the current law, particularly when it comes to the removal of temporary structures that have been erected as part of that protest action. So the law needs clarification at least, and this amendment bill is one way, and a good way, in fact, to do that.

The other point that Mr Mark made about the very honourable, quite frankly, Christopher Finlayson in his previous role of Attorney-General and his commentary on this bill—a couple of points. First of all, the bill has got to go up before the Attorney-General gives a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act finding on it, so you can’t do it before the bill goes up. Secondly, while he did in fact find at the time that he couldn’t justify, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the arbitrary power of arrest, he pointed out that it was a very simple means and amendment to address that, and the select committee could do just that.

The second point, which is absolutely relevant to the arguments that have been made about the right of protesters for their freedom of speech, is in that opinion he states very clearly that the removal of the property does not significantly inhibit the expression of the protesters. So permitting the police to remove temporary structures that have been erected for five days or more does not inhibit that freedom of expression—a very clear statement from the Attorney-General. So those that have stood in this House trying to say that his findings somehow completely undermine the value of this member’s bill are simply incorrect.

The bill simply seeks to ensure that there is a balance in the execution of responsibilities by councils to be able to not only permit and support the freedom of expression of people and protest but also to acknowledge that they have a duty to care for the rights of other citizens who are not participating in the process, and that it’s important that they are able to strike an adequate balance and to have the authority to execute upon that balance.

This is a very good member’s bill. I commend Jonathan Young for bringing it to the House. There is still time for members opposite to reconsider and to give their support for this to go to a select committee, where it can be properly scrutinised, where elements such as those the Attorney-General raised can be looked at and addressed, so a bill that is in an even better shape could be returned to the House for consideration in a second reading debate. I call on members of both sides of the House to do that. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 64

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

KiwiFund Bill

First Reading

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I move, That the KiwiFund Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for this exciting opportunity. I start by just acknowledging that I am perhaps one of the luckiest members in the House, this being my third member’s bill in three years. It is actually amazing. I do have a bad record, because the other two were in Opposition. What I’m hoping is that the third time’s a charm.

I am lucky to have the opportunity to present this bill because it is timely that it has been drawn. I put it to the House that it is the time to take stock and identify opportunity in what I happily acknowledge is actually an exciting time in the KiwiSaver lifecycle. This bill asks industry experts to consider concerns made and identify optimisations in the KiwiSaver industry. That’s simply what this bill asks for. It then asks the same experts to then consider the creation of a KiwiFund, a true Government provider, but there is no predetermination on that outcome.

So I wish to start by acknowledging how far KiwiSaver has come in its short history. By one key measure, KiwiSaver has been a roaring success. The scheme’s goal of encouraging people into retirement savings schemes has exceeded expectation. Prior to its introduction, just 16 percent of New Zealanders had a savings scheme for their retirement. By 2016, more than three-quarters of New Zealanders had a retirement savings scheme. But, unfortunately, the reason why this bill’s timing is good for this House is that actual savings rates in New Zealand have not risen all that much. In fact, they’ve remained very static over the same period and remain sad by international comparisons. Further, unfortunately, the words of Sir Michael Cullen have yet to be realised in their full context—he said at the time of the introduction of this, “If we save more, we will no longer need to borrow so much from overseas to finance consumption and business expansion at home.”

New Zealand First believes that the KiwiFund proposition in this bill would ensure that these words are truly and fully realised. What we do know is that KiwiSaver has started to help people into their retirement. This will definitely continue to increase over time. It is a boon to individuals and a boon to the New Zealand economy, although, as I will touch on later, there is much more to do in this space. We know there has been no change, or next to no change, in the average fee charged since 2012. The fee structure has remained very much static and this has been much of a driver behind this bill. So when we take that into consideration, simple extrapolation would tell us that in 20 years—yes, a long time from now—unless something’s done, unless we look at it now, the total fees charged in that time will have been over $12 billion. Two years after that—only two years after that—the same sum total exceeds $20 billion. That is a huge amount of money being taken out of the savings of New Zealanders’ retirement programmes for fees and whatnot; $20 billion in total and in those two years an $8 billion difference.

Then there are the individual examples. It has to be based on some very broad assumptions, but current analysis highlights that a typical savings scheme for a person’s retirement with a balance of half a million dollars at maturity would have paid almost $100,000 in fees at a similar rate on offer today. So providers came to us and said—well, not all providers actually; some providers said, “Well, actually, a higher fee rate means a higher level of interaction with the client. It’s a managed fund, we’re doing more for the people who have chosen to invest with us.” But I put it to this House, as I put it to those who came and spoke to me—and I thank them for it—that nearly 95 percent of New Zealanders with a KiwiSaver account are still with their default provider. But nothing’s changed, so what is the real level of interaction? So 95 percent are still with their default provider and, even more unfortunately, those same people are in their same investment scheme and have obviously given no consideration to their risk profile.

People don’t know the terminology. They don’t understand that they can change the nature of their investment to best match their risk profile at this stage of life. They do not understand the implications of this in their savings life cycle and are missing out on maximising their returns. Simply put, in the end, they will have less money when their KiwiSaver finally pays out. With what would likely be lower fees, more of that money can be used for growing investment returns; hopefully, putting more money back into the pockets of KiwiFund investors, which is what this bill seeks to achieve.

KiwiSaver fees, despite an exponential growth in funds under management, are doing well, and some providers are doing really well. The management fee structure hasn’t changed since 2012, like I said, on average. We know, by contrast, that the fees for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, a fantastic scheme, which was looked at this morning by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, dropped substantially to the clientele who invest on behalf of the Superannuation Fund—from 0.7 to 0.1, as a very clear measure. Around the world we looked at examples and saw the same phenomenon. For investors, as that capacity grows, as their ability to leverage scale increases, their fee structure comes down, and I put it to this House that that has not happened in New Zealand.

I appreciate that saying all fees are too high is too simplistic, but this bill does not determine that all fees are too high. Rather, this is an opportunity to take stock, pause, and acknowledge that this country is sitting on a figurative time bomb where billions of dollars per annum will not be returned to New Zealanders in their retirement schemes, will not be spent in New Zealand, and will not help grow the New Zealand economy. Rather, unfortunately, the majority of those moneys will be heading overseas.

The transparency requirements, supposedly already set, are, according to some large industry players, insufficient. So some of the players in the industry themselves acknowledge that they themselves are not sure about the transparency requirements within the current legislation. They say that some others—not all—are not playing ball and customers are still not fully aware of just what they are paying for and how this affects their returns.

I’ve said it and I’ll say it again: this bill has been drawn at just the right time. We know that the providers have gone beyond their initial start-up. They shouldn’t be claiming recovery of start-up costs at the moment; they’ve gone beyond that. So let’s have a look at that. We seek to look at accountability, at transparency. New Zealanders have made some very serious complaints in the past and this is what we want to address around fees, transparency, ethical investments, and just what they’re getting for their money.

New Zealand First unashamedly wants a new provider to be established. This would be known as KiwiFund, and New Zealand history is on our side, in fact. Kiwibank tells the story of determination and of conviction. Everyone in this House knows that Kiwibank was the right thing to do. The KiwiFund would be the right course of action for New Zealanders. They would see good returns, a low fee structure, and ethical investment with preferential treatment given to investment here in New Zealand, and with that, Sir Michael Cullen’s words would come true.

A KiwiFund would also mean a focus on investment back into New Zealand. I put it to this House that that is very much complementary to the Provincial Growth Fund that this coalition Government is very much championing and, as the Minister said, has gone ahead leaps and bounds. It would be complementary to that in an independent manner. But it’s all about investing in New Zealand and allowing New Zealanders to choose to save their money with a provider that would focus on investment in New Zealand.

So it is with extreme pleasure that I put this bill to the House. It’s an exciting time for this country, and I am absolutely proud to be a small part of it. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this KiwiFund Bill, and I congratulate Mr Fletcher Tabuteau for having yet another bill drawn from the ballot. I just wish he was slightly excited about it. I’ve just got to say Mr Tabuteau’s a very likable and personable person, and a professor of many things, but I’m just not quite sure about this bill.

Now, before I get into it, I think it’s useful just to recap exactly what the bill proposes. What this bill proposes is to establish a working group by legislation—by legislation. It is to have a working group of four to six people to look at or to examine, first of all, whether KiwiSaver providers at the moment are charging exorbitant fees; the second thing is to see whether they’re investing in unethical investments; and, thirdly—and I find the terminology interesting—whether they’re generally “profiteering in the trading of KiwiSaver providers.”

To be honest, I don’t understand what “trading of KiwiSaver providers” means. But, as Mr Tabuteau noted in his speech, the working group would advise setting up a new KiwFund to achieve the following—and I will just quote here. The first one is “lower and”—I presume, more—“transparent” fees, because transparency is an issue that is already being covered, and I’ll talk about that later; secondly, “a government owned and operated KiwiSaver scheme;”, as opposed to one owned by other parties; thirdly, “a requirement that profits stay in New Zealand;” fourthly, “preferential treatment given to New Zealand based investments;” fifthly, “a requirement that funds are invested in socially and ethically responsible ways; and—last, but not least—a Government guarantee around all these activities. Well, what a list.

Anyway, I think that it was very timely, as Mr Tabuteau noted this morning, that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation—they’re the ones that manage the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—came to see us at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning. And what a success story.

Michael Wood: “Thank you to the fifth Labour Government.”

ANDREW BAYLY: And I can see a couple of the members on the other side there—$6.2 billion in profit they made for hard-working New Zealanders last year, $38 billion in funds under management, and an average return since it was formed, in 2003, of 10.22 percent a year—10 percent a year. Outstanding; in fact, it is one of the best funds in the world.

But I also note that this is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. If we look at the rest of the superannuation industry, there are nine default providers, of which Kiwibank is one, and then a host of third-party providers, who provide very professional management of funds on behalf of a whole raft of New Zealanders.

So I just wanted to take this bill and take it back to the key principles that we’re seeking to address. The first one was the achievement of a lower and more transparent fee structure. Well, first of all, I’ve got to say I support the notion of reviewing the fees in the superannuation industry. I think there are grounds to have a review of that, and I do support that. I would note, however, we have a vibrant and competitive fund management industry, as I noted before. For instance, I would note that Simplicity NZ, since it came into our market only 18 months ago, has now got $350 million under investment and is one of the lowest-fee providers of funds in New Zealand. It has made great inroads, partly because it’s offering the lowest level of fees. So it does show there is a vibrant industry, and not everyone wants to charge and compete merely on returns, but they want to compete on net returns after fees.

I do note Mr Tabuteau’s comment that 95 percent of people are still in their default provider fund. So even if you set up this fund, I’m not sure you’re going to see everyone migrating to a lower fee structure arrangement. So I just don’t think this bill actually helps.

The second test was to offer the option of a Government owned and operated KiwiSaver fund. As I noted before, you’ve got New Zealand superannuation, which is owned by the Government—controlled by the Government, in effect—and then you’ve got the Kiwi Wealth KiwiSaver Scheme. The last time I saw it, that was set up by New Zealand Post, which is owned by the New Zealand Government, and which, more recently, has had co-investment with New Zealand superannuation. So, in effect, we already have a Government provider.

So I think it’s slightly incorrect to suggest that there is no Government involvement in the sector. In effect, what I think this bill is suggesting is that we actually set up a third Government-owned entity to operate in this sector, and I’m not actually finding the reasons to do that very compelling.

The next issue is the one raised around the requirement that profits stay in New Zealand. But, again, as I noted before, we’ve already got strong involvement in the sector, and those profits all, of course, are retained in New Zealand. The other operators all pay tax. They pay significant amounts of tax. In fact, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund told us this morning that they’ve paid $4 billion in tax since they’ve been established, and where does that come? That comes back to the Government, of course. So they’re already paying substantial tax, and I think the requirement that all of the profits stay in New Zealand is a notion that’s somewhat misguided.

The fourth issue is the test around preferential treatment given to New Zealand investments. Again, at a high level, it sounds very compelling and it sounds great. But I think it’s a classic New Zealand First policy that sounds very popular—“Let’s invest in New Zealand. Let’s support New Zealand.”—but, actually, when you think through it for a little bit, it is actually a misguided initiative.

For instance, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has approximately 14 percent of its investments invested in New Zealand investments—only 14 percent. It’s actually quite a high proportion. What people don’t realise is that if you were just to invest in New Zealand assets, whether they are businesses, listed companies, bonds, Treasury, and everything like that, what that means is that you have a far higher risk portfolio. That leads to greater volatility and, ultimately, it means lower returns for New Zealand investors. That’s why all these funds, whether they are privately owned or whether they are Government-owned, actually always have a component of international equities, property, and Government stock. That is about returning the highest level of return to New Zealanders. So I think that idea about keeping it all in New Zealand investments is misguided and also not well-thought-through.

The fifth test, of course, is the requirement that a fund invest in socially and ethically responsible ways. This is a matter I took up with the guardians this morning, and they’ve been very proactive since they started addressing this issue. What they told us is that they have, since 2009, changed their fund managers to make sure that they are only investing in ethical investments. They’ve actively deselected fund managers who are not meeting those requirements. And for third-party fund managers, they’re actually now piggybacking off the back of that by looking at the range of fund managers that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has selected, and are using them as managers in their own funds. And they also covered the issue around sustainable investment and carbon, and they’ve also stopped investing in a number of other companies.

The last issue, of course, was that of Government guarantee, and I just think we haven’t heard any reasons why you’d want to do this and why it’s needed. As a number of commentators have observed, why would you be a member of a non-government scheme if everyone else didn’t have such a guarantee behind them? And, secondly, actually, one commentator said it’d be a moral hazard for an active manager to be managing personal portfolios.

This is another working group that’s been offered to be set up by legislation. This Government has already set up 12 working groups in 121 days. That’s on average a new working group every 10 days of office. This would be number 13. You do not need to legislate to look at these issues. You do not need to legislate to set up a working group. If there is a need to look at any of these issues, then they should get to the point and go ahead and do it. But you do not need a legislative process to do this. And, on that basis, I think all this is going to do is turn into another talkfest.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I say at the outset of my comments that this is a proud day for the parliamentary under-secretaries of this House. “Team PUS” has a bill in the ballot that I believe has a good chance of success, with this KiwiFund Bill. So congratulations to my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau.

I also, while I’m in a generous mood, want to congratulate the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, for genuinely giving an excellent speech on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. And what I admire most about a person is their ability to reflect on past wrongs and to come to the light. Because, of course, what we know about the National Party is that they opposed the implementation of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund at every single stage. They voted against it here in Parliament, and I’ve got absolutely no doubt that if we go back into Hansard and review the remarks of National Party members at that time in 2002—and the Hon Ruth Dyson might remember some of those—we’ll hear that it was socialism, that it was communism by stealth, that it was a terrible thing.

But we’ve just had an excellent address from Andrew Bayly about the importance of that fund in building up our national savings rate. And, of course, the previous National Government didn’t contribute one dime to it, in its nine years in Government—something that’s been rectified with a billion-dollar investment under this Government this year.

What I am proud to do is to stand here on behalf of a party and a Government that is a party and a Government of savings. We are a Government that is absolutely committed to New Zealanders having the savings to build our national wealth, to develop our economy, and to ensure that every Kiwi family is able to live in dignity and with some stability in their later years. And the outstanding success of KiwiSaver—another measure that was opposed by National when they were in Opposition last time, with every bone in their body. It has been an outstanding success—moving from only 16 percent of New Zealanders having superannuation savings, to 2.7 million New Zealanders, or 75 percent of Kiwis, now having savings through KiwiSaver. So I say thank you to that previous Government and thank you to Dr Michael Cullen for having the vision and the foresight to ensure that we had a proper savings scheme for all Kiwis.

And what is this bill about? This bill is about saying, “Well, that’s great, but there are always things that we can do to improve our framework.” And in this case, it’s about recognising that while many Kiwis have taken advantage of KiwiSaver and that’s giving them greater security in life, that there is without any doubt whatsoever an issue when it comes to fees—that there are questions that need to be looked into in this area.

We know, for example, that 60 percent of KiwiSaver funds are held by the major Australian trading banks. We know, for example, that the fees are relatively high, and I refer to a report here from the Financial Markets Authority, which reviews the KiwiSaver schemes on an annual basis. It tells us that investment management fees rose by $46.8 million, from $219 million in 2016 to $266 million in 2017. So we have over a quarter of a billion dollars every year that is being pumped out of those savings and into the pockets of fund managers by way of fees. Administration fees rose $4.6 million dollars, or 5.9 percent, in that year, from $77 million to $82 million. Per member, the average administration fee paid increased from $29 to $30 that year.

So it is something that is very much worth looking into. And some of the advice you get from smart people in the sector, for people who are looking to invest in KiwiSaver is, “Look at the fees, and base your investment on that.” Another paper that I read, by Brent Sheather, who is an authorised financial adviser and a commentator, noted that the average fee of growth-oriented KiwiSaver funds at around 2 percent a year, including transaction costs, is more than 20 times the average fee paid by institutional investors like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and more than four times the average fee prevailing in more competitive savings markets like the 401(k) scheme in the United States. Why wouldn’t we look into that to make sure that Kiwi savers are getting the best possible savings scheme possible? Why would we not do that?

Mr Tabuteau’s bill is quite refined. It’s quite modest. It says, “Let’s set up a working group with smart people from the sector who know their stuff to look into these matters, review them, get the evidence, and produce a report that will then go to the Minister. It will then come back to this House where it can be looked at, where we can consider the recommendations, and look at whether we can make that great KiwiSaver scheme even better than it is.”

This is a bill that I commend to the House. I’d urge other members to consider it. And can I just acknowledge the contribution of Fletcher Tabuteau and the New Zealand First Party for bringing this issue to the table. I think it’s a good bill, and I’m very happy to see it proceed to the next stage. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Taking a call on this KiwiFund Bill, I would like to congratulate the member Fletcher Tabuteau for bringing it to the House, but, you know, it’s very interesting to me—we’ve just had a presentation by Andrew Bayly, who talked about a new working group being set up every 10 days, and now here we’ve got a piece of legislation in front of us to set up another working group and another working group and another working group. It seems to be the story of the way that this current Government wants to operate.

Something that scared me a little bit before was when Fletcher Tabuteau said that, you know, this could be a great thing and it could be akin to the Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund. Well, the Provincial Growth Fund actually sounds like it should be a good idea, but nobody actually understands what’s going to be achieved from it because we’re still trying to get the facts, the application, and everything. And we hear that there’s going to be something happening later on this week in terms of announcing what’s going on so that people will totally understand it—so starting to finally realise how it’s going to work.

So we set up committees, we put all these things in front of people, and then this Government makes promises and says we’re going to have this, and it’s up to the people then to go and figure out how it’s going to work. So it’s all talk and no action.

I want to know: if Kiwibank is already Government-owned, what’s this new fund going to do that Kiwibank’s KiwiSaver fund can’t do? And I know that Fletcher Tabuteau talked before about the over 90 percent of people who are using the default system, but is that a reason to go and do a whole new piece of legislation and set up another working group? Is there not an issue here with, actually, an education programme? Is there not an issue here—we’re talking about things in schools every day around here at the moment. Is it not about educating people to be able to take part in it? So we can look at the system and we can say that because over 90 percent of these people are taking the default option, we need to do a piece legislation and we need to set up another committee.

Michael Wood got up and he talked about reflecting on past wrongs and coming to the light. This obsession with the KiwiFund already drove a wedge between New Zealand First and Labour in 2013 when the then leader David Cunliffe said his party didn’t think that the KiwiSaver industry was fundamentally broken. So it might be a point here either to reflect on past wrong and say that you’ve come to the light or maybe explain to us what’s changed in that period of time since David Cunliffe came out and made that stand.

Also, Michael Wood talked about savings, and talked quite a bit about savings. I’m a huge supporter of people making savings, but one of the things I’d like to know in line with this, when we’re talking about KiwiSaver, is that prior to this last election, when this team of people became the Government, they were talking about bringing back the $1,000 starter for KiwiSaver. I’m still waiting for any announcement that said that might be likely to happen. So there might be somebody that might want to enlighten us on what’s going on there.

Andrew Bayly did have a really good point when he talked about having a look at the fees.

Andrew Bayly: He had lots of good points.

BARBARA KURIGER: Yeah, he had lots of good points, but one of the ones he talked about, he said there is a good reason to have a look at a review of fees, and there’s never any problem with having a look at a review of fees, but you don’t need to set up a piece of legislation and set up another committee to do that.

Some of the feedback from the financial sector that came from the Financial Services Council of New Zealand basically said that “The Financial Services Council supports initiatives that build a sustainable financial services sector, and deliver strong consumer outcomes, but it is unclear what problem the KiwiFund Bill is trying to solve.”

So I stand here today in opposition to this bill, but if this Government and all of the parties on the other side of the House, in their wisdom, decide to support this bill, then I would certainly be looking forward, in the committee stage, to finding out what the problem really is and answering the Financial Services Council’s questions. So, thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. If you were listening to the debate, you’d think the reason why National is voting against this is because it contains a working group. I don’t know which part they’re opposed to—the working or the group nature of it. When they were in Government, they would have just outsourced it to offshore bankers. That would have been their solution. The irony, of course, is: how many working groups did the last Government set up? There was the Savings Working Group, the Tax Working Group, and the Productivity Commission. National, of course, set up their fair share of working groups because it is an eminently reasonable thing to do. You want to get expert advice.

So I commend the member Fletcher Tabuteau for introducing this legislation to the House. Everyone here has seen those horror stories, of people’s KiwiSaver accounts being whittled down because of the fees. We’ve all seen the figure—half a million dollars, $500,000 worth of savings, and $100,000 of that could have been the fees eaten in. Of course, it’s not just the direct fees that the saver is losing. It’s the forgone interest. It’s the ability to have extra money into the future, for retirement or saving for a house. What we do know is that nationally, under the status quo, the amount of fees charged could have hit $12 billion by Kiwis within the next 20 years.

I heard the last speaker say, “Well, let’s look at the fees.” Now, it’s a bit rich to say “let’s look at the fees”, after you’ve just spent nine years in Government not looking at the fees. The time to look at the fees is when you are in Government and you have the ability to do it. It’s pretty rich or, in terms of KiwiSaver savers, it’s pretty poor for them to have waited nine years.

So, look, KiwiSaver has been transformative for New Zealand, but it does need a bit of a tweak, a change, to make it more effective. It’s been transformative, but we still have a savings problem. Back in 2015, James Shaw pointed out that we were ranked 22 out of 24 OECD countries for our savings rate. It’s a big reason why our markets lack liquidity, a big reason why our businesses lack access to capital, and a big reason for the New Zealand paradox, where ostensibly we should be a higher-performing economy than we actually are. I think it’s because of our savings rates, and because of our woeful R & D spending rates.

What this bill does is it sets up the working group to establish KiwiFund, a public provider KiwiSaver, to reduce those fees. This is something we support, and something Russel Norman first proposed back in 2011. Of course, it’s not just us and New Zealand First; it’s also National’s very own Savings Working Group. They recommend it because it’s good for Kiwis. It’s going to increase the amount of savings they have to buy their first home or to fund their retirement. It’s good for consumers. But, secondly, it’s also good for the other providers. We’ve seen what a transformational change Kiwibank has provided in the banking sector, and this could do for the KiwiSaver sector what Kiwibank has done in that sector. So it’s good for consumers and good for the market.

We look forward to hearing about this in select committee, and in particular I’d really acknowledge the principle the member has enumerated, which is the preference for New Zealand investments. I want to see more Kiwi investments being funded. I’ve seen some figures, that only 10 percent of KiwiSaver funds are invested in New Zealand equities. I think many people would be surprised. They look at what the ACC fund, the super fund have done and I think they’d be surprised at that low rate.

I also note the concerns of some commentators—I think Brian Easton was one of them—saying, “Well, could you actually get less than ideal responses, lower returns, which in turn send a lower rate for consumers?” We want to flesh that out. We want to hear from the experts.

But while we’re talking about tax, let’s not forget the nine years National had and their woeful record when it came to tax. It was them who, under urgency, scrapped the $1,000 KiwiSaver kick-start, which had been so successful at seeing Kiwis sign up in record numbers to a savings scheme. It was National who voted against our amendment, which would have seen community services cardholders, some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable Kiwis, have the ability to access that KiwiSaver kick-start. It was National who didn’t support our proposal to see a kids KiwiSaver account created, which on our calculations, with that $1,000 kick-start, could have seen most children build a nest egg of $12,900 by the time they turned 18, for education, a first home, or for building up those KiwiSaver funds in the future.

We are supporting this legislation because it’s a good bill. It’s going to have good outcomes for Kiwis, good outcomes for our communities, and good outcomes for our economy. This is, ultimately, what the Green Party is in Parliament for—to grow a richer New Zealand, in a quality-of-life sense, but also in a financial sense. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak against this KiwiFund Bill. While I have a lot of respect for the honourable member Fletcher Tabuteau and the fact that he has got a member’s bill into the House, I’m actually left asking the question: what are we trying to fix here? If you actually look at our savings record—and Michael Wood commented on it—we now have 75 percent of people saving for their retirement. That has largely happened under a National Government. You might criticise how it happened, but it’s largely happened during that time. It hasn’t happened yesterday; it’s happened over the last nine years.

Actually, there is nothing to currently prevent anybody, including the Rt Hon Winston Peters, from setting up a superannuation fund himself, with very low fees, without a Government guarantee, to actually support the people he’s claiming he wants to support. There is actually nothing in law to prevent that from occurring.

So what we’ve got in this bill is another working group. This is the 13th working group. It will have 12 months to review things, and five members to look at a whole series of things that I actually think can be looked at in a very different way. So we’ve heard a lot of concern about fees. I get that. I understand that every person that makes an investment or is part of one of these schemes largely operates in a passive way. I understand that, but they want to make sure that they’re not being ripped off.

Well, actually, there are fees published annually. You can find them out. There is a variety of fee structures operating in a market at the moment, but, actually, if what we’re trying to look at is fees, why don’t we do an inquiry into superannuation fees? I listened to Michael Wood, who happens to be the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. While it’s not his committee, actually, if that’s what is required, we could easily, through one of the select committees, do an inquiry.

But what we’re going to do is not do that. We’re going to bring in a piece of legislation and take it through a whole process, after we’ve had a working group, to see whether there’s actually a problem. Actually, we don’t need any of this. We could simply have an inquiry. If the issue is about transparency, the same thing could apply. If we’re worried about how transparency is dealt with, the same thing could apply. We could ask some people to look at it. If there’s a big enough issue, it could be dealt with.

I also think that this Government is really mocking its own brand, which is what KiwiSaver has done, through Kiwibank—a Government-owned entity that is going really well. I also accept that if there was, and there does require to be, some level of investment in New Zealand from these fund managers, that, equally, is not a bad laudable goal, as long as everybody understands you might not get the top rate of return or the risk profile might be different.

Currently, there are nine default providers. There are heaps of small funds, and, actually, there is no limitation to setting up your own fund. And for the life of me, Mr Tabuteau, I cannot understand why you are following down the Government guarantee path. Why would you want to expose the Government to actually managing people’s funds in a different way than they are managed, largely, by the private sector or, in KiwiBank’s case, by a Government-owned entity? What you end up with is if you have lower fees and you put constraints on things, then, actually, people generally will get a lower rate of return—generally. Now, there are lots of funds already available in the private sector that, actually, people can make those calls.

Michael Wood: Or maybe the Australian banks could just make a little bit less profit. Has it ever occurred to the National Party?

LAWRENCE YULE: Yes, and people can make that call, but they don’t need a Government guarantee process to do that, nor do we need another Government fund. At the moment, we have gone from 16 percent—as Michael Wood said—of people making investments in long-term savings to 75 percent under the current model. If the only issue we’re worried about is fees and transparency, why doesn’t that side of the House initiate an inquiry to look at it, without taking the House’s time going through a process that, quite frankly, is not required? Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The last speaker, Lawrence Yule, said, “What is the problem?” The fact of the matter is there is a significant problem here, and it’s with considerable gratitude that we can thank Mr Tabuteau for bringing it to the attention of this House.

Hon Members: What is it?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ll tell you what—the key problem here is that the fees in KiwiSavers erode savings, and they erode them really significantly. The Treasury report that our friends from the Greens commissioned actually identified exactly what that did. In fact, if you have a half a percent difference in fees, that’ll make a 6.7 percent difference in the final return. So if you were lucky enough to have hidden away $300,000 in your KiwiSaver, that would mean you were $20,000 worse off. Now, when we look at a half percent per annum on our KiwiSaver fees, we might not think it’s very much, but when you look at it like that—

Barbara Kuriger: We can do the maths, but Mr Yule just told you a much simpler way to achieve the outcome.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —on what must be said to be a moderate amount of savings—that’s cutting it. And look, the member there is shouting out, but she might be interested that, in fact, it’s women who actually suffer worst here. We know for a fact that women need to save more because they live longer, they take breaks from the workforce more often than men do, and they earn less—we’re addressing that as well. So these KiwiSaver questions actually cut more deeply for women than men, because they need to provide more carefully and they’re less equipped to do so over time.

So when we come to look at these questions—and so much for transparency. The fact of the matter is that I challenge any member on the other side of the House to go and find out how much their KiwiSaver fees are. Whilst you might get some headline figure of 0.95 of a percent, the fact of the matter is that hidden in another layer are brokerages, administration fees, and all kinds of other provisioning—layer upon layer upon layer.

The fact is that because of the default framework we have, there’s not a huge amount of competition in this market. People very rarely change KiwiSaver providers, so the provision of a State-backed or a State-run KiwiSaver provider would put some real competition into the market. It would be manifestly better, because what we need is market discipline, and we know for a fact that the market fails over time. So we’ve got the fees question, which I think is the most important one, because that’s how we make sure that ordinary, genuinely hard-working New Zealanders can finish their working life with as much in the bank as possible without paying to offshore bank owners.

But the other things that are proposed in this bill are also very, very good. The idea that profits stay in New Zealand and that we invest in New Zealand—we know that New Zealand suffers from a lack of capital, and so there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying let’s both have a fund that has lower fees and have a fund that generates business and prosperity within New Zealand. The idea that we need to give our money away to banks, who immediately invest it offshore—we can get away from that.

As was noted before, the guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund themselves are increasing their New Zealand investment. It was pointed out there by the guardians that, in fact, that is entirely consistent with a good return. So you can have both a risk-balanced return and a good return on that investment, and low fees, and invest in New Zealand. When we do that that has a double benefit: not only do we maximise the return for the person who’s looking at retirement but also we are supporting New Zealand businesses, and that’s what this Government is about—not about multinationals, not about propping up multinationals, but about supporting New Zealand businesses.

Of course, the other thing we want to do—and this is something that I know we want to look at closely—is ensure that Kiwi funds are investing ethically, and we need much, much more transparency around that. The fact of the matter is that it’s very hard to determine exactly what funds are invested in, so we need to have a very close examination of that. We want to have investments that look forward for New Zealand—and indeed for the world—including questions on things like climate change. So, Mr Tabuteau, I commend you on bringing this to the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think that previous speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, got a little sidetracked from the bill we’re actually debating here. He spent a lot of time talking about fees, and whilst indeed there may be a case for reviewing the current fee structure, this bill doesn’t do that. This bill has nothing about reviewing fees in it at all. Actually, the example he gave about the $300,000 and having another $20,000 if they weren’t hit with these terrible fees—well, I think you would find you would not have $300,000 if you were in KiwiFund, compared to other funds, because you would have a typically lower return on your investment.

What we would see, if we’re having a Government guarantee in behind this fund, is that it would have lower returns because of the lower risk. That’s how these things work. Risk and return—I’m sure that member has heard the term before. What you would find as well, though, is that, actually, if you were constrained to a domestic market you would have a higher risk profile within that fund because of the inability to invest offshore and diversify that risk. So I think he’s a little confused there, and it seems to me that they’re really just advocating for additional State control. We’ve heard it so many times already, and this is just another example of that.

The KiwiSaver industry is in good heart in New Zealand. We’ve got over $40 billion of funds under management. More than 75 percent of Kiwis are now invested. This is an unnecessary solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist. We’re operating in a competitive market at the moment that’s well-regulated and of a high standard. Consequently, there’s a high level of public and regulatory confidence. We don’t need this. Yes, I certainly accept that, perhaps, there is an area to explore around the current fee structure—what is or isn’t disclosed in headline fees, as the member suggested. But that certainly doesn’t need to be done via this piece of legislation.

In fact, you don’t need legislation to create a working group at all, such as this bill is proposing, and we’ve seen that. The Government certainly knows they don’t need legislation to create working groups; we’ve already had 12 in the last 121 days. We’ve had the Film Industry Working Group, the pay equity working group, the Tax Working Group, the ministerial advisory group to review NCEA, the group to stocktake the housing crisis, the Climate Commission, the inquiry into State care abuse, the inquiry into mental health, the bowel screening review, the inquiry into the fuel pipeline outage, a three-year review of the education system, and, most recently, the dairy industry review—one that is significantly concerning for constituents in my area of the Waikato. We have no idea what’s going on, and all we’re seeing is continual talkfests around creating these working groups, to try and pad out what the Government might or might not choose to do, because they actually still don’t know.

I suggest that whilst there may be a case, as I’ve mentioned, to review the fees, we certainly don’t need this KiwiFund Bill. It’s unnecessary—the industry is already performing well, people are getting great returns at the moment, and there’s over 75 percent of people invested—and yet we still are looking at another example of a Government bill looking to take State control and take away the opportunity for Kiwis to make decisions for themselves.

So I’m opposing this bill because there’s absolutely no need for it, there’s no place for a working group at this point, and we’ve already had more than we need. I would encourage the member to put his energy into something a little more productive that might be a bit more appropriate for New Zealanders. So, on that note, I would just encourage them, again, to consider exactly where the industry is at the moment, what’s happening in there, and what they’re trying to achieve through this. As we’ve heard, there’s no aspect of this bill anywhere that suggests we’re going to be reviewing fees. So I think, if that’s what they really want to do, then they can do that, as we’ve already heard, through the select committee process, which will be much more straightforward and much more transparent. So that would be my recommendation to the Government in this instance. We don’t need the KiwiFund Bill, and, for that reason, I won’t be supporting it. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pity that the previous speaker, Tim van de Molen, isn’t going to be supporting this bill through the House, because it is a good one. I got the compliment in there too, because he started talking about KiwiSaver and just how well it’s doing. We need to just give a little nod to the fifth Labour Government, who brought that in back in 2007. So, based on the success of how KiwiSaver has gone, we’re currently in this position now, where we’re having this conversation at all.

I support this bill—this KiwiFund Bill. I think it’s a great initiative. I’m going to support it through to the first reading. It’s designed by my colleague over here, Fletcher Tabuteau, from New Zealand First. It sets up a working group—yes—and that was the main criticism from the previous speaker: that working groups are bad and Labour sets up too many working groups and we probably shouldn’t. If, by setting up working groups, we’re talking about setting up a group that is going to do its due diligence and give advice in areas that they are experts in, then, actually, that’s a really good thing. In fact, that’s called consultation—consultation with experts. So I don’t quite understand where he’s coming from—where he bats down the thought that a working group is a bad thing. I think that a working group is a great thing.

In terms of what this bill is going to do, it’s going to establish this group, and we’re talking about five people who are experts in their field. So we’re looking for people from banking, from savings, and people that are experts in retirement issues. These people are going to convene, get together, and they’re going to investigate into something that the Opposition might not think is that important—you know, a fee here, a fee there. But what this bill does is it goes in to bat for the little guys, you know—the people that can’t actually afford a few dollars here and a few dollars there; those Kiwis out there that have got their money invested in KiwiSaver. Yes, per provider, it might not be so much, but, in fact, if we have a look at collectively how much was taken recently—I’ve got it right here. Simplicity, which is a low-cost passive KiwiSaver scheme provider—Sam Stubbs—he said that “In January [2018], KiwiSaver schemes charge a combined $40 million in fees.”—$40 million in fees. Yes, the KiwiSaver fund is doing well—$40 billion is what it’s doing—but when it’s skimming off the top and taking $40 million in fees, then we need to look at this. We need to decide what actually is going on here.

So the idea of setting up a working group to look into the accountability requirements of current KiwiSaver providers relating to their fees and their investment practices—it’s a good thing. Also, second to that, establishing this working group—advising on whether or not we should be establishing a Government owned and operated KiwiSaver provider. These are two very, very simple aims of this working group, and this KiwiFund Bill is talking about this. I think that it’s a great thing, and we need to be supporting this through. I just can’t understand the Opposition’s opposition to it, because Labour and New Zealand First both share the concern that KiwiSaver fees are way too high. So, if what we need to do is set up a working group to sort this out, then that’s exactly what we need to do.

I’d also like to talk through a couple of other points. A Treasury report from September 2015 also pointed to the fee levels for KiwiSaver, measured with reference to the OECD’s operating expense ratio data, being in the upper third of comparative countries. We’ve even got a couple of Auckland University of Technology (AUT) academics that, in their report KiwiSaver, Who is Really Reaping The Benefits?, alluded to the fact that “Annual fees [on] KiwiSaver … are far above international standards and are not justifiable given their relatively poor performance since inception.” That’s the opinion of two academics, but that’s what we’re going to be sending to select committee—advice like that; columns like that—so that this working group can actually investigate into this.

Also, the Commission for Financial Capability stated recently that KiwiSaver fees are one area where it’s not necessarily true that you get what you pay for. Higher fees don’t necessarily mean high returns or better service. Dr Ayesha Scott, from AUT, also said, and I quote, “Ultimately, the best advice for anyone embarking on KiwiSaver investment is to choose the fund with the lowest fee structure for the fund type that you are investing in”.

This is a good piece of legislation, and I’m going to support it through to the first reading. It’s going to head over to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, of which I am a member, so I’ll be following the progress of this bill through the House, and I welcome it. Kia ora.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be taking a brief call this afternoon on the KiwiFund Bill. I want to start by actually echoing some of the comments from across the House and to congratulate Dr Michael Cullen, because I think KiwiSaver was and is a good idea. It’s given many people out there an opportunity to save, who otherwise probably wouldn’t have the opportunity, and, in my own personal circumstance, it allowed me to buy my first home with my wife.

Hon Member: Good idea, Andrew.

ANDREW FALLOON: It was a good idea—it is a good idea. It was a substantial contribution to New Zealand savings. It is everything this bill is not.

So this KiwiFund Bill, it is disappointing because all it does is set up a working group. I’ve spoken in this House before—several times actually, I think, now—on the number of committees and reviews that this Government seems to have a habit of setting up. What they do is, when they don’t have an idea about what they’re going to do next, decide to kick it down the road by setting up a review or a committee. We’ve seen it a lot recently. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the dairy industry, there’s a review on that; they’re setting up a review on tax; there’s a review on climate change; and, of course, just today, they’ve established a review on education to try and deflect attention from their disgraceful decision to close charter schools.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You started so well.

ANDREW FALLOON: I did. It’s continuing on, trust me. If this bill passes, it’s going to take hours to pass through this Parliament and pass through this House. It’s going to waste hours of House time and many, many more hours of select committee time. It’s an absolute waste of time. We don’t need legislation to start a review. As my colleagues on this side of the House have all been saying all afternoon, the Government could go off and decide to set up a review tomorrow or a committee tomorrow.

Brett Hudson: Why don’t we have a review of the reviews?

ANDREW FALLOON: My colleague Brett Hudson has just, I think, put forward a very worthy suggestion of setting up a committee to look at all of the reviews and the committees that the Government’s set up.

It is a waste of time. The Government would be far better off picking up, I think, a very worthy contribution from my colleague Michael Woodhouse, who has drafted a bill to establish additional contribution rates for KiwiSaver. That is a far more substantial contribution than this bill. I invite the Government to pick that up and to not waste this Parliament’s time.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to give this reply. I just want to acknowledge the kind words of my colleagues on this side of the House and, actually, predominantly, the kind words of those in Opposition. It is a milestone—by the looks of the numbers in this House—for myself, and I am proud of the outcome.

Can I just give some reassurances. There were some very deliberate attempts to misinterpret this legislation from the other side, so it’s very appropriate that we get this five-minute right of reply. Can I say that the irony of the situation is that if we had acted unilaterally and just moved forward with legislation to change the KiwiSaver industry, the argument from the other side of the House would have been the exact opposite of what it is now—“Why are you acting unilaterally and not consulting or engaging with the industry and the very people of New Zealand?”, who very much care about the outcome of this piece of legislation.

Yes, it is another investigation, but it is an important one and it is an appropriate one. It is a response to nine years of apathy—a very deliberate, conscious decision by that party over there to not do anything so as not to offend anyone for nine years—and that doesn’t just relate to this piece of legislation. This relates to so many things that have affected New Zealanders over the last nine years, and now we’re in a Government that is prepared to do something about it.

So thank you for the vote of confidence from the members on this side of the House. Thank you for your articulate arguments and your support. It does actually mean quite a lot.

After two previous attempts to bring member’s bills through the House, I have to admit I was quite surprised at how disheartening it was to have them shot down by the Government of the time, knowing full well what the numbers would be before you went in. It was actually incredibly surprising how disheartening it was. Conversely, I’m quite stoked and—

Todd Muller: Stoked?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Stoked—stoked. A chap is allowed to be stoked with an outcome.

Brett Hudson: You’ve still got a few weeks to go on the waka, mate.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So I put it, to Mr Hudson in particular, that now’s not the time to play politics. I put it to the Opposition that those lines in the bill are directions, so there’s no call to guarantee returns of investors. There’s no predetermined outcome. There is no call to lower fees tomorrow. You made arguments that were reasonable in and of themselves, despite the fact that there was no attempt from this bill to do those things.

The experts are being asked to look at it and, I say again to the members opposite, it could not be more timely. I acknowledge the contribution from Parliamentary Under-Secretary Wood, who gave an eloquent summary of the situation using real data, and just spoke to the reality of the situation as to why we’re here at this point.

The bill is a different way forward, but it is a consultative way forward. It is an inclusive way forward, and it actually gives the members opposite a very real means to engage and to have a say on the outcomes of this legislation. I give them credit for acknowledging that they recognise themselves that there are issues in the KiwiSaver industry and they need to be looked at. So thank you for at least acknowledging that.

I hope that my interpretation of the numbers is correct and that we move forward proudly and look to a year-long process where we can take stock of the industry. So I’m proud to support this bill. Thank you very much.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

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

Bills

Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

First Reading

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I move, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

The aim of this bill is to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand curriculum, and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders. The National Education and Learning Priorities were passed as part of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, which did pass into law in May last year. Unfortunately the priorities, or the NELP, as educators call them, are just lacking a wee bit in their language, and they don’t have a strong alignment with the New Zealand curriculum. It is that that I am trying to rectify with this bill, and that is really important, because the language is incredibly important for putting our children and our students at the centre, and putting our very, very strong curriculum in this country back at the centre of learning.

Many individuals and national education groups at that time wanted to engage in this discussion, and many of them—in fact, quite a large number—did submit to the Education and Science Committee back at the time. The concern is that the suggestions that came from those people and those groups weren’t reflected back into the documents that came through, and the bill wasn’t changed at all as drafted. Therefore, there was a bit of a disconnect that came between the NELP and the New Zealand curriculum.

As an educator at the time, I was really disappointed about that, because it seemed to be that the NELP put more emphasis on academic success than on the roundedness of the whole New Zealand child, of the learner at the centre, as the curriculum does. It almost seemed that the NELP took away from the mana, for want of a better word, of the curriculum, and that’s a real concern in this country, because our curriculum documents are world leading. They are absolutely and simply stunning documents, and, as educators, we never ever got the opportunity to really implement those curriculum documents well, before we were bogged down with other administrative requirements, such as national standards, that were put upon us.

The New Zealand curriculum is made up of several documents, and that includes the iwi documents as well, but the main documents that we have are Te Whāriki, which is the early childhood document, and then the national curriculum, which is made up of The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. So Te Whāriki is underpinned by a vision for children who “are competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society.” Not much different to that is the direction of The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, which set the direction for student learning. Although both come from very different perspectives, they both start with a vision of young people developing the competencies they need for study, work, and lifelong learning, so that those young people can go on to realise their potential.

All three of those documents have been touted as world leading. We get educators from all around the world that come to this country and will say to us what a fantastic curriculum we have, from early childhood right through. But I have had people who have asked me why we aren’t using that curriculum more, and that’s where the language becomes really, really important. It becomes really important because the over-umbrella education learning priorities in this country need to reflect that curriculum, and it needs to be overt for the educators and the parents and the learners in this country.

At the time when the NELP were introduced, there was a huge concern from people that made submissions to the select committee that the richness of the New Zealand curriculum was being undermined. Again, I go back to the point that this is what this bill is aiming to rectify and to add to the richness of diversity in the learning environment. Why was there concern about it being undermined? The concern of it being undermined came with a strong focus on an academic situation in the set-up and in the wording and the writing of the bill. This bill directly aligns the wording with the graduate profile and principles of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the key competencies of the New Zealand curriculum, and the principles and strands of Te Whāriki. This bill has a focus on the whole child, and putting the child back at the centre again.

Other concerns that this bill works to address, which came from the select committee submissions at the time, were the concerns around the consultation. At that time when the bill was written up, the consultation was—it had to happen that the Minister of the time has to consult, but it was with people who the Minister at the time deems to be whom they feel are important to consult with. This bill gives a minimum of people that the Minister has to consult with. First and foremost, the Minister has to consult with children, and then he or she must consult with national representative organisations of teachers, principals, school boards of trustees, early childhood centres, and parents. So, the whole idea around that is that we are front-footing any further issues, because we’re consulting with those people right from the outset, and it’s really heartening to me that right at the top of that list is children. So once again, I go back and I’ve said it three times now and I say it again: putting the children back at the centre of the learning.

Another issue that people had with this bill, with the NELP when they were entered into the last bill, was that there was concern around minor changes and that the Minister could make minor changes without going back through consultation, but it never ever defined what those minor changes were. At the time, people were told by the select committee that it was possibly that those minor changes might be grammatical errors or spelling errors, but that’s never been defined in the bill. So through open transparency, this bill rectifies that issue and says that the minor change “is limited to a technical, short, and uncontroversial amendment that does not change or extend [the] policy of the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.” So it’s very clear to everyone what those minor changes would be and when the Minister wouldn’t need to go back to consult again.

So I’m really happy with the direction that this bill is actually taking the NELP. The NELP were controversial at the time, but, as I said, the sector at the time and the parents wanted to consult in that wider conversation around the national direction that education was going in. So, I believe that the changes in this particular bill would address those concerns that those people had. We’re not that far away from when we actually put this into the law in the first place, so this would be a perfect time to change this, to give people a sense of surety around what was happening with the National Education and Learning Priorities.

It is good to see that this bill—and I was so glad today to see our Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, announce the Government’s extensive education portfolio work programme. And I was really, really happy with that because I could see how this bill actually works very well to have those conversations, because in those conversations that happen, where the public will be invited in to be involved in that work, we will be able to have the conversation to help set the NELP. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am pleased to speak on this bill. I do want to say at the outset that National will be opposing this bill, but can I acknowledge that it’s a big deal as a pretty new member of this House to have a bill drawn out of the ballot, and can I congratulate her for bringing a bill to this House and for doing the work that she’s done.

Now, the reason that we are opposing this bill is we believe that it is really important to be honest that this is a case that it is really what we call a ballot bill stuff-up. The reason for that is if you look at what actually the bill is doing, it is making very minor amendments around the national education and learning priorities (NELP), and I’ll give you an example of that. So if you actually look at the content—and, again, I would ask people who are watching at home: is this a good use of Parliament’s time to change a phrase from “resilience, determination, confidence, [and] creative and critical thinking,” and to add a couple of words at the end? We think that when you look at the bill, clearly on the other side of the House they didn’t want National members to have bills coming out of the ballot, and they thought “We’ll make a few tweaks to the NELP and that will enable us to have a bill in the ballot.”, and we don’t think that’s a great use of Parliament’s time.

I’ll give you another example: one of the statements in the NELP that was passed by the last National Government, which went through a select committee process, was the phrase “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships”. Well, now what that’s changed to in this bill is the word “good” to “positive”, and others. We would argue, again—let’s just be a little bit honest in this Parliament about what this bill is doing: it’s tweaking a few words. That’s not necessarily a great use of Parliament’s time.

And then the second thing that this bill does—and, again, we think people should understand exactly what is occurring here—is that there is already the provision within the Education (Update) Amendment Act, which went through Parliament reasonably recently, to enable wide consultation with the public, so the only thing that this bill does then is it puts in and describes some of that consultation. When you look at the various different parties—and I think if I just refer you to clause 5, where it talks about children, national representative organisations of teachers, and national representative organisations of principals—this is pretty obvious, actually. The current NELP enables wide consultation, so this is not needed in any possible shape or form.

Again, we really want to acknowledge the member Jan Tinetti. She has put some work in, but we do believe in being incredibly honest about the fact that this is not a great use of Parliament’s time. There is nothing in here that is dramatically going to change the world for a whole lot of young people and lift achievement. It is a bit symbolic in terms of what we did hear today from this Government. There is a lot of hui but very little dooey. My previous colleague the honourable Sandra Goudie used to use that phrase. But, again, we saw this today with the Minister’s announcements that we are going to have three years of discussion, and it feels very symbolic that we have this bill that is really about tweaks. It’s not going to lift achievement. It’s not going to help those kids who are in partnership schools. It’s not going to help those parents know more about how their child is doing—whether it’s the Government scrapping national standards. It’s not going to change the game in terms of 21st century learning.

The NELP was put in place to ensure that we all had a common understanding of the objectives and goals in education, and this bill will not dramatically and fundamentally lift opportunities for young people. That’s why we’re not supporting it. We don’t think it’s a great use of Parliament’s time. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill. Firstly, can I acknowledge Jan Tinetti and her considerable years of experience in education and the obvious passion she brings to the House in this area. So I congratulate her on her efforts and the intent she brings to the House with this member’s bill. Congratulations.

By way of context, what we’re trying to do here is basically by way of amendment in legislation simply have some formal acknowledgment that that National Party on that side of the House very much developed a cookie cutter, factory kind of method way of putting our young children through the education system. They weren’t worried about individual learning, about the children themselves; it was about a process, and that was what was more important to them.

Under the previous legislation, as alluded to by Miss Tinetti—great engagement by industry, by advocates, and by members of the public to the select committee on how best to use the framework to engage and to enforce and empower the New Zealand Curriculum document. I think it’s clear from this bill, the amendments herein, that they weren’t heard, and this is an attempt to remedy that. Those advocates sought to ensure that our children were at the centre of the education model in New Zealand. The bill seeks to—and you’ll forgive me for reading, Madam Assistant Speaker—“align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand curriculum and provide an aspirational vision for the future [of] … New Zealanders.”, and then “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes”. I mean, why would you oppose that? But the Opposition will come up with some reasons, and I definitely don’t agree with them as to why.

Look, I hate to say it, but I was a teacher for 10 years.

Brett Hudson: Why would you hate to say that?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I hate to say it, because Mr Hudson and others tend to criticise people who bring good experience in the House to speak to legislation, but the reality is we designed a great New Zealand Curriculum document. It is rich, it is thoughtful, it is broad, and it seeks to do more than just turn our children into output numbers. That party opposite decided they wanted to focus on those artificial outputs, but the National Education and Learning Priorities will be brought into line with the New Zealand curriculum—that’s what these amendments are seeking to do—which will mean more real support for children. This means building more resilience, creativity, and adaptability with a focus on developing great communication and interpersonal skills and to ensure that our youth can work collaboratively as well as individually—or independently, I should say.

So, by way of conclusion, New Zealand First absolutely supports the amendments of this bill empowering discussion and consultation that currently do not appear to be happening—again, despite considerable efforts and submissions at the previous bill’s hearing at select committee. So we look forward to the select committee process, and, again, I commend the member for her efforts today. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I think that member, Fletcher Tabuteau, would make an excellent deputy leader of New Zealand First—so well spoken. It is my pleasure to speak on this bill—a very short contribution from the member Jan Tinetti. Apparently, she told the Bay of Plenty Times that this bill will start to return mana to the teaching profession, and I’m glad to hear that—I’m glad to hear that. It’s a fairly low base from which to start this bill, but it’s better than nothing.

When we look at this, I’m sure all the teachers in this country will be immensely reassured and feel strengthened by changing “resilience, determination, confidence, and creative … thinking” into “resilience, determination confidence, creative and critical thinking, and to become lifelong learners”. It’s that addition, I think, that really sort of makes all the difference. I don’t like to be unkind, but I think you’ll find that this is not a great contribution but one way in which to fill the ballot, and it’s a pity, because there’s so much that could be done.

I thought it was rather rich that we heard that there’s going to be a lot of work put into consultation with the sector before these changes—subtle changes—are made to the objectives of the National Education and Learning Priorities, these little tweaks that have been made, probably late at night over a discussion with a few people just to throw together this bill. There’s going to be great consultation with the sector. Well, it’s interesting today—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Hang on—I’m going to go back and look at what bills you introduced to Parliament, because I’m fairly sure there’s a pot calling the kettle black over there right now.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —because we’ve had the release today of the great, sort of, cradle-to-the-grave review of education more generally by the Minister Chris Hipkins and the talk of consultation with the sector, and when I asked him today, in relation to whether he’d consulted with the tertiary sector about the decision to spend the entire $2.8 billion on student support and nothing else, whether there’d been any consultation, he said, “Well, yes, there was an election.”, as if that was consultation.

So you go to the election, you go to the people, with 20 policies, 30 policies—including this one—and if you happen to find yourself in Government after various permutations, then that absolves you of the need to consult with the sector that is affected by very monumental changes. That is a very strange way to go about Government and a very strange way to go about consultation. So my advice to the member Jan Tinetti is maybe she might have a bit of a chat to some of her senior colleagues and encourage them to do what they say and be genuine about consulting the broader education sector about very significant changes, such as we’ve seen in the way that they’ve decided to spend the money in the tertiary sector, as one example. That may be helpful.

So if we just go through some of these differences, I’m sure people listening in will be curious as to what is being achieved or suggested—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh, the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That was a very good bill. That was a quality bill that made a lot of difference. This one—here we are, we’re changing “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships” into “strong social skills and the ability to form” not good relationships but “positive relationships”. So, I mean, I think that’s, you know, an interesting, debatable point, but I’m not quite sure. Then we’re also changing “participation in community life” into “active participation in community life”. Well, again, that’s really interesting.

As well as that, we’re talking about “[contributing] to building a strong and just New Zealand, socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally”—very useful indeed. And then, instead of just “preparedness for work” we have this very long-winded prelude saying, “promoting the development of … knowledge, values, and skills to enable students to succeed in further education and live full satisfying lives, both personally and in the world of work”.

I just struggle to see what is being achieved by this bill, and, on that basis, it is with heavy hearts that we on the side of the Chamber will vote against it, because we don’t think this—

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): What a shame that was. It’s a pleasure to stand and rise for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. I too would like to acknowledge and congratulate one of the newer members of this House, Jan Tinetti, for bringing this piece of legislation to the House, and acknowledge all of your past advocacy in education. I’ve got to say, I saw you as a key champion for our children and our education system, and it’s fantastic to have you in this House producing legislation like this to help get our education system back on track.

This bill, I understand, was previously drawn in the name of the new Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and is overturning an amendment to the previous Education Act. It proposes common-sense and straightforward changes to section 1A of the Education Act, which empowers the Minister of Education to issue a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, otherwise known as the NELP.

I understand that our education spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick, in the time that she’s been our spokesperson, has made a real effort to get out to schools around the country and, in doing that, what she has found most fascinating has been meeting a lot of the children in the schools. But who she’s found that she’s ended up meeting—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

JAN LOGIE: So again, I congratulate the member Jan Tinetti for being in the House for such a short time and being lucky enough to get her bill drawn—but it’s a very good bill based on your leadership and your experience from the community, so it’s welcomed to this House.

As I was saying before the dinner bell rang—I was speaking on behalf of our new education spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s been visiting a number of schools around the country and has been introduced to some student leaders as she’s been going around. She’s noticed the fact that she tends to be introduced to the scholars and the sports stars and the prefects—these young people who put in the really hard work and are doing really well. But she has noticed that they tend to be the young people who have worked out how to navigate the system and who the system is working for, which is great—that we have young people in that situation. But there is a problem, as she’s pointed out, when we subconsciously don’t hear or don’t seek out the voices of young people who aren’t currently being served by our education system. And when we’re not seeking out those voices we’re at risk of perpetuating a system that too many young people fall through the cracks of. The opportunity to change that exists with actively consulting young people. So that’s one of the reasons that the Green Party is so excited to support this bill. It adds a requirement for the Minister of Education to consult with young people in setting the National Education and Learning Priorities for the country.

That’s a massive paradigm shift. So frequently in this House when we’re debating education, we hear people talking about parents and we talk about teachers, usually in a complimentary way on this side of the House—not so much on that side. However, often I only hear MPs mention children when they seek to speak on their behalf, and most of all I include myself in that. So the requirement to consult with children represents a conscious change. It puts children at the centre of education where they belong. For most teachers, they know that child-centred learning is the best type of teaching, and so this is building it into the whole system, not just in the classroom.

I know that Chlöe Swarbrick is really looking forward to seeing the submissions that come before the Education and Workforce Committee, and we are very happy to support this wonderful new member’s bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I must admit, I’m slightly gobsmacked to hear Jan Logie describe this bill as a paradigm shift in thinking, because, as will have been apparent to anybody who was listening to this debate prior to the dinner adjournment, in fact it’s one of the lightest bills, as far as having anything of substance to discuss, of anything that we’ve considered in a very long period of time.

But let me start on a positive. First, I want to congratulate Jan Tinetti on having her bill drawn. As somebody who is now in his 10th year in this House and has waited 9½ years still for that privilege, I find that for it to have happened to somebody who’d been here for about 10 weeks when her bill was drawn a little bit infuriating, but, anyway, congratulations. I also would like, genuinely, to congratulate her on the way that she chaired the Education and Workforce Committee this morning. She is the deputy chair, and this morning she was filling in, and I thought she did a very good job. So, well done, and thank you for that.

But I have to say to the member that I cannot support this bill, and it’s not just because it is a stocking filler. I do want to remind members of the Government, particularly while the Leader of the House is here, that when Labour were in Opposition not so long ago, they always used to rail against stocking fillers on the days of members’ bills. Sometimes, I felt they were very churlish and unkind in describing those particular measures as such. Usually, the argument we heard from the Labour Party was: why not just shove this bill into a statutes amendment bill and it could be dealt with very, very quickly? We wouldn’t have to use up a lot of the House time.

Well, here we are on members’ day, which comes around once a fortnight, usually, in the timetable of the House. It is very special to members, and we’d all like to be able to debate matters of substance, particularly to be able to advance measures that really will make a difference to our communities and improve the laws of this land. Often, the opportunity to do that is by having a bill that probably wouldn’t make it on to the Government’s agenda, just because of the pressure on what they can get through, but members’ day is a really good way of getting it through.

I have to assume that Jan Tinetti has the numbers—I’m realistic; I can do the maths—and therefore I want to make this point to her, particularly having referred to the fact that she is a member of the committee that I assume the bill will be referred to and she was chairing it this morning: our committee is going to be very busy over the next few months because not only do we have the Education Amendment Bill, which was debated last week and is substantial and very contentious and is going to draw probably quite a lot of submissions and require a lot of work, but we also, because of the way in which this committee is now structured, have the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and that, of course, is going to be hugely demanding for all the members of the committee. These are substantial, weighty things that all members of the committee should be applying their attention to. I really have to ask why on earth we would be trying to squeeze in something like this and requiring submitters to come before the committee to talk about something that is of so little significance.

Now, unfortunately, the debate was broken up by the dinner adjournment, so I just point out, for those who may not have been listening, that far from the paradigm shift that Jan Logie mentioned, this is about very slight rewording of a few paragraphs. For instance, the bill replaces this sentence, “to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational achievement to the best of his or her potential”, with this, “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all”. And so it goes on. There’s so little change in this that you have to ask: why on earth would a select committee be required to look at it?

I’ll just close by making the point that Ms Logie commented on the fact that—in a disparaging way, she suggested that members on this side of the House don’t value teachers. Well, I can assure you that we do and, as one of the former teachers who is in the National Party caucus, I can assure her that we do. To suggest that we don’t value teachers and that we seldom think about children is completely contradicted by the debate we had last week on the much more substantive measure, the Education Amendment Bill, when it was members on that side of the House who spoke solely about systems and unions, and I don’t think I ever heard the word “children” being mentioned. In that particular bill, where children should be at the heart of any substantive changes, particularly whether we’re getting rid of national standards or getting rid of partnership schools, that is surely when we should be looking at the interests of children. This bill will not do that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): It’s a great pleasure and a privilege to speak on Jan Tinetti’s bill. I want to congratulate her on having it drawn from the ballot.

It’s also interesting to follow on from that somewhat confused, rambling contribution from Tim Macindoe, the member who just spoke. On the one hand, he said that there’s nothing particularly controversial about this bill and therefore it should be, say, part of a statutes amendment bill, and then, on the other hand, he said that they’re going to vote against it. So, actually, that means it can’t be part of a statutes amendment bill. A basic rule of Parliament is that statutes amendment bills require unanimity in order to be able to be passed, so, by his own admission, it can’t be part of a statutes amendment bill.

He then went on to say that it’s too hard for the select committee and they’re going to have to do too much work, and that it’s going to be completely unacceptable that they might have to actually earn their money. I say that that’s actually the job that all of us in this Parliament are here to do. Therefore, listening to people through a select committee process is actually inherent in the democratic system and, therefore, is a positive thing.

Now, I do acknowledge that we are sending to the Education and Workforce Committee quite a bit of legislation at the moment. They, of course, have the ability to hear submissions on different bills that cover broadly similar topics at the same time. In fact, I have been involved in select committee hearings where the committee has invited submitters to deliver submissions on different bills at the same time for the purposes of making it a more efficient hearing, and also for the convenience of the submitters. So there’s nothing wrong with doing that.

This is a very good bill. Now why is it a good bill? Well, first of all, it aligns the goals in the Education Act 1989 inserted by the previous National Government with the goals in the New Zealand Curriculum. This was something that was strongly urged to the previous Government by many of the people who went to the trouble of submitting on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill at the Education and Science Committee, as it was then. The curriculum is prized and treasured throughout New Zealand’s education system because it, basically, has the support of young people, of teachers, of parents, of employers—of all of the major stakeholders in the education system. There is a huge degree of support for the curriculum, and the curriculum has a very strong sense of purpose and, basically, a very strong statement of the objects. So what this does is it aligns the object of the Act with the objects in the curriculum. So I can’t see what the harm of doing that is. In fact, I think that that is a very useful thing to do.

But, actually, the section of this bill that I am most in favour of—and I say this as a Minister of Education who is now going to be subject to this—is that under the Act as passed by National, when articulating or developing a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, the Minister can consult with whomever they think fit. So the Minister could decide that they just want to consult with a couple of teachers that they like, or they might want to consult with their family or whoever, and that would be OK because under the law, that’s sufficient. Under this bill, the Minister must—must—consult with children, and why would they not? The decisions that we make around the education system are all about children, so they should have a voice in that.

It also makes clear that we need to consult with teachers, principals, school boards of trustees—of course, made up of parents—early childhood services, and parents. Why would we not consult with those groups? As the Minister of Education, I don’t think I would be doing my job properly if I didn’t consult with those groups. Therefore, I’m very pleased to see this being added into the Act.

The final thing I want to talk about is the final clause of the bill, which makes the statement of national education and learning priorities a disallowable instrument. What that means, in effect, is that the Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. We are giving, through the Education Act, a significant delegated power to me, the Minister of Education—and, if it was a National Government, to whomever on that side of the House filled that role—and I think there should be some parliamentary scrutiny of those decisions. In setting a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, I would, effectively, be setting the direction for the whole education system, so why should the Parliament not have the opportunity to scrutinise that?

In another set of circumstances, it might be primary legislation—i.e., the House might get to vote on it. In this case, the House is delegating to me the ability to set it. Therefore, I think it’s only appropriate that through the regulation-making scrutiny provisions we have in the House, the House gets to scrutinise what I’ve finally come up with.

So this is a much more democratic system. It’s a much more transparent system, and I think it’s going to lead to a better outcome.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Can I, firstly, congratulate Jan Tinetti for having her bill drawn. I just lodged a bill today, so I’m hoping to be as successful as she’s been and, hopefully, it’s not 10 years before my bill gets drawn, like Mr Tim Macindoe.

I am going to find it exceptionally hard to speak for my full five minutes—the Government might find that pleasing to hear—because there really is not that much to talk about.

Hon Member: You’ll learn.

ERICA STANFORD: Ha! So let me start by pointing out how badly this wastes the Parliament’s time—

Hon Member: No, your guys will; they’ve got 10 minutes.

ERICA STANFORD: Oh, I was going to say something nice about him. I mean no offence to Jan Tinetti, because she’s a lovely woman and was a very good chair of the committee today, a fellow newbie like me, and I have nothing but admiration for her. I completely support the intentions of her bill: things like ensuring the diversity of our education system—great; providing learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential—right behind you; providing an aspirational vision for the future of New Zealanders—love it. I love that the Labour Party are focusing so much on providing an aspirational future for students whose charter schools they are closing out of ideological opposition—love it.

This bill supposedly amends a couple of paragraphs explaining the objectives of the education system; it doesn’t, however, offer anything in the way of actual substance. It’s very hard for me to divine any kind of philosophical enlightenment or legislative horsepower from this two-page bill. Actually, it alarms me, this kind of education bill the Labour backbenchers are coming out with, because it reiterates to me that this coalition Government is at a total loss for ideas when it comes to good education policy. They’ve got nothing constructive to offer, unless it’s throwing money at students for a first year free at university. This Government’s worried about shutting down schools that are providing for disadvantaged young people, but this bill is really just a stocking filler that was lucky to be drawn.

One of my other concerns is that if this bill is passed, it will just clog up the Education and Workforce Committee, as Mr Tim Macindoe pointed out, when their time could more valuably be used examining the removal of national standards and what’s going to replace that, and perhaps looking at charter schools. We will not be supporting this bill, but I am looking forward to reading some of the other legislative inspirations that the Labour Party have yet to add to the members’ bill ballot.

Can I just say that one of the statements that this bill amends, in section 1A(3)(b)(i), as set out in clause 4—it takes the phrase “resilience, determination, confidence, and creative and critical thinking” and replaces it with “resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking, and to become lifelong learners:”. One of the things that Mr Fletcher Tabuteau said earlier in his contribution was that this bill would add more resilience to young learners, so I’d actually suggest, perhaps, we add an extra word at the beginning of this to say “more resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking, and to become lifelong learners:”, if we’re just going to be really pedantic about it.

Really, this bill adds a few words; it changes a few things around. It’s not of any substance. It’s really wasting this Parliament’s time. It’s wasting the Education and Workforce Committee’s time. While I congratulate Jan Tinetti for having her bill drawn—I know what it’s like to go through putting something together and being nervous about having it put in there and then having it drawn and having to speak on it—really, this is a stocking filler bill that is wasting our time changing a few words around. It has no particular substance, and we will not be supporting it. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I am delighted to stand and talk about this excellent bill, a bill whose time has come. I’d like to thank Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill to the House. Now, I’ve known Jan for a while, and her passion for the education system is second to none, so thank you, Jan. Jan believes in putting children first. I’d like to also congratulate the member opposite, Erica Stanford, who almost did do her five minutes—I think she did maybe four minutes 10—so that wasn’t too bad.

But I just pick up on something the member said. The member was talking about partnership schools and she was talking about partnership schools in terms of consulting with the children in the partnership schools. Well, she has spoken about that a lot in the House. Well, this bill does talk about consulting with children, and that’s a key aspect—a key aspect of this bill. Children do know a lot of things. In fact, I’ve got four young children, and sometimes they think they know a bit more than dad. They probably do, actually, particularly on my phone. Whenever my phone gets broken I give it to them and they tell me to do something there. But certainly young people do know about their education system, and I think it’s absolutely fantastic that we’ve just heard from the Minister about how he is also excited about putting young people at the centre of our education system.

We do have a world-class curriculum, and it’s a diverse curriculum. There are a huge amount of aspects to it, not just literacy and numeracy, as we’ve found out this week. This bill here is about amending the Education Act to align the enduring objectives for the education and learning system more closely with that curriculum and, obviously—as we’ve talked about—requiring consultation.

So some of the key learning priorities that this bill supports—so it supports learners who are resilient. Now, as most of us will know, and most of us will agree, resilience is vital for young people. As we go through life, we have ups and downs, and the importance of getting up again is vital for lifelong learning.

There’s a key aspect here around creativity. Teachers are preparing students for jobs that don’t currently exist, and that’s one of the challenges that teachers have in our education system. How do you prepare someone for a job that doesn’t currently exist? One of the key aspects of doing that is the word “creativity”. So areas like the arts, where you develop a creative mind, are absolutely vital, and this is another of the learning priorities that this bill will support. Employers want creativity in the changing workforce.

Another aspect is around communication and interpersonal skills. So these are also involved, and, like I said, it’s in our world-class curriculum. This bill helps improve these by putting the child at the centre of the learning.

I once taught a young boy—I’ll name him Jimmy—and he struggled.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Ha, ha!

JAMIE STRANGE: It’s always Jimmy. I’ll name him Jimmy, but he struggled in school with various aspects of literacy and numeracy. In fact, he was well below, so in terms of national standards, he was a failure for eight years of his schooling. I came across him when he was 12. So he was labelled a failure for eight years under national standards, but when it came to music, Jimmy was a natural. He naturally excelled—

Dr Duncan Webb: Hendrix?

JAMIE STRANGE: —yeah, Jimi Hendrix!—and I made a big deal out of this because I could see his confidence start growing. Confidence is one of the key learning priorities that this bill supports, because without confidence it’s very difficult to go through life and to achieve your full potential. There’s other aspects around learning priorities that this bill will accentuate: collaboration, independent learning—so young people taking ownership of their own learning.

I believe education is one of the most important investments a Government can make. Education is one of the key things in life that opens up opportunity. It’s a great leveller, and I’m proud that this Government is valuing our education system. We’ve had a number of bills come through already around education, and this is just another in that long line.

So I commend this bill to the House. I thank the member Jan Tinetti for the incredible amount of work she’s done on this, and I look forward to it passing and going through a select committee. Thank you.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The primary purpose of this member’s bill is to rewrite the set of objectives considered by the Minister of Education when issuing a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. Now, on face value, this sounds like it would be a hugely important bill. Changing these objectives would have the potential to result in a major shift in the direction and the performance of this country’s education system, and so you would expect a large amount of attention and interest.

I have a theory as to why this is actually not being hailed as a groundbreaking bill. It’s well-known that on the other side of the House, there’s no love for trickle-down policies when it comes to economics, but it seems that the approach to legislation from Labour Ministers is trickling down to all new Government backbenchers. This bill, like so many others introduced by the Government, either continues on the good work of the last National Government or it makes such minor changes to legislation that, although well-meaning and made with good intent and all that, it has little effect on the results seen by real people and real children going through the education system.

It’s like the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. It sets targets, but it doesn’t say how we’re going to get there. How about the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill? We’re into the big leagues with those minor changes. And, my personal favourite, the Legislation Bill? How will the changes in this current bill impact on children going through school or parents taking their young ones to early childhood providers?

Do you want to hear about the real impact? This is where it is: closing down charter schools. Have you seen the difference that charter schools have made to kids who have been struggling in the State school system? How about—here’s the impact—scrapping national standards, which is the way parents track their kids individually and nationally? So far, this Government’s education policy has consisted of removing and restricting—removing and restricting. We are yet to see the positive, constructive, and inspirational policy that we’ve heard about during the campaign.

This Government is at the beginning of their term. They’ve scrapped and they’ve fought and they’ve bargained their way to get there with two other parties. After nine years in Opposition, it’s time for the power of three to unleash the power of dozens of MPs into the member’s bill biscuit tin, eat their way into grunty lawmaking, take on all the wrongs that they feel they’ve been subjected to, and make a meal of the gaps in education.

Instead, this is what we get, and I’m going to quote it. A change to the Education Act of 1989—this is what’s up here tonight. They want to change the abilities and attributes of young people from “resilience, determination, confidence, and creative and critical thinking:” to “resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking and to become lifelong learners:”. What’s that? Four more words. Change “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships:” to “[good] social skills and the ability to form positive relationships”—swap out “good” for “positive”. This is real groundbreaking stuff.

We’re on the first reading of this bill, but I find myself eminently looking forward to my own colleague Simeon Brown’s psychoactive substances bill. May the House take note of the word “substance”. The National Party will not be supporting this bill. We’re looking for some more grunt and a better meal out of that biscuit tin. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jan Tinetti—five minutes in reply.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s been very interesting listening to this debate here this evening. It’s actually confirmed to me how little regard our Opposition had for the education sector when they were in Government, because what they have done here tonight is that they have trivialised the New Zealand Curriculum and teachers’ and parents’ regard for the New Zealand Curriculum. As a former educator, this bill is far more than symbolic; it is far more than a stocking filler. It aligns the national curriculum to the National Education and Learning Priorities, and that puts the curriculum back at the centre, which means it puts the children back at the centre.

Over the dinner break, I, along with people sitting in this House, went to listen to Judge Andrew Becroft talk about how, as a Parliament, we need to be more responsive to the voices of children. This bill is the first that he can point to that is responsive to the voice of children, because we are including and saying that the Minister must consult, first and foremost, with children. If that is not significant, then you are trivialising children and their place in education.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Please don’t bring me into the debate.

JAN TINETTI: Oh, I’m very sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you.

JAN TINETTI: I will get better. A couple of points that I want to speak to—the Hon Paul Goldsmith quoted me in the Bay of Plenty Times. I want to actually read that quote, because I think it probably points to the fact of why we need such strong consultation and why we need to actually go back to people to consult. That quote was made on 3 February, and on 3 February, when the Bay of Plenty Times had conducted an interview with me, they talked about my member’s bill, but they also talked about the other bills that were in Parliament that were important to me in the Education and Workforce Committee at the time.

Clearly, they got the two bills muddled up because—listen to the quote; remember, it’s 3 February, “Tinetti said the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday, which would start to return mana [honour] to the teaching profession.” Considering that we’re passing the first reading now, the fact that it said on 3 February that it passed its first reading is obviously a misquote by the Bay of Plenty Times. The fact that the Hon Paul Goldsmith read that out and said I had quoted that this bill that we’re talking about now was going to return mana to the teaching profession points to the fact that he didn’t do his homework very well. So it shows to me why consultation with our education sector groups is incredibly important.

Also, the Hon Tim Macindoe talked about why was this bill not in a statutes amendment. Well, it’s not in a statutes amendment because National voted it down when it was a Supplementary Order Paper to the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. Perhaps he just conveniently forgot that.

This bill is about listening to young people’s voices. This bill is about getting our consultation right. But, first and foremost, this is—and I’ll point to my colleague in the Green Party, Jan Logie—another step in getting our education system back on track, and that is what is exciting to many, many, many people in this country at the moment. That is exciting to our children, that is exciting to our parents, and that is exciting to our educators. We are simply getting the education system back on track again. We are aligning the curriculum. We are dealing with bringing diversity back in to our highest level.

The last point that I want to make is the really important point that the Hon Chris Hipkins brought up, that this will allow for parliamentary scrutiny. These National Education and Learning Priorities are so important that why should they not come under parliamentary scrutiny, when they are so important? The fact that we have an Opposition here tonight that have argued against this tells me that they don’t believe education is important. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill

First Reading

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): I move, That the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This bill removes the ability of those who have not gained a qualification in teaching from using the title “teacher”. At this point I’d like to mention my colleague the Hon Tracey Martin. She’s the author of the bill, and she’s a passionate education advocate. So I am honoured today to bring this member’s bill to the House.

I’d just like to mention that New Zealand First is a bit of a lucky party in terms of members’ bills. Tonight we’ve had Fletcher Tabuteau’s bill, the KiwiFund Bill, pass through its first reading, and now I have had my first member’s bill drawn from the very first ballot of my parliamentary career. So I am feeling a tad lucky tonight.

I’d like to talk on this bill because it is a great challenge to the New Zealand education system at the moment—this is the biggest challenge—that almost everyone believes that they can teach. Teaching is, in fact, very complex. Teachers who are specifically trained are able to design programmes of learning that are directly in response to the diverse educational and learning requirements of our communities. There is a wide range of learning requirements for our students. Teachers must not only be skilled in the curriculum and specialist subjects but in imparting that knowledge to others. Effective teachers will design programmes of learning that recognise diverse learners.

I have been made aware that it was back in the 51st Parliament that members of the former Government who sat on the Education and Science Committee had seriously argued that it’s not the education you receive but the school tie that you wear that will determine your future. The previous National Government allowed charter schools to put untrained and unqualified individuals into classrooms and call themselves teachers.

Over the last nine years there has been an expansion of what in reality are teaching apprentices into our classrooms by the Teach First NZ programme. Now, this is not an attack on these apprentices, but it is a statement of fact that they’re learning on the job and are not yet trained and qualified teachers. In fact, they spend two years before they do become fully qualified. Furthermore, we’re not saying that those who currently teach in schools with a background in a specific topic that they teach are not efficient educators. We are saying that there should be differentiation between those who are trained in the practice of educating and these subject matter experts. This will not stop these individuals from continuing to teach.

This differentiation will also facilitate better understanding for parents. It is our view that it has become increasingly difficult for the public, particularly following the introduction of charter schools, to be confident that the title “teacher” used by an individual means that that person is adequately qualified for them to lead the teaching and learning of their children. Under this bill, all parents can be assured that their child’s teacher is an education specialist. We believe that clarity around the use of the title “teacher” is essential in order to avoid any misunderstanding by the public about qualifications, the registration status, and professional oversight by the persons using the title of “teacher”.

The current Government is in the process of significantly reforming the education system since taking office just last year. The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill would complement the changes to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa, and the process of charter schools becoming special character schools.

Now, following on from today’s announcement by the Minister of Education the Hon Chris Hipkins of his three-year work plan for education, the Associate Minister of Education Kelvin Davis highlighted the priority of lifting achievement for Māori students through professional development of a workplace of culturally competent teachers.

This bill aims to reinforce that teaching is a profession, and, like many professions, you cannot give yourself the title without doing the hard work and gaining the appropriate qualifications. We know that it’s not the pay or the glamour, so what is it? What draws people into the classroom to become teachers? This is a profession whose status has been under attack for the past nine years, a profession that many people think that they can do because once they went to school, or because they have consistently heard that those who can’t do, teach. We need this rhetoric to stop. This is a profession that, when done right, can inspire a single individual or a whole group of people to become the best that they can be. It can provide a springboard for lifting people out of poverty. It’s the profession to which parents across the country entrust their tamariki for hours and hours in a day, weeks, and years of their lives, to be nurtured and developed, to have their eyes opened to a totality of possibilities, and to begin the journey of meeting their potential.

In the 21st century, nothing is more important than the role of our teachers. The profession is not just a job; it’s a huge responsibility. Using the title of teacher should be safeguarded in the same way as being a doctor, a judge, or an engineer. In New Zealand, that responsibility is not reflected in the teacher’s professional status. However, in Finland this is one of the most sought-after, respected, and highly prized professions in the country. In Finland, the status of teachers is on a par with being a brain surgeon. High-quality teachers are the hallmark of Finland’s education system. Annual national opinion polls have repeatedly shown that teaching in Finland is the most admired profession, and primary school teaching is the most sought-after career.

This is New Zealand First’s vision for teaching and teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand. We acknowledge that some have expressed concern about this bill, and we also thank those who have articulated their support of its first reading, to get this bill to select committee.

There’s a swathe of professions that have their titles protected. I could list many of them. Some of them are unusual titles and some of them are standard through the health system. Many of those professions are listed and protected. You may be interested to know—and this is probably the one I find most interesting—that one profession with a protected title is “cadastral surveyor”.

The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill will ensure that those who use the title “teacher” must be qualified, with the required training and skills. With several amendments to the Education Act 1989 over the recent years, it’s now possible to have individuals in classrooms who have no recognised teaching qualification. Therefore, they should not be able to use the title of teacher. They may use other titles, such as educator, tutor, lecturer, or whatever. But the title of teacher must be restricted to those who have completed recognised qualifications. This will provide a clear message for parents, caregivers, and students that the individual using the title has in fact trained, and completed the training, as a teacher.

We note, as I’m sure the Opposition will, the concern from the Ministry of Justice, suggesting that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. They comment that they have concluded that the bill appears to be inconsistent with the right of freedom of expression, affirmed in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, I draw members’ attention to another point they make, which is that section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind, in any form. The freedom of expression is as wide as human thought and imagination, and includes any activity which conveys or attempts to convey a meaning. I would welcome select committee scrutiny of this advice, and how that affects other professions, say, gasfitters or plumbers or lawyers.

By providing this simple method of identification, parents truly have the choice when it comes to who is leading the learning in their child’s education if the teacher title is protected. This is a simple clarification that will support the professional status of teachers. It will send a clear message to our teachers across Aotearoa New Zealand that they are valued. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Can I again acknowledge Jenny Marcroft for bringing the bill to the House, but I also want to acknowledge Tracey Martin who, as Jenny has also acknowledged, did the work on this bill.

The first thing I want to say is that there is no doubt in my mind that every member of Parliament, in this House, values the teachers of New Zealand. We all know, more than ever, the huge role that they play in our society. So, if the question was can we do some things to ensure that teachers are valued more, then members on this side would absolutely support that. However, that is not what this bill is about.

This bill has several major flaws. If you don’t believe me, and you’re watching the telly, then read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report by the Attorney-General, the Labour Minister David Parker. He, effectively, has written half of my speech today. It is ironic that a party like the Labour Party, which says that it supports freedom, is voting for a bill that the Attorney-General, the Labour Minister, has said—in his words—“the Bill appears to be inconsistent with s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act and the inconsistency cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” That reason alone is a reason to vote down this bill, and that’s one of the major reasons as to why we’ll be voting down this bill.

But the other point that we want to make at the outset is that we don’t believe in putting up legislation when there isn’t a problem. There aren’t a whole lot of people out there, going out and misrepresenting themselves as teachers. We know there is already a provision within the legislation, section 349 of the Education Act, that deals with people who could be misrepresenting themselves. It’s already in the law, but there isn’t a big problem here.

The next point I want to make is that when you look at this bill, it refers to partnership schools. It says one of the reasons that this bill has come to the House is as a result of partnership schools. Isn’t that a bit ironic? Isn’t it a bit ironic that we have a piece of legislation in here, in part because of partnership schools, when, potentially, New Zealand First hasn’t listened to what the Labour Party is actually putting up? They have another piece of legislation before the House that is completely getting rid of the partnership schools model.

So, not only do we not have a problem here of a whole lot of teachers misrepresenting themselves, we also have another piece of legislation in the Parliament that seeks to get rid of the partnership schools model. So it’s not a reason for this bill to come to the House.

But coming back to the very important New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. I think, again, I do want to quote some of David Parker’s—not the Ministry of Justice, but the Attorney-General—report on this bill. The point that he makes, in my view, is not only is there not a problem, not only is the Government getting rid of partnership schools, so there’s not even a problem there, but that it will be harmful—this bill will actually be harmful. He talks in his report about the fact that you have a whole lot of people at the moment—they might be dance teachers, they might be yoga teachers, but they are using that word “teacher”. The impact of putting a bill like this through to their lives could be quite significant.

He actually says, “The restriction imposed by the Bill would impose a significant limit on the ability of these people, ordinarily thought of as teachers, to conduct their business and describe themselves as teachers.” So that is from the Labour Attorney-General. It is gobsmacking that this bill is being supported to go through the House.

Another paragraph—a point that the Attorney-General makes—is that it’s not just about the impact on potentially some of those people who might have a limited authority to teach, but also those people that might be dance teachers or yoga teachers. He also says, “Unlike other protected titles such as ‘lawyer’, there are numerous people who legitimately use the title ‘teacher’ to earn their livelihoods. Indeed, the natural reading of cl 5 would also prevent any businesses using the word ‘teacher’ in their title—for instance, if they were selling teaching supplies. The limit the Bill places on freedom of expression is significant.”

So not only do we have a situation that there isn’t a problem here, not only do we have a situation that partnership schools are being repealed, so their original reason for the problem doesn’t exist; we also have a situation where the Attorney-General is saying it’s going to limit the ability of people to go about their ordinary lives, if they are dance teachers or yoga teachers. But also, there’s a whole lot of other businesses in New Zealand that may have the word “teacher” in their title, which the Attorney-General says could be impacted by this bill.

We don’t know what the costs could be or what the impact on their lives and their businesses could be. So we’re very clear, on this side of the House. Of course we massively value the role and the importance of teachers. We believe the way to lift the status of the profession is by doing things like supporting communities of learning, by improving professional development, by doing what the Education Review Office has talked about, and by improving our teacher training. All of these things will make a huge and significant difference and raise the value of teachers; not a fundamentally flawed bill that restricts the basic freedom of expression of New Zealanders. That’s why we will be opposing this bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak for the first time on this member’s bill. This bill is in the name of Jenny Marcroft of New Zealand First, and I congratulate her on what is a small but very important bill that amends the Education Act of 1989. With several other amendments to the Education Act of 1989, we have seen teachers, or people teaching our children, that are not qualified as teachers—who have not trained and qualified as teachers. This bill seeks to address that.

So what is the intent of this bill? It is to lift the status of teachers. But wait—what is this strange and unusual concept? Let me repeat it: to lift the status of teachers. Well, I tell you: finally—finally—we have a Government that actually wants to lift the status of teachers, and that is reflected in this bill.

I recall when I was at high school, and the guidance counsellor, or whatever you have—

Kiritapu Allan: Gisborne High School.

JO LUXTON: —or whatever they were called—Gisborne Girls’ High School, Campion College, that’s right—asked me what I intended to do when I left school. I was young and I said, “I want to be a hairdresser.”, and they said, “No, Jo. You are better than that. You are more capable than that. Why not consider being a teacher?” If only we held teachers in that high regard today, as they did back then. We wouldn’t be having to address it in this bill.

Another example I have is, in the early childhood centre that I own we have lots and lots of Filipino families, and Filipino families—when their children arrive at the centre they tend to just push them in the door and say goodbye. We wanted to understand why they did that, so we asked them to come in and address us and explain it, and they said, “Because you are the teachers. You are qualified. We are just the parents.”—although I will not belittle that in any way, shape, or form, because that is hugely important. But they acknowledged: “You are the teachers.”

Kiritapu Allan: That’s right.

JO LUXTON: That’s right. So this is such an exciting time to be involved in education and the teaching profession. What we have here is a Government that is intent on reversing the de-professionalisation of teachers. This Government has a vision not only for education but also for the teaching profession. We are already seeing that with the bill that was recently introduced, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. We are also seeing it with the Government’s initiatives around wanting to bring back 100 percent qualified teachers in early childhood education centres—how fantastic is that for the early childhood teaching profession.

I can recall—and I think I have said this before, when I spoke on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. I trained and studied hard to become a qualified teacher, and I’ve had to put up with comments about being “nothing but a glorified babysitter”, “nothing but the chief nappy changer”, and things like that. I worked hard and I studied hard and I got my qualification, so by rights I am a teacher, and that is something I hold in very high regard.

Kiritapu Allan: That’s right.

JO LUXTON: That’s right. I can’t go round and say I’m a lawyer. I can’t go round and say I’m a doctor. Why? Because I haven’t trained and qualified to be one, and I’d probably be in quite serious trouble if I did. So why should the teaching profession be recognised as anything less?

I just want to say, again, that teachers spend several years studying and training to become qualified, and we want teaching to be seen as a valued career choice and as a fantastic profession to get into. We are working with and teaching the next generation, and we need to ensure that we’ve got the best-qualified teachers in front of our tamariki, teaching them, giving them the skills—lifelong learning skills, actually—in education.

I just also want to finish off by saying that this bill will lift the status of the early childhood teaching profession, and I absolutely, without hesitation, commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Well, I’m bound to say that this is not something that I’ve had people come up to me on the streets of Epsom concerned about—“Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness!”, they say. I haven’t had anybody come up and say, “There are these people running around pretending to be teachers, and we must bring the great clunking fist of the State down on these people and fine them $2,000, because they’re running around calling themselves teachers.” I’ve not once had that happen to me yet.

Hon Kris Faafoi: You need to get out more, mate.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Maybe—maybe I need to get out more, that’s true. But my hunch is that this is a bill looking for a problem in order to provide a solution that nobody wants and nobody needs.

I do feel sorry for Mrs Jenny Marcroft. I can just see what would have happened—just arrived in Parliament and the previous person who dreamed up this bill, who’s become a Minister, flicks it over as she’s walking in the door and says, “Oh, just shove this in the ballot. Nobody will notice.”, and woomfa! Unbeknownst to her, it gets drawn, and she’s left holding this pup that the Attorney-General has written off. How embarrassing is that, to have your first bill before this Parliament written off by the Attorney-General as being—it cannot be justified. It cannot be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

So we have Mr Parker, who—to be honest, I don’t always agree with that particular member, but on this particular occasion I think he has had a rare moment of insight, and on this particular occasion is quite correct, when he says that “There are a range of people who hold themselves out as ‘teachers’ and teach in particular subject matters, but are not qualified or registered.”

I’m just conscious of the fact that members might not be aware that today is actually the international day of the mother tongue. If you get out and about amongst the communities—particularly of Auckland, where I come from—there are many, many ethnic communities trying to maintain and nurture the languages of the communities that they came from, and many, many teachers that there are working in that area. They haven’t necessarily done a three-year course at university. They might not be qualified in the sense of having a qualification recognised in New Zealand, but they are teachers. Why should we come along and say that they are no good, that they don’t deserve the basic title of teacher, which is a core sort of expression of the most natural thing in the world for any human to do, which is to pass on knowledge from one generation to the next, or from one friend to another? So I don’t see where the logic for this piece of legislation comes in, other than to stuff the ballot for the members’ bills and to avoid what needs to be done.

I think the other point to make on this is that, really, what we’re talking about here with Mrs Martin, who was the original drawer-upper of this bill, is a very thinly disguised attack on charter schools, which they have never ever come to understand or appreciate. Obviously, there’s legislation in the House at the moment trying to do away with the charter schools, and, again, I cannot understand what is so offensive about some attempt to innovate within the education system and for small groups of people to gather together and try to experiment with different ways of reaching and educating young people who have struggled within the State system. That’s what charter schools have all been about, and this terrible notion that a charter school or a different kind of school could use people from different backgrounds and have a little bit of flexibility around who they use in teaching staff is such an affront to some members of the House that they will stop at nothing to make their lives difficult. I don’t think that that is a noble or worthwhile cause.

So I feel a little bit sorry for the member responsible for this bill that’s been dropped on her just as she’s walked in the door, and she’s had the misfortune of having it drawn. But on that basis we won’t be supporting this bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to congratulate, first and foremost, Jenny Marcroft, for having this bill drawn. As the Hon Paul Goldsmith has noted, the original “drawer-upper” was the Associate Minister of Education the Hon Tracey Martin. As has been noted by a number of speakers who have spoken before me on this piece of legislation, there are a lot of education bills currently going before the House. I think what that speaks to is the priority that this Government places on education, which I personally think, and the Green Party thinks, is awesome.

This bill, essentially, does what it says on the box: it protects teacher title. To echo the sentiments of one Jo Luxton, my colleague in the Labour Party, this is about the status of the profession. How is it that, you know, a doctor can call themselves a doctor and expect nobody else to do so or that a lawyer can call themselves a lawyer and expect nobody else to do so? It’s because they have progressed through the requisite training in order to don that title. That title holds status and it holds immense value. The premise of this bill is to ensure that that value is protected for our teachers, who actually go through quite a bit of training in order to stand before their classrooms and do teaching.

I’d like to touch on, as well, what the Hon Paul Goldsmith said around this being a basic title—the title of teachers. I think that’s a little bit disappointing to hear from Paul Goldsmith. This is not a basic title. Here we are talking about the people who are educating the next generation. To reiterate what I’ve just said previously, this is about ensuring that we see the value as a Government, as a Parliament, and as a House of Representatives in the work that these teachers do.

To draw some kind of parallel, I think it would be incredibly interesting to see the response of certain politicians in this House should we suggest that it would be all right for average members of the public to be calling themselves “the Honourable”—you know, to draw this parallel out about how we hold titles in this House, and those titles we consider to be somewhat important. They’re official titles that we can use in kōrero, in dialogue, with each other—and we’re expected to use them because they are, of course, formal titles: they hold value, they demonstrate the mahi that people have put in to holding those titles.

It’s also been noted that this is something that is supposedly ideologically driven—it’s about charter schools. And it is, actually, indeed premised on charter schools and what the previous Government did with those charter schools in enabling people who did not hold the qualifications of teachers to stand before our kids and teach them.

Matt King: And they get results.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No; no, they do not. It is not universal, I would add, Matt King. This is, absolutely, premised, and was introduced, with those in mind.

This is all part of a massive work programme, I would note, that I am incredibly honoured to be working on with the Associate Minister of Education Tracey Martin, who was the original “drawer-upper” of this bill, and the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins—“drawer-upper”, to use the words of one Hon Paul Goldsmith.

So, in summation, this is a small but significant step towards ensuring that we, as a Government, as a Parliament, and as a House of Representatives, move toward recognising the value that teachers generate in our society and the work that they have put in to holding that kind of position. So I look forward to hearing from the general public on this bill at the select committee stage and would like to say that my views diverge from one Tim Macindoe. I do think that it is really crucial that we are having these conversations with the general public. It is important that our workload is high because that is what we in this House are paid to do. I commend this bill to the House, and the Green Party will be voting for it through to select committee.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It was lovely to see Ms Swarbrick’s lovely smile there, but I was struck by the fact that I hadn’t actually said anything at that point, so it’s hard to know what it was she was disagreeing with. But I’m pleased to say I have every intention, over the next five minutes, of giving her plenty to disagree with me about.

But I do want to start on a positive note, and, as I did with Jan Tinetti when we discussed the previous bill, I also want to congratulate Jenny Marcroft as another new member who, in the great parliamentary game of lotto, struck the jackpot on her first attempt. As she’ll have gathered, there’s sort of a seething resentment within me that I’m still waiting for that opportunity a decade after I first came in here.

But what a shame—and I have to say this in all seriousness to Jenny Marcroft—that she has done that with a bill that is so poorly conceived and, could really, quite seriously, have unintended negative consequences that I don’t think she’s even given some thought to. It certainly will have no value to anybody in our education system. It will not do anything worthwhile for our community as a whole.

I don’t think anybody in this House—and I doubt whether anybody who’s tuning into this debate—would want people of dubious character teaching our children, and they certainly wouldn’t want people who are professionally incompetent in front of our children. If this bill was designed to try to stop that from happening, we could look at it and have a serious conversation, but it doesn’t even go near that particular thing—it won’t have that effect. This bill will not stop anyone from teaching; it will just change the name of the title that some of those who are currently performing that role in our schools and other institutions have. And I have to say to the member, that is insulting and demeaning to the many people from whom she’s going to take the title away.

Now, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith said—or, at least, I think he was trying to say—it seems to me that this bill is a solution looking for a problem. [Interruption] Well, anyone who can congratulate the “drawer-upper” of a bill deserves a little bit of—ha, ha! But he was quite right, and, in his delightful way, he was making the point that this bill is nonsense. And, as I’ve said, it may have unintended consequences and do actual damage to schools and other institutions that are currently dependent upon having a number of people working within them who don’t fit the registration criteria that the member wants to impose in this bill.

I have to say to her, and I wonder if she’s thought about this, how ironic it is that she and the Labour-led Government are doing this at a time when they keep telling us what a real problem we have with the nationwide teacher shortage. Why on earth would you want to deter people—good people—from entering the education profession at a time when we desperately need as many good people as we can?

So let me ask this: if someone is teaching children, or even adults, in a school, in a classroom, in a gymnasium, or maybe in a workshop—wherever the learning environment might be—if they are teaching, then why shouldn’t they be described as such, as teachers? What else should they be called? So I’m going to be asking the member, perhaps in her right of reply at the end of this debate, to tell us what she would expect all of those people to do. There is no evidence at all that has been presented so far of people misrepresenting themselves as teachers, so, again, there isn’t a problem to be solved here.

So I hope that Jenny Marcroft will answer that question, and I have another one for her. I have another question for Mrs Marcroft: what title is she proposing for those who are currently teachers but who will be required by her bill to stop doing so—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s on the bill. Read the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No. Chlöe Swarbrick is saying it’s there—she has failed to understand the huge range of people, and they’re not all covered in the bill at all. She cannot leave these people in limbo; it isn’t fair.

This bill is going to put into law the need for someone to have a three-year Bachelor of Education in teaching or a Bachelor’s degree plus a one-year Graduate Diploma of Teaching or a four-year conjoint degree combining study in teaching subjects with teacher training. That all sounds very good, but, in fact, it excludes a whole lot of people who are good teachers who have not done that qualification.

And, as has been made quite clear, what it is really all about, and there’s another irony here, is it’s another attack on partnership schools. The irony is that her Government has already committed to abolishing partnership schools, so the problem that she is trying to overcome will have already gone. Yet let me just point out to her, in closing, that those who are working in partnership schools at the moment are having a tremendously successful record. They are instilling respect and self-esteem in the very young people who have fallen through the cracks. Yet now we are saying to those people, “We’ll take away from you the respect that you deserve in that wonderful job.”

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s very magnanimous of the Opposition here tonight to feel sorry for Jenny Marcroft taking up this bill. To Jenny, I say congratulations on getting such a fine bill drawn out of the ballot, because this bill is actually raising the status of the teaching profession. It’s another cog in the wheel to raise the status of the teaching profession in this country, and that is something that needs to happen in this country. So well done to Jenny Marcroft on that, but I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin, who wrote this bill in the first instance. Tracey has been an amazing advocate for education in this country, and I have long appreciated the work that she has done to make education stronger here in New Zealand.

I would absolutely support this bill, because the intent that has gone in behind this is saying that teachers matter, and as a former teacher, I think that is fantastic. As a former teacher, a lot of people think that they could do what I did. As the previous member, Tim Macindoe, was also a former teacher, I would absolutely, 100 percent guarantee that he would agree with me that the majority of people who think that, can’t. Teaching is an incredibly difficult, hard profession. We heard the previous speaker also ask about why we would do this when we’re wanting to get more people into the profession. That is the point. If we raise the status of the profession, more people want to come into the profession. Why do you think we have the numbers of people that want to study law, medicine—those professions? You raise the status, and more people come in—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member—

JAN TINETTI: When the status is raised, more people come into the profession. It is really important. The Government wants teaching to be one of the most highly valued, sought-after careers that there is, and this bill is another bill that will help achieve that goal.

We have already, as my colleague here Jo Luxton has said, passed the first reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. It is now before the Education and Workforce Committee, and it will rename the Education Council as the Teaching Council. Interestingly enough, at the time that that bill went through its first reading, the Opposition had a little debate around that changing of the Education Council term to Teaching Council. But the feedback that I have had on that from teachers is that that’s really important. The language really matters to people. They’ve said, “This is a Government who does care about us.”, and I was really surprised when the Hon Paul Goldsmith did say he doesn’t see that as a big deal. Actually, should I be surprised? Probably not so surprised, because, again, it points to the Opposition trivialising teachers and trivialising the teaching profession.

The teaching profession needs to have its status raised. We talked in that Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill first reading about how people have trivialised teaching and trivialised teachers. I told the story of how, when I spoke to a former electorate MP, who was a National MP at the time, he said to me that he didn’t want his sons to be teachers, because teaching wasn’t a highly sought-after and highly thought of enough profession. That is an appalling attitude. We need to change that in this country. We need more people in teaching, and I really commend this bill, because that is one way that we can do this.

Now, the Opposition has brought up inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That’s for the select committee process, which can make those refinements and look at that. That’s why it is important that we send a message to our teaching profession here this evening that we are going to help raise that status of that profession by protecting their title, taking it to select committee, and looking at those refinements. So I commend this bill. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill.

Hon Member: No!

ERICA STANFORD: I know! Can I first just start by saying that I would offer my congratulations to Ms Jenny Marcroft for having her bill selected. As I said earlier, I’ve got a bill that I lodged today, hoping that it will also be selected, and I’d just like to say congratulations, well done.

I want to see the good intent in Ms Marcroft’s bill, not because she’s a new MP like me or because she’s a very nice lady—we serve together on the Environment Committee, and she’s a very good member of that committee, and, like I say, I consider her a friend—but because her bill talks about the uplifting and protecting of the status of teachers, and that is admirable. Our teachers in New Zealand are unsung heroes. They are thoroughly professional people who are dedicated to their vocation in supporting their students to achieve and succeed. They often go beyond the call of duty, and they do that with less acclaim than they deserve. So don’t get me wrong, we absolutely back and celebrate teachers and we are in their corner, but I’m not going to pretend that this bill is anything more than yet another thinly veiled attack on charter schools.

Members of that three-headed coalition on the other side of the House have deep-seated ideological opposition to charter schools. They have it in for charter schools, despite the facts—despite the fact that charter schools have lower truancy rates and less bullying; the fact that their students have phenomenal NCEA achievement, when they were failing in the mainstream; the fact that charter schools have given their students confidence, self-belief, and a feeling of belonging.

This bill would restrict the title of teacher to a person who has a tertiary qualification in teaching—never mind people who advertise themselves as driving teachers, dance teachers, or coding teachers, or the self-defence teachers who teach my son Alex at the Bays Martial Art Academy. According to New Zealand First, New Zealand has this huge problem with people misrepresenting themselves as teachers, something that is news to most people probably listening to this debate. Actually, this bill does misrepresent charter schools and perpetuates the myth that they are rife with teachers who are unqualified, unregistered, unskilled, and unprofessional. That could not be further from the truth. Of its entire teaching staff, Vanguard Military School—

Jamie Strange: Vanguard! There it is.

ERICA STANFORD: —yes, I will always stand up for them—a charter school in my electorate, has only two unregistered teachers: a Defence Force teacher teaching military studies and a Te Reo teacher.

Kieran McAnulty: Every single time—Vanguard, Vanguard, Vanguard.

ERICA STANFORD: And under this Labour-led Government, Vanguard, and other charter schools like it, will be closed. These teachers will have more to worry about than what they get called, because they will be looking for jobs, and their students will be looking for schools. For any other teaching professionals who do keep their jobs under this coalition Government, well, if they don’t meet the requirements of this bill, they can expect to face a fine of up to $2,000 for calling themselves a teacher, no matter what subject matter expertise or experience they might be imparting.

I cannot wait for the Minister of Education’s bold education summit and the ambitious work programme that he has announced today, because they just might actually generate some good ideas and policy that put kids first and make constructive contribution to our education system, rather than what we’ve seen so far, which is repealing, taking away—removing national standards and closing down charter schools. All I’ve seen from this coalition Government is a Government that’s bereft of ideas. They are writing bills to close charter schools, get rid of national standards, and try to solve problems that don’t exist, like this bill. It’s a very poor bill with absolutely nothing to offer except to waste this House’s time. It’s a solution searching for a problem, and we will not be supporting this bill.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): It’s an honour to again follow that member, Erica Stanford, on an education bill. Tonight is just getting better and better—one education bill after another. This is a Government who are absolutely committed to fixing nine years of inaction in our education system—nine years of not listening to teachers. We will listen to teachers, and, as we heard before, we’ll listen to students as well, which is even better. I’d like to acknowledge Jenny Marcroft for bringing this bill to the House. I’d also like to acknowledge the work that Minister Tracey Martin did on this bill. As I said, it’s an honour to, again, speak about an education bill. What a great night we’re having—hopefully the cricket improves, though.

Now, when I’m out and about in the street, I often have people come up to me, former students—because, as many in the House will know, I used to be a teacher. They come up to me and they call me Mr Strange, because they remember me as Mr Strange.

Hon Andrew Little: Come on, they’ve got other names for you.

JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! Sure they do. Most of them are taller than me now, but they still call me Mr Strange, because there’s that honour and there’s the respect that they have for me as one of their teachers, and there’s always that close bond. This bill is about valuing the teaching profession. It’s about putting teachers first. We’ve heard about charter schools. We heard about Vanguard Military School again, and part of this bill is around charter schools because, as we know, charter schools don’t have to employ registered teachers. We’ll be working with Vanguard and other schools to come into the education system. But, look, when you go to a school like that, sometimes you’re not sure who is a teacher and who isn’t, so this is about providing clarity.

We have heard about teacher shortages, but if we value the profession, if we esteem the profession, we will have more people wanting to become teachers, which will help with that teacher shortage. Let’s for a moment here compare teachers with members of Parliament. So, teachers train for three years, sometimes four, sometimes five. They train and they become qualified. I would question whether some MPs are truly qualified, but people call us MPs—although, in terms of qualifications, the mighty tōtara over there, the National member for Northland, Matt King, is definitely qualified. Mr King, I think you should look at a leadership bid—just a bit of advice there.

But getting back to the bill—getting back to the bill. This bill, as I said, is about valuing teachers. Can anyone teach? That’s the key question we need to look at. Is teaching one of those professions where anyone can just get up in front of a class and teach? Or do you need the three years of training, or four, or however long it might be, in order to be able to teach?

So, I’ll just share a personal story. As many of you know, obviously, I used to be a teacher. I thought that teaching would be pretty easy. In my first practicum I stood up in front of the class and I gave a list of instructions for the students to do, and none of them moved. I looked over at my associate teacher, who was training me, and the associate said, “Jamie, even I don’t know what you want them to do.” So, the point I’m making there is that there are certain skills required to be a teacher. There are certain skills that need to be learnt; you need it through training. Becoming a teacher is not just like opening a box of Weet-Bix and finding the cards in the bottom of the box and one of the cards says “teacher”, and now all of a sudden I’m a teacher. It’s more than that—it’s more than that.

A couple of teachers I’ve had in my life, Mr DeGroen and Mr Crawford—unfortunately, they’ve both passed on, but they left a lasting legacy on my life. They were trained, skilled teachers—they had to be to put up with me. So, the crux of this issue is: what is a teacher? Can anyone be a teacher? Can anyone just stand up and be a teacher, or is being a teacher something that you need specific training and specific qualifications for? This bill addresses that issue. This bill says that becoming a teacher is something that’s to be valued, it’s something that has to be earned, and not just anyone can be a teacher.

Look, I commend this bill to the House. I commend the value it places on our teaching profession, and I look forward to hearing the other contributions. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been, as others have pointed out, a very busy day for education in the House today. This is the second bill that we’ve been fortunate enough to debate tonight, and I’m glad to see that it is tackling an issue that the people of New Zealand see as one of the major issues facing our nation. The restrictions on the word “teacher” imposed by this bill are completely unnecessary regardless of any way you want to spin it. Let’s cut to the chase: this is a thinly veiled attack on charter schools. Newsflash over there: the Government is scrapping charter schools.

This is, in fact, a great representation on how the current Government thinks about charter schools. They detest their innovation and their exceptional outcomes. This bill and its intentions remind me of another bill from another New Zealand First MP that I’ve been hearing about recently that makes English an official language. You know what this is? This is a solution desperately looking for a problem. Earlier in the House tonight, MPs including Ron Mark, deputy leader of the party that is introducing this bill tonight, stood up in opposition to my colleague Jonathan Young’s bill on the basis that it didn’t comply with a certain aspect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Here we go. It’s very interesting that they have not vocalised—not one has vocalised—the same reservations or condemned this breach with the same vigour that they did a mere few hours ago. Who has declared this bill as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? None other than David Parker, Labour Party Minister and the Attorney-General. I am sure that those MPs who voted against my colleague’s bill—Jonathan Young’s bill, which they argue has the same faults that this bill that we are debating tonight does—will hold themselves to very high standards of principles and consistency, and I look forward to them voting against this bill, as we will as well. Come on. If it’s good to be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for one bill, it should be good to be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for another.

Last night in the House, I spoke in the debate that disestablished the Families Commission, so it made sense to me that I’d call up a good friend who was a Families Commissioner. I got some good insight. Tonight, I called up some teachers—one of them was my sister and it was a simple conversation: do you think there is a problem? Is your mana under threat? Are there imposters on the prowl? Are you feeling that you need to get a badge or a tattoo on your forehead? The answer is no. Face up to it. What they’d like to do, what they intend to do, is to strip charter school teachers of their titles. Well, never mind, because you’ve already stripped charter schools of charter schools. What it will actually do is make it an offence for adult and community teachers to call themselves teachers. Come on. Yoga teachers, dance teachers, art teachers—they’re liable for a $2,000 fine for calling themselves teachers. What shall we change it to? Yoga stretchers? How about dance movers?

Another teacher said to me on the phone tonight, “I’ve been in the game for 15 years and this has never been an issue.” Another one at a decile 1 school in Rotorua said it was not for her either—not an issue. The National Party response to this bill is that—and I echo the words of my colleague Erica Stanford, who spoke just before me—this is a solution looking for a problem.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill will ensure that those who use the title of teacher will be qualified with the required training and skills. Now, why is this so important? No longer is teaching simply about standing in front of a classroom. Gone are the days of the dictatorial style of imparting information. Now we know that old style is not the best pathway to critical thinking. Teaching today is about catering to the needs of diverse learners. Professional teachers who understand how a child learns are able to design programmes of learning that recognise diverse learners.

I’d just like to make comment tonight on those who have contributed to this debate, and I thank all of the members of this House. I’d like to mention Jo Luxton—thank you for your contribution—who wants to see teachers valued, and the valuable career choice, with the mana restored to teachers; the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the lonely man on the street, who failed to see the logic from the original “drawer-upper”; Chlöe Swarbrick, who said this bill will protect and value the status of our teachers—we see the value, as a Parliament, of our teachers—thank you for your contribution; Jan Tinetti, a fantastic educator and a great addition to this House. She says teachers matter. That is the message, and this bill sends a message. Tim Macindoe, from across the House—why would we do this? Well, the member missed the point. The bill will raise the status of teachers. Eric Stanford, my friend from select committee—

Jami-Lee Ross: Erica. She’s female. It’s Erica.

JENNY MARCROFT: Erica Stanford from—

Kiritapu Allan: Good mates. We’re all new.

JENNY MARCROFT: Good friends, good friends—new friends. It is no thinly veiled attack on charter schools—the veil was lifted.

Teaching is about partnering with the parents, connecting with our communities. Kiwi parents have lofty aspirations for their children. Parents want the best for their tamariki. They’re heavily invested in ensuring quality outcomes for their children. Now, this bill will help them understand who is teaching their children. If we’re going to have strong partnerships with whānau and with communities to improve the educational outcomes for all of our tamariki, we must ensure the professional status of teachers is recognised.

Now, we did hear an argument from the other side of the House, and I’d like to acknowledge the former education Minister, who said that this bill contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, during the Key and English Governments, I’d just like to point out, the National Government put through 20 Government bills—20 Government bills—that were concluded to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as well as three members’ bills.

Addressing, also, the issue of teacher shortage and those who have a limited authority to teach, an LAT—well, this is not stopping the subject matter specialists. Those with an LAT from teaching, they will still be able to teach; it simply stops them using the same title as those who have a teaching qualification. Now, by protecting the status of the title of teacher and giving it the status it deserves, combined with the Government’s new introduction of the first year fees-free for tertiary education, it may actually attract more people to study teaching. We can only encourage more of our young people to become teachers, like they do in Norway and in Finland. That’s where they value their teachers, and that’s what we would like to achieve here too.

So, in conclusion, the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill will lift the public status of teachers and protect the title of teacher. We hope this bill goes through to select committee and the conversation then continues with extensive public participation and robust discussion between all stakeholders. Kia ora koutou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I’d like to begin my contribution tonight by reading from my explanatory note, and it says, “There is no rational base on which existing off-licence renewals should not be assessed against a local alcohol policy that has been through a rigorous process that takes specific account of the harm caused directly or indirectly to the community by alcohol. To not assess existing off-licence renewals against local alcohol policies concerning density and location is to render the basis of a local alcohol policy nugatory and to ignore that existing outlets may have contributed to the identification of areas in a local alcohol policy where there is excessive harm caused by alcohol consumption to the community.”

Where does this piece of legislation stem from, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act? It actually stems from the Alcohol Reform Bill, which this Parliament debated in 2010, 2011, and 2012. I want to read from the select committee report—so this was reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee—“[The] bill seeks to implement the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report, Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm. Alcohol has been recognised as the cause of significant social and health-related harm, and is implicated in 30 percent of all police-recorded offences, 34 percent of recorded family violence, and 50 percent of all homicides.” The bill had five policy objectives. They were “to reduce excessive drinking by adults and young people; to reduce the harm caused by alcohol use, including crime, disorder, public nuisance, and negative public health outcomes; to support the safe and responsible sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol; to improve community input into local alcohol licensing decisions; [and] to improve the operation of the alcohol licensing system.”

This bill passed its third reading on 11 December 2012, and I want to quote then Minister of Justice Judith Collins. She said, “Accessing alcohol is easier when there are more licences, and communities have been telling us that they are concerned about the proliferation of stores selling alcohol in their areas. At present, it is very difficult to successfully object to a licence application. Licence criteria are limited and licences are relatively easy to obtain. This can be frustrating and disheartening for communities concerned about alcohol-related harm in their areas. Under [this] bill, licences will be harder to get and easier to lose.”

The reason I’ve emphasised that is because in section 75 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act there is an opportunity for the establishment of local alcohol policies. These local alcohol policies were used to consolidate community input into local alcohol licensing decision-making. Currently, section 133 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—the title is “Renewal of licences where relevant local alcohol policy exists”—states, and I quote: “In considering whether to renew a licence, the licensing authority or licensing committee concerned must not take into account any inconsistency between a relevant local alcohol policy and—(a) the renewal of a licence”.

In Auckland Council’s provisional local alcohol policy, which had 2,688 submissions, clause 4.2, “Applications for renewal of off-licences states, and I quote: “1. Pursuant to section 133 of the Act, in considering whether to renew a licence, the DLC”—district licensing committee—“and ARLA”—Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority—“must not take into account any inconsistency between the Policy and renewing the licence”—that is, the policy cannot be grounds for refusing to renew the licence.

Therein lies the heart of my bill. I believe that there should not be a difference between a new licence and somebody who is renewing their licence. A licence is a licence is a licence. Since the introduction of this piece of legislation, of the 67 territorial authorities 29 have adopted local alcohol policies, and they are Ashburton District Council, which has had 207 submissions; Auckland Council, as I’ve just said, 2,688; Central Hawke’s Bay District Council; Christchurch City Council, although it’s provisional; Dunedin City Council, provisional; Far North District Council, provisional; Gisborne District Council, which has an adopted local alcohol policy; Hauraki District Council, which has an adopted alcohol policy; Hurunui District Council; Hutt City Council, Lower Hutt; Invercargill City Council; Gore District Council; Southland District Council; New Plymouth District Council; Stratford District Council; Ōtorohanga District Council; Porirua City Council; Ruapehu District Council; Selwyn District Council; Tasman District Council; Tauranga City Council; Western Bay of Plenty District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council; Timaru District Council; Mackenzie District Council; Waimate District Council; Waikato District Council; Waimakariri District Council; Waipā District Council; Waitomo District Council; and Whakatāne District Council, Kawerau District Council, and Ōpōtiki District Council—Eastern Bay of Plenty. I read out these local alcohol policies because in Hutt City’s case they had 262 submissions, in Gisborne’s case they had 142 submissions, and in Selwyn’s case they had 67 submissions, so the community has grasped the opportunity with their local councils to create local alcohol policies.

The application for a renewal of a licence: if you have an existing licence, within 20 days of the expiry of that licence you have to make an application for that to be renewed. There is an opportunity for objections to that licence. The police and the medical officers of health have been given a specific opportunity to comment on whether or not those applications for renewal should be approved.

One of the questions that one of my colleagues posed to me was: is this going to get rid of bad businesses? Now, I want to state from the outset that it is not my intention for the consideration of local alcohol policies to rid us of good businesses. I state that because it’s also one of the issues that I’ve had to deal with, and this is particularly in reference to the support of the New Zealand First Party. They were very clear that businesses and our business community were incredibly important, and so they wanted some confirmation from me that this in no way would affect on-licensed premises, that this was in response to, essentially, communities where we have a proliferation of outlets and there is no way for us to reduce that number. So, at the end of my contribution, I will be asking for a point of order so that I can table a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that will specifically address their issue.

What I also wanted to highlight was that under section 267 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, the police do have the option of assessing, at any time, compliance of outlets or organisations who have a licence, whether or not they are complying with the regulations of their particular licence. But I have found no evidence, because under section 281 of that particular legislation the police have an opportunity to not only challenge a licence—so that results in some sort of suspension—they can also look at applying for a cancellation of a licence. And—after asking the library for some evidence—there have been no suspensions of any licence under section 281. There have been 15 cases where people have received penalties, from 24 hours to 42 days, where managers who have certificates have had those certificates cancelled or on-licences have been refused because of issues that they’ve had with the police. But there have been no instances where someone with an off-licence has had that licence cancelled by the police. That’s the only way that you can control businesses who aren’t complying with the stipulations of their particular licence. So I, obviously, am imploring the House to support this bill, at least, to select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I seek leave to table an SOP drafted by the Clerk’s office in my name, which confirms this bill applies to the renewal of alcohol off-licences only.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that Supplementary Order Paper being tabled and, I presume, being referred with the bill, if the bill receives a first reading? Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

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

SPEAKER: Before I call the member Chris Bishop, I will indicate that because this is a conscience issue, and members on both sides of the issue have indicated positions to me, the normal back and forth party positions will not apply.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, this bill has had a somewhat tortured process into the Parliament. I think it’s the number two bill because we had a bit of an error with the original drafting of the bill. But now we find, just at the end of the member’s speech introducing this bill, that a Supplementary Order Paper has been dropped on to the House, which, presumably has been dropped there in order to get New Zealand First over the line to support the bill, otherwise it would have failed because, of course, the National Party will be voting against it.

The other point I want to make just at the start is the reference to the Governance and Administration Committee. It is a bit strange, I have to say. Traditionally, alcohol bills have gone to the Justice Committee. They’ve been treated as justice matters. I’m not just saying that because I’m on the Justice Committee. So I do find that a bit odd, and I would urge the member to rethink that. I don’t know why she’s decided to nominate it to send it to the Governance and Administration Committee. I’ve got to say that the Justice Committee is very busy, as my colleague Greg O’Connor will know, with the End of Life Choice Bill, we’re about to start the inquiry into the 2017 general election, and we’ve got domestic violence legislation before us. But, you know, we’re a hard-working, busy committee. We’d welcome the business if the member wishes to refer it to us, but we’ll wait and see.

I want to make a few points about this bill. The first is just to say that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act makes it a lot harder to get a liquor licence. If you want any evidence of that I invite members to go and talk to their local communities and some of the businesses out there that have struggled to get liquor licences for quite stupid reasons. In the Hutt, which Louisa Wall made mention of in her speech, there is a business called La Bella Italia—many members may have been out there—a great Italian restaurant, which also has a grocery area that sells Italian wine. Antonio, the proprietor there, is very fond of doing a bit of maître d’ing and introducing people to new Italian wines at the same time as people are having a meal. People like to go and pick up some of the wine they’ve tried. Because of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act he’s found it very difficult to get renewals for his liquor licence. He’s now had to set up a scenario where the liquor is essentially behind a wall inside the restaurant. If you like the wine you’re trying, you then have to go to an iPad set up in the corner of the restaurant, input the wine that you’ve tried, buy it online using a credit card, go outside, and come back into the restaurant using a side door to pick up the wine you’ve bought. It’s just ridiculous. That is essentially because of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Examples abound all over the place: the railway station New World, which members may have gone to when they’ve taken the train out to the mighty Hutt Valley—or to Johnsonville, God forbid. They found it very difficult to get a liquor licence because they had, I think, beer bottles or wine bottles on display through a window. So, commuters going to the trains would see the beer bottles. I mean, you know, shocking, apparently that you’d see—

Stuart Smith: Where’s the harm?

CHRIS BISHOP: Exactly. Stuart Smith says “Where’s the harm?”, but there were objections made to it on the basis that busy commuters would become binge drinkers, or something, because they could see a bottle of Montana sauvignon blanc or something like that. So the point is, it’s a lot harder to get a liquor licence.

The second point is that it’s also a lot harder to get renewals. The member in charge of the bill talked about how that should be the purpose of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and she’s exactly right. She mentioned section 131 of the Act. That compels licensing authorities to take into account the suitability of applicants, the days upon which the licence will be operating, the layout of the store, what else they sell—do they sell other things? Of course, it allows the police and the local medical officer of health, and the manner in which the applicant sells the liquor—essentially, it compels the licensing authorities to take all of those things into account. The net effect of that is that it’s a lot harder to get a renewal, and that’s very important. So, it’s not the case, as the member sort of implied, that existing licences that existed before the 2012 Act came into effect are kind of grandfathered in with no rules whatsoever. That’s not the case. She said, “A licence is a licence is a licence.” That’s true and when you go for renewal of a licence it’s a lot harder to get a renewal than it was to get one in the first place, because, of course, the old Act applied.

So then we come to this bill. So what does it do? So the current law—and it’s a very finely grained bill. That’s the other point to note. This is really down in the weeds and the minutiae of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. That’s OK. Parliament deals with that sort of stuff all the time, but it’s really right on the cusp of—right on the margins of the law. The current law says licensing authorities must not take into account the consistency of a licence with the local alcohol policy, and what this bill does is it allows the licensing authority to take into account the consistency.

I do just want to point out to Louisa Wall that I think there is an inconsistency actually in the bill itself. So if you look at clause 4 of her bill, under the subheading “Purpose” it says, “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to provide that, in considering …”—etc.—“a licensing authority or licensing committee must take into account any inconsistency between any location and density matters”. But then if you look at replacement section 133(1), which is the bit she’s proposing, set out in clause 5, it says, “may refuse to renew a licence”.

So why is the National Party voting against this bill? Well, we’re not convinced it’s needed. As I said before, the existing law already allows for a large degree of latitude by district licensing authorities in considering whether or not to grant a renewal of a licence. So if this goes to the select committee, we would like to hear evidence as to how exactly it’s needed. It looks like it is going to go to the select committee—I’d like it to go to the Justice Committee, because I’d like to see its evidence, but it’s going to go to the Governance and Administration Committee, possibly. But I would like to see at the select committee evidence of exactly what problem we are trying to solve. What actually is the mischief this bill is trying to remedy, because it’s not clear to me and it’s not clear to members on this side of the House exactly what the problem is there in the current law.

The current law significantly tightens the law around renewal of licences and the issuing of licences itself. It grants to local communities the ability to put into place local alcohol policies—and Louisa Wall talked about how many communities have done that, and there is a high degree of interest in that. But we’re not clear on this side of the House exactly what problem Louisa Wall is trying to solve with this bill. We think the current Act strikes the right balance between allowing people who wish to purchase alcohol and wish to access alcohol, and preventing alcohol-related harm. It’s been in place for only a couple of years now. We’re not clear what the mischief is and because of that we won’t be voting for it.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to be the first one to speak and give some clarification to Mr Bishop across the way, but before I get into that, I’d like to commend Louisa Wall for the work that she’s done on this. I know the intention of this bill is absolutely spot on and we know what she’s trying to fix. It was 12 minutes to midnight, and we were not going to be supporting this bill, when a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) came across, which has gone some way to amending some of our concerns. We will be supporting this bill through to select committee—with reservations, we have to say. I think some of the points that have been raised by Mr Bishop are genuine and real, and we want to make sure that we don’t have unintended consequences if this bill proceeds beyond the select committee.

One of the concerns that he was raising and questioned was, “What is the problem that this bill is trying to address?” The reality is, and he will know this himself if he is in tune with his community, when we go into certain parts of our community—and it’s generally low socio-economic areas—we see a proliferation of alcohol stores. They are around schools, whether they be primary schools or high schools, and the access to alcohol and the promotion of alcohol in these areas is not like you see in other areas. That’s what Louisa Wall, I’m suggesting, is trying to sort out. That’s what New Zealand First would like to see happen, also. But we do not want to see the unintended consequences of other businesses being affected by this bill. The SOP that has just been tabled—I’ve had a good look at it and it is very, very targeted and very, very specific on the intent of the people that this bill is intended to deal with, and that is off-licence premises, not on-licence premises.

We have seen in this House, even last term, when we had the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill come back to this House for discussion, and this was over the anomaly that some liquor authorities had a different view of licensing than other licensed areas. This was over the Rugby World Cup. Some licensed areas did not allow extended or special licences to be applied for, for the Rugby World Cup. Common sense prevailed, and this House unanimously came together to resolve that issue so that people could enjoy having a beer, enjoying it with friends, and watching the Rugby World Cup. These are the sorts of things that we need to be very, very mindful of, and how the interpretations from certain sectors and certain people in our community can see great events such as the Wellington Rugby Sevens being shut down because somebody’s interpretation of that was different from, for example, what’s happening in Hamilton—same event, just relocated.

So we’ve got some work to do as a Government on this particular area. New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill. We are not guaranteeing our support moving forward from here. We are very, very interested to hear from submitters—hear their thoughts on this. I know this SOP will go a long way to remedying some of these issues.

The other area of concern that we do have—and something that I think may be able to be amended through the select committee process—is enabling a grandfather clause. For example, if you have a licensed premises, an off-licence premises, which we are talking about now, in a community that has been operating for some time and inadvertently another business comes into that area, which happens to be a childcare centre or a school—for 20 years this business has been operating in a very, very mature, sensible, responsible manner, and we don’t want this bill to have an effect on that business. This is what we are very, very unsure of—how we can move forward from this.

But there is an issue here. We see it in our communities. We understand the problem that alcohol can have on our communities if it’s not dealt with responsibly and sensibly. We will support this bill through to the select committee, so we can hear from submitters. Just to reverberate what I’ve already said, this is a very conditional support. We have reservations, but we hope that we can get through with a positive outcome. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to speak on this bill and congratulations to Louisa Wall for putting it forward. I’m happy to support the bill right through to the select committee process for further scrutiny, but I must admit that earlier today I did have some reservations, and I’ll come to those shortly.

First of all, I just want to talk about the huge impact alcohol-related harm has in our community. As a junior doctor, back in the day, I used to work in A & E, and I guess the main thing I actually remember about that was that smell of alcohol mixed with vomit, mixed with a bit of disinfectant thrown in. You know, that smell now brings me back to those days. But what used to happen is about 11 o’clock on a Saturday night I used to be sitting there waiting for stuff to come in, and what we would be seeing was just large numbers of young people coming in with head injuries, because they got intoxicated, been involved in a fight, and it’s really, really hard to tell whether somebody’s got a concussion and they’ve got ongoing issues with damage from that or whether they’re just intoxicated. We also saw huge numbers of fractures—the punch fracture where you get a fracture across here. [Points to hand] Some nights we were particularly unlucky, because we got both sides of the fight coming into the waiting room at the same time, and thank goodness for our triage nurses who used to sort that out.

That was back in the 1990s, but fast forward 20-odd years and when I was monitoring youth health for our district health boards, we were also seeing hundreds of alcohol-related hospital admissions coming in: things like car crashes, intoxication, fractures, and head injuries. So it’s having a huge impact all around our regions. So when the original Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, came in in 2012, it was actually intended to reduce that alcohol-related harm. What it did was it put more control back in the communities, so that local authorities could introduce local alcohol policies, and what they could do was they could talk about where licensed premises could be put—you know, should they be put next to schools, playgrounds, churches—and so there were some restrictions on that. It also looked at the total number of licences granted and the density in the community. It looked at maximum trading hours and also one-way door policies. So what the Act specified was that those local authorities had to consult with the police about what was happening and with the medical officers of health, and once they designed their policies, they had to also consult with and run them by the community. When they were doing that, they had to take into account the demographics in the community and the extent of existing alcohol-related harm.

So what the current Act does is that when you’re granting new licences, it allows that to be considered and weighed up so that you don’t get that proliferation of density. But the problem is that it’s slightly different if you’ve got the current licence being renewed, because there what it says is that the licensing authority “must not take into account” any inconsistency between the relevant local alcohol policy and the renewal of the licence, which seems a bit unusual because the fact is that, actually, when you’re thinking about that renewal, you’re wanting to be thinking about what that impact is on the community and what the community’s already said about that.

The issue, I think—and this is why Louisa Wall’s raising it in this bill—is that “must not take into account” is problematic, so what’s being proposed is to actually turn that on its head. The new wording actually says a licensing authority may refuse to renew a licence if, in its opinion, it’s inconsistent with what’s contained in the relevant local alcohol policy. So it makes it possible to actually decline that renewal on the basis of what the local policy says. I think that’s really important, because the current Act can stop the proliferation of new outlets, but for communities that have got significant alcohol-related harm, it doesn’t allow for those areas where you’ve got really high density of alcohol outlets to be reduced.

The concerns I have, though, are that we need to be looking at how we mitigate the impact on good businesses that may come up for renewal, but they just might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and also looking at whether we need more criteria for determining if we want to decline a renewal. So do they have to provide evidence of harm? Then the other thing is do we need some lag time, so that people have got time to adapt their business? I think that we really need to put that through and have a proper discussion at select committee, so I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: Matt King. No, sorry—Stuart Smith.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker—second time lucky. Well, I’m actually quite heartened by hearing New Zealand First say that they have reservations on this bill, because I have severe reservations on the bill. I think that this bill as it stands will have a significant impact on existing businesses due to the way that this bill is written at the moment. So for an existing business that has had a different kind of business, like a school or a childcare centre or whatever, come in next door—which has come to the nuisance, as it were—it could cut right across their rights. That makes it very difficult for those businesses facing that sort of situation to be backed by their bank, for example, and I think that’s quite significant.

Now, I think it’s very easy, while we’re supping on a chardonnay—and I’m very partial to a chardonnay—to wring our hands about the consumption of alcohol and the harm that it does to people. There is no doubt alcohol does harm, but if we look at the statistics, particularly amongst the young, alcohol harm is declining. It’s declining. We’ve listened to the speeches around here and we think it’s actually going up, but that’s not the case, so I think we’ve got to be careful.

Every time we try to control alcohol with laws, we have the opposite effect. The 6 o’clock swill was a result of the change of the law. Prohibition in the United States increased the number of alcohol outlets during that period. They didn’t go down; they went up. They were illegal, but they were there. The amount of area planted in grapes for wine production in the United States during Prohibition actually increased. It didn’t go down.

So I oppose this bill. I think it’s well-intentioned, but misguided. Thank you.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be taking a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2), and I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall, the sponsor of the bill, for bringing it to the House. I will, however, be joining my colleagues in the National Party in opposing the bill. We oppose it not because alcohol isn’t a problem, but because we don’t see the need for this particular bill.

Licence renewals are already publicly notified, and, as we see regularly, they are challenged by people in the community, by health professionals, and by local police. In its explanatory note, the bill talks about concerns about the proximity of liquor outlets to schools, and that interested me because, actually, young people don’t see problems with alcohol in the way that we did when I was at high school and perhaps when members opposite were at high school—certainly in comparison to what it was like a few years ago.

The number of young hazardous drinkers is actually declining. For those aged 15 to 24, the proportion of young hazardous drinkers has dropped, from 35 percent in 2006 to 26 percent in 2016, so some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing in this House actually needs a reality check. Young people just don’t see this as the greatest problem facing their generation. Last year, the YMCA put out some statistics that showed that alcohol was nowhere near the top of the list when it came to young people’s health concerns.

I want to end by saying that all decisions we make in this House to target those that are harming themselves or others also impact the rest of society. We have to be very careful not to unfairly punish the vast majority of responsible drinkers in this country, who use alcohol in moderation and without harming themselves. Thank you.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the work that Louisa Wall has done in terms of looking at this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2).

This is a bill, essentially, about communities, and about communities having the autonomy and the authority to make the decisions that directly affect their own people. I’ll be speaking in favour of this bill. I think that part of the need for this is that we need to respect that each of the communities and the various parts where we live are different, and there are different issues with alcohol consumption depending on where we come from. In some places in New Zealand, it is far less of a problem, but in some other places it’s a far greater problem.

I would like to talk about a problem that happens where I live, where there has been a massive problem in terms of an increase of licensed liquor stores that have opened. In Wainuiōmata, where there’s approximately 17,000 people, we’ve got seven bottle stores, seven outlet stores. In the past, there was a new liquor licence that was put up, and the community rallied around and were very strong in their view that they did not want another liquor store in their area. The place where this new liquor store was proposed was right beside a playground, a church, a chemist, and a doctor. There was another bottle store on the other side of the playground, and in that area there were ongoing issues with tagging and broken bottles.

In the submissions received, we heard from families in that area that they were tired of the damage that was being done to their youth, their mums, and their dads from alcohol. They were tired of the broken bottles on the street and the damage that they saw being done to the community. But most of all, there were submissions that they were tired of the violence that was a direct result of more alcohol stores being opened.

Through the second process of the recent local alcohol policy review, again a strong view came out, and success was had by capping the number of alcohol outlets in Wainuiōmata. So, that’s why I believe—and why I’m supporting this to the select committee—that people should also have the opportunity to say no. to the existing licences if there are too many and if they don’t want them. If that community asks, they have that right, and I don’t see why they should not have that right. That’s why at the select committee, if there are issues in terms of how this impacts on other communities different to where I come from, let’s hear about those, and let’s nut out those details if there are implications to business.

But, first and foremost, we need to remember the damage that alcohol does to some communities within New Zealand. We need to take every opportunity possible to give those communities the power and the autonomy to stand up and look after their own if they’re prepared to do so. So I would like to say that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Before I take Aupito William Sio, I just want to make very clear my concern to the Government whips, the Labour whips, that I have received a communication from them as to who wishes to take the call and their views on the call. Now, I think only one member from that list attempted to take the call and that member has expressed a view differing from the list that I have received. I just want to make it very clear that, in a conscience vote, it is my expectation that communications that I receive should be relied on, and if there is a change of view, that I should be informed.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It needs to be stated for this House that the Labour Party’s convention when it comes to issues of alcohol is that it votes as a conscience issue. I want to also say to the National Party speakers, and I’d ask Mr Simeon Brown, who’s in the House and the representative of Pakuranga—can he ask his members whether they are blind or do they not care? Because I don’t think there’s any member in this House who doesn’t recognise that alcohol has a direct link to the harm that is often caused in our communities. And all they need to do is to visit their local A & E in the early hours of the morning and they’ll see that. But I think when they are so consumed with protecting the interests of the industry, protecting profit and profiteering, they seem then to be blind to the harm that is often caused and that we often see. I think every politician needs to be concerned about that.

But getting back, the scaremongering that comes from that side of the House also misses the mark. The bill that we are debating tonight is not anti-liquor, is not anti-business, this—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not prohibition.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: It’s not prohibition. This bill recognises that we have an existing culture that allows for the sale and supply of alcohol. All this bill sets out to do is to enable communities who have established a local alcohol policy to have some influence on the decisions that the liquor licencing authorities will make at the renewal of those licensed to sell.

I give you a number of examples of why it should be a concern. The 2012 Act allows for a local alcohol policy. In my community, we have a local alcohol policy that says alcohol should not be sold near or opposite a school, yet that exists. I have a school, Southern Cross Campus, who has year in, year out advocated that that licence not be renewed because of the harm that is caused and because of the practices that are inconsistent with the law by selling to underage drinkers. Despite the police being supportive of that local alcohol policy, that licence continues to be renewed, because the law, as it stands, does not recognise the interests of that local community. That needs to be made quite clear.

This is not anti-business. It is not about prohibiting liquor. It is about enabling communities who have established a local alcohol policy, who recognise the harm that alcohol causes in our communities to at least have an inside influence when those decisions are made.

I want to acknowledge New Zealand First. I appreciate and acknowledge you for allowing this bill to go to first reading. I think the evidence from those who are involved at the grassroots—community organisations, some of our academics—is important for us to hear.

The other harm that we ought to be concerned about is the disease that is caused by mothers who drink alcohol. I can’t remember the name of the disease.

Dr Liz Craig: Foetal alcohol syndrome.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Foetal alcohol syndrome. That should be a concern. That is a direct link to the availability of alcohol.

The other concern is it may be—in their case, there’s probably a couple of alcohol outlets. But in low-income, hard working-class communities we have a proliferation of alcohol outlets, and those communities fight, day in, day out, to say that enough is enough. We’re not trying to ban it. It’s available all around, in our supermarkets. We’re simply saying that where there’s sufficient outlets, surely that is enough. Surely the harm that is caused in our communities should be a concern to the decision makers of this country, particularly in this House. So that needs to be made clear.

I want to thank Louisa, because I think, Louisa, that you bringing this bill forward—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: It means that the member Louisa Wall is listening to the local community. So on behalf of the people of Māngere, we support this bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2), going to the select committee.

Many of my colleagues have spoken of the damage of alcohol, and I don’t believe that anything other than a well-coordinated rewrite of the whole alcohol legislation will really address those issues, and for that reason I’m a little reluctant to support one small part of the legislation, which doesn’t take into account the education and other strategies that will need to be in place if we’re going to deal with the alcohol problem in this country. However, in looking at this particular amendment, it does make sense. I’m sure it is fixing up something that was an unintended consequence of the last Act, when it was passed.

I note my colleague Clayton Mitchell—the one concern you have is also a concern I have. It is the law of unintended consequences. While I will be supporting this bill to go to the select committee, I am wary that this amendment will empower local authorities a little more than we intended, if we’re not careful, although I have reread the Act and I think we do have a safety mechanism.

One thing we don’t want to do is allow this to be used to actually create dry areas. I’d hate to think that we were giving enough powers to the local alcohol policy administrators to actually shut down all the outlets in any given area, because the unintended consequences of that would be that we would end up with sly-grogging. My own experience of working in areas where licensing trusts existed and where there was very strict control of alcohol outlets was that a vacuum was created, and into that vacuum moved the local criminals. I can still remember seeing particularly those from the lower socio-economic area on benefit day being lined up by the local sly-grogger, to take their whole benefit, for the money that they had spent in their sly-grogging outfit, because they didn’t have the protections that the local trust had put in place.

So, in recommending this bill, I just need to be aware of the unintended consequences. We could end up having a dearth of liquor outlets in an area—the old dry areas in Wellington here. We remember Karori and we remember Miramar, in which I remember, as a young police officer here, there was a plethora of sly-grogging outfits. So we have to be just a little careful that we get this right, which is why I’m a great fan—that when we do actually look at this whole alcohol problem we ensure that we do join the bits up and don’t attack it piecemeal.

Given that, I think I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in this that it will be used for the purpose—it is needed. It is quite ridiculous to think that while I have been personally involved in having licences removed from individuals, the difficulties now of closing down a shop or an outlet—an off-licence, which we have now defined—becomes very difficult. The fact that it has never been done, statistically, shows how difficult it is. We can get a manager sacked, you can get individuals sacked, but that shop remains, whereas at least there has been the possibility of actually closing down licensed premises elsewise. The fact that we cannot do it now is a gap in the Act. It needs to be able to happen in those areas that have local alcohol policies, and I commend this to go to the select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I’ll just give a few brief comments on this bill. When it initially came up on the Order Paper and I was doing my research, I initially thought that it was a bit of an anomaly in the law, as Greg O’Connor, my colleague, has just mentioned. However, it is actually not an unintended consequence with regard to this legislation—this anomaly that we currently see in the law with regard to the ability for local communities to create their own local alcohol policy, yet their local alcohol policies not being taken into account with the renewal of licences. It’s actually intentional.

It is intentional in section 133 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, which reads, and I quote—and I’ll note that Dr Liz Craig previously touched on this: “(1) In considering whether to renew a licence, the licensing authority or licensing committee concerned must not take into account any inconsistency between a relevant alcohol policy and—(a) the renewal of a licence; or (b) the consequences of its renewal.” It seems a little bit like giving with one hand and taking with the other—purporting to be talking about local democracy but, actually, not really following through with it.

For those who are talking about prohibition, I think you’ve kind of overcooked it. What we’re talking about here is communities having autonomy. This is not about prohibition; this is about communities being able to decide where these places with liquor licences actually are. There are thousands of people who have submitted and consulted with their councils and local authorities around local alcohol policies, and I think that if we are genuinely, as a House of Representatives, taking that seriously, taking the voices of constituents seriously, taking communities seriously, and taking the autonomy of communities seriously, as so many of us in this place purport to do, then let’s hear from New Zealanders at select committee. I’m stoked to be supporting this bill through its first reading.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you very much to colleagues who have participated in tonight’s debate. I just want to speak directly to Chris Bishop. It must take into consideration local alcohol policies, but it “may refuse to renew a licence”. The reason I framed it that way is that, currently, all licences are renewed with conditions only. What this bill will do is allow a district licensing committee not to renew a licence, with inputs from the community, from the police, and from the medical officer of health. Actually, in some instances, the public may support the application for a renewal because they’ve got a great business owner in their community.

What’s the context of this for me? One hundred and fifty-six off-licence premises in South Auckland. And, actually, Simeon Brown does know about this, because when he was the chair of the Manurewa Youth Council we had a huge outpouring of submissions from our community to create a local alcohol policy that started to reduce the number of outlets we had in South Auckland.

I just want to thank the Clerk’s office—particularly David Wilson, Tim Workman, and the team. You’ve assisted greatly. I obviously commend the bill to the House and look forward to the vote. Kia ora.

SPEAKER: Members, I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue, and if members want a personal vote, I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce a result, and at any stage any member can ask for a personal vote. I will say, however, that I have listened very carefully to the debate and, notwithstanding advice I have received previously, the debate has appeared to be upon party lines. So it will be for members to decide whether, in the end, a personal vote is called for.

A personal vote was called for on the question that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time and that Supplementary Order Paper 14 be referred to a select committee.

SPEAKER: Members, before I declare the result, what I am going to do is something that is slightly unusual. It won’t affect the result, but it is something that I want to see because I’ve been informed in two different ways as to the vote of a particular member. Therefore, I am going to ask for a sample of members’ proxy forms, including that member’s, to be shown to me at some stage later on. I will ask for the Hon Chris Hipkins’ proxy form, the Hon Winston Peters’ proxy form, the Hon James Shaw’s proxy form, and the Hon Bill English’s proxy form all to be given to me or to my office at the conclusion of this exercise, because I want to be absolutely certain. Clearly, one of them is of more of concern than others, but to be fair to all parties I don’t want to single out any particular set of whips at this point. I think it is important. The proxies have to be relied on, and when I’m informed in two different ways for one member, that is something that is important and I do want to check.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time and that Supplementary Order Paper 14 be referred to a select committee.

Ayes 63

Noes 56

Bill read a first time.

Bill and Supplementary Order Paper 14 referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

The House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.