Wednesday, 28 February 2018

WEDNESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2018

WEDNESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Hon Noel Scott QSO

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 25 February 2018 of the Hon Noel Scott QSO, who represented the electorate of Tongariro from 1984 to 1990. He was a Minister Without Portfolio, Minister of Recreation and Sport, Associate Minister of Education, and Associate Minister of Employment from 1989 to 1990.

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

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

SPEAKER: Thank you, members.

Points of Order

Members—Conduct in Chamber, Moving About the Chamber

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a matter of inconsistency, which I would be grateful if you would give a considered ruling on, because I think it could lead to a matter of disorder. On 15 February, the Leader of the House, the Hon Chris Hipkins, raised with the House the issue of me taking a copy of a bill to a member who was having trouble with a debate. I did so to help the situation. You, in your ruling that day, suggested I was not being helpful.

The reason I raise this is that exactly the same incident happened last night. In the House, during the education amendment bill, the Hon Tracey Martin was delivering a speech and realised that she was speaking to the wrong bill, and immediately, to be absolutely helpful, the Hon Jenny Salesa took her a copy of the bill so she could continue her contribution. Incidentally, the Hon Chris Hipkins was just sitting immediately next to the Hon Tracey Martin and raised no objection to it. So I just wonder whether you could give some further thought to whether such an action is disorderly, because it was clearly of concern—

SPEAKER: Right. I want to thank the member for his intervention. I will consider it carefully, as the member would have, himself.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Provincial Growth Fund—Decision Making and Probity Checks

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “We have a high standard of expectation for our Ministers”, and does she believe her Government is adhering to these high standards?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: What probity checks were carried out on all the Provincial Growth Fund projects announced last Friday in order to maintain her Government’s high standards?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I mentioned yesterday in this House, many of those came from regional growth initiatives that were pitched locally and went through a process via officials and then a group of Ministers. I know the member will be referring to a very specific project that’s been raised in the media. Minister Jones has made it clear he was not aware of the issue relating to one of the shareholders—as, I have to say, it was clear that Minister Bridges himself would not, at that time, have been aware when he and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) gave money to the exact same project.

Hon Simon Bridges: What specific advice did her Government receive from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) or any other officials prior to confirming the grant from the Provincial Growth Fund for a waste-to-energy plant on the West Coast?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, advice that deemed it ready for a feasibility project on whether it warranted further investment. But, as I have to point out again, as MBIE officials did not unearth the issue with the shareholder—in fact, can I say, no money has come from this Government, but the last Government gave them plenty, even after the allegations and investigation had begun.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister saying that Mr Bridges’ DNA and handprints and fingerprints are all over the West Coast project, about which he now presently complains?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: According to advice I’ve received, that very much depends on how well briefed and involved he was within NZTE’s dealings, but, yes, NZTE definitely, as far as I’m advised, provided funding to this group.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Prime Minister table that evidence in relation to NZTE?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do have specific figures. I’m sure that I could source the original document for the member if he needs something to jog his memory.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was she aware the recipients of a grant for the proposed $250 million waste-to-energy plant on the West Coast were previously the subject of a public sector conflict of interest investigation and that RNZ was reporting this morning that one is still under serious fraud investigation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I mentioned, those investigations were under way at the time that NZTE also engaged with this group, so it’s fair to say that, probably, it was unknown. But that would be a question, ultimately, for the Minister and MBIE, who were involved in that process. Look, I think it’s fair to point out that of course this is not a situation this Government wants to see for its Provincial Growth Fund, which is why the Minister has acted to stop the process and make sure it’s fully investigated, and no money has changed hands, unlike what happened under the last Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, does she believe—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, no. Mr Brownlee, I think, is going to—does he need to be told, or is he going to withdraw and apologise?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was asked of the Prime Minister about whether she would table information to back up the claim she is making that these projects, or part of this particular project was part-funded by a previous Government. I think until that’s done, given that we don’t think it was, don’t believe it was, it’s unreasonable for her to pursue this line of questioning. It’s actually—

SPEAKER: Well, she’s answering, not questioning—[Interruption] Sorry.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A previous ruling you gave a few weeks ago was in response to me trying to ascertain about documents and whether or not they were—and you said, actually, I couldn’t do that any further because it hadn’t been ascertained whether or not those documents were real. Well, I would argue that we’re in the same situation now, where we haven’t got evidence that those documents are there—

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon Paula Bennett: Are you not going to rule on that?

SPEAKER: I don’t need to.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why not?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Because you’re right.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: In terms of the high standards the Prime Minister sets for her Ministers, does she believe, even if officials didn’t say about this probity issue, that Ministers should make inquiries in relation to projects such as this in regard to probity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think it’s fair to assume that all Ministers expect, and hope, that there aren’t these kinds of disparities when it comes to the projects they’re discussing, and have an expectation that officials, where it’s known, would raise it with them. The point I’m trying to make here is that this is a situation that, of course, this Government is not happy to be in. It’s working to resolve it. I would expect a previous Minister from the other side of the House, given his past circumstance, would recognise that from to time, very unfortunately, these situations arise.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of either the officials or the Minister not knowing what’s going on here, could it be that there are probity issues in relation to the other projects announced in relation to this Provincial Growth Fund?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Given that yesterday that member claimed responsibility for all of them, he’d better hope not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether she has seen a chronological record of Mr Simon Bridges’ involvement since he became the Minister on 19 December 2016, and does it have his DNA all over the prior transactions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I referenced in one of my previous answers, yes, I have been given advice and a time line. But what the member was asking was with primary documentation. If he’d like me to undertake to go away and look further at some of that, I’m happy to do so.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light, on the face of it, of the clear probity issues in relation to this waste-to-energy project, will the cheque on it be cancelled?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I outlined in my previous answer, we’ve put a hold on the funding of what was a feasibility study, I should point out, until we get to the bottom of this issue.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with her Minister for Regional Economic Development that the cloud now hanging over her $3 billion flagship policy, “I don’t think it’s a train wreck. If anything, it’s a mild form of road kill.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That sounds about right.

Tertiary Education—Funding of Regional Institutions

2. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action has the Government taken to preserve tertiary education in the regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This morning, I announced an $8.5 million cash injection for the troubled Tai Poutini Polytechnic (TPP) on the South Island’s West Coast, so that it can continue operating over the coming year. This funding boost is needed to keep the polytechnic running and to improve quality, pending some wider sector changes. The extra funding is a strong demonstration of this Government’s commitment to tertiary education delivery on the West Coast. The Tertiary Education Commission has also agreed to write off $25 million of debt for under-delivery owed by TPP, as it simply will not be able to repay that amount.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Is Tai Poutini unique in facing these sorts of challenges?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Regrettably, no. There are a group of institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) that, like TPP, are facing immediate and pressing challenges to their financial viability and sustainability, unable to modernise their teaching and learning to better meet the needs of learners and employers.

Hon Steven Joyce: No, actually. How many of them have actually not been delivering courses, like TPP?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Joyce pipes up. Of course, this is all his doing. We have inherited from the previous Government a polytechnic and ITP sector that, frankly, is nearing being a basket case.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why has the situation for institutes of technology and polytechnics deteriorated to this extent?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a variety of causes—one of which, of course, is the funding pressures that they were placed under by the previous Government. We’ve also seen plunging participation in polytechnic-level training under the previous Government, and the running down of regional education provision under the previous Government. This Government is committed to addressing all of those things.

SPEAKER: I thought Mr Joyce—

Hon Steven Joyce: I’ve changed my mind.

Prisons—Prison Population, Bail Legislation, and Crime Rates

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: What specific reversals to the Bail Amendment Act is her Government advocating for, in light of her Minister of Justice’s comments over the weekend?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think it’s fair to say that when you look at the documents that were tabled at the time that the last Government made changes to the Bail Act, they significantly under-projected the impact that it would have, which suggests that it even outstripped their expectations of how it would operate. I think it’s only fair, given what we are facing as a Government, that we would look across the board at some of those initiatives.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, I’ll ask again: what specific reversals to the Bail Amendment Act is her Government advocating for, in light of her Minister of Justice’s comments over the weekend?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, when the last Government implemented their Bail Amendment Act, the implementation has been quite different to the reality that they projected. This is a piece of work that we’re undertaking, because, ultimately, we’ve been left with a prison population that is soaring, and on current projections, because of the last Government, we’ll be building another prison every three to five years. That is not acceptable.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, given the Bail Amendment Act 2013 made it harder for murderers, serious sexual and violent offenders, and users and traffickers of class A drugs to get bail, what exactly does her Government intend to reverse from those changes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have just pointed out, based on the regulatory impact statement and the projections from that last Government, what’s happening in reality has far outstripped that, which is suggesting it’s doing more than what even they intended it would.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree that the likes of William Bell, Clayton Weatherston, and Graeme Burton should all serve their entire sentences for the crimes that they commit; and if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At this point, this is going well beyond what the member was asking in his primary question. Does this Government want people to be safe? Yes. Do we want to see the crime rate continuing to decline? Yes. Do we want the imprisonment rate to increase despite a declining crime rate? No. There is more that this Government is committed to doing, because the last Government did not plan properly.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, in light of the discussion of all the advice that’s been received, what is the latest advice she has received regarding the number of people in jail for possession of cannabis, and can she confirm that the number still sits at around 10 people?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I haven’t asked for those figures in recent weeks.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that her Government has received advice from justice sector agencies that show police proceedings for offences with six-month penalties have rapidly decreased over the last nine years, and offences with maximum penalties of three to 14 years have rapidly increased over the same period; and does she think that might have an impact on the prison population?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can tell the House that the most recent advice I’ve received from the justice sector is that despite, in some cases, a declining or static crime rate, we have an exponential increase in imprisonment that that Government did nothing about, which means that we now are looking at a bill of a new prison every two to three years, and we’re looking at being a country up with the likes of the United States in terms of our imprisonment rate. He may be proud of it; this Government is not.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, given she’s so worried about the prison population, who of the serious recidivist offenders who commit murder, serious sexual and violent offences, or who traffic or take class A drugs—spending longer in prison—will she let out first?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A completely irrational question. And I would point out that his own last leader and last Prime Minister pointed out that continually building prisons is both a moral and fiscal failure, and this Government would agree with that sentiment.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, if the advice she is receiving from her officials is that there are more serious recidivist offenders serving more of their sentences, will she ensure her Government’s policy of reducing the prison population by 30 percent will not harm public safety?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course this Government is focused on public safety.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—Proposed Changes

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): To the Minister of Justice, what announcements has the Government made regarding the Bill of Rights Act 1990?

SPEAKER: Have one more go.

4. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has the Government made regarding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): On Monday, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, and I announced that Cabinet had approved, in principle, to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to provide a statutory power for the senior courts to make declarations of inconsistency under that Act, as well as a requirement that Parliament respond to those declarations.

Virginia Andersen: What significance does this decision have, in principle, on human rights in New Zealand?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Cabinet’s decision in principle is an important step in upholding human rights in New Zealand whilst recognising the sovereignty of Parliament. New Zealand is unusual in the Westminster system in that we have a unicameral Parliament, and this will provide an additional check on the actions of Parliament. There is still further work to be done in consultation with other parties, and, indeed, with Parliament’s Privileges Committee, which is yet to be concluded.

Virginia Andersen: Will this allow courts to strike down legislation?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, absolutely not. We have been quite clear that the purpose of this decision is to put forward a process that requires Parliament to respond to a declaration, because, after all, it is possible for Parliament, in its collective wisdom, to get things wrong on rare occasions. This upholds the sovereignty of Parliament completely—

Hon Judith Collins: Getting the courts to decide—no courage.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —despite what Judith Collins might say.

Hon Amy Adams: In light of the Attorney-General having confirmed that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill limits the right to freedom of expression as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, can the Minister confirm that this is just the sort of legislation that would be challenged by the senior courts and referred back to Parliament for consideration for breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, as it works its way through Parliament, has not had a negative Attorney-General vet under section 7 of the Act. If that member wants to race off to the senior courts to challenge it, she is more than welcome to do so.

Budget 2018—Funding Announcements

5. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What funds has the Government publicly announced in the last week that have been allocated from between-budget contingencies or from pre-commitments against Budget 2018’s operating and capital allowances, broken down by description and amounts?

SPEAKER: I should warn the House that I have been pre-warned that this may be an answer that’s longer than usual.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Improving mental health services for children in Canterbury and Kaikōura—this is to provide additional mental health support services in earthquake-affected schools from the contingency identified for mental health, enabling an announcement of the Government’s mental health response in Canterbury on 22 February 2018. This was for an amount of $28 million. Funding for Tai Poutini Polytechnic, ahead of wide sector change—$8.5 million will go to the troubled Tai Poutini Polytechnic, so it can continue to operate over the coming year. Funding for a four-member ministerial advisory group to investigate the establishment of a public media funding commission—$1.381 million. On Friday, the Minister for Regional Economic Development also made a number of funding announcements. The proportion of new funding allocation versus spending from existing moneys is Budget-sensitive, and the member will have to wait and see—only 77 sleeps to go.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to the last part of the Minister’s answer, the question was very clear about the amounts of money that had been allocated. It’s hard to see how that amount is Budget-sensitive, when it was announced by the Minister for Regional Economic Development last Friday. Perhaps the Minister can revise his answer.

SPEAKER: I think if the member had listened really carefully to the answer, he would have heard that the answer did quite properly indicate that some of it had come from arrangements to which the member referred and others are coming from new money. But he’s not declared which, because that’s Budget-sensitive. And that’s absolutely right.

Hon Steven Joyce: It can’t be Budget-sensitive if it has been announced publicly. I know the Minister’s probably embarrassed about—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon Steven Joyce: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. The member has lost his chance.

Hon Steven Joyce: I said supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary. Fair enough.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister please tell the House how much of the $61.7 million in provincial growth funding announced last Friday was new money under Budget 2018?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Hon Steven Joyce: How can the Minister explain that the Government announced with great fanfare that $61.7 million in new funding would be made available for the first projects from the Provincial Growth Fund, and then the Minister of Finance is too embarrassed to admit how much new funding actually exists in this House a few days later?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The only one who needs to be embarrassed about provincial growth and the lack of investment is the member opposite, who previously held the portfolio. But I can assure the member that the lion’s share of the projects announced to date are, in fact, new money.

Hon Steven Joyce: Then can the Minister confirm the content of paragraph 75 of the Cabinet paper released last Friday that said, and I quote, “The funds that are to count against the Fund have existing decision making arrangements that reflect the particular nature of [their] funds.”, and can he confirm, therefore, that actually no new money was set aside in the announcement last Friday, because of the comments made in paragraph 75?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can’t confirm that for the member.

Provincial Growth Fund—Westport Waste to Energy Project

6. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does his ministry consult with other ministries in preparing recommendations on projects to be funded from his $1 billion Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did he receive the same advice from officials on the proposed $250 million waste to energy plant on the West Coast as the previous Government did; if not, what was different?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, a review is being held, but I can assure the House that the advice that I have received points out that the last Government, under the Leader of the Opposition, allocated money after an active investigation was initiated against the person we are all talking about.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If his claim is correct, then why did he need to add $350,000 in funding for the feasibility study announced last week?

Hon SHANE JONES: Results to date show approximately $50,000 has already been allocated under the watch of the current Leader of the Opposition. Money that was approved last week is currently on ice until a review has been held, but unfortunately that taxpayer dough handed over in 2017 has gone.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that, in fact, the money he talks of in 2017 was paid to the local authority—I can’t recall the proper name of the development arrangements out at Westport—and the new money, however, that was to accompany that has hooked itself on to the local authority and has now been funded, when previously they had been rejected (1) because the project doesn’t stack up, and (2) because of the concern over the people who were behind that project?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that money was definitely handed over, and it was handed over by the last Government after an investigation was initiated against the person in question. The answer to that question lies to the member’s side, in the last Minister, who obviously tried to get away with it or was not in charge of his portfolio.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was asking the Minister to confirm that the money that he speaks of was paid to a West Coast local authority development agency, not to the company that has now been provided with the grant that he announced last Friday. Further, I’d make the point, Mr Speaker, that if he is saying that the investigation is ongoing—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, he may be misleading the House.

SPEAKER: Well, the member knows how to take that up.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I realise that, but in the first instance, we bring it up with you.

SPEAKER: No, you don’t.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, yes, you do. You’re very good at this judicial stuff.

SPEAKER: Because if you do, Mr Brownlee, you can’t bring it up the other way.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, that might be just as well, too.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think so.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So can I say, simply—simply say—that if the investigation was concluded, why is the Serious Fraud Office still investigating?

SPEAKER: OK. The essence of the member’s question, I think, was whether the question that he asked was addressed, and I’m ruling that it was.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether, with his extensive political and ministerial experience, or that of his colleagues, he has ever seen the culprit of a fiscal misadventure pot himself?

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, I don’t—no, no, no. [Interruption] Sit down.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister have confidence in the capability of his officials to access proper credentials of applicants against their ability to deliver on projects funded from his $1 billion Provincial Growth Fund, and can he point to one commercial venture in the world similar to the one proposed for Westport?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are many questions tied up there. Obviously, we have a governance structure that I have absolute confidence in, but I have to say, in April 2017, money was paid by the last regime to the company, not local government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Show us.

Hon SHANE JONES: Rest assured, I’ll do more than show you, buddy.

Environmental Protection—Single-use Plastic Bags

7. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What action is she taking in response to yesterday’s Greenpeace petition from over 65,000 New Zealanders calling for an end to plastic bags?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): I’ve been struck by the number of New Zealanders who really care about the harmful impacts of single-use plastic bags, so I have asked Ministry for the Environment officials to report back on options for taking action on these bags.

Marama Davidson: What can be done about this?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Officials will look at a range of options, including a ban or a levy. More than 30 countries have legislated on single-use plastic bags. New Zealand has been lagging behind and, unlike the former Government, this Government will take action.

Marama Davidson: What is already happening to reduce the use of plastic bags?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Retailers including Countdown, New World, Z Energy, and Mitre 10 have pledged to phase out the use of single-use plastic bags by the end of next year. Bunnings Warehouse got rid of them years ago, and Pak ’N Save has charged for them for some time, but that deals with only 75 percent of the bags being used. We need to take action on the remainder.

Marama Davidson: Why is this important environmentally?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Because unlike under the previous Government, we recognise that producing these bags—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Mr Bayly, Order! Sorry. Mr Bayly, you’re quite close to the Minister who’s answering the question, and, unfortunately, the way the microphone system works here, we’re hearing you more than her.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They’re important environmentally because oil is used to produce them and they create waste. They may be a convenient habit, but they end up in the ocean and then seabirds, fish, and turtles choke on them.

Minimum Wage—Effect of Increase

8. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he have confidence in the advice he receives from officials?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I do have confidence in the advice provided by officials. However, it will not surprise the member that I do not always agree with that advice.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury that states that young and vulnerable workers are particularly impacted by minimum wage increases, and that no youth rates would significantly increase the job losses; if not, why not?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am aware of a two-sentence suggestion amongst a 12-page report on the minimum wage that suggests that retaining youth rates would be a safety valve. Unfortunately, Treasury don’t provide any evidence for that assertion.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he have confidence, then, in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment - modelled impacts on increasing the minimum wage to $20 an hour, that it would lower employment by 28,000 jobs, and that is before including the effect of abolishing the starting-out wage?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, the situation that we have right now is that we’ve got a proliferation of low-paying jobs. What we need to do in this country is improve the quality of jobs that are available, particularly for young people. I find it amusing that we have, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition running around saying that we’re not going to have enough people for the jobs that are out there and, on the other hand, we have the member saying that we’re not going to have enough jobs for people. Which is it, National? Get your story straight.

Rino Tirikatene: Does the Minister agree with advice from officials that the announced employment relations changes are likely to lead to higher wages, more engaged employees, and greater labour productivity?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, I do, and I note that we have inherited a low-wage economy and a productivity recession from the previous Government. We can, and we will, do better.

Hon Amy Adams: In light of the clear and unequivocal advice that he has received, why is the Minister pressing ahead with making the minimum wage $20 an hour, scrapping 90-day trials in more than 70 percent of jobs, and abolishing the starting-out wage when all of these will badly hurt the prospects of young and vulnerable workers who just want to get a job?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I totally disagree with the premise of the member’s question, and I do agree with the advice that I have received that the changes we propose will lead to higher wages, more engaged employees, and greater labour productivity.

Families Package—Effect on Māori and Pacific People

9. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Social Development: Will the Families Package benefit Māori and Pacific people; if so, how?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Absolutely. This Government recognises that Māori and Pacific are our youngest population groups, with great potential, but we also recognise that Māori and Pacific disproportionately experience persistently low incomes when compared to the general population. Under the Families Package, low and medium income households will benefit by a winter energy payment to help heat their homes over winter, a Best Start payment for families with a baby, a boost in Working for Families family tax credit payments, and increases to the accommodation supplement and accommodation benefit. Action this Government is taking will help lift Māori and Pacific households out of poverty.

Tamati Coffey: Why is it important that the Government support Māori and Pacific through its Families Package?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I previously alluded to, Māori and Pacific people in New Zealand are much younger. The median age for Māori and Pacific is 23.9 and 22.1 respectively, compared to 38 for New Zealand overall. We also know that Māori and Pacific have higher birth rates, particularly in urban centres. Māori and Pacific will make up a huge part of our future workforce. Ensuring that they have the best start to life and can meet rising living costs is important for all New Zealand.

Tamati Coffey: How will support for Māori and Pacific families support the Government’s goal of reducing child poverty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that around half of children in low-income households are Māori and Pacific. Putting more money into these households will support the Government with reducing child poverty. Māori and Pacific households will benefit from all of the measures introduced through the Families Package. If Māori and Pacific are better off, so is New Zealand. This Government wants all New Zealanders to get the very best start possible and is absolutely committed to reducing child poverty in this country.

Public Transport, Auckland—Industrial Action

10. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Transport: Is the current industrial action by the Rail and Maritime Transport Union in Auckland assisting the Government’s efforts to encourage greater public transport use?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): First, may I add my congratulations to the new Opposition leader, Simon Bridges, former transport Minister, and thank him for his support of public transport in Auckland, particularly signing off the City Rail Link, the selection of light rail for rapid transit—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will now start addressing the question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In relation to the industrial action, it is never a good look to have disruption to public transport schedules that so many people rely on and plan their lives around. I’m advised that today the parties are in discussion, and we’re hopeful of them arriving at a sensible and equitable solution.

Hon Judith Collins: What action is the Government taking today to ensure that Aucklanders can get to work or study on time, given the ongoing strikes by the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, which are disrupting thousands of commuters?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I said, the parties are in discussion today. I’m hopeful that they will come to a sensible resolution of the issue. This Government aims to lift wages and conditions after years of stagnation. Collective bargaining is one of the most effective ways of doing this, and as transport Minister I can say that my colleague the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway has my full support in this.

Hon Judith Collins: How can he consider train transport reliable when today’s meeting between the rail union and the train operator had to be delayed because even the mediator’s train was late?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m advised that Auckland Transport and Transdev, the operator, have developed a temporary timetable to minimise disruption and provide consistent rail services on these lines. Customers can expect the southern, western, and eastern lines’ weekday peak services at 20 minute intervals with inter-peak and off-peak services running as normal. Many trains on these services will run with six cars, which can hold 900 passengers, to help reduce the impact.

Hon Judith Collins: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that there will not be more train strikes with him in charge, when there have been four train strikes in four months under his watch and there were none in the nine years before that?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government believes that collective bargaining is an important way that both wages and conditions can be dealt with, but also that safety is an issue that can be dealt with through collective bargaining. We will uphold the rights of the parties to negotiate under the law in a sensible way to resolve these disputes.

Hon Judith Collins: Does the Minister support this strike?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The New Zealand Transport Agency is the transport regulator, which is in charge as an independent rail regulator. They have the statutory responsibility to make a judgment about the safety issue that these parties are in dispute over. As transport Minister, I’m going to leave them to do their job.

Defence Force—Allegations in Hit & Run

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his statement, “I’ve always said that we have utmost confidence in the culture and professionalism in our Defence Force personnel that we deploy internationally”?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I do.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister feel that our New Zealand Defence Force have withheld information from him, or has he seen anything that suggests that the Defence Force acted with anything other than the highest professional standards during Operation Burnham?

Hon RON MARK: I do not believe they’ve withheld any information from me. I believe the briefings I’ve received have been very professionally presented and very thorough. And the second part of your question is true.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So then why, in relation to Operation Burnham, hasn’t the Minister come out in support of our New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon RON MARK: I think I have consistently and repeatedly said that I have the utmost confidence in the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force, both their professionalism and the way in which they interact with people around the world where they are deployed. I can’t do more than that.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So have you rejected the allegations made against our New Zealand Defence Force in the book Hit & Run?

Hon RON MARK: The matters to which the member’s referring are currently in the hands of the Attorney-General, who’s been tasked by the Prime Minister to examine all of the evidence. I’ll await the decision of the Attorney-General, and there’ll be conversations after that.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So in light of that, has the Minister given any advice to either the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or Cabinet that in his view an inquiry is not required into the allegations contained in the book Hit & Run?

Hon RON MARK: There have not been any discussions on those matters at those levels. At the moment, the process that’s been followed is that I have asked for and received a full and comprehensive briefing. The Attorney-General has been asked to examine the matter and the evidence, and is currently doing that. Once that process is concluded—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister have no view?

Hon RON MARK: —and the Attorney-General has given his decision, Mr Smith, then there will be conversations around those matters, and, I have no doubt, at the Cabinet table.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So you’re telling me in the House today—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m not telling the member anything.

Hon Mark Mitchell: You’re right. Sorry, Mr Speaker. So is the Minister telling me in the House today that as Minister of Defence you have had no conversation with either the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or Cabinet about the allegations made against our New Zealand Defence Force in the book Hit & Run?

Hon RON MARK: It is fair to say I have had conversations with the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter, but most of those conversations are around process, an agreed process, and we’ll follow that process right through to the end.

State Sector Health and Safety—Government Initiatives

12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What action is the Government taking to improve health and safety in the State sector?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The Government Health and Safety Lead was established late last year to lift the State sector’s game in health and safety. The team is led by Ray Smith from corrections, and he has assembled an excellent team of experts. As part of the work of the Government Health and Safety Lead, I was pleased to host an event at Parliament on 14 February for 35 State sector chief executives to pledge their commitment to health and safety and to join the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum.

Marja Lubeck: What are the Minister’s priorities in relation to State sector health and safety?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The plan of the Health and Safety Lead is to lift the Government’s game in relation to leadership and worker engagement. I’m also interested in how we can leverage the power of the State in relation to procurement. Almost 20 percent of New Zealand’s GDP is State procurement and this could be an important lever to lead us towards good health and safety practice.

Marja Lubeck: Why is health and safety important to this Government?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, we are making good progress in relation to health and safety, but my ambition is that we’re amongst the best in the world at keeping people safe. The Government believes that the Public Service should be an exemplar that walks the talk on health and safety.

Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister’s concern for health and safety extend to ensuring that State sector agencies don’t contract with law firms who can’t protect their young female staff from sexual assault?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’d certainly be interested in looking into that issue. It’s an issue that’s been around for a very long time—probably for the entire nine years that that member was in Government.

Questions to Members

Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill—Health Committee Progress

1. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: What progress can she report on the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill?

LOUISA WALL (Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee): The Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill was referred to the Health Committee on 13 December 2017, submissions closed on 16 February 2018, and the committee received 25 submissions. The committee has been briefed by the member in charge of the bill and began hearing from submitters on the bill today.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she anticipate a swift report back to the House; and, if so, when does she think it will return for further consideration by members, given broad support for the bill at first reading because its implementation will significantly improve health and social outcomes for children?

SPEAKER: I am going to allow the member to answer the question because we are in relatively new territory for some members as to questions for members, but, in future, the only supplementaries that will be allowed are matters that are the absolute responsibility of the chair. The time of the report back, the chair’s anticipation of what’s heard, or the matter of broad support are not the chair’s responsibility. Louisa Wall—a very short answer, addressing the question.

LOUISA WALL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The date by which the committee must report back to the House is 13 June 2018.

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

MICHAEL WOOD (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2018.

I am delighted to present the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) 2018. That committee worked extremely hard on the report, and I want to acknowledge my fellow members. It is the hardest-working and most dynamic select committee of this Parliament, I am quite convinced.

The reason that this is an important debate is that Budgets are not simply dry, textual bits of parchment. Budgets are—as one of my favourite theologians, Jim Wallis, says—moral documents. You see, when this House approves a Budget—and we’ll get to that a bit later on in this year—it’s not just a bunch of numbers and text on a bit of paper. Budgets are documents that shape real people’s lives. It’s Budgets that ultimately determine whether our people do or don’t have jobs. It’s Budgets that determine whether they have decent and dignified housing, whether our people have the healthcare that they need when infirmity strikes, and whether our kids and our young people have the education that they need to reach their very fullest potential in life. This Budget Policy Statement is a document that this new Government is very proud of, because it points to a new Government that is energised, that is ready to lead, and that is determined to turn around the social and the infrastructure deficits that have arisen over the last nine years.

I want to refer to the Salvation Army’s recent state of the nation report, and it describes this very well. It says this: “it is clear that the benefits of this recent strong economic growth have not been shared across the board, or trickled down, as the theory would have it.” What that tells us is that it is perfectly possible—

Chris Bishop: There’s no such theory.

MICHAEL WOOD: —to have economic growth and it is perfectly possible to have fiscal surpluses, and let me just put on the record, for the benefit of Mr Bishop, that those things are good things. We can acknowledge that by the end of its term, the previous Government, having piled up record debt, did achieve those things. Well done—good work. But it’s of no benefit to the kids who are living in cars; it’s of no benefit to the 75,000 young people not in education, employment, or training; it’s of no benefit to the people who can’t get the healthcare they need; and it’s of no benefit to the people who are battling away on minimum wage and simply can’t see a way out.

So this is a Government that does aspire to having good fiscal surpluses. This is a Government that does aspire to having good economic growth, but we aspire to so much more. We aspire to dignity and respect and a good standard of living for all of our people, and that is exactly what this Budget Policy Statement—which precedes the Budget later in this year—points to.

Let’s just speak a little bit more about some of those deficits—those social and those infrastructure deficits that have arisen and that were highlighted through the Budget Policy Statement process. Well, the very first one, I believe, is housing, because no society can be said to be successful when its people want for one of the most very basic human needs.

What do we need as human beings? What are the most basic things we need? We need food. We need clothing. We need shelter. But right at this moment, we have 40,000 people who don’t have decent and stable housing in this country—40,000 people who are homeless or who have insecure housing. They don’t know where they’re going to sleep next week. That is not the mark of a successful society, and that is something that this Government will turn around.

Is it a successful society when we have a health system that is so overstretched that last winter, Middlemore Hospital had to put a sign out the front saying, “Sorry, we’re closed. Don’t come in if you’re sick.”? Is it a successful society when we have the principals in Auckland telling us that because of the low pay rates and because of the housing crisis, we’re going to be short of something like 3,000 teachers in the years to come? That is not the mark of a successful society, and that is something that this Government will turn around and that we have talked about in the Budget Policy Statement. And, perhaps most seriously of all, can it be said to be a successful society when we have our children—the most vulnerable members of our society and the source of our greatest potential as well—living in poverty in our communities, in every single community up and down this country?

I put it to this House that this is a wealthy country. This is a country of limitless potential, and we do not need to accept any of those things, as that last Government did over the past nine years. This Budget Policy Statement talks about a different and better way of doing things.

Let me refer to one of the very good submissions given to the Finance and Expenditure Committee around the Budget Policy Statement. It was from the Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland. They said this: “We see the core role of any representative Government is to foster the common good of a ‘fair go’ society rather than encourage exploitative personal gain. To this end we welcome the Government’s intention to ensure every family has a warm home, good health care, education opportunity and an adequate family income.” Those are the things that we are absolutely focused on. I’m pleased to report that in the Budget Policy Statement and in the report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, those are exactly the things that this Government is very busy implementing.

But here’s the good news: this is also a Government that is focused on those fiscal bottom-line issues. We say that we can balance the two. We can balance the books, and we can have a strong economy at the same time as making sure that people have dignity, respect, and hope. In fact, I would say that those two things are interlinked, because when we give people opportunity, when we give our kids good education, and when they have stable housing, then we will be a more prosperous country. A child that is brought up with good education and stable housing is more likely to succeed, is more likely to go into the workforce, is more likely to start a business, and is more likely to contribute to the future economic success of this country. Those things are not indivisible.

So the good news is that, as reported in the Budget Policy Statement, and also the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU), I might mention, the Government’s books are in good order and the Government’s Budget responsibility rules, which are confirmed in this statement are very, very clear.

This is a Government that is going to reduce net Crown debt to 20 percent.

Andrew Bayly: After you put on another $10 billion of debt.

MICHAEL WOOD: This is a Government that is going to prioritise—oh, here we go, Mr Bayly. Here we go.

Andrew Bayly: $59 to $69 billion.

MICHAEL WOOD: Mr Bayly’s getting very excited. He is the Scotch terrier of the New Zealand Parliament. He’s so excited—it’s like a van has just pulled up on the driveway outside the ranchslider.

This is a Government that is committed to fiscal responsibility. We’re going to get net Crown debt down to below 20 percent. This is a Government that is going to manage those books very prudently. What we hear in the HYEFU is that growth is projected to carry on at around about 3 percent over the coming years. Wages are forecast to grow at over 3 percent on average over the next five years, and that is good news for the workers of New Zealand, who, for so many years, have been struggling under that previous Government, which held wages down as much as it could.

The news is good, and I want to finish by going back to those original points made by a number of submitters—that we have got to have a focus. We’ve got to have a focus on the well-being of all New Zealanders. The Salvation Army said this in their submission: “In particular we support the commitment to put child wellbeing at the heart of what we do, and to lift the wellbeing of all New Zealanders and our environment. We are encouraged that Treasury”—and you might say the Government—“is developing a holistic living standards and well-being framework”.

And that is probably the most significant shift that is referred to in this Budget Policy Statement. This Government is going to set clear goals, not just for the fiscal bottom line, but for child poverty. And you know what we’re going to do? We’re not just going to talk about it; we’re going to embed those targets in the Budget. We’re going to say that the state of living of our children is just as important as those figures on a piece of paper.

This is a Government that is going to develop and embed a living standards framework so that we’re measuring our natural capital, because we say that every New Zealander should be able to swim in their local stream or river. We’re going to measure ourselves against our success with human capital. We’re going to measure the skills, knowledge, and physical and mental health in our community, because those things are just as important as a fiscal surplus or deficit. We’re going to measure our social capital—that is, the connectedness of our people, the success and the vibrancy of our communities—because those are the things that make life worth living. And we are going to measure our fiscal and physical capital.

And, I might say on that—and it’s mentioned in the BPS report—that we’re going to invest in New Zealand’s infrastructure. I am very proud to stand here, as a Government member, with a Budget Policy Statement that commits to lifting our infrastructure investment from $32 billion to $42 billion over the next four years. A lot of that investment is going to go where it is really needed—to our neglected provinces, which are crying out for a Government that will listen to them and invest in that infrastructure.

I tell you what—and I’m proud of this as well, Mrs Collins. We’re going to invest in a First World public transport network for Auckland, because that is what a growing, successful, and dynamic city needs.

Hon Judith Collins: Great! Is it going to work?

MICHAEL WOOD: Oh, Mrs Collins, Mr Bridges was very quiet when you were slagging off the public transport before. I think we’ve got a note of tension there.

I am proud to stand up and present this Budget Policy Statement to the House. I very much look forward to whichever National Party front-bencher stands up to respond. I’m not sure who it will be.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to thank Michael Wood, the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC), for his comments there. He makes a good point—the importance of reducing child poverty. The Budget Policy Statement talks about that. It talks a little bit less about how we’ve been able to reduce child poverty so far, by the growth of the New Zealand economy and the announcements made in Budget 2017, prior to the election, that were largely picked up by the new Government, with a couple of changes. They were mostly set up by the previous Government, once it had done the work of getting the fiscal books back in surplus, so it could take the initiatives required to support those children and their families.

What worries this side of the House about the Budget Policy Statement is some of the opaqueness in the statement, which was discussed at the select committee. One of the areas of—and I worry about it because in order to keep making the progress that the previous Government made and to keep building on that, the new Government needs to be clearly honest with itself about its fiscal position and manage its fiscal position.

What worries us, the National members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, is a lack of clarity, a lack of openness, about the costs of some of the Government’s expenditure plans. We had this very interesting situation where the Budget Policy Statement contained reference to the Government’s 100-day plan but nothing beyond that, despite the fact that those things had already been discussed, with some precise numbers around them, in the case of things such as the Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund.

In fact, we had the, I think, very unusual situation at the select committee where we were comparing two documents, the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, and the Government was talking about the $1 billion a year Provincial Growth Fund in one document and wasn’t mentioning it in the half-yearly fiscal update. So Treasury presented a set of books that had no funding in them for the Provincial Growth Fund.

Members of the committee asked Treasury why this was the case. Treasury said, “Because we’ve been focused on the 100-day promises of the Government.” We said to Treasury, “There is a whole lot of other stuff that needs to be costed into the forward fiscal projections.” Treasury said, “Of course, and we’ve noted 29 separate new fiscal risks, as an alternative to putting some of the money in the Government’s accounts.” The Secretary to the Treasury also said that he has accepted the Government’s assurance that it will be able to meet all its spending commitments within its projected Budget operating and capital allowances.

I think it’s important to refer this to the House, because the Secretary to the Treasury sounded a warning. He sounded a warning to the Government, and said, “I’ve made this clear to my chief executive colleagues, that they’re going to have to continue to run their departments extremely efficiently and extremely well, and they’re going to have to be ready, whether it’s to prioritise or support Ministers’ reprioritisation decisions and to make sure evaluations of policy proposals”, and so on, and so forth. And then he finished: “There’s no reason for me to doubt that it will, but it will have to make some very tough choices.”—very tough choices.

The Government actually hasn’t shared that with anybody. In fact, even the chair of the committee popped his head up and talked about all the things that he wanted to see money spent on, which, incidentally, weren’t in the Budget Policy Statement. So we have a Government that is building up every day, whether it’s the finance Minister, the chair of FEC, other Government Ministers—building up expectations of expenditure of this Government. That’s not surprising, because the one thing the three partners in the Government can agree on is spending more money.

But if we’re going to make real progress in things like child poverty, we will need money set aside for that. This Government is not heading down that path, partly because of this transparency issue. I want to raise that again, in relation to the Provincial Growth Fund, which was discussed at length in the committee. We tried to get Treasury and the Minister of Finance to tell us how the money was going to be allocated. We asked something simple, to start with. We said, “What will be the allocation between operating and capital, of the billion dollars?” They didn’t know.

We thought, “OK”, and we asked when it would be known. The answer was, “Early next year.” Well, here we are. Last week, the Government released a Cabinet paper that pointed out that in December they’d made a decision to actually allocate the balance of operating and capital by February of this year. Today is 28 February, and there is no allocation—no allocation whatsoever. In fact, the Government now says it won’t be known until the Budget in May, having said in December that it would be available in February.

The other thing that was really interesting about this paper about the Provincial Growth Fund, which was talked about so much at FEC, is that all the money amounts were blacked out. They were all redacted. The Government had announced that it was spending $61 million, as a sort of down payment on the Provincial Growth Fund. Not a very big down payment, but nevertheless, it said it had made a down payment of $61 million, and said it with much fanfare. And then we have the spectacle of the Acting Minister of Finance, in the House this afternoon, unwilling to reveal how much money was actually new money—actually how much money was new money. If you go through the documentation with the Provincial Growth Fund, and you have to go through it carefully because, as I say, a lot of it’s been redacted, that actually points out that the money that was allocated is already subject to existing decision processes because it comes from existing funds.

So now we have a situation where the Provincial Growth Fund is not only opaque but, quite possibly, none of the money is new money, and this is despite the Government itself saying that the Provincial Growth Fund will not fund any projects that would have actually been funded anyway. It’s in the list of things to the Provincial Growth Fund: it will not have money spent on it that was already going to be spent.

And that’s interesting too, because the big project so far announced in the Provincial Growth Fund, which was discussed so much at the committee, and which the Government could say nothing about, is, in fact, a roundabout in Northland that, incidentally, was already being funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency through the National Land Transport Programme. It’s number five on the list of projects for construction over the next three years in a report that was released before the election. And now, it is the big new thing in the new Government’s opaque, not so transparent Provincial Growth Fund, which is largely smoke and mirrors.

So perhaps that’s how they’re going to balance the Budget. Perhaps, that’s actually how they’re going to—they perhaps played one of those shell games with their coalition partner New Zealand First, when the money is, in fact, imaginary, where we’re adding up existing transport money, existing irrigation money, existing broadband money, and pretending it’s a billion-dollars-a-year Provincial Growth Fund. Well, we will find out, no doubt, in the fullness of time, exactly what’s going on, but what we do know is that the projects announced so far are projects that are from money that was already allocated and that the biggest project was already going to be funded over the next three years.

And that’s the problem with this Government: they put out the Budget Policy Statement that doesn’t have any of their policies in it, even though we know how much actually needs to be allocated. In health and education, we were told exactly how much needs allocated, and yet none of it is in the Budget Policy Statement. The Provincial Growth Fund, despite being mentioned in the policy statement, has not actually been allocated for the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. I come back to my first point: if the Government is not going to be honest with itself, how can it possibly make sure that it has the funding available to reduce child poverty further, as done by the previous Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Well, I think the interesting thing about that: that was a lecture on clarity and transparency by National’s “11.7 billion dollar man”. Once again, I think Mr Joyce has revealed in the last 48 hours that he’s not so hot on the numbers. That speech, I can assure you, was watched very, very closely by the other speakers from National in this debate: Judith Collins and Amy Adams—the other people auditioning today for his job, for the finance spokesperson’s job. That’s what’s going on here today. Everyone in this House knows it. There’s the three contenders for the finance spokesperson’s job, and I’m afraid that for Mr Joyce, while today he was aiming for comedy, unfortunately, he only achieved tragedy.

The Budget Policy Statement (BPS) was released on 14 December 2017, and it confirmed the Government’s Budget priorities and fiscal strategy for Budget 2018, which will occur on 17 May. The new Government has signalled a desire for an economy that is fair and inclusive. We’ve talked about a shared prosperity. We want an economy that is beneficial for all New Zealanders. Too many of our people have missed out on the recent benefits of growth, and, as the previous Government has failed to make the necessary investments in public services and infrastructure to keep living standards high, as Kiwis expect, we are signalling a different direction in that respect. We will begin to address the social and infrastructure deficits that have built up over nine years.

The Budget Policy Statement shows that Budget 2018 will make progress towards remedying these deficits through a clearly laid out set of priorities, and these include: building quality public services for New Zealanders and improving access to core services, taking action on child poverty and homelessness, supporting families to get ahead and sharing the wealth generated by our economy with a wide range of New Zealanders, sustainable economic development and supporting the regions, and managing our natural resources and taking action against environmental challenges, such as climate change.

The Speech from the Throne, which incorporated the coalition and confidence and supply agreements, indicated the policy programme required to deliver on these priorities. The BPS outlines how Budget 2018 will secure the funding to allow for such a robust and ambitious programme. This Government takes seriously the need to invest in social and infrastructure projects to clear that deficit left by the previous Government, but we’ve also committed to governing fiscally responsibly within a set of Budget responsibility rules. Within those rules, we will deliver a sustainable operating surplus across an economic cycle. We will reduce the level of net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office. We will prioritise investments to address the long-term financial and sustainability challenges facing New Zealand. The Government will maintain its expenditure to within the recent historical range of spending to GDP ratio. We will ensure a progressive taxation system that is fair, balanced, and promotes the long-term sustainability and productivity of the economy.

Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update was also released on 14 December 2017, and it showed that we are on track to meet the Government’s Budget responsibility rules. The HYEFU, as it’s known, had a few highlights that I’d like to share with the House. The highlights are that the economy is growing at a solid rate, with growth expected to peak at 3.6 percent in 2018-19. Growth is slightly lower than forecast in 2017-18 and 2018-19 while we transition to a more sustainable, productive, and inclusive economy, but then forecasts beyond that are looking incredibly strong, and rating agencies have seen fit to comment on this. The Government’s package of investment in social and infrastructure programmes—this signal direction is one that gives rating agencies confidence that this Government is going to see a growing economy strengthening further over time.

Unemployment is expected to fall to 4 percent in late 2020—it’s lower than the forecast 4.3 percent in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU). There is a lot of good news here. I am really, really going to watch closely to see just how—how, if in any way—the Opposition can manage to talk the economy down from here, when the news is so good. Wages are forecast to grow at just over 3 percent on average over the next five years, reaching 3.5 percent growth in 2021-22, around half a percent higher than average in the PREFU, and underpinned by a tightening labour market, building inflationary pressures, and recovery in labour productivity growth. Lifting the minimum wage will further support this.

Operating balance before gains and losses surpluses are forecast to rise, reaching $8.8 billion in 2021-22. Net core Crown debt is forecast to decline, down to 19.3 percent of GDP in 2021-22 within five years of office. This is a strong coalition Government that is delivering a strong programme for the economy and lowering debt at the same time—slightly slower than forecast in the PREFU, but that’s to make allowances for investment, to start to address the social and infrastructure deficits that we inherited from nine long years of neglect under the previous Government.

It is important that surpluses are maintained to allow us to meet the need for new capital investments, and no one in this House—no one in this House—will dispute that. But nine years of under-investment by the previous Government will see the need for increasing investment in housing, hospitals, schools, and roads. That is something this Government is committed to.

We’ve also resumed contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, so that our retirements can be sustainable. This is a responsible Government that is investing for future generations. More good news—watch them try to talk this down and audition for finance spokesperson at the same time. They’ve got their work cut out, those two women opposite.

Capital investment is expected to total $42 billion over the next five years, significantly higher than the previous Government’s plans, because we are committed to addressing those deficits. By reversing the previous Government’s tax cuts for the wealthy, we can afford to make major investments in health, education,—

Hon Amy Adams: Are you reading that speech? How pathetic.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and infrastructure while paying down debt, Ms Adams.

The Budget Policy Statement outlines the operating and capital allowances for the next five years, and these allowances provide the fiscal room to make the investments that are needed after that neglect. And they will be made. There are also extra free allowances beyond that—more free allowances, because our allowances overall are larger than previous Governments. We make no apology for that, because we are going to address those deficits, as I’ve outlined.

I want to speak also, briefly, about the 100-day plan, because there’s not much time left—not because there’s not a lot to say about it. This Government has achieved much in its first 100 days, and let’s not forget that investment. Let’s not forget what Treasury—somebody at Treasury let slip to me the other the day that they thought it was the biggest redistributive package since 1991, to make sure that families are well supported. And, of course, in 1991 redistribution was happening in the opposite direction. We’re looking for a fair society.

Ha, ha! The Deputy Prime Minister’s passed me a note, just reminding me that they’re sitting together across there because “misery loves company”. I think he’s hit the nail on the head. Perhaps a little unkind but woefully accurate, I have to say, Deputy Prime Minister.

This Government is determined to invest for the good of New Zealanders. New Zealand may have experienced strong growth during the previous Government as house prices rose uncontrollably and as population growth inflated the figures, but this headline growth came at a time of rising homelessness, inequality, a housing crisis, regional deprivation, and the opening of an infrastructure deficit that will take years to fix.

Growth is one thing, but shared growth is what we aspire to. The Budget Policy Statement delivered by this Government on 14 December is the starting point in our plan to deliver sustainable, productive, and inclusive growth for all New Zealanders.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on this Budget Policy Statement (BPS) debate—well, actually, technically the debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I do want to acknowledge Michael Wood, the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who introduced the debate. I do think it’s a shame, I must say, that Labour have never managed to have a female chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. You know, for all their grand talk about supporting women and equality, never once have they managed to have a women in that position. Of course, National have had two, but there you go. That’s just because we actually walk the talk.

We just heard a very—well, I was going to say “very interesting”, but it was actually a kind of boring speech from the Minister of Health. But the one thing that I took from it, other than the fact that he can’t give a speech without reading it, is that this is a Labour Government that has learnt nothing from their previous terms in Government—they still believe that their success will be measured by how much money they can spend. Dr Clark—sorry, I was about to call him “Mr Clark”—stood there and told us, or read through, a laundry list of all of the spending they were going to do, as if somehow that meant that they would be a good Government. Well, actually, Dr Clark, the Budget Policy Statement is about holding the Government to account on how it is blending fiscal constraint with its policy objectives.

Of course, when the BPS was presented to the House last year and we had the urgent debate on it, it was presented alongside the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). Mr Joyce has already made a number of very strong points in his contribution about the lack of any detail in the HYEFU about the very policies and promises that were being made in this document, and I want to reflect on that in the context of core Crown debt because, actually, core Crown debt is something that is incredibly important to New Zealanders and their fiscal long-term stability and security.

Now what we know from these documents that we’re debating today is that this is a Labour Government that already is projecting to take core Crown debt from $56 billion to $70 billion. So for all the big talk, what we’re actually seeing is a Government that knows how to do nothing but spend and throw money around, and they’re quite happy to put it on the plastic. So while National had a strong trajectory of debt falling, Labour already have got core Crown debt increasing from $56 billion to $70 billion. But—just like the infomercials—wait, there’s more, because that increase to $70 billion is before they count the cost of any of those large spending promises that Mr Joyce ran through, and they are not included in the HYEFU numbers at all.

So, as soon as you start looking at the reality of this, we’re already moving it up to $70 billion, and now, of course, we know we’re going to have to add in the $15 billion that Mr Twyford wants to spend on a light rail set in Auckland. The $1 billion, or however much of that is new money, because they can’t seem to actually figure that out and tell us—none of that from the regional growth fund is included in these numbers. Now all of this will go straight to debt because it is quite clear that any money that they had available has all been blown through in the 100-day plan with the fees-free policy for tertiary, which we know is not increasing university enrolments by a single student, it appears, and we know is widely likely to be rorted.

All the money has been spent already, so every single extra spending commitment that we know they have made—that they have committed to making; that they’ve talked about in this House—goes straight into debt. It goes straight on to the future stability of all of our children and grandchildren, and it just adds to that $70 billion they’re already planning to increase it to. So this shows us that it’s a Government that, once more, has gone straight back to the “just keeping spending, and let future generations worry about the impact of that debt” approach. Well, actually, any family and any business knows that if you just keep running up debt, eventually the bough breaks—you cannot keep doing it.

So I talked about those two commitments. What about the impact of wage rounds? None of that has been included in this, and we know that the policies that Mr Lees-Galloway wants to bring in, where we move to centralised, industry-level, union-controlled wage bargaining—we know that is going to lead to significant additional fiscal costs on the Government. None of that has been included in these documents, none of it has been costed, and it is just another example of the Government firing from the hip without a clue what the fiscal cost of that is. That is just not prudent, responsible governing.

Dr Clark has talked often—and voluminously, and not that interestingly or intelligibly—about the $8 billion extra he wants to put into health. Well, where is that in these numbers? Where is it? How does that get paid for?

I would like the Government Ministers to stand up and not spout off about how much money they’re going to spend, because spending is easy. I’ve been a Minister in very hard, challenging portfolios, and I can tell this House that spending is the easiest part of being a Minister. It is the easiest thing to do. What is hard is balancing careful control of the money that taxpayers send here with our objectives and our desire to make New Zealand better. That’s what National focused on when we were in Government, and this Government already has shown us they have no idea what their policies will cost them, they have no idea how they’re going to pay for it, and they’re not being up front when they put out these documents about what’s coming down the pipeline and what it’s going to cost. That’s why we’ve got those 34 pages in the BPS—34 pages of uncosted fiscal risks. Treasury said, “Well, we can’t say nothing about them, so we’ll just go on through 34 pages of areas where we know that there’s extra pressure.”, and all of that goes straight to debt.

Look for a moment at the issue of the 1,800 extra police. Now the various members of the Government talked about this as, what, “Forty million dollars maybe, or $50 million. You know, it could be $80 million.” Well, last week in select committee, the Commissioner of Police made it quite clear we’re looking at more than $300 million of cost for that, and yet none of that is included in these numbers. Is it because the Government didn’t know—they just made the policy commitment without any idea of the cost on New Zealand—or is it because they just didn’t want to tell us? Either one of those is a completely unacceptable outcome.

Another example. A few weeks ago we had Dr Clark again announcing the extension of the pay equity deal to mental health workers and addiction workers—a decision that had clearly been in the pipeline for some time—and yet nowhere was it included in these documents.

I find it quite extraordinary that a Government that stood up and told us—and, in this House, repeated—that their intention was to be the most transparent Government ever have started, in the most critical of accountability documents to the public and to this House, by failing to cost their policies. They have failed to understand the impact of those policies and have failed to be open with New Zealand about what that’s going to mean. I will tell this House what it’s going to mean: it is going to mean that debt level goes even higher. It’s not going to be just going from $56 billion to $70 billion; it is going to be going considerably north of that, and that is a real concern for the future prospects of New Zealand.

I want to touch on one final comment, and that is looking at the impact of the industrial relations changes that the Government is proposing—which I’ve talked about in question time—on the economic trajectory of this country. When you harm the economy and job creation and the businesses that actually create jobs, you harm tax revenues and you make this imbalance between spending and income even worse. So, even with everything I’ve already said, you have to allow even more debt to come through, because we’re going to see fewer jobs and we’re going to see fewer businesses wanting to invest and to grow, and that not only hurts the workers who miss out, but it hurts the tax revenues and the ability of the Government to make their numbers add up.

There is no doubt that the Government has been talking ad nauseam about higher wages. Higher wages help no one if they can’t get a job. We’ve already seen Treasury saying that just one of the Government’s changes is going to mean 28,000 fewer jobs and, actually—even worse than that—for the jobs that are there, it is the young and the vulnerable workers who will miss out on the chance of getting them.

The BPS alone tells us very clearly that we’re going to go from employment growth in this country that was in excess of 5 percent a year under National, to almost zero. That is what Treasury has said in this BPS. Because of the actions of this Government, employment growth, which is the chance for New Zealanders to get a job, will go from 5 percent—or, actually, more than 5 percent under National, where we were creating 10,000 new jobs a month—to almost zero.

This is a Government that in their first 100 days have managed to completely destroy the creation of new jobs in this country. They are running up debt in a way that is unsustainable and that will hurt future generations, and it is not a good start for New Zealand.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, sir. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of this fantastic Government. I do have to say, I was ready and willing to listen to the member Amy Adams and her audition for the finance spokesperson’s role, but I actually stopped—I stopped listening because, actually, I took umbrage. She was somehow offended at the composition of the Finance and Expenditure (F & E) Committee. I have been a member of that committee—privileged to be a member—in the last term and this, and there could not be a greater contrast in the composition of that committee. On that side of the House, that committee membership was pale, male, and stale, and they made no attempt themselves. And yet, the contrast today, on this side of the committee’s composition—more females, more Māori participation. The contrast couldn’t be more stark, and so I stopped listening—I stopped listening, but then I heard the words about debt, and she made some obscure references to the debate that we’re having today.

Could I first touch on wages, which the member raised. This Government is committed to raising wages amongst New Zealanders. We want to incentivise a highly productive, contributive economy, and this is what has been outlined in this report from F & E. What the member opposite may not realise is that in doing that and saying somehow it will be bad for the economy, she has discounted the nature of a circular economy—the very nature of those increases in wages and what that will do to aggregate demand. Those increases in wages are a good thing for New Zealand in so many ways—retaining and attracting skilled employment—but in stimulating economic growth, actually, they are a good thing and I am proud to be in a Government that is part of that.

I speak to the audition, or the contribution, from Mr Joyce, and I say to Mr Joyce—he spoke about how that previous Government brought the Government’s books into surplus. For seven long years, year after year after year after year, they were never able to achieve that. The unbelievable nature of not having achieved that was that at the same time, whilst we are actually spending money on growing infrastructure in health and education, that party over there, while they could never get to a surplus for seven years, froze the police budget, cut tertiary education budgets, cut the health budget, managed to cut back on the conservation budget so severely—in all that time, they could not reach a surplus.

I put it to the House that while those members opposite grinned about achieving that near 3 percent—[Interruption] Oh, yes, Mr Speaker. Yes, Mr Speaker, I will come to the matter for the debate. Well, OK, let’s put it in this context: we are forecasting just under 3 percent growth for the economy in this half-yearly report, and I have no doubt the Budget will confirm that. In contrast to that, Mr Joyce, in his time as the Minister of Finance, spoke about his 3 percent in GDP growth. He never spoke about the nominal growth rate that discounted the impact that that growth was having on individuals, which was negligible—nothing to negligible—and he never spoke about investment in the New Zealand economy, because that Government was too afraid and unwilling to spend a dollar on New Zealand business to generate and grow our regions.

By contrast, I’m proud to speak to the Budget Policy Statement today, which very much speaks about a Government that is willing and able to contribute to growing New Zealand business. Yes, our focus is in the regions, because we all know that the regions have been neglected for nine years—nine years of neglect—and it is only now that a Government is willing to stand up, take stock, and rejuvenate what, I put to this House, is the heart of this country. We are a Government that has stood up and, in this report, has put forward our commitment to the well-being of children in this country, because this is a Government that says that is at the heart of the decision-making process that we undergo on this side of the House. We believe that in doing that, we are looking at the well-being of all New Zealanders.

This Budget Policy Statement kind of had a past and future focus. What we’re talking about when I say that is that we are about addressing the issues, because now we need to build better-quality public services and improve access to core services like health and education. The contrast could not be more stark. The members opposite spoke about 3 percent GDP growth rate with that grin on their face for so many years when they were in Government, but, at the same time—I put it to the House—they wore like a badge of honour the fact that people were living in cars and cardboard boxes because that was simply symptomatic of their financial success. We do not accept that on this side of the House. We cannot accept that that is a measure of economic success, and so this Budget Policy Statement commits to building better-quality public services.

We had a contribution from this side of the House that spoke about the shortage of teachers—3,000, I believe, is projected in the not too distant future. In fact—Mr Hipkins, correct me if I’m wrong—I think we’re talking within the next financial year. So we have issues to deal with there because of chronic underfunding to our education system. We know that New Zealanders have been missing out on their access to doctors, nurses, and medical experts because of chronic underfunding from the other side of the House, and so now this Government must address that.

The other issue that we must address—and we cannot and we will not look past this—is poverty and homelessness. This is the core, the heart, of this Budget Policy Statement. So we must be about supporting families and sharing the wealth generated by the economy with, hopefully, all New Zealanders—those who want to engage, those who want to be part of it, those who want to work hard and earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We want to reward them for that, and we want to encourage New Zealanders to be a part of it—to say to you, no, a job is not one hour a week. A job, to this Government, is a full-time job where you can be proud because you can look after your children, you can look after your family, and you can enjoy yourself in the weekend—have a beer, or if you don’t want to do that, have a Fanta, and enjoy yourself and reap the rewards of your effort. We say that everyone must enjoy that.

I spoke to the other part of this report from the select committee. We are proud to say that this Government is absolutely focused on sustainable economic development and supporting regional New Zealand. I couldn’t be more proud to have been part of the group of Ministers that travelled to Gisborne on Friday. I was there to share in the announcements from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister for Regional Economic Development. In Gisborne, every person in that hall—and that hall was packed—had a smile on their face because, finally, they had a Government that was committed to supporting good people with good ideas, good economic plans, and a commitment to make it work for this country. What they needed, and what they need still, is just that little bit more of that support, and this report talks proudly and speaks proudly to that.

I suppose I must finish by saying that we have made a commitment to managing New Zealand’s natural resources and taking action against environmental challenges like climate change, and I’m very proud to say that that is our mandate forward, too. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just start by congratulating the member who’s resumed his seat, Fletcher Tabuteau, on his recent elevation to the role of deputy leader of New Zealand First. He’s the third one with whom I’ve always had quite good chats. The first was the Hon Tracey Martin, followed by the Hon Ron Mark, and now himself. So congratulations, Mr Tabuteau. I hope you last longer than the previous ones. I think it’s always good to see young blood coming through.

I think, on the other side—I’ve heard some great speeches today on this side of the House and on the other side, but the best on the other side has actually been from Michael Wood, MP for Mt Roskill—socialist though it was. But I thought it was a good speech, and I thought Michael Wood should be teaching some of the current Ministers how to give a speech. He’s referred to various things, but I thought one that I have to pull him up on is that he did refer to a comment that—he’s made some sort of comment about how Budgets create jobs. Well, only if one is still in printing, actually, because Budgets don’t create jobs. What creates jobs is business. Business creates jobs, and it is business that must not be destroyed by any Budget statement or any Budget or any Government. It’s business that actually creates the jobs, and it’s the workers who help to create that business.

But also what’s needed in that business is capital, and we have a Government at the moment whose Budget Policy Statement is very focused—is very focused—on how to take more money off people who earn their money and save their money: more taxes. We just have to look at some of the statements in this Budget Policy Statement. There’s a statement along here that the Government will “Ensure a progressive taxation system that is fair, balanced and promotes the long-term sustainability and productivity of the economy.” Well, then it goes on: “Taxation is an important tool for rebalancing the economy”. Well, we know what that means. That means not rebalancing; that means ripping the guts out of small business, day in, day out, until they become even smaller business—microbusiness—and they’re out the door. That’s what that means.

We see a statement here: “The Government believes that we need a better balance in our tax system to support the productive sector and ensure all taxpayers are paying their fair share.” Well, who would argue with that, except what that really means—what that really means—is ripping the guts out of business, ripping the guts out of mum and dad business owners, and making sure that they don’t just pay their fair share but they pay for all of the rubbish that this particular Government wants to do.

They’ve made some big promises—big promises—about what they’re going to do; they’ve been very quiet about how they’re going to fund it. So, instead, what we see here is a statement where—and I’m quoting—“Recent transport investment has been overly focused on a handful of expensive roading projects selected for political reasons, rather than on improving the whole transport system as an integrated, multimode network.” Well, could they just please stop using stupid words like “multimode” or “integrated”? Why don’t we just have “comprehensive” and “progressive” all at the same time, because you have to have “comprehensive” and “progressive” and “multimode” and then, all of a sudden, it’s going to work.

Well, how about this: who’s paying for those roads? I can tell you. It’s not coming out of Budgets; it’s coming out of the National Land Transport Fund, which is funded by the petrol taxes on the petrol that we buy to put in our cars and it’s funded by the road-user charges where the diesel users on the roads—they’re paying for that. They’re specifically paying into what always has been a hypothecated fund specifically to fund those roads, and yet we’ve got a Government here that’s trying to talk in its Budget Policy Statement not about what it’s going to do with the Budget but what it’s going to do with the normal taxation funds, but what it’s going to do with the money specifically paid for and taxed on constituents in Papakura and constituents in Albany and constituents who are paying, day in, day out, for this particular fund, the National Land Transport Fund.

And where is that money going? Well, remember there’s an accusation that there have been expensive roading projects selected for “political reasons”. Well, we know where it’s going, don’t we? They’re going to rip off the New Zealand road users to pay for a dopey trolley up the electorate of the Prime Minister. So don’t talk to me about political decisions—that was entirely a political decision.

Let’s have a look at one of these so-called political roading decisions that the Government wants to talk about. Just let’s talk—shall we talk about the extra lanes on the Southern Motorway from Manukau, from Hill Road through to Papakura. Is that a political decision? Ooh, I don’t think so. I think the people who are coming up that road going to the airport or the people coming down to work for Manukau or the people going the other way—I don’t think they think it’s a political decision, stuck in the two lanes each way on a road that is one of the major arterial routes of our particular transport system. I don’t think they think that’s political; they think it’s, strangely enough, necessary—necessary, needed. I often thought, what would happen to these poor people caught in this traffic, in this gridlock—what if someone was trying to have a baby in the back of an ambulance or in a car, would that be a political decision? Would that be a political decision? Would it? No, I don’t think so. That would be called a necessity. Would it be, in fact, something that’s just for that? No, it’s not political.

And how about Mill Road—how about Mill Road? Yes, it does go through my electorate, but, actually, it is, again, the only way through other than the Southern Motorway. So if there’s a crash on the Southern Motorway at the moment, through Hill Road, through to Papakura or Drury, it’s two lanes each way—that’s all it is. If you get a crash on that, if you get something overturned, all of a sudden everything blocks up and the only other way through is Mill Road, and yet it’s referred to in this Budget Policy Statement as a political decision—no, “political reasons”, paid for, by the way, not by Budgets but by the hypothecated fund specifically taken off of users of petrol and diesel.

Let’s have another little look in this Budget Policy Statement. I was looking for anything here that was going to deal with child poverty—not a dicky-bird, other than to say that they’d look at child poverty. I’m not quite sure how they’ll look at it—what, through a lens, through a window, through something else—but what it won’t be doing with child poverty—what it won’t be doing with child poverty—is, actually, a damn thing.

Hon Damien O’Connor: You should have been leader. Why didn’t they pick you? Why didn’t they pick you, Judith? They should have picked you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And it’s great to hear the Hon Damien O’Connor finally speak. I thought he’d like to speak about what they’re doing to the mining industry on the West Coast. I thought they’d like to talk about Te Kuha mine where the metallurgical coal is. I wonder if he wants to talk about that—nothing in here about what they’re doing for the people of the West Coast. Not a dicky-bird in here about the West Coast, and should there be anything about the West Coast? Well, I would have thought so.

What I can tell that member from the West Coast, though—I can give him some good news: the West Coast will very soon have an excellent MP. Maureen Pugh is coming back, and Maureen Pugh knows who puts her into Parliament: it’s the people on the West Coast, not the Hon Damien O’Connor.

Coming back to this Budget Policy Statement yet again, can I say, “Where’s the money in here for law and order?” No, no, we know who’s going to be paying for all these dopey schemes from the other side. It’s actually, the victims of family violence, the victims of serious crime, because this Government has spent already—before it’s even had its hand in the till, it’s already spent the money that should be going to keep in prison the worst recidivist violent and sexual offenders and methamphetamine sellers that this country has seen. Instead, that Government wants to let them out nice and early—30 percent early. It’s an utter disgrace. Instead, they just want to buy votes, use other people’s money, and rip off our road taxes.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I’m going to have to start off my contribution to this Budget Policy Statement (BPS) debate by picking up exactly where the previous Government and its members have taken up today. I want to pick up some of the terminology, some of the words that they used to make it sound like they left this country’s economy in good shape.

So they go on a lot—I think it was the Hon Amy Adams. She was going on a bit about the future stability of our grandchildren. She talked about having to make very tough choices—and also, I think, the Hon Steven Joyce. They talked about: are we just going to have to spend more money? They talked about making sure that we can carefully balance the control of the money. Did they know, in their planning of their amazing rock star economy, that they were going to end up with children visiting hospitals 42,000 times a year because of preventable illnesses from cold and damp homes? Did they carefully balance the future sustainability of our grandchildren when they thought about restricting and not making sure that all our homes are safe and warm—did they know? Did they know that they would end up spending $100,000 day on motels because of the homelessness levels that are facing our country in this so-called rock star economy? Did they know? Did they carefully plan and carefully spend so that that’s where we arrived at as a country today? Did they know?

They talk about being honest. They talk about making sure that a Government can be honest about where it puts its money, that a Government can be honest about the figures. Are we honest when we restrict our unemployment figures to just unemployment figures, or can we be a bit more honest and take into account the full labour market and take into account those people who are employed in jobs and are still living in cars? Can they be that honest with themselves?

SPEAKER: Order!

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Come back?

SPEAKER: Just leave the “honesty” word out.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Sure. Fair enough—well, it was raised by the previous benches. So I understand, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member’s got a higher standard.

Chris Bishop: Why don’t you talk about the BPS?

MARAMA DAVIDSON: So we’ve got a bit of a clean-up to do, and that brings me to—thank you, my colleague over here, Mr Bishop. That brings me to the Budget Policy Statement.

There’s a bit of a mess to clean up, and we know that communities in Aotearoa have been degraded economically, socially, and environmentally for quite some time with incredible underfunding to essential departments and organisations that help us to make sure that we’ve got all our things in a row—socially, economically, and environmentally.

So the Budget Policy Statement talks about a fiscal management that we need to be looking at now that goes beyond just measuring deficits or surpluses, that goes beyond just wanting to keep the debt to GDP ratio under a certain percentage. The Budget Policy Statement that we are putting up now introduces a far more sustainable way of planning our future together. This Government understands that fiscal management is also the responsibility of a Government to maximise real outcomes for actual people, not just on a spreadsheet. Real outcomes like, you know, full employment and better-paid employment and more permanent employment. Real outcomes like making sure that people’s living standards are, at the least, decent in this country—in this country, where we have enough—making sure that we are building warm, affordable homes that aren’t going to send our kids to hospital and that aren’t going to get people evicted because the rents are rising and the wages are stagnating.

This fiscal management that we are putting up is starting to understand that having a world-class health system, education system, and justice system is also about how we balance our books, because what are the costs—what are the costs—when we fail in that fiscal management? And, alongside all of this, we absolutely can keep our inflation stable. Things aren’t going to be stable when you’ve got people in employment still struggling to pay the rent, still struggling to buy healthy food, still having to take time off work because their children are sick constantly. Those 42,000 visits a year to hospital, they were repeat visits because the kids had to keep going back to the same cold house. What sort of fiscal management do we call that?

So, I’m really proud that we are going to have legislation to put more money into families’ pockets—an average of $75 a week with the Families Package, and that’s going to help around 384,000 families. And what I like about that is the way we did that. We’re getting rid of National’s tax cuts, which kept the majority of the wealth in the hands of a few. That’s not how we design an economy. No matter what we produce, it has to be shared equally in a way that’s going to matter, in a way that’s going to keep our communities cohesive, in a way that we can continue to protect our environment and our communities.

I am especially pleased and proud of our Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, where landlords now know and understand that properties have to be warm and insulated and have a way of being kept warm. These are basic things. These are basic things that are going to insist that we are stable in the long run. I am especially pleased about the extension of paid parental leave—which I’ve had to call on myself—starting with pushing it out to 22 weeks, currently I think it’s 18, and then eventually to 26 weeks. These are the things that will make our economy and our communities strong.

I wanted to, particularly, pick up on the fact that we know that the way that we measure well-being has long had to change, and I’m particularly pleased because the Green Party has understood this. We’ve understood that there is a connection between our economic, environmental, and social outcomes. They are not isolated. They depend on each other for our whole well-being to go ahead.

I have to quote the incredible previous Green Party female co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, who said, “If we value only what can be priced then of course we will pursue economic growth right to the point where the collapse of our life support system destroys us all. If we instead value our families, friends, community and human relationships, our natural environment and time to enjoy them, quality rather than just quantity, we will measure our success with a Genuine Progress Indicator rather than by the sheer size of economic output.”

I’m most proud of the work we are starting, and of my Minister James Shaw in particular, for pushing through indicators that tell the actual truth. You cannot just say you left the books in good shape when you’ve still got families living in cars or even just in rentals that are insecure—in rental properties that are going to finish in three or six months. You cannot say you left the books in good shape and ignore all of the downfall and all the hangover around those books. We are not going to do that any longer. We understand that we have to measure all of the well-being indicators. I am proud to stand up and speak in support of the Budget Policy Statement. Kia ora.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s wonderful to take a contribution in this, the debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement. Regrettably, though, although the committee is hard working and has fine contributions from members on this side of the House, this report and indeed the Budget Policy Statement are just something that this side cannot possibly support, not necessarily because of what the report says in its entirety but pretty much because of what it doesn’t say.

So this Government, when they took office, came in and talked up a big game of all of the things it was going to do to help New Zealanders. They talked about a billion dollars a year in regional development expenditure. They talked about billions of dollars of investment in health and education. And, lo, here we have a Budget Policy Statement, following the half-year update, and it is conspicuous for the absence of any of those things.

The Government has tried to put forward a rosy picture of life under them—particularly, they’re trying to paint a picture of sound or good fiscal management. But what do they do, though, really? They leave out the big-ticket items. They, quite frankly, think they can fool New Zealanders into believing they’ve got it all under control, but, really, they’re hiding it. The ultimate in shell games and politics, they’re trying to keep the public guessing, to have them believe they’re doing a good job. This shouldn’t be called a Budget Policy Statement; it should be called a “Budget Policy Snow Job”, because that’s exactly what they’re trying to do to the public.

Look at the actual evidence they have to deal with that they’ve tried to hide. You have a case where 29 new fiscal risks are identified in the half-year update and the Government just tries to pretend they’re not there. Then, when you get the Opposition raising them for their attention in committee, seeking to get this stuff into the report, and seeking to debate it in this House, they try to make out that the risks aren’t that severe. But the threshold for a risk to be noted in that update is the risk has to have a value of $100 million or greater. So what we’re really talking about here is billions of dollars of risk identified by Treasury in the economic management of this new Government and they’re trying to paint some rosy picture of sound fiscal management. Well, as I’ve said, it’s actually a case of a new Government just wanting to try to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes.

Well, actually, New Zealanders are a lot smarter than that. They can see through these smart games. They can see through, quite frankly, the duplicity inherent in the statements the Government’s trying to put out. They can see through the snow job that this policy statement represents, and we reject a rush makeover snow job on this House and on New Zealand. We simply can’t support this report.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Willie Jackson—a five-minute call.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which was released on 14 December. Can I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to this Government for the Budget Policy Statement and the seamless way in which it has happened as part of the first 100 days on the Treasury benches. So I’d just like to applaud ourselves for the work we’ve done.

But, first of all, I really need to give my condolences to Mark Mitchell over there. Mark, you were our choice. You were our choice because—Mark Mitchell, one of the good guys on the other side, did the numbers—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Jackson—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, I’m coming back to it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, you come to it now—right now.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Hang on. Sir, it’s only right that I pay my condolences to Mark and to Jami-Lee Ross, because he missed out—the other two Māoris beat him.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Try speaking to the Budget Policy Statement—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m speaking to it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): —while you’re doing it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m speaking to it, because these people are the same people who have been saying—and I was really offended in the last hour with the rubbish I kept hearing, for instance, about jobs, and the waffle about how things were tracking so well in terms of the National Party and the way that the stats have come down. We’re very proud of the way the stats are coming down, too, but you can’t pat yourself on the back, as Mark Mitchell and Jami-Lee Ross have been doing, when you’ve got statistics within statistics—when you have Māori struggling at double the rate of the general unemployment figures, at 9 percent; when you have jobs being advertised that “a job’s a job”, when you do one hour a week. And we had the Hon Judith Collins waffling on about how well the previous Government has done—that’s not reality, that’s just nonsense. That’s just nonsense.

This Government is into investing into real jobs and into the people. We’re not into investing into our mates. That’s the difference with this Government. We’re not going to give tax cuts to our mates to avoid investment in health. It’s clear. The statement is clear: we’re going to actually invest in the people. So I’m pleased with where we’re going on this. I think we’re on track in terms of building an economy where everyone can benefit.

Marama Davidson from the Greens mentioned a couple of areas, I think, that our Budget Policy Statement talks about, particularly in the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act that was passed in November, which sets minimum standards for rentals. Māori, in particular, are going to benefit in that. No longer are we going to have the types of sicknesses that we’re getting in some of our kids, and that, in South Auckland. We’re actually going to invest in healthy homes. I mean, it’s fantastic.

Other features of our plan, which have been coming out, are restarting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, a ban on overseas speculators buying existing homes, the Tax Working Group, student allowances and living costs to be increased by $50, a directive to Housing New Zealand to stop the sale of State houses—it goes on and on; you know, this has all been happening in the 100 days—the Pike River Recovery Agency, the inquiry into abuse of children in State care. You know, this is what this country wanted. We didn’t just want waffle; we wanted investment in terms of our people.

Chris Bishop: You’re the Crown prince of waffling.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That member over there, he knows what I’m saying—that this is a Government that will invest in families. Families. The Families Package is something that’s outstanding; something that that member and his mates forgot about in the previous nine years. So I’m proud of the package. I’m proud that the package provides a significant boost to the incomes of low and middle income families. Many have been struggling under a National Government who was fixated—fixated—on investing into their mates. The sad part of that is that data tells us that the richest 1 percent of New Zealand own 30 percent of the country. Meanwhile, the poorest 30 percent own only 1 percent. That’s data that the previous Government should be ashamed of.

And we’re going to change things. We’re going to try and set up a more equitable society for everyone, where we’re not just going to look at the stats, at 4.5 percent; we’re going to look at equity and equality for women, for Māori, for disabled, for people right across the spectrum. So today, I’m proud to stand up and support our Government who are absolutely on track at the moment. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. There’s a theme whereby the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, points out that his updates are truly just the starting point. Well, this is the starting point of my parliamentary career. I’ve started other roles before, and I’ve reasonable expectations of the environment that I normally come into. The expectations—they’re not unrealistic or onerous; they’re reasonable and they’re sensible. Who wants to sign on to something that doesn’t create a good future?

On election night, the country overwhelmingly chose the National Party. The majority of New Zealand expected the National Party to retain the Treasury benches. Why? So that we could continue certainty and we could carry on with the growth that earned us the lion’s share of support in the first place. Some liked our ability to create 10,000 a jobs a month for the prior 18 months or achieve 4.5 percent unemployment rates in December 2017, a nine-year low. Some liked our 21st century economy where the IT industry grew 9 percent per year since 2007. The total value of $3.6 billion to the economy in 2015, that’s massive, and some, put simply, felt quite safe knowing that we’d achieved 3.5 percent general economic growth over the past three years—higher than anyone thought.

That was my starting point, and I wanted to know that I was getting good governance, clarity of direction, wise spending, and avoiding debt. I also wanted honesty about where the risks are, to avoid them and to gauge where they are. Well, the post-election period kicked up something different, and that’s what we have here today: a Budget Policy Statement that reads not at all what I would call a decent starting point. Instead of certainty, risk mitigation, we have a Budget Policy Statement that promotes uncertainty and a small taste of the new Government’s spending appetite. Do you know what certainty would have been? It would have been if the Government had fully costed up their full policy programme. Instead, the pre-Christmas half-yearly update contained only items in the 100-day plan. Where’s the rest?

There’s a huge number of election commitments yet to be included in the Government accounts. Where are they? What’s happening is cost cutting in some very regrettable areas to support the incredibly expensive 100-day plan—for example, Aspire Scholarships for disadvantaged students and a fund for rare diseases. Infrastructure spending is up in the air, and we’ve got road projects in uncertainty all around the country.

If you think I’m nit-picking, let’s see where the benchmark lies. Let’s take Treasury’s own technical thresholds for what it considers to be a specific risk. It’s $100 million. Does that sound like small bickies? Does that sound like pocket money? How many specific risks do you think the new Government has clocked up with Treasury? Benchmark—it has to be a minimum of $100 million. Twenty-nine specific risks. That’s right—29, with a minimum level of $100 million each. Do the math—that’s some serious uncertainty.

If one’s not concerned about the Budget Policy Statement at this point, then let’s add my final kicker. I said at the start that my starting point for any role was good governance, wise spending, and avoidance of debt. You build debt only when you need to, at the times when it’s required—let’s say, a couple of catastrophic natural events or a global financial crisis—but when it’s good times, you do what? You pay it down, until now. Debt has been dropping down under the previous National Government, and now, in just four years’ time, the current Minister of Finance plans for debt to be at $70 billion. That’s on top of the 29 specific Treasury risks, at $100 million each minimum.

Finally, when I survey this Budget Policy Statement, I think it’s plainly obvious the Government have not prepared themselves for any future risks. We’re in uncharted territory here. They’re walking on a tightrope, and we need only a small bit of wind to blow them off.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that was released on 14 December 2017. A big part of this report—this Budget Policy Statement we have here—is about improving the living standards and well-being of New Zealanders, and a big part of how that’s going to be done and continued to be measured is the living standards framework, which is the crucial start of how that’s going to happen. That will be how we create future Budgets, and it will be how we measure success of our work going forwards.

Let me quote—and this is a long one; we’ll unpack it—“The [Living Standards Framework] is based on an OECD framework that organises indicators of … intergenerational wellbeing.” Well, what does that mean? That means to the average New Zealander that this Government is measuring more than just money. It’s moving far beyond the narrow indicators that we’ve been stuck with in the past, and it’s looking at how we gauge the success of people and families that live here in New Zealand.

If we take the average New Zealand family and look at how we measure whether they’re healthy and happy and successful and how this country is operating, it’s got to go a bit further than how much they’re earning, how much the mortgage is being repaid, or how much bills are being paid. It’s also about their health, about their community, and about their well-being. I’m proud to see a Labour-led Government start setting up indicators in a framework that now allows us a far more comprehensive way of measuring the success of our country, and that is where this Government is different to the previous one.

We’re looking in terms of health, mental health, and connections between people and their community. What’s the point of being ultra-productive—of going faster to the point where the people are broken? That’s exactly what New Zealand has seen over the past nine years. Families and mums and dads work longer hours for lower wages to pay higher rents and higher food costs to spend less time with their children and put them in after-hours care, so the next generation of New Zealanders have far more problems than the previous generation, and that’s what we are here to put a stop to. We want our families to be strong and resilient, to have high-quality healthcare, mental health services when people need it, education services that are world class, and homes that are warm and dry. That is how we will be measuring the success of this country going forward.

Over the past nine years, we have seen, not investment in New Zealand, but running it down. Things have been run down to a point where they are breaking. That is going to take a long time to fix, and we know that. It’s going to take a long time to fix, because the people that have borne the brunt of the running down of those resources are New Zealanders. They are the people in Hutt South that have not been able to get mental health services when there are immediate suicide risks in their family. Those are the people that don’t know where to turn or to go to because the basic rights they need as New Zealanders have not being delivered to them, and this is a cycle that will require investment—investment and building up the strength of our country—not milking it and letting it run down.

So of the four capitals in the list—the four main capitals that we’ll be looking at in this area—number one is natural capital: aspects of our natural environment. Making sure that we can swim in our rivers—that is a measure of how healthy our country is. Social capital, number two, is how our Crown-Māori relationships are working, that our Treaty relationship is healthy and functioning, and that the connections we have between people and our communities are working well. Number three, human capital: the skills, knowledge, and mental health of our people are well. That we enable people to participate and fully partake of society is a measure. Number four, financial and physical capital: that we have houses, roads, buildings, hospitals, and factories—a direct role in supporting the incomes of New Zealanders. These things are being measured, as well.

In the past, the previous Government created surpluses by running down expenditure in key areas and then crowing about their success. This is not sustainable. This is not sustainable for the long-term development of our country, and those people—as I’ve already said—who wore it, through the lack of housing, through the lack of health services, and through the running down of education and other services, were New Zealanders. This Government is about investing in our strengths, investing in our people, and investing in our services and about strengthening New Zealand for future generations to come.

In our first 100-day plan, we have set out bold targets. Those have been completed, and they pave the way for good work to continue to come. The first one, which I’m really proud of seeing, is the fees-free programme for post-secondary education and training, and after two years’ time, there will be two years’ free in 2021, and three years’ free by 2024—planning for a future workforce that has strong skills, whether it be trade training, university, or polytech, and giving employers the ability to offer the right types of jobs to keep our young people here in New Zealand and not going offshore.

Restarting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—there’s a good one. We just let those go for nine years—the first thing they did when they got in, under the National Government. We need to help protect the Government’s ability to pay super from the age of 65, and that’s exactly what we’ve done. It is irresponsible to cut payments and to bury your head in the sand and think that those things won’t come in the long term. It’s important to restart those contributions, like we have, so that we look after those people when they retire.

Three, banning overseas speculators from buying existing houses—this is a good one. While the housing crisis spiralled out of control, we still saw people from overseas with the ability to buy a residential property here in New Zealand, and the only action that was taken was the limp-wristed two-year brightline test that’s been put into place, which has since been extended to five years.

We want to see foreign investment where it adds to our country and where it adds to our economy, not where it stops the average Kiwi family from owning a home and not when it drives up rent prices to the point where no one can afford to pay for their groceries because all the money’s gone on rent. That’s where we’ve seen real issues going, and by having a KiwiBuild policy and having a commitment to building 100,000 affordable homes over the next 10 years, we have a clear plan of how we want to turn that around and how we want to make New Zealand families the priority and give those families the basics in life to get on and take full advantage of the benefits that this country offers.

The last one I would like to touch on is what we’ve done for those families with kids—those families who have a hard time, whether they be working or in the middle. It’s very hard having children when you’re trying to go back to work and pay the bills. By extending paid parental leave—the first piece of legislation that was passed through this House—we saw that 22 weeks of paid parental leave were made available. That will soon increase to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

As a mum—a working mum—that works very well with 20 hours’ free early childhood, a previous Labour policy. That enables mums and dads to go back to work at a number of hours per week and add an additional salary to that income to make life a lot easier for those in the middle. That is in addition to the Working for Families package, which is targeted at that middle-income family area to make life easier for New Zealanders, to make sure that they can give their kids the best start in life, and to make sure that they have a real chance of trying to save enough of a deposit to buy their own home, which is what this Government is about.

I am very proud to stand by this Budget Policy Statement because of what it provides to do, but also because of the fact that it looks deeper than just the two-dimensional view we’ve seen in the past. We want to measure more than just money, more than just GDP—we want to look at the whole well-being of our country, and that means putting our children first. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this topic this afternoon around the Budget Policy Statement. Now, we’ve just heard from the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, about measuring it and measuring everything. It’s all very well to talk about measuring it, but when we ask “What are you going to do? How you going to measure it? What are the details?”, we’re never getting told what they are. We don’t actually know how you’re going to measure it because you haven’t actually said. This Government doesn’t like targets.

I also have a statement for the last speaker, which is: a Budget is not what the Government has done. The last speaker kept referring to what the Government has done. What the Government has done has referred to it in a Budget Policy Statement.

Kieran McAnulty: [Holds up Budget Policy Statement] This is what we’re discussing, not the Budget.

BARBARA KURIGER: No, but the Budget Policy Statement—the last speaker was talking about what this Government has done. The Government has put a Budget Policy Statement in place, and it’s full of opaqueness. I also heard a colleague of mine, my colleague next to me here, Denise Lee, talking about the serious uncertainty. I can tell you that what you’ve got on the piece of paper that was just held up, Kieran McAnulty, is a statement, but the public are not buying that statement because there is serious uncertainty and there is opaqueness in it.

So that statement came out on 14 December—that was over two months ago. So, yes, we can have Christmas and we can have New Year, and this Government is up to its 100 days. In fact, it’s 28 days, almost—not quite, but almost—past its 100 days. So do we have to wait for Easter before we get any—you know, we’ve had Christmas, New Year; do we have to wait for Easter? We want the “how”. We don’t know how we can measure stuff when this Government’s not prepared to set targets.

And we’re already aware that Treasury’s got 29 fiscal bombs waiting to happen—time bombs—within this statement, Mr McAnulty. There’s major policies—like the Provincial Growth Fund, extra Department of Conservation funding, justice policies, primary healthcare policies, new rail links, and all this talk about employment relations and increasing the minimum wage, and the population’s out there going, “How on earth is this Government going to be able to afford all the things that they’ve promised in this Budget Policy Statement?”

This Government’s convincing themselves. They haven’t yet convinced Treasury, and Treasury’s got serious concerns about this. So it’s ambitious. Why is it ambitious? Because this Government has no idea how it’s going to achieve its wish list. There are a whole host of committees that have been put in place to try and discover how this Government is going to achieve its wish lists, and now we’re seeing reports of putting an inquiry and a committee in to make an inquiry into the committees that have been set up. It’s like the song that never ends.

So, yes, it does identify in this statement—as some of the members have rightly talked about—the tertiary education package. Well, the tertiary education package is being put in place. Half the surplus that was around at that time has been allocated to this tertiary education package. We’re hearing that it’s having very little impact on the number of students, so there’s going to be a target and a measure. That’s a target—that’s a target that we’ve got on this side of the House, because we’re very happy to measure the targets so that we know at least the quantum of the amount of money that’s being spent. We are going to be watching to see how many dollars per extra student is going to be achieved in year one from this money that’s being put out for the students.

So beyond that, it’s very squishy indeed. I mean, there’s been the Family Incomes Package, and yes, we want money to go to the families as well, and we had a pretty impressive tax package that actually was giving tax cuts to hard-working New Zealanders.

Denise Lee: Gone now—gone.

BARBARA KURIGER: So I’m really concerned about these hard-working—yeah, it’s all gone. It’s all been spent.

There are also no numbers around this Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund. So we keep hearing lots of promises. We keep hearing about the quantum of the fund. We’re still not sure how some of this is going to be applied, and we’re still not sure that some of what had already been committed to is not in this Provincial Growth Fund. So I have some serious questions, because when the National Party was in Government, we had a whole string of towns that had been promised ultra-fast broadband. We also had a rural broadband initiative in place, and I’ve got a string of towns in my electorate, as will other people, where this rural broadband was going to go.

The Hon Clare Curran was often in the House getting up going, “How you going to do it? Too slow—too slow. It’s not coming. It’s not happening.” Now, we’ve actually got the Hon Clare Curran up there still waiting to appoint a group—you know, there’s groups and more groups and more inquiries. I’ve got questions. In fact, I’ve written letters to that Minister from some of my communities asking when that rural broadband initiative is going to be put in place.

We’ve also been told that there will be extra police numbers. We’ve been told that there will be rural constabularies established. Now, as a rural MP, I would be really happy if rural security was beefed up. But, again, in all of these things—no reference in this document to these commitments, in terms of additional money. So we would really like to know how much—how it’s going to happen. It’s all very well to make these promises. As I said before, the last speaker talked about what they’ve done; so far, this Government has done nothing other than make a few promises. There’s three things that they’ve committed to that they’ve actually physically done something about, and one of them is going to result in no extra result.

The other thing that I’m quite interested in is that the agriculture Minister has said that he’s going to look at the splitting up of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I’ve seen some figures on what that might cost, depending on options and ways and things to do that. I would suggest, instead of looking at putting stickers on doors and that type of operation, perhaps some of that money would be better spent on getting rid of the stink bug. We have got farmers down in Southland who are screaming out at our local member of Parliament for Clutha-Southland down there, Hamish Walker, every day. They have uncertainty about whether it’s eradication or whether it’s containment. They have uncertainty about whether they’re going to get some compensation, and, for the amount of questions we ask, we are certainly not getting any answers.

And the other thing I’d like this Government to commit to is—I’ve heard a lot of things in this House this afternoon about swimmable water, and whenever we talk about swimmable water, we set those targets back on our rural communities. I’m going to say, right here and now: that is not only a rural community issue. While Christmas and New Year might have gone by in this whole 100-day process, and we’re not getting many answers, there were a lot of noticeable things around the cities—and particularly around the city of Auckland—over that Christmas period around water.

I’m not pointing any fingers here, and I’m not making any accusations in terms of any particular people. But we have an issue in this country of New Zealand that we have to tackle. I’m just wondering where in this Budget Policy Statement—when everyone on that side of the House is getting up and talking about swimmable water, how are we going to measure that? How are we going to get swimmable water on our beaches in Auckland? How much is that going to cost?

So let’s not talk about what we’ve done and what this Government’s done in this Budget Policy Statement because, to date, very little has been done. There are still 29 risks that we’re waiting to see the Government overcome. I would suggest that some of those environmental issues that have been brought up today are going to be some of the most difficult ones to cover off. I would like to see some more targets, measures, and certainty as to how we do that as a whole country, all together. With that, I would like to say that it’s my pleasure to speak on this statement. I’m very pleased to be opposing it today. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It’s an absolute pleasure to follow the member for Taranaki - King Country, Barbara Kuriger. I have to say that we may not agree on many things but I will take the opportunity to say that she is a good woman with a good heart, and she does a lot for her constituency. She gave that speech her all.

But I cannot say the same for the previous speakers from the other side of the House. We had Amy Adams and what was a terrible audition to be finance spokesperson for the National Party. If that was her best, then I would say the new leader Simon Bridges should be very, very worried. In her scaremongering, Ms Adams pointed everyone to the back pages of the half-year update, to the net debts forecast released by Treasury. She said—and I’ve written it down—that it would get worse than this. She said that all of the policies that the coalition Government talks about in the Budget Policy Statement will have to be paid for with borrowings, on top of these net debt figures. She could not have been more wrong.

Ms Adams failed to realise that the operating and capital allowances, which the Government has set aside to pay for our policy package, and more, are already incorporated into the half-year update. This is, quite frankly, very disturbing to see such an experienced former associate finance Minister get it so wrong. I would go as far as to say that perhaps Steven Joyce, who is desperate to keep his position as finance spokesperson, slipped her the wrong data. Only then would it explain why she, with so much experience, could get something so simple so wrong.

But, after that, we also got to Judith Collins, or contestant number 3, as she presented herself. When she was not standing in that seat and looking at herself in that screen up there, she was getting some pretty simple things wrong, as well. It was very clear that she had read this document only five minutes before entering into this House. I wonder why that could be. What could have distracted the National Party members over the last few days that meant that they didn’t have the opportunity to read the Budget Policy Statement? But I do feel sorry for the Hon Judith Collins, because she missed an opportunity. She missed an opportunity to present what the other side of the House has as an alternative vision, or lack thereof, to what this Government is proposing.

There was no vision for the future. All we heard was roads, roads, tax, and roads. That side of the House are still fighting the last election. This side, however, has presented a vision for this country and it is outlined in this Budget Policy Statement. It is emphasised fully in our 100-day plan. We’ve got to look at the bigger picture. What is the measure of success in a country’s economy? Is it figures, or is it actually how well off the people are in this country? What good is an economy, if a growing share are missing out on prosperity? What good is a strong economy, if people are sleeping in cars and children are going to school hungry or without shoes on their feet?

When that side of the House wishes that we were doing tax cuts, this Government is actually, through this Budget Policy Statement and the 100-day plan, committing to things that matter to this country and matter to the people that live here.

Earlier speakers from this Government touched on legislation to give impact to the Families Package. How is it that in 2017 and 2018, leading up to this last election anyway, there were families who were working for a living and going without the basic necessities of life? Parents and families were working full-time—40, 50, 60 hours a week—and struggling to feed their kids and make ends meet. That is not a strong economy.

You can take the view that the other side of the House wishes to take—that the market will deliver. We’ve had nine years of that ideology, and the market has delivered inequality and poverty. This Labour-led Government has had to come in and bring in measures to try and address that. We had people, leading up to the last election, living in damp, cold homes. So this Government has introduced the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act. If they were living in damp, cold homes, it also meant that they couldn’t afford their own homes. So we’ve clamped down on speculators, particularly those from overseas, to ensure that homes—something that was a right almost in this country not long ago and is now out of reach for so many of our people here in New Zealand.

But it’s not just those that are working that are struggling to make ends meet. It’s those that are working but are struggling to keep their jobs, because of insecure conditions, low wages, and the insecurity that is brought about because they do not have the right to be able to negotiate collectively, as a group. They are on individual employment agreements. They do not have the confidence to be able to fight and negotiate for good, decent terms, because they know there are 10 people around the corner waiting to take their low-paying job at any rate.

So in our 100-day plan, which is outlined in the Budget Policy Statement, it clearly says that this Government has legislation to provide greater fairness in the workplace. Perhaps there is no greater example of this than the 90-day legislation. The previous National Government said it was fair to bring in a rule that said that after 90 days someone who is on this trial probationary period could be dismissed without any decent reason. No reflection of dignity, no reflection of the work that they’ve done. They’re down the road. We’ve always said that was wrong, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that has got rid of it.

Alastair Scott: No, you haven’t.

KIERAN McANULTY: Except for the small businesses, of course, which was the original rule—

Alastair Scott: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

KIERAN McANULTY: I’ve been accused by the member for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, of not knowing what I’m talking about. That is the “Everywhere Man”. They call him the “Everywhere Man” in Wairarapa because he’s everywhere but Wairarapa. That is the Wairarapa MP who never turns up. No wonder his majority was reduced by 5,000 last election. I look forward to reducing it even more in 2020.

The fact is that you should never be able to be dismissed from a job—

Alastair Scott: Where were you on the weekend, McAnulty? Didn’t see you on Sunday; didn’t see you on Saturday. Sitting on your arse at home, McAnulty. You do nothing.

KIERAN McANULTY: I think I’ve touched a nerve. He hasn’t stopped barracking since I made that point that really hurt him. The thing is, he’s not happy.

Let’s move on to the minimum wage. [Interruption]

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

Alastair Scott: McAnulty, your party still hurts the most.

KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, Mr Assistant Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! There’s a correct way to address members, and that’s not it.

KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, sir. Let’s move on to the minimum wage, shall we? The fact is that it is an absolute disgrace in this country, when people that work full-time—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You’re getting to him.

KIERAN McANULTY: I think I am getting to him, Carmel. I think I am getting to Alastair Scott. I think I’ve touched a nerve; I really do. But let’s get back on to this, shall I? Give him a breather.

The fact is that the minimum wage, if not increased—people do struggle to make ends meet. They do struggle to feed their families, and there once was a principle in this country that if you did a fair day’s work, you got a fair day’s pay. Over time, when workers have been absolutely undermined, their capacity to negotiate collectively and keep the rights that many have fought for over generations—this is why this Labour-led Government had to come in in this Budget Policy Statement, in our first 100 days, and actually deliver for the working people of this country. And I know, coming from a regional area that has a large number of small businesses that depend on people’s capacity to spend, that when workers have money, when working families have money to spend, small businesses do well. That is how you are measuring the success of an economy—not for some figures, not how the top, 10, 5, 2, and 1 percent are doing; it’s how we are all doing.

If the working family is doing well, the whole country is doing well. In the last nine years, we’ve seen conditions not just in the workplace but in the home eroded by loopholes in the law that allowed people to take advantage and exploit. I’m proud to be part of a Government that has indicated through this Budget Policy Statement and in our 100 days that we’re on the side of the everyday New Zealander, and we’re going to deliver for this country.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2018.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

Tabling of Documents

Oral Questions—Requested Documents

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I seek leave to table documents referred to by the Prime Minister in question time today that the Opposition requested be tabled. There are four of them, and if I may describe them, it might be easier to take them as one.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. We’ve got the description. We’ve got the description.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, we haven’t. I have not yet described the documents.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, right, can we hear this in silence, please.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, no, because you’ve got to follow the Standing Orders—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. This is a point of order, and I’d like to hear—[Interruption] Mr Brownlee, kia tau!

Hon DAVID PARKER: The first document is an invoice payment approval form, dated 14 January, for $21,143.67. The second document is the payment advice, dated 28 February 2018, in respect of the same payment. The other two documents are a payment approval document, dated 3 April 2017, for $24,281.33, together with the payment advice in respect of that same payment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Motions

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—Release of Text

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That this House note that the text of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership has been released, and will be signed on 8 March 2013.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! On what date?

Hon DAVID PARKER: 8 March 2018.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. You said 2013.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, I’m sorry, sir. Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for that correction.

I want to, in my 10 minutes, refer first to the transparency with which the Government is trying to approach the signature of this agreement, and the engagement that we are already having up and down the country, before moving to some of the issues around trade that this agreement is relevant to. I want to cover the bottom lines that the Labour Party expounded before the election, and how we have, to the best of our ability, met them, and also respond to some of the accusations that are being made that the Government has been hypocritical somehow, backing this new Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPP).

First of all, I would say that since it became clear that we were making progress in the issues that were important to the Government at Vietnam last year, even before we came close to finalisation, we have been consulting with the public. We’ve had meetings up and down the country. We’ve had information about the increasing number of suspensions to the agreement that were agreed up on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. As soon as we reached finalisation of the agreement in Japan about a month ago, we sought early release of the final text. That text had to be legally verified then translated, then translated back from Spanish and French into English, just to make sure that we didn’t have different versions of the agreement in different languages, which is the problem that we have with the Treaty of Waitangi versions in Māori and English. As soon as that was completed, New Zealand was at the forefront of calling for its early release, and it was then released. At the same time as we released that text, we released, in advance of signature, the national interest analysis, which is a long document that describes the effect of the agreement and the benefits and risks that are inherent in it.

In addition to that, we’ve had numerous outreach meetings. I’ve been involved in a number up and down the country. My officials have been in a lot more. They’re open to anyone. People who are in favour of or against the agreement are welcome to come along, and we seek to explain to people the effect of the agreement and address questions that are asked. This is a level of transparency and engagement that I think, if I could say of the last Minister, he also began with after he became trade Minister. I think he recognised that the Minister before him hadn’t been as open with the public, and one of the reasons why there has been this sort of increasing suspicion of trade agreements in society is that lack of engagement. I thank him for those efforts, and I would assure the public that we’re open to doing the same thing.

In addition, I’ve asked critics of the agreement to give us specifics, give us specific questions that they have about the agreement, and we’ve had lists of those questions that have been sent in by groups of civil society who are worried about the agreement, and we’ve endeavoured to give written answers to the questions. Where those written answers have been insufficient for those critics—they say, “Look, there’s another angle that we want you to address on this.”; we’ve expressed willingness to do that as well. There is a point beyond which we can’t go. We can’t do this forever, but we’re doing our utmost to address the issues that are raised.

In respect of trade, I think everyone in New Zealand knows that we are a small country that will never produce cars or computers or mobile phones or medicines. You know, we might produce the parts for magnetic resonance—we’ll never produce all of the medical equipment, even if we produce components for it. Therefore, we need to sell to the rest of the world things that we need to have a decent standard of living in New Zealand. I’ve made the point that trade agreements aren’t the be-all and end-all of that. We’ve got fantastic trade agreements already with our two largest trading partners, China and Australia—free-trade agreements that have been in place for a while now—and, despite that, exports in the last 10 years dropped from 30 percent of GDP to 27 percent of the GDP, to be contrasted by the last Government’s ambition to lift them from 30 to 40 percent of GDP. That proves that trade agreements are not the only thing that’s important to trade, and there are other settings in the economy, like research and development incentives and the tax signal that encourages people to invest in productive enterprise, which grows new points of comparative advantage, rather than bidding up house prices by investing ever-higher proportions of our investment capital and residential rental investments in Auckland.

In terms of the five points that we made clear before the election that we wanted to see were properly protected, the first I’ll mention is the Treaty clause. We’ve got fantastic Treaty protection clauses in all of our free-trade agreements. It’s the same clause as previously. It’s been to the Waitangi Tribunal. They gave it a very good pass. They said it protects the interests of the Government and Māoridom to do anything that’s necessary in the name of the Treaty. They said you could tickle it in one or two ways and make it even better, but our negotiators made the point that if we did that, we would reopen the text of that and we’d likely go backwards in respect of our Treaty clause rather than forward.

In respect of Pharmac, we said we wanted that better protected. It’s true that the prior agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), protected the form of Pharmac; it did, though, impose additional costs on Pharmac, being the cost of medicines on patent longer, particularly biologic drugs, and also some transparency costs. Those are fixed in CPTPP and no longer apply. In respect of the right to regulate, there is no doubt that New Zealand can regulate for public health, environment, we can run a public education system, we can fund our State-owned enterprises, and we can have appropriate environmental regulation or safety regulation. There is nowhere that the Government is prevented from properly regulating, whether it’s for plain packaging of cigarettes or it’s for climate change reasons.

In respect of land, which was our next provision, the last Government was saying that we had to choose between either controlling who owns New Zealand’s houses or trade agreements. They said you can’t have both. They said that to ban foreign buyers of our houses would breach lots of our free-trade agreements, and they said that that would cause tens of thousands of job losses. They were wrong—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Tell us about Singapore.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and we’ve shown how you can do that, and we’ve got legislation that, if passed before the CPTPP comes into effect, protects New Zealand’s interest in that regard. We were told that the alternative was that you could do stamp duty by the Government and therefore we shouldn’t be worried about it. They were wrong on that too, because that would have breached the South Korean free-trade agreement.

Hon Phil Twyford: How could they have got it so wrong?

Hon DAVID PARKER: How could they have got it so wrong? I do not know. It’s either incompetence or disingenuousness—maybe both. It was election time, and we’ve now shown those claims to be incorrect.

In respect of the one complication that we do have in earlier trade agreements, the interjection came in, “What about Singapore?” It is true that that issue remains unresolved, but we are in negotiations with Singapore in an endeavour to reach an acceptable conclusion there. So that leaves, in respect of all the issues that we raised, including at the protest meetings—I think I went to either one or two. The Opposition accuse me of hypocrisy for now voting for this vastly different agreement. I have to say, even when I went to those meetings and I read out the Labour Party’s five conditions, which are similar to those that are recommended by other parties, I was booed by some of the crowds because they didn’t think that I was tough enough for them.

It is my opinion that we have largely protected the sovereignty risk to New Zealand. The one area that we haven’t succeeded completely in is investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. The new Government agrees that these international dispute tribunals are undesirable. We don’t think that a multinational should have a greater right to sue the New Zealand Government than a New Zealand company investing in New Zealand. We’ve moderated the effect of ISDS clauses in a number of ways. We’ve excluded commercial contracts with the Government, so multinational builds: the Waterview tunnel—previously, under the TPP agreement, they could have sued the New Zealand Government; under CPTPP they can’t. In respect of investment screening, they can’t bring claims either.

In respect of who can sue, we’ve got carve-outs with side agreements. We have a new side agreement with Australia. It’s similar to the one we had last time in respect of TPP, and that carves 80 percent of foreign direct investment into New Zealand from CPTPP countries so they can’t use those tribunals. We’ve got side letters with other countries that will become clear on 8 March.

There are trade benefits. The most obvious trade benefits are in respect of beef. We had no other route to a trade agreement with Japan—a free-trade agreement. Since Australia had their earlier free-trade agreement with Japan a couple of years ago, and they have a lower tariff rate for their beef exports into Japan, New Zealand’s beef exports have dropped 38 percent—38 percent.

This is a much better agreement. We have preserved the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament to act in the best interests of our people going further, whilst getting the trade benefits that were on offer. This is more important than it was before the World Trade Organization was under attack, and I’m proud to support this motion.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. I want to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Export Growth for delivering, almost word for word, an identical speech to the one I gave in this House for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) just two years ago. The reason for that is that I agree with him. This is a high-quality agreement that is good for New Zealand. I agree with him absolutely. Where he waivers, however, from that great speech that was delivered to this House some time ago is on the significance of the changes that he says his Government and New Zealand First have delivered.

He sits there with a smile, but he knows, actually, the changes are nowhere near as significant as he suggests. We, too, will take a little bit of time talking about that. But, certainly, the reason that the Labour and New Zealand First Government feel anxious about this is that there are pictures of them up and down the country over a long period of time campaigning, protesting, against an agreement of 6,000 pages, and they turn up in this House today saying that they’ve fixed it, with about two pages’ worth of changes. The Minister knows that so very, very well.

But I will give credit where it is due. If you take the coalition agreement that was signed between New Zealand First and the Greens and you add to the front of that the words “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement”, would it be a different agreement at all? Because, substantially, all that’s happened—at the behest of Canada, not this Government—is they have changed the name and so very, very little else. For New Zealanders who rely upon trade for their jobs, who have businesses that trade, who send things overseas, or who are productive, it’s very important that this Government didn’t change it very much, because it was a good trade agreement when it was called TPP and it remains a good trade agreement now that it’s called the revised TPP—or they’ve made it “Comprehensive and Progressive” by just adding those three words to the beginning of it.

The reason they’re so sensitive in many of these areas is that New Zealanders believed them when they were opposed to this. They didn’t see through the facade of the politics of Opposition—and I guess loud voices in Opposition often become quieter in Government. I do want to give the two Government coalition parties credit. They are doing what’s right for New Zealand—no question there. But there are so many tens of thousands of New Zealanders that are losing faith with them, because they believed them when they said, “Send us to Wellington, to that Parliament, and we will be one more vote against the TPP.”

Let’s look at a few of the things that they’ve said are important. We’ve had the Prime Minister, within a couple of weeks in the job, with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Export Growth in Vietnam proclaiming a deal that has the highest environmental and labour standards of any deal New Zealand has ever done and that protects the rights of Māori—the Government can still meet its obligation through the Treaty of Waitangi. So I challenge the Minister to tell us exactly what he did to change the labour provisions chapter of the TPP. If you go on the website and you download the labour chapter, it is 4,034 words long; go to the revised agreement—it’s 4,034 words long. To the Minister: can he explain to us, if it has changed significantly so that New Zealand workers are better protected, why does the revised agreement—the revised agreement that’s “Comprehensive and Progressive”—still talk about America? Why does it still talk about America, if they’re no longer members?

Now, of course, we’ve heard a lot about the Treaty of Waitangi clause, and there are members on the other side of this House—including Mr Tabuteau from Rotorua—who said Māori weren’t protected, they were being sold out. The text in the TPP agreement and the revised agreement for the Treaty of Waitangi exemption is word-for-word identical. But it’s “Comprehensive and Progressive” because they added it to the name.

There are members on the other side of this House in New Zealand First and in Labour and in the Greens who said the tariff gains for New Zealand were not good enough—we didn’t go far enough. Andrew Little, as the leader, said that it does nothing for dairy, it’s not good enough, it’s a failure. “We should vote against it,” they said in Opposition. Go and have a look at the revised agreement and compare it to the tariff schedules in the TPP agreement—word-for-word identical. Word-for-word identical except America is not in it, but in other parts of the agreement it still talks about America. When the current Minister for Trade and Export Growth and his colleagues said, at the time of the TPP, “It would only add 1 percent to New Zealand GDP, it’s not worth it; they haven’t done well enough.”, he goes off and claims to have fixed the TPP by making it “Comprehensive and Progressive”, and he’s come back with a 0.3 percent gain of GDP. And 0.3 percent is still important, because it levels the playing field and allows us to get in there, but somehow it’s comprehensive, it’s progressive, and it’s better, yet there are so very few changes to it.

Now I want to deal with the issue of the housing ban that they’ve spoken so very much about, because, of course, it’s not a ban that they’ve put in place. It’s more bureaucracy and it’s a process. So, yes, what they’ve done is they’ve said every single house in New Zealand is now a sensitive asset, and if a foreigner wants to come and can fit within the rules they get to buy that. But otherwise, as with every other process of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO), every single house that a foreigner may want to purchase—except, of course, for Australia, and except, of course, for Singapore; for everybody else, the British, for instance, the Minister will have to make the decision, because, finally, when an OIO decision is made, it’s not rubber-stamped. Just as in the case where, when we were in Government, we turned down the sale of Lochinver Station, in this case every single house sale to a foreigner will go to the Minister. That’s not a ban.

But, of course, go and have a look at the revised TPP and go and have a look at the original TPP and have a look and see how it’s changed around the housing ban. Where has this Government gone and put in there that they have the right to ban house sales? There’s not a single word of difference there. What they have is a workaround. I will give the Minister credit—it’s very smart, albeit very bureaucratic, and you wait and see the size of the holes in that legislation they’ll have to go and fix. And, by the way, go and talk to Singapore about what they’re doing to that relationship.

And then we have the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). We have members in this House who have stood up against that, day in and day out. Those horrible, nasty corporations from overseas were coming to make the New Zealand Government do things it didn’t want to. And we’ve heard that they tried very hard and they carved out 80 percent of all foreign investment under the TPP and this agreement—by signing the very same side letter on the website that I signed two years ago in Auckland. So they gained nothing there at all.

The one area that I do give them credit for is they have carved out the ability for foreign companies to sue the New Zealand Government when the New Zealand Government is the contractor issuing a contract particularly overpriced. So when the Minister says we could have been sued by the people doing the Waterview tunnel, who were overseas, over a contract dispute—you could no longer do that. But any other legislation that’s passed that actually could call into question the commitment of the Government when it comes to the trade agreement, a foreign corporation can sue them. So when David Parker, Jacinda Ardern, and members of the New Zealand First Party stand up and say, “We’ve fixed this.”, what they actually said in this House is, “We don’t believe we will be sued successfully.” And guess what? Go and have a look at the notes that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave me to read out as the Minister of Trade on the TPP—word for word, the same.

Foreign national companies can still sue the New Zealand Government, even though New Zealand First gave promises to the New Zealand taxpayer that they would stop that. They’ll say they didn’t have enough time because we didn’t start the work. That Minister knows his officials said in committee a few weeks ago the work on changes to ISDS started in May of last year, long before the New Zealand election—in May of last year. All of these changes that they are taking credit for started long before they got there, and were worked on by this Opposition in Government because they were in the best interests of New Zealand. They are so very, very sensitive to claims that it’s not a different agreement, that it’s substantially the same, because they are worried that New Zealanders will see through the facade of the protest that they gave over all of those years the TPP was there, and now they have seen the light when they are in Government.

I do want to finish on a positive note. There are so very many people who have worked hard on the TPP agreement and the revised TPP agreement, from some of the best negotiators in the world, who are our officials. There have been thousands of New Zealanders who have had input and have worked hard to make sure this deal was delivered. It is not in New Zealand’s best interests that America has pulled out; it absolutely is in New Zealand’s best interests that the TPP, as a revised deal, is going ahead. I do congratulate the Government for deciding they will put the best interests of New Zealand ahead of the politics of a number of years, and I am glad that New Zealand is signing this deal. New Zealanders will have more jobs as a result of it. It is the same deal as was negotiated by the National Government.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealanders will know that that speech, by the Hon Todd McClay, was both new and true. Sadly, that which was true was not new, and that which was new was definitely not true. For example, in February of 2016 at a casino in Auckland there was a sign-up by the United States. They left, didn’t they? Now they want back in. Why? Because we inherited an ugly duckling, and thanks to my colleague David Parker we’ve turned it into an elegant trading swan. That’s the difference. They say, for example, they stopped Lochinver. Right? Yes, that’s true. Did they stop 22 Crafar farm sales? No—22 Crafar farm sales off to a foreign company with no knowledge at all about farming, and they did absolutely nothing. So don’t come here and tell us this is the same deal they signed.

I can tell you, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s going through a renaissance of understanding. They’ve yet to realise, like around the rest of the world, that capitalism can have a human face. It can stand up for everybody in society, not just the few and very few. They know in foreign affairs now that we believe in promoting policies that help every New Zealander, not just some party’s rich mates that put a whole lot of money into their accounts when it comes to the election. We all know what’s happened in the past, and they have the audacity to tell me that the Americans who left left for no reason at all. Why did the Americans leave? Bernie Sanders wanted out, and even Hillary Clinton, who began by saying it was a gold standard deal, herself campaigned against it, because she was surrounded on the left and the right by Donald Trump and all who saw that this was a massive challenge to the sovereignty of the United States, as we, who were criticised at the time, said it was to us.

And we have turned it around. There have been 22 changes, and they are massively fundamental. I can say this: if we’d had people campaigning for us as a country before we got there, this deal could have been even better. But we’ve saved every part we possibly could, and this country owes a huge debt to David Parker and the insight of his colleagues as to why and how this had to change. So let’s not have any more humbug about that.

Brett Hudson: Hey, Deputy Fletch, when are you taking Ron’s seat?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: When am I taking Ron’s seat?

Brett Hudson: I’m just talking to Deputy Fletch.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no. Unlike your party, we are the image of serene stability. We don’t go out there against the grindstone every night. I know they’ve been in a turmoil of anger and fury because they stand for nothing but their own personal promotion. I should have begun this speech by saying I want to congratulate Simon Bridges for becoming the leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish him a long, happy time in that job—a long, happy time in that job. And given who’s backing him, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. But we saw all the conniving fighting going on. Not in the national interest, not in the provincial interest—

Brett Hudson: It was the backstabbing of Ron Mark.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —not in the farming interest—no, all a part of a massive ego programme best evinced by that member over there who’s shouting out. Can’t win a seat—can’t win a seat any time.

Brett Hudson: That’s rich, coming from Winston Peters, who just got chucked out of Northland.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could I encourage the member—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Could I encourage you to come back to the motion.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes. I shall remind him that I do hold the record for the highest majority in this country’s history—

Brett Hudson: And Simon Bridges kicked you out of Tauranga, too.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —90.28 percent—beat that. Beat that and open your mouth; otherwise keep quiet.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Please come back to the substance of the motion, please.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, I don’t want to be arguing with a junior like that member. Next election he’ll probably be gone.

Pharmac was jeopardised. Our economy was threatened. New Zealand’s ability to control and monitor its very land and housing was put in the control of international interests. Look, when we got there we were shocked to find out from negotiators that it had never even been raised. Don’t blame them. They offered on instructions, but you had people in this Parliament, and the previous Minister as well, telling everybody, like Groser, that we couldn’t do it—giving that view on high that it couldn’t be done—and we found out they’d never even raised a finger for their country or their countrymen and women. It’s a shame, it’s a disgrace, and I hope that this debate finishes now, because the next person needs to explain why we were sold down the drain.

The indications are that prominent critics of the former agreement, including the current administration in Washington, are considering bids to re-enter in light of these improvements. We picked up a non-progressive, non-comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership of what was 12 and then became 11, and we fixed it up, and I hope New Zealanders are for ever grateful. You’ll still get the critics, because they will listen to the merchants of misery from that side of the House running around saying that somehow we have sold them out. Oh, no, you don’t—quite the contrary. We went into battle for them in the most difficult and trying circumstances—a small country, out here in the South Pacific, of 4.8 million people—and we have been marvellously, unbelievably successful.

Go and ask the people offshore whether they think that or not. You’ve got other people replicating and duplicating our language now, talking about values, talking about the need to enhance the whole population. Where’d that language come from? The citadel of common sense, the coalition Government in New Zealand.

Hon Todd McClay: From Canada.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s where it comes from—oh no it does not. Oh no it does not. No, no—I’ve read articles in the UK, all sorts of newspapers writing about the change in New Zealand. They can celebrate change because they realise it may be the harbinger for change in their country as well, and they hope for it around Europe at the same time.

Can I just say we have a comprehensive, progressive agreement that maximises New Zealand’s export opportunities. Over ⅛ of the world’s GDP will be opened up to New Zealand exporters. Now our beef farmers will have a chance in Japan. What chance did they have under that Government? What chance did they have, for example, when they went to Korea and they signed a trade deal with a 173 percent tariff? That’s their idea of success. No, no—we are a bit more hungry for change than that, and we’re a bit more demanding in terms of the people we represent. If we couldn’t get the best for the New Zealand people, we wouldn’t have signed up, unlike them—sell out at every point in time because there’s some magical mystery.

They are globalists; they’re the National Party with a small “n”, and it gets smaller as they start feuding and fighting, and as they fall below 40 percent, and then 35 percent. That’s why Judith Collins thought, “I know what I’ll do, I’ll guarantee that I can get 35 percent.” And the “Crusher” is not mad. The “Crusher” can see what’s happening, so she decided to give a benchmark that she knew in short time he could not achieve. And guess why? Because more and more New Zealanders are getting to understand the background of the National Party, which, as I say, was prepared to be globalist in their intent—to be the harbinger of so-called change that people didn’t want—and that’s what this election, after all, coming up in 2020 will be all about.

We have preserved the rules-based international order, we’ve got meaningful gains for exporters, we’ve got boosts for the economy, and guess what? More importantly, all those cheerleaders and clarion call merchants of the previous Government are celebrating the achievement of this Government.

Hon Todd McClay: Same deal.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, it’s not the same deal. If it’s the same deal—can I speak to some common, ordinary, sensible, sane people? If it’s the same deal, why did the US leave? Slowly now—why did the US leave if it was the same deal?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why does it want to come back?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because it was not. “Why does it want to come back?”—marvellous question, Mr Brownlee; I couldn’t have put it better myself. They want to come back because it’s not the same deal; it’s a massively improved deal that protects the rights of the American voters to determine their future, just like it protects ours. It’s a marvellous deal, and that’s why I’m very proud to be part of the arrangements led by David Parker, who went in to bat in the most trying circumstances—long hours in the morning, unlike these guys. Not out at the restaurant celebrating at half-past eight; no, going home at half-past three, four o’clock in the morning—because we’re used to it—and making sure that when we got on the plane to come home, we had something to come home with.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The only thing that Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, came home with when he had been to Vietnam and apparently convinced them that this wonderful deal, which David Parker, just a few weeks ago, was touting in the House as being exactly the same text as the 2016 text—Hansard will record that. The footage from the House will record him standing there holding up the document saying, “This is it, the text. Nothing’s changed, apart from these 26 suspensions that are in it.” Of course, when you read those 26, they are minor, small things. They are not major. When you, as my colleague said, take two pages out of over 4,500 pages, you could hardly say that this was major.

What we’ve got here—and we just heard it from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—is an absolute verbal contortion of the worst kind. Firstly, I congratulate them for twisting themselves into this position, because it will be good for New Zealand—no question about that. But I would say to the Hon David Parker that when his Government does not have the capacity to pass legislation to give effect to this bill, he might want to think just a little bit before he puts around some of his propagandist nonsense about how well he’s done in changing this bill.

Let’s just look at a few of the aspects of it—first of all, the idea that somehow he, as a sole genius in the Government, has come up with a way to prevent foreigners from buying land in New Zealand. Well, first, one fact: the churn of land sold to foreigners in New Zealand means that it’s about 0.5 of 1 percent of our land mass a year—an infinitesimal amount. But when those sales occur, it’s New Zealand owners who largely benefit from that.

The second point I’d make is that this proposal to have the Overseas Investment Office Act altered so it becomes harder is a bit like expecting New Zealanders to believe that if you could take a colander, you could store water in it—completely impossible. There are three tracts in that bill that allow people to buy land in New Zealand, and all they have to do is satisfy the criteria and they’re through the gate. The criteria themselves are very light. The criteria themselves simply say things like “can create more jobs”. Well, the Rt Hon Winston Peters mentioned Crafar farms—Crafar farms were in a dreadful state. You had animal welfare crawling all over them because of the state of the stock, and I will bet dollars for doughnuts that there are many times more the number of workers on that farming operation these days than was the case before. So they would get through the gate straight away—first up.

Then, of course, apart from the other two tracts—which I may come back to—is the extraordinary situation for Mr Peters and his party to be supporting, which allows foreign investors in New Zealand to buy up to $200 million worth of assets here without going through any process, as he would say, whatsoever. Let’s just take, for example, a struggling building products firm—a firm that might employ thousands of New Zealanders directly and indirectly. They put themselves or part of their operation up for sale so they get themselves out of a big hole, because they’ve had a little bit of a financial hard time and a few bad business decisions. Well, that transaction, if it’s below $200 million—or any multiple of it—does not need to go to the Overseas Investment Office; they simply are able to purchase it. And even if they did, the national interest test would say, “Well, this saves X hundreds or thousands of jobs—tick, they’re through the box.” So there is a whole lot of deception being talked across the other side of the House. This agreement is largely as it always has been.

We hear today the Rt Hon Winston Peters saying, “What happened? The United States pulled out because they didn’t like the agreement.” Everyone knows that the politics of the United States are very, very different at the present time, but if the Rt Hon Winston Peters is saying that his foreign policy is now modelled on Donald Trump’s view of the world, then this country is in some severe trouble. The United States is making noises at the moment about possibly reconsidering their position on this comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership, but they will require all of those 26 suspensions to be unsuspended. Those 26 suspensions will not be enshrined in New Zealand law; they will be able to be traded away, changed, or they will be simply wiped aside and reinstituted by a majority of the parties to this agreement. So the claim that is being made is nothing short of deception and, as I said before, is sort of a contortionist’s view of how you present a policy—and, particularly, a policy change.

The other issue is this investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) situation. David Parker is right to say that—while Mr Peters might be out there saying “We’re protecting New Zealand from being sued by foreign Governments and foreign business entities.”, Mr Parker knows that that is not, strictly speaking, the full case. But the other side of it is that New Zealand is a trading nation, and, increasingly, we trade in services and in skills that are provided largely without any particular product that you can hang your hat on, in many other countries. Engineering skills, geotechnical skills, legal skills—on and on we can go, and often those contractors will be engaged with foreign Governments. So this provision, as Mr Peters now touts it as being good for New Zealand, exposes those companies in other jurisdictions, reduces the amount of cover that they might have had by the law, and somehow that’s waved around as being something good for this country.

There are so many aspects of this bill that the current Government have claimed success on that are simply not a change at all, and while we are very pleased to be supporting the bill, it’s becoming increasingly irksome that a Government cannot among its own members, its own contributors, get the numbers to pass the bill. It’s somehow being thrown back in our face that there was failure on our part, but we are still expected to create a situation where they can go around the countryside telling their mistruths—frankly, lies—about what they’ve achieved in the preparation of this document.

The idea that this is somehow bipartisan, which I’ve heard David Parker mention a number of times, and that there is a bit of cross-party work going on here is plain wrong. What happened is that over a period of years, a National Government did negotiate the vast majority—the overwhelming majority—of this text with other countries. Of course, when the United States pulled out, there was another negotiation, and then when there were 11, there were further negotiations—that’s obvious that that was going to happen. Most of it took place under a National Government. The last little bit was the trip to Vietnam, where the Canadians stopped stomping their feet and finally came to the party, albeit that they had to have some different name to satisfy their domestic politics. And it would have been, I think, fitting had Mr Parker reached across the House and said, “Well, why don’t the National Party send their trade representative to the signing on 8 March?” It might have been just a little bit of insurance so that over on this side of the House there’s no exercise of the contortions we are seeing over there to find a reason not to vote for it.

This is an extremely good arrangement, an extremely good trading deal, for New Zealand, and I have no doubt that the New Zealanders who now, apparently, are patting Mr Peters on the back are actually just patting him on the back saying, “Thank God for you coming to your senses”—oh, sorry, for Mr Peters coming to his senses and not sending their business down the tube. And of course we support them in that.

So let’s be very clear: the changes the Government are claiming are not substantial. The legislation they’re making around landownership is so broad you could drive a bus through those regulations, and, frankly, that’s what will continue to happen.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Isn’t it fantastic the way that Mr Brownlee tends to rewrite history? Well, unfortunately, the facts get in the way of the sort of subjective nonsense that Mr Brownlee talks about. This actually started out under Phil Goff as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. It started out as a Labour initiative under the last Government, and I think it’s incredibly fitting that our trade negotiations Minister, David Parker, is going to end up signing it off on behalf of the New Zealand Government, because this is where it started, Mr Brownlee, and you know that.

The other thing that really sticks in the craw of Mr Brownlee is that when they were Government they said, “Can’t protect our land. It can’t be done. No—not up for negotiation.” Well, we did it within the first hundred days. Mr Parker sorted it out within the first hundred days, and the bottom line is Mr Brownlee talks about 0.5 of 1 percent of all land—well, he includes the national parks and all this sort of stuff. The bottom line is—and the thing I really like about the Overseas Investment Act is it talks about the fact that owning land in New Zealand is a privilege. It’s a privilege—it is not a right; it’s a privilege, and we need to protect that privilege. What was happening under that Government was New Zealanders were shut out of their own country, and that is wrong. In fact, Mr Peters needs to take a lot of credit for this. He pushed back against the excesses of global capitalism, and it has been noted—it has been noted.

Like every Labour Government that comes in, we are the Government of, sort of, economic and social evolution, revolution—these guys come in and slowly manage it down, and then it takes a Labour Government and, yet again, we change the way things are done, for the betterment of the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand people. This is what this is about.

Now, one thing I will agree with Mr Brownlee on—and I know this is surprising—is we are a trading nation. We know this. We’re a country of 4.8 million people. If we’re going to grow, if we’re going to create sustainable wealth and well-being for our citizens, for our companies, and for our country, we need to trade. We’ve always needed to trade, and we’ve always recognised this. In fact, it was Phil Goff who signed the first free-trade agreement with China, and it’s worked incredibly well for us.

But the thing about New Zealand is we are viewed overseas as a country of principle—we really are. I’ve just been to Mexico last week. They look up to us because we do things well. Yet again, I believe, just last week we have been named the most transparent country in the world. Now, you don’t get that by being lucky; you get that by being principled and doing things incredibly well. So while we are a trading nation, while this started out under Phil Goff, we believe, under the terms that were being negotiated by that Government, we were actually compromising our principles to the point where we just couldn’t go there.

So what happened is Mr Parker took it over, and, once again, our principles came to the fore, and with these 22 changes, these 22 change clauses—it’s not many Mr Brownlee; I’ll admit that, but they’re the really important ones that define New Zealand as a country—the really important ones.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Tell us about five of them.

Hon STUART NASH: I’ll tell you about them—I’ll tell you about them. Let me tell you about investor-State dispute settlement clauses (ISDS): we wanted these removed, actually. In fact, they’re a little bit of an anachronism these days, and if you read the international literature on these, there’s a growing voice of concern about how these are being implemented, and the reason for that is they’re done behind closed doors, no one can see the rulings, there is inconsistency, and it does take away the sovereign right.

We all know the case that causes a whole lot of problems, and that is Philip Morris suing the Government of Australia—and they lost. They went through the whole court system—in fact, Philip Morris moved its headquarters from Australia to Hong Kong where they had ISDS clauses. They went through the whole Australian court system and they lost, so they took it to arbitration—ISDS. What the literature is now saying is Philip Morris knew they were going to lose this, but it gave them two more years. It gave them two more years to do what they felt they needed to do, and that is wrong.

That is why Mr Parker has worked incredibly hard to actually ensure that we are not going to be sued when we make important decisions that affect the health and well-being of our countries. That is why Mr Parker has worked incredibly hard to have side letters with a lot of countries to ensure that this is very, very narrow in its scope. I suspect that, if not in the next trade agreement then in the one after, ISDS clauses will be removed—actually, from probably all global investment and trade deals—because people recognise there are better ways to do this—there are better ways to do this. But we have certainly mitigated the worst excesses of ISDS, and that Government had not done that in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We have in the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and I think that is a major win. It’s one of the main reasons why I stand up and I support the agreement as it stands, and one of the main reasons I had major reservations for it, how it was being negotiated under that Government.

The sovereignty issues—we can make our own decisions in the best interests of Kiwis, which is what it has got to be about, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Always good.

Hon STUART NASH: It’s fantastic, isn’t it? Now, let’s talk about Pharmac—let’s talk about Pharmac. Maurice Williamson set up Pharmac—am I right in saying that? I’m not too sure, but it is a fantastic thing. It is a really good model, and it actually saves us from some of the excesses that are going on in the States at the moment. You go to the United States and what they have on all the TV ads—“If you’ve got indigestion or if you’ve got heartburn or diabetes, recommend this drug to your doctor.”, and then at the end of that, it says, “If you’re suffering from hypertension or liver disease or anything like this, then be very careful.” The bottom line is our doctors are not subject to the worst excesses of the pharmaceutical industry that exist in a lot of places.

Well, this agreement protects Pharmac—it protects Pharmac—and I think that is absolutely vital. This may be a bit of a long bow, but it may actually save us from some of the excess that we’re seeing in fentanyl, and that sort of thing at the moment, because we haven’t got big pharma in here really screwing things down and acting in a way that is not in the best interests of Kiwis. Implementing these changes was expected to cost New Zealand an initial $4.5 million and $2.2 million per year thereafter with Pharmac. These costs are eliminated under the CPTPP. Congratulations, Mr Parker. Well done on that one.

Now, the thing is, around 8,500 New Zealanders are employed for every billion dollars of exports. But we need to grow this. We need to get better at the way we do this. And as Minister for Small Business, one of the things that I’m going to be looking at is how we use this agreement to increase the percentage of GDP of the small-business sector to our country and how we can use these agreements with these countries to actually export a hell of a lot more and engage in a way that we haven’t done in the past. And it’s not just goods. Mr Brownlee, you were dead right. Services are becoming a really important part of our economy and what we can offer overseas. These are things that can’t be replicated in the back streets of Mumbai or the office blocks of Shanghai.

Hon David Parker: Xero.

Hon STUART NASH: Xero. These are the things that provide us with a real competitive advantage. When I say that when we go overseas and we are held up—no, not held up; we are acknowledged as the most transparent country in the world. When we are acknowledged as the best place to do business in the world, people look at New Zealand and go, “How do you do it as a country of 4.8 million people? We want to work with you guys because we know you’re not corrupt. We know you do things well. You bat above your weight.”

This will help us achieve our goals in a way that we couldn’t beforehand. This is a really important agreement in a way that will help us grow our economy and the wealth and well-being and the jobs of our communities and our economy. But it wasn’t an agreement based on the fundamental principles that guide us before; the way that Mr Parker has taken this and modified the really important clauses, it now is. Now, it’s not perfect. It is not perfect but we all know in every single negotiation you give a little to get a little—you give a little to get a little—but what we are told in the national interest analysis is it will boost the size of our economy by up to 1 percent of GDP. Now, that’s a significant amount of money. And what I expect to see is that, in fact, that will increase. I think this is conservative. And seeing what I’ve seen, hearing what I’m hearing, it is opening up markets that in the past just haven’t really been in the view of New Zealand exporters; they are now.

This is an important agreement. I congratulate Mr Parker and I congratulate the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the way they’ve taken something that was not really aligned to our principles and brought it up from the TPP to the CPTPP. Congratulations. Onwards and upwards. Thank goodness it is Labour that’s going to sign this agreement. Thank you very much.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I find it ironic that we have the Minister for Small Business standing in this House telling us how important 1 percent of GDP is—which I agree with you—when during the debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) when we were in Government, your caucus colleagues were standing up and saying, “One percent of GDP is insignificant and, actually, we want to get rid of this agreement. It’s no good—1 percent of GDP.” So it’s amazing how things have changed.

Mr Speaker, I went back and—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Mark, Mark—“Madam”.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker—had a look at some of the Hansards from the debates during the debate on the TPP. It was a bit of a wander down memory lane, because at that time I was chairing the committee that heard these submissions and I was locked in a debate at the time with Mr Grant Robertson. In his view—and it’s very important that we remember this. I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Bill English and also the Hon Todd McClay, because all of you will remember—and Stuart Nash, the previous speaker, acknowledged the Hon Phil Goff in terms of, actually, it was the Labour Party that first got this agreement started, right? So, in light of that, I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Bill English and the Hon Todd McClay, who got this agreement started again.

During the debate in this House and during the public debates that I had out there with Grant Robertson—when the Americans withdrew from the agreement, there was a great celebration that went on from the now Government parties that the agreement had fallen over and that it was no longer in existence. I had to stand up, and Grant Robertson and the people in the room enjoyed ridiculing me about the fact that I said, “Actually, as a Government, we believe that we can get this thing back on track. We believe that we can still deliver a comprehensive trade agreement for New Zealand with the other 11 partners in that TPP.” Well, now it’s comprehensive and progressive, and I have to acknowledge Mr Parker. He’s been working hard the last three months. He’s been burning the midnight oil. You know, he’s been all over the world and he’s come back and he’s delivered two new pages to the TPP. So I have to acknowledge that: two more pages.

Let’s have a look at some of Grant Robertson’s comments. Just—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: All tradeable.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: All tradeable—all tradeable. I’ll just put a line under this this. This is what Grant Robertson said in the House when he was talking about the TPP in one of our debates: “In the years following my time at university, I used to have what I guess would be called [anxiety dreams]. I would dream that I had not studied for a really important exam that was about to take place and I did not know what the date was, and I would get very stressed about this. I think others in the House may at times in their lives have had similar kinds of anxiety dreams. Of course, then I would wake up and realise that in actual fact there was no exam for me to study for and it was all unnecessary anxiety.” He was talking about the failure of the TPP. He wanted it to fail. He wanted it to go away.

Then he had this to say in the debate: “But, instead, the National Party continues to live in a state of denial. So, once and for all, for the National Party’s benefit, it is over, it is finished, move on, find something new. That is the truth. It is not a matter of political cynicism, Mr Mitchell, it is the reality. What New Zealanders need is a Government that actually gets alongside them and does not put its faith in one single thing—does not put its eggs or its cows, or whatever it is, into one basket—because that is what, unfortunately, the National Government has done when it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.”

Hon Todd McClay: Thank God he didn’t become Minister of Finance!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s right. So I just want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Bill English, who went to Japan and met with their Prime Minister. Together, they made a commitment that they would get the TPP back on track. It was revived, and we’re able to stand in the House today and we’re actually able to have this debate. I agree with the comments that were made too that, actually, when it comes to trade, there should be bipartisan support and agreement in relation to those trade agreements. Unfortunately, when we were in Government and when I was chairing the committee, we didn’t have that.

I remember hearing submissions from Professor Jane Kelsey, and I remember in the committee having discussions around how much time we should give her at the committee, because, as you know, she’s taken a firm position against the TPP.

Hon Todd McClay: We’ll give her a lot of time this time.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Look, I remember—that’s right. I remember the Opposition members lobbying me hard—“We have to give her an hour. You know, other people only get 15 minutes.”—and I agreed to it. Then she’d turn up, and she was very good to work with and she was very respectful of the committee and the committee of her. But she would turn up to the committee and she’d be met by a Labour member and she’d be ushered in—a cup of tea and a sandwich—and she’d be well-looked-after. They’d sit there and she’d be like a rock star, and the Opposition members would be rushing to the mosh pit to listen to her.

Now, I see that she’s come out and said, “Fundamentally, there’s no change to this agreement. This is the same agreement. There’s no real change.” So are the Government listening to her? No, they’ve put her on a train to Siberia. There’s no more cups of tea. There’s no more cucumber sandwiches. She’s on the train to Siberia—they don’t want to listen to her. But she’s absolutely right. Fundamentally, there’s no change to this agreement. It’s a good agreement, but there are no changes to this agreement.

Finally, I just want to say that in terms of consultation, actually, for the Government to pass this legislation, they need the support of the National Party. They need our support. So you’d think that they’d want to reach out across the aisle and they’d want to consult.

In all fairness, can I acknowledge the Hon David Parker when he acknowledged Todd McClay in saying that when he was Minister, he went out and he did an exhaustive process in terms of public consultation. It actually brought a lot of New Zealanders with it, which was an outstanding process, and it achieved great things.

In his time as Minister, let me give you some examples: a trip to Tonga to sign the PACER-Plus—cross-party involvement. Fletcher Tabuteau went, and Annette King, and Barry Coates from the Green Party, who was very actively involved in the trade argument. When he went on a trade mission to the eurozone, he took the Rt Hon Winston Peters with him. When he went on a trade mission to Iran, he took the Hon David Clark with him. He reached out across the aisle and he made sure that the other parties were included, because he recognised that, actually, when it comes to trade, that, fundamentally, is very important.

So the one thing that I’d ask you and the one thing that I’d say to you is, please make sure there’s consultation with us. Please make sure that we’re engaged. Please take us with you. Thank you.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Madam Assistant Speaker, I stand today in support of this motion, that the House recognise that the text of the newly named Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has been released, some two weeks before it’s set to be signed with no more opportunity for amendments or input. This deal undermines our democracy in a multitude of ways, and not least of all through this secret negotiation process; lack of consultation, certainly before the text was properly released; and signing at a time when 75 percent of New Zealanders would like to see some independent analysis of the newly negotiated text.

We were promised a transformed deal. We were told over and over again by the coalition that the risks—the grave risk, to our democracy, our human rights, our workers’ rights, our environmental protection, and our Treaty of Waitangi—have now vanished. It turns out that was mostly spin, and it is profoundly disappointing to know that the coalition used fairly minor changes to justify its total reversal of position on this deal so soon after the election.

It turns out that was spin and even the most grave risks to our democracy, the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses—the clauses that say that multinational corporations, foreign investors can sue our Government for law change—remain the same. The ISDS clauses remain. Now, we are a small nation. We need trade, and the Green Party is for trade—trade that benefits New Zealand and helps us to address the global problems facing our planet today. We are not for a deal that marries us to a failed global economic model that Kiwis voted against at the election. So our democracy is under threat—our ability to adopt transformative change that helps us to face threats like climate change and record inequality, and to honour our founding constitutional document.

There’s good reason we do not give Kiwi businesses the right to sue the Government for law change—because the Government should look out for the interests of everybody. Health policy, education policy, and environmental policy should be all about providing schools, better hospitals, protecting the natural environment, not the profits of a few elite. But that is exactly what we’re about to give away to foreign businesses. They can hold these privileges over our Government—this one and future Governments—in a system that sits above our law, above our courts, above our democracy.

It’s important when it comes to the ISDS clauses to note that we’re not actually talking about contract breaches. Supporters of this deal keep saying that foreign corporates, investors, now have to sue for contract breaches in our courts. Well, that was never the key concern. The key concern was the investment chapter, which creates robust privileges, minimum standards of treatment for foreign investors that ordinary Kiwis do not have. It’s the investment chapter that they can use to sue us using the ISDS clauses. We don’t have to have entered into a contract with them at all. It’s enough that in March 2018 we are entering this agreement. From then on, they can use these privileges that we are about to give away to them to unduly influence our elected officials—a right that ordinary Kiwis don’t have.

The only real change to the ISDS regime in this agreement is the side deals or the side letters. One of them is with Australia, and the supporters of this deal point out that that’s 80 percent of our trade. It’s a big trading partner. It is a big trading partner, Australia, but we all know that corporates can base themselves anywhere. So once we enter this deal, corporates, even Australian-based businesses, can register a base in any one of the signing nations and use that base to sue us using the ISDS clauses. It’s no protection at all. As Greens, what’s particularly chilling to us is that we know that elsewhere in the world where ISDS clauses have been accessed to sue Governments, corporates have used them to stop environmental protection. When Indonesia tried to stop particularly damaging types of mining happening in its native forests, it had to exclude foreign investors because it couldn’t afford the compensation. It had entered into a similar agreement with the UK and Australia, and just the mere threat of access to ISDS clauses was enough. The Indonesian environmental Minister had to admit, “If we shut them down, they will need compensation and Indonesia can’t afford it.” That is chilling.

At this moment in global history, can we really afford to give primacy to the profits of multinational corporations over the threat of climate change? Is that what Kiwis voted for at the election? Most of us voted for transformative, progressive change—a change in approach even on trade. In fact, this agreement is blatantly not all that much about trade at all. Most of the thousands of pages are about giving special privileges to multinationals to be free from Government regulation. Most Kiwis would be horrified to find that its e-commerce chapter effectively prevents public oversight of this century’s data-driven economy. It allows these foreign investors to base their data elsewhere, bypassing our Privacy Act. It guarantees that New Zealand will abstain from regulating future unknown technologies. Who does that benefit and what does it have to do with trade?

So instead of the progressive promise of its new name, we have before us the text of an archaic kind of agreement, which is just the kind that formed the backbone of the corrupt neo-liberal regime that caused the devastation of the latest global financial crisis. The environmental and labour protections that are constantly invoked to show the progressive nature of this deal are, essentially, lip-service. Actually, climate change isn’t even mentioned at all, and our obligations pursuant to the Paris Agreement aren’t considerations here. In fact, any mention of labour or environmental protections are not all that enforceable in law. They’re outlined with very little specificity. The environmental chapter says, “Transition to a low-emission economy requires collective action.” Great—it does. What does that mean in law?

Parties also agree to cooperate on matters of joint interest, including things like developing low-emission technologies. Again, these are soft, unenforceable acknowledgments in law. Compare that to the incredibly detailed, biting, and binding language of the investment chapter. Actually, we know that similarly worded protections have failed to stand up against corporates elsewhere in the world. In 48 percent of cases where these types of protections and similar deals have been invoked by Government, only four have been successful.

So instead of installing a transition to an innovative and sustainable economy, which New Zealanders voted for, this deal will actually make it far harder and far more expensive for us to implement things like the zero-carbon Act. That is exactly why the narrative of consensus around this kind of deal is all but illusory now. Mass protests across the world—I was at the one in Auckland when the previous deal was put up. The city shut down. The EU will no longer enter this kind of agreement. Its human rights regime and climate change obligations sit above this kind of trade deal. New Zealand should be placing ourselves among the nations that are changing trade, that want to find ways to make trade fair. Our hope and intention is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the last of this kind of deal. I want to work towards introducing change that will require us to make trade fair, to make negotiations like this democratically processed, transparent. These trade agreements should be contingent on our human rights, our Treaty of Waitangi obligations, our need for environmental protection, and our obligations to tangata whenua, with no more clauses.

We need to make trade fair and fit to serve our needs in the 21st century, with all the lessons of the failed neo-liberal regime. Instead, on 8 March, we will not be entering a fair or free trade agreement at all. We will be ceding sovereignty to foreign investors.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Well, that was a very interesting call from the Green member Golriz Ghahraman. She has just been saying things that Labour used to say. Only a matter of months ago, we would have heard the same content of speech by David Parker and others on that side of the House. He’s shaking his head, but we know that we would’ve heard the same rhetoric from Labour in the election campaign, and, indeed, we did.

I’ve got to hand it to the Greens because it’s not often that I agree with much that they say, but we’ve heard from that member this evening a speech that hasn’t changed in their rhetoric about trade, even though I don’t agree with it. On this side of the House, we don’t agree with what the previous speaker just said, but they have spoken with a degree of principle, and they haven’t shifted their stance.

What we’ve seen in the last couple of months is a real shift. It’s almost like liquefaction over the other side of the House. Liquefaction has crept through their toes, they’ve sunk down a bit, and they’ve realised that this trade agreement is really important for New Zealand, it’s important for job growth, it’s important for reducing costs, and, fundamentally, the New Zealand economy needs this agreement. So off David Parker and Winston Peters and the Prime Minister went to try and sort out what they thought were issues with this deal, and they’ve come back and they’ve put “CP” at the front of “TPP”. Now, they stand up in the House and say, “We’ve got these amazing changes. They’re comprehensive—28 of them.” But when you delve down into the detail, it’s really very much window dressing.

What I’m really keen to hear in this debate this evening is about the approach that the Government takes to trade overall, because this is just one agreement. This is a really important one. It’s taken a long time to get here this evening, but we’re not hearing from the Government what their plan is on the New Zealand - EU free trade agreement. We’ve spent a huge amount of time—and I acknowledge Todd McClay and Gerry Brownlee and the work that they did, and before that—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, Todd more than me.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, you’re right. Yeah, Todd did a huge amount of work. Of course, what I’m hearing from this Government is that the Prime Minister is not going to travel very much, obviously: pregnant, baby coming on board—that’s great. Fantastic news—congratulations. So the Prime Minister won’t be leading big trade delegations. She’ll go to the Pacific shortly, and then she’ll go to Europe and the UK and have her photograph with the Queen—fantastic—and that’ll be it.

What I’m also hearing is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs won’t be doing a lot of travelling. He’ll put Fletcher Tabuteau on a plane and try and get a trade delegation together, and businesses in New Zealand will go, “Who? Who is this guy? Who is he? Oh, that’s right. He’s the new deputy leader of New Zealand First.”

And David Parker won’t be doing much travelling. He’s the Minister for Economic Development and quite a few other things as well. He should be leading trade delegations around the world, but he won’t because he’s got to keep an eye on Shane Jones’ provincial fund as the Minister. And, of course, we’ve already seen the first real blooper under that new fund. Sixty-one million dollars announced last week, and already we are seeing that fund hit liquefaction as well—probity issues. So, getting back to the issue—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY: —David Parker is not going to travel, as well. So businesses are coming to the National Party, worried about the overall focus and the trade agenda of this new Government because their senior leadership team aren’t going to travel. It’s going to be left to Fletcher Tabuteau and Damien O’Connor.

It’s fine having a debate about trade, but they’ve just concluded their 100-day programme. It’s been a real shocker for the primary sector. They don’t support irrigation. Now, irrigation helps us grow our exports. It helps our farmers and processors put more products into market. It creates jobs. Unfortunately, the coalition Government—and we know the Greens don’t support irrigation.

We’ve got issues in biosecurity, which is a real trade issue as well, because if you don’t get on top of biosecurity issues, that impacts what we can do in the trade space. Also, we have got numerous other issues in their 100-day programme that they haven’t addressed. The other one is that they’re not getting on top of Mycoplasma bovis, a massive cattle disease.

Fortunately, farmers can still find a market and get those into export. And the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) will help, particularly our beef farmers, into the lucrative Japanese market.

This Government is raiding from the research and development fund, the Primary Growth Partnership. Under the Ministry for Primary Industries, they’re raiding that to do a rebranding exercise. That’s not going to grow exports for our CPTPP market.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You are straying a little way outside of the motion, so I’d encourage you to come back.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, I am coming back to it all the time, Madam Assistant Speaker, because it’s really important. When you think about the primary sector and you think about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with “CP” in front of it, it’s really important that this Government supports our primary producers.

I acknowledge them in that they are supporting the CPTPP—that’s fantastic. But we’re unsure, and we’re not hearing enough from them, about their broader trade agreement, because they’re not prepared to travel the world and open up new market opportunities. That’s really disappointing for our exporters to get pretty clear indication that this Government is more about domestic politics than about looking at a full international approach.

So, in summary, what we’ve heard this evening is that Labour and New Zealand First were lions in Opposition and, now, they’re mere lambs, and I’ll leave everyone to think about that. We heard all the rhetoric in the campaign and how terrible Trans-Pacific Partnership was. So they went off to the meeting, came back with “CP”, bolted it on the front, and it’s pretty much the same agreement. We should get on with dealing constructively across the Parliament on these trade issues, and it would have been great—if they hadn’t been drumming up votes, or trying to, from the greenies and the lefties—if they’d supported a broad trade agreement.

So my challenge back to David Parker and other senior economic-facing Ministers is, please, get out there and lead some trade delegations, because you can’t leave it to junior Ministers to open the doors that we need to see for our exporters to reach into these very lucrative international markets. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Split call—this is five minutes.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to stand here today and join in this debate to talk about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and it’s been very interesting listening to an Opposition that is trying to minimise the work that has happened in this agreement. This Government has actually progressed this agreement and made it into the strong agreement that it is now. In that, I’d like to say congratulations to the Hon David Parker and the Rt Hon Winston Peters on the work that they have done to bring it to the stage that it’s in.

We’ve heard here this afternoon about the transparency that has been involved recently around the early release of the text, and I’m delighted about that. Just in the last two weeks, I’ve had people asking, prior to the release last week, “When’s it coming out?”, but since then people have been saying, “Well done. Well done on actually getting this out.” Well done to Mr Parker for getting this text to release to this point. So the transparency goes along with this country not compromising our principles, and this is where this agreement is making the biggest difference.

This is where we have not compromised on our principles, and that is where the CPTPP is significantly different from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). It can’t be any surprise to the Opposition that these differences are in there. They’re minimising them, but it can’t be a surprise to them because the two parties that talked about this actually campaigned on these. They talked about protecting Pharmac. They talked about something that is really important to this country: upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is so important. We managed to get that.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā tātou e Te Whare. The House is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating Government motion No. 1. Jan Tinetti had the call, and she has two minutes and 51 seconds remaining if she wishes to do so.

JAN TINETTI: Thank you.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I hope she does.

JAN TINETTI: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Right when the dinner break started, I was talking about the transparency and the early release of the text of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA), how wonderful that has been, and the people that have contacted me to say that they’re very pleased to have read that text. What I have been encouraging those people to do, though, is to also go and read the national interest analysis of the agreement that has been released alongside this, because I think that that document is another way that we’re showing the openness and the honesty around the agreement. People have really appreciated the fact that they have been pointed in that direction.

That particular document is a document that reflects the important changes to how the agreement affects New Zealand’s intellectual property law, Pharmac, and whether overseas investors can make claims against the Government. People that have talked to me about that and about that document, after I’ve pointed them in that direction, have said that that has been very helpful. So I would encourage anyone to go and have a look at that. That document was written by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the analysis concludes that it would be in New Zealand’s interests to enter the CPTPPA. As I said, it also outlines the differences in this agreement from the original agreement that we can see.

Now the part of the agreement, in my final part here, that I would like to talk about is the most important part in the changes that I see from the TPPA to the CPTTPA, and that’s the changes in the house-buying ban. This Government thinks that it’s the birthright of New Zealanders to own our houses as well as our farms, so it is something that New Zealanders aspire to. It is something that, for many New Zealanders, has become unattainable to them. So this was one area that is a major change. It was something that we were told may not be able to happen. We were told we would possibly have to look at renegotiating our trade agreements, and yet that was proven not to be the case. So I was very happy around that. I’m very happy to talk on this here tonight. Thank you.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Gerry Brownlee said it best earlier this afternoon when he said that this agreement, and in particular the performance of this Government on this issue, is political deception of the highest order. If you listen to the way this debate has unfolded, when they have positioned trade—trade, of all things; the lifeblood of this country, trade that, essentially, underpins the livelihoods of all our communities, that they passionately say they represent—when they talk to this agreement and position it as something materially different to what this Parliament had debated and supported, that they voted against, is, in my view—I agree with Mr Brownlee—political deception in the highest order. This was politics at its most cynical.

It was a party that was under pressure in the polls and an issue that has always been bipartisan. For the last 30 years, it has been bipartisan, but this Government, the Labour Party, decided they were so desperate they would turn it into a partisan issue. They said the deal was being done in secret, until the full 6,000-page document was released for all to see. They said it was being done without public consultation, until the public consultation started. They said it was going to breach the Treaty of Waitangi, until the Waitangi Tribunal ruled that it didn’t. They said it would ruin Pharmac, despite specific clauses in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) that protected it. They protested on the steps of Parliament. They went and got a hundred thousand signatures. They said it would restrict and restrain our sovereignty, except there are explicit clauses in the TPPA that prevented that from happening and never in any way restrained our ability to regulate for the national interest.

David Parker stood up and said it is, and I quote, “an affront to democracy.” Andrew Little stood up and said, “This deal is hopeless. The dairy deal is hopeless. Meat is hardly better and the rest amounts to not much.” They, the Labour Party and the Labour Party leader, were talking to the market access provisions in the TPPA. The whole purpose of the deal is to open up market provisions and opportunities for our exporters. They were describing those provisions that had been negotiated as hopeless. Those same people stand in the House tonight and laud the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership as a great revelation, as an achievement amongst all achievements. They can barely look down the camera without looking away. They barely can control their cynical smirks as they realise, “Well actually, look what we’ve managed to get through here.”

The public of New Zealand know, the exporters of New Zealand know, that the deal is a good deal. The deal was negotiated by the last Government for market access to a huge, huge set of markets around the world. We stood beside our exporters. We said that these market access provisions were superb and should be celebrated. That side said they were hopeless. How can they stand here tonight and look at New Zealand and say, “Actually, we think this deal now is superb.” It talks to integrity—it talks to integrity. That’s why they struggle to look down the camera tonight and say, “We have delivered a deal that is fundamentally different and better.”, because they haven’t. Two pages of text out of 6,000 is not a revised, refreshed deal; it is the same deal with a couple of minor changes. They know it.

I tell you the people of Tauranga, the exporters of Tauranga, the kiwifruit industry that has $26 million worth of benefit that was negotiated over the last two years, they know it. They know a political deceit when they see it, and they see it here tonight. But we will not do what the Government benches have done and play politics with this. This is a good deal for this country, and despite the political deceit we therefore support it, because we always have supported and we always will support the exporters of this country. And that’s why I’m proud to be a National Party member. Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I take just a brief opportunity to offer a few comments on the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Reflecting on the comments of the previous speaker, Todd Muller, can I simply say this: 22 changes were achieved by this Government to assure New Zealanders of the things that were uppermost in their minds when the previous Government failed to recognise the issues that we were bringing to the House and why we contested that agreement—22 changes.

We argued that the role of Pharmac in purchasing medicines should be protected, and that has been strengthened in one of those changes. Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi, I agree, was a very hotly contested point. I went to the Waitangi Tribunal and heard the debate as it progressed alongside. We’ve been assured by the Waitangi Tribunal that the Treaty exception clause is sufficient, and we acknowledge that there is more work to do as we work towards a more progressive trade agenda. There will be meaningful gains to exporters in the reduction of tariffs and in some key industries, like kiwifruit.

It will do the thing that I think most New Zealanders were most concerned about, which is restricting the sale of houses and farms to overseas buyers. This issue alone actually occupied the minds of many New Zealanders who were very concerned that a carte blanche approach to enabling foreign investors to buy houses in New Zealand artificially inflated the price of houses. What that meant for the domestic homebuyer was that owning a home became so out of reach it was ridiculous, so we’ve strengthened that. Narrowing the investor-State dispute settlement clauses, again, is another positive advantage to New Zealand.

But, all in all, it was the way in which this trade agreement was being negotiated by the previous Government. I’m really pleased that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth and the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepted that early exposure of the draft, prior to signing, and the national interest test become publicly available so that people could see these changes that we can now sign up to but, also, so that it would be a part of an open and transparent approach to negotiating trade deals that deliver the greatest advantage.

This is why it is an opportunity to not only say to New Zealanders—having stood up and said we were concerned about some really important things that affected New Zealanders on a day-to-day basis and secured the 22 changes, and now being able to re-present the text and have the national interest test conducted in a way that gives all New Zealanders a greater assurance that this Parliament will hold itself to account, and the way in which the Government secured better interests through their negotiations, is something I think many New Zealanders will be very, very pleased about.

It does signal a new approach. The Minister for Trade and Export Growth, in going forward, has recognised that yes, more can be done as we continue, as a coalition Government, to advance in the free-trade area. So I’m really optimistic about the new progressive trade agenda that will be led by our Government, which will start to flesh out how we can secure more advantage. I attended several business summits over the last couple of weeks. Small to medium sized enterprises are saying, “Look, it’s time now that we look to secure advantage for a sector that contributes greatly to our domestic economy and is starting to make some inroads into some high-value niche markets overseas.” They want to see some opportunity in the way in which this Government negotiates trade deals to advantage their interests.

Also, in the space of women and on an indigenous platform, there are so many more opportunities. So it is heartening to see that we have a coalition Government that is putting people back in the centre of trade agreements, to derive value to our export sector but also to ensure, backing that up, we are keeping some of the principles about what makes New Zealand a great country to live in still great. If anything else, the fact that we’ve moved early to ban the sale of houses and farms to foreign buyers—I think that alone sends a very clear signal to many New Zealanders. We are very serious about a trade agenda that works for everybody.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. I couldn’t help but think, when the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, resumed her seat, you can understand why she is such a long-experienced member of this Parliament. She’s just shown the ability to fill in five minutes of Parliament’s time without saying anything.

I will give you an example. She said that this Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) puts people back at the centre of trade. Well, who else would be trading with each other, other than people? The fact of the matter is that this is a bill that the Labour Party, despite its long, liberal, internationalist history, opposed because they thought it was politically convenient. And then, upon assuming Government, they recognised a few truths. First of all, New Zealand is a nation of traders. We are a nation of people who have come here from the Pacific Islands, from Hawaiki, from England, from Europe, and from Asia because we wanted a better life. When we arrived here, four million or five million of us, at the edge of the Earth, did we say that we wanted no further links with the rest of the world from whence we came? Of course we didn’t.

Only the Labour Party and their new-found small-mindedness would have suggested that New Zealanders wanted to shut themselves off from the rest of the world. As their former leader Helen Clark said, the TPP was one of those times when you realised that New Zealand was in danger of missing out completely. So it’s no surprise that the Labour Party, despite all their rhetoric, despite all their grand talk of difference and being a different party and having a different position on trade, are here tonight, in the Parliament, signing off a Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership that constitutes the following, and this is really important. Stuart Nash knows. He’s smiling; he knows.

It is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to which the Labour Party and their props in New Zealand First were so opposed, plus a four-page cover letter that removes a few conditions in order that if the United States wishes to come back to the table, we have a negotiating position. So people who supported the Labour Party and New Zealand First—I’d say to them they were wrong to oppose trade for New Zealand, but they should also be under no illusion that their parties have just signed up to the TPP with a four-page cover letter. You see, the text is exactly the same. It’s a four-page cover letter that sets out some negotiating positions for when the United States decides to re-enter.

On behalf of the ACT Party, who understands the origin of this country, who understands that we are a nation of immigrants, people who sought a better life at the edge of the Earth but did not want to sever our ties with the countries from whence we came—in this case, around the Pacific—we understand that our global links are critical.

We want to commend this Government, even though they’ve come to it in a sort of confused, denialist sort of way, for agreeing that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as it was originally written, should be passed in this Parliament and passed by this Government and signed by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, in such a way that we maintain a country with global links, that trades value for value with the rest of the world, that stands proudly in the world, that is not afraid of the rest of the world, and that, heaven forbid, is not xenophobic, as the Labour Party has sadly, and recently in its history, become.

We commend the Government for swallowing its pride and signing the TPP so that Aotearoa New Zealand can remain a country that is a strong, capitalist, global system that trades value for value, and gets stronger together with our cousins from around the world, of whatever nationality. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I find it remarkable, at one level, that we’re continuing to have a debate on this, now called, Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. I certainly am one who thinks that this trade agreement is immensely important, but why I find it odd is probably twofold.

One is, of course, when you have a new Government you expect a whole lot of legislation to come before the House and not actually be discussing topics like this. The second, of course, is that we have gone through this before. I think we’ve been hearing this from a number of colleagues over the last few debates—that we’ve actually gone through this many times, and very little has changed. In many ways, tonight we are here to celebrate, from the Government’s point of view, the insertion of the letters “C” and “P”.

That’s almost the end of it. It’s becoming sort of—I don’t know—a fairly standard approach these days to whip out words like “comprehensive” and “progressive”, because it gives that sort of warm, fuzzy feeling. Of course, when you start to dig into anything that it is “progressive” in this world, it’s always found wanting, and “comprehensive” is something that is always sort of a contradiction. And of course I’m slightly joking when I say we’re here to celebrate only the letters C and P, but actually, basically, to use the vernacular, bugger all has changed.

There’s been celebration tonight from the Government side that they’re tabling this document as if it’s something remarkable, open, and transparent. Well, it might come as a surprise to them but months ago, actually, we tabled the same 6,000 page document. It’s the same document. The only thing that’s changed are two pieces of paper—nothing has changed. I’m no mathematician, but two pieces of paper over 6,000 means a 0.00003 percent change. It is nothing. It is an absolute minimal change. The Labour Party has effectively buckled to reality, and what we’re seeing here is just classic spin.

We know that a number of those members on the other side—and the Minister himself, the Hon David Parker—were at the vanguard of protests screaming and yelling, saying this was a terrible, terrible agreement and an affront to democracy and every other sort of dramatic spin that they could put on it, and now that they’ve made basically no change and are on the Government benches, they’re trumpeting it. The only way that they’re able to attempt to justify it—partly to themselves; partly to the colleagues and to the public—is to try and say there’s been enormous, enormous change. And you know that it’s false, because, objectively, again, compare the previous 6,000 pages with the new 6,002 pages. But also, as you listen to the speeches tonight from the other side, some of the members are talking about 22 changes; others are talking about 32 changes. So I’d really encourage the Labour Government and their coalition partners to get together and try to synchronise that up.

They’ve made a big talk about the Treaty of Waitangi, because, of course, that’s one of those things, a bit like the words “progressive” and “comprehensive”—everyone goes, “Oh my gosh, the Treaty, yes.” Well, actually, nothing’s changed there whatsoever. There’s big talk about Pharmac, and having been the former chair of the Health Committee, it’s something I’ve followed closely—nothing has changed around Pharmac. The protections of Pharmac were already in the original agreement. When we used to actually have a bipartisan approach to trade, no side of this House was going to sell out the Treaty nor Pharmac nor the country. Nothing has changed.

There’s big talk about the investor-State dispute settlements. You always know when people don’t really know what they want to talk about but they want to scaremonger, they use the acronyms—the investor-State dispute settlements and that “Oh, we’ve made massive changes there.” Actually, the change has been so minor that it’s almost not worth mentioning. The fact that we can no longer sue—or rather, an outside party can no longer sue for contractual disputes, OK; I acknowledge that’s a sort of win. The fact, of course, that other things outside contractual disputes, and particularly if it relates to New Zealanders—if properties or businesses are taken off them as particular Governments nationalise or the like. But the other thing that they don’t talk about, and it’s one word, actually, that hasn’t been used tonight. It’s about successfully suing—successfully suing. The thing is, of course, there is nothing in this agreement that has been lauded to stop another nation suing us. They just can’t do it successfully. So what does that mean? It means that we can still—in this amazing extra two-page agreement—be sued, as I understand things. They can still take us to the courts and cost time and money. It just can’t be successful, and that’s a really important point.

So a lot of noise has been made by the other side, but I just encourage New Zealanders, particularly those who are on the more extreme anti side, to make sure they get the emails of this coalition Government. I’d encourage Jane Kelsey and others to remind them, to say, “Hey mates, where were you a few months ago, standing beside me? Nothing’s changed. Get in touch.” I’d also encourage New Zealanders to get on to Google or Bing or whatever you use, look up “Labour” and “TPP” and look at what they opposed. Look at the faces leading the protests—or if you’re an Aucklander, like myself—who basically stuffed up the traffic for hours. Nothing has changed in this agreement whatsoever. It’s incredibly disappointing that the wool is being pulled over people’s eyes.

I want to finish by just saying a little bit of what other colleagues have noted too: the concern around the lack of trade policy and direction in this Government. We have opportunities, particularly in Europe, particularly with the United Kingdom. We also have opportunities around the PACER-Plus agreement; that’s in the Pacific, which I suspect most people on that side don’t know of. But, actually, there’s a lot more work that needs to be done there, and I encourage this Government to more properly engage with this side of the House, learn a thing or two about how to pull these agreements together, and perhaps return to a proper bipartisan—comprehensive, if you will—approach to trade, which restores a little bit of mana and dignity to how we conduct our foreign affairs overseas.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to take a call in respect of this Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA). Before I commenced my remarks in the House tonight, I had the privilege of sitting through only the last few speakers from the Opposition, but what I have taken away is that there’s a lot of conjecture and hyperbolic statements that are used to describe the contents of this agreement.

I think it would be remiss, as the final speaker on behalf of the Government, if I didn’t just make some remarks about the journey by which the CPTPPA has come into this House, and make a few comments in respect of its predecessor, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). But, in particular, I really rise to speak to the implications of this agreement in respect of my region, the East Coast, the Eastern Bay of Plenty, the impacts that trade agreements such as the CPTPPA will have on our region’s development, and, specifically—through an industry that is close to my heart—the kiwifruit industry. Finally, I want to make a few remarks in respect of the implications of this agreement on Crown and Māori relationships and the implications of Te Tiriti—the Treaty—and this agreement.

But before I commence my remarks in that respect, I do want to make a number of acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge the fact that these types of agreements—one, they are extremely complex, nuanced, and go through years of negotiations to get to a final end point. In the process of those negotiations, I want to acknowledge the fact that so many New Zealanders from all walks of life have stood in support of, and in opposition to, the various iterations of this agreement.

I note the comments from one of my colleagues from across the Chamber, who discussed how there were members from this side that spoke at protests, and other such things, against the former agreement that didn’t get over the line, the TPPA. I myself didn’t attend any of those protests, but what I can say to those that did: good on them. Good on them for being passionate enough about our country to make a stand in respect of things that are important to them. And good on my colleagues who spoke out against the previous TPPA that was insufficient for our country and did not reach the objectives that the current CPTPPA has achieved for our country, and, in particular, the lynch point that the Opposition said that they could not achieve—that foreign investors could not be banned from speculating in our country. Well, that has to be a victory for this brand new Government, and I want to commend the efforts of our Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon David Parker.

In hindsight, thinking about why people become so impassioned about these types of agreements—and, actually, I draw on the previous remarks of my colleague David Seymour—we are a small trading nation at the bottom of the South Pacific, but we’re also a very proud country. We’re an extremely proud country about the way in which “Brand New Zealand”—Brand Aotearoa—is projected to the world.

I remember, prior to my role in this House, when I was a lawyer, I wasn’t sure. I remember there were people who were in extreme opposition and people in extreme support in my close circles of confidants. I said to myself, “Well, I can’t really just go off what anybody else says.” So for two weeks, my household shut its windows and we went through thousands and thousands of pages of papers to go through the exact detail of the prior TPPA, to form our own views. Again, when the text of this agreement, the CPTPPA, was released last week, we did the same. We shut up house and we went through the details, in order to form our own views.

Look, I admire people immeasurably on both sides of the debate, but where I’ve landed—I’m proud to stand on this side of the House, in light of the significant traction that has been made over the past four months.

Seventy percent of New Zealand’s trade flows through the Asia-Pacific region. We’re no longer an island in the middle of the South Pacific but, rather, we’re a dynamic economy that is integrated into a globally connected world.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, who knew that!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Since there was an interesting remark from over the other side there, I was noticing, you know, Peru is one of the eleven signatories to this agreement, and I was reflecting on the peruperu—the potato. My tīpuna from mai rānō actually were trading those peruperu—native potatoes—for generations and generations.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Put this in a book. Put it in a book.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Put it in a book. Nah, how about I just keep on going?

This side of the House managed to get things over the line that your Government couldn’t. The simple fact is—and when we actually go down the track: how many trade agreements have the Opposition gotten over the line? How many? How many? How many? How many? How many? How many? It’s been this side of the House, every single time, that’s had to seal the deal. The Opposition puts themselves out there as being the guys that are the champions of business. They’re the champions of the regions. The champions, champions, champions—but they can never get the deals over the line. Anyway, I digress.

I really want to turn to the applications of this CPTPPA on our region’s development. Before I came into this House, I’ve been a proud product of the Eastern Bay of Plenty. The kiwifruit industry is one of the backbones of our regional economy.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s very traditional.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: It is. It’s a very traditional industry. My grandparents have been in it, and pretty much all of my family is. It’s a fantastic industry. I had the opportunity to participate and be a part of greenfield developments all up the East Coast.

Now, the thing is that the kiwifruit industry currently contributes $2.6 billion to New Zealand’s GDP, and in the Bay of Plenty that’s $867 million alone. Currently, the kiwifruit industry generates over 10,000 jobs in the Bay of Plenty, and approximately 2,500 of those jobs are held by Māori. The projections by 2030 are that our growth projections will be an additional 14,000 more jobs created in the Bay of Plenty, and Māori grower revenue is estimated to increase from $271 million to $638 million per year by 2030. Bay of Plenty Māori wages and salaries are set to double from $22.1 million to $52 million, an increase of approximately 135 percent. The CPTPPA will reduce tariffs by $26 million per annum. That has huge fiscal implications for our region that we share.

I briefly want to just pick up on some of the comments of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in respect to Crown-Māori relations. There’s been a lot of commentary that the CPTPPA will undermine the Crown’s ability to give effect to its Treaty obligations. The Waitangi Tribunal, under urgency, found that the development of the Treaty exception clause, and its successful incorporation into the Singapore free-trade agreement and every free-trade agreement since, demonstrates leadership and is a credit to successive New Zealand Governments.

The issue before the tribunal was whether the Treaty exception clause was an effective protection, and their finding was that overall they concluded that the exception would be likely to operate in the prior TPPA substantially as intended. The exception, in the tribunal’s view, could be said to offer a reasonable degree of protection to Māori interests affected by the TPPA. Does that mean it’s perfect? No, it doesn’t. But what this Government has undertaken to do is to work closely with Māori in the evolution of these Treaty exception clauses moving forward.

I’m proud to be working with this Government, and I’m proud of the achievements made under the leadership of the Hon David Parker. I am pleased to commend this agreement to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Customs and Excise Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 27 February.

Powers and Obligations (continued)

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to continue my contribution—third time lucky—on this committee stage of the Customs and Excise Bill. If you could indulge me while I sort of get back up to speed again, but this is a comprehensive bill whereby we are wanting to bring the New Zealand Customs Service up into the 21st century. It’s about modernising and updating their processes and, obviously, the empowering legislation. In this debate, we are covering the theme of the powers and obligations.

I was mentioning in my earlier sections to this contribution the powers that reside with the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service. I note that there is a continuation of the title for the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service being referred to as the Comptroller of Customs. As I understand, the title of comptroller goes all the way back to 1910, so we’ve had over 108 years of the head of the New Zealand Customs Service being referred to as the comptroller. I guess my question to the Minister of Customs is: as we are modernising the New Zealand Customs Service through this legislation, why are we continuing with the term “comptroller” for the administrative head of the New Zealand Customs Service?

Right throughout the legislation it’s referred to as the chief executive, and, I guess, “comptroller” appears to me to be a very archaic term. It doesn’t really align with hauling the New Zealand Customs Service into the 21st century. We know that chief executives have been established under the State Sector Act for a very long time and, I guess, I really want to go a bit deeper just to understand why we have the term “comptroller”. What’s in a name? Are there any express or implied powers that reside in a comptroller, whether it be at law or however—some sort of extra powers that derive under that title which are separate to the powers conferred under this bill? It is such a very historical and quite antiquated term, so I would just like some guidance, I guess, from the Minister as to why the chief executive still has to carry that name.

And I understand the current head of customs is again referred to—I believe it’s an acting chief executive at the moment. It may be because it’s aligned with practice with other customs services around the world, I’m not too sure, but it seems to me that if we are modernising, if the purpose is to modernise the New Zealand Customs Service, then surely that might be one of the changes—yeah, those old titles that we can do away with and move into the 21st century and be proud to have the New Zealand Customs Service led by the chief executive. For instance, right throughout the legislation, all of the powers are conferred on the chief executive, and, I guess, why not go for consistency of language? Why not apply that consistency to the current head of customs? We can leave those old terms to history. Leave them to history, and let’s step out boldly in the 21st century by making sure that we do have clarity—clarity.

That’s why I do want to go back to the point: are there any powers of a comptroller that are separate to the chief executive? I think that’s a very important point, because if there are then it does lead to uncertainty. It seems like it might be some sort of officer, quasi-military title. I’m not too sure. I’m not an expert in that area, but “comptroller” seems like it is quite a hierarchical term. We have a deputy comptroller, we have officers, and it seems like it’s a specialised term for a customs-type officer—the head officer. And so I’m interested in whether there is some sort of dual role that is played out by having that title in addition to being the chief executive. I think it’s important because it goes to the delegations that flow from that title, and so I would seek Minister Whaitiri’s clarification on that point.

As I’ve said, I think it’s important that we do modernise the New Zealand Customs Service. It is a very high performing Government department. It does a lot of great work and we are definitely updating the powers that it does have through this piece of legislation, but I think it’s very important that we make sure that comptroller and chief executive are not confused, and if there is confusion, I think we should remedy that confusion by just going with the current, modern-day term of chief executive. Thank you.

Hon Andrew Little: Mr Chair.

Hon Peeni Henare: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Andrew Little.

Hon Peeni Henare: Aw!

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I know my colleague Peeni Henare has a considerable contribution to make on this bill. I just thought it might be better if I make my more modest contribution and clear the way for him to take the time of Parliament to extemporise on the very important issues that I know he wishes to bring to the attention of this committee.

As I said last time I spoke on this bill, which doesn’t seem that long ago but, actually, was at least a week ago, the power of the customs department is extensive, second only to the police. They are extensive powers of intrusion and coercion that our customs officers have. And, of course, because it’s an important border control department and mechanism that we have, it’s very important that those powers are clearly laid out and clearly spelled out, and there is no doubt or equivocation about them, about to whom they should apply or about what they are. It is interesting, throughout Part 3, and particularly in subpart 8, the extensive powers that are contained therein. They are some of the more intrusive powers that we would confer on any Government agent, but in particular customs officers.

So we see the obligation that the customs officers have. Having seized goods and established that they are contraband, they are then forfeited to the State. We see that customs, nevertheless, before that forfeiture, are required to provide a notice to people with an interest in the goods, so that there is some sort of due process and natural justice followed. It’s very important for the exercise of these extensive powers that that is there. So I acknowledge the Minister in charge of the bill, the Minister of Customs. I congratulate her on a bill that actually clearly lays that out—clearly lays out those powers—because if there is going to be a challenge to anything that our customs officials do, it will be in those more intrusive powers that they exercise: the right to stop at the border and the right to detain goods at the border and, where there is suspicion about the legality of their nature, then to seize those goods, with notice to those with an interest in it following.

For goods that have been improperly imported and for which no proper duty or excise has been paid, they can be seized, forfeited to the Crown, and then the Crown, in fact, has the right to sell those goods—again, actually, quite an intrusive power into the private rights of the citizen, corporate or otherwise, who would otherwise be bringing those goods across the border for their merchanting and good health. And so it is important, as I said, when we are considering a piece of legislation that has powers that are that intrusive, that we take good time to consider them carefully, to understand them, and to explicate them, if not to the public at large then at least to ourselves, because that’s what our job here is to do.

I think the Minister is correct in showing some courage, frankly, in ensuring that these powers appear in this bill, that these powers continue to be exercised, because, in the end, for a small, isolated nation State like ours, surrounded by blue water, what we do at the border is absolutely integral to our ability to protect ourselves from undue incursions—not necessarily of the biosecurity nature; that’s the Ministry for Primary Industries’ job, and we know that that department had an enormous struggle to do their job effectively, because of poor resourcing under the last Government. Customs at least, exercising its powers under this bill, will have a huge opportunity to continue to afford to this nation the protection that we expect of it: the protection of goods that would enter our market—goods that can have an effect on people. It is important that when we are taking goods across the border, we have proper regulation and management of the passage of those goods. So I just say to the Minister: it is good to see that those powers have continued and have been replicated in this piece of legislation, as an outstanding act of courage from this outstanding Minister.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and thank you for this opportunity. Can I make this introductory comment to the honourable Minister Whaitiri: it’s no coincidence that the customs department have certainly cracked down on a heck of a lot of the goings on on the border since the Minister in the chair has taken over, and I congratulate her and, of course, this bill. There are some questions I have about this bill, and the other side, while they might laugh and say that we’re filibustering, are going to actually pay a heck of a lot of attention to this particular bill and the clause I’m about to speak to, because they now have a Māori leader.

Matt Doocey: Ha, ha!

Hon PEENI HENARE: What I want to talk about particularly is actually clause 205. The member Matt Doocey won’t know what that clause is, but let me explain that to him.

Hon Amy Adams: Matt Doocey’s forgotten more than you know, buddy.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Clause 205 is the “Use of dogs and other aids”, and while that might seem trivial to the former Minister of Justice, let me explain. Subclause 2 says here: “However, neither a Customs officer nor any other person may use a dog or aid of the kind referred in subsection (1) in a private dwelling or marae”. Remember that, please, on the other side. With a Māori leader, you’ll be visiting a marae, no doubt soon. In this particular clause, it refers to a marae, and I want to take the line of questioning of my colleague here, Mr Rino Tirikatene. The reason is: define for me “a marae”. Today I was in Tauranga and, in fact, visited the great people of Pirirākau.

Kiritapu Allan: Whoo!

Hon PEENI HENARE: Pirirākau—Kiritapu Allan, they spoke very highly of the work that you’re doing in the rohe, and it was a pleasure to visit the people there. Now, to your common New Zealander, your normal person, your “Joe Average” on the street, a marae would be a carved meeting house. I think that’s a relatively fair assumption to be made. But let me tell this committee: a marae can actually be a heck of a lot of things. Not all marae are carved. A marae is a home. A marae is a common place of gathering. In my particular electorate in Tāmaki Makaurau, a marae is a church, and I refer to Te Unga Waka Marae, the Catholic marae in Tāmaki-makau-rau, down on Manukau Road in the heart of Newmarket. Funnily enough, there is a marae there, for those of you who don’t know. From the outside, it looks like a concrete building, but, in fact, it is a marae.

I want, in the scope of the contribution made by Mr Tirikatene, to talk about the definition of language there. I think it’s an important thing, and I’m going to go further into the use of sniffer dogs and other resources at the disposal of customs to conduct searches on a marae—on a marae.

I want to continue on the definition of a marae. For most parts of Aotearoa, in particular the rural parts, a marae was simply a home—simply a home; a home of gathering for common purpose, a gathering for community, a gathering to discuss many of the issues affecting that particular community. So if I can just put that question to the Minister around what a marae and its definition exactly is, in particular with respect to clause 205.

In there, too, it says “in a private dwelling or marae except—(a) with the consent of an occupier or owner of that dwelling or marae; or (b) under a warrant.” Now, many of us—in particular the Māori members of this House—are affiliated to their marae. Some of us have served as trustees. We know that on our marae, there is not one individual owner—not one individual owner. So if there is a group of trustees—take myself, for example. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, I’m a good three-hour drive from my marae—three-hour drive from my marae. How are we, as trustees, able to sit down and consider giving consent—giving consent to customs to conduct searches and investigations on our marae? The trustees of my marae live scattered right across the country, and I wonder just about the practicalities of getting proper consent.

I’ll reiterate that point: there is not one owner of a marae—not one owner. On some marae, there are pretenders. On some marae, they might argue that they’re the owner of the marae, but I put to this committee and to the Minister that there is not one owner of a marae. That’s going to cause some problems—not just for pragmatic reasons, of course, as I mentioned, around customs trying to define who an owner is or how they might be able to contact them and how they might gain consent. I’ll leave that in front of the Minister. The only other way is, of course, under a warrant, and that speaks to the language referred to by the member Mr Rino Tirikatene about “controller”. The mere term used here, a “warrant”, implies something perhaps more controller-like in so far as a heavy-handed approach to gain access to a marae—to gain access to a marae.

Some of the other things—and, like I said, this might seem trivial to the other side, but I know for a fact that on my marae, dogs aren’t allowed—dogs aren’t allowed. In fact, on most marae around the country, dogs aren’t allowed—dogs aren’t allowed.

Hon Amy Adams: Which bill are you on?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Clause 205, if the member cared to listen and follow the debate and actually contribute something. That side of the Chamber has been what we call in Māoridom “wahangū”—silent. In fact, some might argue they’d be dead, they’re that silent. Anyway, to the important point—because this is important to Māori, and, in fact, with their new leader, it’s quite clear that that member lost the leadership vote. The new Māori leader of the National Party, with his whakapapa, will take this seriously. To the point, sir—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Come back to the bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE: On many marae, dogs are not allowed, and I wonder if this is another heavy-handed control by the Crown or by the customs department to actually force on to a marae the use of a dog. I also wonder to myself: why would customs be searching a marae? I go to marae right across the country, and I think to myself: why a marae specifically? Are we suggesting that illegal goods are being trafficked—being brought into New Zealand and being stored at marae, being traded out of a marae? I’m not too sure what this implies, and I’ve got some concerns and, obviously, some questions for the Minister in this respect.

What clause 205 also speaks to is the use of not only dogs but electronic X-ray machines. Are we suggesting that we’re going to be setting up security checkpoints on marae? One of those marae is, of course, Te Manukanuka o Hoturoa, which is the closest marae to the airport. Are we suggesting that, perhaps, we set up some kind of a customs checkpoint on that marae? I’ll leave those questions for the Minister.

So just to recap: (1) definition of marae; (2) actual dogs on marae; (3) the practicalities of defining ownership of a marae and whether or not you can get ownership consent to go on to a marae, or is it merely a case of a heavy-handed Government department—in this case, customs—going on to a marae exerting their control using the definition and the language of my colleague Mr Rino Tirikatene. What are we implying by simply stating only “marae” in here? Sure, it says “private dwelling”—that’s relatively straightforward to me—but it also specifically states “marae”. Why “marae”? I want to leave those questions on the table for the Minister to consider and for the committee to consider. Kāti ki a tātau, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I have to back up that magnificent speech there from my colleague Peeni Henare, particularly with his challenge to the other side, who are very silent tonight because they’re still in deep depression after the Māori takeover of the National Party. I know it bothers them—I know it bothers them—and we can barely get a word out of them now, but we know that Simon will come to the aid of Peeni Henare after tonight—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon Bridges.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Simon Bridges—that’s his name. I knew that. Nō Ngāti Maniapoto, too—Ngāti Maniapoto are very proud. They’ve said that they’re backing him now, going into the future. Originally they disowned him, but they’ll take a bet both ways.

I just want to compliment the Minister on her fantastic work. Finally, we’re going to get some action in this area. In particular, I want to comment on clause 207, where we’re looking at customs—this clause restricts customs’ power to search data in electronic devices, in comparison to the current Act. It’s a very important clause, this, particularly if we’re looking to increase customs officers’ powers in terms of their powers of search. It goes to the line in terms of: are we breaching civil liberties? What sort of power do customs officers have? Will they just search National Party members as they come through the terminal, perhaps looking through their phones? They have this opportunity to access telephones, go through profiles, and so it goes to an area where many in the House have argued that customs officers and people at the airport—they should not have that opportunity, that they should not have that option. It does this by setting out thresholds and other safeguards that are designed to protect privacy.

Tonight I would ask the Minister: have we got the balance right? Have we got the balance right in terms of this clause and in terms of how far we go? Are we mindful of our people’s rights, Kiwis’ rights, New Zealanders’ rights, with regards to their privacy, with regards to what they’re doing in terms of their telephones? What is private and what is not? So the question is always: have we got the balance right? Are we giving too much power to some of the individuals? Will they bring their own political views to the line? There’s always an opportunity there, and we have to question that.

So, in particular, it’s a two-threshold test, they say, that would apply to the search of data in an electronic device by a customs officer. A test of reasonable cause to suspect relevant offending would be used for an initial search of a device—so very important there. To carry out a full search—that is, forensic search—of a device, a customs officer must have reasonable cause to believe that the device contained evidential material relating to relevant offending. So, again, we ask of the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri: have we got the balance right? Are our civil liberties being breached as New Zealanders? In this Chamber, it’s only right we ask those questions of ourselves. We want to be security conscious—we want to be security conscious—but how far do we go in terms of exercising powers for our customs officers? How far do we want to reach, how much do want to accord our customs officers, how many rights do they have, and when do our rights start and finish?

So I think New Zealanders out there would want to hear some assurances from our Minister in terms of the powers that are being exercised, in terms of the balance, in terms of bias, in terms of prejudice—where are we going with this? We’re a Labour Government who are concerned with the rights of all citizens—of all New Zealand citizens—unlike the National Party, who would just make a declaration. No, we’ll go through a process—a proper process—where we’ll look at the rights and the powers and the balance for all New Zealanders, and I think we’re on the right track. Kia ora.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am delighted to be speaking on this Customs and Excise Bill. I’m particularly pleased because back in 2014, when I first became the Minister of Customs, we started work on this bill, and it’s taken all this time to get here. I’m not surprised that it’s taken all this time, because it is an extremely large and extremely complex bill, and the New Zealand Customs Service has done an enormous amount of work, working with stakeholders, working with the public, and really coming up with practical, sensible ways to reform the legislation.

It is easy to forget that New Zealand customs is 178 years old. This bill that we are debating today updates the 1996 Act, but also it amends Acts that have been previous. Some parts of it are 50 years old, and some of it is even 100 years old. But the really interesting thing about this job is that although the new bill modernises and it streamlines process, it doesn’t change the principles, the values, and the duties of the New Zealand Customs Department, and it doesn’t change the powers and obligations. It does simplify, update, and modernise, and it tries to provide flexibility for future changes in technology and business practices and to also find tools to combat illegal activity, and that’s the key issue.

Willie Jackson, the speaker before me, was talking about balance. This is a balance about how we protect New Zealand and New Zealanders while preserving the privacy of travellers and businesses. So the whole key to this is to make the border processes as simple, easy, and cost-effective as possible for legal goods and passengers, while making it as difficult, as complex, and as expensive as possible for illegal operators, and the trick, of course—and this is the hard thing for customs—is to identify the difference between the two of them.

As I’ve said, New Zealand customs worked very closely with stakeholders and businesses. Really, this is about making the whole process of managing our borders more efficient and more effective because we know that that’s important in terms of economic growth and in terms of trade.

But one of the issues that we’ve been discussing tonight, which I’d just like to traverse, is the issue of e-devices. The vast majority of this bill is uncontroversial, but we did have a significant discussion about e-devices. Now the interesting thing about e-devices is that these are the things that we carry as passengers—or they could actually be in cargo—across the border. Customs powers in the past were that they could look at any bit of documentation and anything that you had in the baggage coming across the border, so, theoretically, they have the right, as of right, to look at an e-device. But this is why we had to look at this Act, because what people keep on their e-device is much more than what they might have carried in their suitcase. They could have carried documentation in their suitcase or they could have carried information in their suitcase, and in the past, the Customs Department would have rifled through that documentation, but an e-device has personal things as well as the information that might be relevant to customs.

So although under the past Act—the 1996 Act—New Zealand customs had the right to look at an e-device, in this bill we have actually put in two thresholds, and these thresholds are to protect the privacy of people for their own information that might be on their e-device. So the first threshold is that a customs officer must have “reasonable cause to suspect”—reasonable cause to suspect—that the passenger who’s carrying the e-device has committed a relevant offence. It can’t be any old offence. It has to be a relevant offence to what customs is looking for, so it will be export, import, child pornography—some of the relevant offences that customs is responsible for. So the first level to make an initial look at an e-device is they must have a reasonable cause to suspect offending. If, when they go through that first look at the e-device, they find information that leads them to have “reasonable cause to believe”—reasonable cause to believe—that the passenger is actually offending, then they can do a full search.

So what’s actually happened in this stage—[Bell rung] Mr Chair, just to finish this—just to make it clear. So what’s actually happened in this clause of the bill, and it’s clause 207 of the bill, is that customs has actually given up some of its powers—powers that it’s had for 178 years—and, to look at new technology, has put in a threshold to protect the legal traveller through our borders.

So I think this a good compromise. Customs has had to take a step back and put that threshold in, but I think it’s a good compromise, and I support the option.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk on theme two, the powers and obligations, of this, the Customs and Excise Bill 2016. It is a piece of legislation that actually goes back to 1913, I believe. It was amended again in 1966, and, of course, for the last time in 1996, and that is a long time ago. Things have moved on a lot. I mean, back in 1996, Sean Fitzpatrick was captain of the All Blacks, Lee Germon was captain of the Black Caps—a great Cantabrian. I don’t know if Simeon Brown was born then, but probably around about that time. But it will be of great comfort to the nation that Winston Peters was Deputy Prime Minister and leader of New Zealand First then, as he is now, so those people watching at home, I’m sure, sleep in their beds safe at night, under that safety blanket of the great Rt Hon Winston Peters.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And now to the theme.

MARK PATTERSON: Yes, so the 2016 bill—and I will, now I’ve got my list placing secured for the next election—I will commend the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri. This is a serious bill, and these are serious clauses. I will commend the Minister. Customs is a very important part of our economy. I see it as one of the three pillars, along with biosecurity and food safety, that underpin the economic growth and financial well-being of this country.

This bill establishes some specific thresholds for the search of electronic devices, and I will pick up on that in a moment, but it does not change those core functions. Rino Tirikatene informed us in one of his previous contributions to this debate that it goes back to before the Treaty of Waitangi, which shows you that this is a longstanding, important part of our economy.

This bill also clarifies travellers’ obligations. It protects privileged information as well. New Zealand First was pleased that within this process the Privacy Commissioner was heavily involved in the formulation of this bill. That gives us a lot of confidence. We’ve heard tonight already all the speakers talking about the balance. If we’re giving people powers of search over and above what they would normally have had, then that is something we have to take very seriously as legislators—so to have that comfort blanket of the Privacy Commissioner endorsing these provisions.

Of course it is a very different time now. We have 3.7 million international tourists coming through our borders every year. We also have, I think, a couple of million New Zealanders travelling overseas every year. We’ve got record exports for the December quarter, under this Government. So for customs, it is very important that these provisions are up for review and are fit for purpose in the 21st century. The bill streamlines the processes for imposing controls on imported and exported goods.

I’d also like to touch, a bit later, on the controlled deliveries provisions in this bill, which are long overdue. Clause 207 covers secure devices—the power to seize devices, and the provisions around that, and the legal thresholds; these two threshold tests and the need for reasonable suspicion. An example of that, I understand, would be someone that may be coming in on a visitor visa whom customs may suspect is here to work illegally, under the table. This would give customs officers, under this threshold, the opportunity to look into this device, localised—they can’t go on the cloud and look at Facebook or social media; it can only be localised to what is contained on that device. Of course, beyond that, it also has that higher threshold where more serious criminal offending is suspected. The provisions within clause 207 obligate the travellers to supply passwords.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m going to talk about clauses 22, 28, and 29. But before I do, quite integral to my contribution is the word “craft”, and I’m going to just go through the definition of the word “craft”, as per the bill. It “includes any aircraft, ship, or other machine or vessel, used or capable of being used for the transportation of goods or persons by air or … water.” So I’m going to talk about yachts, coming into New Zealand—a lot of yachts. The reason I’m going to talk about this is this is something very dear to my heart and also to the Minister’s heart. It is the way that drugs are getting in and out of our country these days.

One of the methods is the stuff is being dropped in the Islands. The meth is dropped in the Islands, picked up by yachts, and brought across to New Zealand. It’s very hard to detect. But some of these clauses—I have questions for the Minister, and she might know some of the answers to these. So if I look at clause 22, it’s titled “Craft that have arrived at place other than Customs place”. So, as we know, all around New Zealand, dotted around New Zealand are a whole lot of areas that haven’t got a customs office. These are places with jetties that yachts can arrive at, at any time. It states, “(2) The same powers may be exercised, and the same obligations apply, under this Act … (a) … as if [a craft] arrived at a Customs place;” My first question—this is clause 22(2)—why is that wording “The same powers may be exercised,”? I would have thought that the same powers “must” be exercised, and the same obligations apply, under this Act—as if the craft arrived at a Customs place. So I’m wondering under what circumstances would they not apply? Hence the word “may” versus “must”.

I’m going now to clause 22(3), and there’s a bit of confusion here. It talks about, “The person in charge of the craft—” i.e., the skipper, in this example, “(a) must … report to a Customs officer or to a constable;”—so this recognises that when there’s not a customs office there could well be a police station, which is often the case now in places around—but “… (b) must not, without the consent of a Customs officer, allow (i) any goods to be unloaded from the craft;”. I’m not too sure how this might work. So they land at a place without a customs office. They find a police station. They go to the constable. But what it actually says here is they can’t actually do anything without the direction of a customs officer. At what point do the roles and responsibilities of a constable transfer to a customs officer?

That takes me to clause 28—they link in—and this is, “Persons arriving in New Zealand to report to Customs officer or Police station”. So again it goes to that theme where they’ve landed in New Zealand, there’s no Customs office, and they go to a police station. What it says here is that except as otherwise provided in the Act, they must immediately report to a customs officer or a police station. Then it says—so we’re in clause 28(b)—“remain at the place where he or she reported to the Customs officer, or at the Police station, for any reasonable time that Customs requires to enable a Customs officer to carry out any function under this Act”. I suppose my question is: what constitutes reasonable time?

So if they’re landing in Ruatōria or somewhere where there is no customs office, they report to a police station, as per the Act, how long do they actually have to wait there before they can say, “Well, this is a reasonable amount of time. I can reasonably be expected to go back to my yacht because a customs officer has not arrived.”? Is it a day; is it is two days? I would have thought a reasonable amount of time would be three or four hours or as long as it takes a customs officer to drive from the nearest office to that police station. That may be impractical if all the officers are engaged in other activities, but I’m just curious to know if the officials or the Minister have an idea around what constitutes reasonable time.

Again, clause 29 here, “Disembarkation”, as well: it talks about, “(3) Every person who has disembarked must, unless otherwise directed by Customs,—(a) proceed to a Customs-controlled area;” and they must remain there for what constitutes a reasonable time.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but there seems to be a little bit of inconsistency there. So when they arrive in New Zealand they can go to a police station. But when they embark they must talk to a customs officer or follow the directions of a customs officer. This is a genuine question: can a police officer, a sworn officer, take over the responsibilities of a customs officer when there is no customs officer able to discharge their duties under the Act? Because, as we know, New Zealand has a lot of coastline. The Minister and I have great concerns about the use of yachts bringing in contraband.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. I’m pleased to make another contribution on the theme around powers and obligations. I want to talk to a clause that is quite dear to my heart at the moment, and that is clause 96. This clause confers on the Minister a power, by Order in Council, to prohibit the import and export of pounamu. This is a matter that was of great concern to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, who are, by virtue of their settlement, the outright owners of all pounamu in Aotearoa, and we know that it’s all in the South Island, in Te Wai Pounamu. So there is an existing prohibition on the export of pounamu, but what I want to speak to is, if we look at this clause, the Minister must recommend a prohibition by Order in Council, and that prohibition must be in the public interest. So there’s a public interest test that applies in the granting of the export prohibition or import prohibition, as well. What Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu were wanting to advocate for in their submission was, would their established iwi interest that they have be a relevant interest, and that it should take precedence over and above the public interest test in the case of pounamu.

What transpired, I guess, after consideration was that the select committee in its report said that the relevant iwi interest is also taken care of in the public interest test. So what I would want to ask the Minister is, if she could—I guess I can see positives for Māori in general by the application of saying that an iwi interest is also in the public interest.

If I look at other situations where customs have put export prohibitions in place, one issue that is also dear to my heart is the prohibition on the SILNA lands in the South Island. For those that don’t know, the SILNA lands are the South Island Landless Native Act lands, and those lands were granted to landless natives of the South Island due to unfulfilled promises that took place, which is very historical but very relevant because those lands were in places like the bottom of Stewart Island—far, remote places, far away from where Māori actually lived, where Māori weren’t able to draw any compensation or any economic benefit from those lands because they were literally waste lands right at the bottom far-right far corner of the South Island.

So I’m aware that customs has imposed export controls on the harvest of logs from the SILNA lands, and by looking at what’s happened in the case with pounamu here, surely a relevant iwi interest could be argued and that the use of the sustainably logged harvest from those lands, which are compensation lands to the people of the South Island, surely that could also be in the public interest. And why wouldn’t it be in the public interest? I’m just wanting to use an example of where customs has actually imposed export prohibitions that have been to the detriment of Māori in trying to utilise or gain benefit from those lands. So it hasn’t worked all the time, but I see a glimmer of hope that possibly—and hopefully the Minister could clarify—that an iwi interest is also in the public interest.

In another case in point, I look at another iwi at the top of the South Island, Ngāti Kuia—and they also call themselves Te Iwi Pakohe, which is the argillite, which is a stone—[Time expired]

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, and can I please start by thanking all members of the committee for their great contribution and scrutiny of a bill that is very, very important. Can I also make amends in that I mistakenly acknowledged the wrong Minister who did begin this bill. So can I please correct the records and say the Hon Nicky Wagner started this bill and then it went to the Hon Tim Macindoe.

There’s a suite of questions that have been asked particularly on theme two that I’m going to address in my contribution. The first one dates back to questions raised when this bill was debated on 14 February. There was a question asked by the member Virginia Andersen in relation to the retention of personal information, clause 51. Her question pertained to how long information that was gathered—i.e., biometrics, faces, irises—would stay on the record. So in response to that question raised by Virginia Andersen, clause 51 requires passenger name record data to be deleted or have its identifying particulars removed after three years, unless it is required for investigation, prosecution, or for border security. We also acknowledge that the Privacy Act 1993 applies, under which information must be deleted when the purpose for which it was obtained no longer applies, and it’s customs’ policy, to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act, that all biometric information collected from passengers at e-gates—the automatic passenger processing system—is deleted after three months, so hopefully that addresses that question.

Then we moved on to Dr Duncan Webb, whose question related to condemnation of goods, new clause 166A proposed through Supplementary Order Paper 12. Dr Webb raised the issue around the ability of customs to seize goods and whether there ought to be some very careful discretion not to exercise it in all circumstances. For Dr Webb, the power to seize goods is discretionary. Customs officers have clear procedures to follow to guide them in using this power. The chief executive of customs also has the power to restore seized goods if she or he considers it equitable in the circumstances. A person can make their case as part of a formal review process at no cost. As a result, conditions can be set as part of restoring these seized goods to the person.

The Act at the moment does not address what happens if a person accepts the conditions but then fails to fulfil them. Instead, the Act implies that if this happens the goods will be condemned—that is, become owned by the Crown. Clause 166A has been inserted to make it explicit how this works. An example—and this might be of interest to the member who just contributed formerly, Rino Tirikatene—of when this clause would engage is in relation to the exportation of pounamu, which is prohibited except with the consent of a Minister of Customs on the advice of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu or the Mawhera Incorporation. Customs could restore seized pounamu conditional on the exporter obtaining the consent for the export from the Minister of Customs. This would need to be done within the time frame set out by the chief executive when the pounamu is restored.

The third question that was asked by Dr Duncan Webb was in relation to powers in the contiguous zone, clause 169, where Dr Webb pointed to the ability to seize illicit imports or exports in the contiguous zone—

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I do believe it is inappropriate for a member to use a mobile phone in the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It is, and the whips do have their phones, so I’d ask the member to put the mobile phone away. But I do suggest to the member that he might want to wait until his Minister has finished speaking in future. It’s career-enhancing.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you, Madam Chair. So returning back to the question asked by Dr Duncan Webb in relation to powers in the contiguous zone, clause 169, he asked for an explanation as to how this clause is both consistent with good governance and with our international obligations. Both international convention and the current Customs and Excise Act 1996 provide that powers may be exercised in the contiguous zone by customs. This is necessary to prevent or enforce breaches of customs law that occur in our territorial waters. Powers are rarely exercised in this zone. The bill does not give customs additional powers here, but modernises the references to ensure clarity as to what powers are available. The power of seizure would not likely be exercised when customs is pursuing a craft from the territorial sea into the contiguous zone where goods are already forfeited.

Now I return to the contribution by members tonight. I want to start with the member for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene, who asked why we’re using the word “comptroller” and whether we are being bold enough to modernise that to “the chief executive”, or asked questions why we don’t just call the head of customs the chief executive. “The comptroller” is the title given to the Chief Executive of the Customs Service, the title is historic, and has been in use since at least the early 20th century, if not earlier. The title of “comptroller” is generally used in relation to senior public sector or corporate officers who have financial oversight responsibilities. Its use by customs is historic and reflects the revenue collection responsibilities of the chief executive. It is part of the organisation’s tradition and identity. The term of “comptroller” is also used by customs’ administrations globally.

Also in response to the honourable member’s question, there are no extra powers in having the term “comptroller”. Clause 248 states, “The chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service continues to be known as the Comptroller of Customs.” This clause is part of the debate for theme four, mechanics and miscellaneous. The comptroller has the same responsibility, functions, and obligations as any other chief executive under the State Sector Act 1988.

Then I want to move on to the Hon Peeni Henare, who made a contribution around clause 205 and marae. In response, can I just say to that member that by naming marae in clause 205, we are giving marae the same protection as private dwellings, but greater than other public or communal spaces. The definition of “marae” is in clause 5—page 30, if the member wants to refer to it—“the area of land on which all buildings, such as … wharenui … wharekai … ablution blocks, and any other associated buildings, are situated”.

In terms of dogs on marae, customs would be sensitive to concerns about dogs coming on to the marae. Customs would consider using an alternative aid to dogs.

But I think the big question the member, thankfully, asked is the identification of marae owners. Noting that we all come from marae—many of us in this House—there is no single owner. Like you rightly said, we have multiple owners—some that live around the marae, some that live far from the marae, and some owners that live overseas—and you asked what would customs do. I am assured, on asking officials to the Minister, that before we move into getting a warrant, to get to a warrant application, the person issuing the warrant—for example, a judge—must be satisfied that he or she reasonably believes that at the place there is evidence of the commission of an offence or evidence of the unlawful importation or exportation of goods—for example, drugs—or anything that is intended to be used to commit such an offence. So there is a threshold there, I say to Minister Peeni Henare, before we issue a warrant to go into our marae.

Lastly, I believe that there were three contributions in relation to clause 207, and that is around—losing all these papers—clause 207 in terms of the question that Minister Willie Jackson asked around whether we have got the balance right around electronic devices. Can I reassure him and also Mark Patterson and, I think, the Hon Nicky Wagner that there is a two-threshold test that is in train. One is around ensuring that the two-step train—I knew I would do this: I would lose my notes amongst this sea of notes. But I want to assure the Minister that there is a two-threshold test before we actually enter. One is an initial search, on the belief that there is an offence, and then a more forensic test on ensuring that there is actually an offence that requires a search.

So, hopefully—and it’s also important to note to that member that the Privacy Commissioner also submitted at select committee that they were pleased to see that the provisions outlined in clause 207 reflect that advice that they gave to officials during the policy development process. Kia ora.

Revenue and Trade

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, it is my view that it is now reasonable to move on to the next theme, which is the debate on revenue and trade, comprising Part 2 and schedule 3; Part 3, Subparts 3, 5, 6, 7, and 7A, and schedule 4; and Part 5, Subparts 2, 3, 8, and 9, and schedules 6 and 7.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you. I’m pleased to make a contribution under this new theme. We’re talking about revenue, and obviously, a major part of customs is the collection of duty and excise through the importation of goods into New Zealand across our borders, and also from the manufacture of cigarettes, tobacco, and the like, which is collected by customs as well.

I guess in terms of the forgone revenue from excise, I wish to talk to the provisions around the exemptions that are granted for the manufacturing of beer for personal use. Now I include it in this theme because it’s about the exemption from having to actually have a customs-controlled area in which beer is manufactured and from which revenue excise is derived. So I want to talk to this, because there are a lot of home brewers, craft brewers, around the country who enjoy their creations and who enjoy being able to enjoy their beer for personal use.

I wanted to just delve into the provision of clause 67(4)(b), which concerns the manufacture of beer, wine, or spirits in a private dwelling. If the individual manufactures that “exclusively for [their] personal use and not for sale or … disposition to any other person;”, they are, effectively, granted that exemption from having to fall within the Customs and Excise Act and be liable for excise, and, therefore, the forgone revenue would be owing to the Crown. My question really relates to the situation where it’s very common for home brewers to share and compare their creations with others in a non-commercial setting. It’s all part of the enjoyment, I guess, of the creation of—whether it’s a home brew or a wine, or any other beverage.

So my reading of clause 67(4)(b) is that it is very narrow in terms of it being only for that individual’s personal use and not for sale or disposition to any other person. In my mind, it’s arguable whether the ability to share and compare your creations with other brewers—other like-minded people—would be actually covered by that exemption, because it seems very narrow: to the individual concerned and to their dwelling, in which they manufactured the beverage. So I’d just like to seek clarification from the Minister of Customs, if she could explain how that scenario whereby the sharing and comparing of a personal home brew—which has no economic or commercial payment attached to it—falls within that exemption, because to me, it seems like this is very narrowly drafted, and if customs has to apply some sort of licence to sort of stretch the provision to suit a particular fact scenario, I guess it doesn’t make for good lawmaking.

I’m just hopeful we can get some guidance from the Minister on this particular point, because I’m sure it’s of great interest to the very many hundreds of home brewers and other people that are in their private dwellings—in their man caves or sheds, or whatever it is—making their particular home brew creations. So I’d appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that particular point. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Madam Chair—

Kieran McAnulty: Here we go.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, thank you, Kieran. I’m just pleased to talk on this theme. I was taking a look at the bill and it leads me to understand that it continues to uphold the provisions contained in the current Act and, obviously, at the same time modernising the language.

One of the things that stands out in terms of this part is that business, particularly, is supporting the bill and its new provisions because it provides greater flexibility and certainty, and that’s important, I think, for all businesses that are involved in the import industry. What’s great about it also is that the importers will be able to declare provisional values if the value cannot be known at the time of import.

Furthermore, the importers will be able to, under this bill, seek binding valuation rulings to get certainty about their duty liability before deciding to import. Keeping abreast of the technology available today, traders will be able to share business records in the cloud as well as offshore, enabling them to add greater efficiency in terms of cost and time to their business. Continuing with the efficiency trend, traders can opt for a simple and cheap internal process to review duty assessments.

I think one of the other good things about this bill is the fact that customs are required to report annually on initiatives to reduce compliance costs—in particular, for highly compliant traders. Just looking at the Act, under the current Act there’s an unduly punitive additional duty regime that I think is unnecessary. I will be looking for some clarification from the Minister, particularly in this area, about this punitive side because it probably goes too far, and under the new provisions that have been proposed I wouldn’t mind some clarification around that. Are they going to be replaced with fairer, more proportionate compensatory interests and a late penalty regime? I think that this is an area, a crucial part, for myself.

In terms of the clauses, it is important to acknowledge, I think, the work of the select committee with regard to the clauses they’ve recommended, which clarify and strengthened the bill. In terms of clause 11, this looks like an amended clause that introduces and provides us a guide to schedule 3 of the bill, which levies excise and excise equivalent in respect of alcohol, tobacco, and fuel that is manufactured in or imported into New Zealand. It provides that excise and excise equivalent are levied when goods are manufactured or imported. I think the select committee, you can see, amended subclause (1) to clarify that excise duty and excise-equivalent duty are levied “when goods are manufactured or imported”.

Schedule 3, clause 10, is another new clause and I can see that it restricts the discretion of the chief executive to allow dutiable motor spirits to be removed from a customs-controlled area without being removed for home consumption. The clause also preserves the existing excise point when fuel leaves the refinery and creates a new excise point at the tank farms. Regulations may be made to set a formula to determine the additional volume from blending at tank farms. It sets out rules relating to the removal of motor spirits from customs-controlled areas, and blending, making their purpose and operation clearer.

Finally, the clause by clause detail paid to the raft of provisions related to the bill is detailed and thorough, and I wish to commend the Minister of Customs, but particularly the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee which has worked on this. In doing so, the bill and its provisions are well-thought-out and, of course, I have no hesitation in commending this to the committee.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Just to put on record, this particular theme—revenue and trade—continues the provisions in the current Act, which were working really well. Just to remind members that customs collects duty on imports and excise on locally manufactured fuel, alcohol, and tobacco, and in 2016-17, customs collected $13.3 billion in Crown revenue.

This particular theme is where businesses came together with customs and ensured that we had a set of very flexible, business-orientated provisions. So I just want to acknowledge the many submitters that did this.

This bill supports business by creating greater flexibility and certainty. Importers, for example, will be able to declare provisional values if the value cannot be known at the time of import. Importers will be able to seek binding valuation rulings to get certainty about their duty liability before deciding to import. Traders will be able to store business records in the cloud and offshore, and traders can opt for a simpler, cheaper internal process to review duty assessments.

Customs must also report annually on initiatives to reduce compliance costs for highly compliant traders. The current, unduly punitive, additional duty regime will be replaced with a fairer, more proportionate compensatory interest and late payment regime. Administrator penalties have been extended to all exports, and accurate export information gives assurances to our trade partners and meets international obligations.

Excise taxes imposed on tobacco, fuel, and alcohol—the excise system is robust, but greater certainty will help business, avoiding litigation and protecting Crown revenue. The bill creates a new collection point at tank farm gantries to collect excise on the increased volume of motor spirits created by blending.

Mechanics and Miscellaneous

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right. Members, in the absence of any further debate, it’s my view it’s now reasonable to move on to the next debate, which is the debate on mechanics and miscellaneous, comprising Part 1 and schedules 1 and 2; Part 5, Subpart 1; and Part 6, Subparts 3, 4, and 5, and schedule 9.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson Tolley. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on theme four: mechanics and miscellaneous.

I’ve got two particular clauses that I’d like to address in my contribution tonight. It really is the distinction between clause 250, which is an existing clause in the legislation, and the new clause 251. The emphasis on the new clause 251 is about authorising persons and specific class authorisations, and I particularly want to focus on the distinction between that clause and clause 250, which is about authorising individuals and authorising them for not more than three years. That is a very, I guess, strategic decision, and I see that a vocation that has been highlighted in that particular clause is a police officer, who actually may carry out the functions of a customs officer.

So I also thought it was interesting for the committee to actually look at the roles of the customs officer, and I’ve managed to find six specific roles. The first is intercepting contraband—so, illegal drugs—checking travellers, their baggage, cargo, and mail; assessing and collecting customs duties, excise tax, and GST on imports; protecting New Zealand against illegal trade; enforcing import and export restrictions and prohibitions; and collecting accurate import and export data. In the new clause 251, it also is about carrying out the functions of a customs officer, but it makes a requirement about a circumstance necessitating such action within the next 30 days. So the authorisation must not be for more than 30 days.

So I would like an explanation from the Minister about the differences between clause 250 and clause 251. I’m particularly interested in clause 251, and interested in who, in what circumstances—and, actually, why the 30 days? There must be a rationale, so it’d be quite good to hear from the Minister about that specific clause in the bill.

I’m also really interested in clause 416A. Clause 416A is the work of the select committee, and it is about customs appreciating recognised trusted traders. So this new clause requires the Customs Service, in their annual report, to cover initiatives to reduce compliance costs for businesses with a strong compliance record.

I find it really interesting that it’s made its way into the bill, because I was looking at the New Zealand Customs Service, and apparently we’re an incredibly efficient service. So, just for the committee’s information, we manage to clear product within a matter of hours. We were actually sixth out of 138 countries in the efficiency of border administration in the World Economic Forum’s enabling trade index 2014, we were sixth out of 160 countries for border facilitation in the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index 2014, and we were 27th out of 189 countries for trading across borders in the World Bank’s Doing Business study in 2015.

So it seems that we have an incredibly efficient Customs Service, but the whole purpose about a trusted trader scheme is about facilitating trade, and that leading to increased productivity. So, in looking specifically at clause 416A, which the select committee recommended be inserted, I found in the bill’s commentary a reference to Australia, actually. It seems that the trusted trader scheme in Australia was reported, upon implementation, to increase productivity by $1.5 billion. So it would be quite good to know whether or not our Customs Service is anticipating increases in productivity and what the value of that productivity is, because I think then it will enable the House to understand why this clause has been added, and if it’s not about facilitating trade, what are the benefits?

Ernst & Young’s Tax Watch article on 7 August 2015 stated that it was about compliant importers leading to some sort of self-accreditation process, where they, through this trusted trader scheme, could prove that they had the systems and processes that would then provide “The ability for importers to provide assurance to Customs regarding compliance and security of [their] supply chains”. It was about an agreed audit programme, which meant there was less time spent by customs on those audits, which resulted in those particular products from those trusted traders having priority and being streamlined—the whole relationship between these trusted traders and customs. I think, overall, the net benefit for New Zealand was then about enabling customs to focus its resources on high-risk areas.

So it would be nice to know whether there’s been some economic modelling, and then what this freed-up resource will enable customs to do. But, overall, I think that this is an incredibly beneficial addition by the select committee, obviously supported by the officials. But it would be nice to hear from the Minister about her anticipated benefits and, possibly, the opportunities that now exist because of that specific clause. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. Before I start, I trust that Madam Chair would be kind and generous enough to allow me to step outside of the scope of the bill just a little bit, by acknowledging the Chinese New Year celebrations at Parliament last night, hosted by the Minister for Ethnic Communities, the Hon Jenny Salesa. The Chinese community members told me that they were very impressed with the speech by our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. Our Prime Minister emphasised that this is the House of Representatives, and this is our House. It is great for us to celebrate ethnic diversity and celebrate our multicultural New Zealand Aotearoa.

Back to this bill. Theme four is about mechanics and miscellaneous provisions. In terms of mechanics, the preliminary provisions include the definitions for the Act and its application to the mail and the military. It also provides for the transition between Acts. Part 6, Subpart 3, includes the general regulation- and rule-making powers, including the border processing levy, and provides for consequential repeals and amendments.

Clause 380 covers regulations generally. This clause provides a general regulation-making power for the purposes of this Act. It also informs the interpretation of this and other regulation-making powers and the generous scope of those regulations. On the recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee, the select committee amended the clause to reflect modern drafting practice. A second amendment confirms that fees and charges are recoverable in court, as they are under the current Act. Supplementary Order Paper 12 would clarify that regulations could prescribe how rates of interest are to be determined, as well as prescribing the rate itself.

Part 5, Subpart 1 establishes the New Zealand Customs Service and stipulates who can exercise customs powers, and when. The Act will levy and enable the collection of duties and other revenue, and it will provide for border control, including setting out the obligations of travellers and traders and the powers of customs. I recall that as a young lawyer, or a younger lawyer—that’s before I entered into politics—I once served as a customs lawyer, on a pro bono basis. That role was of an on-call nature, and most of the time was spent advising international travellers of their duties and obligations, and, equally, the duties and obligations and powers of the New Zealand Customs Service.

The bill will facilitate the authorisation of classes of suitably trained people to exercise customs powers and functions in specific, limited circumstances. Currently, only specific people can be authorised. Also, certain clauses deal with the certificates of origin. Having said that, the bill clarifies that fish caught by a New Zealand - flag vessel outside of New Zealand’s territorial waters are deemed to be the produce of New Zealand. Fish caught by foreign-flag vessels take the country of origin of the vessel.

Part 6, Subpart 4, is a collection of disparate provisions that do not fit within any of the topic-based themes. Some deal with enforcement matters, such as giving notice and the burden of proof.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on theme four, regarding the Customs and Excise Bill—theme four being the mechanics and miscellaneous. The preliminary provisions include definitions for the bill and its application to the mail and the military, and it also provides for the transitions between the Acts. In particular, Part 6, Subpart 3, includes general regulation- and rule-making powers, and that includes the very important border processing levy. Part 5, Subpart 1, establishes the New Zealand Customs Service and states who can exercise customs powers and when they can do that.

I would like to look at, in particular, clause 250, which looks at “Authorised persons: individual authorisations” as a part in there. So while the mechanics cover that wider part, we also have miscellaneous. It’s always quite dangerous to give someone in this House the topic of miscellaneous to be able to speak to. So Part 6, Subpart 4, is a collection of disparate provisions that don’t really fit anywhere—there could be some strong correlation with some activities on the opposite side of the House, but we won’t go there right now.

Hon Member: They’re here tonight.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: Ha, ha! So all the bits that don’t really fit anywhere, that don’t have any real theme, is what we get to speak to, under miscellaneous. Those pieces are laid out quite clearly, in terms of the regulations at the end.

The bill will facilitate the authorisation of classes of suitably trained people to exercise customs powers and functions in specific limited circumstances. This is quite interesting in relation to clause 250, which actually enables a police officer to have the authorisation to act as a customs officer in certain circumstances. I guess this would be a very useful thing—having to act quickly and urgently if there are emergencies in terms of the contiguous zone—that police have seagoing vessels and are able to attend some kind of incursion and be able to respond quickly. So I see that as being an important area to enable the New Zealand Customs Service to be more flexible in responding to issues as they arise. But I’m interested to hear from the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri, in terms of whether any additional training or requirements will be needed in order for that authorisation from the Comptroller of Customs to police officers acting in that capacity.

It’s interesting to look at the powers in the contiguous zone. The bill allows customs to exercise certain powers beyond the territorial sea and up to the outer limits of New Zealand’s contiguous zone, which is 12 to 24 nautical miles from the coast. It’s an interesting area to see how New Zealand’s powers are operating in that area in a time of increased international issues along the lines of methamphetamine and of bringing in contraband substances, and also in a time when we’re seeing an increase in human trafficking happening around the world. So looking at how our services here in New Zealand are working together more comprehensively to make sure that our border is secure and protected, and that we are aware of any issues happening in that area, will be important.

I would like to speak in particular also to clause 251, and this is a new provision. I note that the chief executive may authorise specific classes of persons who are suitably qualified and trained to carry out any functions of a customs officer if they consider that that is required, and that is within a 30-day period. I’m also interested to hear from the Minister if there’s any particular reason why there’s a 30-day cap on that. It would be interesting to know what the rationale was behind that particular period of time being tied in there. It says that the authorisation must specify that the incident and the relevant purposes and functions must not be, clearly, more than 30 days.

So in terms of an overall bill that enables New Zealand’s Customs Service to be modern, to be flexible, to move with the times, and to make sure that we know our border is special and that we are doing the best to protect New Zealand’s economy from the range of issues that are continuing to be of risk to New Zealand’s ongoing safety—those I’ve already outlined in terms of fishing, methamphetamine, and ongoing trade issues—we have a piece of legislation that fully equips our country to do so.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. I just want to answer the two recent contributors in the debate, Virginia Andersen and Louisa Wall, particularly around clauses 250 and 251. Just in terms of clarification, clause 250 covers individuals who need long-term status—for example, police constables on the Chatham Islands. Clause 251 has a 30-day limit to ensure the chief executive cannot authorise classes for extended periods; it is a safeguard against the power being used too freely. An example is a crew of a navy vessel helping with drug interdiction—for example, boarding a craft. So, hopefully, that has addressed those two questions.

In terms of the question Louisa Wall raised around clause 416(A), I can confirm to the member that there’s no economic modelling being undertaken by the Customs Service at this point. However, customs is working with industry on initiatives to reduce compliance costs for them and, in particular, for compliant traders. A recent example is the excise regulations that came into effect in February 2017. These changes reduced compliance costs for alcohol manufacturers and were strongly supported by businesses.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Chairperson Tolley. This is just a short contribution. I’ve got a couple of miscellaneous points that I wish to talk to. The first point relates to clause 3B of schedule 1, which is around the—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is that mechanical or miscellaneous?

RINO TIRIKATENE: —prohibition orders.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mechanical or miscellaneous?

RINO TIRIKATENE: A bit of both. I just have a question for the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri, because this relates to the continuation of prohibition orders that have been granted under the existing Act to continue in this bill. I just want to ask the Minister—because this bill is taking quite a long time to progress through the House, I’m interested in the prohibition orders that have lapsed while this bill has been on its way through the House, and what is the status of those prohibition orders?

I would hope that they would have been automatically renewed, assuming that they are very important orders. But I’m just curious, because this savings provision, or this one that carries them over under this new bill, only relates to those in force at the time that this bill is enacted, and so I just want to seek some clarity on that particular point. I understand that the prohibition that related to pounamu, which I was referring to earlier, actually expired last September, I believe. It begs the question: has that been continued pending the passing of this bill? If the Minister could clarify that, that would be much appreciated.

The other point I want to talk to is in relation to New Zealand - flag vessels fishing in international waters and that the catch of those vessels is then to be produce of New Zealand, which I think is commendable that we have New Zealand - flag vessels. I know this House did quite a lot of work in terms of stamping out the slavery practices that were being conducted by some appalling overseas operators that were operating in our waters. There has been a move to bring more operators under New Zealand flag conditions, so I do commend that, and I see the alignment between New Zealand - flag vessels fishing in international waters by claiming produce of New Zealand.

My question is in relation to the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources treaty, which allows New Zealand to participate in the fishing in Antarctic waters for Patagonian, or sub-Antarctic toothfish. My question relates to, is that convention area of fisheries subject to the provisions of this legislation—i.e., will the catch from New Zealand operators that fish in those waters, that are granted rights to fish in that area, are they subject to the provisions here—i.e., that the catch that is caught in those Antarctic waters is indeed defined to be produce of New Zealand? I’d like, I guess, some elucidation to the committee on whether that convention area is caught or whether international fisheries areas and the convention area are two separate fisheries for the purposes of that particular provision. So some explanation would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): I just thank the learned member Rino Tirikatene for his very learned question. I think it’s really important that we respond to his question around prohibition orders in schedule 1, clause 3B. I can confirm for that member that no order has lapsed—the Customs Service is renewing orders under the existing Act. The pounamu order has been renewed and is located in the customs export prohibition order for 2017.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Meka Whaitiri, and the following amendment in her name to schedule 9, be agreed to:

replace the items relating to regulations 19, 23, 27, and 33 of the United Nations Sanctions (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations 2017 with:

replace regulation 21 with the following new regulation:

21 Restricted item: application of Customs and Excise Act 2016

The provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 2016 (except sections 365 and 366) apply in relation to a restricted item as if the restricted item were goods the importation of which is prohibited under section 96 of that Act.

replace regulation 34A with the following new regulation:

34A Specified petroleum product: application of Customs and Excise Act 2016

The provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 2016 (except sections 365 and 366) apply in relation to a specified petroleum product as if the specified petroleum product were goods the exportation of which is prohibited under section 96 of that Act if the specified petroleum product is intended—

(a) to be exported to DPRK; or

(b) for use in DPRK; or

(c) for the benefit of DPRK.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 6, schedules 1 to 9, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. It gives me great pleasure to speak on the introduction of this bill, because it supports improvements to the National Cervical Screening Programme. In my view, the National Cervical Screening Programme does not receive sufficient recognition for the contribution that is made to the lives of New Zealand women, to their whānau, and to the wider community. A significant number of New Zealand women have received follow-up treatment in response to abnormal smear tests, and, as a consequence, have enjoyed the significant benefit that earlier detection provides. I would like to acknowledge those who work, or who have worked, in the National Cervical Screening Programme for their contribution in this regard.

We have a National Cervical Screening Programme because of the unfortunate experiment carried out on New Zealand women that resulted in the Cartwright inquiry. New Zealand women led the charge to better protect patient rights and to ensure we get the health services that we are entitled to. Cervical screening has a much higher degree of scrutiny than other programmes because of previous failings from Government and the medical profession. We, this Government, are committed to deliver and improve cervical-screening services in Aotearoa, and to honour the important legacy that feminist health activists have delivered, often at painstaking cost.

This bill will enable immediate improvements to be made to the way access to the information on the national cervical screening register is authorised. The register holds clinical information on all women enrolled in the screening programme, and this clinical information is crucial for health providers to perform their work. The bill will also enable future upgrades to the information technology that supports the register and how it is used, as well as future improvements to the screening programme itself. To achieve this, this bill makes technical amendments to Part 4A of the Health Act 1956. This part of the Health Act governs the National Cervical Screening Programme and the register.

The most significant amendment is the repeal and replacement of section 112J in Part 4A of the Act. The current scope of section 112J covers only the disclosure of information from the register. However, what the replacement section does do is that it now explicitly covers the activities of access to the register, the use of register information, the retention of information from the register, and the disclosure of information on the register. The replacement section retains the current general approach of prohibiting the disclosure of information from the register unless that disclosure is expressly authorised under this section.

Also, the replacement section 112J explicitly states to which people, and for what purpose, this section will apply. Therefore, the amendments ensure that the full range of activities that could be conducted in relation to the register, or any future upgrades to the register, are properly captured in legislation. In the amended section, people granted direct access to the register will be staff working in district health boards (DHBs) who undertake day-to-day administrative tasks associated with the register: smear takers, laboratory and colposcopy providers and associated administration staff, and screening support service providers. The ability to provide register information on a case by case basis is retained in the new legislation—namely, for the purposes of research and statistics, to a screening programme evaluator or a review committee, and for the purposes of enabling results from the tests to be followed up and notices sent to women enrolled in the programme.

The current formulation of section 112J means that the express authorisation of the Director-General of Health under sections 112C and 112ZE of Part 4A of the Health Act can, in some cases, be a requirement for some people to perform their functions within the screening programme pathway. Therefore, directly authorising these people to perform their specified function in legislation will remove this inefficiency.

These amendments also capture the concept of direct access to the register. This concept has been introduced to explicitly cover the activity of making look-up access to the register available to a remote-site computer using a browser and a secure log-on. Using this type of information technology for this function is widespread in the health system and beyond. The National Cervical Screening Programme manager will still retain administrative control over secure log-on access, and access to the register will remain an auditable activity. The bill creates a distinction between having read-only direct access to the register and being able to amend information stored on the register. Amending information stored on the register will only be allowed under the express authorisation of the National Cervical Screening Programme manager. A new offence has been introduced for amending the register without this authorisation. The existing offence provisions under Part 4A of the Act will be amended to match the changes to section 112J.

Some minor and technical amendments are also being made to support the amendments. As I have already alluded to, these changes leave the original intent of section 112J intact, as well as leaving the rest of the strict controls outlined in Part 4A of the Health Act unaltered. The only existing regulations made under Part 4A of the Act, the Health (Cervical Screening (Kaitiaki)) Regulations 1995, are retained as a result of this bill, and their provisions will continue to apply. In addition to the controls I’ve outlined, the people provided with direct access to information on the register would also remain subject to the Privacy Act 1993—including the Health Information Privacy Code 1994—relevant health professional regulatory constraints, and relevant employment and contract law.

The work of screening support service providers is a good example of the benefits of providing direct look-up access to the register. Some of these providers are contracted to undertake outreach work to make contact with priority groups of women who are not responding to recall for breast or cervical screening or who are not attending colposcopy or mammography clinic appointments. Women referred to this type of support service include Māori, Pacific, and Asian women who may experience barriers to screening. Health workers in these services often work after hours to make contact with women, or hold cervical-screening clinics outside working hours to make the clinics more accessible. Look-up access to the register will provide these health workers with critical, on-the-spot clinical information about the women they are engaged with, as it is common for women to be unsure about their screening history or when they last had a cervical smear. For a screening support service provider, knowing when their last smear was taken is important to avoid women being over-screened. If this information is not on hand, the woman may be asked to come back and the opportunity for cervical screening is potentially lost.

I am also aware the planned upgrades to the register could allow direct look-up access to women’s screening histories for smear takers in general practice. Currently, women’s screening histories are faxed to general practices from DHB register staff because the current register does not allow for this type of direct access, and email is not considered a secure way to transfer confidential patient information. It is planned to build look-up access for general practice into the future development of a new register. This will be much more efficient for clinical users of register information.

I alluded earlier to authorising people to amend information held on the register. This type of access is needed for a small number of DHB administration staff who are employed to undertake administrative tasks that support the National Cervical Screening Programme register for their DHB population. These people work on the register on a day-to-day basis and have permissions to amend demographic and other information on the register, such as updating contact details and amending their recall status.

I’m advised that some consultation was undertaken on the early policy related to this proposed amendment, and support for the changes was received. The bill has received the support of the Privacy Commissioner and other Government departments, subject to the ongoing adherence to existing privacy controls and practices. In addition, the Attorney-General has concluded that the bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. No regulatory impact statement was prepared for the early policy for this bill, as the bill is largely a reformulation of the existing law.

I am well aware that the previous Government approved the development of this bill, and I commend them for doing so. I consider that the bill retains the strong controls over the register and how it is used that were originally intended by the enactment of Part 4A of the Health Act. The National Cervical Screening Programme is a significant contributor to New Zealand and the lives of New Zealand women, and this bill will enable improved services to be provided for women participating in the National Cervical Screening Programme. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Chamber, Lobbies, and Galleries—Photography

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It’s been brought to my attention that a photograph has been posted on social media of the Chamber, which was taken by a stranger in the gallery and passed to the member the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway. This raises three points: firstly, there have been some very strict guidelines given about the appropriateness of taking photos in the Chamber; secondly, while the photo itself wasn’t taken in the Chamber but from the gallery, that is also in breach of the rules of this House; and, thirdly, the specific purpose of the photo was to draw attention to the absence of members. Normally, Speakers’ rulings would refer to the absence of individual members, but in this case it was to a group or class of members. So I would just ask you to consider these breaches, but also to remind the House of the very important reasons why that is inappropriate behaviour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. In fact, I correct the member—they’re not guidelines; they’re actually Standing Orders. There are very strict rules: nobody takes photos without the permission of the Speaker. If that has happened and someone has used that in social media, my advice to them is that they delete that immediately, and we will refer this to the Speaker. But it is very clear, in Appendix D of the Standing Orders and then the Speakers’ rulings, that the Speaker has to give permission for any photographs taken of this House in action.

Bills

Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of this bill and to speak in support of this bill, which effectively makes cervical screening and the register a better tool. Why does it do that? How does it that? It allows cervical smear takers to eventually take up electronic look-up and to access the cervical-screening register. Why is that important? Well, I think it’s important if you can understand the workflow of what happens when you take a smear.

I think what’s important here—Minister Genter, when she first introduced it, said that the cervical-screening history was most important so that you didn’t over-screen. I want to contest that—that’s not actually the most important reason. When a woman comes in for a smear, you want to know their cervical history beforehand, not so you don’t over-screen them, but because it changes the way you do the smear.

Now, most of the time, you’d use a spatula, which is like a little sort of iceblock stick, if you like, but if a person has had an abnormal smear history, you actually are going to change it. You might still use a spatula, but you’re actually going to also use a brush, which is sort of like a little toothbrush, if you like, because—sorry to be so anatomical here, but it’s important to note that the real part of the history, it changes what you do. It gives you a more effective result if you know that something was amiss.

Furthermore, when you’re doing what you’re doing, sometimes you don’t see what you expect to see and you think, “Oh, goodness, this isn’t so good. I need to do something urgent.”—for example, if there’s scarring—but if you know from their history that they’ve had a colposcopy, it’s totally explainable. That’s why they’ve got scarring, and you can proceed as normal. So I think it’s very important to know that the reason that we want the cervical history is because it changes what you do in the moment.

OK, so how do you go about getting that history at the moment? Well, you call the local District Health Board (DHB) coordinator, and he or she then calls the coordinator and they look it up. I understand, as I’ve been speaking with them over the past few days, they’re happy, if you’re authenticated, to give you a verbal result. That’s a good thing—one can proceed. If not, what they’ll then do is fax it to you, as was mentioned. It’s been explained to me that sometimes a cervical smear history can be 20 pages long, and they’re doing dozens of these a day. You can see the cumbersome sort of process that this entails. When I spoke to the registry coordinator here in Wellington, she said that this is a common occurrence across a number of DHB cervical smear coordinators—so clear efficiency gains here.

What’s broken in the current Act? Section 112J is what’s broken. It wasn’t clear around disclosure in the Act when it was first created. This new legislation meets current privacy codes, it meets the Privacy Act 1993—more specifically, it deals to access, it deals to use and retention, and it also deals to disclosure.

Now, when we pass this bill, as has been noted, efficiency will improve, but the real efficiency is getting the electronic look-up for a smear taker—to be able to go straight there without going through coordinators. Now, there are some problems associated with that at the moment, because the cervical smear register is an old register. It was actually formed in 1990, and if we go back as to why, as has already been mentioned, it comes out of the Cartwright inquiry of 1988, and the screening register was established in 1990. Why is that relevant? It is relevant because you can’t do look-up today because it’s old technology. From your GP desk, you can’t do direct look-up into the cervical-screening register. Now, from what I understand, the hope is that the bowel-screening engine—the platform to that—is actually going to have the cervical-screening register embedded into it, so you will be able to do direct look-up, and then I think we’ll have the maximum efficiencies that this Act is entailing.

So it’s a good Act. I’m very pleased to support it. I think our colleagues who are smear takers will be very pleased with the efficiencies that this entails. It is primarily procedural. It’s not clear to me why it’s not in an omnibus bill, but maybe the Government can speak to that. Either way, it is a good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to first put on record my appreciation of the technical knowledge of that member in his contribution to the House. I think it is actually really helpful to have, for those watching at home, a good explanation of the practice that is being supported here. It is an important contribution to our screening programme across New Zealand, which is vital in saving lives across a range of interventions, and it draws attention to the importance of a debate where you have people with expertise in different areas bringing different things to the conversation. So I just want to place on record my thanks to Dr Reti for that contribution.

The most significant amendment in this bill is the repeal and replacement of section 112J in Part 4A of the Health Act. Currently, section 112J covers only disclosure of information from the register. What the replacement section 112J does is that it explicitly covers the activities of the register—so, the access to the register, the use of register information, the retention of information from the register, and the disclosure of information from the register. As the Hon Julie Anne Genter mentioned in her contribution, the Privacy Commissioner has given this sign off—provided the existing set of criteria applied—and the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act check has been signed off as well.

So those who will now be able to get direct access to the register will be the staff working in district health boards who undertake the day-to-day administrative tasks associated with the register—the smear takers, laboratory and colposcopy providers and associated administrative staff, and screening support service providers. So this will, hopefully, provide for more timely result-sharing and will mean that the right people can get the results at the right time. It’s about bringing the legislation up to date with—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member—and before I say anything further, can I apologise. I did hesitate because I wasn’t sure whether you were the “Hon Dr”, so I acknowledge your proper title. I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.