Tuesday, 3 April 2018

TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 2018

TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister, 22 March

Question No. 11 to Minister, 27 March

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers to two oral questions. In answers to—

SPEAKER: Order! The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The Minister may continue.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: In answers to two questions in the House on 22 and 27 March, I said I advised the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) chief executive at a regular status meeting that my office had received correspondence about media comments by its then chief scientist, Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. The EPA’s chief executive was not at the meeting on 29 November. The meeting was a briefing from the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) about the EPA and I advised MFE’s chief executive that my office had received correspondence.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Confidence in Ministers

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has Ms Curran advised her—that is, the Prime Minister—whether Ms Curran and Carol Hirschfeld discussed Radio New Zealand’s concern over the Government plan to establish an RNZ television channel?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said in the House on several occasions, I’ve been advised by Minister Curran that it was a high-level meeting, discussing issues that are already in the public domain. For more detailed questions, I would advise asking the Minister directly.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is it a yes, they did discuss—

SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a question?

Hon Simon Bridges: A question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will start with a question word.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the answer that yes, Ms Curran and Carol Hirschfeld did discuss Radio New Zealand’s concern over the Government plan to establish an RNZ television channel?

SPEAKER: Before the Prime Minister answers, I’ll indicate that the Opposition have a further three supplementaries as a result of an intervention from Mr Jones.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in my first answer, I’ve been advised the meeting was high level, discussing issues in the public domain. Anything more specific that the member would like detail on, I advise that he’d be best to ask Minister Curran.

Hon Simon Bridges: Weren’t there multiple lengthy discussions between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran, and was all the time taken up discussing—what—the weather?

SPEAKER: Order! No, the Prime Minister won’t answer that; it contains irony.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has Ms Curran advised the Prime Minister of any steps taken to ensure that either she or Carol Hirschfeld advised Radio New Zealand’s chief executive or chair of their meeting at Astoria?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course the responsibility for advising Carol Hirschfeld’s employer lay with Carol Hirschfeld directly, and understanding the protocol of RNZ lay with Carol Hirschfeld directly. Minister Curran has advised that had she known the protocol Radio New Zealand had, she would not have had the meeting.

Hon Simon Bridges: Hasn’t Clare Curran clearly breached the Cabinet Manual by not ensuring the Astoria meeting was raised with Radio New Zealand’s chief executive or chair; and, if not, precisely why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe the member is referring to 3.8 or 3.84 of the Cabinet Manual. I’ve sought advice on that directly from the Cabinet Office. Their advice was that, no, she was not in breach of that element of the Cabinet Manual.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with respected senior commentator Fran O’Sullivan that the interpretation that she is not in breach is “splitting hairs”, and that the overall spirit of Part 3 of the Cabinet Manual has clearly been breached, given the primacy it places several time on contacts between the chief executive and Minister, with the chief executive being informed where that isn’t the case?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know who directed Richard Griffin, chair of Radio New Zealand, to stay away from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My understanding is that when the Minister learnt that Radio New Zealand were unable to attend the original meeting they were scheduled to attend to correct the record around the breakfast meeting the Minister had, she sought to contact Radio New Zealand to find an alternative so that they could correct the record immediately.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is the Prime Minister’s understanding that Clare Curran told the chair of Radio New Zealand that he shouldn’t go to the select committee?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve just said, the Minister exchanged voice mails and text messages with the chair of Radio New Zealand, where I’m advised that she sought to have the record corrected immediately. Obviously, the fastest way to achieve that in lieu of attending that meeting would have been in writing.

Hon Simon Bridges: Noting the correction earlier in question time—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, the member will sit down. Now, if the member is going to preface his questions with comments, he will end up losing. I have been tolerant with him so far.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the Prime Minister had any conversations with Eugenie Sage about whether the Associate Minister had discussions with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) about the performance or tenure of the Chief Scientist, Jacqueline Rowarth?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Not directly, but as the House will know, the Minister corrected the record based on previous answers at the beginning of question time today.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is the Prime Minister now clear that the chief executive, Dr Freeth, is correct when he says that the Associate Minister is “mistakenly confused” about meeting with the EPA’s chief executive about the Chief Scientist?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister herself corrected the record on that very matter today at the beginning of question time.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does it say about the state of her Government that this week Radio New Zealand and the independent Environmental Protection Authority are having to reappear before select committees over Ministers interfering in independent agencies and covering thing up?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not accept the premise of that question. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Both sides, please.

Housing—Ownership of New Zealand Property

2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance’s statement that he wants to see a “significant increase” in the supply of housing, and what role will non - New Zealand developers and capital play in meeting this goal?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): Yes, I expect non - New Zealand developers and capital will assist the coalition Government in our goal of resolving the housing crisis left by the past Government, but non - New Zealand capital will no longer be allowed to speculate by buying existing New Zealand homes. We’re backing Kiwis.

Hon Amy Adams: Does his failure to give a precise answer to a written question on notice about the role non - New Zealand capital will have mean that this Government has failed to assess or bother to ask how much foreign investment will be required to significantly increase the supply of housing in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Firstly, I reject the assertion in the question, but, secondly, the Opposition can’t have it both ways. The past Government claimed foreign capital was negligible in the New Zealand housing market and that a ban on overseas buyers would make no difference; now, in Opposition, they say banning foreign speculators will crash the market. Which is it? The Opposition can’t have it both ways.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he see the changes his Government announced to the Overseas Investment Act in December contributing to a significant increase in the supply of housing, given the low number of net foreign buyers of residential houses and the necessity for investment capital to build to increase the housing supply?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Cabinet’s already made some recommendations for changes to the bill following submissions at select committee to make it clear that large developments that are for rental or shared equity can proceed. But we do not resile from the viewpoint that the New Zealand housing market should be a New Zealand - controlled market, not one that’s controlled by foreign buyers.

Hon Amy Adams: Why, then, did the Government announce changes to the Overseas Investment Act last month regarding forestry rights to make it easier to gain approval for foreign forestry buyers because this was a sector where the Government wanted to encourage growth, at the same time as it’s making it harder to invest in growing the housing supply?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member’s answered her own question, because the reason that we wanted to ease up on screening for forestry is that we are already reliant on foreign direct investment in the forest sector and we want more of it. That’s why we’re loosening the criteria in respect of forestry at the same time as we’re trying to make it harder for foreigners to speculate in New Zealand homes—because we don’t think that’s a good idea.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the truth not that his Government is more interested in ideological opposition to foreigners owning houses than it is truly committed to growing the housing supply in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t call it ideological to back New Zealanders in respect of who owns New Zealand homes. I think that is a matter of common sense. New Zealanders want to live in a country where they’re not tenants in their own country. We back Kiwi homeowners over overseas speculators.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, if that’s correct, why then is commentary on his Overseas Investment Amendment Bill describing it as likely to “make the problem worse,” and, in fact, “aggravate the shortage of affordable housing.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re quite confident that that’s not correct.

Budget 2018—Vote Health

3. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What priorities does he have for Budget 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As outlined in the Budget Policy Statement, this Government has clear priorities for Budget 2018 to address immediate and long-term challenges to ensure the well-being of all New Zealanders. There will be a clear focus on sustainable economic development, supporting regional economies, increasing exports, lifting wages, and reducing inequality. Budget 2018 will also confirm our commitment to delivering strong public services across health, education, housing, and police.

Tamati Coffey: What priority will Vote Health have in Budget 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member understands, I cannot go into details until 17 May, but it will come as no surprise that Vote Health will be a major focus area. The operating and capital allowances outlined in the Budget Policy Statement are both significantly higher than the previous Government had budgeted for. A significant amount of this will go towards Vote Health to help bring services back up to a standard that New Zealanders expect and deserve in the context of what has independently been said to be a $2.4 billion underfunding of health in the last nine years.

Tamati Coffey: What pressures in Vote Health is the Minister aware of in making decisions for Budget 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In addition to the operating shortfall I just mentioned, I have been advised of significant capital spending pressures among district health boards (DHBs), which have signalled a required capital spend of $14 billion over the next 10 years, requiring about $10 billion of additional Crown funding. This signal investment requirement is higher than at any time since DHBs were established and is evident in recent media reports about the condition of Middlemore Hospital. This Government has different priorities from our predecessor. We’re going to make sure that New Zealanders and the health professionals who work in the health system know that it will be the best it can be: safe, affordable, and secure.

KiwiBuild—Unitec Development

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many houses is he planning to build on the Unitec site and how many of them will be KiwiBuild houses?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I’m advised that Unitec carried out its own master planning on the site that indicated a potential for around 2,675 residential units. With a moderate increase in density, working with development partners, and with better use of contemporary housing typologies, including low-rise apartments, we are confident that between 3,000 and 4,000 residential units can be comfortably built at Unitec while retaining the site’s amenity value for residents. I anticipate that up to 40 percent of these dwellings will be KiwiBuild affordable homes.

Hon Judith Collins: What will be the average floor size of dwellings on the Unitec site, and will there be a difference in the average size between KiwiBuild, State houses, and private homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it’s far too early to say with precision, but there has been a lot of misinformation and scaremongering about the effects of increasing density in Auckland property developments. Hobsonville Point, developed under the past Government, will be the guide for the master planning of the Unitec—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He got asked a question about the floorplate for each of these, and now he’s talking about the brilliant former housing initiative by the previous Government at Hobsonville. It’s really quite a way off the point.

SPEAKER: Yes, and that is a matter for me to judge. I was coming to the same conclusion as the member was, and I think we could move on to another supplementary.

Hon Judith Collins: What is his expectation of the minimum floor area per person that a KiwiBuild dwelling must have?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I would note that the unitary plan, approved by Auckland Council in mid-2016, set minimum floor sizes of 30 square metres for studio dwellings and 45 square metres for one or more bedroom dwellings. I’m aware of suggestions that the minimum ceiling height, bedroom size, or even the width of the front door could be reduced in order to get more dwellings on to a building site on the basis that people have to live somewhere, and they can choose to live in something that’s too small. Our Government will not be following that absurd suggestion by former finance Minister Bill English.

Michael Wood: Why has the Government embarked on the KiwiBuild programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: KiwiBuild—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope I haven’t anticipated your reaction one more time, but a question like this—this is about a specific building site—Unitec—and all the questions have related to the site and the intention to build on that site. To then go into a question that is of a philosophical nature—

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Philosophical!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Difficult to answer. Difficult to answer, I agree—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —but, none the less, it’s quite wide of the original question.

SPEAKER: It is not wide; it’s actually included in the last line of the substantive question. If the member doesn’t want his colleague to talk about KiwiBuild houses, it should be left out of the question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: KiwiBuild is a direct intervention in response to the failure of the market to provide enough affordable homes to meet demand. I’m advised that there is a shortfall of around 45,000 homes in Auckland that has built up over the last six years, and that this shortfall is growing by around 7,000 homes per year, meaning that the shortfall could double in the next six years, unless things change. The Government—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not any of these units will go for as low as $25,000, of which there is the news in the last 24 hours—news of units being sold in Auckland for as low as that because they are rotten, defective, and failed services as a result of having been built by the National Party?

SPEAKER: Order! I think, just like the Minister doesn’t build houses, I don’t think the National Party did either.

Hon Judith Collins: So who is going to build all of these extra houses that the Minister is promising at Unitec? Where are the carpenters, the plumbers, and the electricians coming from?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We have a strategy in place to train up the workforce and aggressively recruit skilled tradespeople to build these houses—something that the former Government should’ve been doing for the last nine years.

Hon Judith Collins: When the Minister has advised the media that he is planning to import people to assist with this process, where are they going to live?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They’re going to live in houses, and they’re going to build a lot of houses—the houses that that Government failed to build over nine long years.

Provincial Growth Fund—Minginui Nursery and Ngati Hine Forestry Trust

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What exactly is the Government purchasing with the Provincial Growth Fund’s $5.8 million payment to the Minginui Nursery, and what will the Government purchase with the $6 million payment to the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust, the announcement of which he said last week “is imminent”?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The funding for the Minginui Nursery—and for the learning of the member, Minginui is a neglected, forsaken place in the Bay of Plenty, a long way from metropolitan New Zealand. It is our intention that, over the next three years, a scale-up enterprise will take place where native seedlings of up to one million a year will be made available for the billion-tree strategy, and that investment will be alongside the scientific and technological expertise of Scion. It will generate jobs and it will expand the opportunities in an area that was described by the former Treaty Minister as “atrocious”.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who will own the seedlings grown in the nursery and the trees grown on Ngāti Hine land?

Hon SHANE JONES: Starting with the latter part of the question, Ngāti Hine, a hapū of the Ngāpuhi tribe, are in the midst of commercial negotiations and it would be unwise of me, prior to their fulfilment, to talk any further about it. On the question of the seedlings that will flow from the Minginui Nursery—and the growth in employment of up to 90 people—when they are planted they will be based both on the Department of Conservation estate and on Māori land and general land, but they will be native seedlings, not pine trees.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question: who will own the seedlings? He said where they will be planted, but that’s not the question I was asking.

SPEAKER: That’s probably a fair comment.

Hon SHANE JONES: The seedlings are not designed to stay in pots; they’re designed to be planted.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order—

SPEAKER: No; I am going to ask the Minister to have another go. Who will own the seedlings?

Hon SHANE JONES: The seedlings are being developed by the Minginui Ngāti Whare Trust. For as long as they remain in seedling pots, they will remain the property on the enclosure owned by the Minginui Nursery.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will they sell the seedlings commercially, in competition with other producers?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, this project ticks a whole host of the criteria of the Provincial Growth Fund. The thought that the level of employees will grow from nine to 90 is, I know, hard on the other side of the House to believe. Once those seedlings are up to the million-tree mark, they will not displace any private sector investment, because we have a gross shortage of native seedlings.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, he did not answer—

SPEAKER: No, I think on that occasion the question was certainly addressed.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the House last week that he had been “scrupulously faithful” to the Cabinet policy process, how did he square Cabinet’s stipulation that investments under the fund “should neither socialise losses nor privatise gains” with what appears to be a clear private gain for the owners in this case?

Hon SHANE JONES: That question, in terms of the hapū Ngāti Hine’s forestry initiative, will be answered once we have made full announcements about that particular set of commercial negotiations. On the question of faithfulness, my life is a work in progress in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interest of knowing precisely the ownership, when the seedlings have left Minginui and are being transported by truck, and before they are placed in the ground, who will own them?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m confident they’ll be conveyed by KiwiRail.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He didn’t answer that question.

SPEAKER: That’s true, but I’m going to let it run.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did he choose these two entities, out of the countless others who grow seedlings for trees commercially, for funding by the provincial growth fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: As you would know, the choices don’t just lie with the Minister for Regional Development; these choices are made by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport, and Mr David Parker. They go through a process where applications are received by the bureaucracy, advice is tendered to the Ministers, and we make very judicious—and we observed a great deal of diligence, and Minginui came out on top; something that they never enjoyed under the last regime.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has the Minister been scrupulously faithful to the Cabinet Manual in identifying all actual and perceived conflicts of interest in projects funded by the provincial growth fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: In so far as Minginui and Ngāti Hine, obviously. In so far as all other announcements that have been made, rest assured I have no personal stake. Despite rumours to the contrary, I live too close to an intersection. Thanks.

Health Services—Middlemore Hospital Buildings

6. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What risks, if any, are there to staff and patients in light of recent reports about the condition of the facilities at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): When people turn up at our hospitals and health services, they have every right to expect that the buildings are well maintained and fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it’s clear there is a large backlog of building problems at Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB), including rot, mould, and sewerage issues. These issues did not develop overnight and will take some time to address. It’s important to note, however, that the DHB has assured me there is no immediate risk to patient or staff safety.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What does he say to patients and staff at Middlemore that are concerned about the state of their facilities?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: When you are sick, you should not have to worry about the health of the buildings you are treated in. I can’t put it better than Middlemore intensive care specialist Dr David Galler, who wrote that when he found out about the issues at Middlemore, “I was overcome with embarrassment and a sense of outrage for this systematic betrayal of the very people we are here to serve and of the staff that work so hard to help them to promote good health and keep people well.” This Government will not sit by pretending everything is fine while we have hospitals literally rotting away, so I say to the patients and staff of Middlemore: you deserve better.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What priority will he place on resolving the issues at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Last week, I called the acting chair of the DHB to Wellington to discuss the DHB’s plan to manage and resolve these issues. I made it clear that I expect the DHB to have a comprehensive plan that would identify and plan for these sorts of issues before they emerge. The Government is committed to a well-funded public health service, one where routine building maintenance is not deferred to make the books look better. We will prioritise our public health service over tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, unlike the previous Government.

Partnership Schools—Te Whare Wānanga o MUMA

7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his Government’s policy and decisions made regarding partnership schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, particularly given the circumstances we inherited.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Did he or anyone from his office have any conversations or communications with Willie Jackson or Te Whare Wānanga o MUMA trust prior to agreeing that their contract for Waatea High would go unconditional?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I certainly didn’t. I can’t be absolutely certain, but I’m pretty certain that no one from my office would have had such a conversation.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm that he was satisfied that Te Whare Wānanga o MUMA had met the conditions for him to give final approval to this partnership school, and when did he give final approval for it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. I gave the approval when they met the conditions, as I was required to do by the contract signed by that former Minister.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said, on 3 November, that he could say with confidence that the 2019 partnership schools would not go ahead, why did he not tell the public that the school his Cabinet colleague was involved in had been given final approval just days before?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because it wasn’t relevant. The issue is that the Government has made a decision not to continue with the charter schools policy.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his decision to approve the school that Willie Jackson is involved in, which enabled multiple conditions to be met and which also saw a $600,000 payment on the eve of Christmas, plus potential compensation, after he confirmed partnership schools would be scrapped?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do stand by the decision that I made to honour the contract signed by the former Minister. The contract was due to be signed in October. For some reason, the former Minister decided to bring the signing of that contract forward and signed it just weeks before the general election.

Hon Nikki Kaye: That is not correct. You signed it off.

SPEAKER: Order! I assure Nikki Kaye that I didn’t, and I think it would be a good idea if people didn’t interject across the Chamber like that.

Fisheries—CRA 2 Catch Reduction

8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Fisheries: What recent decisions has he made in relation to the CRA 2 fisheries management area?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): The CRA 2 rock lobster fishery extends from Te Ārai point, north of Auckland, to East Cape Lighthouse. CRA 2 is currently experiencing very low levels of abundance—that’s fishery-speak for “there aren’t many there”—and action is needed to rebuild it to sustainable levels. Given my obligations under the Fisheries Act, I have decided to reduce the total allowable commercial catch from 200 tonnes per year to 80 tonnes and the recreational allowance from 140 tonnes to 34 tonnes, and the total allowable catch is now reduced by almost 60 percent, from 416.5 tonnes to 173 tonnes.

Angie Warren-Clark: Was complete closure of CRA 2 one of the options he considered?

Hon STUART NASH: The possibility of complete closure was a measure suggested by some submitters. Closure of the fisheries would have been a very significant step, and there is no doubt that crayfish stock are well below the desired level in the CRA 2 area. However, after careful thought and consideration of the best available scientific information, I did not see grounds for closing the CRA 2 fishery to all sectors at this time. I will, however, continue to monitor this fishery closely, and if the number of crayfish does not improve significantly, I may have to consider further measures at the next review.

Angie Warren-Clark: What responses has the Minister seen in relation to his decision?

Hon STUART NASH: The responses have generally been supportive of the reduction. Groups such as the Environmental Defence Society and Legacy, as well as recreational divers such as those belonging to the Mount Maunganui Underwater Club, have all welcomed the move. I was also pleased that the Rock Lobster Industry Council is committed to helping the Ministry for Primary Industries and the fisheries compliance officers stamp out the illegal and black market trade in crayfish.

Ian McKelvie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe the measures introduced in CRA 2 will be necessary in other regional areas of the fishery?

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you very much for that question. We reviewed three other fisheries, and we increased the total allowable catch in two of them and reduced it in one of them.

Health Services—National Oracle Solution and Deloitte

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What steps is he taking to ensure that the $90 million National Oracle Solution (NOS) IT programme is on track?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As I advised the member in answer to written question No. 1836(2018): “Responsibility for delivering the National Oracle Solution rests with New Zealand Health Partnerships Ltd. New Zealand Health Partnerships is a crown entity, owned and led by DHBs with its own Board of Directors. Due to challenges faced by the programme, I have sought assurance from the Ministry of Health who have commissioned an independent review of the programme, which is underway.”

Dr Shane Reti: Can the Minister confirm that Deloitte is the company commissioned to review the Oracle programme that he says, in written question No. 1836, requires “independent review”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, and I’m sure the member is going to then want to speak about the conflicts that he identified in his breathless—

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member could probably start off by at least addressing the question.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Speaker, could the member please repeat the question, then?

SPEAKER: Sure.

Dr Shane Reti: Can the Minister confirm that Deloitte is the company commissioned to review the Oracle programme that he says, in written question No. 1836, requires “independent review”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I think I said, yes; and then I’m sure the member will want to go on to discuss conflicts, as he did in his breathless press release this morning. I want to point out to the House, before he does, that the conflicts identified in his breathless press release this morning were explicitly recorded in the consulting services order signed before the review was even commenced.

Dr Shane Reti: Have Deloitte or Deloitte-related entities directly or indirectly received any funding for the Oracle programme across the life of the programme?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have been assured that no individual who had anything to do with Asparona’s involvement in the National Oracle Solution project has any involvement in the Deloitte review. The member needs to take a deep breath.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No. It’s a lot easier if I get to make my own rulings rather than being assisted. I don’t know if—[Interruption] It was Mr Goldsmith, was it? [Interruption] Well, I think Mr Goldsmith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Dr Clark, as with the earlier supplementary, I would prefer it if, at the beginning, you addressed the question. Have another crack.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I refer the member to my previous answer.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask Dr Reti to ask the question again, because I’m pretty sure that that didn’t address it.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Have Deloitte or Deloitte-related entities directly or indirectly received any funding for the Oracle programme across the life of the programme?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, as is obvious from the previous answer, because the conflicts were declared before the review was commenced.

Dr Shane Reti: When the Minister replied to written question No. 14666 that he will “update the Prime Minister of issues within my portfolio”, did he update the Prime Minister, and did she know, that he was appointing Deloitte as the independent reviewer?

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

SPEAKER: No, no—[Interruption] Order! There is no premise in the question. Ask the question again.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, it was a very straight question, Dr Clark: did the Minister update the Prime Minister about that?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: About something that I did that I didn’t do, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask Dr Reti to ask the question again.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Minister replied to written question No. 14666 that he will “update the Prime Minister of issues within my portfolio”, did he update the Prime Minister, and did she know, that he was appointing Deloitte as the independent reviewer?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I did not appoint Deloitte as the independent reviewer.

Dr Shane Reti: If it turns out that Deloitte does have a conflict of interest reviewing the Oracle programme, will the Minister submit all independent reviews he has initiated to the Office of the Auditor-General for conflict of interest scrutiny?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The conflicts of interest, perceived or actual, were declared before the review was commenced.

Marine Species Protection—Cameras on Fishing Vessels

10. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she support the Department of Conservation’s policy position that cameras on commercial fishing vessels are essential if we are to reverse the decline in marine species like seabirds?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I agree that cameras are one useful monitoring tool to help protect seabirds and other marine species from bycatch in commercial fishing nets.

Sarah Dowie: Does she accept responsibility for the deaths of dolphins and seabirds happening due to her Government deferring deployment of cameras?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the member should be well aware, there were a number of administrative and technical issues with the deployment of cameras. This Government wants to ensure that cameras work.

Sarah Dowie: Is one of the technical difficulties the Hon Shane Jones and his fishing industry connections?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I am not responsible for any position that New Zealand First holds.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister of Conservation received assurances from the Minister of Fisheries that it’s a priority to resolve the problems around implementation for cameras on boats that were created by the previous Government?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, and because we talk often, I understand the Minister of Fisheries is working hard to resolve the many technical and administrative problems that he inherited from the previous Government.

Sarah Dowie: Why is the Government being so sluggish in the implementation of cameras, when they have already been introduced in Australia and Pacific nations, including Fiji, and have made a large difference in behaviours and the reporting of bycatch?

SPEAKER: Order! Before the Minister answers, I’m going to ask Sarah Dowie—I’ll give her a chance to rephrase the question without the pejorative terms.

Sarah Dowie: Why is the Government being slow in the implementation of cameras, when they have already been introduced in Australia and Pacific nations, including Fiji, and have made a large difference in behaviours and the reporting of bycatch?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The implementation of cameras is the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries.

Sarah Dowie: What responsibility does she take most seriously: her duty to save dolphins and seabirds from being killed, or appeasing New Zealand First and their interests in the fishing industry?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member is coming very close to making serious allegations, to which there will be retaliation with proof in this House. That’s the second time she’s done it, and I wouldn’t laugh if I was her. Look around at her colleagues and I’ll tell you who will be challenged on matters of corruption in this Parliament, and they’ll be her colleagues. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK. Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat until I’ve dealt with the rabble on my left during that point of order. Members will recall that earlier in this question time the Government was penalised supplementary questions, added to the National Party, as a result of interjections during a point of order. Members quite often don’t like points of order; they often disagree with them. But the absolute rule of this House is they are to be heard in silence. Therefore, I will reverse the earlier decision made.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Speaker, that’s an interesting ruling. But, firstly, the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just stood up and made what is, effectively, a scurrilous allegation against non-specified persons on this side of the House on the basis that he does not like the question coming from Sarah Dowie. The question from Sarah Dowie simply points to the fact that there must be some disagreement among Government parties when you’ve had an emphatic position taken by a Green Minister today that she is not responsible for this, and quite clearly it was something that the Labour Party would not have been ordinarily opposed to, given their long record—

SPEAKER: Order! Come to the point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So the simple point is if, in fact, it is not possible to ask a question about who inside the coalition is not in favour of a particular initiative or has pushed a particular initiative by the Government, then that also starts to limit the scrutiny that the Government as a whole has from this House. But I make the point again that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has made a scurrilous allegation against unspecified members of this House, he has no substance to back it, and he should withdraw.

SPEAKER: I will deal with, first of all, Sarah Dowie’s question. I have no doubt that her question was within order but sailed right up to the edge on that question. I don’t think there was an implication of corruption in the question. I think members of all parties within Government on occasion take credit for particular directions and decisions that are made, and I don’t have a problem with members suggesting, without improper motives, that a particular party has had an influence on Government policy. However, I want to say to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he has made an allegation against an unspecified member of the National Party in a way which is not proper. There are methods of doing that, and I think the right honourable gentleman is aware of those. Because he has made a statement which is unparliamentary, he will withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you’re going to allow questions which have at their end the insinuation that the Minister being asked is not responsible, the Minister in charge of the portfolio—namely, fisheries—is not responsible, but another party, for other reasons, is responsible, that, sir, is going to invite disorder in this House, and I for one, and my colleagues, are not going to take that. That’s why I sent out a general warning that that’s not a proceeding that you would be very wise to follow, and I think I am entitled to at least put that inference on it, because that was the inference by the sniggering and jeering that they themselves were adopting on their side of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, I want to deal with this one first, please. Thank you. I was listening very carefully to the question, especially given the previous supplementary question, and it is for me or the member to infer. We inferred different things, and on that basis I would prefer if the right honourable gentleman just left it there.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so we’re clear, you are instructing the House that it is quite acceptable to ask a question of one Minister in the coalition Government about the influence of other parties in the coalition. That’s all it was, nothing more. Everyone knows what the position of New Zealand First was prior to the election.

SPEAKER: Sure. I have ruled to that effect. The real question I’ve got is whether I should have allowed it to the Minister of Conservation, who doesn’t have responsibility for the cameras, but that’s my problem that I could have stopped earlier on. Question No. 11, Mark Patterson.

Mark Patterson: Thank you Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, I apologise—I apologise. Can we go right back and we’ll have the question again, just so everyone remembers what it was.

Sarah Dowie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What responsibility does she take most seriously: her duty to save dolphins and seabirds from being killed or appeasing New Zealand First and their interests in the fishing industry?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Having listened really carefully to it, I’m now going to rule it out on the basis of “their interests”. Question No. 11, Mark Patterson.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do we assume, then, that you are ruling that New Zealand First has no interest in the fishing industry, no interest whatsoever—no care, no interest, in that as an industry?

SPEAKER: Interest has quite a different meaning, as that member is aware. He could consult—[Interruption] Order! He could consult with the honourable gentleman to his left as to the meaning of interests.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Whatever my colleague might think is not as relevant as what you think, and if you are suggesting, sir, that, in some way, talking about the interest that New Zealand First has in this policy has some sort of a pecuniary value to it, that’s completely unacceptable as well. Quite clearly, there was a discussion in Government that led to the Green Party deciding that they would support a particular initiative. We’re simply asking: what was it? Was it the Labour Party turning over and looking at a different thing, or New Zealand First—

SPEAKER: Order! No, sorry, I’ve heard enough, and if the member had asked only about the influence of New Zealand First, the question would have been allowed. When I listened carefully, it went further, and I’ve ruled it out.

Provincial Growth Fund—Regional Air Connectivity

11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What reports has he seen about regional connectivity?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): I’ve sighted and received a report from the New Zealand Airports Association. It details the importance of air links for healthcare, education, and commercial purposes. They have signalled an expression of interest towards the provincial growth fund. They have noted that connectivity and connections as a consequence of changes in regularity via Air New Zealand are actually diminishing not strengthening.

Mark Patterson: Why is ensuring regional air connectivity important for New Zealand’s provinces?

Hon SHANE JONES: Today—just to demonstrate how important it might be to certain politicians—Kāpiti loses its connectivity. Unlike other occasions, I have to acknowledge a fulsome press statement put out by Nathan Guy, but 12 months too late—12 months too late. It is very interesting that Air New Zealand in its annual review is trumpeting new direct routes to Houston, Latin America, Beijing—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Mark Patterson: What feedback has he received on the need to maintain regional air links?

Hon SHANE JONES: Tremendous feedback from certain National Party backbenchers—threats to nominate me for the honours list. The momentum and traction built up throughout provincial New Zealand—at long last they’ve found a man and a party to champion them—is overwhelming.

Government Transparency—Minister’s Contact with Carol Hirschfeld and the Chair of Radio New Zealand

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by all of her answers to oral and written questions?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government)): Yes, except where they have been corrected, in which case I stand by the corrected answer.

Brett Hudson: When she said in answer to oral question No. 12 on 29 November 2017 that this will “be the most open, most transparent Government [that] New Zealand has ever had”, does she consider her communications relating to the meeting between her and Carol Hirschfeld support that priority?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes. As soon as I became aware that I had incorrectly answered a written question, I corrected the record at the first available opportunity, as I am required to do and as a responsible member of Parliament.

Brett Hudson: When she said in answer to oral question No. 12 on 29 November 2017 that this will be “the most open, most transparent Government [that] New Zealand has ever had”, how does her not advising Miss Hirschfeld to notify the Radio New Zealand chief executive ahead of their scheduled meeting support her priority?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: As is well known out in the public arena, when I arranged a meeting with Carol Hirschfeld, I believed it was an informal meeting, but it was an appropriate meeting. I stand by that.

Melissa Lee: When she said in answer to oral question No. 12 on 29 November 2017 that this will “be the most open, most transparent Government [that] New Zealand has ever had”, is it open and transparent for the Minister if, as reported today, she or her office asked the chair of Radio New Zealand, Richard Griffin, not to attend the call-back select committee meeting scheduled for this Thursday to correct the records?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I reject the premise of that question. On learning that RNZ would not be appearing before the select committee last Thursday to correct the record at the earliest opportunity, and on advice from the office of the Leader of the House, I rang Mr Griffin last Thursday morning around 8.30 a.m. to advise him that it would be preferable to send a letter of correction that day before 1 p.m. rather than waiting until the following Thursday to appear in person. This was a voicemail message. I received a voicemail message from Mr Griffin at 3 p.m. that day to say that he had a prior agreement with the chair of the select committee to appear at the committee this Thursday and to call him back if I had a problem. I didn’t call him back.

Brett Hudson: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, that concludes oral questions.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members, I do have, to begin this debate, a rather long explanation to read before we start. The House in committee on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is a debate on the annual reviews of departments, Offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours. In accordance with Standing Order 349, the debate is divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2016-17. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of a select committee reporting on the sector in order to set out the major findings of that committee. Other speeches are allocated to parties on a proportional basis. The parties therefore have the following number of calls to use as they choose across the 10 sector debates: National, 52; Labour, 42; New Zealand First, eight; Greens, seven; and ACT, one.

At the end of each debate, the question will be put that the committee reports relevant to the sector be noted. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members, depending on the parties’ use of their allocated calls. However, the debate expires after 10 hours.

I understand the annual review debate will be held across several days. A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call, not a point of order—Speaker’s ruling 77/5. Because the annual review debate will run for a fixed period of time and the calls have been allocated proportionally, it would harm the proportionality of the debate to treat a motion to report progress as a member’s entire call. Therefore when a member moves to report progress in this annual review debate, the presiding officer will call on that member first when the debate resumes. This is a similar process to that followed in other debates when they are adjourned. At the conclusion of the debate, a single question is put on the provisions of the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question.

We come to the first sector and the question is that the reports of committees relevant to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector be noted. I just say, for the committee’s information, that those speeches by the select committee chair should not be partisan or political. They are simply reporting on the select committee’s activities, and the presiding officer will be quite strict on that.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector

JONATHAN YOUNG (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to stand and be the first speaker in this debate looking at the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation Bill. This is a very important debate because it’s reporting not just to this committee but to taxpayers on the investment that the Government has made in the previous year of their tax-paid funds.

The economic development and infrastructure sector covers two select committees. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is the one which I chair.

We have 31 entities which report to us. We didn’t see all 31. We received 14 of those entities, but we work in a cyclical fashion where those who didn’t actually come here for a hearing and very specific questions from the committee will certainly be coming to the next round of reviews. However, we have asked every entity to report back to us—which they have—through a series of written questions.

Just very briefly, if I could just touch on who those entities are: AgResearch, Callaghan Innovation, Crown Fibre Holdings—now called Crown Infrastructure Partners—New Zealand Post, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand, the Accreditation Council, the Broadcasting Commission, the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Commerce Commission, the Electricity Authority, the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, the External Reporting Board, the Financial Markets Authority, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, the Kordia Group, Landcare Research, the Metrological Service of New Zealand, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, the New Zealand Forest Research Institute, the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, the Productivity Commission, the New Zealand Tourism Board, the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund, the Public Trust, the Real Estate Agents Authority, the Research and Education Advanced Network of New Zealand, the Takeovers Panel, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). So in that group of entities, there are certainly some very significant players and investors into the New Zealand economy—over 30 entities for which we have the responsibility of reviewing. We heard from 14 this particular year.

I want to touch on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which is essentially the penultimate group that often coordinates amongst many of the others. Their aim is to grow New Zealand for all, and we heard them as they talked about the projects that they have continued to fund and support from the previous Government and also the ones they continue under this Government. This review looks at the past 12 years but also current activities. So with an entity that has such a large number of employees—3,400—that has 16 portfolio Ministers, and that monitors or funds 26 Crown entities and companies, it was important for us to have a significant period of time in which we could review them, and we did. We spent an hour and a half with MBIE, and we are very thankful to them and the number of officials who came to see us.

The goal of the ministry is to create a resilient and high-performing economy that delivers real and ongoing improvements to the quality of life for all New Zealanders and specifically works to increase real household incomes through more competitive businesses and increased job opportunities and more affordable housing. I think those are goals which every single member of Parliament in this House certainly supports. Its responsibilities cover a wide range of areas including immigration, science and innovation, communications, energy and resources, regional development, housing, building regulation, tourism, and Government procurement. We were very keen to hear, certainly, in the committee of the continuation of their work. We were also keen to hear the challenges that they will be monitoring when it comes to some of the goals that have been placed before them, even by the present Government.

We were concerned to hear that there is a shortfall of 51,000 workers in the construction sector. We know what such an important area this is for the people of New Zealand. We were also concerned to hear of the goals that they are administering in terms of the building programmes of the Government to ensure that the quality of those builds is maintained. They gave us that assurance, and we will be back to listen to them in a year’s time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): It’s a privilege to take a call in this debate on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and to contribute in this annual review debate, focusing on the economic development and infrastructure sector. Looking at the different sectors we’re dealing with under this particular heading, there are a couple of sectors I would like to make some comments on, particularly in the workplace relations and safety and transport areas.

Now, we’ve heard a lot of times the mention of the economy doing really, really well, but what I would like to say is it’s not just about having a job. The fact that there has been record job creation is not something to be celebrating just on its own. It’s not just about the quantity of the jobs; it’s actually also about the quality of those jobs, and it’s low-paid and insecure work that we don’t want people to have.

This is not a wonderful economy when we see the productivity going nowhere, we see unemployment stuck in a rut, and we see insecure work models pretty much becoming the norm. We’ve seen workers’ rights being eroded over the years and, as a result, what we see in the numbers is that working people and their families are receiving a declining part of the income share. Working people are working harder, they are getting less return for their work, and what we’ve seen is the creation of the working poor. We see an increase in the amount of people and families who can’t afford to make ends meet—and it doesn’t matter how many hours they put in—and an increasing number of people living in cars and tents and under bridges. So this is not a New Zealand that we should be settling for. This can’t be the norm, and that is why it’s so important that we get a change through our employment relations.

We need to ensure that we back the Kiwi workers. It’s the right to join a union and it’s the right to bargain collectively that aren’t privileges. They are actually internationally recognised rights, and that’s for good reason, because there is an imbalance in the working relationship, and that imbalance has only really been getting worse over the last few years with the passing of legislation. Now, with our changes to employment legislation, we are stopping this race to the bottom—a race that allows bad employers to undermine the good employers, allows unfair competition, and makes it harder for our good employers to offer those good jobs, decent terms and conditions, and fair wages.

I also want to talk a little bit about the underfunded infrastructure. Under the previous Government, we’ve seen meagre surpluses and tax cuts taking priority over investment in vital infrastructure. We are seeing New Zealand hospitals—we talked about it today—affected by mould, asbestos, sewage, and power cuts, and we see district health boards nationwide that now need billions of dollars put into them due to the significant capital investment shortages that we’ve seen from the previous Government.

We’re dealing with a massive under-investment in our regions. The previous National Government has been cutting down on the spending for local roads in the regions just to be able to build bigger and larger motorways. In fact, the figures show that 40 percent of the National Government’s budget was spent on State highways, and the regions have been left behind when it comes to investing into the transport network.

So without any thought going into investment in the supporting transport infrastructure, with traffic that’s already not coping, it will only get worse and worse. We’re seeing clogged roads, we’re missing the buses and trains, and, while the previous Government had a plan, it was unfunded, and their plan pretty much left us a $5.9 billion funding gap for this Government to resolve.

So apart from failing to unlock the economic advantage of so many of these regional areas, there’s also a very tragic safety record, which is getting worse and worse, with increasing roading fatalities on New Zealand roads. The previous Government should have been investing in safety on our New Zealand roads, rather than focusing on building those massive, four-lane highways. So this Government is having to address the neglected problems of the past because things are simply so bad that we cannot go on with the status quo. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to talk to the economic development part of this debate.

I often hear it said by the now Opposition that New Zealand has enjoyed relatively strong economic growth compared with the rest of the world. Their analysis of this is very shallow. It is true that New Zealand has experienced relatively strong total nominal economic growth over recent years, which has been bolstered by some very high commodity prices, the best terms of trade that we’ve ever had, huge population growth, and also an increase in tourism. But when you strip it back, that headline growth has been achieved mostly by more people—more inputs—into the economy, not with an increase in productivity. And, in fact, when you strip out population growth, New Zealand’s productivity record in the last nine years—and actually going further back—has been poor by world standards. That’s one of the reasons why, in the last few decades, the gap between New Zealand’s prosperity and Australia’s prosperity has grown ever larger, because their growth has had at its core more productivity growth than New Zealand’s. New Zealand does have a productivity problem.

We misallocate capital in New Zealand, and one of the problems that this Government has inherited is that far too much money is being invested in speculative asset classes. We see the effects of that in this huge house price inflation and investment housing in Auckland and we see the decrease in the homeownership rate as a consequence. But the flip side of that over-investment in rental housing as an investment class has been that we have been under-investing in our regions and under-investing in the new products and services that we need to grow as new points of comparative advantage in order to export more in the world.

In the last nine years, the prior Government had an ambition to lift exports from 30 to 40 percent of GDP. In fact, they went backwards. After nine years of pursuing that target, they went back to 27 percent of the economy. So exports as a percentage of the economy went back—another point of information that proves the failure of the economic growth model of the last Government, which was built on more people, not more productivity—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.

Hon DAVID PARKER: “Rubbish.”, Nick Smith says. Well, Nick Smith, that problem showed up with the million extra cows that were added to the land during your period—a million extra cows with resultant degradation of our waterways and the drop in our exports as a percentage of the economy.

To turn this around, we need to invest more in our regions, and the regional development fund will assist in that. We need to invest more in research and development. New Zealand’s private sector research and development spend is much lower than the countries that we like to compare ourselves to, and it’s one of the reasons why our productivity record is poor.

If we’re going to—and we will—in this Government improve our economy, we will do it by growing new exports, by growing more points of comparative advantage. We need to grow the spread of our markets. We need to grow the spread of our products and services that we sell to the rest of the world. As we diversify our markets and diversify our products, we will be on the path from volume to value.

There are lots of parts to that. Research and development tax credits are coming in the next little while. They were abandoned by the last Government—unwisely—after they’d been introduced by the prior Labour Government. We’re going to reintroduce them so as to give some support to the industries that do invest in the research and development that we want them to invest in. There is a good reason for that. Not all of the benefits of the research and development are captured by the firms spending the money. There are spillover benefits to the wider economy that are in the interests of the wider economy, and, therefore, it’s justified that you have a tax incentive.

The tax review being led by Sir Michael Cullen is an important part of the mix. We need to get the tax signal right so that we’re not encouraging the wrong forms of investment. All of this is with a view to lifting New Zealand’s export performance and lifting the economic performance so that we all have better jobs and higher incomes.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was good to hear the contribution from the Minister for Economic Development, previously. I was interested in hearing his plan for economic development in New Zealand, and it does seem to focus primarily on taxing speculators and tax credits for R & D. That latter one—you could argue about the wisdom of that, but that is one thing, I suppose. Taxing speculators is hardly, I would have thought, a comprehensive plan for economic development in New Zealand. And we haven’t seen much else.

Of course, the main driver of productivity growth is investment—people making a decision to buy new plant machinery, hire new people, start a new business, and take a risk, and that’s how you get growth and investment in the economy. So where is that investment going to come from? Well, we’ve heard a lot about the regional growth fund, and good luck to Minister Jones—who’s here in the chair—going around the country, handing out bits of money. So we’ll be watching carefully. If you spend $3 billion over the next 18 months, as he’s suggested he wants to do, in order to have the runs on the board prior to the next election—and that’s nothing to do with politics, but that seems to be the timing that we’re focused on. If you’re going to spend $3 billion, it’s actually harder than it looks to do that effectively. So we hope he’ll be focused on being effective in that spending.

But what about the rest of the investment? A lot of investment has been going into the regions over the past few years in road transport and transport investment across the country. We’re going to be seeing in the next few minutes the release of the Government’s transport strategy. It will be interesting to see whether more is going into the regions than was planned by the previous Government, or less. My guess is it may well be less that’s going in.

And then if we look at the question of private sector investment, well, of course, last year about $3 billion of private foreign investment came into this country, and the question mark this year is whether any will be coming in, after this new Government has put up the “go away” sign when it comes to foreign investment, with their proposed changes to overseas investment.

Then if we look at domestic investment, well, the main driver of investment in the economy is confidence in the business community that they have some transparency and predictability around the rules. So when they see all the uncertainty around the industrial relations framework, when they see all the uncertainty around the tax policy in this country and what they’re going to be taxed on, it’s not surprising that there is a lack of confidence in the business community and falling levels of confidence.

So I wouldn’t be at all surprised, if we look at the regions of this country, whether there will actually be less investment overall next year and the year after as a result of this Government’s policies, notwithstanding the efforts made by the regional development Minister and the regional growth fund. That won’t make up for the lost foreign investment that we’re seeing, the lost private sector domestic investment we’re seeing, because of uncertainty in this economy.

We see Minister Jones going around the country, attacking New Zealand companies. Lots of people can argue about the merits of that. My only plea is that he would spend more time focused on that quite difficult task of spending $3 billion effectively in the regional growth fund, and ensuring that the New Zealand taxpayers are actually getting good value for money out of that money. You certainly could spend $3 billion and you’re going to buy something, and there will be some useful projects. We on this side of the House will support those useful projects. But we’ll also be pretty determined to see that there is no waste in that spending and that there is clear process, so that people can understand why this particular group gets $6 million and this one, who’s in the same industry and has the same New Zealanders working in that industry, doesn’t get the $6 million. Trying to understand the process and the rigour around that process is something that we’re very keen to get our heads around, so that all New Zealanders can have confidence.

But taking a step back to the broader economic development story, we want to see greater clarity from this Government as to what their economic development strategy is beyond taxing speculators—because that seems to be the crux of what Mr Parker is talking about—and, secondary to that, going from a system of grants such as we had under Callaghan Innovation, where New Zealanders know what they’re putting into R & D, and into R & D tax credits, where you’ve got no idea how much it’s costing the economy.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I can’t speak for the entire Government, but I will attempt to address some of the questions of the previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, under this economic development and infrastructure heading of the debate.

I think what is clear, when we look at the reviews under this heading, is that we’re in the midst of a transition—one that I am very, very pleased to finally see Aotearoa New Zealand embracing the 21st century, rather than the 20th century, or possibly even the 19th century, model of economic development that was being pursued by the previous Government, one that equated economic development entirely with extraction, and at a non-renewable rate. So the previous Government, you could see, was very keen on mining, fracking, drilling, deforestation, overfishing—fundamentally, on the depletion of our natural resources, which are our natural capital and should be protected and used wisely. Of course, the Green Party has been calling for that for a very, very long time.

The result of the 20th century model that the last Government was pursuing was increasing pollution, which is contributing to destabilising the climate. And, of course, all of that was resulting in profits for a few—profits for just a few—while the many, many New Zealanders, ones I interact with on a daily basis, were not seeing any of the benefit of this; just dirty rivers, fewer fish to go out and catch, and increasing carbon emissions for as long as we could see into the future. Of course, the previous Government’s plan was to pay for dodgy offshore credits, which were, effectively, going to be assisting with economic development in developing countries, potentially, rather than investing in our own country.

This Government isn’t going to be pursuing a very narrow, ideological approach to economic development. We’ll actually be embracing the evidence-based approach that has been used by countries across the world who are far, far better developed, have better infrastructure, are protecting their natural capital, are taking action on climate change, and, as a result of sharing the wealth and the investment, have achieved much higher incomes per capita than New Zealand has and are far wealthier, more productive countries. I’m very, very pleased to see that, finally, we have a Government that understands that we are going to be better off if we protect our waterways, if we have clean air, and if we have efficient, affordable homes for everyone, rather than an increasing rate of homelessness, and if we invest in transport infrastructure that actually moves more people and goods.

I know there’s going to be a bit of a debate later today because, of course, the announcement of the Government’s draft Government policy statement on transport funding will be coming out. I can’t comment on the specifics of that, but what I can say is that we saw in the financial review of the previous year the legacy of nine years of the National Government pouring 40 percent of the transport budget into just a few kilometres of State highway that moves less than 5 percent of all the vehicle trips in the country.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true. That’s just not true.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Hon Nick Smith is yelling at me from across the Chamber, “That’s not true.” In fact, it is, Nick. Do you want to sit down with me and look at the numbers? I really question whether the honourable member—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’d caution the member that it is the custom to use full names in the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, would the Hon Nick Smith like to sit down and look at the numbers with me? I know he’s quite capable of saying that the sky is green or black rather than blue, but, in fact, the reality is that the roads of national significance were seven urban highways, primarily in urban areas, not in the regions, which sucked up all of the money. So, let’s see, they were in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Tauranga, and Hamilton, and they sucked up 40 percent of the transport budget. During that time, the National Government reduced the money available for road policing, for road safety, for local roads, for road maintenance. They had a freeze, virtually, for nine years on all of these things, and that’s why over the last five years we’ve seen an increasing rate of death and serious injury on our roads—far greater than the increase in driving. It’s because for nine years we had a Government that neglected our roading network all over the country so that it could cut a few ribbons on a few projects.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is with pleasure that I rise to discuss the infrastructure sector, but I’d like to comment on a couple of points made by previous speakers. First of all, Mr Parker is talking about his tax review, but he didn’t really explain what those taxes would be. I fear—and I think a lot of other people in the country fear—that the Government is going to lay upon the taxpayer a burden of capital gains tax—

Hon Members: Aw!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Oh, so it’s out of the question then, is it? So a capital gains tax is out of the question? Or a wealth tax—what about a wealth tax? Is that out of the question? What about a water tax or a royalty on water? Is that out of the question? Is there going to be a value-add tax, so if you live next to a railway station, you’ll be taxed on the increase that might have occurred because of a rezoning? Is that out of the question? Well, none of that is out of the question, because this Government is only interested in taxing, taxing, taxing.

Hon Members: Aw!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: So rule it out—rule it out. Nothing can be ruled out under the Labour Government.

Then we had Ms Lubeck speaking earlier about a situation which I find quite interesting. She talked about a low unemployment rate as if it was a bad thing. We’ve got less than 5 percent unemployed. That’s no accident; that’s because of the policies in the economy that are driving people to work and giving people opportunity to work. It is set to fall—it is set to fall further—so, Ms Lubeck, don’t try and talk about an unemployment situation in New Zealand as being terrible. It’s not a terrible situation at all. We have a very low unemployment rate.

We have, in fact, one of the highest employment rates in the world. We have had real increases in income in New Zealand—real increases in income. It is not the dreary, poor, betrodden, downtrodden economy that that member likes to picture, likes to paint.

Marja Lubeck: Ha, ha!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: She might laugh, but, you know, have a look at the trend. Have a look at the trend: where unemployment has been, where employment has been, and where it is today. These are good numbers. The economy has been functioning and growing well, better than most countries, and we should celebrate that—we should celebrate that.

Getting on to some of the infrastructure, I do want to pick up on something. I’m sort of going to pre-empt something at 4 o’clock—the announcement that the previous speaker was saying—and that is, are the regions going to suffer because of this statement that is going to be made today, where money is going to be pulled away? We’ve got Mr Jones in the chair—is money going to be pulled away from the regions to be set into the Auckland transport system? We’ve already seen a number of regional roading projects that have been stalled or halted, or the contractors say, “Tai ho!”—“Tai ho!”, to use Mr Jones’ words—“These projects are not going to happen under this Government. We’ve got other things to do, and they’re all focused in Auckland.” So, Mr Jones, I’d be interested to hear you talk about what the billion-dollar fund is going to present for the regional roads. We’re talking about infrastructure—the regional roads.

And, while we’re on the subject, how about regional water infrastructure? Rather than spraying money out in a lolly scramble - type fashion, why not invest instead of spending? Rather than donating money to a forestry seedling company, why not invest in that company? Why not take a portion of equity in that company? Why not have the taxpayer own some of the infrastructure that Mr Jones will be investing in on behalf of those taxpayers, rather than granting it, rather than giving it away, rather than giving it to his favourite iwi or his favourite roundabout project? It’s a suggestion that I’d like to make, Mr Jones: invest rather than spend in the infrastructure.

I’m going to come back to the point that this economy has been, and will continue to be, functioning well above the average. We will continue to see a low unemployment rate, we will continue to see high employment rates, and we will continue to see real incomes rising. But it has nothing—it has not anything to do with what that Government is doing today.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure for me to take a call in this annual review debate. It is a pleasure because it is a privilege to be able to be able to outline an ambitious and progressive plan that we have for the economy in this country, on this side of the House. We just had an extraordinary speech from the previous speaker, Alastair Scott, that seemed to be a rehash of his 2017 stump speech along with a whole lot of innuendo and flinging around of accusations. But there are some serious questions within this theme in the annual review debate that we need to consider. I’d like to take some time to consider, particularly, two of these areas.

It is a privilege to speak to this, because this is where we get to talk about what a plan looks like—a plan to fix up what has been left after nine years of neglect by the previous Government. The previous Government prioritised meagre surpluses and tax cuts over vital infrastructure and investing in our economic future, and that is not something that we, on this side of the House, are planning to do.

I want to look at, first of all, the energy and resources sector. This is an incredibly important sector to our economic future. We, on this side of the House, are ambitious. We have a target to get to net zero emissions by 2050, we have a target to get to 100 percent renewable energy, in a normal hydrological year, by 2035—and to do that, you need a plan, and that is what this Government is committed to. We will not let communities and workers and industry wait to fall off the cliff because we have failed to plan. And that is what we are beginning now. We need to make sure that we’re investing in our regions, that we’re investing in those parts of the country, so that there is a long-term future plan right around our wonderful country.

This is where my portfolios connect in such a wonderful way. When I look at regional New Zealand, one of the first things I think about is our network of wonderful Crown research institutes (CRIs) that are scattered around those regions and the science that is being undertaken within those CRIs that can be the key to our economic future. But you need to have ambition around that. You need to have a plan to lift our investment in R & D.

New Zealand currently invests 1.3 percent of our GDP into research and development. This is well below the OECD average of 2.4 percent. We have ambition, on this side of the House, to raise that investment. But we’re not just going to set a target and wait for it to magically happen as we saw the previous Government do, where we didn’t see the uplift. We have a plan around this to make sure that businesses are given the incentives that they need to make those valuable decisions to invest in all of our futures when they undertake research and development.

If we have a look at business investment in R & D in New Zealand, it is just 50 percent of our total investment. We compare that to the OECD, where the average of all investment in R & D carried out by businesses is 68 percent. What is most alarming to me is when I look at the concentration of research in this country—when I see that in 2016, 45 percent of all business R & D was conducted by 30 firms; when I see that 26 percent of all business R & D was conducted by just six firms. It worries me that we don’t have the settings right in our economy to set ourselves up for the kind of future with the kinds of jobs and the kinds of security that we aspire to on this side of the House.

The previous speaker said that we are taxing and something else—that that was our plan. No, we are building, we are innovating, and we are investing and transforming to make ourselves ready for the 21st century—an opportunity that was squandered by the previous Government, which had no plan beyond the three-year and did not have the courage to lift their sight beyond a three-year electoral cycle. Well, that is not an allegation that will ever be levelled at us. We are committed to make sure that we are investing in the kind of future that New Zealand needs.

economic development and infrastructure sector

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, for the . I would like to take a brief moment to wish everyone happy Passover, a fantastic Assyrian New Year, and I hope everyone enjoyed their Easter break.

What a shambles—what a shambles this Government really is. What a shambles the last few weeks have been for Labour and this coalition of the reluctant, begrudging, and desolate.

I’m here to talk about the hearings of the Crown agencies, ministries, and organisations that came before the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee over the past weeks to talk about the work that they have done over the past year and what they are looking to do in the coming months. The reports give a thrilling account of the hard work of the former National Government, working very hard for New Zealanders supporting telecommunications, our digital future, and our nation. In particular, once the ultra-fast broadband (UFB) roll-out is actually completed in 2022, around 340-plus towns and cities will have UFB. We are doing rural broadband, mobile black spots. Those are all happening as the initiative of the former National Government. This will actually make us a digital leader in the global sense.

However—the last six months, I guess—what a shocking last six months into this three-year parliamentary term it has been. I’d like to talk, particularly, about the Radio New Zealand visit to the select committee. It is now an infamous note, I guess, that when the Radio New Zealand hearing actually happened, I think at the beginning of last month, the public and the media and the committee were led to believe that certain things actually happened—that the meeting between the Minister and the now former head of content and head of news had been very casual. Actually, the Minister’s corrected answer to the House was that they had an informal breakfast—that it wasn’t formal at all. The media reports now transpire that there was actually a diary note—that she had, in fact, diarised it. So I’m sort of a little bit baffled as to how an informal meeting came about.

It wasn’t as if the Minister and Carol Hirschfield ran into each other at a cafe after going to the gym, for example, or that it was a chance encounter—both happening to turn up to the same cafe for breakfast. It was, in fact, a formally diarised meeting. But let me tell you, members, how it was diarised. I would have thought that when members actually meet someone and when it was a scheduled meeting, that usually the names are actually included.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. Look, I’m sorry to interrupt the member. I have been having a look at the report that is before the House. Unfortunately, Radio New Zealand, although it appeared before your select committee, is down to be debated under the Māori, other populations and cultural sector. I’ve let the member go on for a while, while I have been having a look at that, but I really think that I’m going to have to ask the member, because these themes have been set out, to come back to excluding the discussion around Radio New Zealand. The member will need to seek another opportunity when that comes up under the Māori, other populations and cultural sector.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that clarification. I shall look forward to addressing those issues when I actually return to the House to debate that.

I guess what we’re actually looking at is that when we’re talking about economic development, the previous National Government led this country so well that we’re actually at the forefront when it comes to things like what I talked about earlier. Ultra-fast broadband to 340-plus towns and cities will make us, I think it is like, number four in the world. I think that is something to be very, very proud of.

Also, talking about rural broadband, it’s actually about regional equity, and I’m sure that the Hon Shane Jones will agree with me that people living in the regions actually want to have the equal opportunity for growth in their regions, and the economic benefits that they can reap from our advancement in technology and digital connectivity. These are things that were actually done by the former National Government, and I have to say that I am very proud to have been part of that Government, delivering for New Zealand. It is unfortunate that in the last almost six months of this Labour-led Government, we’re not seeing the plan that some earlier members have talked about.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): What a load of nonsense that was. It’s great to stand up and take a call on the economic development and infrastructure sector of the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. You know, the irony that we heard from the last speakers over here, Alastair Scott and now Melissa Lee, talking about how the previous Government were the champions of the regions, and what a wonderful job they did for them—I think they think that actually Auckland is one of those provinces that need their attention. Not that we think that it shouldn’t have attention, but I think they’ve forgotten every other hamlet, town, and grove around the country. They’re certainly now going to be hearing from the champions of the regions very shortly, and, of course, we have got a lot going on there. Now, we have a reprieve. Now, we’re hearing people coming out and championing them. Despite them saying it’s a lolly scramble, and “How dare they throw their money around looking after the people in the provinces of New Zealand?”, in the same breath the irony is the fact that they’re holding out their hands saying, “Please, Minister, can we have a little bit for our area, because we were so terrible at looking after the regions, our people need some help?”

But I’m not here to talk about that. We’ve got somebody far more qualified to have that discussion than I am right now. I’m going to have a discussion about the fact that everybody in this committee, no matter where we sit, no matter what colour shirts we wear, is about making sure that people can have a fair day’s work, expect a fair day’s pay, and come home after that day and actually get home safely. The previous Government worked towards putting a health and safety policy together. They introduced new buzzwords like person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), and we talked about setting up all these work groups. Some of it was actually very, very good, and some of it we actually very, very staunchly supported, particularly when we looked at reducing the numbers of serious injuries and deaths in our workplaces.

However, when we look at the money that hasn’t been spent in this area and the underfunding, when we look at health and safety officers that haven’t been implemented because of the lack of funding, when we look at the money that hasn’t been appropriated in the previous Government to make sure that we had labour inspectorates checking on our workplaces to ensure that they were safe and that they were going to be the right place to actually go into your work environment—we only need to look at what happened at Pike River. We only need to look and see what’s happening around the country through this lack of funding. It’s this Government on this side—when I hear our Budgets that we’re going to be having—that is actually going to look at boosting those numbers to make sure that we’ve got healthy workplaces.

I can see just from the previous term in Government—2016 was a $153 million spend on workplace relations. This last, previous year, in 2017, it was $146 million. That’s $7 million of funding dropped, and, of course, we had an increase in serious harm and deaths in workplaces in that last year as well, up to 33 fatalities in workplaces. Now surely they’ve got to come to their senses and look at the shortfall, the shortcomings where the previous Government didn’t put the time, the effort, the energy, or the right amount of funding into the workplace health and safety, workplace relations part of the bill.

This Government is absolutely committed to making sure that you can, as a worker, go to your employment, have a fair day’s work, expect a fair day’s pay, and come home safely at the end of that day. That is why we are going to be working towards lifting and introducing the living wage into New Zealand, and we’re going to be doing that over a period of four years, whilst introducing tax packages for businesses to ensure that they can actually afford to do it. We’ve got to get that balance right between the needs of a worker, which are a stable workplace where they can expect a safe environment and they can make sure that they receive well-remunerated wages—and we need some flexibility in that as well—but we also, from an employer’s point of view, need to make sure that we’ve got a skilled labour force and to make sure that they are fit for purpose, ready to work, and, obviously, have got the means to do the job. So we are absolutely committed, this side of the House, this Government, to ensure that workplace relations and health and safety get good support, unlike the previous Government.

I notice, actually, tomorrow they’ve got a member’s bill coming through to amend one of their basket case policies that they managed to implement—not looking at it despite it being brought to their attention in the last round of discussions for the Health and Safety at Work Act that went through, in relation to what constitutes a PCBU and where that liability sits. I’m going to be interested to see how that one goes through the House tomorrow—something that New Zealand First has already gone and spoken to in the past. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Thank you, Madam Chair. It falls to me to make a few remarks, judiciously phrased and, in keeping with my style, riddled with modesty.

Hon Chris Hipkins: What nonsense!

Hon SHANE JONES: I want to isolate two areas—no, don’t call for a point of order, Leader of the House. I want to deal with two areas, because, after all, constitutionally we’re focused on historical conduct and whether or not the funding that was appropriated—as we review it, what kinds of outcomes did it achieve? I want to direct our attention firstly to tourism. Despite the fact that Deloitte and McKinsey produced two robust documents, the reality is that up and down New Zealand, as a consequence of an inverse relationship between the rhetoric from that side of the House and, actually, what was delivered, our agenda and our menu are full of projects that were not delivered upon and not funded in the face of tourism.

Now, tourism is a great earner of foreign direct investment, but it has the ability to alienate and anger local communities—in particular, those communities who may have a very sparsely distributed ratepayer base. They’re expected to step up to the plate and meet the costs associated with an infusion of tourists. Now, we had all the provincial MPs from that side of the House, currently in Opposition, promising great developments, but very few, I can assure you as the current provincial champion, were funded. Not only is that a situation that we have found when we’ve looked into the details of what was delivered upon in areas as diverse as the Mackenzie country right up to the Tai Tokerau, but we still have an ideology and rhetoric spouted by that side of the House that increasing at growing rates the number of tourists from Australia, Asia, and the Americas is somehow going to deliver a new form of financial elixir to the regions. Unless we invest in the degraded, groaning infrastructure, this will not happen.

I don’t want to talk too much about the future, other than to say that that which the provinces asked for, which was not delivered under the last regime, is most certainly being delivered upon today. Not only will their projects be adequately funded, subject to meeting criteria, but we will be calling for them to restate to us all of their entreaties that were never ever requited. Well, we will deal to that. Not only are we going to do it through an upgraded approach to regional roads—let me round this out by talking about the awful state of the roads that were promised and the bridges in the area that I hail from.

I don’t need to mention the 10 bridges, because that has become hackneyed, and it is the albatross around the current Opposition leader’s neck. Not only are those roads neglected, the bridges never actually built, but, worse than that—worse than that—we’ve had this cargo cult - like mentality, fed under the last regime, that projects that may or may not come to pass in 10 or 15 years were somehow going to unleash economic productivity in the regions—i.e., putting in expressways and four-laning everything. Not only were the civic leaders diddled in my particular area, but there was egregious failure up and down our local roads, our regional roads—indeed, probably in the number of the cops keeping an eye on driver conduct on those roads.

So I’m confident that as we go forward there’ll be a massive improvement between what we will deliver and what, unfortunately, whilst may have been promised, was never ever delivered. That’s before I get to KiwiRail, but I can’t go there because I’m sure it’s going to be dealt with in that portion of the broader debate that’s focused on State-owned enterprises. Now, the point also on dealing with transport and tourism is—that’s before I get to more efficient ways of moving freight around the provinces and the regions—that although they are great deliverers of foreign earnings, they achieved a pretty paltry status under the last regime. Lots of promise; precious little pūtea. Wait! Help is on the way. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to take this call. It was great to get quite a good number of entities before the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their annual reviews. One thing that was common in all these annual reviews was that they all reflected the good work that was put in place by the previous National Government. I think that if we kept the plan that was put in by the previous National Government, there was capacity to grow and there was capacity to do more to support our economy, but what we have seen since this Government came in is business confidence has been fluctuating. Actually, business confidence has been declining.

I believe that to create that confidence in businesses, we have to do more innovation and we have to invest more in research and development. In the hearing that we had from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), they endorsed a model that was put in place by the previous National Government—that is, National Science Challenges. National Science Challenges were put in place by the previous National Government, and we also decided funding for 10 years for that research project, and this was in two rounds of five years. So the research that is being conducted through National Science Challenges is very specific to New Zealand. The outcomes of that are going to hugely benefit New Zealand. We also saw there was a celebration in Parliament to acknowledge the success of National Science Challenges. So, yes, while it’s good that MBIE has endorsed the National Science Challenges programme, that model of funding research and development by the previous National Government—and the Minister, I see, was celebrating the success of National Science Challenges—what I would like to see is actually more commitment, continued support, and to see how there will be more funding for National Science Challenges in the next Budget.

Bringing in some ages-old policy of the previous Labour Government to say that we are going to do more to increase R & D spending is not going to do anything. We heard from Callaghan Innovation—this was based on the feedback they received from hundreds of their customers—that Government investment is a must. Government investment in research and development is a must to drive business research and development investment. Businesses don’t get the confidence unless the Government is taking the lead and is investing in research and development, and that is what the previous National Government did, through various models of funding research and development. So we saw that in the past under the National Government. We saw that research and development investment increased. So, yes, there is a big talk from this current Government, but so far what we have seen is only them repeating that they have an ambitious plan, they have a long-term plan, but nothing concrete has come through. If it is about just re-announcing the previous National Government’s programmes, if it is just about celebrating the success of previous National Government’s programmes, then that is not going to help further increase research and development investment.

Another striking thing that came out during the annual review hearings was from MBIE. This was actually about the number of skilled workers they are short of in the construction industry. They told us that we are short of 51,000 skilled people in the construction industry. That actually comes down to the Government’s immigration policy. They campaigned on cutting immigration. Yes, they campaigned on cutting immigration. They have not come out and taken any stand on immigration policy so far since they came in. So what I want to see is that they should come clean about their immigration policy. If they want to take a U-turn about their immigration stand, that is fine too, but businesses need to know that. Businesses will not have the confidence in investing more or growing their business if they are not sure that they can find people to work in their business—51,000 is a big number. MBIE is also responsible for establishing their KiwiBuild programme. So it is going to put a further constraint on this sector, which is already constrained.

If I continue with the same example, property developers—they are suffering because banks are not lending money; they are tightening their criteria to lend money. One thing that came out from MBIE, which was really interesting, is that they think to solve this problem, the Crown should be guaranteeing payment in case of loss or damage in the pre-sale stage.

So this discussion we were having there only because business confidence is so low, and this is because this Government is not coming out clean on any of their policies. They have done nothing since they came in.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill in the economic development and infrastructure sector debate. Specifically, I want to talk about the annual review of KiwiRail, which was one of the more extraordinary—actually, I’d have to be honest and say the most extraordinary—annual reviews I have ever been a part of. We were given a very clear message from the chief executive and the chair of KiwiRail that fits with a pattern that we’ve been hearing more and more in the media, of persistent under-investment and deferral of maintenance, which is a significant risk to us as a country.

I’ve just heard from the previous speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, that the reviews she heard were a reflection universally of the good work of the previous National Government. Well, let me tell that speaker that this review did no such thing. We were told, quite clearly, I think, by the chair of KiwiRail that they had told the Crown how much investment was needed to be able to meet the minimum requirements for health and safety within KiwiRail, and they were funded at $38 million below the minimum requirement for health and safety and $87 million short of the requirement for a resilient network. I do want this House to take a minute to think about that in light of the storms that we have been having over the recent months—$87 million less than was required for a resilient network.

I was unaware of how rundown and how old the infrastructure that KiwiRail are working with actually is. Most of the locomotives in the South Island were built before 1975. There are 11 locomotives in the South Island that are older than I am, and that’s not that young. We have piles on bridges that were built in the 1870s, which these locomotives are running over, carrying our freight and our people and our tourists visiting this country over bridges held up by piles from the 1870s.

The previous Government decided that they’d defer the maintenance on that and reduce the funding that KiwiRail needed—that they didn’t need the money that they actually said they needed. We heard from KiwiRail that this is making it really difficult for them to compete commercially. They’ve had to cut passenger lines because they are no longer safe. They’ve had to be running some trains, which I assume were freight trains but could have been passenger trains, down to 10 kilometres an hour to be able to be assured of the safety of that service over the land. This, clearly, is not viable in the long term. It’s not viable in the current situation, and it’s certainly not viable in the longer term.

I do just want, too, to put this in the context of the value of rail, and that there was an independent report done last year that showed that there were $1.5 billion a year of indirect benefits that attribute to rail as opposed to other forms of transport—that result from reduced congestion, fewer emissions, safer roads, fewer fatalities, and savings from road maintenance for taxpayers. All of these things accrue from a functioning, healthy rail system, and one that we could have been gathering the benefits from, but we have not been able to because the previous Government made funding decisions to focus on the glossy headlines, and they privileged getting a surplus over ensuring our essential services were available to us as a population. So I am very pleased to be on this side of the House, to see a turnaround in that kind of thinking and a return to true investment in the pillars that uphold our society.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to take a call this afternoon on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. And I’m very pleased, because wasn’t that such a great period in New Zealand’s history: a time of strong Prime Ministers, a sensible Government, and a rapidly growing economy with positive indications that would all continue. I compare that to what we have now, where none of those things exist, except for a strong economy—a legacy of nine years of a strong Government.

We are discussing the economic development and infrastructure portion of the appropriation, and there are two areas in particular that I’d like to address. The first relates to infrastructure. I know that a great many people went down to Dunedin over the weekend for the Ed Sheeran concert. Unfortunately, that traffic compounded with vehicles returning from Warbirds over Wānaka, and the usual Easter traffic, and made for some horrendous traffic times, particularly in the mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury area. Unfortunately, that was replicated for half of length of the South Island.

Now, we shouldn’t use holiday traffic as indicative of overall traffic, and I’m not suggesting that State Highway 1 is anywhere like what it was over the weekend, but it is clear that strong economic growth over recent years has meant that the road is getting more and more busy. That will only increase with the continued success of PrimePort in Timaru, the expansion of the inland port at Rolleston, and the continued growth of the primary sector in the central South Island.

The time is now to invest in extending the road to four lanes between Christchurch and Ashburton.

Matt King: And Northland.

ANDREW FALLOON: Already, as the local MP—I’m getting to you, Matt—I’ve regularly met with people, particularly those who are recently retired, who are already too scared to travel on that road. With more and more trucks, and more drivers new to that road, it is becoming more dangerous.

The second thing I want to speak about is regional development. In the 2016-17 appropriation, you will find the Regional Growth Programme, but what you won’t find is a Shane Jones slush fund. For an interesting exercise, recently I went through all of the programmes and investments that have been made by Shane Jones in recent months. It won’t surprise you that more than half of those investments have been made in one region alone—the region of Northland, where New Zealand First are once again pinning all their electoral hopes. Now, I have to say that Matt King is a very good friend of mine—a very good friend of mine—but gosh, if Shane Jones thinks so highly of him that he’s investing $1.5 million over the next three years to try and beat him, he must regard him even more highly than I do.

But I am bitterly disappointed that of the funds allocated so far, only around 4 percent are going to the South Island. We all accept that the Government are focusing on Northland and other areas of high need, but a regional growth fund cannot be seen to be credible if only 4 percent of it is being invested in the South Island.

I suggest to Shane Jones that if he is keen on splashing $3 billion around the country over the next three years, there are things on the Mainland that he could be investing in. His first visit should be to the office of Mr Phil Twyford. Unfortunately, it looks like Mr Phil Twyford this afternoon, as Minister of Transport, is going to take money from the National Land Transport Fund and put it into Auckland rail projects. That will put in peril important roading improvements like State Highway 1 through Canterbury, like the Belfast to Pegasus highway, improving the Queenstown to Milford road, and the second bridge over the Ashburton River. If Mr Jones was serious about regional development all across New Zealand, he’d be getting in behind these important projects, which would keep our regional economies moving. Thank you very much.

Reports relevant to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector noted.

Education Sector

Hon Michael Woodhouse (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to kick off the debate on the reviews of the various departments that make up the education sector, and I do so as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, a role that I have held for somewhere in the region of about nine days. I was worried that it was going to be perhaps the shortest cameo as a select committee chair in parliamentary history, but no; after the Business Committee meeting today I’ll still be the chair and, perhaps, for the foreseeable future, in any event.

But I am in something of a bit of a void, because I came to that role after the financial reviews of these organisations, so what I intend to do is highlight some of the things that I have gleaned from the report of the select committee. But before I do, I want to acknowledge the previous chair, of course, Sarah Dowie, who oversaw the reviews of these organisations, and wish her well in her new role.

I want to highlight first the examination by the committee of the Ministry of Education, and in particular the most recent announcement of the new Government in the implementation of fees free. Now, we have said quite a bit on this side of the House about the poorly targeted nature of this policy and the fact that $2.8 billion is going to go into the pockets of many, many thousands of families, mine included, who simply don’t need it. The question, therefore, one should ask is—and the committee did—is that money well spent? Is that going to lead to an increase in enrolments, particularly of people who might otherwise not have had the benefit of tertiary education? The answer from the ministry was “Well, it’s too early to tell, but 2018 enrolments don’t give any indication that there has been the slightest bump in the number of students enrolled in our tertiary sector.” So that’s $2.8 billion over the next four years, and no evidence that it’s going to make a blind bit of difference in increasing access to tertiary education. It shouldn’t have been a surprise—certainly it wasn’t to the Opposition, but it shouldn’t have been to the Government—if one looks at other policies of this nature around the world, and, in particular, Scotland, which, basically, went fees free right across the board and, indeed, it had no impact on access to tertiary education.

Now, it’s interesting to note from the report that of the 353,000-odd students in tertiary education in 2016, 51,550 of them are in private training establishments. The committee also examined this—and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—from the perspective of the international education market, something that I know extremely well from my nearly five years as Minister of Immigration, and the examination of the degree to which the policy the Government has about dispensing with the so-called low-quality courses and the estimated 15,000 to 22,000 international students fewer that would come to New Zealand as a consequence of that. Quite rightly, the ministry pointed out that that’s not a policy that they would oversee; that would be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but, clearly, they did have an interest in making sure that New Zealand as a destination for international students and the reputation that it has is upheld.

I note that having banged the drum for months and months and months on this issue—in fact, it was in this very, very place that the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway told this House we desperately need to take a breather, we’ve got to turn down the tap, and the big target was international students. So I note with a great deal of interest that the trigger has not yet been pulled on that policy. In fact, there has been a deafening silence on that issue; not entire silence, actually—my sources within the international education industry are telling me that Mr Lees-Galloway has been talking to them about it and providing quite reassuring tones about the fact that the Government will not be implementing the thing that they campaigned so stridently on last year. I think that’s a very good idea. As we note from the report, New Zealand is very internationally competitive. Even those so-called lower-value courses still provide a great deal of benefit to the students and to the country.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): It’s a delight to have the opportunity to stand here and talk to the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, particularly in the education area, being a member of the Education and Workforce Committee. Being a new member, it was wonderful to have the reviews of so many education entities, but the entity that I would particularly like to focus on is the Ministry of Education and the review that the Ministry of Education undertook with us.

As a new member of this Government, it is so obvious that we inherited a number of problems in 2017, when we took over as Government, in the education workforce. Those problems were more than obvious to me in my previous life as a principal and as a teacher and as an educator. I have never, in my time, witnessed such a low morale in the teaching workforce: high levels of teacher and principal burnout and the lowering of the ability to be able to teach the way that teachers know how to teach really well, because we had a narrowing curriculum due to the national standards that were put on us back in 2009. In fact, it’s the national standards part of the review that we had with the Ministry of Education that I’d like to focus on a little bit here, because that is the area that I believe caused great burnout, great stress to our teaching profession, and, actually, rather than an increase in achievement levels, led to a very, very worrying decrease in achievement levels throughout our children in this country.

National standards were introduced under urgency in the first sitting week of the 49th Parliament, and I just want to read out a little bit here about what the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, said at the time. He said, “As many as one in five students are being left behind. We need to identify those students early. The Government is providing $36 million and national standards will lift achievement levels for the New Zealand children.” In fact, in that time, achievement went backwards—$36 million invested for achievement to go backwards. In the review, we heard about the declining levels of our foundational literacy and mathematics skills. In the review process, the Education and Workforce Committee heard all about those decreasing levels, and since 2009 there has been a drop in 10-year-olds’ reading skills in our Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, or PIRLS, the acronym it’s known by.

While principals, who know and understand education in this country so well, pointed to national standards, the Opposition, in the review report, have said that they consider that while there are international data sets, the removal of the requirement for schools to report centralised progression information means that there will be no comprehensive individual school-level picture of achievement. So we’ve changed our rhetoric around national standards. We have an Opposition that’s grasping by their fingernails to actually justify why we had national standards in the first place. It went from the fact that we had one in five students who were failing to then “Oh, now it has to show individual school level of progression.” I’m confused. I’m not sure it shows any of those things. In fact, as I said, all that national standards led to was low morale in the workforce, teacher burnout, leading to the lowest numbers of teachers and the biggest teacher shortage that we’ve seen in many years.

This Government got rid of national standards. We are about improving children’s and learners’ achievement by focusing on the whole curriculum. We want to see our teachers having the time to teach and our principals having the time to lead. That is really important. So the fact that we got rid of national standards is an absolutely wonderful, wonderful, wonderful thing for our education system. It is fantastic. National standards were rushed and flawed. They were an experiment that had absolutely no backing in evidence whatsoever. This Government is about putting the evidence-based curriculum back. We’re about showing how wonderful our curricula are in this country. We have world-leading curricula, right from early childhood through to the schooling sector. We, by getting rid of national standards, are able to showcase those curricula in a wonderful way. I’m looking forward to seeing the achievement levels that our schools and our teachers are able to achieve with their learners in the future. Thank you, Madam Chair.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the annual review period that we went through—of course, my first as a new MP. I’d like to highlight two things that we discussed and that are part, of course, of this appropriation debate that we are having this afternoon. One of those things directly contrasts with some of what the previous speaker, Jan Tinetti, has just said, and it was a moment for me when the Secretary for Education, upon being asked how many of the 16 communities of learning, the COLs, that have achieved their achievement challenges will be keeping national standards, confirmed that it was all of them—all 16 of them. So for something that sounds so disastrous, that’s a really interesting stat right there.

But what I want to talk about this afternoon is the Education Review Office (ERO) report on partnership schools. The ERO came to our committee and they reported on a few things, but one of us asked: “What are your findings on partnership schools?” They said that it was a little bit too early to tell but promised to get back to us as a committee, and that they did. So what I’m about to speak on—much of it is verbatim. I’m reading out what they’ve written to us about their reviews of partnership schools, specifically their most latest round. They’ve had two rounds; term 3, last year, 2017. So they’ve said that baseline data appears to show that many students enter these schools well below curriculum expectations and there’s evidence to show that the cohort of students attending these schools are students where their needs have, and I’m quoting here, “not been well met by mainstream schools” or “who have not been regularly attending school.” So of the schools currently operating, what ERO found out is that all schools are catering for priority learners—all schools are catering for priority learners. The proportion of Māori or Pacific students is 100 percent or very close to that in all schools.

Here we go again: all schools are meeting the requirement for the percentage of the curriculum to be taught by a registered teacher with a current practising certificate—all schools. Here’s the next thing from the ERO. It said that the schools are providing a settled, calm learning environment for the students, who come with a wide range of often not very positive educational experiences.

Here we go again. The students that ERO spoke with were very positive. How positive? They were very positive about the support and encouragement provided by the teachers, and they expressed pride in their new school. How positive? Very positive. And, finally, all schools are working hard to monitor student attendance and engagement in learning. How hard? Very hard.

Two more points, as I finish up. Several schools, and I’m quoting again from the ERO, “are changing the school day in terms of time and core learning areas and time for students to follow their own interests and abilities. There is an emphasis on establishing a school culture that supports students to succeed.” That’s what the ERO said. So what is the problem here? This is what they are saying about partnership schools. So, take it in—take it in: “All schools are committed to meeting the individual academic and well-being needs of priority learners”—not just all students, priority learners.

The Government has called partnership schools an ideological experiment, but closing them is clearly a pragmatic one on their part, and what I have just read out this afternoon is a pragmatic response from none other than the Education Review Office. None of that sounded disastrous, did it? That is what we discovered during our annual review and it’s time for the other side to make a pragmatic response to undo their ideological one.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Madam Chair, I’d like to put in a complaint—an ethical complaint—against the member who just resumed her seat, Denise Lee. It is not fair to bludgeon the Government with facts like that! It is not fair to read out what the Education Review Office has said consistently about partnership schools kura hourua: every time they have been investigated, bar one, partnership schools kura hourua are well prepared, are innovative, and are serving populations of students who are otherwise failed by the so-called panacea of the State education system.

When I was looking through the annual review for this particular debate and this particular committee, I found a little piece of irony. There is under the heading “Legislation concerning partnership schools” a series of points about that legislation and about partnership schools, but what’s interesting is the paragraph above: “Māori and Pacific achievement in writing and reading declining right across the education system”. At a time when the Government has been elected saying that it is here to help the downtrodden, the people neglected, the people who haven’t had a decent chance in the one big gift the State gives them to make the most of their lives—and that is education—what comes after the paragraph saying, “Māori and Pacific achievement in writing and reading declining”? Well, legislation concerning partnership schools. And what does it say? It says the Education Amendment Bill would remove the partnership school model and not allow the establishment of new schools.

How does a Government come to a conclusion like this? How does a Minister who comes to this Parliament, who slogs away through Rimutaka for years and years, make these kinds of decisions? I don’t know. Folks, does he look at the evidence? Does he release the official Government report funded by the taxpayer, created by Martin Jenkins, on the performance of these schools? No, he does not. Does he give the schools the opportunity to make their case? No, he does not. He simply announces that “We won. You lost. Eat that!” Because the Labour Party won the election they’re able to take away the futures and the hopes of a group of students.

There’s Clayton Mitchell. He’s a thinking man; everyone in this Chamber knows that. He’s thinking, “I don’t think this is right. I think this Seymour guy has a point.”

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact of the matter is that these schools were working, and the fact that the Minister has refused to release the evidence, the fact that the Government members squirm so awkwardly—and some of the new backbench members did that fake laugh that they’re still perfecting when uncomfortable.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

DAVID SEYMOUR: There she goes again. It tells us that they know what they’re doing with partnership schools is wrong. But it gets worse than that. Not only is the underlying policy decision wrong for a Government that says it wants to help the downtrodden and give every Kiwi kid an opportunity; not only is it wrong to close schools against all the evidence, including the Government’s suppressed evidence that has said just that; not only is it wrong to close such schools, but the way it’s being done is going to be the first line in this Government’s epitaph.

The problem is, and we saw it in question time today, that the Minister came into the role so prejudiced by his heritage and upbringing that he didn’t take a moment’s time to consider the facts. He didn’t take a moment to think about the procedure around closing these schools. The report says there’s been no legal action just yet. Well, the people at home know what’s coming. They only have to wait. This Minister has conflicted himself; he’s tied himself up in knots; he’s ignored the facts that other Ministers in his Cabinet run the schools, spoke to his office, and have received money for running partnership schools exactly while he was damning them. He’s covered all of that up and it’s all going to come out, and not only is it bad policy, but the people on the Labour benches will rue the day that they rushed into bad policy, tied themselves up in knots, and wrote the first line of their Government’s epitaph.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in the last contribution we heard, I’m pretty sure I heard the member David Seymour say that Māori and Pacific Island achievement is declining. I’m pretty sure I heard that, and I’m sure I heard him repeat it a couple of times, and that there is an indictment on the previous Government and their education policies. For him to stand there and say that Māori and Pacific Island achievement is declining—

Hon Nikki Kaye: 54 to 74 percent, NCEA level 2.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —is the fault of that member over there who’s pointing her finger and spouting off. How can she possibly stand there and defend the record of her Government when she’s got her own mate over there from the ACT Party standing up and saying that Māori and Pacific achievement is declining?

Now, it’s been 10 years since I was a school principal, but when I started in 2001 at Kaitāia Intermediate School we did some testing and we found that 4 percent—4 percent—of our school population were writing at a level that we believed was acceptable. Over seven years, we got that percentage up to 80 percent, so from 96 percent failure to—let’s admit it—20 percent failure, which I’m not proud of. But when you hear the member over there speaking—and I’m sorry that I don’t know her name—you’d think that there was only one type of school that actually addressed these issues, when, in fact, every single school in New Zealand is doing their darnedest to make sure students achieve. You would think that there was only one type of school, and every other school—so, basically, 99.999 percent of other schools—in New Zealand was failing, when they’re not. We’ve got any number of schools that are decile 1, 2, or 3 who are teaching those hard-to-teach students and making them successful. Kaitāia Intermediate School was one of those schools well before national standards were even created.

I remember in 2007 I had the then MP for Northland, the Hon John Carter, come into my office and say, “Kelvin, Kelvin, when National become Government, guess what? We’re going to eliminate paperwork.” Well, how did that go for all the principals and teachers in all the schools in New Zealand, because if I thought it was hard enough in 2007 as a principal, apparently the paperwork quadrupled overnight when the National Government came in.

What happened? They absolutely devastated the teaching workforce, to the extent that people don’t want to be teachers any more. There is a teacher shortage in New Zealand, and it’s entirely the fault of the National Government. There’s overcrowding in schools, and that’s entirely the fault of the previous National Government—214 schools were over capacity and a further 488 schools at risk of becoming overcrowded. So what happened? Teachers had to teach in gymnasiums, in libraries, and in staffrooms, and that is not the best for learning. There’s a decline in tertiary participation from 2010 to 2015; it dropped from 40 percent to 35 percent.

And, of course, national standards, we’ve heard about them—how National just came along and drew this arbitrary line in the sand and said, “Everybody who gets over that line is successful; anyone who doesn’t get over that line in terms of their achievement is a failure.” What happens is that you have those schools where many kids start just under the line and, with next to no effort, they get over the line, so those schools are doing well. Normally, they’re decile 10 schools, whereas the lower-decile schools start from way down low. Teachers work, work, work, work, work and they raise kids any number of levels but still don’t necessarily get them over the line. They’re said to be failing.

It’s lucky that we have in the Hon Chris Hipkins probably the brightest and most productive Minister of Education in the last 10 years. He’s supporting New Zealanders into tertiary education. We don’t want cost to be a barrier to people achieving at post-secondary. Look, we’re reviewing our education system. We’ve announced a once-in-30-years opportunity to shape the way our schools are led. I was a beginning teacher in 1988-89, when Tomorrow’s Schools was introduced. Things have changed a lot in that time, and it’s important that we have a new look at the system. And, of course, as I’ve said, national standards are gone—thank goodness for that.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I didn’t wish to be rude and interrupt the member Kelvin Davis during his speech, but in an annual review debate, isn’t he supposed to address the annual review?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Technically, the person that is supposed to stay specifically on the review is the chair of the select committee. Other than that, it is broadly within the theme of the annual review specifically around education, and I would have to say that if the member had an issue with that particular speech, you would have to call a point of order with many other members’ contributions throughout this debate.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I am delighted to speak in this debate in terms of the financial review. The first thing I want to say is it’s great to be speaking on a financial review. The last Government increased Vote Education every single year that we were in office. It went to over a record $11 billion. But what is really disappointing is that we hear the kind of rhetoric that comes from an Associate Minister like Kelvin Davis, who has been totally missing in action. We heard from my colleague on partnership schools. This is a person that stood up in front of his electorate and said he would resign from Parliament if these schools closed. Well, I want to tell that member exactly what the history is in terms of Māori and Pasifika achievement: 54 percent to 74 percent young Māori achieving NCEA level 2.

What we also know in terms of partnership schools is that this Government has put them through a hell of a process. We’ve got some of our most vulnerable children in New Zealand, more than a thousand kids, some with very complex needs—and yes, we all do hope that these schools remain open. But the reality is that this Government put in a flawed process from the beginning. A lack of communication, an inability to demonstrate clear process around things like Ministers’ conflicts and perceived conflicts, an inability to tell these schools what their future was, shifting deadlines—it has been a complete shambles. We on this side of the House support the partnership schools model because, as my colleague Denise Lee already showed, they are getting results for some of our most vulnerable children, and we are, frankly, ashamed of the Government and its actions regarding partnership schools.

It is relevant to this financial review because New Zealand doesn’t know what the bill is for closing some of these partnership schools. We know it could be anywhere from $16 million plus a number of other payments that are being made, and the Government needs to front up on this issue.

In terms of national standards, again, we have a contrast with a previous Government that invested every single year in increasing Vote Education. We focused on accountability and high standards. This Government comes in. Ideologically, it wants to get rid of partnership schools. Ideologically, Chris Hipkins, overnight, says to every parent in New Zealand, “You don’t have a right to have a nationwide picture of achievement, so that we’re able to have absolute confidence in parent reporting.” He got rid of national standards overnight, but the reality is that people are fighting back. Parents are fighting back. Schools are fighting back. As we demonstrated in this financial review, of all those communities of learning, they are currently keeping national standards, not because we believe that will necessarily be the system in the future—we understand progression; we support a shift to progression—but because Chris did it without having the tools in place—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! If you would use the member’s proper name. Thank you.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The Minister did it without having the tools in place to ensure that there isn’t a whole lot more admin on teachers around reporting progression but also without ensuring that you have that reporting back to the ministry. That’s where, on this side of the House, we support progression, but we believe you need to invest in the tools that enable that nationwide picture of achievement.

Then also, on communities of learning—$360 million. Again, the Minister is out there, making changes. He’s not being transparent. In three core areas of education, which all focus on ensuring that we lift achievement and that we help some of our most vulnerable, on this side of the House we continued to increase the budget to raise achievement—particularly for Māori and Pasifika students, from 54 percent to 74 percent in terms of NCEA level 2.

On the other side of the House, we have a very clear theme here: ideology trumps lifting achievement, ideology trumps reporting to parents, and ideology trumps collaboration with communities of learning. So we are very proud of the previous investments that we’ve made, but, unfortunately for New Zealand, instead of moving together with cross-party agreement on core areas of education, we have an arrogant Government that has already moved without taking parents and a number of key people in terms of the profession with them to make these changes.

Young people—some of our most vulnerable, who have the most complex needs—will suffer because we won’t be able to know exactly where we need to target some of that resource, because we won’t have a good nationwide picture of achievement because we won’t have schools like partnership schools. We may have different schools, but we won’t be able to help those kids as much as we have been under some of these models.

We also won’t know things like the future of communities of learning. We support reviews, but 15 reviews in education?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I’d just like to address respectfully the statement made by the previous Minister of Education, the Hon Nikki Kaye, about schools fighting back with regard to national standards. It is on record—and it was presented to our Education and Workforce Committee—that two-thirds of teachers report that national standards narrowed the curriculum which they could teach, which I note that my colleague Jan Tinetti mentioned in this Chamber just previously.

A public good is defined as—and I quote—“a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or by a private individual or organization.” Many a time I have stood in this House, in community halls, in universities, and in hui and stated that education is a public good. Even this past week, or a few weeks ago, I dared the Opposition to disagree with me that education is a public good and to disagree with the proposition that the State—that the Government—should provide a high-quality education to all children in this country without cost as a barrier to entry, and their silence speaks volumes. It would seem to indicate that there is an unequivocal consensus in this House that education is a public good. The issue is, however, that there is a difference between service delivery and surplus.

There was a huge amount of debate this past election about financial management. As we’ve begun uncovering, the previous Government filled the void of huge funding gaps across every pillar of public service with nothing more than wayward, empty rhetoric about surpluses. This past election, a previous Prime Minister and subsequent Leader of the Opposition delivered what he believed must have been a zinger with the line “People can’t go shopping with your values.”, but what we’re finding, as the wool is lifted from our eyes and the books are opened, is that the real situation, financially, inherited by New Zealanders is that the Opposition valued little more than surplus.

The sad irony about their claim to good financial management is that somebody has to clean up the mess. You can only sweep issues under the rug for so long, and a lack of investment in early stages costs more in the long run. You can only pretend you’re good with the books until the dividends of under-investment begin to multiply.

What we’re talking about with education is literally our future. We’re talking about what should be a conscious investment in society. We are talking about our kids.

Myself and colleagues have spent months in select committee hearing of the ticking time bomb that we are facing in the education sector. Over the past decade, the number of people enrolled in teacher training dropped by 40 percent. Meanwhile, half of all new teachers are quitting within the first five years. Although it could be consistent with the teacher bashing and the union bashing that we’ve heard from the Opposition that created such a culture, it’s more likely the chronic devaluing of the contribution that teachers make to our society. This Government is committed to actively reversing that, beginning with our 30-year review of Tomorrow’s Schools.

Then there’s the critical issue of where our kids actually are learning. In select committee, we learnt that the school property portfolio—one of the Crown’s largest property portfolios, valued at $14 billion—has, according to the Auditor-General’s report, not been adequately managed. The funding provided did not take into account actual maintenance needs, 2,014 schools are over capacity, and 488 are at risk of overcrowding. It’s time to reverse that.

I’d also like to draw attention to the in-depth article from this past week from North & South, which provided personal stories from teachers and from parents of children with special needs who, for lack of resource, are being excluded from our education system. School principal Riki Teteina stated, “The child not only has to fit the criteria, they also have to be more severe than another child [who is] applying for the same funding. One will lose out.” That is what another parent called a situation such that it seems to be The Hunger Games for children with disabilities.

That is simply not good enough, and this Government will not stand for it. This Government is committed to delivering on an education system that values and nurtures our future.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and it’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the appropriations debate this afternoon.

I just want to reflect on some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, and especially where she started talking about personal stories. Well, I have a personal story that I’d like to share from a mother of two children who go to a partnership school in South Auckland. “My name is Shiri Te Whatu. My oldest son, Haimona Te Whatu, graduated as head boy from South Auckland Middle School in 2014. My youngest son, Moses Te Whatu, currently attends South Auckland Middle School and is in Year 7.” She says, “It is hard to put into words how invaluable South Auckland Middle School has been not only to my own children but also my wider whānau that have attended. I attribute my oldest son’s success to the step-up that SAMS gave him when the current schooling system was failing him. They were able to meet him at his level and empower him to succeed and exceed all our expectations. Due to the confidence and good study habits that he learnt at SAMS, Haimona finished Year 13 well and is now enrolled with Air New Zealand and studying a career in aeronautical engineering.”

A comment she makes—“I have three older daughters in their early 20s. It was always disheartening to see so many students—literally hundreds—start on the first day of school in Year 9 and then just a handful of students complete their schooling to Year 13. SAMS is an important and vital bridge to this obvious gap in our current education system. To take away a school or schools that have been so successful in excelling in results just does not make sense. As a responsible parent, I choose to make an informed decision and give my son the very best opportunity available to him. This is South Auckland Middle School.”

That is what this Government has done. It has pursued ideology over effective education which is making a difference in the lives of those who were not succeeding and not excelling through our education system. And I challenge the Minister of Education to go to South Auckland Middle School and to talk to Moses and to talk to Shiri Te Whatu and to talk about their experience and the life-changing experience that that school has been to that family in South Auckland.

This Government has been focused on ideology rather than on what is best for our children. Closing schools was this Government’s first priority in education, and what a shame—what a shame—that has been that the first thing this Government would do when it came to office would be to close schools. I would’ve thought that would be the last thing that they would be wanting to do, and at a cost of up to $20 million to the taxpayers—up to $20 million.

The question needs to be asked: why won’t the Minister go and visit? Why won’t the Minister engage? It’s because of ideology, rather than actually wanting what is best for our country’s children.

The second thing that they were focused on was scrapping national standards, leaving parents in the dark so that they wouldn’t have an understanding of where their child’s learning was at so that they would be able to understand where the additional support might be needed.

So the question has to be asked: what has this Government actually progressed? We’ve heard about what they’ve cut, but what are they actually progressing when it comes to education? Well, they’re progressing the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Quite simply, it rewords a couple of paragraphs explaining the objective of our education system. Whoop-de-doo!

The second is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. They’re changing the name of the Education Council. Well, that’s a big success, isn’t it? A massive, massive change that they’re doing!

Oh, and, of course, first year free education. I guess, hopefully, that one will be a success—no, no. A zero percent increase in enrolment in our universities—zero percent increase in our universities—when it’s going to cost $2.8 billion of taxpayers’ money. Well, that’s what I call a flop. That’s what I call a flop. And it’s all about the aspiration, it’s about the ideology, but it isn’t about what actually works for our children and what will work for our families, and on this side of the House, that’s what we believe in. We believe in backing our families, backing our children, and making sure that we spend taxpayer money wisely. Thank you very much.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve listened very carefully through this debate, and I’ve been waiting to hear the National Party defend their record in Government—talk about all of the things that they did when they were in Government in the education portfolio, because this, after all, is the annual review of their last year in Government. And yet, nothing—nothing—from them about what they did in the education portfolio when they were in Government, because they cannot find one single achievement to trumpet during their time in Government.

Let’s run through a few of the things that they might’ve mentioned, had they talked about their own track record in Government. They could start at the beginning with the funding freeze for early childhood education that existed for almost all of the nine years they were in Government. The select committee report makes it clear that even the National members think that the drive to increase participation has been at the expense of quality. Even the National members on the committee agreed with that sentiment expressed in the select committee’s report. So they could talk about that.

They could talk about New Zealand’s plunge down the international rankings when it comes to literacy and numeracy. Perhaps they could mention that and explain why, despite all of their hollow rhetoric, it is that kids’ reading, writing, and maths in New Zealand today is worse than it was when they became Government 10 years ago. They can’t explain that. I’m not surprised they don’t want to talk about that.

They could talk about the unfunded growth in our schools—the number of kids who are in overcrowded classes because for nearly a decade the previous Government didn’t invest enough money in making sure that schools were being funded to cope with growth. They could talk about Novopay. We all remember Novopay. They could talk about their plans to have bigger class sizes—their grand plan to improve educational quality by jamming more kids into every class.

They could talk about the shambolic way they handled the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake and the school reorganisation there. They could talk about their drive to close down special residential schools, despite a judge telling them that they were negligent in doing so. They could talk about the millions of dollars they’ve poured into communities of learning, for very little educational gain. Funnily enough, they don’t want to talk about those things, because that characterises their track record when they were in Government.

But it goes on. They could’ve talked about the state of the polytech sector. Ah! Now there’s a good one for them to talk about. They could talk about that. Eight out of the 16 polytechs in New Zealand had a decline in their enrolments of greater than 9 percent—greater than 9 percent. Why don’t they want to talk about that?

We’ve got a crisis when it comes to a skilled workforce in the trades, and they don’t even want to talk about it—just pretend that it’s not happening because it’s all happened under their watch. We have a critical shortage of tradespeople and, instead, they were running the polytech sector into the ground. We’ve already seen one of them go belly-up completely, and some of the others are in serious financial difficulty, and they turned a blind eye to that. Why don’t they want to talk about that during the annual review process? Because all of these things happened under their watch. All of these things could’ve been covered in the annual review and should’ve been covered in the annual review, but they don’t want to talk about that.

They do want to talk about charter schools—their one crowning achievement. And they talk about priority learners quite a bit. Well, I have got a message to the members opposite. For this Government, every learner is a priority learner. I want them to go out to the public and tell the parents of kids who they have decided are not priority learners why they don’t think that their child is a priority learner. Go and tell that to those children’s parents and declare to them why the National Party has decreed that their child is not a priority learner.

On this side of the House, every child is a priority learner. Every school will be a great school. Every child will have the opportunity to achieve to their full potential. We’re not simply going to draw a little circle or a little box around a group of children and say that they are priority learners and therefore we should only focus on them. We want every child to be achieving to their full potential.

Much has been said about the removal of national standards, and the National Party running round like Chicken Little, saying, “How will we know whether kids are achieving, without national standards? How will we know whether the education system is doing very well? How will we cope if we don’t have a nationally standardised measure of a child’s progress?” Well, guess what? National standards never supplied that. National standards were not national, nor standard, and they didn’t provide a measure of a child’s progress. That’s why this Government is very proud to have removed them.

Reports relevant to the Education Sector noted.

Environment Sector

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): I am very proud to stand here as the chair of the Environment Committee and present the annual reviews to the House. Seven entities were reviewed by the Environment Committee: the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation (DOC), the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the New Zealand Walking Access Commission, and Predator Free 2050 Ltd. They are, of course, all important, though perhaps some are more important than others—or more equal than others.

I’ll sort of take a little bit from each of those reports. Predator Free 2050 Ltd has a responsibility to help New Zealand to become predator-free by 2050. They have a strategy to eliminate at least one small mammalian predator from the mainland by 2025—to have research under way for that. It is partly because conservation in New Zealand really is about killing small furry animals. One of the things we’ve asked them to work on is social attitudes towards the killing of small furry animals. It sounds like a terrible thing to do but it’s critical for conservation in this country.

The New Zealand Walking Access Commission is involved with negotiating walking access and also cycling and motor vehicle access, but primarily walking access, over private land. But of particular importance is also increasing the access for Māori communities to wāhi tapu. So it’s very important work. Of note is that they are due for a review, which will be conducted by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority promotes energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy. We noted some concerns over the number of retrofits which were due to have been carried out. Their target for 2016-17 was 13,000 retrofits of insulation and clean-heating retrofits, but in actual fact only 4,340 were carried out. There may be some particular reasons for that which are noted in the report.

The Environmental Protection Authority administers the emissions trading scheme and it has a particular duty with respect to regulating hazardous waste. Of note is that it is developing a chemical map of New Zealand, as to where chemicals are located. This is particularly technical work that will be very valuable when it is completed.

But the big entities—the ones that are particularly important to us and that we spent a great deal of time working with—were the Department of Conservation and, of course, the Ministry for the Environment. I want to draw attention to one particular issue from the Department of Conservation report, and that is talking about marine bird populations and, the phrase that we’ve used—that they are particularly at risk. I think this is something we need to continue to pay attention to, as a Parliament.

Of particular concern to me here, in terms of my own electorate—and, I note, my colleague Chris Penk’s electorate—is the issue of kauri dieback. I think that is something, again, that this House should pay attention to, to monitor what the Department of Conservation is doing in that area.

We asked about what the Department of Conservation was doing with respect to climate change. Now, of course, that responsibility is actually held by the Ministry for the Environment. But, in particular, DOC might have some work to do around cultural change. They told us that they’d been careful to focus their cultural change efforts in priority areas but that had not, so far, included climate change issues. I think that could be of interest in the future.

But the one we’ve taken real trouble with is the Ministry for the Environment. I wish to draw attention to a particular phrase in our report, where the Ministry for the Environment said that “Critical boundaries are being reached for many environmental issues”—critical boundaries. Of course, one of those critical boundaries is climate change, which is the overwhelming moral issue of our time: how we will create a world and sustain a world for our children. It is a particular responsibility for the Ministry for the Environment, and I think we need to ask questions about how that responsibility has been addressed in the past.

Finally, the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—an independent officer of our Parliament who reports to us, the members of this House. I commend the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Chair, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this environment section of the debate. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the chair of the Environment Committee, Dr Deborah Russell, who I think has given a very fulsome overview of the review work that the committee has done.

One of the interesting things about our Environment Committee is that it’s a bit of a hybrid of what used to be the Local Government and Environment Committee in the previous Parliament. For those of us that were involved in that committee in the last Parliament, and I see the Minister in the chair, David Parker, was one of those, the committee has gone from being probably the busiest committee in Parliament to, at the present time, being the committee with the lightest legislative workload. So that’s meant that we’ve been able to concentrate on a range of things. We’re about to conduct a couple of briefings: one into marine plastic in our ocean space and one into kauri dieback—both of which will be useful.

The committee chair has gone through the subject areas that we covered in the committee, in terms of review: the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the Ministry for the Environment, the New Zealand Walking Access Commission, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It was a great pleasure to have appearing, at his first hearing before the committee, the new Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton. Of course he is a previous member of this House. I, for one, was impressed with his skill, his knowledge, and his understanding. I think that in his term we’re going to see a very good and comprehensive range of subjects addressed. He was kind enough to give us an indication of his work programme over the next year or two. As I said, I think that we will, as a Parliament, benefit from the work that he is going to do in his new role.

I want to just turn to a particular part of the report that details the Environmental Protection Authority. There was an unusual turn of events that took place at select committee last week, as we were required to report back in time to meet date deadlines for this debate. We had heard from the chief executive and the chair of the Environmental Protection Authority in mid-February. Strangely enough, as a result of questions in the House to the Associate Minister for the Environment, Eugenie Sage, and then also as a result of Official Information Act material that was released to me, after I had sought it, it became very obvious that the evidence that had been given by the chief executive in particular, in relationship to the EPA’s chief scientist and the departure of the chief scientist from the EPA, was at odds with information released under the Official Information Act and at odds with questions that the Minister had replied to in the House.

Now, the Minister came to the House today and provided an explanation as to some of that inconsistency, but we have, as a committee, accepted the invitation of the chief executive to return to the select committee this week. In our report, at page 220 of these documents, under the heading “Scientific independence”, a very unusual couple of sentences are there. It says, “We are unable to report on the issue of scientific independence due to additional information that has been received since the hearing. The committee has accepted the offer of the EPA to reappear before the committee, on which the committee will separately report.”

So what that means is that the chief executive—and, I suspect, maybe even the chair of the EPA—will appear before select committee this coming week, and we will have an opportunity to quiz them on evidence that they gave us in February. That’s a very unusual situation. It’s an unusual situation because it’s actually going to mean that there are two chief executives coming back to select committee this week to account for evidence that they gave at a hearing which now seems to be at odds with facts as revealed subsequently. That’s a serious matter. Select committees need to be able to rely on the veracity of evidence given by chief executives. So I, for one, will be interested to see what the chief executive of the EPA has to say.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill in the area of the environment—that’s a mouthful, certainly. I’ve had the pleasure of sitting on the Environment Committee, hearing the CEOs and asking questions, and I must say, across the House, we have a really effective group, I believe, of people who are very committed—very committed—to the environment. Most things we agree on, and we work towards protecting and supporting our environment.

There are a number of issues that the member Scott Simpson has raised in relation to having the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) come back this week. Absolutely, we all agreed last week that that would happen, and the matter will be clarified, I’m sure, with some great certainty this week. Just to note, as well, that the CEO was very happy to do so and, in fact, did not appear in any way to be concerned about doing so. So we look forward to hearing the response at select committee this week.

The environment is, I think, one of those areas that we all across the House can agree is extremely important. In fact, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, has said that the environment and protecting our environment is, in fact—I’ve lost the words now—our nuclear-free moment of our generation. Why is that important? We all inhabit this Earth. In fact, if we do not continue to protect and support our environment, we are not going to be able to move forward into the next generation or the next generation.

It is something that I believe is very shameful, that our country has increased our net emissions of carbon by 64 percent at the same time that the UK has decreased by 38 percent. What are we doing? What are we doing as a community? What are we doing as a country? We certainly need to take action, and one of the things that we’re doing is actually making a commitment to take action. We’re transitioning away from the reliance on fossil fuels to a high-tech, low-carbon economy. We’re going to be a leader, not a follower. I think it’s important that we do that.

We have a clean, green reputation, but are we really clean? Are we really green? If we are looking at our water—and I think we’ve all been aware of the water issue—we have a right in this country to have swimmable rivers. Across the House, there was a change in the standards. It wasn’t just swimmable; it went down to wadeable. I don’t think that’s good enough, our country doesn’t think it’s good enough, and, in fact, none of us deserve to be in water that cannot be walked in safely or swum in safely. We shouldn’t need apps on our phones to tell us where it is and isn’t safe to swim in this country. In fact, we shouldn’t have to have our seas closed and our beaches closed because of the rubbish that comes down, the sewage, etc.—the infrastructure that is destroyed.

We need to face this. We need to face this as a community and we need to face this in the House. It is really important that as a community and as a country, we do so. Our party has a plan. We are going to involve those across the House, but we’re certainly going to make sure climate change is a major factor.

Finally, I would like to talk about one billion trees, waste management, and the circular economy. It is really important that as a community, we work towards the circular economy. I’ve got four seconds left, so I’m not going to get to it. Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, it is an absolute delight, a privilege, and a pleasure to rise as the new Opposition spokesperson on conservation and to make a contribution in this appropriations debate. It is also a pleasure because during my time I get to acknowledge the track record in conservation that the previous National-led Government had in respect to seeking results in the conservation portfolio, engaging the public, and creating opportunity for all New Zealanders in this space.

I’d firstly like to take the opportunity to congratulate and thank the Hon Maggie Barry, who, of course, was the Minister of Conservation for a number of years in the previous National-led Government, and who was a champion of conservation, but, of course, a champion of our botany, of our plants, as well. In New Zealand, some of our threatened plants don’t necessarily get a fair hearing in respect to conservation. It’s usually the fluffy, furry animals that get most of the attention in regards to eradication, and our birds tend to get a lot of attention, but she certainly championed the War on Weeds and advocated for the department to spend more time in respect of eradicating weeds and championing our ecosystem for the health of it in its entirety. I thank the Hon Maggie Barry for doing that and bringing a new perspective to conservation.

But also, of course, under the previous Government’s watch, we had aspirational targets and aspirational initiatives that certainly are going to bring about tangible results, as I say, for all New Zealanders. Of course, one of those initiatives is Predator Free 2050—$28 million to form a joint venture company to seek out partnerships with the community and with businesses to help eradicate rats, stoats, and possums. Obviously, the main aim, of course, is to reduce the threats on our native wildlife, but this has other tangible benefits, such as providing better economic return for agriculture and forestry—so looking at New Zealand as a whole—and creating opportunities for regional development. Certainly, as the MP for Invercargill—that area encompasses many smaller communities that abut the national park. That is certainly important to allow our communities to touch and feel conservation, and to understand, first hand, the value of conservation and what it can bring to their community and to their families, to help them earn a living. That, of course, inspires Healthy Nature, Healthy People, which was another initiative under the conservation space—that, again, if we can understand the benefits of conservation, we can invest appropriately and see the wonderful benefits that it brings.

The other thing that I’d like to pay praise to the Department of Conservation for that was initiated under the previous National-led Government was a spirit to involve the community. I’ve touched on that with respect to Predator Free 2050. Certainly, to engage with the community on smaller-scale projects—that, eventually, will feed into Predator Free 2050—but to engage with communities to get children, families, and seniors involved in conservation, not only in respect to the community or businesses but also to form partnerships with other Government departments to bring about benefits moving forward. One of those partnerships is, of course, with the Department of Corrections—again, down in my area—with the formation of a partnership between the Department of Corrections and the Department of Conservation to build a kākāpōrium where offenders have learnt firsthand the skills of building and renovating to pull together a wonderful building to showcase the kākāpō and to allow the community to visit and see firsthand, again, the benefits of conservation. The National-led Government’s record in regards to conservation is second to none, and we should be praising that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Responding to the last speaker, Sarah Dowie, and the record of the last Government on conservation, I’m always a bit leery about these loaded terms like “predator-free by 2050”, “war on weeds”, and “battle of the birds”. It sounds to me a bit like Operation Enduring Freedom and the coalition of the willing. The problem with these high-sounding words when they’re not matched with a budget for the Department of Conservation is that they don’t meet the rhetoric.

“The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment,”—a World Bank economist used that phrase. I like to quote it because it’s true, and it’s especially true of New Zealand’s economy, which is so dependent upon natural capital: a benign climate and adequate supplies of water. If you don’t get the environment right, the economy suffers.

In the time that I’ve got available, I’m going to cover, briefly, climate change, water, some Resource Management Act (RMA) issues, and the Environmental Protection Authority, if I have time. There is a very large programme across the environment by the incoming Government. Climate change, as another speaker before me—the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—has said, is the nuclear-free moment of our generation. What are we doing? A net zero carbon target by 2050 is going to be legislated. A climate commission will be put in place to assist us to depoliticise the path to achieving that outcome. We’re going to go past the 90 percent renewables by 2025 target set by the last Government, and which we’re getting close to now as a country. We’re replacing it with 100 percent renewables.

On water—terrible. Seventy percent of monitored swimming sites have got increasing nitrate levels. I believe that the most important river to most people is the one they live closest to and use, and that it should be clean enough for them to pop down, swim in in summer, and put their head under without the risk of getting crook. That should also be alongside sustainability of the natural environment—that is, sustained by clean waterways—and we’re going to do a lot better in respect of that. We’re going to update the national policy statement and take many other measures to improve our water quality so that we stop it getting worse, because it is still getting worse in some areas, and within five years you will see material improvements. Once you see that in rural areas, rural people can be assured that they will have their social licence restored and that they’ll be given time to clean up to the levels we want to get to everywhere.

In urban areas, it’s great to see Auckland bringing forward more than $800 million of expenditure to separate sewerage from stormwater, and that’s going to reduce the sewage overflow on to beaches by between 80 and 90 percent in the next 10 years. That’s great that they’re doing that, and important that it be done.

On the RMA and urban planning, we’ve got some real problems in New Zealand with urban planning, as evidenced by the housing crisis that we’ve got in Auckland. We’ve got a substantial work programme bringing forward improvements in urban planning. On the back of that, at the end of that, we’re going to be bringing forward RMA reforms so that we’ve got more effective plan-making processes without ditching the environmental baselines that are so important, or excluding public participation or the role of the Environment Court—the Environment Court sidelined by the last Government.

In respect of solid waste, I’ll leave that for Minister Sage to speak to, but in respect of some of the other environmental initiatives, obviously, we need to get our carbon emissions under control. Now, the last Government reduced the effectiveness of emissions pricing by 75 percent. They excluded the 50 percent of emissions that came from agriculture, and then they had a one-for-two deal—that you had to remit one emissions right for every two units of emissions. Those two steps alone decreased the effectiveness of the emissions trading scheme by 75 percent in terms of the marginal price signal it sent. We’re going to fix that.

The last Government made it worse because they allowed unlimited quantities of Ukrainian and Russian hot air to flood the New Zealand system after Kyoto II disappeared, and those Russian and Ukrainian hot air units had nowhere else to go but into the New Zealand system. The last Government let the price collapse to about a dollar, which was of no effect whatsoever on short-term decisions, and it led to deforestation on the volcanic plateau that also added to sediment and nutrient losses to the Waikato catchment.

There’s lots that this Government’s going to do. We’re going to leave this country with a stronger economy and a cleaner environment. You do not have to choose between one or the other. You can do both with good policy, and that’s what this Government’s going to do.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I look forward to taking a short call to talk on the environment section here with respect to annual reviews, and follow some interesting contributions. I might start, actually, where the Minister David Parker left off when he was talking specifically about environmental reporting.

We covered that in the review, which you would expect, and, specifically, in our report. It said, unlike what has been intimated in the last five minutes, that we’re not starting from a blank sheet here—that, particularly with respect to environmental reporting, the previous Government did some huge initiatives. Yes, now we can talk about the areas that need to be focused on, but first of all you needed a measurement of where we were across the various domains. We brought in the Environmental Reporting Bill in 2015, and so it was great to hear at the committee around two more reports that have come from that, particularly the marine domain report and a freshwater domain report. It was only because the previous Government had an absolute focus on ensuring that reporting was required—because once you have an understanding of your position, then, of course, you can make the policy response accordingly. So it was very good to hear from the Ministry for the Environment officials around how effective those reporting frameworks that the previous Government brought in were.

We’ve already had some conversation this afternoon with respect to the zero carbon bill, and we heard from the officials the significant work that’s going in in their transition hub to scurry around and do the various analysis. There is a huge amount of analysis being put forward for the Government to understand what the implications will be of any targets that may or may not be legislated for in terms of the zero carbon bill. We heard the Minister previously, in the last few minutes, talk about this zero carbon. Yet again, there’s a lack of clarity from the Government in terms of the specifics around what that precisely means in terms of a definitional target.

One thing that we can be proud of, and that certainly was discussed during the review, was that, actually, our gross emissions over the last eight to nine years have remained flat. When you consider the growth of this economy under the previous Government, that actually, in itself, is a solid result. But, of course, if we’re to deliver against the 2030 target that the previous Government has committed the country to, there will be significant adjustments required in terms of our emission profile. That is where it gets interesting, because that is the sort of analysis that will be brought to the table and brought to the country over the next few months and people can see the scale of the change that’s required to deliver the 2030 targets that the previous Government has signed up to. It will cause, I think, people to reflect that some of the overblown rhetoric that you’ve heard on the other side of the Chamber around a lack of ambition in this space is, in fact, precisely that: overblown rhetoric. The transition required to get to the previous Government’s commitments will be significant.

I want to touch on freshwater management. It was discussed a few speeches ago. It’s important to recognise here this evening that the previous Government set new national targets for improving fresh water quality. Again, from some of the debate you hear on the other side, you’d think that that couldn’t possibly be true, but it is. We were the party that set that 90 percent of New Zealand’s larger rivers and lakes need to be swimmable by 2040. We were the party that set that. We then underpinned it by a reporting framework which shows where we need to improve against that target, and that is a Government with a real, clear view of, actually, how to make a difference in this space, as opposed to the sort of lightweight verbiage that we’ve had in some cases over the last hour on this topic.

What was really interesting, though, is, despite what the Minister has just said, over the last six months there was no advice received, according to the officials, that in any way suggested that those targets that the previous Government had put down were inappropriate or were not strong enough or, indeed, should change. So, again, this view that somehow over the next few years we’re going to see massive change here belies the fact of what the officials told us at the committee. If this was supposedly this big change that is coming, well, it hasn’t been discussed with the officials. They’re still working to the standards that the previous Government put together that say 90 percent of all rivers are to be swimmable by 2040—a testament to the good thinking that the previous Government brought to this space—and we will continually ensure on this side of the Chamber that any change to that is a change based on merit and good thinking, not flimsy, lightweight rhetoric. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It was good to be part of the debate.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, thank you. The conservation spokesperson for the Opposition claimed that the former National Government was second to none in terms of conservation management. What a joke, when it was under that Government that we saw major cuts to the department’s budget, the loss of over 220 staff, and a series of restructurings. This Government is determined to recognise that nature is at the heart of our success as a country, whether it’s in primary production or in tourism or in providing the essential services that we need in order to exist, like water. So we are investing more in conservation, or plan to, and I think what was shown in the 2016-17 year was some of the achievements of the department despite the underfunding.

It was in 2016 that the Department of Conservation, working with the Morgan Foundation, the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand, and Island Conservation, set about doing a winter poisoning effort on the Antipodes Island, remote from New Zealand, to get rid of 200,000 mice there. The mice monitoring team came back recently and declared that that operation was successful and there are now no more mice on Antipodes Island. That operation was critical for the threatened plants on the island, for a lot of the invertebrates, for the birds, like the parakeets and the pipits, and also for threatened species like the wandering albatross. Elsewhere, in the South Georgia area, mice have been predating on albatross chicks.

Yet, in question time today, we had the Opposition spokesperson for conservation talking about why the Government isn’t going ahead immediately with cameras on boats. National, once again, was doing something that was facile. It was trying to roll those out without looking at all of the technical difficulties for that. So, on the one hand, National is complaining that this Government’s effort to ensure that cameras on boats actually work is not something to be supported, yet National, when it was in Government, failed to do a review of the Hector’s dolphin and Māui’s dolphin threat management plan. Minister Nash and I have directed our officials to give urgency to that work in reviewing the threat management plan. If National had been at all concerned about dolphins, it would have initiated that work instead of leaving it, yet again, to this Government to actually clean up after National.

We had, under National, a failure to plan for the huge increase in tourism numbers in New Zealand—the extra million visitors that we’re going to be getting a year. The Department of Conservation estimates that tourism is worth about $34 billion to New Zealand, but the department has only got in revenue around $20 million. There has been a failure to plan, a failure to be strategic about that tourism growth. It has left the department cleaning toilets and spending a lot of staff time and resources providing for visitors but not thinking, as a country, how those visitors move around and where regional infrastructure needs to be improved to handle them. That is, again, something that this Government is looking at: how we better plan for tourism, so that regions can get the benefits of that and so that those visitors can contribute to the protection of the places they come to enjoy and also contribute more revenue to the Government of New Zealand.

There’s been a failure, too, in terms of kauri dieback. That was a major initiative under the last Government. Certainly, there was money spent on upgrading tracks and providing cleaning stations, but there was a real lack of dealing with the seriousness and the threat to trees like Tāne Māhuta. This Government, Minister O’Connor, and myself, have committed to a national pest management strategy for kauri dieback, again, to fill the holes left under the last Government.

Minister Parker talked about all these slogans in conservation: the “War on Weeds”, the “Battle for our Birds”, “Predator Free 2050”. Yes, there was a tag line—“predator free by 2050”—but there has been no strategic plan to actually achieve that. One of the first things I’ve done, as Minister of Conservation, is ask officials to develop that strategic action plan rather than just having a PR tag line which wasn’t supported by a clear process of how it’s actually achieved. I’ve also made it really clear that that plan won’t be involving experimentation with genetically modified organisms to try and eradicate mammalian predators. We have the tools to do it; we can. This Government will be investing in conservation and recognising the key role that the department plays.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I’m very happy to take a call on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill in the area of the environment, especially as I serve on the Environment Committee. As a first-term MP, having only been around for about six months, I had expected to have a very busy time in select committee. After all, select committee is where all the grunt work happens, as we know: where we pull apart and forensically analyse legislation, we consider each clause in great detail, and we hear the views of interested parties and the New Zealand public. Based on this, we make changes to greatly enhance legislation. This is long, hard, tough work, and I had expected my committee to be very busy, to be swamped with legislation, to be up night after night poring over Government bills with long hours in select committee.

I expected this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there was the rhetoric from the Labour Party prior to the election. We heard from Ms Ardern about her plans to clean up rivers and tax water bottlers, and about how climate change was her nuclear-free moment. Ms Ardern talked up a storm, and I thought, “Wow! My committee is going to be swamped.” The second reason that I expected to have a busy, hard-working committee was because of the Greens. As they are in a supply and confidence partnership in this three-headed coalition, one could reasonably expect that the Environment Committee would be very busy with all the legislation the Greens have been preparing and campaigning on over the last decade or so, just waiting for their chance to be in this very position that they’re in today.

So we could reasonably expect to have a very busy Environment Committee, if not the busiest committee. In fact, I have it on very good authority that the Environment Committee was one of the most hard-working committees in the last Parliament. After all, the previous National Government had introduced Predator Free 2050, Battle for our Birds, the War on Weeds, and the fresh water legislation that introduced enforceable standards and a reporting framework that has never been seen in this country before. So one could be forgiven for thinking the Environment Committee in this Parliament is a very busy committee, given our history and the Government’s supposed focus on the environment.

The reality is that other than the annual reviews, the Environment Committee has conducted over the last number of weeks, our workload has been almost nil. Our committee looked at the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill. It was a wonderful bill and I was very happy to work on it, but I can see why we were given it: we didn’t have any other work. The only other bill we’ve had in front of us is the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill—a National Government bill worked on by my esteemed colleague the Hon Maggie Barry—and really, that’s about it. So here we are six months down the track with a supposedly green-focused Government with no green legislation. What this clearly shows is that the talk from the Labour and Green Parties prior to the election was just that; it was talk.

Hon Scott Simpson: Virtue signalling.

ERICA STANFORD: Green virtue signalling—you got it, Mr Simpson. The last six months of the Environment Committee with no work clearly shows that this Government was not ready to govern.

What I would like to say, though, is that the only thing that the Greens have had an impact on in the environmental space is to put the kibosh on having cameras on commercial fishing vessels. So for all their talk about wanting to protect seabirds and dolphins, their actions say otherwise. They are deferring the deployment of these cameras on commercial fishing vessels and they cannot explain why. In fact, we had the Department of Conservation present to our committee in the annual review process and we asked them specifically about cameras on commercial fishing vessels. We asked, “Does the department maintain its policy position that cameras on fishing boats are essential if we are to reverse the decline of the seabird species that we see in your annual report?” The answer from the Director-General of Conservation, Lou Sanson, was yes, absolutely. So despite the department backing this measure, despite the Australians and many of our Pacific Island neighbours using these cameras to alter behaviour and protect marine life, the Green Party has deferred the deployment of this tool.

So far this year, my committee has had one piece of environmental legislation: a National Party bill. We’re about to get another one, a fantastic National Party member’s bill in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson, to combat littering. We have had no Government legislation. The only thing we’ve had from this coalition is the deferring of a tool that the Department of Conservation desperately wants and needs to protect seabirds and dolphins. And that’s all I’ve got time for.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill with the theme being the environment. I’m not on the Environment Committee, but I have read the reports. Like any other New Zealander, and like everybody here in this House, I’m sure the environment is of huge concern now and going into the future. [Pause in speech]

Hon Member: That was a good speech!

JO LUXTON: Thank you. Thank you. If we continued on the path that the previous Government had been on, our environment would suffer to the point where, as the ministry said, critical boundaries are being reached for many environmental issues in New Zealand, and addressing these issues will require significant shifts in approach. Now, what did the previous Government do with regard to climate change? Not much: hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil. Do as little as possible. Oh, hang on a minute. There was a little bit of lip-service given here and there. We heard things like “wadeable”. We heard things like “being a fast follower”. How aspirational! What an aspirational previous Government New Zealand had—clearly not.

All we saw was a failure—a failure to address climate change or be ambitious in any way about climate change. It is time to focus on addressing environmental issues. I think about the environment now and I think about it when I was a child, and it is so different now. I remember being able to go swimming in my local river, my local lake—

Angie Warren-Clark: Drinking out of your river.

JO LUXTON: Yeah, drinking out of the river, actually. Yeah, that was a really good fun thing to do. But looking at it now, there’s a river not far from where I live and I used to take my children there swimming. We’d have fish and chips on a Friday night and go swimming in the local river. There is no way—no way in heck—that I would consider doing that now. I wouldn’t even take my dog for a walk down there, for fear of the dog getting sick.

Hon Willie Jackson: And that’s the National Party’s fault.

JO LUXTON: That’s right. So as Chlöe Swarbrick, a previous speaker for the Education and Workforce Committee, said, we’ve inherited a right mess—an absolute right mess. We’ve been left in a real state. The previous Government was of the opinion that you should choose the environment or the economy, but not both. Why shouldn’t we have both? We sell ourselves on our clean, green image. Tourism is one of our main income earners, and yet if our environment is an absolute mess, totally polluted, well, there goes our tourism. That’s a huge amount of money that is brought into our economy through tourism, so I don’t see why we cannot have them side by side. There should not be any cause or any reason to make it a choice.

We talked about fresh water. The previous Government felt that “wadeable” was aspirational. Let’s have wadeable—and then perhaps we could have “swimmable” by 2040. Swimmable: does that mean we could put our head under the water without getting sick or—? I don’t know. What does that mean? With the quality of our water in our waterways, we are seeing some aquatic life, freshwater fish, coming close to being extinct, and that is really sad and that is shameful. It is shameful that the environment is in a situation that, potentially, our grandchildren would not be able to swim in those rivers and not be able to swim in those lakes. But it is OK because we have a new Government, and this Government has a plan. We have a plan. We have a plan to clean up our waterways. We recognise the importance of our environment, and we value our environment. It has to be good for our people, it has to be good for our economy, and the two can go side by side.

Clean water is our birthright. We should be able to go and swim in our local rivers and things without fear of getting sick. So this Government has plans for fresh water in regard to the fact that we will insist that our rivers and lakes are swimmable for New Zealanders and liveable for our native freshwater species. We are pushing ahead with setting proper standards to improve fresh water quality, and preliminary work to create a national policy statement for fresh water has begun. So there is hope for the environment.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure indeed to stand and speak on this, on behalf of New Zealand First, the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, with the environment as its theme.

I’d just like to note some of the previous speakers on this—particularly, the Hon David Parker. Now, he mentioned that if you don’t get the environment right, then the economy suffers. This could not be further from the truth. It is absolutely imperative that we do get this right. Also, I make note of the Hon Scott Simpson in his speech earlier, talking about the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that came in for their review and how the CEO is to return to the Environment Committee following the evidence that was given earlier in February and the fact that the entire select committee was in agreement that this should happen.

The Hon Eugenie Sage talked about the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) achievements, despite the underfunding. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more, as we look at what in fact is the role of the kaitiaki of our beautiful nature’s stores: maintaining and restoring the diversity of our natural heritage. Stepping out as we go into the great outdoors, something that all of us as Kiwis enjoy doing—it’s a unique experience. It’s on offer in our nature’s stores. It’s part of what it means to be a New Zealander. This is why so many visitors come to our country. They come to experience our conservation estate, and so, therefore, as kaitiaki of this, we all have a role in it, as DOC does, and we charge them with that.

This is our natural taonga. It is something we are very proud of as New Zealanders, and this is why so many tourists come to New Zealand. DOC reported in its annual budget that the allocation for capital works in 2016-17 including property was $16.105 million; however, they only spent $9.110 million, leaving a further $6.995 million unspent. It’s held off from investing in some of its capital works in order to assess changes in the tourism industry and how it might better target its resources. We hear stories all through summer of freedom campers and those that litter our beautiful flora and fauna when they go camping and leave behind all manner of remains, whether it’s paper or other matter indeed. This is an area of concern for DOC and the resources that they need to put into cleaning up after our tourists.

Our tourist industry is worth about $34 billion, and, as the Hon Eugenie Sage pointed out, the DOC only receives about $20 million in revenue from that—also, noting too, with our regional councils and local governments working in with DOC to ensure that we do have facilities provided. That’s something this Government will take a focus on, in making sure we’ve got adequate parking for all these campers at all these popular nature spots. It’s important that these places will cater for the tourists that come here, because it is right that we share our beautiful natural spaces with them. They come here, they spend their money, and we also need to ensure that they can look after and clean up after themselves.

I’d like to also make note of one special project which we’re very proud to be involved with, and that’s our one billion trees project. Now, this Government will make sure that New Zealand plants these one billion trees over the next 10 years. Those trees will improve our emissions profile, it’ll help to limit climate change, that we’ve heard all about, and these trees will help with our water quality, which is very important—that will be by limiting river bank erosion. Now, this tree-planting programme will benefit New Zealand’s provinces. It will benefit our environment and, naturally, then it will also benefit our people. Our climate change objectives will be advanced, and our use of natural resources will be more sustainable and productive.

What I do really like is that these one billion trees are not just Pinus radiata—although Pinus radiata are very good if you are wanting to build a Lockwood home—but also, too, there is going to be a mix of a large range of native plants. We can look at tōtara as well as mānuka; they will be forming a large part of these native plantings up to our one billion trees project. So on that, kia ora koutou.

Reports relevant to the Environment Sector noted.

External Sector

SIMON O’CONNOR (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m going to focus, effectively, on three entities today who delivered two reports to one select committee. So I’d like to begin talking around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), and if I might—it’ll be a bit of a theme as I touch on these various groups—thank the team at MFAT for the work that they do. As we learnt—though some of us may have already known—there’re 57 New Zealand posts in over 50 countries, with only 230 diplomats. I mention that because when you deal with other diplomats from other countries—say, America, Canada, Great Britain—they have much, much larger service personnel. So our people are few, but they do a remarkable job across the world in representing New Zealand. We took quite a bit of time going through how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is working and what its focuses are, and, by and large—and I think it’s primarily coming out of Government and the period of time that we are focusing on being in the National Party time—we’re very happy with what they are doing and the focuses that they have.

Three elements, though, leapt out at us. One was around the whole question of Manus Island. The committee was very interested in what is happening at Manus and, in particular, what is New Zealand’s understanding of the situation there. It became very clear, and has continued to become very clear, that there are multiple agencies that we as a select committee need to engage with—and we have done so over the recent weeks. But what we’ve been particularly interested in is the Government offering to take a number of people from this island. Well, what is the nature of these people? We want to understand, and it wasn’t so much disappointing that we didn’t get the answers that we were hoping for, I think, as a committee. So we’re going to continue engaging in that, and particularly for the safety and security of the realm and better understanding of the people in New Zealand of this offer that the Government’s put forward.

As you might expect, we asked a number of questions around the supposedly Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. A lot has been lauded about this new agreement. Really, apart from the words “Comprehensive and Progressive” added to the title, very little has changed, and the committee was able to delve in to that a little with officials from MFAT to understand, in effect, that little has changed. I’d encourage members to have a look at the report.

The other element we did touch on briefly was really around New Zealand’s engagement with other countries—obviously, our interest around Brexit, around free-trade agreements. I’d register my disappointment in what we do seem to see from this Government—and it does seem to be one particular member from a political party who seems almost fascinated by Russia and, for some reason, a free-trade agreement with Russia over others. New Zealand’s a very open environment, but why that country or area’s being prioritised over others is unclear, and I’d put on the record, again, my concern over what’s happened in recent weeks, particularly around Salisbury, and the New Zealand inaction that has followed.

We heard from the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force together—really quite fascinating, and I think it’s appropriate, as I stand here today, actually, news has just come out that CDF, the Chief of Defence Force, Lieutenant General Tim Keating, is actually announcing his standing down. I’m sure other opportunities will come up, but I’d like to thank him for his service in that role. I’d also like to take the opportunity to actually thank the New Zealand Defence Force, who looked after myself and several other colleagues who a couple of weeks ago were actually in Kabul in Afghanistan and in Baghdad in Iraq. What our guys are doing overseas is quite tremendous, both there in the Persian Gulf and in other sectors.

Look, the defence portfolio is an enormous spend, and I think the committee was quite conscious that we have a new Government now that—and we’ve heard it in some of the discussions prior—is promising everything to everyone. And the thing is that we—

Hon Scott Simpson: Delivering nothing.

SIMON O’CONNOR: And delivering nothing, to date—in fact, very little legislation, even, as we are finding in the House. But one of the great challenges is where all this money is going to come from, and we did discuss as a committee the whole question of the P-8A Poseidon—so that’s our surveillance aircraft. We do need to upgrade the fleet. We have, basically, 50 to 60-year-old planes at the moment. We know we need new heavy-lifting planes like the Hercules. We’ve got a number of options there we need to explore. As you might expect, all of these cost huge amounts of money. That’s already been signalled as important by the defence forces and the Ministry of Defence.

On the really positive front—because I try to be a positive person—the purchase of the new Modular Assault Rifle System – Light, or the MARS-L, firearms have gone down very well with the military. I understand they’re been integrated into the forces at the moment.

The last thing—and it is a call to the Government—is I did raise with those in front of us the need to maybe bring the Invictus Games over here to support our disabled troops. We’d love to see the Government pick that up.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It’s a great honour to stand here and deliver the Government’s message on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill on this particular theme, external. There’s one particular area that I was interested in, and that is the rhetoric that we hear from the Opposition side around what was the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). The TPPA that the National Government at the time negotiated was a bad deal for New Zealand. It exposed our housing market. It rung in new investor-State dispute settlement privileges for overseas corporations while excluding many of New Zealand’s top exporters from the deal.

At the time, the Labour Party outlined clear opposition and concern to what was being proposed, and what has happened since is this Labour-led Government, this Government led by the Labour Party with our coalition partners New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partners the Green Party, has demonstrated to New Zealanders that we have stuck to our principles, that we have stuck to our clear commitment to free trade and looking after our exporters but also ensuring that New Zealand exporters and New Zealanders do not miss out.

What my party, the Labour Party, was concerned about was fundamental rights that people in this country expect, like the right to be able to buy a home without competing against overseas speculators.

Hon Member: That’s right—a fair deal.

KIERAN McANULTY: A fair deal for the average person in this country, the ordinary worker that works hard 40, 50, 60 hours a week and struggles to buy something that their parents’ generation and their grandparents’ generation almost took as a right in this country—to be able to buy a home for themselves and their families.

We were told that there was no way that we could as a Government negotiate provisions within the TPPA to ensure that we can protect New Zealanders from overseas speculators in the housing market. We were told that this was impossible. And then, as soon as the Minister was sworn in, the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, David Parker, went overseas and proved the National Party wrong. He proved to New Zealanders that the National Party were more interested in the interests that the average and ordinary New Zealander is not. So the solution to this has now come about in a clearly different deal: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—a completely, comprehensively different deal that will deliver for this country. What it has demonstrated is that this Labour-led Government is committed to the interests of New Zealanders, and, as I mentioned earlier, it is the homeownership issue in this country that is the most obvious objective that we had and accolade that we have gained, leading into this.

The Government’s ability to control the sale of New Zealand homes is being presented by separate legislation, and it will not be affected by the CPTPP, despite National’s claims, but purely down to the quick action of this Government, and in particular the Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon David Parker, who delivered something that is of utmost importance to the people in this country: the capacity to buy a home. Why is it too much for the National Party to grasp that people in this country want to be able to be given a fair deal? Why is it that it is too impossible for the National Party to understand that it is not unreasonable for people who work hard to be able to want to buy a home?

It was once a situation that this was just an issue facing Auckland. Now it is an issue facing the whole country, including places like where I live, in Masterton. It wasn’t that long ago that Masterton was projected to drop in population. Now we are growing considerably because of the pressure in places like Auckland and Wellington, where people cannot afford to buy a home. They’re shifting to the regions, and now we’re finding in small places like Masterton that homeownership is now an issue. So good on this Government and good on the Minister for actually delivering what people wanted when they went into this election and they elected a change of Government.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): What a dismal, disappointing speech that was from Mr McAnulty. In fact, in just five minutes he was able to demonstrate that he knows less about trade than Willie Jackson knows about unemployment. Well, actually, Willie knows a lot about unemployment; what he doesn’t know about is employment and, therefore, that’s a challenge for this Government, because Willie Jackson could be known as the “Minister for Unemployment” very soon.

To Mr McAnulty: it’s good when you get the script right, you read out what they’ve told you, but, look, as a list MP you should leave and let the next person on the list have a go, because it can’t get any worse. At the very least, give some of your salary back, because I think the people of New Zealand deserve more than that. When it comes to important trade issues, Mr McAnulty, you’ve got to know who your mates are, and when you read out the list of the great achievements of this Government in coalition and how you’ve delivered what you said it is that you would for New Zealanders, you forgot that on that side of the House there is only one party that stands by its principles, and that’s the Green Party, because they haven’t changed their position just because they’re in Government. They still oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

There are two other parties who actually are the Government because they’re in coalition, and the only thing that they might change faster than that is Willie Jackson’s haircut. The reason for that is because the moment they got into Government, they did what every single protester that turned out with them up and down the country holding placards against the TPP knew they would. They sold them out from the streets of New Zealand, up and down the country. But they did what was good for New Zealand, which is to support a trade deal, the revised TPP, that largely is not changed from the one that they had voted against not so long ago when they were on this side of the House. So you’ve got to give them credit there. You’ve got to give New Zealand First credit. They kept a straight face when they stood up on the platform and said, “It’s the worst deal we’ve ever seen.”, and they kept a straight face when they tried to pretend that it had been changed.

So let’s look at that one issue on the list that David Parker says they only got half right, and that’s the issue of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). So here’s a question for the Government and Mr McAnulty, as he’s working out how much of his salary he should give back: can foreign companies still sue the New Zealand Government under the ISDS clause of TPP? It’s really simple. You don’t need to take your shoes and socks off to count this one. The answer is yes, that they can; they can still be sued. Absolutely they can. Willie Jackson says, “Not really.”, but that’s what he used to say on his radio show before that lady came in with the dog, and you were very quiet after that, Willie, when she came to get you with her dog. So, putting all this aside, the New Zealand Government can still be sued.

So, on that, when you look at all the things they’re going to achieve, that’s a great big fail, except in one area. When it comes to a contractual dispute under ISDS over price, for instance, then you can’t be sued, but, actually, in everything else, you can be. It is still there. That’s a fail for the Government, and it’s really important that Mr McAnulty and the trade Minister and particularly Winston Peters go back out on those platforms and tell New Zealanders that actually they haven’t fixed all the things that they have. It’s very much the same deal. It was a good deal when it was negotiated by the last Government. It was a good deal when the majority of this House voted in favour of it, including the Mayor of Auckland who was a member of the Labour Party at that time. So you’ve got to remember that Phil Goff, who knows more about trade than all of them over there added up together, crossed the floor to vote in favour of TPP. He voted in favour of it. He said it was a good deal, it was still worth doing, and he was supportive of it. He’s not a man that ever had to give some of his salary back. In fact, he was never a list MP, so he had a much longer career than at least two of the people I’ve been speaking of.

But here is the simple fact about this trade deal, which is that David Parker stands up today and says that, because of the challenges of what’s going on between China and the US, where they bring tariffs and protection against each other, it’s a deal like the TPP, he said, that actually secures a future for New Zealanders. And it did before; it did now. Of the 6,000 pages of the original TPP deal, there are about two pages’ worth of changes. I’ve got to say to Mr McAnulty, to Mr Jackson, and to your trade Minister, David Parker, that after all of that hard work you deserve a lie down! Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, what a lot of bluster! I’ve been listening to bluster for nine long years on trade. I must say, I was astounded to sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and find out what a shambles the place was in. What on earth had they done? They’ve not only let our country fall apart but our foreign relations fall apart as well. And to read the Auditor-General’s report on the dodgy Saudi sheep deal—quite frankly, my jaw hit the floor. Now, I’m not saying that there was any corruption in the New Zealand side of that deal, but, quite frankly, it did not meet the standards of integrity which we expect. That’s just one example of running down our foreign service.

Now, if we look at what happened in that deal, there was money paid for nothing. The sheikh in Saudi Arabia got $11 million of benefits because he stamped his foot. Quite frankly, if you look at the contractual obligations in there, there was nothing there. And what’s more, if you look at the delivery itself, delivery from New Zealand providers, who now is the owner of the very companies who were providing that service? The sheikh—the sheikh himself.

I was frankly appalled to see that under the National Party’s watch there were shonky deals being done by one of our services which prior to that had the highest reputation. I can see that what has happened there is that the morale of that service, of those fine people in those overseas missions, has been eroded—eroded because of the cuts, because of the huge and sweeping cuts that were proposed. We know that ambassadors and consuls of our own service spoke against what the Minister was proposing to do. That tells us a lot. It tells us that there was a massive rift, a division between governance and what was going on on the ground.

We need to value those people because we know that what they’re doing in those overseas missions is extremely challenging and that the resources we give them are straitened enough as it is. And to suggest that we get 600 of them, of the members of our foreign service, of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to reapply for their jobs and 300 of them are going to go—no wonder they felt broken. No wonder they didn’t feel loved by the National Government—because they weren’t.

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

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Before the dinner break, I was bemoaning the state of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the fact that it had, in effect, been run down over the last nine years, and, in fact, eviscerated in large part. And because of the loss of morale through that, one of the real concerns we have is the loss of very senior staff, and whilst I have nothing but praise for the people who have been assisting the committee throughout my time there and who reported to us, it is very clear that many of the staff left because of a real disenfranchisement, a sense that they weren’t being valued, that the important work that they were doing wasn’t being valued, and one of the tasks ahead of that department is very clearly a rebuilding of the capacity, the expertise, and the experience.

So the plan to make 300 staff redundant, make 600 employees reapply for their jobs, was really an utter misstep, especially with the times that we are in today—times of huge uncertainty in the international arena. In fact, 79 jobs were lost and, of course, those other experienced staff who left voluntarily were a matter of real concern. It is no wonder that 49 ambassadors and heads of foreign missions voiced their concerns in making a submission against that restructuring proposal—and quite publicly too. As I was saying, that’s a matter of concern—that there was a public rift in the Public Service in that sense, especially in a sector of the Public Service that has such a proud tradition of loyalty, a proud tradition of being utterly at one with the Government, but on this they were at odds and indeed that has been a huge problem from here.

And, Mr Chairman—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry; the member’s time is up.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Bills

Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill be now read a third time.

The bill addresses the prejudice, stigma, and other negative effects caused by convictions for historical homosexual offences. The Justice and Electoral Committee considered a petition from Wiremu Demchick and 2,111 others calling for an apology to those convicted of consensual homosexual acts prior to 1986 and a process for reversing those convictions. An apology was made in the House on 6 July 2017 by my predecessor as Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, and the bill has created a process for expunging these convictions from criminal records.

The bill provides for a statutory scheme that allows people convicted of historical homosexual offences to apply to have their convictions expunged. The Secretary for Justice must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct would not be an offence under today’s law. In particular, this will include the secretary being satisfied that all parties involved were 16 years or older and the conduct was consensual. The convicted person, or a representative of the convicted person if they are deceased, can make an application for expungement. Eligibility under the scheme is for people convicted of any of five specific offences. These include offences that were decriminalised under the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 and their predecessor offences.

If expungement is granted, it entitles the convicted person to declare they have no such conviction for any purpose under New Zealand law, and the conviction will not appear on any criminal history check. It’s an offence for officials to disclose expunged convictions. There will no compensation, however, as this would go beyond the purpose of the scheme, which is to prevent further negative effects from the stigma of conviction. There’s no general principle that a person who’s convicted of a repealed offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of the offence. In this instance, there’s no suggestion that the convictions in question were wrongfully imposed, as they were in accordance with the law at the time. The bill sends a clear signal that discrimination against homosexual people is no longer acceptable and that we are committed to putting right the wrongs from the past.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who’ve been instrumental in the passage of this bill: firstly, the Hon Amy Adams, who introduced the bill to the House; secondly, the members of the Justice Committee, who spent considerable time and effort hearing submissions, considering very carefully the detail of the bill, and coming up with the bill that is more or less intact as we embark on its third reading. I’d like to thank all parliamentary parties for their backing of the bill and for the constructive way in which this bill has progressed through every stage of the House. The bill has enjoyed widespread support as it has passed through the House. Can I acknowledge the many, many other citizens including the women and lesbian women who have been part of this cause for justice, supporting the men and their families who have been wrongly stigmatised for so long, both before, but especially since, the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986.

One of the calls in the petition from Wiremu Demchick was for an apology, and indeed the Hon Amy Adams referred to a motion in the House—or, in fact, moved a motion in the House—providing for that apology. That was in terms of apologising to what were described as homosexual New Zealanders who were convicted for consensual adult activity and to recognise the tremendous hurt and suffering that those men and their families have gone through. Can I say—not because that apology was not genuine; it was, from this Parliament—and add a personal touch, as the current Minister of Justice on behalf of this House and all members who have passed through it since Parliament was established in New Zealand, and say sorry to those men who have carried the stigma and shame of doing nothing other than expressing the love for the person that they did love and to the families who have shared that shame and embarrassment as well, and to the many thousands of others who lived in eternal fear of a law that was unjust and, to our mind, improper; that we have enjoyed the benefit of a better enlightenment, if I can put it that way, a better sense of justice, of respect for the dignity of the person and who they are. This law goes some way to recognising that for the many, many men who were treated in a most unjust way for who they were and doing nothing other than expressing their love. It is the right thing for this House to do.

Can I also address another issue that came up in submissions, and that was the call for compensation. Having considered that request from submissions—not all submitters, but enough to make it an issue worthy of further consideration—the committee acknowledged that it was too complex a task to not only set up a process where every individual has their personal circumstances considered in the process of achieving an expungement but then to consider whether compensation ought to be payable and, if so, how much. That was going to be too complicated. But that does not mean that members of this House—and, indeed, the Government bureaucracy that will now be put in place to administer the scheme provided for in this bill—do not consider that we must continue as a nation recognising the diversity of all people in this country, their sexuality, and sexual orientation, and looking for opportunities to celebrate that diversity and to continue to acknowledge what a richer country we are for allowing people to express themselves and who they are.

As I said, this bill will go some way to putting right a wrong that has been on the records of the thousands of men affected by the unjust law that was finally removed in 1986. It’ll go some way, but it will never replace the years and decades of hurt and harm that have been caused as a result. We can be thankful to some small degree that this House and this generation recognises the injustice and has put that right, and it is recognised across this House, from all members, from all parties, who have united together to express this act of justice.

So, on that basis, I once again thank those citizens who were brave enough and courageous enough to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I want to express thanks to all members of the House, who have been involved either through the select committee or just simply as members voting on this bill to bring that insidious injustice to an end. Finally, I want to commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today is a historic day for the Parliament, because the Parliament is going to unanimously apologise and pass legislation which allows men convicted of homosexual offences prior to 1986 to wipe those convictions from the statute book.

I want to acknowledge, first of all, the Minister of Justice for his ongoing leadership in this area but also the Hon Amy Adams, the Minister of Justice who introduced the legislation in the previous Parliament. But, more importantly, I want to acknowledge Wiremu Demchick and the 2,111 others who signed the petition that brought that issue to the Justice Committee—or the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it then was in the last Parliament—and all my colleagues on that committee who considered that particular petition. I also want to acknowledge Kevin Hague, who I’m sure is watching the debate tonight, because it was Kevin who presented the petition on behalf of Mr Demchick, and I know we’re joined in the House tonight by Georgina Beyer as well. It’s fantastic to see you in the Chamber, Georgina, and I acknowledge you for your leadership over many years on issues like this and others.

It’s 32 years since homosexual law reform. It seems hard to believe, really—32 years—and, sadly, this Parliament doesn’t have very many members left who were around at the time. But I’ve talked to the Hon Annette King, who’s just left us, and I’ve talked to Trevor Mallard—I haven’t talked to Winston Peters about it, but I have talked to Trevor Mallard—and it’s hard for people of my age and generation to get their heads around the vitriol and the hate and the anger and the sense of controversy at the time. Eight hundred thousand people signed a petition. It turned out that a lot of those 800,000 were dead or they were children, or they weren’t actually real people, but, regardless of how you measure it, hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions asking that Fran Wilde’s bill not proceed. It’s hard for people of my age—I was three at the time, or perhaps four—to understand the hate, and so New Zealand has come a long way since 1986.

I acknowledge Louisa Wall and her contribution to our next steps on the evolution, with the marriage equality legislation in 2013. This, I believe, is just a further progression of trying to create a New Zealand where people of all backgrounds, all sexualities, and all genders are welcomed and embraced for who they are and for their own individual humanity.

Of course, it was Venn Young who introduced the first legislation, in 1974, to decriminalise homosexuality between consenting adults aged 21 years and over.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: And Norman Kirk opposed it.

CHRIS BISHOP: “And Norman Kirk opposed it.”, says Christopher Finlayson. But people in this House have made efforts over many years to try and put right what is wrong, and this legislation is a continuation of it.

So what does it actually do? Well, in a technical sense, it allows people who were convicted of specific offences under the Crimes Act relating to sexual activity between males aged 16 years and over to apply to the Secretary of Justice to have those convictions expunged. There are five specific offences: section 141, indecency between males; section 142, sodomy; section 146, keeping place of resort for homosexual acts; section 153; and section 154, an attempt to commit an unnatural offence. We think about a thousand people were affected by these offences prior to 1986, so it allows people who were convicted of those offences to apply to the secretary.

It’s done on the papers. The secretary is responsible for determining applications on a case by case basis. The law is modelled on overseas jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, where it’s known at Turing’s law, of course, and various parts of Australia. The Justice and Electoral Committee actually travelled to Australia in the last Parliament to hear from other jurisdictions as to how they did it, and we’ve made some technical amendments to the legislation to reflect that. But, in general, the bill as introduced was a pretty good one because it reflected what’s happened in overseas jurisdictions.

So, in a technical sense, it’s a fine piece of legislation, but the most important thing that it does is it puts right wrongs from the past. It is the Parliament saying, unanimously, “These laws should never have been the law.”, it’s Parliament saying, “These laws were wrong, and we are going to express our condemnation of those laws by allowing people who were convicted by those laws the ability to expunge them from their own records.”, and it is Parliament saying to the rainbow community and those who were affected by the laws, “You should not have to bear the stigma and the shame and the hate any more, because now you have the ability to wipe it from the books and make sure that ongoing sense of shame and stigma does not continue.”

At its core, this bill has a very simple notion: putting right what is and was wrong. In my speech on the first reading of this bill, I did say and I did admit that I did struggle with the concept for some time for a couple of reasons: one, I thought it would very difficult to unpick conduct that everyone now agrees should have been legal from that which was not legal and should never have been legal, and there was some advice and evidence that the police were often not exactly particularly picky about what particular offences they chose to charge people under. It turns out that we can move through that, and it turns out that enough records exist to be able to unpick that. But I was worried about that.

I was also worried about the concept of rewriting history. I was worried about the Parliament looking back and saying, “Essentially these laws should never have existed.” I think we do need to be wary as a Parliament about when we do something like this; we do, because it is, essentially, recasting history. Whether we like it or not—and we obviously don’t—the laws that existed prior to 1986 were the law; that was the law of the land, and people were convicted. But the thing is when you talk to the people who were affected by the laws, when you have the conversations and you hear the evidence—and we did at the select committee, and I have done through my engagement in the community—and you listen to the experiences, and you listen to what people went through, you reflect on “How can that be the New Zealand—how could that have even happened in New Zealand?” and you just have to acknowledge that this is the right thing to do for the Parliament.

It’s the right thing to do to say to our rainbow community, “Your individual and collective humanity is affirmed and solidified by this legislation.” These laws should never have been in place. They did do harm, they did cause grief, they did cause dissent, and they did cause hate. The Parliament is now making a unanimous stand for tolerance and equality and diversity. I am so very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this third reading debate. A few years ago, after one of the Labour Party’s leadership contests—we had a couple—I took some time out and I went down to Dunedin, and I went to the Hocken Library in Dunedin. I went there to look into a person who, in many years to come, when I leave this place, I want to write a book about. His name is Rodney Kennedy, and Rodney—I won’t go in to the connection that I have with Rodney Kennedy—was an amazing man, patron of the arts, supported Colin McCahon, Toss Woollaston, was an incredible person, had a long-running relationship, a potentially platonic relationship, with Charles Brasch, the poet, and was an incredible person, and has never really been recognised, in my belief, for what he did in his contribution to the arts.

When I was looking at some of his records, I came across a very, very small envelope, which he had addressed to Charles Brasch, who at that point wasn’t living in Dunedin but was living in Christchurch—this would be in the late 1950s, early 1960s. Inside the envelope was a very, very small newspaper clipping which said, “Rodney Eric Kennedy was today discharged from the conviction of indecency with another male.” What Rodney Kennedy had obviously done was he’d clipped that out of the paper and he’d sent it in an envelope to Charles Brasch. There were no other words in the envelope—no letter, nothing, just this clipping.

Rodney Kennedy and Charles Brasch moved in circles, particularly Charles Brasch, where the shame and the fear and the anxiety and the depression caused by the illegality of homosexuality and by the arrests and by the attitude of the police of the time would’ve been unbearable. In this incredibly poignant moment, it captured for me the impact it had on these men’s lives. They could barely speak to one another about this. Rodney Kennedy added no words to that clipping. He couldn’t express himself and how he felt to a man he was close to, very close to, and shared a relationship with. That was the state of fear that these men lived in.

It is to Rodney Kennedy, to Norris Davey—Norris Davey became Frank Sargeson—and the less famous men that we stand tonight as a Parliament, and we say, “We’re sorry.” I say more than that, as I did in my first reading; I say “I’m sorry.” as a man who has been able to live my life relatively freely as a homosexual male, a person who’s able to come to this Parliament and get heckled and abused by the National Party because I’m the finance Minister, not because I’m a gay man. That’s a fantastic advance that is built on the shoulders of those men, not just of those men who were arrested or convicted or who spent time in prison but of those men who just lived their lives as gay men, who actually just tried to survive through those years.

So to all of the men who were not arrested, and their families, we also say sorry, because this law was and is wrong. The fact that we can expunge the convictions today is a mighty step forward for addressing that, but the constant fear and the reminder of the worthlessness and the shame of your mere existence is not something we can put away so easily, because it echoes through generations. I’ve been deeply moved by the men and their families who have written to me since this legislation came forward and since the first reading, who have expressed the fact that, finally, there is a time for them to feel some self-worth. We can’t undo what’s been done to them, but we can now say it was wrong, we are sorry, and we want to say that out loud. To me, these men are heroes. They are people that we should look up to. They are people who now need to know that their country actually does value them.

I want to thank, as others have tonight, Wiremu Demchick for starting this through his petition. It was a brave act, and it was supported by more than 2,000 other people—all of them deserve credit. I also want to add my thanks to Amy Adams, the Minister of Justice who introduced the legislation, and to Andrew Little, my colleague who has shepherded it through, and also to the Justice Committee. The select committee improved this bill. The select committee have made it—particularly in terms of travelling overseas, I believe that they have strengthened what Parliament is trying to achieve here so that, hopefully, when people travel they won’t be required to disclose a conviction that is no longer with them.

It’s important for me to address the topic of compensation tonight. There were a large percentage of the submissions that came to the committee that sought compensation for the men involved. I have to tell you that the men themselves have mixed views on that matter. Some would like, I believe, to see compensation. Others believe that that is an impossible thing to calculate and, actually, not what they want the focus of this to be about. So we have to recognise and accept that there are mixed views about that question. What I want to focus on is that while there may not be compensation, I can give my personal commitment that there will be a legacy, that we as a Parliament, in the future, will be able to find a way to pay tribute to those who have gone before and give to those who are to come. Because the step this bill takes represents another step in a journey, a journey that we can point to great milestones in—and Chris Bishop’s already done some of this—to the Homosexual Law Reform Act and the incredible work of Fran Wilde; to the Human Rights Act and the tremendous work of Katherine O’Regan in supporting that; forward to the Civil Union Act with Tim Barnett, Georgina Beyer, and others who did such a fantastic job there; and forward to marriage equality, with my colleague Louisa Wall driving that piece of legislation, and supported by fantastic people such as Kevin Hague and Jan Logie.

Those are important steps on the journey, and this is another one, but there are more to come. We should not be naive—if you’re a young trans person growing up in rural New Zealand today, your life’s not easy. You’re likely to be subject to discrimination; you’re likely to feel the stigma and the hurt that these men felt. Actually, if you’re a young gay man growing up in some of those places, you will still feel the same.

Not every school in our country is a safe place if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender or intersex. Not every community in New Zealand is a safe place. There is still more work to do. There is still some legal recognition to sort out when it comes to our trans community, to make sure that they believe that the Human Rights Act actually works in their favour. There is a tremendous amount of work to do to make sure that every young New Zealander grows up believing in themselves, believing in their own value, and knowing that society supports them, that society says, “You have self-worth. You are an important person. You have great potential, and whether you are gay or whether you have gender diversity or you are questioning that, we will support you through that.”

So the legacy of tonight, for me, has to be that we continue the journey towards not just tolerance but acceptance and embracing diversity, and saying that is what makes our country a great country to live in. But we know we have more to do. So there will be more that comes from tonight, but for now I commend this bill. I celebrate the fact that we are expunging these convictions. I say sorry, again, to the men and their families, and commit again to supporting a legacy from this that will ensure that in the future, generations of young people know they matter. Love is not a crime. They should be who they are.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very proud tonight to be part of this group of people who are making change, as we reflect on the amount of change that we have witnessed, going back 32 years to the Homosexual Law Reform Bill.

In another life, I was a radio interviewer, and in the lead-up to that legislation going through, I interviewed Norm Jones, known as the “mouth from the South”, and Fran Wilde in a talkback session which remains one of the most torrid of my broadcasting career. Norm, at that stage, had a stick and he wielded it and attempted to bash Fran Wilde, who was sitting across from him, with the microphone in between. It was commercial radio and I went to a break. I said things that I could not repeat in this House to the member of Parliament for Invercargill at the time, and suggested that if there was the faintest murmur of anger and antagonism, he would be gone and I would spend the rest of the three hours taking talkback with only Fran Wilde. That did, in fact, silence him for a while.

But when people have alluded to and talked about courage and the courage it takes to make change, I think that it is an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come. Yes, as other speakers have said, we’ve still got a long way to go to build a more tolerant and accepting society. But this is a bill that was long overdue. This is a place that took too long to change the wrongs of the past, but it has done so now and it is doing so tonight. And I add my apology to the men down the decades who have suffered as a result of the love that they have felt, as a natural instinct, for another person. Those are the crimes that are not crimes. These are the places where we need to consider the consequences, and the unintended consequences, sometimes, of laws. But these laws, when they were enacted and when they were enforced, were cruel and the men who suffered under the yoke of these laws lived in fear.

I was brought up in this area. My mother was a florist on Molesworth Street. Her business partner was gay. That wasn’t a word that was ever used, of course, in that context. But he was somebody who was a florist. He was beloved of his mother. He was an only child. He was blackmailed. My mother came home very upset and very distressed because one of her best friends had decided to leave the country, to go to South Africa, the other side of the world—he didn’t know anyone—and to start his business afresh because he could not bear the idea that his mother would find out who he really was. He then left the country. He never returned. He never said goodbye to his mother. In those days, there weren’t the phone calls, the Skyping, and so forth, obviously. So the price that that family paid represents, to me, the individual human suffering. His mother was beside herself and terribly distressed, and couldn’t understand it. And he never explained, because he couldn’t. He didn’t want her to feel the shame and the stigma and the fear that came with bearing such a freak. He had that terrible burden. And for me, as a child, growing up, I could see that there was something very wrong about stopping that man from being honest about himself, maybe to his wider family, but certainly to the bad people that were blackmailing him and using these laws to bring about dreadful, tragic, and unnecessary consequences.

We all, I’m sure, have stories of this kind. I know that, in the era that I’ve grown up in, there’s been enormous change, and we’re not quite there yet. But this bill, with the expunging, will mean that a person with a criminal record will have it amended to ensure that the conviction does not appear on a criminal history check for any purpose in New Zealand, and that person will be entitled to declare that they have no such conviction. That is enormous. I think, building on, again, the courage of the people who lead the change—and I commend Louisa Wall, who’s in this House tonight, on the courage that she showed—you pay the cost and the penalties, and the hatred and derision, that I know Fran Wilde experienced and also probably Louisa as well at its moments. But you did the right thing. Tonight, in this House, we are doing the right thing.

So, in closing, I would say to all the men who have lived in fear, who have lived with self-loathing and a sense that they are not as good as other people, that they have, because of this law—even the ones that have passed, but for the ones that are there now—the opportunity to live their lives as they ought to live them. We, as lawmakers, I think, should savour this precious evening and all that has gone before it, with Amy Adams introducing the bill, with the current Minister carrying it forward, and with all the support and genuine sentiment and heart and intellectual rigour as well, through the select committee process. I commend the select committee for the changes that they made, because they were ones that enhanced what this law change was setting out to do.

So, to those who took the courage and the leadership, I commend you. To those who put up with the indignity and the horror of being made to feel the way they did, I commend you as well. I acknowledge your strength, and again I add my apologies to what has been long overdue. But tonight is the time when we do reflect. We’ve come a long way, and we needed to. So I commend this bill to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in full support of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. Earlier, Chris Bishop mentioned the number of signatures, 800,000, that were gathered originally, and in my ignorance, I didn’t know that such a large number—that’s an extraordinary number of people wanting to utilise their democratic right and their views, and do it strongly. I made a little bit of a gasp because it was such a huge number, and Mark Patterson, my colleague sitting next to me on my left, went over and said, “I signed that petition.” I would have too, to be honest, but I was only four years old at the time. But I think it somewhat highlights something that Maggie Barry actually said as well, which was that this is far too late, the apology, in and of itself—some 32 years later.

I was thinking earlier on about why that was, and why it was too late. Was it a factor of the legislation needing to catch up with society, or was it the other way round—was it society needing to be able to catch up to the legislation, to see it through this House? Or was it a fact of this House, and the members of it, needing to catch up with the rest of society and what they wanted originally? I think it’s one of those bills where it has been somewhat unfortunate that it has taken so long to ride its natural course, even before its consideration, with the petition being presented some 30-odd years after the law decriminalising homosexuality. In 2017—just last year—the bill was introduced. It’s here today, in 2018, and in the process of the third reading we hear a reiteration of the apology, which is much needed, and the passing of this bill is as well.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I’d like to congratulate this House for being collaborative and unanimous in the support for this bill. I believe it was Matt King who said that when he was on the Justice Committee, his first taste of a bill going through was this bill, and he was bitterly disappointed that other bills didn’t go through in such a collaborative way. He thought that that’s how all the committees worked, and perhaps they should in the future.

I’d like to congratulate Amy Adams for firstly bringing it to the House and giving the apology late last year under the National Government, and also the current Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, as well, for reiterating the apology and seeing this through the House. I also congratulate all the members of the Justice Committee, whether they be under the National Government or the current Government, seeing this through from the second reading through to the final reading in such a speedy manner.

I think one of the most important things is to remember that legislation like this—and, obviously, speaking about this one in particular, it’s not about the law, it’s not about the legislation, and it’s not about a piece of paper that law or legislation is written on, or the words. It’s actually about the people. They are real. They are real people, they have real families, and the effects of what happened to those people and their families some 30 years ago still affects them in a very, very real way.

I think that one of the important steps in the process of this bill going through the House was the committee stage, and that allowed people to submit and allowed for us, as representatives, to hear those stories, whether they were from people who experienced it at first hand, or their loved ones who were representing them. It was a very important part of the process of this bill going through.

Finally, being able to speak on this bill from the second reading forward has made me wonder a little bit about the current laws that we have. Maybe, if we look back in five years or 10 years or 30 or 50 years, what laws, perhaps, at that stage will we look back at and say, “Why didn’t we change it sooner? Why were we blinded, why were we misguided, and how could we have been so wrong?”

So I think this type of legislation—and this one, in particular—allows members of this House to reflect on the current situation a little bit more vividly and a little bit more, with the greater context, and to have an appreciation of who we actually represent and where society is today. New Zealand First fully supports this legislation.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a privilege to be taking another brief speech on the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill this evening. Grant Robertson, early in the debate, spoke about the number of challenges that are ahead of us, and, I think, laid down a challenge to us as parliamentarians to continue the fight that many parliamentarians have fought over many generations and decades. I was born in 1983. Nearly all of my life, homosexual acts between consenting adults have been legal. I look around the House and I see the Chlöe Swarbricks, I see the Kiri Allans, and I see the Chris Bishops, and I like to think the future is in pretty good hands.

During the second reading, I spoke about the profound impact that convictions have had on the men that have carried them, unjustly, for many years. After that speech, I was contacted by a man in my electorate who had a different story, but one that I think is important none the less. He told me about growing up in New Zealand in the 1960s and 1970s as a young gay man, and the impact that the law had on him. He was never arrested, never charged, and never convicted, but it did affect him. It affected him because he said that the law said to him that what he was was wrong, what he was was immoral, and what he was was illegal.

When he eventually came out to his parents, to his family, they shunned him. That might have happened, regardless of the legality, but to have the Government essentially back that position is what hurt him and continues to hurt him the most. He’s only just reconciled with his sister and mother, after many years of being apart. I accept that the legislation that we’re passing tonight won’t do anything for him. It won’t do anything to say that what he went through was wrong, but he asked if I would tell his story.

I said during an earlier speech that every member of this Parliament should be proud to see this law pass—we should. But I’m pleased that speakers tonight have also acknowledged the wrong that the law placed on the men that it affected. This is the right thing to do. It goes as far as we can to remove the black stain that this country has on its history, and I commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a huge honour for me to again be able to stand and speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of this legislation, and to note Georgina Beyer sitting in the House as well—as it seems appropriate for a piece of legislation that is so significant, and when she’s been the leader up front for many of these issues in our community and in this House.

I also want to specifically thank Wiremu Demchick and the 2,000 other petition signees and the Campaign to Pardon Gays in Aotearoa group for all of their work getting us to this point. Wiremu Demchick presented the Green Party MP Kevin Hague with the petition that was the immediate catalyst, first for the apology and this legislation to enable men convicted of indecency between males, of sodomy, or of keeping places of resort for homosexual activities—which I always thought sounds like quite a good time—to be able to apply in writing for the Secretary of Justice to have their criminal record expunged. It wasn’t a matter of chance that Kevin Hague received the petition; he had previously—unsuccessfully, I might say—approached the prior Minister of Justice seeking such legislation.

He did this because Kevin was an out gay man in the 1980s, living under the cloud of these oppressive laws and campaigning for decriminalisation. He was one of those men who put his life at risk for this campaign and for our collective well-being, and he knew well many men who had their lives destroyed by these convictions, or even just the threat of such a conviction. So while I certainly need to acknowledge the previous Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, for bringing this bill and the current Minister, Andrew Little, for seeing it to third reading so expeditiously, I do want to acknowledge Kevin Hague and Wiremu Demchick as significant forces behind this significant piece of legislation.

It was the parliaments of the early 1900s that introduced or legalised homophobia in this country. Those laws overrode indigenous laws which held that both same-sex attraction and diverse gender identities and expressions were natural. That was the status quo before the Government introduced legislation to legalise homophobia and hatred, so it is our job to remove the harm from the laws that were created by this place and to apologise, because it was harm that we created from this House.

I do think it is worth following on from some of the other reflections and to take a moment to feel some satisfaction in how uncontested this legislation has been. It is encouraging that we’ve progressed so far since homosexual law reform in 1986, when so many New Zealanders seemed to believe that homosexuals, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were an abomination to God and were mentally ill—that we were sexual perverts and all paedophiles. Those views, though, were a reflection of the legislative status quo of the time—of those laws that had been introduced in the early 1900s. Those views, which we now recall with a slight sense of horror, reflected the law. The law reinforced those beliefs.

Through the process of the petition and then the select committee hearings on the bill we have heard again how many lives were ruined by those laws. We’ve heard the experiences of men who were convicted and men who were not convicted but had their lives made small when they could have been huge. We heard of people isolated and stigmatised and beaten and abused because of these laws and these convictions, and we know that people have died and, sadly, still in some cases continue to die because of homophobia. This legislation—and we are now seeking to expunge the convictions that were the result of it—legitimised the view that homosexuality was a mental illness, and this ended up seeing people hospitalised and electrocuted and tortured by our State as a result of being who they were and loving who they loved.

We need to remove the convictions and the shame from these innocent men who suffered horribly because of the decisions of Parliament to criminalise them. Many gay and bisexual men lived in constant fear of being discovered. Many did things they were not proud of to try and protect themselves. This legislation can’t fix it all.

There were famous incidents. A previously incredibly popular mayor of Whanganui was given 15 years of hard labour for attempted murder after shooting another gay man who was attempting to blackmail him. This incident and the media around it led to many gay men and bisexual men leaving the country, as we’ve heard described already. It was a common situation for men to leave and go over to another country to escape the homophobia here. This mayor’s conviction will not be expunged by this legislation, obviously—it’s not covering attempted murder—but I hope the apology, and this debate around this legislation, does extend to remove the shame and blame from all the men and their families affected by this legislation directly and indirectly.

Also, to note the well-respected closet New Zealand author who was given a suspended sentence in return for giving evidence that sentenced an older gay man to six years of hard labour for being gay, who never, ever, mentioned that incident again because of the shame—we can only assume—of feeling responsible for that man’s conviction and pain.

So to those men who were criminalised and irreparably hurt and who have been left, in the words of one submitter, with “self-hatred, worthlessness, unjustified guilt and shame.”, I want to repeat that the shame belongs with this Parliament and our society for robbing you of your inherent and inalienable right to be who you are and love who you love. We cannot undo the damage, but I hope that today represents another step towards healing for you and for us as a society.

As has been noted by previous speakers, we do—this homophobia, when you pass the law and decriminalise, it does not disappear. We still feel it in our schools and in our communities and in people’s lives. I will echo the words of Grant Robertson in saying the only reason I can understand that we have not ensured access to basic healthcare and basic legal rights for transgender people can only, to my mind, be a result of the outstanding impact of these laws. We in this House need to make that connection to be able to move forward. It is not enough to say sorry and to enable people to get the convictions wiped out; we need to wipe out homophobia and transphobia from every part of our society. I am proud, in the Green Party, to stand in this House in one of those moments where we are making a united commitment to do that. Kia ora.

MATT KING (National—Northland): It’s a real pleasure to take this call on this third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. I’ve got to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for her work, and, also, I’ve got to acknowledge this coalition Government for taking it on and seeing it through to the end. I’d also like to acknowledge Georgina Beyer, who is in the House today.

Now, this bill seeks to reduce the prejudice, stigma, and negative lifelong effects of a conviction for historical homosexual offences, so it’s about being fair—it’s about putting things right. It enables them to apply to have their conviction for indecency between males, sodomy, keeping a place of resort, or attempts to do the same, expunged.

Prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986, sexual activity between males over 16 was a criminal offence, and that fact astounds me. When I think back to 1986—what was I doing in 1986? Well, I was a school-leaver, and to think that when I was at school it was an offence—I struggle to believe that. But then, what also surprises me is that Andrew Falloon and Chris Bishop were only two or three at the time—I thought they were a lot older than that, so I feel positively old.

So between 1965 and 1986, over 1,000 men were convicted of indecency between males. My grandfather was a policeman during this time—he was a policeman for 30 years. Knowing him as I do, I can’t imagine him ever arresting someone for this sort of offence. However, he’s not alive today, so I can’t ask him. But I would love to ask him, and, if he did, I’d want to understand his thinking. Thankfully, we live in modern times now, and we’re putting this to bed, so that’s great.

I was a member of the Justice Committee, and I heard some harrowing and emotive submissions from some of these people. The select committee process is really important, so that these people can be heard. Attitudes have changed, and I welcome that change. The world is a better place for it. I’d like to acknowledge the bravery of Wiremu Demchick and over 2,000 petitioners.

It’s pointless having offences such as these removed from the statute book without having the expungement legislation to accompany it. It’s well overdue, and I’m proud to be part of a Parliament that enacts this. Accordingly, we support this bill and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand this is a split call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a split call. I’ll give you a bell at one minute.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. I’d like to really start this by saying that one of my mentors in politics was Tim Barnett, a gay man who was the MP for Christchurch Central for many years. I must acknowledge the leadership that he and many like him have really had in politics. As he showed me the ropes and I worked within his electorate, whilst he was clearly and openly gay and accepted that as part of his identity, it never became a defining point about how we worked together, and it was simply part of the natural landscape. And I think that that’s perhaps the difference that we see today from many years ago, when something like that would have been a huge issue, a fact which would mar everything.

But here today what we are saying, as we pass the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill, is that those things are rapidly receding in the past. I know that this is yet another step along that road, and, as Jan Logie stated, I don’t think we’ve finished that road yet. There’s still work to be done. I know that even in my own electorate there are a number of trans people who are talking to me about aspects of the law that they see as needing attention, and I tend to agree that there’s work to be done there.

I commend Amy Adams for listening, even though there were significant technical hurdles for introducing this bill into the House; Andrew Little for picking it up; and the Justice Committee for doing such a good job with the work that they had ahead of them. It must be said that, for a lawyer, the concept of expungement is important. It’s not simply a pardon. It is not saying that although you have a conviction, by some kind of prerogative of mercy we are reversing that. It’s saying that this should never have happened, that this was a wrong. And I think it’s good to see politics moving into an age where we can apologise, where we can look back and say, “We were wrong. The Government of the day took a wrong approach, and we are sorry.” As Andrew Little stated, compensation may well be too hard, but I’m not sure that compensation actually meets the need of saying, “This should never have happened and your record is expunged. It is wiped clean. That conviction never occurred. You never committed a crime.”

Whilst that can be righted by law, the record can be wiped clean, there are, of course, the other aspects, the much more personal aspects—the stigma and the effects of a conviction—which, I think we need to accept, can never be put right. We cannot turn the clock back, but it is pleasing that the House has taken unanimously this step in saying these offences are expunged. They cannot be referred to. They cannot be asked about. If you travel overseas, they never existed. So whilst the impact of these convictions will no doubt last for the entire lives of the men convicted of them, in terms of, at least, the eyes of the law, they are gone forever, and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. As I’ve been listening on the television and to the contributions in the House tonight, I feel privileged to be able to speak on this third reading. I want to thank the Hon Amy Adams for taking the time to listen to the petitioner, back in the day, and to bring forward this bill, and I also want to thank the Government for picking this bill up and taking it through to fruition.

Too many lives have been affected by this, by the wrong convictions, and too many skilled people have lost out on really good opportunities in employment and other areas because of their homosexual criminal conviction. So I think tonight it is a momentous time for this House to come together as one to finalise the reading and to ensure that this bill does reach its Royal assent. It is with heartfelt—heartfelt—I’m trying not to say pleasure, but it’s with my heartfelt convictions that I want to stand here and support this third reading and commit it to the House. I want to thank everybody that was involved in getting it to this stage. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend the bill.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tonight is one of those moments when all parties come to support a bill that is intended to provide a humble but meaningful measure of restorative justice. Advocates have long called for convictions for historical homosexual offences to be expunged, and tonight we will see that an old wrong is finally to be righted.

I regard it as kind of a privilege to be able to not only witness the parliamentary debates but also be part of the process. As chair of the Justice Committee, I can report that this bill was the very first bill that the committee reported back to the House. On that note, I think it is fitting for me to thank all the members, past and present, for their contributions. I thank, in particular, the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, for making this bill one of the Government’s priorities. I thank the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams, for initiating this process and this bill in 2017. I thank, also, our officials and all the submitters, who helped make some necessary but important amendments to better reflect the intent of this bill.

The purpose of this bill is to remove the stigma, prejudice, and other negative effects arising from the conviction of historical homosexual offences. This bill is the first of this type in New Zealand law, which indicates the extraordinary nature of these kinds of historical offences which were decriminalised by the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. No longer would men having consensual sex with each other be liable to prosecution and a term of imprisonment. No longer would a man in that situation be subject to the specific offences under the Crimes Act 1961 or the Crimes Act 1908. I acknowledge all those people behind the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. The campaign to reform the law moved beyond the gay community to wider issues of human rights and discrimination. In that regard, I believe it is fitting, if I may, to extend the apology to all the LGBT community.

Members of all parties have made moving speeches acknowledging the wrongs that have been done to the affected parties and their families. Those prosecuted have faced unjust travel restrictions and difficulty gaining employment for decades. In terms of employment and the likely impact under this bill, I particularly thank Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley and all other submitters with regard to the detailed analysis and the eventual removal of clause 13(2) to ensure employment opportunities for those affected parties would not be jeopardised.

On the bill’s third reading, it is important for us to reflect on some important issues. Like other members who spoke before me have acknowledged, the first of such a kind of issue is compensation. Some submitters raised concerns that this bill has not gone far enough and claimed that lack of compensation could be seen as a potential breach of the Yogyakarta Principles. Some submitters also raised the possibility that the establishment of a charitable trust, similar to the poll tax charitable trust, would go some way to help address the issue. Now, the poll tax was a kind of tax imposed on the early Chinese immigrants between 1881 and 1944. Only the Chinese people were forced to pay as much as £100, the then equivalent of about 10 years’ work, to come to New Zealand. In 2002, the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, apologised on behalf of the Parliament to the Chinese community over the racially discriminatory legislation, and the Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Trust has subsequently been established. This year, during the Chinese New Year celebration at Parliament, the trust launched a new book entitled The Fruits of Our Labours, which uncovered the forgotten world of that part of the Chinese history in New Zealand.

Now, back to this bill—I acknowledge contributions from submitters and all members who spoke earlier, and I agree and note that in terms of compensation we should keep the conversation open. As far as this bill is concerned, compensation goes beyond the scope of this bill. There is no general principle that a person who is convicted of a repealed offence is entitled to compensation on the repeal of that particular offence. Clause 22 of the bill does not limit other measures under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects the individual’s right to issue civil proceedings against the Crown, and, further, clause 22 does not exclude other rights to compensation, which may be pursued under the existing legislation.

So this policy initiative aligns with the approach in comparable overseas jurisdictions. It also makes a clear distinction between convictions that were wrong at law and convictions for offences that have been repealed. In the case of the convictions for historical homosexual offences, there is no suggestion that these convictions were wrongfully imposed, as it was the law at that time.

Clause 9 confirms the effect of the expungement: the person with the expunged conviction is entitled to declare that they have no such conviction, and the conviction will be removed from their criminal check for any purpose in New Zealand. In response to a question from an overseas jurisdiction, it will depend on the actual wording of that question. For instance, if an official or an individual is asked whether an individual has ever been convicted of an offence in New Zealand, they would declare that they have; but if the question is whether the individual has any convictions, they would answer no, because any criminal records arising from the convictions have been expunged and no longer have any effect in New Zealand for any purpose.

Lastly, I’d like to touch upon this bill’s relationship with other laws, notably the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. That clean slate Act is designed to allow individuals with less serious convictions and who have been conviction-free for a long time to conceal their convictions in most circumstances, but there are exceptions. The key difference is that, while clean slate is temporary and concealed offences can be revealed again—for instance, under the Vulnerable Children Act—the expungement bill does not permit disclosure for any purpose in New Zealand.

So this bill is intended to provide a humble but meaningful measure of restorative justice. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to be talking on the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill in the third reading. Tonight is one of those rare opportunities where we in Parliament come together to right a wrong. It is actually rather nice to be sitting and just listening to the thoughtful, careful, and, at times, moving speeches from many members of the House in dealing with this issue and discussing it in full. I wasn’t a member of the Justice Committee that heard all the different submissions, but I do know that it was a particularly hard-working committee. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for introducing this bill to the House, and the Hon Andrew Little for pursuing it and seeing it through to fruition.

This bill is about the expungement of criminal offences. What the word “expungement” means is that the conviction will no longer appear on any criminal history check and people will be entitled to declare that they have no such conviction. Now, expungement goes beyond the rights that go with concealing a conviction under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. Under the clean slate legislation, a concealed conviction may still be disclosed in certain circumstances. But what this bill does do is it places rules on agencies, in particular, about holding personal information and making sure that such convictions are no longer available to be disclosed—in fact, no such information can be held.

I want to congratulate all those who started out on this journey. We’ve heard about some of them tonight: Fran Wilde—and I acknowledge Georgina Beyer sitting here in the Chamber tonight, to my right. But it’s also a journey that many people have been involved in. I’m also hoping that my good friends from my electorate, Mr Geoff Smith and his partner, John Fleet, are watching as this bill comes to fruition tonight. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity to be part of this, to be able to see this bill through to its fruition, and to see it passed unanimously, which I hope will happen very shortly. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to speak on this third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. I thought I’d take us through a bit of a history lesson. I want to start with a quote from the Kaleidoscope Trust’s Speaking Out, The rights of LGBTI citizens from across the Commonwealth, and it reads: “As with the abolition of slavery, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in our time must be an act of law.” And I want to quote from Sir John Wolfenden, when he urged Britain in 1957—and he said, “Unless a deliberate attempt is made by society, acting through the agency of the law, to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law’s business.”

This particular publication, which was published in 2005, ends with a conclusion by Sir Shridath Ramphal, and it says, and I quote, “That wisdom must now inspire us in the countries of the Commonwealth to rid ourselves of this archaic legal inheritance. We are here to call for that decriminalising act of law, and by it an end to the wrong we do to our brothers and sisters—who are, like us, all members of what Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, called ‘the commonwealth of God’.”

I want to reference that because, in fact, at the moment there are 72 countries in the world where being LGBTIQ means you’re a criminal. There are 13 countries in the world currently where, if you are LGBTIQ, the punishment is death, and, unfortunately, of those 72 countries, 36 of those countries are Commonwealth countries. So 50 percent of the countries in the world that criminalise homosexuals are Commonwealth countries.

Our experience of the criminalisation of homosexuality started 151 years ago with the 1867 Offences against the Person Act. It was in that year that the punishment ceased to be execution, but it actually was imprisonment for life. So 151 years later, I think I stand here proudly as a member of this House to end what I am going to label a crime against humanity. I label it a crime against humanity by definition, because it’s acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack or individual attack directed against any civilian or an identifiable part of a civilian population.

ILGA, which is the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, released a report last year. It’s quite thick, and it’s titled State-Sponsored Homophobia. So we are here today because we are ending the remnants of State-sponsored homophobia. I would like to thank Wiremu Demchick, who, in July 2016, with MP Kevin Hague, presented a petition to Parliament that has resulted in an apology—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for that apology. It also called for legislation that expunges convictions for homosexuals doing what homosexuals do, which is making love to other homosexuals.

Hon Grant Robertson: We do other things.

LOUISA WALL: We do do other things, but, in fact, that’s what we were criminalised for, for loving the person that we chose to be with. Now, the definition of expungement is a process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed, and then we treat this conviction as if it had never occurred. For me, that is the beauty of this piece of legislation, because we are saying that homosexuality being a crime—people going to jail, people being punished—should never have occurred.

But this legislative reform actually began with a petition in the UK in 2009 by John Graham-Cumming. John Graham-Cumming wanted an official apology for Alan Turing. We all know who Alan Turing is; he broke the German Enigma code. He was convicted in 1952 for being a homosexual man who engaged in consensual homosexual acts with a 19-year-old man. What happened to Alan Turing? Alan Turing had to choose between going to prison or being chemically castrated. He chose to be chemically castrated, and in 1954, at the age of 41 years, he committed suicide. So John Graham-Cumming wrote to the Queen and he wanted a posthumous knighthood for Alan Turing, and so on 9 September 2009, the Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, apologised to Alan Turing. In 2017, that apology was extended to all homosexuals convicted of consensual homosexual conduct, which, in the UK, is between 50,000 and 100,000 men.

What that set about was a process that, actually, I’m really proud New Zealand is at the forefront of, with Australia. So South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, ACT, Tasmania—they have all enacted expungement legislation, and tonight we also join Canada and we join Germany. In every jurisdiction we’ve issued an apology, and the importance of that apology I don’t think can be underestimated, because, as I pointed out earlier, we should never have been criminals and we should never have endured, I guess, the legacy of what that criminality said to ourselves and also said to society.

I do want to highlight that in other jurisdictions they have actually compensated people. In Canada, they created an $85 million fund to compensate individuals, and just recently—I’m not sure if you know this, Grant—they’ve actually settled a class action, because people who were in the military and people who were federal employees lost their careers, and so Canada has a $100 million fund to compensate those who were criminalised for being themselves. Plus, they have a $250,000 fund for community projects to combat homophobia, and in 2019 in Canada it will be their 50th anniversary of homosexual law reform. In Germany, they had 150,000 people who were criminalised for being homosexuals—5,000 are still living—so they have engaged in a personal compensation process, with €3,000 as a base payment and €1,500 for every year spent in prison.

I’ve actually just come back from Geneva. I was over there as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), and, believe it or not, since 1889 we have never had a debate at the IPU about LGBTI rights. So, of the 162 member nations, we actually had a forum where we were able to talk about LGBTI rights, and the outcome of that process in Geneva was a vote—31 for, 26 against—and at the next IPU, for the first time in its history, they will actually have a panel and discuss the rights of LGBTI peoples and the role of Parliaments in ending this abhorrent discrimination perpetrated by the State.

I’m incredibly proud to come from a country and a Parliament that, after 151 years of colonisation—lest we forget, these laws came from our coloniser. This is part of our colonial history, and it’s incredibly interesting when you go to these IPU forums and you have the African countries and you have the Asian countries and they all talk about this being abnormal behaviour, but the reality is the condemnation of this behaviour came from England. I believe that England, as a colonising power, still has a lot of work to do to help us move from a world that is filled with hate to a world that’s filled with love. So I’m incredibly proud of our Parliament because we’ve stood up for love tonight, and I want to thank all those involved in bringing this piece of legislation to the House. Kia ora mai anō tātou.

Bill read a third time.

[Applause]

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 29 March.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and what a night to be here in the House of Parliament in Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to just acknowledge all of the speakers that have spoken before me on the previous bill, the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. How wonderful it is to be here tonight and to see that we as members of Parliament can actually unanimously agree on this legislation, on doing what is right.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, the Hon Phil Twyford, for his work in the housing sector as well as for leading this legislation, the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill.

We know that we came into Government, our coalition Government—ourselves as Labour with our coalition partner the New Zealand First Party as well as the Green Party—and we know that one of the things that we inherited from the previous Government is the housing crisis. We are introducing this legislation because it is one of many things we’re doing to address the housing issue that we face. One of the things that we did as a Government coming in was we wanted to find out just the right picture in terms of housing, and we went to a few people to inform us. We were told that we in Aotearoa New Zealand were short by at least 71,000 houses, were short in Auckland by 45,000 houses, and then were short in the rest of Aotearoa by the rest of that 71,000 houses.

We are not burying our heads in the sand, and we are not burying our heads in the sand and hoping that somehow the market will sort out this housing issue for us. No; we in this Government are committed to addressing the housing issue, and one of the reasons why we’re introducing this particular legislation is because we believe that it is one of many measures that we need to do in order to address the housing issue. One of the things that we did was we looked overseas: what can we learn from other countries that have introduced legislation similar to this one? What we know is that Scotland introduced legislation to ban letting fees and there they did not find evidence that it led to an increase in rent. Another country that also did the same thing—introduced legislation—was the UK Conservative Government. They introduced legislation to ban letting fees, and there again they did not find evidence that there was an increase in rent because of this ban in letting fees. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, Treasury in their regulatory impact statement advised us that there is no clear evidence according to what they see from evidence from other countries that banning letting fees will indeed lead to increased rents. So we believe that we should address this housing issue.

We also believe that all New Zealanders should have a roof over their heads. We believe that all New Zealanders should have the right to a healthy home. But the legacy of the last nine years means that it is a very complex issue to address, this housing issue. We know that pressures have driven up both housing prices as well as rentals. When we look at our largest city, Auckland, and we know that the average price of buying a house over there is $1 million, that inevitably means that when you look at rental accommodation, it also means that the rent keeps going up and up and up, to a point where so many thousands of our families just cannot afford to rent a house.

We have families—and I know this is a common story for a lot of us local MPs—so many families coming, to ask us for assistance because they cannot rent a house. We have families coming to see us, not because they’re looking forward to the Kiwi Dream of owning a house but they’re just looking forward to actually being able to rent a house. As local MPs, one of the things that we do, especially around South Auckland, is we go and knock on doors and we offer our services. What is really heartbreaking is when you knock on doors and some of those doors are homes that actually have garages where children are living, and you get consistent answers from mothers or grandmothers with children who are in those garages or in those homes, and you say to them, “It is a school day today. Why is it that your children are not involved enrolled in school?” And the consistent answer from these caregivers—they tell us that it is because they do not have the money to keep on buying school uniforms, because they move from house to house.

When we last discussed this legislation, one of the speakers from the opposite side of this House said that the average time for a family to rent a house is two years. I see so many families that move and move three to five times in one year. They move and they’re so transient because of housing. When we know from the largest primary school, which is in Manurewa, when the principal there tells us that 60 to 70 percent of their children enter school at the beginning of the year but 60 to 70 percent of them are no longer the same kids at the end of the year, and when you asked the principal, “Why is that?”, and the principal tells you, “It is because of housing costs”, something is wrong with this picture.

So one of the main reasons why we’re introducing this legislation is because we know that every time a family moves many of them fall further into debt because the budget that they have is already overstretched. When they move into a new house, this is the kind of cost that they actually have to face: four weeks’ bond plus two weeks’ rent plus one week advance rent as a letting fee. All of this is on top of the actual cost of moving or shifting to a new house.

We also know that some of our most vulnerable families are Māori and Pacific families. When we look into the history, in the 1980s, Pacific families, about 50 percent of them, either used to own their own homes or they used to live with relatives that owned their own homes. But the 2013 census data tells us that that rate of homeownership has dropped to 18 percent—18 percent. There are so many of our most vulnerable people that just need a little bit of assistance, and we know, evidence from overseas tells us, that this legislation will not increase the rent, as the others will have you believe. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and we definitely strongly support this legislation.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It’s always really good to hear a Government MP who does strongly support the Government’s legislation.

Hon Scott Simpson: Not many of them do.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, that’s true. Not many do. So it is a pleasure to stand and speak to this Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill and to proudly not support it. Unlike the other side, we don’t think that costs get magicked away simply by a piece of legislation.

You know, listening to the speaker who’s just taken her chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, and as a constituent MP myself—you do hear these stories of people struggling. It’s a reality, but this bill is not going to reduce any costs, because the costs are just going to be developed into a new area. To put it really, really simply, and other speakers have already, you can take away the letting fee but landlords will just then allocate that into the weekly rent. Arguably speaking, even if they decide just to up the rent by probably the minimum that they would of $5, that’s ultimately going to be more money that someone renting is going to pay in order to cover the loss of the letting fees. It’s a simple element of human nature, and at the end of the day landlords are not bad people.

We know that most landlords are actually mums and dads. It might be just the one other house that they own where they’re trying to generate some income—more often than not, actually, just to cover the costs, and we’re touching on that, of course. We’ve just had this Government announce today in Auckland that they’re, effectively, going to double the tax on petrol, just as they’ve increased a whole lot of other costs and look to do so even more. This is something which landlords will have to pass on and will pass on. As I said at the start, this bill is not going to magic away the costs. At the end of the day those renting are going to have to pay more money.

We also heard from the speaker who has just resumed her seat about the trouble of families moving, and that’s true. People have to move. I’ve had to move a number of times myself in life. It can be expensive, but two things were overlooked in the contribution. The first is, particularly for those who are struggling, that the Ministry of Social Development provides support for bonds. I know this because I used to sign off thousands of dollars of them a week. There is support there.

The second point is—and I will illustrate the second point with a story. Landlords get a letting agent in, in order to help them vet to make the decisions. It’s a service, if you will, a convenience not only to the landlord but also to those who are wanting to rent. They go through that process and, in many ways, they’re contributing, of course, by paying the letting fee in order to get the place. Well, a lot of landlords now will either rush that process or avoid it, and avoiding it means, of course, that the house won’t be available for renting. That’s not going to make it any easier for families moving. Or the landlord’s going to rush through the process and find a few days later that, actually, this isn’t working out at all and they’re going to do what they’re allowed to do in the law, which is move that family or that person on. So I’m suspecting we’re going to see quite a churn in the rental market, or a higher churn in the rental market, because of a bill like this.

As I said at the start, one does not magic away the costs, and I think it’s an unfortunate element of this Government and it’s certainly a problem in the left that they just believe that whatever they say, whatever they write down in law, makes things good and easy.

Hon Scott Simpson: Virtue signalling.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Virtue signalling, as my colleague Scott Simpson has indicated, and look, this certainly fits into it. It just looks so good: “We’re just going to abolish the letting fees; you just don’t have to worry about that any more, tenants.” Look, as a tenant myself in the past, absolutely at one level you’d love to see that go. The short-term win, though, will be instantly replaced by a long-term loss. Landlords will charge more. They will start to do that. Already, even before we’ve concluded this first reading, they’ll be looking to increase the rent week after week after week on the tenants. And this, I would suggest, is just going to be one failed approach, one failed policy more that this Government is introducing. If they really wanted to help in the residential tenancy space, it would actually be by continuing to engage in the private market as well, helping people—well, seeing the opportunities to actually own, to rent. There are greater opportunities than this virtue signalling.

So look, really it’s a simple bill. It makes the simplest of mistakes. This is only going to transfer the costs on into the rent. As I say, too, it’s going to make landlords race through this process themselves as they initially attempt to save some money. That’s going to lead to poor decisions and, at the end of the day, the people who are going to suffer most, which is the irony of all left-wing policies, is the very people they’re trying to help.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, it’s quite clear that the Opposition have run out of puff with this legislation, because I think Mr O’Connor demonstrated that they really haven’t got much more to say, and what they are saying is somewhat hollow.

I guess the most common argument I’ve heard is that landlords will pass on the costs. It’s a comment that’s been made by all of the Opposition speakers as they’ve rallied to support the house renters’ market—or the market that’s actually at the other end of the market, which is actually controlled by landlords. I understand that. These are the people whose net wealth has skyrocketed under previous Government policies. These are the people who have benefited from the last Government, the Government of nine years, which comprised most of the people who sit on the Opposition benches right now—although some of them are vacating at a rapid rate, and we understand there’s more to go. I just hope they know that they’re on their way.

But one thing we know is that this Opposition party has been in Government and for nine long years has displayed a total inability to comprehend what’s been going on in the housing market in the lives of ordinary New Zealanders who have to rent a home to live in. They seem to forget that 50 percent of New Zealanders live in rented accommodation—in parts of the country where they can get a house to rent. Of course, you know, we know in the Wairarapa that you can’t rent State houses because the National Government sold 541 of them off to their mates in Trust House for $20,000 each. Whenever I hear the National Party talking about their understanding of the housing market, of the economy, of being prudent fiscal managers who understand the realities of what is required to provide housing for New Zealanders, I just scratch my head and think, “Yeah, but these are the same people that sold off 541 houses in the Wairarapa for $11 million.”

Chris Bishop: What happened to the houses? Where did they go?

Hon RON MARK: Oh, they’re all in the hands of your mates, Mr Bishop—Trust House, who are now wanting to get Government money to fix up the houses that they haven’t fixed despite the fact that their equity tripled overnight after they did the deal with Wyatt Creech and the National Government of the day led by Jenny Shipley. So all I say to all the arguments from the National Party—

Chris Bishop: That was 20 years ago. It wasn’t even our Government.

Hon RON MARK: All I say to Mr Bishop is that the reason you’re opposing this legislation is because that party doesn’t understand the housing crisis. It doesn’t understand what ordinary New Zealanders have been confronted with day in, day out—probably because a whole bunch of their MPs rent houses, I don’t know. Maybe they’re landlords themselves. Maybe they’ve got a whole portfolio in Auckland and we could probably go to the pecuniary interests register and see exactly who they are and maybe hear their arguments as to why this key money should be retained.

Let’s be clear: this is key money. This is a fee being levied on a family who’s struggling to find a house in Auckland, who’s been asked to front up with four weeks’ bond out of their pocket, two weeks’ rent, and now another week as key money. Now, my colleague Minister Martin said to me, if we were to go up to Warkworth, an average three-bedroom home, $550 a week—well, crikey, I live in the Wairarapa. I don’t know what people are paying for a three-bedroom home in west Auckland or Onehunga or—where does my partner come from—Pakuranga. I don’t know what they’re paying there, but Mr Singh, he knows, because he probably rents these houses to people, I don’t know. Maybe he’d like to take a call and tell us what they’re paying.

But if we’re talking seven weeks’ rent up front, well, I’m sorry—in the part of the world where I live, people are struggling day to day, week by week, to make their wages carry them through, to pay the school fees, to pay the extra fees required to let their kids participate in school events, and to take those field trips. This is the reality. You know, I’ve got 13 grandchildren and I sometimes despair at what my kids are having to go through to ensure that their children can participate in all the events at school, and yet my kids are doing well. Well, I look across the street and I see other kids of mums and dads who aren’t doing so well.

So all we are saying is that this is part of a New Zealand reset policy, what you’re seeing here. We had the Pacific reset; well, get this: there’s a reset going on in New Zealand right now and it’s the way in which this Government takes on its social obligations and its responsibilities to ordinary New Zealanders. This piece of legislation is part of it, and this piece of legislation is going to have New Zealand First support because we agree with it. The arguments that we’re hearing—you know, I’ve heard someone say this is exploitation. Of course it is. It’s ticket-clipping by someone who adds no value whatsoever—no value. And how bizarre, because for the people who rent houses out and employ an agent to manage their portfolio, they’re paying a monthly fee anyway. Whenever they engage an agent to go out and get a tenant, they pay a fee. When they get their agent to go and sort out the repairs and maintenance that has to be done, they pay for that and then they pay a clip on top of that as the administration costs.

So agents are being paid by the landlord anyway, where agents are being employed, but what about the mum and dad investor? They’re not charging this. They’re not. So how can we say, “Oh, this ability for a ticket clipper has to remain, but we’ll just ignore the fact that the people who are actually the core of the house rental market, the mum and dad investors, aren’t charging that.” Well, I’m sorry. If they are not able to charge it, why should these other ticket clippers be able to charge?

The argument is that this is going to simply be passed on to the tenants. The statement from Treasury itself said, “Experience in other countries shows no clear evidence that banning letting fees will lead to increased rents.” That’s what Treasury said, and the evidence out of Scotland bears that out. So scaremongering and fearmongering is just a waste of time, and it’s quite deceptive and dishonest, I might add.

Here’s the other point. If these costs, which nobody’s actually been able to drill down and demonstrate—there’s no transparency around this fee. It’s just a blanket fee: one week’s rent plus GST. Where’s the breakdown? Where does it show the tenant how much the cost of giving them that lease actually is? There is no breakdown. So people who advocate transparency are just quietly and conveniently ignoring the fact that there is none here. It’s just a blanket fee.

I just put it to you that we’re hearing a lot of puff over on that side of the House. I can understand why they want to look after some people, but I would have thought they would have listened to Barfoot and Thompson, who support this legislation. I thought that having spent nine years listening to Treasury, they’d be listening now, because Treasury support this legislation. And if they can’t bring themselves to admit that, then maybe they’d just do one simple thing: support ordinary mums and dads who are struggling to make ends meet. OK, if there is to be a pass-down of some costs, well, let it be done in a transparent way and let it be in a weekly payment, which is a heck of a lot easier to manage for people who are in circumstances where they have to rent a home than in an upfront whack of one week’s rent plus GST.

I just simply say that, you know, the last Government showed it really didn’t have a heart and it really didn’t care for ordinary Kiwis who are struggling to find a house. The last Government didn’t believe there was a housing crisis at all. It spent nine years telling everyone there wasn’t one. I hope, and I’d like to think, that whilst they’re in Opposition reflecting on the next three years, they might find it within themselves to admit that along the way, they just got a little bit lost, and voting against this legislation just tells us that they haven’t learnt a jolly thing in the last five months. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): That member that’s just resumed his seat is normally better than that. [Interruption] He’s normally better than that. My colleagues are saying they’re not sure, but I actually have, over the last couple of years, come to know that Minister, Ron Mark, reasonably well, and I usually rate his contributions. That was not one of his good contributions.

It was Winston Churchill who said that “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” “[Its] inherent virtue … is the equal sharing of miser[y]”, and, actually, that sums up what we are really debating here tonight in this bill. It’s the gospel of envy, it’s the virtue signalling of the sharing of misery, and even though Winston Churchill, when he made that quote, couldn’t possibly have contemplated that in the New Zealand Parliament we’d be discussing a Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, it could be a no more apt quote for representing this piece of legislation.

This is a very interesting place, this Parliament. It seems always to me that we do the very best of things and the very worst of things in a Parliament like this. Only a few minutes ago, we as a Parliament were doing something quite historic. We were united, unanimous, in putting right a longstanding and historic wrong, and now, just a few minutes later, we are embarking upon a piece of legislative fiction—a piece of fiction that actually bears no reality to anything that happens in the real world—because the costs of this piece of legislation, the banning of letting fees, will, of course, be just absorbed and passed on. As my colleague from Tāmaki, Simon O’Connor, spoke just a few minutes ago, the Government just can’t magic this stuff away. The fee will still be paid, the fee will still be incorporated, the fee will still be included, the payment will still be made, and Barfoot and Thompson will still get paid. So no wonder they support it.

This is a Government that so early in its administration—we’re only a few months into it, for goodness’ sake—has stamped its mark so very clearly on this Parliament as a command-and-control Government. They want to command and control every aspect of New Zealanders’ lives, and this piece of legislation represents that. It has no connection with reality and what happens in the real world. This is a Labour Government, supported by its coalition and support parties, who have actually just five policy positions on everything. The first one is to ban it, and that’s what they’re trying to do tonight; the second one is to make it compulsory, and they do that in pretty much every piece of legislation; the third policy position they have is to tax it; the fourth policy position they have is to regulate it; and then the fifth policy position they have is to tax it again. This is a very bad piece of legislation and National doesn’t support it.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Huri noa ki a mātou katoa. Oh my goodness, so I’m really proud to stand up tonight and support the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, which will prohibit letting fees. I’m still a renter, unlike many of the Opposition speakers—probably all of the Opposition speakers—that are standing up tonight to say how bad it is that we are going to be trying to save some of the upfront costs to renters.

Over 50 percent of our country is now renting, but, actually, for those on a lower income, it’s more than that. It’s more than 50 percent. It’s getting to 53 percent or 55 percent, but for Māori and Pasifika it’s even more than that. Actually, for Pacific people, it’s 67 percent of Pacific people who are renting. Also, disabled people are more likely than non-disabled people to be renters. So this is good that we are putting a line in the sand and saying we are going to try and fix some of the mess that the previous National Government left behind for us to clean up, especially where it concerns renters.

So the fee is, typically, one week’s rent plus GST. Do you know how much of a massive, upfront barrier that is to the groups I’ve just talked about? Lower-income people, Māori people, Pacific people, and people with a disability are already struggling with the rental process in a highly competitive market. Students everywhere, all around our country, are already struggling, and then they are having to pay an extra upfront fee which absolutely has no criteria around it—no framework around it. It’s just what they want to charge, particularly in a competitive market. They can get away with charging because there are so many people trying to find a place to live, a place to put down roots. They’re willing to pay a weekly rent, they’re willing to look after the property and treat it as their home, and they are simply trying to find a place to live.

The letting fee that is being charged by the agency is for services that will benefit the homeowners, the landlords, and the property owners, so it is there that the fee should fall. It is there that the fee should fall. It is for showing people through the house. It is for advertising the property. It is for going through the vetting process for finding tenants. It is for the benefit of the homeowner, and it’s not going to be magicked away—no, it is not. It is not. It is still going to be paid. If that is a service that landlords are wanting, then they will shop around and they will have a look at who is offering what and at whether or not they are going to choose you as the agency to find a good tenant for their home. And the good tenants are nearly all of us, by the way. The good tenants are nearly all of us, by the way, who just want a place to put down our roots, look after, and call our own.

Now, I just want to take a couple of issues with some of these previous speakers’ comments—particularly picking up on I think it was Mr Simon O’Connor. He said that what you really have to look into is making sure that the private market can cater. Well, how did that go? How did that go for you, after nine years? Wait, wait, I know how it went. You had a private enterprise, you did—with motel owners—and $50 million was paid to motels. That was your rental tenancy agency—$50 million was paid to motel owners to put up people who you had to shove away, especially during an election year, because you had no other place to put them. That’s how your private enterprise went.

So, no, I’m really proud of this, and also it’s just one thing that we are going to keep going on. We are going to introduce other measures alongside this abolition of the tenancy letting fees, because it’s not one thing on its own. We absolutely are also going to, in this term, establish a progressive homeownership scheme as part of the Greens’ confidence and supply agreement with the Government. All of those other bits of legislation and policies that have to come in alongside abolishing letting fees are what will lead us in whole to a whole better direction where this country and this Government actually believe that providing people with a warm, safe, affordable secure home is part of our job, and is a right that everybody is entitled to in this country. That’s the direction we are turning in.

We are turning away from the direction which says “Houses are a business investment. Houses are for speculation.” This is the direction that we are turning to: houses are for homes, first and foremost, for children, for old people, for everybody to be able to have. You can go to school in that community for more than a year, because I am aware that earlier this year Auckland University of Technology commissioned research that found that 212,000 Kiwis are transient—that’s 5.6 percent of the population. But, actually, for 4,000 people they had moved seven or more times over three years from 2013 to 2016—that’s a possible letting fee every time they were moved on from their rental properties. I was one of those who knew first-hand that you could simply get moved on from a renting property because the market was a good time for landlords to put up the rent, and it was easier to put up a rent by a lot more if you just moved someone on—just move them on so you can charge at least $100 extra. That’s another letting fee for the family who have had to move out of that home. For some 4,000 people they had to find a letting fee, possibly, up to seven times over three years.

This is what the previous Government did and this is what this coalition Government is trying to fix. We are showing that commitment here tonight, putting a line in the sand. We are going to start making lives better for a whole, at least, half of the country who are renting. Renting should be a dignified, valid choice for us, and homeownership is decreasing. So the choice in having to rent should be a good option, should be a safe, secure, warm, dignified option where tenants are seen as dignified citizens of this country alongside everybody else, whether you own a home or not. This is the direction that this legislation is signalling from us tonight.

I just want to say: is it virtue signalling? Who cares? We’re giving people a better chance to get in to good rental homes. We are starting with abolishing rental fees. So whatever labels you want to throw at that, throw all you can, because your record speaks for itself—the previous Government’s; not yours, Mr Assistant Speaker, not yours at all. The record of the previous Government speaks for itself, and it failed. This country today, as one of the wealthier OECD countries, is having to bear the stigma of having one of the worst homelessness rates in the entire wealthy country selection, and that is a fail. So we’re going to fix that.

We are going to make sure that renting is a valid, dignified option. We are going to make sure that if people do have to move, they’re not going to be landed with the extra burden of finding hundreds and hundreds of dollars, and, absolutely, for different parts around the country it’s worse—it’s worse for different parts around the country. There’s no need for that.

We don’t absolutely need to accept that rents will increase because of abolishing the letting fee. We have to say this at every speech, because they’re in denial and because that’s their only argument, this Opposition over here. Their only argument is that rents will increase. So we’re going to have to keep batting it back. That is their only argument, though. The overseas, international examples have proven that there is no evidence to show that rents will increase. Even in Scotland, only two percent of rents increased immediately after banning letting fees, and our own Treasury has said, “Yeah, no, other market forces are going to make the difference to rent increases.” And this from an Opposition that pretends to know about the market—to know about the market. Simple supply and demand will help dictate what increases rents, and we’re working on that. We’re building more homes, including State homes. Supply and demand are included in the variables of what will increase rents. Stop the alarmist, false calls to rent increases, because we are trying to do something good here. I’m really proud to stand with my colleagues and support this bill. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill.

In the explanatory note on the bill it is stated, and I quote, “By paying a letting fee, tenants are bearing the costs associated with letting a rental property, where the benefit ultimately rests with the landlord.” I think it’s worth pointing out that, of course, the benefit of the arrangement that is a tenancy should rest with both parties, if, indeed, the contract has been freely entered into. So I think it’s, perhaps, somewhat limited in scope if we’re talking only about the benefit being to one side or the other in relation to the letting fee.

It’s my belief that this Parliament should not lightly interfere with principles such as freedom of contract and sanctity of contract, such that two parties that are equal are able to enter into arrangements freely. Now, this principle is not absolute, because it is possible, of course, for one-sided arrangements to be entered into, so we must be on the guard for such situations as that. But it’s worth noting, I think, that situation of residential tenancies, in accordance with the Act as it already exists, is not equal in any case.

By way of example, in terms of giving notice a tenant is required only to give, in the case of a periodic tenancy, 21 days’ notice, and the landlord, except in very particular circumstances specified in the Act, 90 days’. And, of course, the difference between 90 days and 21 days is considerably more than the equivalent period that would be charged by way of letting fee. So it seems to me that in discussing particular mechanisms that might be said to benefit one side or the other that, in fact, if we’re to do so in a full, holistic, and intellectually honest fashion then we do need to acknowledge that the Residential Tenancies Act, in its current form, prior to such amendment as this bill would have us make, is inherently unequal, at least in some parts in any case.

It seems to me there’s some confusion around the difference between making law and enforcing law. Some of the examples that have been given from the other side of the House have spoken to examples which, if true, would be distressing. But that is not to say that they are necessarily examples of a shortfall in existing legislation so much, as perhaps oppressive practices by those who are not following the current law. So, to me, that would be an argument for enforcement of current rights as the preferable and certainly prior solution, as distinct from making further laws that will then not be enforced. So, families moving five or six times a year, as has been mentioned—well, if there are fixed-term tenancies of 12 months, as the initial period, that wouldn’t be the case, or a notice of 90 days not being given, and so forth.

That’s probably enough from me in an initial contribution to the bill. We look forward to watching the passage of the legislation at least as far as it will go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Greg O’Connor.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tonight, in the previous bill, we’ve seen the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Homosexual Offences) Bill passed with the consensus of the House. As we reflected on that, we saw it was a bill—we shouldn’t condemn those who put that bill in, in the first place, or those who enforced it. It was a time when that was relevant.

As we consider the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, we should perhaps consider that we are at another time now in history, where we need to start looking at the way we protect those in our society who are more vulnerable and less advantaged. What we are seeing is a change to Generation Rent. We only have to look at the statistics to just see how many more—over half of New Zealanders now are renters. With the trends that are continuing, we can expect to see that continue.

What that means is that as parliamentarians, as legislators, we have to ensure that any laws we pass now are cognisant of the times that we are in. The time we are in is a time when we have to look at protecting those who we are here to protect—the most vulnerable. A bill like the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill is just one of those things that we consider; one of those pieces of legislation. It means that people who are forced to rent for the rest of their lives, or even those who are renting while they’re trying to save, are not subject to a continual drain on their finances.

It’s easy to sit here and say, “Well, they rent. It’s only a week’s rent.” But just consider what it’s like to try to find—how much cash you’ve actually got to find now, when you move into a property. You’ve got to find your bond. That’s cash you’ve got to have. You’ve got to find, generally, two weeks’ rent up front and then you’ve got to find this tenancy fee.

For those who are on a low hourly wage or a low salary, that’s quite an imposition. There’s all those other costs associated with moving. Usually there’s a mover. If you’re at that end of the market, usually you’re going to have to pay someone to move your property, if you can’t get lucky enough to find a mate who’s got a trailer or a van. So these are all very real costs.

I reflect back on a very good friend of mine who lived in a place in Switzerland, a place called Unterwasser. My friend’s mother had lived in a house for 60 years as a tenant. She had quite incredible rights as a tenant. It was, essentially, her home—her house that she stayed in until she needed to go into care. So she had real rights. They’re the sorts of rights that renters in New Zealand simply don’t have. I’m not sure why we ended up with such an insecure tenancy for those who rent in New Zealand. I don’t know what the history of it was. But the reality of it is that I look at so many, particularly European, countries, so many other countries where renters have rights.

So, going back to my initial proposition, this is a time when we really do have to look at what life is going to be like for our children, our grandchildren, those that come after us, and certainly those who we are tasked to look after. This is one provision, just one provision, of many that we need now, to make sure we keep up with the changing trends in society.

So while the implementation of this will have its issues, I don’t personally believe that rents will go up.

David Seymour: Does the member believe in gravity?

GREG O'CONNOR: This is something that—many people who actually rent houses out now don’t charge this as direct, particularly if you look at those in Dunedin. Many of the private tenants there don’t charge it now; many do. It tends to be those that go through the bigger agencies that do.

So I’d ask those who are considering this bill—and the reason why I’ll be supporting it is that it makes us cognisant of the change in society we have reached, and we’re going to be protecting our future, which is Generation Rent. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Simeon Brown—five minutes.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would just like to ask, and I think the member for Epsom asked the question of Greg O’Connor, “Does the member believe in gravity?” He doesn’t seem to believe that rents will rise because of this piece of legislation. Well, it’s very nice to know what the member might believe or might not believe, but there’s also the markets and market forces, which are well evidenced and something which I think can actually be evidenced, rather than just talking about what some member might believe or not believe.

The problem with this piece of legislation, the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, is that, quite simply, it is virtue signalling and trying to make the other side of this House feel good about themselves. They think that by banning something, you can simply make something just evaporate. Well, we’ve got news from this side of the House for them, and the news is this: money doesn’t grow on trees. Money doesn’t grow on trees, and costs will be passed on.

We have to go back and ask the question: what is a letting fee for? Well, it’s for a service. It’s a service that landlords have done in order to have a property rented out—listing a property, advertising—[Interruption] They might be yelling because they don’t want to hear the truth, but that’s OK—conducting open homes, vetting prospective tenants. All of those things take time, and I know that the other side don’t like to think it, but time costs money, and someone has to pay. At the end of the day, just like rates are passed on to the tenants, water charges are passed on to tenants, letting fees will also be passed on to tenants, and they will have to pay as well.

The regulatory impact statement says there has been no consultation on this proposal. The full extent of impacts cannot be identified. Greg O’Connor can stand up and say he doesn’t believe in stuff—well, there hasn’t even been any consultation done on this proposal. The reality is—we heard Ron Mark say he doesn’t really care if the costs are passed on as well. So, on one hand, you’ve got Greg O’Connor saying he doesn’t believe they will, then you hear Ron Mark saying, “Well, I don’t really care if they do.”

Well, the problem is, for tenants—and this is where they’re letting down those people that they’re trying to help—that while tenants might have, say, a $500 charge—$10 a week; that’s $10 per week that they might get increased in their rent—well, that won’t be removed in the second year. They’ll be continuing to pay that year on year, and instead of having a letting fee which they pay once, it’ll be something which will continually be paid, and then it’ll be increased and they’ll be paying it again.

This piece of legislation is deeply flawed. It is simply virtue signalling to make the Government feel better. It’s not building a single house—we’re still waiting for that to happen as well—and it’s not getting to the root cause of the problems that they’re trying to solve. So we oppose this piece of legislation because it’s a ridiculous piece of legislation, and we look forward to some better stuff coming soon. Thanks.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on this piece of legislation, because it’s very important. I want to acknowledge the speaker who just resumed his seat, Simeon Brown, who actually did something important in this debate: he acknowledged the role that real estate agents play in our economy. It’s actually quite an important role, and it’s been underestimated—in fact, totally ignored—by the Government in drafting this bill and in the way they’ve debated tonight.

I want to acknowledge Greg O’Connor, who spoke earlier, who gave one of the finest speeches I’ve ever seen from an MP who’s eight beers deep. It was a brilliant example of somebody doing his best to fill in 10 minutes with no ideas whatsoever.

This Government is going to face a time of reckoning. It’s going to face a time of reckoning when the people sitting at home listening to this debate ask the question: “Has this Government actually made my life better, or have they played a series of shell games where they have shifted costs around but they haven’t made my basic situation any better?” Members of the Government—including Kieran McAnulty, who spoke earlier today and managed to fill an entire speech with half a thought, if we’re being generous—should read Henry Hazlitt, the economist who wrote Economics in One Lesson. I don’t have great hopes for the Greens, but I think some of the Labour members could get through Economics in One Lesson. If they did, they would read that the bad economist looks only at the short-term effects on some groups. The good economist looks at the long-term effects on all groups.

If anyone with half a mind applies that reasoning to this legislation, they simply have to ask themselves, if it’s not possible to charge a letting fee on a rental, who is going to pay the costs of advertising tenancies and of showing the property at all times—they’d have to be convenient so that people can see them and fit in with their work and their other commitments? Who is going to pay for the reference checks that have to be done? Who is going to negotiate all those little details in the real world of a tenancy—can I have a pet; what is the term; what are the renewal dates; does the fireplace actually work? These are all the things that tenants in the real world—as the Labour Party members should well know—have to face. Who is going to pay for dealing with all of those minor issues that are the reality of renting in New Zealand, or any country, for that matter?

Well, of course, it’s going to be letting agents. Of course, letting agents are not fairies, they are not Tinker Bell, they are not magic. They don’t work for free. They do not have a money tree. They expect to be compensated—like every other worker the Labour Party’s supposed to stand for—for their work. They expect to be compensated.

If they can’t be compensated from a letting fee, then how do the Labour Party members and the New Zealand First member, down there, expect them to be compensated? Of course they are going to pay higher rents to pay for the arrangement of finding a new place to live. As Hazlitt said, the bad economist looks at the short-term effects on some people; the good economist looks at the long-term effects on all people. This is a shell game that is transferring costs from here to there, but it does not make people’s lives any better.

The ACT Party proudly opposes this legislation because we are committed to making people’s lives better, and we know that the people at home listening tonight understand better than the Labour Party—

Kieran McAnulty: “We”? “We”?

DAVID SEYMOUR: —better than Kieran McAnulty—that they will not benefit from a shell game that shifts costs. They will vote this Government out because they will know they’ve been had by a Government with no real ideas. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s an absolute privilege to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge that blank sermon that we’ve just heard a while ago. I can’t actually find anything to pinpoint—a point to talk about.

Anyway, we’ve just had the Easter weekend, and I just want to—before I start on this bill—acknowledge the Onehunga Tongan Methodist church, who prayed for the members of this House, whether you believe Christianity or not. They prayed for our well-being and our families and the rest of this country. I also want to acknowledge the Reverend, Nehilofi ‘Aholelei, who focused her sermon, unlike the other member, on the loyalty of Mary Magdalene to Jesus Christ and laid out her legacy to the Christian movement.

I heard people invoke other people from history. It is there that it’s important for me to acknowledge the legacy of Norman Kirk’s message—Norman Kirk’s message of what one can hope for, which for the Labour Party is simple but yet it’s just timeless: someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work, and something to hope for. And that’s where I have my loyalty to that leadership in terms of somewhere to live.

We heard from the member Simon O’Connor, and he talked about the element of the human nature—the element of the human nature. Well, I think, surely—surely—for those who invest their business in providing homes for New Zealand, it’s better than just looking at the elements of human nature to charge—or double charge—the normal New Zealander.

They talked about how the rent increases will rise. Well, this bill also ensures that other fees cannot be charged in place of a letting fee. My learned colleagues are here. I think that Dr Webb may say that, in terms of business, you have other avenues in terms of tax and things like that that you could find and that your expenses can be costed and be dealt with in other ways. But I want to acknowledge the member Scott Simpson. I just have to—I can’t help myself. He invoked one of Winston Churchill’s quotes, but as he was speaking, what it reminded me of was another Winston Churchill quote, which is “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm”. Nine long years! What happened about no loss of enthusiasm in terms of “It’s only human nature that they will raise the rent”—looking at the negative side.

As I speak, I see the member for Pakuranga from the other side of the House. It’s rich that when he used to be the local board member for Manurewa Local Board, he was standing with the people who Minister Salesa spoke about of Manurewa, the people who are suffering—suffering for the last nine years. He was standing with them, and now it’s rich that he’s moved over to Pakuranga in a safe National seat and he’s now saying all these other things he was saying, which I can’t really remember. How things change when you change your colours and you move from South Auckland to east Auckland. Things just change and you just go along with that.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark. Thank you for reminding this House of what the National Government did, which was sell the State houses. They sold the State houses to their mates, who are now mates of the member from Pakuranga.

The principal Act, the Residential Tenancies Act, was from 1986—32 years ago. The population of New Zealand was just over 3 million. In 2013, in terms of the census, we had grown by a million. Surely this 32-year-old little part of the legislation that the honourable Minister Twyford spoke about was the down payment to busting KiwiBuild. It definitely is.

This bill is the levelling. It is a blast of levelling access to affordable housing, which this Government is standing for. I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party, providing affordable homes for New Zealand. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, this is just another example of the Government fluffing around in the housing sector and trying to manipulate what is already an existing business model, when what they should be doing is focusing on their own 10-year 100,000 houses—or 27 houses a day, as it was when they made that announcement. It is now up to nearly 29 houses a day, because they haven’t even driven in a stick. They’ve not driven in a nail. There is no start on the 100,000 houses. How about starting with house number one? But instead of building houses they have been distracted by messing with an established business model, and they are planning to ban letting fees by agents.

The largest proportion of New Zealand rental properties is actually owned by mum and dad investors. Mum and dad investors do not want to be dealing with the advertising. They don’t want to be dealing with the legal documents of setting up tenancy agreements. They don’t want to be doing the open homes. They want an agent to act on their behalf, and that’s what the letting fee covers. So the relationship that the letting agent and the property owner have is a symbiotic relationship. It works well in this market, and it means that the property investor—the mum and dad investor, in this country—has the security of having a professional manage it on their behalf.

A New Zealand First speaker earlier tonight used Scotland as his example to support this bill, but actually he failed to mention that the rest of the United Kingdom did not follow suit. In fact, the New Zealand Property Investors Federation has suggested that an alternative, to follow most of the UK, was actually to require that the fees be displayed, and be, as this Government would always proclaim to be, open and transparent. So there is no need to mess with the market. This side of the House does not support this bill.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): It is a—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member—this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.