Wednesday, 2 May 2018

WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2018

WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Government Financial Position—Spending Commitments

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. And to save time for question No. 2: yes again. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that her Government’s policy to slow debt reduction has freed up more than $10 billion for extra Government spending by increasing borrowing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know there’s hot anticipation for our Budget, but I would ask the member to wait until 17 May.

Hon Simon Bridges: So was Grant Robertson wrong when he said that he’s got $10 billion free from increased borrowing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know, that was at the half-yearly update. What we’ve been clearly consistent about is, for instance, that we will be sticking to our Budget responsibility rules, particularly as it relates to our debt track.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that, yesterday, the finance Minister announced a further $1.4 billion of tax increases and spending cuts to free up more room for new spending on top of that $10 billion in extra borrowing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, the figure that we spent the most time talking about was the $700 million in reprioritisation, and it is fair to say that this is a Government that also was much more focused on chasing tax dodgers and uncollected tax from multinationals, which the last Government wasn’t interested in.

Hon Simon Bridges: So will the Prime Minister answer the question: is it $1.4 billion of tax increases and spending cuts that have been freed up with the announcement by the finance Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, I refute the premise of the question. He’s framing these as spending cuts, and I refute that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will she commit to delivering on her promise of a universal $10 reduction in GP fees on 1 July, given the substantial amount of funding she’s got available to her?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Even with that reprioritisation, we’ve still been left with a massive social deficit, particularly in the area of healthcare, and the member will see, on Budget day, what we’re doing to start rebuilding key services for New Zealanders.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will she deliver on her promise of a universal $10 reduction in GP fees?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, on Budget day, the member will see exactly what we’re doing to reduce the 44 percent increase in GP costs that New Zealanders faced under that Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it still her policy to widen access to very low-cost GP visits to 600,000 extra New Zealanders on 1 July, including senior citizens and people in social housing, just as National campaigned on at the election?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, that’s something that will be revealed on Budget day. What I do note is that New Zealanders, particularly older New Zealanders, might want to take heed of what the Leader of the Opposition has said: that the winter energy payment, for instance, under National would be gone, and so their energy poverty and their inability to heat their home would be gone on their watch.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to ask Mr Robertson to allow the Prime Minister to answer the question on her own. One at a time, thank you.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with her health Minister’s statement that “We will deliver the promises we make.” or does she agree with the statement in the very same interview on the weekend: “We’re going to have to phase some of these initiatives; there is no doubt about that.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister of Health is absolutely committed to making GP visits cheaper, and we have to because that last Government let them creep up by 44 percent. So I find it a little bit rich to be lectured by that member when it got out of control while he was in Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does Shane Jones get a roundabout built just down the road, through his provincial growth fund, but New Zealand families miss out on her promise to reduce GP fees across the board?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Shall we talk about Tauranga? But, ultimately, there’s this assumption here that somehow—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee. Sorry, the “Hon” Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If you keep saying it often enough, Mr Speaker, it might stick. The point I want to make is that it can’t possibly be a start to an answer about a roundabout in Whangarei or a GP fee, to begin that answer by saying “Shall we talk about Tauranga?”

SPEAKER: Well, clearly it can be, because it was. [Interruption] Order! I think there’s been a long tradition in this House that when there have been highly political, personalised questions, the responses will come back and be of the same nature. The Prime Minister will finish the answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I am happy to withdraw that part of the answer, because, ultimately, the reason that that proposal was made was because it was unsafe and a death trap. To answer the second part of the member’s question, when it comes to supporting New Zealanders on low and middle incomes, the first 100 days were used by this Government to put in the most substantial reforms in a decade to lift the incomes of those very families we’re now being criticised of not supporting.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it true that the $10 GP fee has been scaled back in order to provide free dental care for all SuperGold card holders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to engage in a highly speculative discussion about the Budget. The member will just have to wait. Look, as a previous member of the Opposition, I understand how frustrating this can be.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, will the Budget include free dental care for all SuperGold card holders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I will save the member his supplementaries. I will not answer questions that relate to Budget 2018. The member will just have to wait.

Transport Infrastructure—State Highway Funding and Regional Fuel Tax

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): It won’t surprise the member that I still stand by all my Government’s policies and actions.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her Government’s decision to strip $5 billion out of the State highway projects around New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve answered in this House many, many times, we had an 11 percent reduction but a considerable increase in the amount of money that is going to local and regional roads and also a commitment, particularly in Auckland, to try and get a considerable number of people off our roads and travelling via public transport.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister disputing that there is $5 billion of reduction in the State highway budget over the next decade?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In my answer I just referenced the difference in our State highway spend but also highlighted the fact that we are investing more in regional and local roads.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the much promised and vaunted four-lane extension from Whangarei all the way to Warkworth, exactly how many dollars were committed by the prior Government, which this Government inherited?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe the member is referring to the ghost roads that the last Government announced via press statement but did very little else.

Hon Simon Bridges: By how much will rebalancing transport spending away from regional State highway upgrades to metropolitan public transport increase New Zealand’s productivity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There’s actually no such thing as regional State highways, but as we have continually pointed out in this House, what we have instead—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the Prime Minister to resume her seat. I’m going to ask the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition to both not interject for the balance of this question and all of the supplementaries. Prime Minister, can you start again, please.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I was saying, we have made our decisions based on the fact that only 5 percent of the National Land Transport Fund is on improving local roads and yet half of the truck and car journeys are on them. The last Government was focused on spending its money on roads that were used by far fewer New Zealanders. That’s why we’re reinvesting in local roads, unlike under the National Government, who cut funding on the West Coast, Taranaki, Southland, Otago, Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Gisborne, and the Bay of Plenty.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Auckland Council’s annual wage bill has increased by $160 million per annum—more than the revenue of the regional fuel tax—and does she think it is better to charge Auckland families $700 a year in fuel tax or require the council to better manage its spending?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I have no responsibility for the nature of council spending. What I do know is that we have at least taken on the role of ensuring that we properly fund the commitments we want to make to Aucklanders who are currently spending a good chunk of their life in congestion—unlike the last Government, who had a $5.9 billion hole in their Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) spending and no plan on how to fund some of the projects that would make the biggest difference to New Zealanders. That’s the truth.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why doesn’t the Prime Minister commit to better management of both the Government and council’s finances, which will allow these projects to go ahead without the need for a regional fuel tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if the member wants to talk about better financial management, he’ll need to explain to this House how he was going to fund the $5.9 billion hole in ATAP, which his Government let hang. Not only was it a $5.9 billion gap, it grew to $9.7 billion when you factored in inflation and cost increases—another example of clever accounting by the National Party.

Hon Simon Bridges: What specific steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the people of Southland don’t get charged more as a result of Auckland’s regional fuel tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s called a regional fuel tax because it is only intended for Auckland, and Southland—[Interruption]. It’ll be the fuel companies who will be answering questions if that’s used as an excuse to hike prices on New Zealanders it’s not intended for. But can I also ask, then, if the member is so opposed to the regional fuel tax, which projects he intends to can as a result of not being able to fund them?

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I think the Prime Minister knows that she answers the questions; she doesn’t ask them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister going back on what she said on TVNZ’s Breakfast this week when she made it quite clear that, actually, this regional fuel tax for Auckland might see prices increase around other parts of the country?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is absolutely false when we take in to account what the Government’s doing here. It is called a regional fuel tax. It is only applicable to Auckland. If the member has questions around why a fuel company might use it as an excuse to hike prices in another region, that’s a question for the fuel companies.

Budget 2018—Capital and Operating Pressures

3. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Finance: What capital and operating pressures has he taken into account in Budget 2018?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Upon taking office, we have found that we’ve inherited a number of significant capital and operating cost pressures. The operating pressures are seen in Government agencies that have had their baseline funding frozen, or in areas like education, where early childhood centres have seen their funding decline by 12 percent in real terms. In terms of capital, Treasury’s 2018 investment statement showed that the social portfolio—our schools and hospitals—faces challenges from ageing buildings and long-term under-investment, including 19 percent of our district health board assets that are in poor or very poor condition.

Paul Eagle: What specific examples of capital pressures has he seen?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen pressures across a number of portfolios, but the one that stands out for me is health. In Budget 2017 total new initiative funding for capital in Vote Health was $150 million. This sum was inadequate to fund the need for capital expenditure but was a significant increase on the equivalent number in Budget 2016, which was zero, and for Budget 2015, which was also zero. This is the reason for the current state of our hospitals: a legacy of neglect.

Paul Eagle: How will the Government handle these capital and operating pressures?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In Budget 2018 we are prioritising critical public services, in particular investing in health, education, and housing. We can afford to do this because we are repaying debt more slowly than the previous Government, we are increasing revenue, and we are prioritising spending in line with this Government’s priorities. We acknowledge that we cannot correct everything in one Budget, but we have a plan to make sure New Zealand is more inclusive, more sustainable, and more productive, and I will be proud to present that plan on 17 May.

Fiscal Strategy—Tax Working Group and Projected Surpluses

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that the Tax Working Group review “isn’t a revenue grab - one option open to the working group is that the recommendations are fiscally neutral”; if so, will he give an assurance that any tax package finally approved by the Government will be fiscally neutral?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes; and in answer to the second part of the question, as the member notes, fiscally neutral recommendations are an option for the Tax Working Group. We will all have to await their report to see if it occurs.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How then, in the absence of such an assurance, can New Zealanders be confident that he isn’t preparing a revenue grab?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member looked at the terms of reference for the Tax Working Group and indeed the policies outlined by the Government, he would see that we have committed that any recommendations from that working group that the Government chooses to take up, if they are legislated, will not come into force until after the 2020 election.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What would be the combined projected surpluses for the next four years, as outlined in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update?

SPEAKER: No. Does the member want to rephrase the question so it’s a supplementary to either the primary or the other questions?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, speaking to the point of—

SPEAKER: No. It’s not a point of order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: All right. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a question is about the Tax Working Group and revenue, what is not connected about that—talking about the size of surpluses?

SPEAKER: Because the fiscal update is a very specific document, one which is from the past and has nothing to do with a tax working group which—it’s been made clear to the public—will not be implementing its work for another two years. Does the member want to have another go at having the supplementary question?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes, yes. To the Speaker—to the Minister. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK. That’s sort of like about 2 all, so we’ll just let the member ask his question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what are the combined projected surpluses expected for the next four years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is doing a great job asking these questions for the Opposition, but unfortunately he’ll have to wait until the Budget for that information.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, how much more money than the $19 billion in surpluses that were recorded in the pre-election fiscal update does he think he needs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we need is revenue to enable us to rebuild our health system, fix our hospitals, fix our schools, and make up for the nine years of neglect of that previous Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why is it that when he had $19 billion in surpluses available to him, plus higher than expected revenues, plus he’s borrowing an extra $10 billion, he’s unwilling and unable to keep the Government’s promise to New Zealanders over reducing costs to GPs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will see the full extent of our plan when the Budget comes out. But what I can say to him is that when we have inherited hospitals in New Zealand that require so much work, that have mould in the walls, where we have early childhood centres who have actually had a real-term decline in their funding, it will take time to correct these but we’ve got the plan to do it.

Health, Minister—Capital Spending and GP Fees

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): on behalf of the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister, yes, in the context they were given and taken.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, how can he stand by his answer to question No. 7 yesterday when he said, “The last Budget set aside only $37.5 million for new capital spending per year”, when the actual appropriation was actually $664.5 million?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have the details to hand. I perhaps would question the second figure that the member just put forward, but I’m sure that we’ll be able to resolve the issue if he puts down the question in writing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can he stand by his statement that he was not told of other building issues at Middlemore Hospital, when documents leaked to the New Zealand Herald show acting CEO Gloria Johnson specifically told the Minister of problems in other buildings, and outgoing chair Rabin Rabindran said the Minister was shown pictures of mould in other buildings and commented that the Minister had “seen worse,”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by all my statements. I recall very clearly the visit. My expectation is that district health boards raise serious issues with me, and while we were given a lengthy document outlining a whole series of issues, there was no mention of rot or mould in that particular document.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his statements on the reason for phasing the GP fees reduction initiative when, having inherited a strong economy, increased Crown revenue, and together with a commitment to borrow $10 billion more, there is no sound reason for the Government to break that promise to New Zealanders?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is committed to reducing the cost of going to the GP and funding health more sustainably. We’re also committed to managing the Government’s books responsibly. But I think that member should reflect on the record of his National Government, under which the cost of visiting a GP increased 44 percent and the state of our hospitals was in serious decline. I don’t think any member of the public can take his concerns seriously, given he had nine years to do something about it.

Housing—KiwiBuild

6. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress has been made on the affordable housing policy?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): On Saturday, we unveiled the first 18 KiwiBuild homes, currently under construction by Housing New Zealand in Papakura. We were able to get these houses under way quickly because plans to sell the land to private developers had fallen through. Housing New Zealand was also barred, by agreements made under the previous Government, from building more State houses. If not for KiwiBuild, grass would still be growing there. This follows on from the purchase of land from Unitech, where up to 4,000 homes will be built. We’re working tirelessly on the acquisition of other blocks of Crown land for KiwiBuild, developing opportunities for Housing New Zealand for their vacant land, and preparing to launch our programme to buy KiwiBuild houses from private developers.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will KiwiBuild numbers ramp up over time?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, obviously you can’t go from zero to 10,000 houses a year overnight. We are laying the foundations through Government procurement, planning, land acquisition, and working directly with developers and builders. In KiwiBuild’s first year, starting on 1 July and ending on 30 June 2019, we’re expecting to build 1,000 KiwiBuild homes. In the next year, we expect to build 5,000. By the time of the election we expect to have a total of 8,000 completed homes. By June—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There have been two speeches instead of answers to questions.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How ambitious is the KiwiBuild programme compared to historical building policies?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the KiwiBuild programme includes a larger, faster ramp-up in house building than the Christchurch rebuild. It’s comparable in scale to the first Labour Government’s State house building programme, which went from 400 houses in the first year to 4,000 in the third. We aim to go from 1,000 in the first year to 10,000 in the third.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will families looking to buy their first home be able to purchase a KiwiBuild home?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There will be a ballot system similar to that used for Axis homes at Hobsonville, initiated under the previous Government. The criteria and entry details will be announced in due course, before the first homes are ready in September.

Transport Infrastructure—Regional Fuel Tax Impact and Fuel Price Increases

7. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on fuel taxes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, when described and reported accurately.

Jami-Lee Ross: What action will he take to ensure that people in Southland aren’t directly impacted by regional fuel taxes in Auckland ending up pushing up fuel prices around the rest of the country as a result of price spreading?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, this Government has made its attitude to price spreading very clear to the fuel companies. We have initiated changes to the Commerce Act, which will give the Commerce Commission more teeth to deal with anti-competitive behaviour. My colleague the Hon Megan Woods has called in BP to make it very clear what our attitude is to anti-competitive behaviour. I think the fuel companies will be in no doubt as to how they will be treated if price spreading takes place.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he provide a guarantee to New Zealanders living outside of Auckland that they will not be impacted by price spreading as a result of his Government’s actions?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but I will provide a guarantee that this Government won’t waste billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a few hand-picked, gold-plated expressways in the main urban centres, as that Government did for nine years.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister seen any reports of action the last Government took to stop the unscrupulous behaviour of fuel companies under their watch for nine years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Actually, none.

Jami-Lee Ross: What reports has that Minister seen of unscrupulous behaviour by his Government in ramping up fuel prices and taxes on New Zealanders by 25c a litre?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: None, but I have seen reports of a Government that is willing to institute a transport policy that spends money rationally right across the country, right across the transport system, and doesn’t pork barrel billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a few gold-plated expressways.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that while fuel taxes increased by 17c a litre under the last National Government, the amount of spending on roads in Southland and many other regional areas declined significantly?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you for that question. I can conclude that spending on transport in Southland was reduced significantly over the last nine years under that Government. Local roads were neglected, and I can tell the member that under our Government policy statement, spending on transport will increase in every single region in this country.

Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that while his Government Ministers—the Associate Minister is so concerned about fuel price increasing by 17c a litre in nine years, while his Government’s putting up fuel prices by 25c a litre in three years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the reason is that this Government is committed to investing in growth. We believe in investing in infrastructure to get ahead of growth. We will not allow people to continue to die on the roads because that Government refused to invest in local and regional roads. We will not allow the people in our major urban centres to waste hundreds of hours every year sitting in gridlock because of a failure over nine years to invest in economic growth and good transport systems.

Marja Lubeck: What other statements has he seen about the regional fuel tax?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I saw a statement this morning out of the select committee hearing in Auckland, by Mayor Phil Goff, who said that the failure to pass the regional fuel tax will consign Auckland to a permanent future of gridlock.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his Government will continue the removal of the rural road subsidy, which was the inherited position the Government got into after the last election?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government’s committed to a 50 percent increase in spending on local roads and local road maintenance. We won’t stand by and allow the infrastructure deficit to continue that saw regions all over this country starved of the funding that they need to maintain their local roads.

Regional Economic Development, Minister—Statements

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: Is the Government committed to a professional, competent, and politically neutral public sector; if so, how is the reported statement by Regional Economic Development Minister Hon Shane Jones that Ministers be able to appoint their “shit-kickers” consistent with this?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, I have no responsibility for Shane Jones’ comments, and I suspect that both of us are probably quite happy about that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister had a discussion with the Minister for Regional Economic Development on the specific skill set that would be required by the new Government, in leading the public sector, to be able to qualify as a “shit-kicker”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have a very collaborative working relationship with the Hon Shane Jones and discuss a wide range of issues with him on a regular basis. I have had a short conversation with him this week about this matter, and I’m sure that that conversation will be ongoing.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What specifically was the content of the conversation he had with the Minister for Regional Economic Development about his desire for Ministers to be able to appoint shit-kickers to senior Public Service roles?

SPEAKER: Before the member answers, I allowed the question because it was a direct quote. Having used it now three times, I think the member might be able to use his imagination just a little and avoid using the word.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I fail to see what it could be.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, when you have Ministers of this Government during their ministerial roles—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The nature of the conversation was a very preliminary one, and I’m sure that we will be having further discussions on an ongoing basis about the matter. I am aware that this is a contested issue. Other Ministers at various times have argued that Ministers should have a greater role in appointing senior public servants—including Ministers in the last National Government, notably one Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister share the view of the Minister for Regional Economic Development that the State sector has too many useless “phantom bureaucrats”; if so, what measures will the Government be taking to get rid of these phantom bureaucrats?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

School Buildings—Marlborough Girls’ and Boys’ Colleges Rebuild

9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What progress can he report on a rebuild of new secondary schools in Blenheim?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last Friday, I visited Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College to discuss options for moving forward with the rebuilding of both colleges on a new or existing site. Discussions about this started over five years ago, and the Marlborough community is still waiting. The biggest challenge is that over the last two years, since co-location on a new site was approved by the previous Government, a viable site still has not been identified. I’ve asked officials to update all of the options and report back to me as a matter of priority so that we can get this moving and give the community what they were promised so long ago.

Jamie Strange: What reports did he hear about the condition of the existing Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College buildings?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It wasn’t necessarily just about reports that I heard; I saw first-hand that the staff at the Marlborough Boys’ College have a 82-year-old building with large cracks and bursting pipes. I was told of a leaking indoor gymnasium and library. When I visited Marlborough Girls’ College, they had leaky internal guttering in their science and technology classroom, and issues with almost every other block in the school. In one block I entered, the smell of mould was so overpowering we left within a moment or two. It’s time to see some action on that site, and the new buildings that they were promised so long ago actually coming to fruition, and that’s what this Government is going to deliver.

Stuart Smith: Will he confirm that at least $60 million will be invested in the co-location of Marlborough Boys’ College and Marlborough Girls’ College?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If we continue to go ahead with the option of co-location on a new site, it’s likely that it will be significantly more than that. The experience of Shirley Boys’ High School and Avonside Girls’ High School in Christchurch, for example, suggests that the costs could be well over $100 million to go ahead with the previous Government’s proposal—something that they did not budget enough money to cover the cost of.

Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Permits—Impact on Existing Permits

10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her statement to the Petroleum Conference, “we have 10 years or so of natural gas consented for drilling, and potentially many more years that could be discovered under existing exploration permits. Some of these permits run as late as 2046. They are not under threat”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, in the context it was given. I especially stand by the assurance I gave to the assembled industry delegates that this Government saw the need for a careful, long-term, and managed transition of 30-plus years and that the coming changes would honour existing permits.

Jonathan Young: In light of that, will she guarantee the Government will not bring any legislation during this term that would amend the conditions of the area covered by the 24 offshore exploration and production permits already approved?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can assure, and have given an assurance to industry of, is we will not make changes to the existing permits to make them harder to get. We are currently discussing with industry changes that they may like to see, and we are having those discussions.

Jonathan Young: When does she plan to inform the already shell-shocked oil and gas industry of her Government’s intention to introduce the Marine Mammals Protection Seismic Surveying Bill?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have any ministerial responsibility for that legislation.

SPEAKER: That, as well as the fact that it doesn’t derive from either the primary question or the supplementaries. Have another go—if the member wants to have another go at a supplementary.

Jonathan Young: When does she plan to inform an already shell-shocked oil and gas industry of her Government’s intention to introduce any further legislation affecting their permit areas?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I said in answer to the previous question, that was in order, I have begun preliminary discussions about changes to the Crown Minerals Act and what they may take.

Mycoplasma Bovis—Industry Contribution to Costs

11. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Mycoplasma bovis?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: On behalf of the Minister, yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.

Hon Member : Mafioso.

SPEAKER: Order! The member himself has complained, or members have complained, about the Leader of the Opposition being referred to in a similar manner, and I think that he could set a good example to his members, because it was followed by at least one of his members.

Hon Nathan Guy: How much money did the Minister request from the cattle industries in a meeting this week regarding M. bovis costs?

Hon STUART NASH: What I will say is the Minister is very keen to work with Government-industry agreements—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to sit the member down and remind him that he is speaking on behalf of the Minister. He must use the first person when he does that, and he’ll get it wrong if he doesn’t.

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, the Minister is very keen to work with industry agreements, to work in partnership. But what I would say—the Minister—is that that member has two options. First of all, he can be positive and support the Minister while he sorts your mess out, or he can step back and stop being so negative.

SPEAKER: It’s just clear that there’s not been enough Latin taught in recent years.

Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question—

SPEAKER: Yes, and the member may ask it again, because it—

Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah—thank you, Mr Speaker. How much money did the Minister request from the cattle industries in a meeting this week regarding M. bovis costs?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, I do not have that information at hand, but if you put the question down in writing, I’m sure you’ll get a good reply.

Hon Nathan Guy: Which option does he support the most: asking industry to contribute 50 percent of M. bovis costs, or 40 percent? Does he also confirm to the House today that he has requested up to $870 million for industry to be in partnership to pay for M. bovis costs?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, what I have said is I am very keen to work in partnership with industry bodies to sort this out, and I will reiterate what I said earlier: that member can either help us sort this mess out, which, of course, occurred in the first two months under your watch, or he can step back and stop being so negative, because it’s just not being helpful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Sorry—I will call the right honourable gentleman in a second. I, again, want to refer the Minister to using the correct person, and it’s not the second.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister why he’s calling upon the questioner to help him out in this problem that arose during the time that he was responsible for that breakout, and he did nothing about it at all?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, this occurred in the last two months of that Minister’s watch, and he sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing. As a consequence, we find ourselves in this real mess at the moment. If he had actually done his job properly, we wouldn’t be facing the problem we have now.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why is he pressuring the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand and the Meat Industry Association, who are Government industry agreement partners, to pay more for M. bovis response costs than the agreed cost-sharing framework that farmers have signed up to?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister, I have made it very clear to those industry associations that I am very keen to work in partnership with them to sort this issue out. If that Minister had done his job properly, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why is the coalition Government prioritising free tertiary education instead of appropriately funding M. bovis response costs that impact the New Zealand economy and rural communities?

Hon STUART NASH: I reject the proposition behind that question.

Forestry, Minister—Announcements and Statements

12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the forestry sector?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Yesterday, I announced the new national environmental standards for plantation forestry. It provides a uniform set, a consistent set, of regulation; strips red tape; and enables the forestry sector to proceed with confidence across all of the regional council areas of New Zealand.

Jenny Marcroft: How will these standards encourage investment in our forestry sector?

Hon SHANE JONES: The encouragement of investment, in terms of forestry and the regions, has grown immeasurably since the election. These rules ensure that less time is wasted on having to change strategies of operation as a consequence of dilatoriness under the former regime.

Jenny Marcroft: What other forestry announcements has he made recently?

Hon SHANE JONES: First, there is the Gisborne tree planting—the symbolic start of the billion-tree strategy. Secondly, there is the announcement of the Matariki Tu Rākau kaupapa—Matariki being the arrival of the Māori New Year—where a whole host of community groups will work to plant more trees. It will acknowledge not only that this year is 100 years since the end of World War I but it will celebrate and give our young people an opportunity to do something a lot more formidable under the rising stars Matariki, the seven sisters.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was the Minister correctly reported when he said that the 1 billion tree planting goal was “fanciful”?

Hon SHANE JONES: From time to time in the House the allegation has been thrown at me that the figure is fanciful, but just as I will demonstrate under the rising of Matariki, the star of the new year, I will show that in that case the member is talking not about a star but a planet—off the planet.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he, or did he not, tell the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce that that figure was fanciful?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’ve said so many things in Rotorua. As the member on the other side would know, a visit to Rotorua can have gaseous consequences. But I repeat what I said: the reference to “fanciful” comes from the nature of the allegations and taunts unwisely thrown in my direction by the Opposition lost in space.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: Sorry. I’m about to call Nicola Willis for her maiden statement, but I’m taking a little bit of time over it because I know that there are some people who are coming in and we’ve gone slightly faster through question time than is normally the case. So I’m giving a bit more of a chance for people to enter so that they can hear the statement. If people don’t mind, I’m just going to stand here for about a minute. [Interruption] Order! If Mr Robertson would like to take a quick call, I’m—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We could use up the minute by having Simon Bridges tell us all he knows.

SPEAKER: I’m not sure that that was helpful.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the same vein, we could take up about that amount of time for Mr Peters to tell us what he’s forgotten.

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on Nicola Willis to make her maiden statement.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou kua huihui, kia ora koutou katoa.

[To all the different people and cultures, to all distinguished persons, indeed to all gathered here, I greet you all.]

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge your mana, and I thank you for your patience. I do so with trepidation, recalling the many Official Information Act requests I sent to you in your former role as Minister of Education. I intend to be less of a nuisance to you as a member of this House.

I am late to the 52nd Parliament. I had a brief induction seven months ago, and now I’m back. The privilege of being here is immense, and I will make the most of every day.

I am grateful to the National Party, who chose to rank me well on our list; our party president, Peter Good fellow; our office holders; and all those who support National and the values we represent. My special thanks go to the members in Wellington Central, who selected me as their candidate and backed me to the hilt.

The Wellington Central campaign trail was an education: candidate debates with rooms full to bursting, challenging policy questions, and doorknocking routes fit for mountain goats. I was supported by an energetic and resilient team, enlivened by our incredible Young Nats. I thank you all.

I acknowledge my companions on that campaign trail, and now colleagues in this House, the Hon Grant Robertson and the Hon James Shaw. Grant, I hope we will sometimes work together to get a good deal for Wellington, and James, I will continue to persuade you of the merits of a “teal deal”.

Wellingtonians should know that while I do not currently represent an electorate here, I will always work hard on their behalf. Wellington is my home, and I want it to succeed.

Growing up in New Zealand has given me great opportunities. I come to Parliament to ensure more New Zealanders can have the choices and experiences I have had. This should be a country of aspiration, where every child can pursue big dreams. I am a relentless optimist. New Zealand has enormous potential, and I am determined that we realise it.

Our forebears came here seeking security and prosperity. My great-great-grandfather Archibald Willis was one of them. Orphaned at 15, Archie left England, arriving here in 1854. In 1893, Archie was elected MP for Wanganui. On 6 September that year, the question of women’s suffrage came before this House. My great-great-grandfather voted yes to women getting the vote, and today, I follow in his feminist footsteps.

Archie was a member of the Liberal Party, whose union with the Reform Party created our modern National Party. That meeting of city and country, of taking the best of liberal and conservative philosophy, and of rejecting the binaries of ideology in favour of problem-solving pragmatism is a tradition I am proud to represent.

My personal values come from Mum and Dad. My mother, Shona, was a journalist, at one time serving in the great parliamentary press gallery. She sacrificed paid work and the status it brings to raise me and my siblings—thank you, Mum. My dad, James, once a stop-go man for the Ministry of Works and always a surfer, is a lawyer who lives life to the max. Journalist and lawyer are both unpopular professions, but neither are as unloved as politician. You get what you deserve.

My parents taught me we should always work hard and do our best. We should treat others as we wish to be treated. Actions have consequences, and we must own our mistakes. Fairness—that Kiwi sense of doing what’s right—is an ideal not just to aspire to but to fight for. We do not make our own candle burn brighter by blowing out another, and when much is given, much can be expected in return.

I was raised to value education. I had many great and inspiring schoolteachers, who helped me on my way. At university, I studied English literature. I will always be a proponent of the arts and the role artists play in reflecting the beauty and complexity of our lives and our society. My unofficial second major was my membership of the Victoria University debating society, where I honed my debating skills, made great friends, and met my husband.

Having worked jobs selling clothes, shoes, and bagels, I was incredibly fortunate to land a role as a researcher, working with then Opposition education spokesman, Bill English. Bill taught me that politics is not about personal ambition; it is about making a difference for people. I look up to Bill not only as a political mentor but as proof that juggling multiple children is compatible with a successful life in Parliament.

I went on to work for Sir John Key, whose infectious enthusiasm, respect for all, and sheer intelligence had a profoundly positive impact on our country. Thank you, Sir John, for your support, your belief in me, and your constant ribbing.

My time with Bill and Sir John was the best political apprenticeship I could have hoped for. It was inspiring to watch them lead New Zealand from a dark hour of financial crisis and natural disaster to a time of prosperity and choices, and to see the exodus of New Zealanders leaving for Australia each year entirely reversed as jobs and incomes flourished here at home. That transformation cemented my view that a strong economy is the foundation on which equality of opportunity is built.

Economic growth ensures New Zealanders can have better jobs, better incomes, and aspiration for their children’s futures—it doesn’t just happen. We must back our risk takers, innovators, and entrepreneurs who put their capital and livelihoods on the line to produce a product, idea, or new way of doing things. We must back the hard workers, those who go the extra mile and who toil, day in, day out to make progress for themselves and their families.

The dairy owner who works 12 hours a day, six days a week, with one week off at Christmas; the student who holds down two part-time jobs; the cleaners working night shift; our social entrepreneurs; the single mum who starts an online business, picking up her laptop the minute her daughter is asleep and sacrificing rest for the chance of a better future—these people are the best of us. It is their efforts that will ensure New Zealand gets better and better. The Government can too easily take their effort for granted or, worse, invoke the politics of envy against them.

My desire to better understand business led me to work for our largest cooperative. I wanted to experience the reality of managing a bottom line and of selling New Zealand’s products to the world and striving to maximise their value. Fonterra opened my eyes. I saw our country from new perspectives, from high-rises in Shanghai, trade offices in Jakarta, and a factory floor in Colombo. I saw that New Zealand had so much more to gain from embracing trade than we did from fearing it. We must remain open to the world, its markets, and its people.

Best of all, I got to walk in gumboots alongside Kiwi farmers who know that nobody owes them a living and who go out each day—rain or shine, high milk price or low—to earn their way in the world. These men and women share my view that New Zealand’s land and water are taonga for which we are stewards. Farmers should be respected as partners in the vital environmental work New Zealand has before it to combat climate change, to clean our rivers, and to protect our biodiversity.

I’m hugely fortunate to have married Duncan. He understands that caregiving is a responsibility and a privilege to be divided according to circumstances and not gender. He has, again and again, made sacrifices to further my dreams.

We are parents to four beautiful children, aged eight, six, five, and two: James, Harriet, Reuben, and Gloria. That’s you, darlings.

I remember our excitement and confidence when I first became pregnant. We read all the books, drafted sleep schedules, and planned an infancy of structured excellence. Then our son arrived and he seemed determined not to adhere to our plans in any way at all, and each of our children has continued to confound us like this.

This imperfection has been a gift to me. It has taught me that much is beyond our individual control, that plans only take you so far, and that the messy bits in life can be a source of joy. Parenting has deepened my well of empathy and helped me understand that sometimes sugary treats, takeaways, cartoons, and disposable nappies are the keys to sanity. I will not be a “Government knows best” politician because I know just how imperfect family life is.

I’ve had the fortune of parenting with the support of a village and the means to fill our supermarket trolley, heat our bedrooms, and buy ever bigger shoes. Even with all that support, parenting is sometimes a tough gig. There’s no getting away from the broken sleep, the tantrums, the hospital visits, the worry, and the heartache. I respect the many Kiwis who, day in, day out, do the hard work of parenting well without fanfare and often in difficult circumstances.

It is time we did more as MPs to honour and support the work of Kiwi parents. They are the heroes of New Zealand’s homes.

Too often, our public institutions and services ignore the realities and demands of modern family life. Why is it that in a country of working parents, we have 12 weeks of school holidays, which leave many families stressed and scrambling for childcare? Why is it we can’t access our children’s medical and education records online? Why, when some parents choose to work an extra shift or take a promotion, do they end up financially penalised by the blowback of childcare costs, tax hikes, and loss of tax credits? Why do we so seldom acknowledge those who forgo paid employment to care for their children and contribute to their community? And why don’t we better target investment at those crucial first 1,000 days in a child’s life?

We should put whānau and family at the heart of policy. Let me be clear: families come in all shapes and sizes. One parent, two parents, four; grandparents as caregivers; blended; gay; married or not married; adopted; whāngai—I am not concerned by the form a family takes, but by the function it performs. What matters is the strength of the bonds, the shared values, the getting up at 2 a.m. to change the nappy or give the feed, cheering on at assembly and from the sidelines, asking the questions when progress stalls at school, and providing the comforting words when worries loom large at night—support, belonging, unconditional love.

I endorse the work of successive Governments to eliminate the material deprivation in which too many families raise their children. This work must continue, but we are kidding ourselves if we think lifting family incomes is all that is required to strengthen Kiwi families.

We cannot ignore the cycles of dependence, dysfunction, and criminality that exist in our country. A smarter social investment approach is needed to break these cycles. Our efforts should be joined up across departments, votes, and Government and non-governmental organisations. Bureaucratic silos must be dismantled. Data and evidence must be leveraged. Results for children and their families should be our focus, not the dollars spent. We live in an age of technological disruption, information networks, and personalised services. It’s time Government got on board.

Politics is not just about the what; it is about the how. We do our best as leaders when we listen well, when we treat each other with civility, and when we bring people together, not when we drive them apart.

Duncan and I have taught our kids that my political opponents are good people. They share a motivation to make this country better, but have different ideas about how to achieve it.

I think the members opposite have good hearts. Their ideas are occasionally a bit mad or naive, but I want the chance to talk them round from time to time. So I intend to get to know you.

I see politics as a team sport and, boy, this is a great team. I am a small part of a great party with a long and proud history, a talented caucus, and a mighty, mighty membership. While I’d rather National was leading the Government, I’m excited to play my part in reshaping us for the new challenges our country and world face. I have great confidence in the Hon Simon Bridges and the Hon Paula Bennett, and I am honoured to have theirs. I’ll always be thankful to National’s “class of ‘17” for adopting me as their own.

And now, it’s time to get on with it. To walk the walk. To do the mahi. To serve.

Let me, finally, say to my family, and most especially my parents, James and Shona, my sister, Amanda, and my brother, Jono, my husband, Duncan, and our wonderful children, James, Harriet, Reuben, and Gloria, I love you and I hope to make you proud.

[Applause]

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want to congratulate the new member Nicola Willis on an inspirational and aspirational speech. I’m afraid I’m going to have to change the tone somewhat and declare that this Government is a disgrace—this Government is a disgrace. The Prime Minister simpers and smiles and purrs before the Cabinet and the cameras, but all the while her Government breaks promises, it undermines the very foundations of this strong economy that we have, and it treats the Civil Service with utter contempt.

It’s no wonder that the people of New Zealand are lukewarm in their support for this new Government. The honeymoon has been a fizzer. We have to go back to 1990 to see a Government with as little support and so weak six months into Government. Jim Bolger, of course, had the excuse of massive deficits and real tough decisions to make. But what has this Government inherited? It’s inherited surpluses as far as the eye can see—$19 billion of surpluses over the four years, according to the pre-election economic update—and more keeps coming in. An extra $500 million has just lopped on their laps in the last few months, and they’ve determined that they’re going to borrow an extra $10 billion.

They are awash in a sea of money, and yet—and yet—they still want more. Can you believe it—$19 billion is not enough; they want more. They want fuel taxes—25c on every litre of petrol in Auckland—and that’s just the start. We have just heard today Mr Robertson not ruling out the fact that they will increase taxes after Michael Cullen has finished his Tax Working Group’s report. We all know Michael Cullen was the most rapacious finance Minister in modern New Zealand history, and he has confirmed that the tax changes won’t be fiscally neutral. Nineteen billion dollars is not enough; they need more. And yet, even with all this money, this money that could’ve been in the hands of hard-working New Zealanders, that could’ve been in the hands of families so that they could pay their bills—with all this money, they still can’t keep their promises.

I’m going to give the Government some advice. It’s very simple: if you promise to do something, if you promise to make GP visits ten dollars cheaper by 1 July, you have to deliver. It’s not difficult. Poor David Clark is pointed out on the end of a stick into the crowd to swallow the rats and explain why this Government is not delivering on that promise. And why not? Don’t the families of New Zealanders deserve better access to health? A National Government was going to do it, and that’s exactly the sort of thing you do when you have a surplus.

But what have they done? Not from this lot; it’s better to spend $2.8 billion on tertiary education—for not one extra student, because all the students were prepared to borrow at interest free and it was never a barrier to going to university, and we’ll see the figures. It’s fine to spend the money on Shane Jones around the country, and nobody in New Zealand believes that with Shane Jones shovelling out the money on the Provincial Growth Fund as quickly as he possibly can in order to have results before the next election, there won’t be a lot of waste. There will be a lot of waste.

So how can the people of New Zealand trust this Government to keep their word? They’ve broken the promises over the GPs, and the whopper of the promise that they’ve never kept is immigration. They went stomping up and down the country telling everybody that they’re going to reduce the number of immigrants. It was a black and white issue. The National Government had been negligent, they said. We’d allowed all these people in with their Chinese names, and they were going to reduce the number dramatically. What have they done? Nothing—nothing. Nada. So they haven’t kept that promise, and I’m glad they haven’t, because it was a crazy promise, and it would have been stupid because it would have hamstrung this country, which is in desperate need of skills. But they do need to explain why they haven’t and how we can trust this Government to keep its word. They never had any intention of keeping that one. It was a cynical dog-whistle kind of promise which they had no intention to keep.

This Government is a disgrace, and I do say to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, when he becomes Prime Minister in a few weeks, there’s one thing he can usefully do, and that is: call a snap election so that the people of New Zealand have the opportunity to send this Government back where they came from. A Government that’s had the opportunity of a lifetime—massive surpluses, $19 billion of extra money, they’re borrowing $10 million, every week that passes more money comes into their hands—and yet even with all that money they cannot keep their promises and they are not prepared to do what they said they’re going to do. They should all collectively hang their heads in shame.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but thank God for David Seymour, because he’s at least saved the people of Epsom from Paul Goldsmith. I would say, if a snap election were called, “Mr Goldsmith, would you try and win or not?”, because you haven’t up till now. Mr Goldsmith started his speech by changing the tone. I’m going to change it back just for a moment and say that today unemployment fell to 4.4 percent in New Zealand. Now, for all of the naysayers and the negative people on the Opposition benches, that is a sign that we are continuing to grow jobs in New Zealand—that we’re making sure that people are actually getting into work. We’ve seen underutilisation rates, underemployment, drop as well, and we’ve seen wages rise. That’s what’s happened in the last quarter. That’s what a Government that’s actually interested in growing the economy sustainably can do for New Zealand. So we’re feeling proud of that.

We’ve got a Budget coming in just over two weeks’ time, which is going to show New Zealanders the plan that we have to ensure we make up for the social and infrastructure deficits that we have been left. At the high level, the indicators of the New Zealand economy are strong, and that’s good for New Zealand. There has been economic growth, but the problem is who’s shared in that. What share in prosperity have people got in the regions of New Zealand? What share in prosperity have low and middle income New Zealanders found over the last nine years? The problem for the previous National Government is that while they made those indicators look good, they didn’t pay the bills on the way. It’s all very well to be able to claim a surplus if you haven’t paid the bills for health, if you haven’t paid the bills for education, and if you haven’t paid the bills for housing.

What this Government will do is we will do the very thing New Zealanders want us to do. They want us to show responsibility in two ways. They want us to show that we’re responsible in our management of the finances of this country, and we will do that. But there’s another kind of responsibility in Government: a responsibility to future generations to make sure that every New Zealand child gets the chance to grow up in a warm, dry home; that every New Zealand child gets the chance to enter into education and achieve their potential; that every single New Zealander knows that the health system will look after them when they get sick. Those basics of building blocks of our society have been run down and this Government is committed to turning them around.

But over on “Planet National” it’s not good, because they’re engaged in a very complicated game of “Simon Says”. Simon says “Sit still in traffic in Auckland”, because that’s what’s going to happen if the National Government decides to repeal the regional fuel tax and leave the gap in the Auckland Transport alignment plan that had blown out to $9 billion under the previous National Government—$9 billion. And there’s no plan from the National Party to be able to say how they will get Auckland moving, how they will make sure that the rail is there.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Course there is.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, there’s not, Dr Smith. The only thing was a gap, a giant $9 billion gap, and Simon says, “Sit still”. Simon also says, “Close your eyes.” Simon says “Close your eyes.”, because he—

SPEAKER: Order! That member is going to stop that now.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn’t say which Simon, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: And I know which Simon the member is referring to.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A very wise man, Mr Speaker. On the National Party side of the House, there’s Simon Bridges saying, “Close your eyes.” That’s what Simon Bridges is saying. He’s saying, “Close your eyes to the future of New Zealand as a sustainable economy.” It’s all very well to just go along to your Bluegreen mates and say “We’re going to reset the clock on the environment.”, and then there’s no policy change. Simon Bridges says, “Close your eyes to climate change.” Well, this side of the House says no. We have to make sure that we do what is needed for future generations to prepare for a sustainable economy—not just say it’s going to happen, but have a just transition. I feel sorry for Todd Muller, who’s a good man, but he’s the climate change spokesperson in a party that wants to close its eyes to climate change in the future.

On “Planet National” the answer is, “I don’t know. I’m not sure what we’re going to do. I don’t have a plan for the future.” On this side of the House, we have a plan for an economy that will be more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive. We started with a mini-Budget before Christmas that actually is going to put money in the pockets of low- and middle-income families. When we have the Budget in two weeks’ time we will rebuild the critical public services that New Zealanders need and deserve.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh, Mr Speaker, it’s not often that I have to disagree with my good friend and colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but I’m going to. When he said in his general debate speech the words “poor old David Clark” and that he was “put out on a stick by Labour”—I think Mr Goldsmith used those terms—well, I would suggest that Dr Clark has put himself out on a stick with some of the most omnishambles behaviour that I have seen by a Minister. I would love to have been a fly on the wall after the post-Cabinet press conference on 24 April, when the Prime Minister probably hauled him into his office, after she was explaining away the firing of two Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB) members. She said, “Of course board appointments do have to go through a particular process, so I won’t comment on that till it’s complete.” Only, the process had been completed 12 days before and the Minister had not told her and had not told the public.

That’s just one example of the many, many failures by this Minister. But the most overreach, I would suggest, is on the building issues at Middlemore Hospital. Now, they are serious. But the Minister has completely overblown the issues, and the best metaphor for that was this visual image of sewage pouring down the walls of the hospital, and Louisa Wall, in this House, saying, “Why did I not know?” Well, the answer was: because there was nothing to know. The DHB itself came out and said that this terrible issue was cleaned up with half a bucket of water and it was four years ago. Yes, they’re serious, but this is a thing that a Minister and his or her ministry has to deal with on a day-to-day basis. That is the job, and it’s a job that the previous Government did extremely well. It increased Vote Health by more than 40 percent; there was $5.5 billion more put into Vote Health.

I do accept we would not win the “who’s going to spend the most money in health” competition; Labour will always win that. But what the public want more than the amount of money that’s going in is the number of services that’s coming out, and I’m very proud of the performance of the previous Government. With that money, generous though it was to allow for population growth and inflation, we also said, “We need you to do a lot more with a little more.” This is why elective surgeries went up from 110,000 surgeries a year to 178,000 surgeries a year; the immunisation rates for our young went from 67 percent to 93 percent—and even higher for young Māori and Pasifika; our cancer treatment waiting times were shortened to world’s best standards; we no longer had gurneys in the waiting rooms; our emergency department waiting times went under six hours as the gold standard; and not a single cancer patient was flown to Australia.

The Labour Government would say, “Oh, but you did all of that and you screwed down the district health boards.” Well, financially that is not borne out by the facts. The previous Clark Government’s combined deficit in DHBs was over $600 million over the nine years.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It was $600 million—I think it was $607 million. Under the Key - English Government there were deficits, but even without accounting for inflation and the increase in the vote, it was $576 million—a much lower percentage on a per capita basis.

So, of course, Labour will say, “Oh, well, you really flogged the staff”—really flogged the staff—only that period marked the most benign industrial relations climate in the health sector in two generations. But what’s the industrial relations climate like now? It’s extremely restless. Why? Because the Minister, in Opposition, had talked up the expectations for massive pay increases for nurses, for doctors, for allied health professionals, for midwives, and he cannot deliver.

There is no crisis in health; it is being manufactured. It’s being talked up by a Government that promised big in Opposition because they didn’t think they were going to get into Government. Well, now they are and they have to honour those promises. And the shame of it is that the people who have to pay for those promises are the taxpayers and GP patients, because the first thing that’s gone, the first major broken promise, is that GP visit fee reductions will now not take place, and that will be the legacy of this Government.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. What a shame for poor old Michael Woodhouse to have to come down to the House and not talk about what the National Party’s plans are for New Zealand, what the National Party would do to improve New Zealand, but instead to have to defend the record of the nine years of neglect under National. The nattering nabobs of negativity from the National Party opposite have nothing positive to say about the future of New Zealand; all they can do is come up with negative things to say about the Government’s plans and defend their own dismal record.

The truth is there is a lot of work for this Government to do, because nine years of neglect is a lot to turn around. This is why the National Party is having to work so hard to defend their record, because they have been found out. The previous Government prioritised meagre surpluses and tremendous tax cuts for the people at the very, very top over investment in the vital public infrastructure that people need to be able to have a decent living standard in this country—$2.3 billion worth of underfunding in the health system. Despite the minimisation that Michael Woodhouse tries to do, the truth is Middlemore Hospital is awash with sewage, mould, asbestos, and power cuts; Dunedin Hospital is run down, and National incredibly slow to respond to that; and district health boards (DHBs) nationwide with significant capital investment shortages and deficits. So many DHBs left in deficit after nine years of neglect from National.

But it’s not just in health. We all know about the housing crisis as well. Median housing prices almost doubled in nine years under National, and then we had a homelessness crisis ballooning with 41,200 people severely housing deprived under National. The regions were starved by National: the Napier to Wairoa railway line completely left to rot, Whanganui port development dragged out. National believed that economic growth came from inflating house prices in Auckland. That was the only plan they had, and they left the regions to struggle. And, of course, the super fund—not a single contribution to the super fund in the nine years of neglect under National.

There is a lot of work for this Government to do, but we do have a plan to deal with it, and we’ve already got off to a tremendous start. We cut the tax cuts for the rich and instead decided to invest in middle and lower income families. Our Families Package sees $5.5 billion over the next four years going to improving the lives of those who need it the most. It will see 384,000 families with children better off by an average of $75 a week. The winter energy payment will go to superannuitants and the recipients of main benefits. We’ve seen an increase in the minimum wage—something I’m tremendously proud of—to $16.50 an hour, and our plan to increase it to $20 an hour by 2021. We’ve passed the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). We’ve got $2 billion going towards our ambitious KiwiBuild programme to build those houses that people so desperately need.

And we funded our first year of fee-free post-secondary education—and it’s not, as Mr Goldsmith would have you believe, all about people going to university. Actually, hidden in today’s unemployment stats—and it is tremendous that unemployment has come down so low—we still have nearly 12 percent of people underemployed. Why? Because they don’t have the skills. They did not have the opportunity to get the training they needed to take up the opportunities that exist in the New Zealand economy, in our labour market. That’s why we need to make education more accessible, because people need to be able to get those skills so that they can grab the opportunities that are being created in this wonderful, prosperous nation of ours.

We want to see everybody benefit from economic prosperity here in New Zealand, and I say the people of New Zealand are already showing that they like what they see from this Government. Let’s look at the last Colmar Brunton poll: Labour up 6 points from election night—6 points in our first six months. The Government overall: 3.5 percent higher in the last poll than it was on election night. The people of New Zealand are telling us they like what they see from this Government. They know we’ve got a lot of work to do, but they can see that we have a plan, and that plan will be developed all that much further on Budget day later this month.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Can someone go and tell Iain Lees-Galloway that he’s way behind the times and he’s got many of his facts wrong. It’s a shame that Iain Lees-Galloway and the Labour Party research unit are still perpetuating this myth that there’s all these buildings crumbling down around them at Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). The fact of the matter is David Clark was found wanting. David Clark’s facts turned out to be fiction. David Clark ended up in a sticky situation where he was putting forth information to the media that was found to be wholly inaccurate.

In fact, I say to Iain Lees-Galloway that he should go and read the investigative reporting done on Stuff by Jo Moir, and the fact is that Iain Lees-Galloway’s colleague David Clark was putting forth information that simply was not true. Was there sewage in the walls at Counties Manukau DHB? No. It was four years ago. It was cleaned up with some water. It did not exist. Was there a massive building failure at Counties Manukau DHB that he wasn’t told about? He was given the documents and failed to even recognise it. David Clark has a lot of answering to this House to do, and he’s going to be challenged on that, I’m sure, in the next few weeks.

Another person that Iain Lees-Galloway talked about is negative—well, I have to say, Phil Twyford seems to be quite negative at the moment. He seems to be under a lot of pressure around transport. In fact, a Minister in the Government has put out three press releases this week attacking the Government when he’s only done one outlining positive things on transport. I should say, sorry—he’s done three press releases attacking the Opposition on transport, because that’s how much pressure he’s under, and I can understand that. I can understand that.

Phil Twyford is the Minister that’s ramping up fuel taxes on New Zealanders by 25c a litre. He’s saying to the average family in New Zealand, and in Auckland particularly, that when they go and fill up, with the fuel prices and fuel taxes that he’s putting in place they’re going to be paying about $700 more a year under policies that Phil Twyford is putting in place. And what’s he saying to the rest of the country? He’s saying to the good people in Southland, the good people in Northland, and the people in Rotorua that they’re going to have to pay and subsidise Auckland’s tram set—

Kieran McAnulty: That’s rubbish—absolute rubbish.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —because that’s, effectively, what his policies are doing. His policies are doing it. Kieran McAnulty, the people of Wairarapa are paying for the trams in Auckland. I challenge him to go to the people of Wairarapa and say, “You’re paying more in fuel taxes. By the way, we’re cutting $5 billion from State highways—not going to happen around here. It’s going to go towards subsidising the Auckland trams.” He won’t be able to stand up and say that because they’ll be pretty unhappy, and that’s what we’re hearing from New Zealanders.

Iain Lees-Galloway loves that Colman Brunton poll. Which party was ahead in the Colmar Brunton poll? It wasn’t the Labour Party and it wasn’t the Government, but it was the National Party that was ahead. If Iain Lees-Galloway really wants to follow the polls, I suggest he looks at the track that the Labour Government’s going to be going down when they put in place more taxes, when they break more of their promises, and when they have a Budget that’s just doesn’t live up to the expectations during the election campaign. We have a Government over the other side that is breaking its promises. It’s ramping up taxes on New Zealanders, and New Zealanders are not going to be happy by this.

In the transport space, we’re seeing the effects that New Zealanders are anticipating with the extra fuel taxes. We’re also seeing the effects that Aucklanders are going to be experiencing when they see very little progress happening under the Labour Government because it’s all going towards that tram set. In fact, the big policy announcements that Phil Twyford had, the big roading projects that he announced like Penlink and Mill Road—they were projects that we’d announced. Simon Bridges, in August 2017, announced the Penlink and the Mill Road project. He was the one that put them into the first decade of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Phil Twyford came out and made out it was some big, grand idea, but, effectively, he was just re-announcing policies that we’d put forth.

We’re also seeing under the fuel tax legislation going through the Parliament that Phil Twyford’s been saying that fuel taxes under a regional fuel tax will only go up by 10c a litre, yet he’s writing a law for himself that would allow him, without any vote in Parliament and without any consultation, to go and put up fuel taxes even further than 10c a litre. Why is a law being written like that if he doesn’t intend to use it? The only answer that we have is that Phil Twyford is being a bit sneaky. Phil Twyford’s saying one thing, but writing a law a completely different way.

New Zealanders know that this Government seems to be all about tax. They know the Tax Working Group’s going to result in more taxes being recommended, and they don’t trust this Government not to ramp up taxes on them. I say to the members opposite that are outside of Auckland, go into the regions, and go and talk about the fact that their transport Minister’s ramping up taxes, because I have to say they’ll find that the locals won’t be very happy. They should come back to this House, come back to their caucus, and outline very clearly for the Prime Minister and the transport Minister that they don’t want new taxes.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): This Government has a plan, and this plan is about rebuilding the social deficit left by the last Government. In all the talk we’ve heard about raising taxes, and rubbish along those lines, it is important to remember that there has been a significant deficit. I would like to talk about what that looks like in real terms—what that deficit actually looks like to people on the ground and how that hurts what those people are doing on a daily basis—and I’d like to look at some examples where I come from in the Hutt Valley. More importantly than just talking about where that hurt affects families, let’s also talk about what Labour’s plan is to fix that—to fix the deficit that has been left by the previous National Government.

There is a severe shortage of housing in this country, and that’s no secret. With winter ahead, I am quite fearful to think about what families in New Zealand will be going through, given the severe lack of housing that we have right now. At a time in the Hutt Valley when we had a 25 percent increase in property prices, we saw State houses torn down. We saw State houses torn down and land lying vacant for five years—going on nearly six years now. In that time, while land was vacant, we had families in garages. We had families living two and three to a house. We had parents put under incredible pressure, both mentally and financially, and we had children not in school and not attending school, because of the lack of housing.

What are we doing about that? What are we doing to fix that problem? Well, we’re building some houses, which has not been done previously. We’re taking land like Ēpuni in the Hutt Valley and building units on that that will be KiwiBuild and that will be able to be purchased by first-home buyers who would otherwise not be able to buy a home in this market—who have otherwise been cut out of the rental market. Right now, on the waiting list for Housing New Zealand, we have 266 families waiting for a home. That’s just the ones who get on the waiting list—just the ones who get on, those that are always still living in circumstances that don’t give them the best start in life. That’s why we need to be building homes, and that’s why I’m looking forward this year to all the processes going through for those housing developments to kick off and people to start getting into those KiwiBuild homes in the Hutt Valley. That process will be starting this year.

The second one I’d like to touch upon is mental health, which is always the window into the well-being of our population. Yes, we heard already that there’s been a $2.3 billion underfunding and there’s been no accounting or calculation for population growth. And, yes, we’ve seen how that overtly manifests in sewage down the hospital walls or outright decay of buildings, but some of the real hurt—some of the real, unseen hurt—is yet to be seen, and that’s in mental health. Some of the causes on district health boards and the pressure that has gone on to keep those doors open have resulted in ongoing cuts to mental health services to New Zealanders, and that has meant that people in urgent need—young people in urgent need of mental health services—have had to wait three months or more to be seen. That, in the face of one of the highest rates of youth suicide in the OECD, is unacceptable.

So what happens now? Because the Labour Government has undertaken to look at a comprehensive mental health inquiry, the response we have from the National Party is to laugh—is to laugh that this is yet another inquiry group, another inquiry. Well, if talking to people in front-line services, talking to people who can’t access services, and going around the country to find out what this problem actually looks like is a laughing matter, then, clearly, that’s not right. This is an area where we need to fully understand where the people of New Zealand aren’t being serviced in order to make sure we target those resources in the right place, and that is what this Government is doing. It is rebuilding the social deficit left by the last National Government in order to give our people the best start in life. That’s why our schools, our hospitals, and our homes will be rebuilt from the ground up to give people in New Zealand a good start.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): That member Ginny Andersen needs to explain to the people of Hutt Valley why she is breaching her word that she gave to her constituents that on 1 July this year doctors visits would be reduced by $10 per person, because trust is at the core of good government. I have not seen since the days of the Lange Government, that breached its word over Rogernomics, or the Bolger Government, that breached its word over the issue of surtax, a Government that has so blatantly breached its contract with the people of New Zealand. You see, the lesson from that era is that breaking promises is political suicide. The successful Clark and Key Governments understood that, and went to extraordinary efforts to ensure that they said what they meant and they did what they said.

Let me recite the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern’s, exact words: “The cost of visiting a doctor will drop by $10 for every New Zealander on 1 July next year.” She didn’t just say it once. She and the Labour Party said that thousands of times. It appeared in Labour Party ads. It was used in the leaders’ debates.

Hon Andrew Little: How many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But, Mr Little, it was electoral fraud. That was electoral fraud, because now this Government is saying—he’s laughing. It’s a laughing matter for Mr Little to tell electors to vote for him on the basis of a policy and then to rat on that word. You see, they said, “Vote for us, and this is what we will do.” We’re old-fashioned. We think it’s like a contract. We think that when you promise electors to do something, you should do so. And I am surprised by the giggles, the laughs that are occurring opposite, because members opposite do not seem to understand the way in which this erodes the trust in our political processes.

Now, this is the insulting bit. A year ago our Government, the National Government, made an announcement of reducing doctors visits to $18 for all New Zealanders, and Labour within a week promised to outbid—

Hon Andrew Little: They got booted out.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, you did. You promised, Mr Little, to do better, and what we now know is on 1 July this year New Zealanders will pay more for going to the doctor than what they would have if National had been Government. Let’s look at the track record. In 2011, National promised that it would provide for free doctors visits for under-fives. It said it would do so by 1 September, and it did what it said. And when financial circumstances allowed and we had the financial room to extend that to children up to the age of 13, we campaigned in 2014 on doing that, and we did what we said.

The ink is hardly dry on this new Government. Nine months into office, and it’s tearing up its pledges to New Zealanders and saying something very simple: New Zealanders cannot trust the word of Jacinda Ardern. Jacinda Ardern will tell you anything to get your vote, but when she chairs Cabinet, she will go back on her word and back on issues that matter to over 2 million families in New Zealand. So I challenge the next member to get on their feet and to explain why they are breaking their promise, why New Zealanders should ever trust the Labour Party again, when they can so blatantly—so blatantly—breach their pledge to the people of New Zealand.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and, as painful as it is for me, I’m not going to engage in that game. It is Rape Awareness Week, and I would like to speak directly to the survivors of sexual abuse in my debate contribution this afternoon. I want to pay tribute today to the Me Too movement and all of the women, including those in this House, and men and people who have been advocating for years for an end to rape culture in this country. I want to also acknowledge all those people who are not able to speak out because it is not safe or right for them to do so. Me Too is our contemporary, tech-enabled version of the 1970s or 1980s women’s movement. That movement back then enabled a massive cultural shift and the development of services independent—and, perhaps, in spite of—the State. My hope is that this time this Government will actively support the efforts of these people, particularly women, and amplify their efforts to create a safe and equal society. We all need to be working together to eliminate sexual violence from our society, and I believe we can do it.

Just over six years ago in this House, in my maiden speech, I spoke about sexual violence. I talked about the horrific levels of sexual violence in our society: one in three girls, one in seven boys, and up to one in two trans people being likely to be victims of sexual violence in our country. I acknowledged that I was one of those statistics, as are many people in our country and that the people have been victimised by what is predominantly men’s violence but that we are from all ethnicities, all ages, genders, sexualities, across an abilities spectrum, and from every economic stratum. Sexual violence, sadly, does not discriminate in that sense.

It was important for me, then, to bring those stories into this House, to break the silence, to make sure that the shame was shifted from those experiencing the violence to be held, at least in part, by us as a society so that we can take our role in eradicating the space that enables this violence in our society. I acknowledged that is a duty for us in this House, as representatives.

I noted that it wasn’t just enough to talk about doing these things, and at that time we were a few years on from the Task Force for Action on Sexual Violence and had not seen any action. So it’s now interesting to come back, six years on, and reflect on what I’ve seen happen. Under the National Government, I saw some terrible, terrible things happen. We saw lives lost over the changes to ACC. We saw cuts to funding and long waiting lists, and we saw the law reform that we so desperately need stalled. And then, because of the activism and the calls from our community and people in this House, we saw those decisions reversed by the last National Government.

I want to commit in this House, and call every member of this House to join us in the efforts to the next stage, to work towards having a system where everyone who experiences violence can get the help when they need it, and people who use violence can be held accountable and be helped to change, so that we can wipe out this violence from our society. It is absolutely achievable, and I am committed in my role and in this House to do that. There is much left to do, and I am fired up to do my bit so that one day our children can look back on this time now, in the same way that we look back on slavery and the idea of children working in chimneys, and feel grateful that they live in a different time—a time free of gender-based violence.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, sir. I want to start my words with an acknowledgment to the people of Taranaki, who, for many of them right now, face very high-level degrees of uncertainty regarding their future.

The Government made an announcement on 12 April that they said was to bring certainty, but instead, for my community, it brought uncertainty very, very quickly.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Rubbish!

JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes indeed, it did. If you will listen to me, Mr Hipkins, I will explain some factors. There are companies that have very high levels of engagement in the petroleum industry who have been called by international investors who have said that they are lacking confidence regarding the regime that is being developed here in New Zealand for exploration. There are companies that are strong companies in New Plymouth, owned by international companies, that also have those sorts of correspondence. In fact, one of those companies said that within an hour of hearing that news, they stopped all new employment.

That’s a tragedy because there are young people in my community who were looking to that company for opportunities.

Hon Andrew Little: Why weren’t you worried about the companies already shedding labour?

JONATHAN YOUNG: They were looking for opportunities.

Hon Andrew Little: Why weren’t you worried about Tenix when it closed three years ago? Why didn’t you worry about the other companies making people redundant?

JONATHAN YOUNG: In this decision—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Little, please keep me out of the debate.

JONATHAN YOUNG: In the decision that this Government has made, in the pursuit of emission reductions for climate change—a noble purpose—the issue is this will make no difference to New Zealand’s emissions because all of our transport fuels are made out of imported crude, and, in fact, from our exploration, 70 percent of that is gas, 30 percent of that is crude and light crude, and of that 30 percent, only 50 percent would end up as a liquid fuel. The other goes into industrial and pharmaceutical purposes.

So it’s very important to get some facts on the table regarding those emissions, because a decision has been made that has the potential—and it’s already started, like pouring poison into the root of a tree—to wreck an industry and severely shake an economy. [Interruption] Mr Little will try and say that it’s not true, but there was zero consultation. There was only “telling people”, and it was after the event. They swooped in afterwards and said, “We will now consult with you.” Well, it’s all over—it’s all over. International confidence in New Zealand has gone. You know, the poison has been laid at the root of the tree. It will take time, but it will happen.

I received a note just the other day. It said a client was told by her broker that as her job is in the oil and gas sector, and with her now job insecurity, she won’t be able to get the mortgage at the same level as promoted a month ago. This sort of thing is happening for everyday, ordinary New Zealanders living in New Plymouth. It’s also happening to people who have migrated to our country. They went on to say, “We are also seeing people selling up and returning to their nations, their homes, their countries of origin.”

So what we are seeing now is the dismantling of an industry. Instead of going to the industry and saying, “Look, we’ve got some concerns here and there. What can you do to find a better solution? How can you work with this Government?”, because on the—

Hon Andrew Little: What a stupid speech. What a stupid thing to say.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Listen to this, Mr Little. On 19 March your leader stood in the Beehive theatrette and said, “The new Climate Commission, well they’ll look at things like natural gas as a transition fuel.” Why didn’t that happen? Why didn’t you use common sense? Why didn’t you depoliticise it? Why didn’t you say to the new Climate Commission, “Instead of just looking at agriculture, why don’t we also look at petroleum?” Get some smart people to look at it, instead of making this ideological decision that wrecks people’s lives. And you think that you care. Shame on you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Nine years of neglect is a lot to turn around, but this Government is certainly up for that task. Under-investment has hit many, many areas and none more so than education. This Government inherited an education system which has been so undermined by under-investment that it’s almost in basket-case territory.

I’ve always been incredibly proud of our education system, but it was getting harder and harder and harder to stay positive about where we were heading. A funding freeze for early childhood education, for nine years—does that number sound familiar? The whole time that the previous Government was in power there was a funding freeze in early childhood education—for nine years. A focus in that sector on quantity over quality completely undermined one of our most important sectors that we have—in fact, our foundational sector in this country.

I’ve never seen morale in the teaching profession as low as what it was in the final term of that Government. We have low morale in our teaching workforce and burnt-out teachers—absolutely horrific levels. What did the previous Government do? They stopped democratic representation on the body that oversaw those teachers.

Jamie Strange: Out of touch.

JAN TINETTI: Just out of touch with the teaching profession—telling the teachers that they don’t matter.

A world-leading curriculum that we have had, and we are proud of in this country—one that educators hold up as absolutely the most amazing document—is completely undermined because of the introduction of national standards. That became the pseudo-curriculum. We were told at the time that that was because we had to raise the levels of literacy and numeracy. Well, how well did that go? Over that nine years, New Zealand plunged in the international rankings of the data such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the TIMSS records of literacy and numeracy. It didn’t go so well, then, that introduction of national standards. There are many, many, many other cases that I can talk about, but I don’t want to focus on the negative.

While the scale of this challenge is incredibly large, this Government has a plan and we are dealing with it, and, boy, we have made a great start. We have introduced legislation to reintroduce sector-wide, democratically elected members on to the Teaching Council. We have said to our teachers, “You matter and we value you.”, and we have done this and sent that as a really clear message to them. We have actually said we value all our children in this country. All of our children are priority learners—every single child. We will fix the broken learning support system in this country. We are not going to create a distraction by having another set of schooling there, with charter schools, so we are repealing charter schools as well. We have introduced that legislation.

We are scrapping national standards—that is the single best thing that we could do in our Government to actually lift education in this country again. We are telling our educators that we will put trust in them and talk to them first before just “doing to” them and putting stuff through urgency, as national standards were put through.

The one single most important thing that we are doing presently, at this time, is that we are asking all New Zealanders who are interested in education to join a conversation so we can set the way forward and agree shared priorities across the whole system, from early learning, schooling, tertiary, and lifelong learning. We want to talk to people. We want to have that conversation. That is really important. We are not going to “do to” the sectors or to the children or to the whānau; we are involving them in the conversation. I acknowledge all of our coalition and confidence and supply agreement partners on this side of the House in their work in that particular area.

We have started working with the early childhood sector to develop a strategic plan—again, we are working with the sector. We are focusing on quality. We are bringing them and focusing on that sector, making that important, and telling them that they matter. In this Budget, we will even do more—education will get a long-overdue boost to capital and operating funding. We will once again move towards a high-quality public education system that provides all New Zealanders with the opportunity to achieve their full potential.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Jami-Lee Ross: Oh, this’ll be good.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: This’ll be a very good contribution by myself, and I’d like to start by, first of all—we’re a team. Some of us are a team across the House, and I’d like to comment, firstly, on Grant Robertson’s contribution. I agreed with part of it. He talked quite positively about the state of the economy, he talked about the unemployment rate dropping to 4.4 percent, he talked about the growing economy—all good things. He could have talked about 10,000 new jobs a month being created—all good things. He could have talked about the $19 billion worth of surpluses that were before him—all good things. I thought he was actually going to say, “Thanks to the National Government”—thanks to the National Government, he, Mr Robertson, is able to do so much that he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do. Thanks to the National Government, the situation is that there is money to invest, money for New Zealanders. Just remember—and I know we do on this side of the House—this is taxpayers’ money. This is taxpayers’ money that is being collected from hard-earning Kiwis.

Mr Lees-Galloway talked about the housing crisis, but we heard today that in the next 12 months there will be 1,000 houses—1,000 houses—being built by Housing New Zealand. One thousand houses—half a dozen small to medium sized enterprises could build more than that. A thousand houses in 12 months is pathetic. It’s not going to solve any housing crisis, imagined or real, that this Government reports on. Housing New Zealand is a $65 billion asset, and they can produce 1,000 houses in the first 12 months.

And then, of course, the question today in the House was how can we have new young people enter into the housing market? Well, Housing New Zealand will sell those houses. When we were in Government, it was such a terrible thing to sell State houses, but we’ve had an admission already that these new houses, built by the State, will be sold—will be sold to the private sector. Well, there’s a little bit of a flip around.

Now, of course, some of these things that the Government is talking about are going to require more than the $19 billion that was given to them on a plate by the National Government, so they’ve gone out and committed to $10 billion more of borrowings. They’ve gone to commit to the Cullen fund—that was mentioned by Mr Lees-Galloway. Now, we can only commit to a Cullen fund if we either borrow more or we tax more. So the question for Mr Robertson—or Mr Lees-Galloway, because he’s very keen on contributing to the Cullen fund—is how much are those two individuals going to borrow today to invest in the ASX or the New Zealand Exchange on their own behalf—on their own behalf? How much are they going to borrow to invest in the equity market? Because that’s what they are planning to do, on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer. That is what they’re planning to do on behalf—

Darroch Ball: Productivity.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: —see, on that side of the House—“productivity”, Mr Ball talks about. You borrow money to invest in a sharemarket, because of productivity. I ask that member how much money is he going to borrow today or tomorrow or next week to invest in the New Zealand or the Australian or the New York or any stock exchange around the world? If he’s not interested in borrowing himself, why would he expect the taxpayer to borrow and have the Government borrow on behalf of the taxpayer? Quite an outrageous situation.

The other thing we’ve got going is that that Government talks about supporting the regions—what a lot of nonsense. They want to tax the regions to pay for the Auckland roads. It’s very clear. It’s very simple. They try and appease the provinces by having a lolly scramble, run by Mr Jones. Now, we know, on this side of the House, that lollies are not good for you—lollies are not good for you. There are no vitamins, there’s no protein, they make you fat, and they make you lazy, and that is what Mr Jones is planning to do. He’s already distributed a few little lollies here and there to his favourite pet projects—no accountability, no understanding. He’s stripped money from the Primary Growth Partnership and he’s stripped money from the Crown Irrigation fund—both funds sensibly invested in the regions—for the benefit of his own fund.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’d just like to quote from this document to start my contribution: “What society asks of our public education system continues to change and intensify. New Zealand First believes it is time to have a nationwide education conversation that includes wide public participation and robust discussion between all stakeholders across all sectors: early years, early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary and trade training, adult and community education.” The first bullet point reads, in this document: “New Zealand First will develop a collaborative 30-year strategic plan for New Zealand education that would set an agreed yet flexible direction for our nation’s education that is free from changes in Government and Ministers.”

That has been the opening statement for New Zealand First in their education policy section of their manifesto for the last six years, and this weekend, as a coalition Government agreement, that will become a reality. For the first time in a long time, New Zealanders will actually have the ability to discuss what success looks like for their children—what success looks like for a five-year-old, for a 10-year-old, for a 15-year-old, for a 50-year-old, because this coalition Government actually believes that education is from the cradle to the grave. We will continue to support investment inside our education system, but, more than that, we actually will invest in diversity of opportunity inside our education system.

As Associate Minister of Education, I have the delegation to improve the outcomes for all those students on the learning needs spectrum. The learning needs spectrum runs from our Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme students, with high physical disabilities and needs, all the way through to our gifted and talented children. It was during the last nine years, in the previous Government, that any funding and any recognition of gifted and talented children in this country was removed. It was under the previous Government that, in 2011, being well above the national standards—which were a dumb line to start with—suddenly, by the National Government, all aspiration for our students was gone and “well above national standards” was removed from anywhere inside the records.

This weekend, in Christchurch, 600-odd people will be coming together to start a nationwide conversation. That conversation will be based on: what will we want, what do we want, what do we need, and what does a student require from us as a country to be the best they can be? Regardless of where that student starts, regardless of the challenges that that particular student has, what does success look like for them? And then we will go on as a Government to develop the solutions and the workability to create that success reality for our young people.

That is just a beginning. Next weekend, in Auckland, there will be another education summit, and again that conversation will take place. Deliberately, invitees have been called from every part of our communities, every area that has interest in education, from young people through to those who participate, and stand up and have fought for so long for those of our students who have educational challenges that require more success.

We know that system is broken—we know it. It was a great joy to realise, during the negotiating period, that there were 54 points of commonality in education policy between New Zealand First and the Labour Party. That means that we have been able to hit the ground running. The collegial relationship, the continued effort on the same pathway to make sure that we deliver better a high-trust model for our teaching profession, a highly invested model based on individual needs for our student body, a collaborative model with our parental body, working with our boards of trustees and with the Ministry of Education officials, who, finally, can break free from the chains they have been held in by previous Ministers of Education for the last nine years and who, finally, feel free to speak and give honest and upfront advice to Ministers who listen, who appreciate, and who actually know what they’re talking about—that makes a really big difference.

So this is going to be a fabulous weekend, this weekend. Myself, the Minister of Education, and the Prime Minister will be there. We will be listening more than talking, which, again, will be unique for the people inside of education.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 4 April.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. This is the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill. It’s in the name of the member my colleague Harete Hipango. Again, I want to acknowledge her, as she’s only been here for five minutes and she’s got a bill drawn out. For many in the House, they’ve been here for quite a while longer and they have not had that opportunity and that privilege as well.

The particular essence of this bill—and I think we were talking about this last time—was in regard to the impacts on the voluntary sector. I think it was Kieran McAnulty who was making some comments across the House. I then was giving him information about the sector. I think I might just do it again, just to refresh his memory about, I suppose, the importance of the sector as well. I call it the backbone of our civil society.

We have 114,132 not-for-profit organisations and 27,900 registered charitable trusts. When they have calculated the amount of contribution made in monetary terms, it equates, both in labour and expertise in kind, to around about $9.4 billion. That’s about 4.4 percent of the GDP. Now, I know that’s a lot of figures and a lot of numbers; what it really is trying to say is that our voluntary sector is such an important part of our society and of all our communities. It’s anything from our fire service, where, of over 30,000 fire persons, 80 percent are volunteers. You can go through to over 20,000 in our St John paramedics—over 65 percent are volunteers. So they play a significant role, right down to our NGOs, our community organisations that are serving our communities.

So the purpose and the reason for this bill is to ensure that we don’t punish them. Now, the Health and Safety at Work Act—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Punish—so health and safety practice is a punishment, is it?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Let’s think about this—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Punishment? Really?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: You might just want to listen a bit instead of sort of chipping across. OK?

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I am listening to you. It horrifies me.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: You shouldn’t be horrified, because this does not remove their duty of care. If you think about it, in 2013, when the independent task force was actually put in place—and let’s remember the history; this goes back to Pike River. The independent task force clearly said that our health and safety work conditions, right the way through from paid organisations to voluntary, needed to ensure that there was health and safety well-being—a duty of care that should have been considered along the way, for a long time. So, in the first time in 20 years, we had the most significant change in our health and safety. And I have to say, that was under a National-led Government.

However, in saying that, like all things, sometimes all the big changes we make can also have small, unintended consequences. One of those, in particular, is around NGOs, voluntary organisations, that have people who want to contribute some expertise. In particular, for instance, when we think about the accounts and the compliance that often has to take place, many NGOs will contract for a short period of time, in hours, the expertise of someone, like an accountant, who has the ability to be able to offer their skill sets. [Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s 30 seconds now.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Four minutes—my time has gone so quickly. What I wanted to say very clearly is that we don’t want to impose upon them the role of being a PCBU—that’s a person conducting a business or undertaking—and all the regulations that sit inside that. So what the bill is simply saying is that we should take consideration—it’s a small amendment—that will allow for those organisations to employ a person or persons conducting up to and no more than 100 hours of service in kind, which can add so much experience and wealth and ability to help those NGOs. That’s what we’re asking for from this bill.

What we’d like to ask is that this bill would actually go into select committee. The fine details can be worked through. It’s not a bill that we think would create the great concern that maybe those in opposition to it have talked about. It’s a small amendment that will help NGOs to be efficient, to be effective, in the role of serving their communities. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Well, the House heard it directly from Alfred Ngaro. I’ll make as direct a quote as I can: we should not punish volunteer organisations by making them adhere to the Health and Safety at Work Act. He sees having good health and safety practices in the workplace as a punishment—a punishment. Well, Mr Ngaro, go and tell that to the families of the Pike River 29. Go and tell that to any family member of the tens of people who are killed in workplaces in New Zealand every year, or the thousands of people who are injured in workplaces every year in this country.

New Zealand has a woeful record on health and safety, and, thankfully, because we were woken up out of our complacency by the tragedy at Pike River, we are starting to improve things. But we are still a long way behind the other nations that we compare ourselves with. We’re a long way behind Australia, we’re a long way behind the UK, and we’re a long way behind Europe—and why are we a long way behind those countries? Because we kill too many people in our workplaces every year and we maim too many people in our workplaces every year. And just when we were starting to get businesses to understand that good health and safety practice is just a normal part of doing a business—just when we had the changes that were brought in by a Government led by the National Party, who, when they were in Government and were receiving official advice and weren’t just acting on their visceral, most base instincts, did the right thing—now we have this piece of legislation come along and undermine the whole concept of health and safety at work.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: You voted against the Act, Iain.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, we voted against the Act because it was too weak—because it was too weak. It was a good piece of legislation, but it did not go far enough, and I can assure you, Mr Ngaro, as Minister, I will be fixing up the mistakes made by that previous Government.

But here’s what Harete Hipango said about the Health and Safety at Work Act for volunteer associations, in her first reading speech. She said it creates too much compliance, it creates too much burden—it creates too much administration for organisations. That is exactly the message that we need to move—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: That’s right. Burden, eh? Is that what you want to do?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: “That’s right.” Burden—burden. Alfred Ngaro sees health and safety as a burden. That is the problem with the National Party. It is not a burden; it is a normal part of doing business. It is an absolutely normal part of doing business.

Actually, having good health and safety practices makes businesses more productive, it makes them more profitable, but people fear what health and safety regulation will do to their business because of the nonsense that we hear from people like Alfred Ngaro, and, I’m afraid, the sponsor of this bill, who I believe to be a good person with a good heart, but is completely misguided by bringing this piece of legislation to the House.

Health and safety is not onerous. It is not a burden. It is not compliance. It is not administration. It is doing good business.

And I do not understand why being a volunteer worker means you have fewer rights in the workplace than being a paid worker. Why should you not—why, because you’re a volunteer, should your employer not have a duty to engage with you as a volunteer worker on health and safety? Why? Why? I have not heard an explanation why a volunteer worker should not be engaged on health and safety in their workplace.

I do not understand, and I have not heard one credible reason, why a volunteer worker should not work in a workplace where there is a duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the workplace is without health and safety risks. Why should someone, just because their workers are volunteers, not have a duty to ensure that their workplace is without health and safety risks—and, just to make sure it’s not too burdensome, that it’s not too onerous, those important words: “as far as reasonably practicable”.

This bill is about nothing more than fearmongering about health and safety, and it undermines the good work that this Parliament has done, and it’s even undermined the good work that the National Party did when they were in Government. I would love to know what Michael Woodhouse says about this bill, because he led a good piece of legislation through, and it’s been undermined by his own members.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I was sitting there chuckling away to myself watching the two sides go head to head on this bill, and it does create some amusement, although the topic’s not an amusing one—it is very serious.

Look, when I first came into Parliament in the 51st Parliament, one of the biggest bills that we had in front of us to go through—and I mean to really go through—was the Health and Safety at Work Act. And it was actually a very good, very sobering process. The number of submissions that we had—and I was actually with Iain Lees-Galloway, and Alastair, and many others that actually listened to those submissions, and heard the backwards and forwards. There wasn’t anybody in those submissions that was opposed to a change in ideology—the way we are dealing with health and safety in our workplaces. As it’s been already articulated on a number of occasions, we do have a serious problem in this country with the number of people that don’t come home at the end of a day at work, and that’s a serious issue.

And I have to also say New Zealand First didn’t support National in that Act, although we 100 percent supported the intent, which was to reduce serious injuries and fatalities in workplaces by 25 percent in 2020. And, sadly—and I mean this—the rates of serious harm and death have actually gone up in the last two years. I don’t believe it’s because of that Act, and I’m not even for a second trying to suggest that it has. There is a definite culture shift.

However, what we opposed that Act on was some of the unintended consequences that the bill possessed, and I believe that this is one of those unintended consequences that we were talking about—that we made reference to during the select committee process, and even here in the House, as we put a number of Supplementary Order Papers through to amend the bill to tidy up some of these potential issues.

If I look around the House, and I see the number of volunteers that are here in this House alone, let alone the 115,000 other Kiwis that give their time, put the shoulder to the wheel, for their churches, for their organisations—I myself am heavily involved in sports and recreation and give a lot of time in that field, including surf lifesaving. So I can use examples that relate to my world, and I believe that this bill should be going through to select committee, which is why we are supporting it through that process. We are concerned about some of the potential unintended consequences of this bill that we’d like to have addressed at that select committee process.

But I can see, when I go down to my surf club—and we’ve got nearly 500 members there at Ōmanu. Most of them are active in some way or another, and we have two part-time, paid casually, semi - full-time workers that come through into this organisation. Now, because I’m a volunteer and the plethora of others are volunteers, we have that duty of care that Minister Lees-Galloway has just spoken about, and we absolutely make sure that we do our best to make sure that the workers that we work alongside are safe, as well as patrolling our beach and ensuring that the swimmers are safe. But because we’ve got two workers that work in our office to ensure that everything is in order and the paperwork’s done, those two people are captured—albeit in a voluntary organisation, albeit in a not-for-profit—as persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) under this current legislation.

And I don’t think it was ever the intention of this legislation to capture those people, but there are hundreds and thousands of examples where people are inadvertently captured as a PCBU when they’re actually working right alongside people that are volunteering their time—wholly, solely—but they, because they are being remunerated for that job, are being treated differently. And that gives them a higher duty of care in the fact that—no more in the duty, but more on the legal culpability, if there is an issue on their watch.

And so I believe that this bill is a well-intentioned bill. I believe that through the select committee process we’ll be able to see and hear from submitters that may be able to give some light on it. Some of the questions raised are to do with health and safety equipment in the workplace, and should those part-time or casual employees—under 100 hours per week in a not-for-profit organisation—have to supply their own health and safety equipment. I, for one, don’t believe that should be the case. And so we need to look at the simplicity of the bill and, perhaps, without complicating it too much, look at how we can ensure that if you are a worker on limited hours inside a workplace in a not-for-profit organisation, you do get, for example, health and safety equipment supplied to you so it’s not coming out of your small salary that you may be taking.

I do have to say, as I said, we have raised this on numerous occasions and spoken about it. It’s great that the bill is now in front of us. It’s fantastic that it was drawn out of the ballot—potentially divine intervention—but I also say that, you know, it is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. And, yes, we were all taken up with that previous speech—could’ve gone on for ever.

I stand to take a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill, and I want to congratulate my colleague Harete Hipango, the MP for Whanganui, for having this bill drawn out of the biscuit tin, and very quickly too, as I believe. So well done, Harete.

I think this is quite an interesting bill in that I’m in a volunteer organisation. We run, actually, a shearing show—and, yeah, there are a lot of hazards there. None of us get paid to do it, obviously. Nobody, actually, gets paid for it, yet we all seem to look after each other. I’ve also managed an organisation that’s had volunteers work for us, and we have included them in our health and safety policies.

But I also look at it when we have volunteer organisations that are only small—they have maybe one volunteer person or person that is on a payroll, who’s only working for about five to 10 hours a week, and yet they are expected to have a big, cumbersome piece of policy just for them.

I think that what this bill is trying to do—it’s a sensible bill. It’s a practical bill. It does actually exclude those organisations—those volunteer organisations—with workers doing less than 100 hours a week from actually having to go through the cost of actually administrating the whole process around safety at work policies. I want to say that, because there are people who say that the administration costs may not be a problem—but they are. They take a lot of time and a lot of people’s time just doing all of this work, and when you’re only limited to 10 hours a week or 20 hours a week—if that—we don’t want to have our volunteer paid people sitting there just working through compliance policy.

Iain Lees-Galloway talked about volunteers volunteering in a registered workplace. Well, those people actually do come in under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Therefore, I start to look at what exactly was Lees-Galloway actually trying to say here. I thought there was a lot of yelling and posturing on that side when he was trying to say something—which totally absolutely confused me—and I thought it was this side of the House that actually brought in the Health and Safety at Work Act. We did that in recognition of all of those people that work in this sector to protect them. I know that working in a farming district we went through a number of iterations on our property and on neighbours’ property to make sure that we were compliant to the Health and Safety at Work Act. It took a while for that to bed in, but we’ve come through it, and everybody’s where they should be.

I want to acknowledge the work of volunteers and the many hours that they put in just to make sure that our whole community runs smoothly. Without the volunteer sector, we wouldn’t really have a very strong community development sector at all. I’ve seen it, I’ve witnessed it, and I’ve watched it. That is why I stand here today and I applaud this bill. I applaud what Harete Hipango has put forward. I’m saying thank you to New Zealand First for supporting the bill to the select committee process. I think there is where you’ll have your debates about the ins and outs and where the bill will go. I think it’s a great start, and I say to Harete, congratulations again. I wish the select committee all the best. I look forward to this bill coming back out for its final reading and for assent. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Marja Lubeck: Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. Are you seeking the call?

Jan Logie: Yes, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on Harete Hipango’s member’s bill for the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill and, firstly, to congratulate the member for her good luck in getting this drawn. It’s not something that happens for everyone in this House, and you’ve got to relish those moments. I understand that it will be going through to select committee, so congratulations on that as well.

Unfortunately, with that said, the Green Party will not be voting in support of this legislation. For people listening, what this legislation is doing is it will make an amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act, that was just passed in 2015, so actually not that long ago. It was a very robust select committee process and debate to get to that conclusion. The Green Party—we weren’t happy on where it landed finally. We thought too many of the vitally important protections for working people in New Zealand had been eroded at the end, though it was a step forward. But it was a shame to see some of the really important things lost in the process. So it’s not as if we haven’t had the opportunity to do this, or that the previous Government hadn’t had the opportunity to consider whether this policy amendment would be beneficial. That opportunity has been there. It’s happened, and it did not get put into legislation.

So what it’s wanting to do is so that volunteer associations that employ a person or people for less than 100 hours a week are able to be exempt from the definition of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU). The consequence of that—because not everyone’s familiar with the health and safety language—is that it will mean employers won’t have to cover the costs of protective equipment, as an example, because the health and safety legislation as it stands at the moment is if you are included in the definition of a PCBU, then you cannot pass on the cost of protective equipment to employees or ask them to provide it themselves.

So this will mean those agencies can do that, and it will also mean that they don’t have a duty to engage working people in the health and safety plans in their workplace, and that they won’t have the same duty to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, a safe work environment, free of health and safety risks. So they won’t have to go through those things. We’ve heard from previous speakers saying this is about administration and burden and getting rid of that from organisations, but, actually, if you unpack those three examples, it’s not about administration; it’s about ensuring and creating a good health and safety culture in all organisations in our country and including our volunteer associations in that.

There was a hot debate on the legislation in 2015 about the erosion of the initial attempts to ensure the voice of working people in the health and safety plans, because all of the best evidence around what makes a safe workplace is that the engagement of everyone and the knowledge that they have from the different places in the workplace is essential to getting rid of risks and ensuring everyone is safe. So we cannot support legislation that lessens or removes that requirement for any organisation in this country. If it’s about cost pressures, then I think the Government should look at their loss and lack of funding for our voluntary associations for the last nine years. I think you’re seeking to solve a problem that was created by another policy of the previous Government.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you. This time it is my turn. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am rising to take this call on this member’s bill, the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill. I too believe, as has been said previously, that this bill is well intentioned, and I would have liked to support the bill drawn in the name of the member Harete Hipango, but I won’t be able to do so. Like I said on a previous occasion—I spoke on a bill from Denise Lee, in fact—I too believe Harete is a good sort, and I would have liked to have supported the bill, but, unfortunately, the bill drawn in her name is not, so I won’t be supporting it.

The bill, of course, proposes to amend a section of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015—section 17(2), in fact—and it does so by a change of five sentences. Now, the member Alfred Ngaro previously said it’s a very small amendment, and I agree—five sentences, or four and a half, in fact, doesn’t seem like much of a change. But this small change could have very wide-ranging consequences, and I will come back to that.

Just to give a little bit more context to it, the bill proposes that the volunteer association which employs a person for not greater than 100 hours is excluded from the current legal definition of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU). The PCBU is a very broad concept used all through the health and safety at work legislation, and it describes all sorts of working arrangements, and we refer to those as businesses. So most New Zealand businesses are in fact classed as PCBUs, and, therefore, they are bound by the obligations they have and their primary duties of care under the Act. However, volunteer associations currently are excluded from PCBUs if they are solely run by volunteers. So as long as they don’t employ anyone, as long as they don’t pay anyone, they are excluded from those primary duties of care and responsibilities that PCBUs have.

Now, what does the current legislation actually say that those responsibilities are—and it has been mentioned by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway, previously as well. Section 36(2) actually states that “A PCBU must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking.” So, very clearly, the sentence includes “so far as is reasonably practicable.” These duties of care, these responsibilities, are not so onerous that they would put some kind of an unreasonable burden on the PCBU. These responsibilities include things like providing workers with protective equipment, engaging with workers on health and safety matters, and providing—as reasonably practicable—workplaces without health and safety risks.

Now, we haven’t seen any evidence put forward that would suggest that there is any particular problem that needs to be addressed, that warrants a change of legislation, but, despite that lack of evidence, what this bill seeks to do is it seeks to extend the exemption of volunteer associations to associations which have people in paid employment. So it proposes an exemption from New Zealand’s main health and safety law for workplaces. So that is very clearly a weakening of workers’ rights and it’s a very slippery slope to removing workers’ rights from other groups. And all this comes at a time when this Government, actually, is doing a whole lot of work to strengthen those rights again.

But then again, it’s no surprise, in a way, because weakening workers’ rights is what we have seen from the National Government over the previous nine years. We’ve seen a constant undermining of employment legislation, and it has eroded working conditions. So, really, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we now see a proposal to weaken health and safety protections for working people. Now, it’s important to consider that this is actually legislation that was put in by the previous Government, so it seems rather odd that they don’t seem to believe that that was the right thing to do.

So all workers deserve the same protections at work, and no worker should be injured at work. No workplaces should be exempted, and therefore I don’t support this bill. Thank you.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be speaking on this bill, for two reasons. The first is it’s a great bill by my colleague Harete Hipango, a fellow rookie MP. There are now five new National MPs who’ve had the privilege of getting their members’ bills drawn from the biscuit tin—five of us. So the odds are definitely in our favour, and we look forward to the ballot on Thursday where we’ll add—Andrew Falloon is crossing his fingers. I’ll look forward to Thursday, and maybe we’ll get that number up to six or even more.

The other reason I’m happy to speak to this bill is that in my past life I ran a charitable trust. I know first-hand how important community groups are, and their volunteers, and their well-being, and how they contribute to this country, how they contribute to communities, to family lives, to the lives of everyone. What I’m missing on hearing in this debate is how the other side of the House isn’t acknowledging how to attract and retain volunteers. It is a seriously important and impactful issue here.

Hon Member: That’s a very good point.

DENISE LEE: Thank you for the backup I’m getting from my team on this side; not much from the other side, but we’ll carry on anyway.

Hon Member: That’s right.

DENISE LEE: That’s right. I happen to have very recently met with a number of charities both big and small, and there’s one common theme emerging, and that common theme that is emerging is that it is incredibly hard in today’s day and age to attract volunteers. And that’s the theme that I want to touch on, with the remaining time that I have here this afternoon. Volunteer organisations across the entire sector are struggling to find the finances and the actual volunteers to do the work that they’re doing, to continue the amazing work that they do on behalf of our country. The traditional model of being mostly reliant on actual volunteers is shrinking by the day.

These groups are being forced to change their model and look at more paid staff to do the same work, where they had copious amounts of volunteers to do the same thing. It’s not working so much any more, which, of course, is a great shame. Now, this is not the issue in itself. Many charities and NGOs are large enough to accommodate paid staff, but this isn’t actually what this bill is addressing. This bill is addressing those that are under a certain limit, those who are only looking at 100 hours per week. So that may be, for instance, five staff for a couple of days of work a week.

So what I’d like to suggest is that we don’t focus on how—and this is the accusation coming from the other side of the House—this particular bill is undermining health and safety, because this law change actually does not exempt voluntary associations from a legal standard and a duty of care. It does not, I repeat, exempt them from that. The usual laws under ACC and tort or civil law still apply. So if that’s the case, why are we not focusing on retention, attraction of volunteers, and backing that? I would just simply say if we send this bill to select committee, then we’ll be sending a signal to our most incredibly important volunteer organisations—the smaller ones, of which mine was one—that we are going to be exploring and looking at ways to help them. It doesn’t create barriers for health and safety and making sure that there are rights protected. It’s about helping them attract more volunteers, diminishing the barriers that often exist. The particular push that we’re presenting from this side of the House is the Government should show that they care about attracting volunteers.

I commend this bill. Thank you, Harete, for bringing it to the House, and may you draw another bill out of the ballot on Thursday.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on this bill, the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the member opposite, Harete Hipango, for having this bill drawn. Yes, we do have another ballot coming up soon, and I’ve got my fingers crossed as well, so we’ll see how we go.

Look, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the many volunteer groups that we have across our country. I know it has been mentioned earlier in this debate, but I’d like to add my thanks to those many groups, because many of the wonderful things that are happening in our society could not happen without these volunteer groups, who contribute thousands and thousands of hours each year. We’re talking about community groups, churches, and groups in the area of health. One in particular is St John Ambulance, who I collected for recently. So I’d like to acknowledge those groups.

Now, if we have a look at this bill, I think one of the issues here is around—this is, as I like to say, a solution looking for a problem, because as I engage with many of these volunteer groups, I haven’t had any of them raise this issue with me, so I’m not really sure how much of a big issue it is. But I think the key point here is around valuing and protecting our volunteers. The agencies rely on their volunteers for the work, and the volunteers must be valued, they must be kept safe, and they must be protected. Actually, we’re going to have an example of this coming up soon with the by-election in Northcote, when many volunteers will be heading out, and I wish both candidates all the very best for that.

But it is about protecting these volunteers, because, you see, when someone’s running a business, they have got protections in place for their employees. So why should a community group, a church group, not have the same aspects in place for their volunteers? Article 7 of the UN human rights declaration says, “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” I do worry here that our volunteers will be treated differently to employees and not have that protection of the law.

By the very definition of “volunteer”, they are doing work without payment. Volunteers provide a valuable service to the communities in which they operate, and I’m worried that this bill will potentially lead to the degradation of the quality of the services that these organisations provide. So, essentially, if the volunteers are not protected, if they’re not given clear understanding and clear protection around health and safety, we might lose a number of the wonderful volunteers who are currently volunteering in this sector. If this bill passes, many volunteer organisations could levy their workers for their own safety equipment. At the moment, the volunteers are exempt from that, but I do worry that these volunteers will then have to pay for all their own safety equipment and, like I said before, it could lessen the amount of people who are willing to volunteer.

Another issue is that if this bill passes, it could provide workers with an unnecessarily unsafe workplace. In fact, under this legislation those running the community organisations would not even have to talk to their volunteers about health and safety at work. I think that will be a big issue, and I do worry that if this bill comes in, then we’re going to have a lot of volunteers who are not kept safe and we could have a few issues that could arise from that. The biggest one is that we could potentially lose many of these volunteers, because, like I said before, the thousands of volunteers who are currently volunteering in our sector, we absolutely rely on them. The Government can only do so much. We need Government, we need volunteer agencies, we need churches, community groups, and sports groups all working together, all on the same page, and the volunteers are a key aspect of this.

Now, I myself have employed staff. At one point, I employed eight staff, and it was absolutely vital that they were kept safe in that workplace. It was absolutely vital that they were kept safe in that workplace, and I worry that this bill would degrade the safety aspects of volunteers. So, unfortunately, this party will not be supporting this bill in its current form. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Harete Hipango—five minutes in reply.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all members in the House this afternoon. I acknowledge those who have worked previously on the legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and my colleagues here who have been hands-on, and also members across the House and across the floor. I also acknowledge everybody who’s spoken both in support and in opposition, because what it does highlight is that those who have expressed an opposing view—you’re certainly entitled to this. But I do share with you that they are flawed to hold such concerns.

I’ve cast a legal eye over this, although it’s a cursory one, and the words that have been spoken in support from my colleagues this afternoon are highlighting that this is not an amendment that is seeking to diminish in any way whatsoever the legal protections around health and safety for volunteers. The emphasis and focus in this bill is very much around those volunteer associations who are no longer able to sustain continued service premised on volunteer work and are required to have to pay for that service. This is about the payment of those persons who would otherwise volunteer their time, up to no more than 100 hours per week. So this amendment is a pragmatic one.

May I just go through and summarise the speakers in the House, both earlier when this was called before the recess and continued today. Mr McAnulty—regrettably he’s left the Chamber.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Members shouldn’t mention the absence of other members.

HARETE HIPANGO: I apologise to the House—an oversight of a rookie MP. It won’t happen again. May I just indicate that the previous speaker from the Labour Party around this Jamie Strange, has made assertions and aspersions that are very much flawed, based on the law. The member has spoken about concerns associated with workers’ rights. This amendment is about volunteers who happen to be under the situation of giving service—a volunteer association being defined, because having to pay a volunteer person who falls within the definition of being a worker is classified as a person conducting a business or undertaking. This amendment is about ensuring that those who do give service are no longer required, as recognised by the amendment, to fall within the ambit of this Act. That certainly doesn’t dispense or dismiss, in any way whatsoever, the legal protections that have been highlighted in my friend Ms Lee’s comment, in submissions to the House, around the protection and ACC laws and also civil and tort laws.

In summary, I go through and canvass that—Mr McAnulty talked about his time and experience as a volunteer serviceman. I just share with the House that his view has very much ignited an unsustainable and unnecessary fire, in so far as the concerns that have been expressed. He’s simply fanning something that just does not exist, and I seek to extinguish any such concern that he’s misrepresented to the House.

Further, in relation to that, we’ve heard from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, who has loudly expressed his view in the House this afternoon, scaremongering that workers’ rights must be upheld. This amendment has nothing to do with diminishing workers’ rights or volunteers’ rights in so far as health and safety protections are concerned. May I acknowledge the Greens’ speaker for a gracious manner in conveying an opposing view to this. However, again, just to reiterate, there is misunderstanding and misrepresentation around what this bill is about.

In conclusion, I acknowledge New Zealand First for the support that’s been given to this bill. The speaker Clayton Mitchell has spoken about his experience as a volunteer surf lifesaver. Literally, a lifeline’s been thrown for this bill to be sustained, for it to advance to the select committee. In conclusion, I just share and acknowledge that, having spent some time over in Australia, the surf lifeboat racing championships—coming back to speak on this, being thrown a lifeline literally for this to proceed further. At select committee those concerns will be expressed and canvassed. I simply say and reiterate to all members in the House and the public—acknowledging all the fine work from our volunteer sector that this recognises and will continue to sustain, with the passage of this bill into law. The health and safety standards and protections that have been highlighted under the Act will not be diminished in any way whatsoever with the amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health and Safety at Work (Volunteer Associations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 65

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I move the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, those aren’t the correct words. Can you—

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I said them.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That it “be now read a first time”.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I move, That the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill be now read a first time. This is a neglected but incredibly important area of the law. The word “contempt” is perhaps misleading but there’s probably no better term to describe just what exactly the law of contempt seeks to do. First, as the explanatory note says, it seeks to ensure that court hearings are not disrupted; secondly, that trials are not unfairly prejudiced by an excess of publicity; thirdly, that jurors decide only on lawfully admitted evidence; and, very importantly, that court orders are enforced.

The other aspect of the law of contempt—and I’m going to spend a little bit of time on it this afternoon—deals with ensuring that the judiciary is protected from abuse, and, as I will say time and time again, that does not mean that judges should be mollycoddled. It’s very important in our system that judges are able to be criticised and that their judgments can be criticised. So we’re not talking about encasing the judges in cotton wool but ensuring that they are not subject to unfair and excessive abuse.

Let me begin by explaining the history of this particular area, because, as is tolerably clear, what I have done is pick up the draft bill which was appended to the Law Commission’s report on the law of contempt, and I have introduced that as a member’s bill. It may be regarded as a somewhat cheeky thing for a member to do, but I need to explain why: because for 10 years I have been very involved in trying to get this issue resolved.

Shortly after I became Attorney-General, I asked the Crown Law Office to start to look at this issue because I was concerned at the increasing abuse of judges and the many cases that seemed to be going to the courts, dealing with suppression orders being broken, and so on. The Crown Law Office engaged Professor Tony Smith from Victoria University of Wellington, who wrote a report on the subject, and then after his report was produced it was referred to the Law Commission. In due course, after a great deal of consultation of the general public and of the judges and also of the Law Society, the Law Commission published a report and appended to it a bill.

Because I strongly believe that this is an issue which calls for very careful consideration by the Parliament, I decided to put the bill in the ballot, and I was fortunate that it was pulled out. It constitutes the most important reform of the law of contempt in our country’s history. It draws on much of the work which has been done in other jurisdictions, like England and Wales, and what it seeks to do is put into one single piece of legislation all relevant issues relating to contempt. So, for example, the bill proposes the abolition of the common law contempts of contempt in the face of the court, publishing information that interferes with a fair trial, contempt by jurors, disobeying court orders, and what they call scandalising the court, while preserving the inherent jurisdiction of the court to deal with any novel issue that may arise.

There are numerous parts of the legislation that I know some of my colleagues are going to address, but, in the time available, I want to go straight to the part of the bill that deals with the publication—this is Subpart 6, “… the publication of untrue allegations or accusations against Judges or courts”.

When this bill was drawn out of the ballot, there were a number of newspaper articles on it, and there was a critical editorial in the New Zealand Herald, which of course broke my heart—which basically said that I was seeking unnecessarily to protect the judges. I’ve always agreed with what the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales said just at the end of 2017, and I quote what he said because I think it hits the nail on the head: “judges must earn … respect, and should not be immune from criticism for their decisions; but fair criticism is different from abuse. By this I mean those cases where judges face a torrent of personal abuse for decisions they have made—increasingly online and in social media—and a growing number of cases where judges are threatened and physically abused. Some is calculated to intimidate judges individually or collectively. Such abuse is capable of undermining the rule of law. Judicial independence and impartiality is at the heart of the rule of law.”

So I don’t want to sound like a litany, but I want to emphasise the point that this legislation is not about mollycoddling judges. Of course there must be criticism, but it is about protecting them from the sort of abuse that we’ve read about in New Zealand newspapers recently, where there are various groups that are actually standing outside judges’ homes and yelling and screaming at them, and it’s even got to the stage of physical jostling. But judges have to not be too precious and there must never be an overreaction; there must be a proper and considered reaction in accordance with the legislation.

I recall many years ago someone wrote a story about a disgruntled litigant in Salisbury in 1631 who threw a brickbat at a judge and missed. What’s not quite so well known is that the litigant’s throwing arm was promptly amputated and nailed to a gibbet in the court. And the judge must have received a considerable fright, because to underline his sense of outrage the prisoner was then hanged from the same gibbet. A century or so on, a 19th century judge was in court and he had a dead cat thrown at him, and he simply remarked, “I’ll commit you for contempt if you do that again.” So apparently it was OK to throw one dead cat at a judge, but to throw two was regarded as unimpressive. [Interruption] No, I’m not talking about dead cat jumps or this Government; I am talking about throwing dead cats at judges.

So the point of the matter is that of course there is going to be criticism, and what is certainly not intended in this legislation is, as I have said, wrapping judges in cotton wool and protecting them from any criticism, because that would be totally antithetical to the sort of system that we have.

Other members, as I see it, are going to talk about various other aspects of it. I have spoken to the Minister of Justice about this matter. I have indicated to him that I am happy for him to take over the stewardship of this legislation because it is, quite properly, a Government bill, but that I wanted to do the first reading just to get the show on the road, as it were. But I have every confidence that the Minister of Justice is going to deal with this matter very carefully, because it is an important matter, and I indicate to him that I am very happy to work with him and the select committee to ensure that what comes out of the select committee and what is ultimately enacted by Parliament is an appropriate and proportionate response to some of the problems that we seem to have growing in this country in this very important area. So with those words, I thank honourable members for their interest in the legislation and I commend it to the House.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I thank the honourable member who has just taken his seat, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who is the sponsor of this bill at this stage, for his typically very erudite summary and adumbration of the legislation that he has brought to this House. I have to say that, actually, when told of the story of the judge who ordered the hanging of an offender from the same gibbet upon which his severed arm was attached, I did quickly consult the legislation to make sure that that member had not put that penalty in the bill itself—knowing the seriousness with which he takes the question of scandalising courts and the need to protect judges!

We follow the very fundamental principle that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done, and it is on the basis of that principle that our judicial system—like those in other Westminster countries—has built up a number of very important rules and principles. We have very formal rules for the administration of justice. They are very strict rules. They provide for transparency. Court must be in the open, and we have a press bench there for the many, many citizens who never get to go to court to see justice being administered, and we have accountability for our court system through the appeals process, which itself is very robust. Contempt of court, or actions that constitute the contempt of court, are actions that undermine the integrity of the court system, and are therefore to be taken very seriously and to be properly provided for.

As the honourable member who has just spoken said, contempt happens when there are breaches of orders of the court, including interlocutory orders or orders during the course of the conduct of a trial, when the court is disrupted and prevented from administering the law dispassionately and without fear or favour. Contempt happens when jurors act outside their duties and obligations to the court, and, of course, when there are malicious accusations against judges, either in court or outside court. These are all very real things which our judicial system must be protected against. The courts need to be able to respond effectively to those threats to their effective administration of justice, and I think we all understand that. The current law of contempt, as the bill acknowledges in its preface notes, is covered in statutes, and there is a lot of common law associated with it.

The Law Commission, following a reference by the previous Government, helpfully studied the law of contempt and all of the origins of it, and attempted to bring cohesion to it in their draft bill attached to their report. The Law Commission reported last year, and the Government responded, as the Government is required to do to tabled reports. The Government said in its response, in about June last year, that it agreed that the law of contempt requires modernisation and clarification and that it would give further consideration to the report’s recommendations.

However we characterise it through the effluxion of time, nothing happened, and, you know, for the great good fortune of both the Law Commission and the honourable member Chris Finlayson, his Government was booted out of office. It allowed him to then put the draft bill into the ballot. In a further stroke of good luck, his bill was drawn from the ballot, and the House is now left to consider it without the benefit of the Ministry of Justice—which I know that Minister loves so passionately—having given its due consideration to the bill. But, be that as it may, we now have the bill in front of the House.

I have said to that member that I agree with him. This is an area that ought to take the Government’s attention and energies and efforts, and, subject to Cabinet approval, I have indicated to the member that the Government will not only support the bill but is likely to adopt it so that we can give it the resources and further consideration that it certainly deserves.

I want to touch on three issues; one slightly more comprehensively than the other two. The first is, of course, it deals with suppression orders that judges must deal with from time to time. Suppression orders, of course, go against the fundamental principle of the openness of justice and the transparency of justice, but they are often needed to ensure a fair trial—that somebody is not unduly saddled with negative connotations or a negative stigma because of the yet unproven allegations that they face—and that is the right thing to do. But we do have to make sure that the correct balance has been struck between the needs of freedom of speech—the basic New Zealand Bill of Rights Act freedom that every citizen has—and the need for judges to protect the effectiveness of the administration of justice. We have to get that balance right.

The second area that the bill deals with that I think will require the select committee’s very close attention is that relating to juror misconduct. Of course, we need jurors to do their job to consider just the evidence that they have heard in court and the instructions that they have heard from the presiding judge and the guidance that counsel have provided, as well. I do wonder, however, whether the penalties provided in the draft bill go beyond what is needed to ensure better discipline amongst jurors, given that for most of them they are there, largely, on a voluntary basis and the reimbursement they get for their lost income is very, very slight, and we do not want to create a disincentive for jurors to take up that very important citizen’s role.

I regard the role of jurors and the place of jurors as highly valued in our judicial system—predominantly in the criminal jurisdiction, because that’s where they apply, but, as I had experience of more recently, the one remaining civil area in which jurors get to play a role is in defamation, of course, and it is their judgment that is very useful, I think, to the court.

The third point—and I think the honourable member Chris Finlayson touched on it—is the scandalising of the court, the making of malicious allegations about judges, whether in court or, usually, outside of court, and, of course, social media has now allowed dreadful allegations to be made about judges before anybody gets to respond. Of course, the problem with judges is that they have only one arena in which they can defend themselves, and that is their court. They cannot enter public debate and they cannot parade themselves and take on an army of PR personnel to protect their reputations, so it is right that we ensure that the law of contempt provides proper protection for judges and their reputation. But, again, I do wonder whether prison for up to two years or a $50,000 fine for a citizen who has made allegations about a judge that may not be justified is perhaps going a little too far, and whether there are other measures that could be used to restrain those who are malicious in their statements about judges. So there is that.

The final point I want to touch on, and I would be the last to want to lecture Mr Finlayson, because he is a most erudite member of the members opposite—in fact, I would say the only erudite member of members opposite—but I am going to give him a little lesson that relates to schedule 2 of the bill. It is the part of schedule 2 that deals with an amendment to the Employment Relations Act, and it is that part of the Act that declares that the Employment Court is to be considered as equivalent in rank to the District Court. In that provision alone, the Law Commission—who, I understand, drafted that part of the bill—and the member who is now sponsoring it are defying 150 years or thereabouts of history.

Let me give him the history of the current Employment Court, that had as its most recent predecessor the Labour Court in the 1987 legislation and, before that, the Arbitration Court, that was provided for in the 1973 legislation and legislation that came through in, I think, the 1950s, that ultimately traces its way back to the 1893 legislation that set up the original Arbitration Court. The original Arbitration Court—and, indeed, right through its history, down to the advent of the Labour Court in 1987—was staffed by judges from what was then the Supreme Court, now equivalent to the High Court. In fact, it was regarded as a great privilege for the senior puisne judge of the then Supreme Court, and, subsequently, the High Court, to be on the Arbitration Court.

The Arbitration Court, sadly, fell into disgrace in 1968 with its zero general wage order, but its reputation was re-established subsequently, certainly in the Labour Court and in the Employment Court. One of the reasons why I think the Government should take over the bill is to ensure that that historical anomaly is properly corrected and the proper stages of the Employment Court are preserved and left intact.

That aside, I think this bill is well worth the consideration and the effort of this House now, and I look forward to the submissions to the select committee on it.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill in this first reading, and I’d like to start by thanking the Hon Chris Finlayson. I think that he is an excellent shadow Attorney-General. He was an excellent Attorney-General when it was a National-led Government, and I think that his ideas are, in fact, very handy to the legal profession and law students around New Zealand. I’m not sure whether the Hon Chris Finlayson has been called a handyman before, but certainly there are a raft of bills and legislation that he has come up with that have looked to simplify the law, to codify the law, and to put in place pragmatic solutions to make the interpretation of law better in New Zealand, and this is no exception, obviously.

This is, of course, about the law of contempt. This bill is about upholding judicial process, but it brings together a raft of rules and laws relating to the law of contempt that are scattered around various other Acts—very piecemeal. It brings them together so that they can be modernised and easily understood and easily found and easily interpreted. So I congratulate the member on bringing this bill together. It’s long overdue. It’s something that is supported, of course, by the Law Society, and it’s wonderful—well, hopefully, it will go through its first reading and be further tested at select committee.

So, in particular, I wanted to focus on the modernisation of the law of contempt in relation to the digital age. Of course, going to court used to be this mysterious, mystical type of process, but with the digital age everything is demystified and that includes the court. It means that information travels fast and, without thinking, information can be placed on the internet whether it be via Twitter or Instagram or Facebook without any thought and without any thought to ramifications. Of course, the law of contempt is there to ensure that a defendant has a fair trial and has a fair go, because let’s face it, when it comes to criminal proceedings, if you are facing that burden as a defendant, you want to make sure that you are treated fairly and that the rule of law is upheld.

So it comes down to two parts in this bill: Subpart 2, with regard to the publication of criminal trial information, and also Subpart 4, relating to the responsibilities surrounding jurors. That is about the publication of information that can occur over the internet. Now, I think everybody in this House has probably been subject to armchair warriors that sit behind their computers and fire off bits of information that are untested and can, quite frankly, be very hurtful at the end of the day, and that is a serious thing when we’re talking about criminal trials.

Part 2 deals with publications relating to a defendant’s past and whether or not that could potentially affect a trial and whether that defendant would get a fair go if that information is publicly out there. Then, of course, as I’ve mentioned with regard to Subpart 4, the ability for jurors to go online and research a defendant’s history or engage in public discussion about a defendant’s history or about the case—obviously, that is prohibited. I acknowledge the previous speakers in that we need to strike a balance between allowing people to talk freely and talk about matters that are of interest to the public, but, ultimately, the rule of law must be protected, and the judiciary and the judiciary’s proceedings must be protected to give people a fair go when they are facing criminal allegations. So that will be tested at select committee and I welcome that discussion as we move forward.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a call to support this bill. I should congratulate the Hon Christopher Finlayson. The former Attorney-General couldn’t convince his colleagues over the last 10 years, but he could manage to convince his luck to get his member’s bill drawn from the ballot, and here we are. I’d like also to thank him for referring his bill to the Justice Committee. How many bills do we have now?

Virginia Andersen: Fourteen.

RAYMOND HUO: Fourteen.

Marja Lubeck: Lucky you!

RAYMOND HUO: Lucky us. Probably, we will get another one from Minister Nanaia Mahuta as well. So there’s 15, probably 16. I’d like to thank the Hon Christopher Finlayson for his contributions to the Justice Committee. We have established a subcommittee specifically for the Trusts Bill, and for each session we spent a significant amount of time, good quality time, discussing legal issues—for instance, trying to find the legal definition of negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness, although some members mentioned that we may use the facial expression or the tone of the speeches of the Hon Nick Smith to help gauge for us the level of legal definition between negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness! That’s a light-hearted joke. Hopefully, Dr Smith won’t take it to heart.

Why I mentioned Dr Smith’s name is because whenever we tried to do a Google search and type in “contempt of court”, his name popped up, because as a member he was fined $5,000 for making a critical comment on a Family Court case. Whether that sort of a gesture would amount to a kind of contempt of court—if so, how to strike a balance between the protection of the integrity of our justice system and the freedom of speech and what we should do to adapt to the internet age, because the current contempt law was developed before the rise of the internet and e-commerce or e-economy. New technologies such as e-commerce, e-technology, or the development of social media have certainly changed our lives and have certainly transformed business and Government and also individuals’ behaviour.

So this bill seeks to address the three most important issues. One is the contempt of court, because at the moment our law is kind of a mixture of statutory law and case law—i.e., the court-made law or the decisions of the courts. Secondly, where and how to strike a balance between contempt of court and freedom of expression. And, thirdly, as I said, how to adapt to the current digital economy, e-commerce, or the internet age.

This bill, based largely on the recommendations of the Law Commission, seeks to address the three most important issues in such a manner. Firstly, this bill will ensure the law of contempt is accessible to those it affects. Currently, the law is not accessible because, as I said, it’s kind of a mixture—even some commentators have used the words hodgepodge—of common law and statutory law. Secondly, the bill will ensure the law is clear and easily understandable. The law is not currently clear to New Zealanders, because courts are still developing the boundary of the law, especially the line between contempt and freedom of expression. Thirdly, the bill will make the law of contempt workable. In several significant aspects, the law is not working as it should. The law for contempt was developed prior to the internet age and the enactment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, so the law of contempt has not kept pace with the digital age.

So I commend the member for having the luck of having the member’s bill drawn from the ballot, and I very much look forward to the submissions and progress of this very important bill. Thank you.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, mainly because, reading through it, it is a common-sense bill and it has a lot of provisions in the bill itself that seem quite simple and straightforward and quite essential. It’s just quite unfortunate that it wasn’t brought forward during the previous tenure of the National Government—having to come through, as everyone I think who has spoken so far tonight has said, by means of luck and not because of the drive of the National Party or what they should have done. I think that it’s a good thing that it has been pulled and I think it’s also a good thing that the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, is going to take it over and ensure that all the resources are put towards it, because it is something that needs to be done.

We have heard already today all of the definitions of what contempt of court means in different parts of the judicial system, and what the biggest and most important parts of the bill are that the bill wants to seek to address. Really, when it boils down to it, it is ensuring that we have and maintain a robust democracy, because one of the essential parts and foundations of a robust democracy is a fully functioning, effective, and, most importantly, understood judicial system and justice system. In order for that to happen, one of the essential parts of a justice system to be effective, to be functioning fairly, is for the law of contempt to be able to be upheld, understood, easily accessible, and to make sure that it’s maintaining and keeping up with technology and the evolution of the society around it.

As we’ve heard, currently the problem that the bill is trying to solve—and it will solve, once it passes through the House—is that since 1841 or thereabouts the evolution of the law, in the way that the law of contempt has evolved, has been quite haphazard and all over the place. It resides in different Acts and in case law. That makes it extremely hard, not only for the public to understand—although they probably wouldn’t be one of the major players in ensuring that they understand what the law of contempt is—but also for the judges and counsel as well, who are finding it hard to understand and to access. What that does is it leads to a lack of coherence, and especially a vagary in the actual scope of what the law of contempt is, and that is not a good thing—especially with the rapidly evolving modern technology and environment that we are in today.

Just the three major points that this bill wishes to concern itself with, and they were noted down by the Law Commission’s report that this bill, now put through as a member’s bill, was attached to—the three main areas that the bill wants to address are the law of contempt, to make sure that it is accessible; to ensure that the law is clear and easily understandable; and to ensure that the law of contempt is workable. Those are the three main areas.

Alastair Scott: Wind it up.

DARROCH BALL: Like I said right at the start, those three things may seem like they are common sense and essential, so why didn’t the National Government put it through in 2013 once the report was done? That’s the question that I’d like that member to answer when he stands up and takes a call. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise with some energy on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill, which is a member’s bill, of course, at this stage, in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson QC. I acknowledge the member for his hard work on that bill, and, indeed, many other items of work in his time as a Minister in the previous National Government.

We’ve heard a number of different reasons that this law is very timely and, indeed, the importance of the law of contempt in general. I’d like to focus in my contribution on the one that has already been outlined by Christopher Finlayson, namely the one to ensure that jurors decide cases only on lawfully admitted evidence and not things outside that realm.

So it seems to me worthwhile to take a moment to consider the role that jurors within juries in our criminal justice, and indeed civil justice systems, play. They are laypersons, of course, invariably, and that’s a design, not an accident, of our system—or a feature, rather than a bug, I suppose you might say. They’re very much a part of the administration of justice, and yet, of course, they’re not permanent members but are chosen specifically because they can contribute in a way that reflects their ordinary nature—I suppose you might say—with no patronising intent behind that phrase.

So, providing direction in the form of this bill, which brings together a number of elements, is for the benefit of jurors, essentially, because it enables them to understand their obligations, but also for the benefit of the actors within the justice system, whether on the prosecution side or defendants or others, as the case may be, and also for the benefit of the system more generally—the rule of law, you might say. So it seems to me very important that we have this part of our system as a very robust and clear part of the system.

I mention clarity because the accessibility of the law currently is not. I suppose we might say that it’s difficult to access because it is existing in various different places, including statute, common law, and, of course, the Netflix series Suits. This point was made to me by my lecturer in criminal law—albeit without the reference to the more recent television show—Associate Professor Bernard Brown, and I’d like to acknowledge his contribution to jurisprudence, as well as various other legal academics and, of course, jurists over the ages.

So, talking to the provisions of the bill as they relate to juries—Subpart 4, for anyone following along at home, and I know they will be. First, an offence is created for jury members to investigate or research a case. So, in essence, during the period of the trial it will be an offence for a juror to intentionally research or investigate information relevant to the case, or I suppose we could say information that they consider to be relevant to the case, in the ordinary sense of that phrase, albeit that, of course, in the context of a jury trial, the only information that is, or should be, relevant to the case is that which is presented to the court in accordance with the rules of the court and the Evidence Act, and so forth.

Another offence that is created, or rather codified to the extent that the legislation merely confirms various common law provisions, is that of disclosing jury deliberations. It is an offence, under clause 20 of this bill, if a person intentionally discloses, solicits, or obtains information about statements made during the course of the trial, in essence. It’s worth noting, I think, that this offence would be committed by a person who sought to obtain that information and not merely just a juror himself or herself who would be part of that act.

So it seems to me that between that, and the other offence, which I’ll skip over very lightly, in the interests of time, which is the disclosure of jury deliberations following a trial, we have a very good suite of provisions that will protect the role of the jurors and maintain it to a proper ambit during a trial.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise with great pleasure to commend this bill to the House, and I would like to congratulate the member, the Hon Chris Finlayson QC, for his work on this bill. It’s a pleasure to read a bill that has its origins in the work of the profession and is brought by a member of that profession. I enjoyed the origin story of this bill greatly: that the Law Commission, after looking into this very complex area—and the justice system is also not only complex but very fast moving. It is great to see this House take direction from those at the front lines of that system, to amend our laws and reflect their needs.

The piece of work that was done by the Law Commission recommended that the law of contempt be collected in a single piece of legislation; that the language of that law be modernised, because it was considered antiquated by the Law Commission; and, specifically, that the law be modernised to keep up with the digital age. So, essentially, we were told to bring the laws of contempt into the 21st century, and that is, in fact, what this legislation seeks to do, and I think does with great effectiveness.

The law of contempt is something that actually is essential to the administration of our justice system. It is something that protects the fairness of proceedings. It focuses the minds of jurors, who are laypersons, on what is reliable, credible, lawfully admitted evidence in a proceeding. It protects not only the accused, which it does in many cases, but it also protects prejudice from seeping into the process against witnesses, complainants, and victims and, essentially, marring that process. Simplifying that law and making it knowable to members of the public, including members of juries and members of the media, is, in fact, a component of the right to justice itself. The right to justice actually requires our law to make itself knowable—not to be vague; not to be so amorphous, as the law of contempt had become—so that contempt proceedings themselves are fair.

In fact, in New Zealand, much of the law defining contempt of court was contained in case law, which is very inaccessible to laypersons. To require members of the public to read case law in order to know how to avoid being in contempt of court proceedings is really asking too much. So what kind of activity is considered contempt and at what point and to what degree that activity would have to be undertaken before it becomes contempt was all contained in not only different pieces of legislation but case law where that type of activity had been litigated. That really was unacceptable.

So this law—and the parts of it that I do really want to focus on are the parts that focus on modernising in the digital age. Actually defining, as part of the law of contempt, where juries go off and research material to do with a trial during a trial is enormously useful. This is actually a standard direction that judges give to juries currently in New Zealand criminal trials, but it makes it clear that you can’t go off on Facebook and judge a witness or an accused person based on what they’re wearing or whether they were drinking last night and bring that into a trial. That is what happens now. Defining a publisher as an online publisher, as a blog—and most of us get our information from those types of sources—that’s essential. And not only that; protecting the impartiality of our courts by protecting judges against that kind of publication online.

So I do commend this bill to the House, because I know that, actually, we have been suffering in our trial proceedings from just this kind of thing, and courts haven’t necessarily been able to hold people to account who do undermine our system of justice in this way, but now we will be. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand to speak in support of this bill, and while I congratulate the Hon Chris Finlayson on the bill, I won’t try to talk up his virtues as others have here. I know that, as an ex - head prefect of mine, he can talk up his own virtues far better than anyone else in this House could ever, so I’ll refrain from doing that. He did, though—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: You’ve never forgiven me for putting you on detention.

GREG O’CONNOR: It was only smoking. I was only smoking. But I will refer to one anecdote. Sometimes when we are talking about contempt, there’s always, around the edges, the grey area of where the threshold lies. Perhaps a good case we might like to consider—if you can imagine a defendant standing in a dock, somewhat dishevelled, quite a character; an equally character judge—I believe it may have been Judge Carruthers who was on the bench, one of the best judges I ever appeared before. He was about to sentence him, and he was going through quite a lengthy discourse about the seriousness of the offending, and it was quite clear it may be some sort of a serious sentence that he was going to be subjected to. At that stage, he pulled out his phone and said, “Beam me up Scottie, I’m in the crap.” Whether that would, under the law, or whether that, Mr Finlayson, would actually be contempt I’m not quite sure, but, certainly, it’s good to have real live cases that we can actually judge these things against.

I see the three aims of the bill being to promote and facilitate the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law. Of course, any piece of legislation—criminal legislation—we consider in this House should be about that very thing. But I’d like to focus on the second part of those aims, which is “maintain public confidence in the judicial system”, and that’s really what contempt is about. Often when people are entering the system at any stage, whether they be a complainant, a victim, or an offender going into the system, one piece of warning I always give them is don’t expect this to happen quickly. The wheels of justice do grind quite slowly, but as someone who’s been involved in those wheels of justice over the years, I believe we generally get it right. Even those who are quite critical, the closer they are to the system—and it’s quite often I see that where those who’ve been highly critical of cases believe that there may be an injustice, those who’ve actually sat through the system, sat through the cases—they are often those who become the greatest advocates for the outcome, rather than those who are taking their lead and getting the information from headlines, books that are written, and certainly those who weren’t able to avail themselves of all the facts available. So it’s important for our justice system that those involved at any level have confidence in that system.

I often hear talk about the courts not being very friendly places—they’re not comfortable places, particularly for offenders or defendants, depending on what stage of the trial they’re at or the process they’re at. Well, I don’t believe they should be that comfortable, because part of that is that many of those who end up there are people who have very little other discipline in their lives and very little else that they have any respect for. But, over my years, I’ve seen that people for whom going to court is actually quite an experience, they actually have a grudging respect for the system. They have a grudging respect for the rules, and you’ve only got to see what happens when they believe, genuinely, that injustice has happened—the outrage—to make them understand that, generally, they have a great faith in the system.

So when I look at what is being proposed—prohibiting the publication of certain criminal trial information—that’s a good system. For many of those who say, “Why shouldn’t the jury know everything about everyone that’s come in?”, I ask them to put themselves in that same situation—whether they were facing a parking ticket, if they would actually believe that, if they are going to be judged, they should be judged on the facts before them. That’s not to say there is the opportunity for similar fact evidence, which I haven’t got time to go into today, where a crime or the circumstances of a crime are so proximate, are so alike to what’s happened before, that they can be used. But, generally, innocence should be the presumption, and this certainly ensures that that is maintained.

There are many other aspects of this bill that we will have the opportunity to discuss over coming months, and, certainly, being on the overworked—well, certainly, heavily laden—Justice Committee, I look forward to actually being able to do more work on this bill. I recommend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I’d like to congratulate him on being able to progress such an important issue in regard to contempt and to reform an area of law which is in significant need of doing so, but also on the pleasure that you’ll be giving to many future students of the law who will be able to look at codified legislation rather than having to look up court cases to try and find out what the law is.

I’m also very pleased to hear that the Government is intending to adopt this legislation and take this on board as a Government piece of legislation, to allow the Ministry of Justice to be able to work alongside the select committee to ensure that this is properly analysed and implemented, because it is a large piece of legislation. I think that’s also very helpful for the Government, to ensure that they’ve got a slightly fuller Order Paper, because it’s getting quite light at the moment. I’m sure the Minister of Justice could probably take a few more leaves out of the Hon Christopher Finlayson’s book, if needed, to ensure that we can continue to help progress National Party legislation through this House.

The area of contempt of court has actually been an area of interest of mine. When I was at law school, I wrote a dissertation around name suppression, so I was interested in looking at the way that this legislation proposes to codify some of the principles around name suppression, and I think that’s something which I would like to draw to the attention of the House this afternoon, in Part 2.

Name suppression’s an important part of the proceedings of the court. It allows the courts to be able to ensure that justice can be done. It is about ensuring that there is a proper balance between open justice and also ensuring that justice is actually done, and that requires name suppression, it requires suppression of the facts, and there need to be proper principles around how that should be done. I guess that was the summary of my dissertation: to ensure that that was to be properly included in our legislation.

So I’m pleased to read in Part 2 that these principles have been included in the legislation under clause 15, “How court determines whether publication creates real risk of prejudice to right to fair trial—(1) In determining whether, for the purpose … a publication creates a real risk … the court must consider”—

Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, there’ll be some good case law on that.

SIMEON BROWN: There’s plenty of case law on this, but this is about codifying that case law to make sure that the following principles take into account “(a) the likely effect of the publication as a whole: (b) the persons or groups of persons to whom the publication is likely to be made available: (c) the medium in which the publication is presented … (d) the character of the publication,” and a range of other factors. So I think that’s an important piece of progress in our legislation, and I’m pleased to see that that will be going through.

I think not only does that ensure that we have this balance but we also ensure that there are some teeth to give the courts the appropriate ability to back that up and that there are a range of offences and a range of provisions to ensure that if someone was to breach those offences, the courts have the appropriate statutory powers to be able to address those concerns and address those offences.

I commend this bill to the House. I think it’s an excellent piece of legislation. I’m pleased to see that, again, as the Government has indicated, they will be picking this up and taking this further and ensuring that we have legislation which appropriately addresses not only an important area of law but an area of law which has changed dramatically over the last number of years as technology has developed, as society has changed, and as the way we interact with our justice system continues to change and develop as well. So thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. It’s good to see agreement across the House on a bill that makes good sense. There’s been quite a few members’ bills drawn from the National Party, I acknowledge, and it’s good to finally see one that actually does something sensible. So I’m pleased to say that Labour will be supporting this bill.

I’d like to acknowledge—in terms of looking at the background, briefly—the role that Chris Finlayson has played and acknowledge that he has taken the initiative to look at the Law Commission’s report in the space of contempt of court and the draft bill that was attached to their report, and to submit this to the House in his name. Under good luck, it has been drawn.

So contempt of court—in terms of what we see is, really, an undermining of the integrity of the justice system and the court system. It’s important that we can be reassured that court proceedings will not be disrupted, that the judiciary are respected, and that good process is followed. On that note, it’s really important to see that it is important that justice is seen to be done.

I’ll briefly recall a slightly amusing story. A good friend of mine, on her first time as a duty solicitor, was representing somebody who had been charged with a minor cannabis offence who stood in the dock wearing a “legalise cannabis” T-shirt and addressed the judge by saying, “What’s the haps, Judge?” So in terms of making sure that people follow good process—it’s not at the extreme end of contempt of court, but it’s important to note that we must be pleased with the way our justice system is run and our court system is running, and that people see that it runs well.

This bill tidies up a range of legislation that’s peppered across different outcomes from court cases. It has evolved in a rather piecemeal fashion. It’s also noted here that the existing law pre-dates the digital age. One of the biggest changes I have seen is the change, really, of social media and what that means. What it has meant, in a sense, is that we have so many people that now have the ability to not only find out information but also to generate it themselves and to distribute that information. Keeping that in mind, we are also in an age where court cases are discussed frequently in the media, where online media access means that there are comments and debates around certain rulings that judges have made. So the combination of the increased access of social media and the increase of how much court cases are regularly discussed is a pretty potent combination. This gives rise to the need for this bill to take place.

So the Law Commission has made three key points in terms of what it recommends. When I read these through, it struck me how much this resonated with the fact of the increased access of social media. So the first is clearer statutory rules governing the publishing of information on an arrested person’s previous convictions and concurrent charges; the second one being new statutory powers allowing the courts to make temporary suppression orders postponing publication of information that poses a real risk of prejudice to an arrested person’s trial. Thirdly is a new statutory offence to replace the common law contempt of publishing information where there is a real risk that the publication could prejudice that fair trial. So it’s good to see that those key recommendations that relate to that are now being reflected in this bill by limiting the publication of trial-related information and by imposing fines to stop that behaviour continuing.

The last point I will touch on before finishing is that it’s good to see that there is also clear provision on how our judges are treated, to make sure that there are good processes in place, and that this law is combined in one clear readable space to acknowledge that judges do a hard job on a daily basis, and that that needs to happen as well.

So I’d like to thank the member for bringing this bill to the House, and I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Before I call the next speaker, can I apologise for you having to work without the clock going. Well timed.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Can I thank honourable members for their excellent contributions to this matter. It’s great to see that there is a recognition across the House that even if this bill is not perfect and will need to be worked on by the Justice Committee, the broad principles are accepted, namely the importance of clarifying the law and ensuring that in a digital age everyone knows where he or she stands in relation to what can be done.

I really appreciated the contribution of the Minister of Justice, and I have to say, on reflection, he’s absolutely right in what he said about the reference in schedule 2 “Consequential amendments to other enactments”, that refers to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the categorisation of the Employment Court, in replacement section 196, “(a) as if the court were the District Court;”, because, actually, his analysis of the history is quite right: it is a court which is not part of the District Court system; it’s the equivalent for industrial relations matters of the High Court. So that’s the first piece of work the Justice Committee will need to do to make sure that the definition of court recognises the Employment Court as a distinct court and not treated as though it were part of the District Court.

The second point that he made is a very important one, and the select committee’s going to have to spend some time having a good hard look at these provisions—clauses 26 and 27—about whether or not that is an excessive response to contempt involving a judge. Of course, they are matters that there will be submissions on, and, hopefully, there will be an opportunity to get the balance right, because, as I emphasised and emphasised again, what I don’t want to do is shut down criticism of judges, but any criticism or any abuse that undermines the administration of justice and interferes with the rule of law.

I want to thank all speakers for the comments they have made about the current inaccessibility of the law and the idea of putting all law relating to the law of contempt in one place so that people, as I have said, know what their responsibilities are—what they can and cannot do.

It is a rather odd position, I acknowledge, for a Government to take over an Opposition member’s bill. Technically, I suppose, one could say this is not quite an Opposition member’s bill because I put it in the ballot—it’s been done before, but it does raise important constitutional questions, and that’s why I’m happy for the Government to take over the bill and work with them. I think that sounds a bit “Pollyanna-ish”, because we are an adversarial place, I suppose, but on these sorts of issues—they’re not really party political issues. It’s important for the rule of law and the separation of powers that we get this stuff right, and so I will be prepared to work with them, as indeed the National Party will, to make sure the legislation’s final product is fit for purpose legislation that will serve the interest of justice.

So, once again, I thank honourable members for their very, very helpful and generous contributions, and commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, before I call the member, I understand that the Speaker has given permission for part of the speech to be delivered in Tongan and that the member will provide Hansard with an interpretation later.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be able to stand in this House to make my first contribution on the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill, as a member’s bill. I acknowledge the English language is the dominant migrant language of Aotearoa New Zealand society. To the tangata whenua, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. ‘Oku ou fakatapu atu ki he laumalie ‘o e ‘otua ‘oku ‘afio ‘i hotau loto. Fakatapu ki he hou’eiki mo e tangatawhenua ‘o Aotearoa. Fakatulou atu ki he ngaahi ha’a mo e tu’unga kotoa pe, ‘oku totonu ke fakatapua.

[I pay respect to the spirit of god which is within us. I pay respect to noble people and the tangata whenua of Aotearoa. My acknowledgment to the respected tribes and dignitaries that should be mentioned.]

Again, I acknowledge the English language is the dominant language of Aotearoa New Zealand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt the member, because she needs to actually need to move the motion.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK, my apologies. I wasn’t—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s all right.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: It is my first—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s the first—yes, absolutely.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Yeah, so right down the—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you just read that out, and then we’ve got a motion to debate.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: I move, That the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: So should I start from—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you can take up where you like.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK. I acknowledge English is the dominant migrant language of Aotearoa New Zealand society. This is a good time to remember that manufacturing false hierarchies based on language and culture in order to enforce a class system is a very long, long, long story.

New Zealand’s modern capitalist economy was formed thanks to two very modern subsidies: confiscated indigenous land and the colonised people. Both forms of colonisation required the creation of intellectual theories that ranked the relative value of people’s lives and languages, placing English at the top.

Indigenous languages are a fair game on an absurd official language status. Therefore, today, I am asking honourable members to demonstrate leadership and to respect the human rights of all cultures in Aotearoa New Zealand to be able to speak their mother tongue, as it’s written in the Standing Orders—other languages—when they enter Parliament. The time is right—is it? Is it the right time for indigenous people who reside in this country to use their mother tongue when they enter Parliament?

Indigenous peoples of Samoa, according to Census 2013, who live in New Zealand—Samoan is the third most spoken language in Aotearoa New Zealand. To the indigenous people who speak Hindi, the fourth most spoken language in Aotearoa New Zealand, and to the indigenous people of northern China, the fifth most spoken language in Aotearoa New Zealand, the first—my pages have lost me. But yes, to the indigenous people of Tonga who chose to call New Zealand home, Tongan is the 10th most spoken language in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the seventh most spoken language in Auckland.

Standing Order 108 states, “A member may address the Speaker in English, Māori or New Zealand Sign Language.” The reference to the Speaker is from Standing Order 107. Its intent, however, is that members may use other languages only on occasion. Members have the right to use English—as it says—first, followed by Te Reo Māori or New Zealand Sign Language, in the House, but other languages are used from time to time. This is particularly common in maiden speeches and suchlike.

I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Dame Tariana Turia—I have lost that page, but I will use my memory, which has been handed down to me through generations of oratory speakers. In 2004, Dame Tariana Turia was the first member of Parliament to make her declaration in Te Reo Māori, despite the fact that, in 1867, a law was passed to enable Māori representation in this House, and in 1868, four Māori members of Parliament entered this House, but unfortunately, according to Hansard, their oaths or declarations were not recorded. However, there are stories about the weather on that day.

So the principal Act—let me get to the principal Act. The Oaths and Declarations Act of 1957, passed 89 years after tangata whenua entered Parliament, states—I’ll cover that in the meantime, but I’ve found my page now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s always a relief!

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: It was in 2004—89 years after tangata whenua entered this Parliament—that we were able to do that, as I said before.

I wish to now acknowledge the Hon Aupito William Sio, who, in 2008, wanted to make his oath, with the help of God, to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors,” in the language of his mother tongue, Samoan, and was not able to do so. The process which the Hon Aupito William Sio had to go through in 2008, 2011, and 2014 to get permission to take the oath in Samoan was unnecessarily—according to myself—offensive. He had to repeat in English to ensure a legitimate process was undertaken.

In 2017, members of this House—Marja Lubeck and myself, from the Labour Party—took our oaths. We have gone through the same process and we have taken our oath in Tongan and in Dutch, and, of course, members on the other side of the House are able to do that in Korean and Hindi.

I must apologise to the later migrants since the arrival of Europeans in this country. I have prepared a fact-full speech—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I must apologise to the member. I’m sorry to interrupt, but the time has come for the dinner break.

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

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: The purpose of the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill is to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 to allow members of Parliament to make their Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance in languages other than English. At present, English and Te Reo are the two languages that are allowed, noting that members can already, on request, repeat the oath in another language immediately after they have done so in English or Te Reo.

As mentioned before—I’ll just take a quick run through the history—the principal Act is 61 years old. Te Reo Māori was not allowed to be spoken in terms of oaths and affirmations until 2002. In 2004, Dame Tariana Turia was the first person to take her oath in another language other than English. So the purpose of this bill is to enable the—when we say the words “all of New Zealand”, we want to include all its people.

I want to refer to the statistics, where there’s a prediction that in seven years’ time, Europeans and others will make up 3.82 million of the population, 0.91 million will be Māori, 0.92 million will be Asian, and 0.48 million will be Pacific. Why am I alluding to those people? Because that is the growing population of New Zealand. Can we really afford to say no—to say no to the future of New Zealanders who, in 2038, will make up 50 percent of this country? Can we afford, in the future, to deny them the ability to take their oath or their allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs in another language, other than the dominant migrant—migrant—language, English? Then later, in 2002, the indigenous language, Te Reo Māori, was then afforded to tangata whenua to be used in this House.

Members, make that point today—let our future speak the mother tongue of their country. Malo.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a great pleasure and honour to be able to stand in the House tonight and take a call on the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill. Can I please acknowledge the new member to Parliament Anahila Kanatahi Suisuiki—and I hope I got the pronunciation right on that.

Marja Lubeck: Not really.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Nice try.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I didn’t. Which leads me probably to my next point: I grew up in New Zealand, and I was schooled in New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s. The only option that I had when I went to school, the only language option that I really had, was to learn French. As a young guy growing up in New Zealand back in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very hard to see how French was really going to be that relevant to me as I moved into adult life and into my working life. I took it in fifth form, which I think is year 11 now—

Hon Stuart Nash: First time or second time?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and I discarded it. What’s that?

Hon Stuart Nash: First time or second time?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, you mean—are you with me on that one are you, Nashy? What—two or three years in fifth form?

Hon Stuart Nash: I did three years in fifth form.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, three years—OK. I did actually get through the fifth form.

Hon Stuart Nash: Oh, well done.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: But anyway, the point that I’m sort of getting to is this: languages enrich our lives. Later on in life, when I started to travel overseas, I really struggled. I wanted to learn the language in the country that I was living, and I really struggled with that. Someone pointed out to me and said that unless you actually learn languages, unless you actually engage with them at a young age so that part of the brain is developed, then, actually, it is much harder to learn languages in your adult years. I guess we can look to Europe as an example where often children will grow up very comfortable. I mean, Marja can probably attest to this, having come from the Netherlands. How many languages? Seven! Seven languages.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I’ll just remind the member to use the member’s proper name when referring to them.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Of course, Madam Assistant Speaker. So Miss Lubeck grew up in the Netherlands and she had an ear for languages and she can speak fluently—I assume—seven languages.

Marja Lubeck: Definitely not fluent.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Near enough to it anyway. So the point that I am making is that languages are fundamentally very important. So can I acknowledge and congratulate the member on having her bill drawn and at least getting it into the House for us to have this debate and for it to be an issue that we can engage on together.

We won’t be supporting the bill, and there are some reasons for this, and I’ll just run through some of them. The other side can certainly stand up and address—that’s what the debating chamber is for, which is that we can have a discussion around it. The ability to swear an oath of allegiance in all of our official languages, including New Zealand Sign Language, should be supported; however, it raises questions when you extend the oath to include foreign languages, and I’ll start to dig into that more as I go on.

The bill does not limit it to just the members of Parliament, and I think that, fundamentally, I don’t know, I’m not sure—the member can get up and correct this—but this bill does not actually just limit it to members of Parliament; it goes much broader than that, and that does have consequences. It simply allows other language equivalents of the oath of allegiance—

Kiritapu Allan: It’s in the name. It says “Members of Parliament”.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Yeah, it says “Members of Parliament” in the title.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —set out in section 17 and does nothing to restrict this to MPs.

Kiritapu Allan: It’s restricted to members of Parliament, Mark.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So that this is something that you can stand and take a call on and maybe give us some confidence that it isn’t actually broader than relating to just MPs.

It does seem an absurd proposition to allow this for MPs and—as an example—defence personnel but not for judges or justices of the peace. This is a very important point: we should be careful in allowing translations of statements in unofficial languages. Other languages and cultures may have different interpretations of the meaning of words such as “allegiance” and “according to law”. I was just reading, actually—there’s been a very recent relevant case of this with President Macron in Australia on a State visit where, just very innocently, he referred to Malcolm Turnbull’s wife, Lucy, as being “delicious”.

Marja Lubeck: But he meant it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because in French—well, maybe he did. But, actually, in French “delicious” actually translates to “delightful”, and what he was meaning was that her company and her hosting was delightful, but it was lost in translation. It literally happened in the last day or two, and it’s just a recent example of what can happen with the interpretation of different languages.

At present, the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 allows oaths and declarations to be made in two languages: English and Te Reo Māori—and, of course, we also recognise sign language as well, as an official language in New Zealand. “[The] bill amends the principal Act to allow … the Governor-General to prescribe equivalents in any other language of the oaths and declarations required to be taken by members of Parliament, and by ensuring that they are legally equivalent in effect to the English versions.” This is actually quite an important point, because, at the end of the day, if we were going to extend and allow people to take an oath of allegiance in another language, then you’d have to be very confident that the person taking that oath or hearing that oath understood it clearly and was conversant in that language as well, otherwise there could be some serious mistakes made.

What ensures that this is only going to be used for MPs? That’s the question that I’m putting forward, and I think that Kiri Allan might take a call on this; she’s interested in this. Schedule 4 of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 lists six other pieces of legislation that require an oath of allegiance. While only one of them refers explicitly to section 17, others, including the Bill of Rights Act 1688, leave this blank. There are other Acts—and I’m actually going to run through them—that this will directly relate to as it’s currently contained in the bill.

So it raises some questions. Will this apply to the Citizenship Act 1977 for new citizens swearing oaths in public ceremonies when they all swear at once? Because I know that we all would have attended, as members of Parliament, citizenship ceremonies, which I know we all hugely enjoy being part of because you can see the excitement and the energy of the people that are swearing and becoming citizens of New Zealand. But, recently, there was one held in my electorate where there were 500 people there. So this is actually very relevant in terms of—is this bill going to relate to the Citizenship Act 1977 and how does it interact with it?

What about the Defence Act, where Defence Force personnel are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. It would be unusual to swear an oath of allegiance in a language foreign to the country you are swearing allegiance to.

Just very quickly, because I’m conscious that I’m going to run out of time, some of the other Acts that could be addressed, or I’d like to be addressed, tonight in the House as the calls go on: I’ve mentioned the Citizenship Act 1977; there’s the Constitution Act 1986, section 11; there’s the Defence Act 1990, section 34; there’s the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, schedule 4, clause 1; there’s the Education Act 1964, section 162; the Policing Act 2008, section 22; and the Bill of Rights Act—and I’m not sure if this is a misprint but it’s got 1688 here on my sheet.

So I’d invite the next speaker that takes a call, or the speakers to follow, just to address those issues. They are important ones, and they have definitely been a serious block in terms of us being able to support this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Can I congratulate Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki for having this bill drawn out. It is an exciting opportunity here, and I’d hoped the House would consider—seriously—about allowing this particular bill to go through the first reading so that the select committee could undertake its task, which is to try and address the concerns that have been raised here tonight.

I want to begin by simply saying that what this bill is designed to do is to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 so that it would allow members of Parliament to take the oaths as members of Parliament, or any oaths in this House, in the language of their choosing. It legalises a practice that is already being allowed to happen with the approval of the Speaker.

The Oaths and Declarations Act 1957—I just want to respond to Mr Mitchell’s comments about foreign languages. In 1957, I wasn’t even born. I wasn’t even thought of by my parents, I believe. We’re now in 2018. In 1957, there were less than a thousand Pacific peoples here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We now have 400,000 Pacific peoples. As an example, these are not just the only people that are here—400,000, 62 percent of those Pacific peoples are born in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is their home. I wasn’t born here. I was born in Samoa, but I’m a New Zealand citizen. This is my home.

I’ve often asked myself when I first came into the House: who am I, and what is the importance of the language to me? When I was asked in 2008 what language I wished to take my oath in, I asked the Speaker then, the Hon Margaret Wilson, if I could take it Samoan, the reason being because this is my heritage language. It speaks to me in terms of my identity, in terms of my connectedness to our heritage and our ancestral homes.

It also speaks volumes to the man who is my father, who encouraged and supported me to my political career. So I felt it was important to take that oath in the language that is my heritage language, in the language that more than 40 percent of many New Zealand - born understand, but in the language that my father, in particular, understood. How proud he was to hear those words being uttered here. But I soon learned that the only way that I could take that oath was if I also repeated it in English. That’s not a problem, but every time I’ve asked since 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, when I could take the oath, I had to get permission from this House. Last year, for the first time ever, we had about six or seven MPs out of the 10 MPs who are here born of a different country take that oath in their heritage language. I think that’s something that we need to celebrate. It’s something that we need to recognise. I want to say the bill is about the oath in this House, and if those are legitimate concerns, then I’d ask the party across the bench to allow this bill to go through the first reading and allow the select committee to bring about the parameters that he seeks.

Finally, the oath of citizenship—and I accept some of the concerns in terms of the Defence Force and police force, but the oath of citizenship—I undertake citizenship ceremonies in my office. I soon learnt that the oath of citizenship in the English language for new arrivals, particularly from my home country, are not necessarily fully understood, and it was only with the Department of Internal Affairs, who then translated that oath and I’d repeat it to the citizens in Samoan, could they then appreciate the enormity and the importance of the oath that they were undertaking to become citizens of New Zealand. So I ask, again, the members of that party, and all other parties: please consider allowing this through the first reading, because this is about recognising our presence—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] I apologise to the member; your time has expired.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill at its first reading. I guess a bill like this is timely. I think that as we are a growing and developing multicultural society, we do need, as the previous speaker Aupito William Sio has indicated, to assess the linguistic and the cultural differences that make us who we are today. I think that in that way, and in that spirit and that wairua, I would commend the member on this bill. I think that it is very important to recognise the diversity and the issues that come with the ability to speak your own language and to understand it, as the previous speaker said.

I guess our difficulties with it do lie in the parameters of it, and, you know, going to a select committee—which is what it will do if it gets past this hurdle—might well iron out some of the concerns that we have on this side of the House around not just it affecting members of Parliament but the other issues and have they been well thought through or have they not. I guess defence personnel, for example, judges, and justices of the peace would be others who would do, via a citizenship ceremony, something that is in their own language and then means something to them, and they understand it and it resonates with them in a way that Te Reo does with all New Zealanders. In my former life as a broadcaster, it felt to me at many times that this was a country that was very slow to catch up with its Te Reo and the heritage that was very much part of what makes us who we are, and there was resistance at the start.

Perhaps, at a select committee level, if it goes through, there will be things that can bring it to a place where we can feel comfortable with it, and that it won’t open up the floodgates into things that might be a bit tricky to manage—you know, how many languages are we allowed? At what point would they be translated? At what point are they officially recognised? Sign language took a long time to actually be recognised, and I don’t think it was officially acknowledged, really, until the 2000s, but I think what it tells us about ourselves is something that we need to acknowledge and take hold of. For this language bill to get through, the Oaths and Declaration (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill, may be a step too far at this time, but I think it is paving the way to a wider conversation.

So while I do not support this bill in its current form, I commend the member for wanting to have affirmations of allegiance in languages other than English, and in Te Reo and in sign language, but I think it is something that is very important: doing things in a way that is going through the due processes and bringing people with you. But you have, with this bill, I think, begun a conversation which will cause us to examine things in a lot more detail. Therefore, I commend the member, but not this bill, to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. It’s for a number of reasons, and most of them are actually mentioned within the general policy statement of the bill. I’ll go through them in a second.

I’m slightly confused. There was something that Mark Mitchell said about whether this bill was to do with just members of Parliament or to do with citizenship or justices of the peace. I heard the call from the Labour Party members of Parliament that it was actually only just for MPs and taking the oath in this House, and then the second person who spoke, William Sio, stood up and said there were six members from this last election, this past swearing in, that used an alternative language. That means that we’re going to be debating in this House a piece of legislation that affects six people out of 4.6 million people in this country—just six for this term. It’s going to take up all of our time and all of the costs just for this House and just for MPs—just for MPs.

Now, if the member who’s authoring this bill actually believes what she is saying in her explanatory note, which is that “New Zealand has become a much more multicultural society. As a diverse and tolerant society we should allow [this to happen]”, then what I encourage her to do is to have a look at the languages with which she wants to make the oath or the allegiance, and put bills through to make them official languages of this country, because that’s what this House does. It uses the official languages of this country, whether it be English, Te Reo Māori, or sign language, and that’s what we do our oaths in. That’s what we do our oaths in.

Not only that, but there are some quite concerning things that are stated in the general policy statement. First of all, it says that this is “A good starting point for this change” in regards to allowing a “diverse and tolerant society”, and that we should allow this to happen. This is a good starting point? Well, what pathway are we starting down, and what’s the end point which the member wishes to get to? What is the end point which the member wants to get to? If we’re talking about being a diverse and tolerant society, a multicultural society, why are we stopping at just the oaths, for starters, in this House? Why not make it for oaths outside of this House as well? Why not make the language spoken in this House, not just with the oaths but just speaking during the debates and speeches—why don’t we include all the different types of languages that are spoken in this country?

Not only that, but in this bill it says “any other language”—any other language. There are over 7,000 languages that are being used in this world today—7,000. Are we going to include those in this House? Are we going to include those with the oaths, with the speeches, with the debates? It needs to be taken into context what this bill is being asked to do and why, because every single Labour Party member that stood up in favour of this bill has actually stated that what they wanted to achieve in the bill has already been achieved. What they wanted to do was to take the oath or affirmation in their mother tongue, and then they said that they did it. William Sio said that there were six members of Parliament that did it at this last election. They already did it. There is absolutely no need for this to happen—absolutely no need.

In Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand it states that “On occasion the House has given leave for a member, immediately upon being sworn in, to repeat the oath or affirmation in another language.” So it already achieves what it sets out to achieve. The only thing of any substance that is any different to what is written in here that was said in the opening speech was that that member was offended when they had to ask to take that affirmation or the oath in their language—that that member was offended. That’s the reason for this bill. It’s because they were offended that they had to ask permission from this House to take it into another language, even though they could already—even though they could already. Like I said, if that was the case, if it was true that we are an open, diverse, tolerant society, then what I suggest to the member is that they put some legislation in to change the official languages of this country if they want to speak it in this House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, it is a pleasure to speak on the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill. As has already been said by my colleagues, we won’t be supporting the bill. Look, I do congratulate the member for getting a bill up and getting it drawn out, but I don’t support it for some of the reasons—I actually do have a bit of sympathy for the member who just took his seat, Darroch Ball, and his views, perhaps not quite as hard-edged as that, but nonetheless.

I did look up before to find out how many languages there are in the world and I found the rather auspicious group, the Linguistic Society, which I take as being quite accurate, I suspect. They say that “One might suppose … that linguists would have a clear and reasonably precise notion of how many languages there are in the world. It turns out, however, that there is no such definite count—or at least, no such count that has any status as a scientific finding of modern linguistics.” So I guess the point is, as was made by the previous member, where does it end if we go down this track?

I thought that the point that was made before by the Hon Mark Mitchell around other consequences of this, such as the military, such as the police—all of those, and he read out the Acts. The Citizenship Act, the Constitution Act, the Defence Act, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, the Education Act, Policing Act, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act all refer to languages and the official languages in taking oaths and affirmations. So this is actually quite important. This could really have quite far-reaching effects. It’s for that reason really that I think the bill is beyond being tidied up in the select committee. I think it should be just go back and have another go and put another bill in. That would be my view.

But I thought about my own colleagues, Dr Jian Yang could—and I don’t know if he did—take his oath in Mandarin. I can’t remember—when we were sworn in. Melissa Lee could do it in Korean. We could have Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi—it would be in Hindi. Dr Parmjeet Parmar also could do it in Hindi. I suspect, if given the choice, the Hon Chris Finlayson would probably choose Latin, and I suspect Latin would have quite a lot of relevance given that our system—the legal system in those days right back when New Zealand Parliament came into being—was rooted in Latin, as was the medical profession. So you could make an argument for that. I suspect the Hon Paul Goldsmith, given a choice, would probably want to do his in Klingon, but the rest of us would prefer—look, we have official languages.

They might not mean much to some of those people who come in. I understand that. I think all the cultures that come to New Zealand enrich our society, and the different languages do enrich our society. And it’s great to see certainly even in the provinces such as Marlborough, I know the growing Pacific Island community is the fastest-growing group in Marlborough. I think that’s something to be celebrated and we celebrate their languages. However, when you come to a country you are leaving your home country. Bring your culture, bring your views, bring your language, but we have some things that we want to do that are our traditions, and our traditions, like having Black Rod banging on the door there at the start of Parliament so that we must go to hear the Speech from the Throne. It might be a strange tradition to those people who don’t come from here, but that is our tradition. We accept it. And that’s part of being a New Zealander and part of being a New Zealand citizen.

Coming to this Parliament, I imagine it would be a very uncharitable Speaker that would not allow a member of Parliament to give their oath in their mother tongue and then repeat it in English. I think it is a legally binding oath. It is absolutely important that what you say means what everybody else has said when they take their oath. So I don’t support this bill. I do congratulate the member for bringing it here. She’s not been here long so perhaps she’s got plenty of time to tidy it up and put it back in the ballot and it may well get drawn out. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I want to congratulate the member Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki for what I think is a fantastic bill. It’s the perfect example of what a member’s bill should be. It’s a very prescribed, small change that could make a symbolic and significant difference to people in this country, and I want to thank you for your contribution to this House so early on in your parliamentary career.

I do have to express a significant degree of disappointment with the debate so far this evening. What I’ve heard, in terms of the arguments, is “where will it end if we allow these non-official languages to be given in oaths in this House?”—missing a point, which I hadn’t previously been aware of, that English is not an official language of this country. The official languages of this country are Te Reo Māori and sign language; English is not, so all of the content of this debate is given in a language that is not an official language. So it does not stand up to say that we have to restrict the oath to official languages, because nothing in this House, except the Reo, is in the official language of this country.

I’ve heard the assumption that sign language can be used because it is an official language. Well, I’m sorry to give members the bad news that it can’t, and that is one of the reasons for introducing this piece of legislation, I imagine: to enable one of our official languages to be able to be used in the Oath of Allegiance.

I do want to question, as well, the fact that New Zealand has a history of a very close relationship and, actually, a constitutional relationship with several countries in the Pacific. Tokelau is still a dependent territory, there are associated states of the Cook Islands and Niue, and there is not the ability for those people to use their language in this House without having to repeat it in English, despite us having that close relationship.

It does not make sense to me, ruling out this piece of legislation when there are those degrees of inconsistencies. And I’ve heard members say, “So this will have massive implications. It’s not just about Parliament, and we can’t deal with that.” I read the purpose of this bill, which is a very, very short piece of legislation, might I tell people, and to quote it: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 to allow members of Parliament to make their oaths or affirmations of allegiance in languages other than English and te reo Māori.” How short is that? How much effort would it have taken to read those two sides of paper to find out the purpose of the bill and the boundaries of this bill? I honestly just think it’s incredibly disrespectful that people haven’t done that work and have come to this debate, raising these complete red herrings to dismiss a bill that actually is quite important.

So while we’re hearing from people that “actually you can give your Oath of Allegiance in your language and it doesn’t matter that you have to then translate it into English”—it does matter. It does give a message about the place of people in our communities, and when our official languages aren’t able to be given automatically or used for oaths, and when other languages that are present and matter for our family histories and heritages are not able to be present in this House without being qualified by the language of English, it is offensive to me, to be honest.

I really think, as well, that people clearly are demonstrating their lack of understanding about how much of a struggle it is to hold your heritage language, and how important that is for members in our community, and how much we need leadership from this place to be able to support the retention, and indeed the flourishing, of those heritage languages in our country.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is one of those bills that’s all about the politics of identity. You see, there’s a battle out there which is if you’re seen to champion the cause of particular groups, somehow you meet this politically correct demand to be able to be in favour and more inclusive. Well, I’m proud to be a member of this Parliament that is not interested in superficial measures, such as this bill, in the pretence that that somehow makes us a more inclusive and a more diverse society.

Let’s go back to what this bill actually attempts to do. Right now, if you want to be a member of Parliament, those less than 60 words giving your Oath of Allegiance need to be in the language of English or Māori. Now, they are the key languages of this Parliament. Māori has a special place in this country because they are the indigenous people of this country.

With respect to the issue of English—actually, I am one of those that is proud of the English heritage that is part of our country, that has helped make this country all that it is today, including the proud history that enables us to have this democratic institution of Parliament. I do worry for those that want to derail—that want to denigrate—that English heritage that is part of New Zealand’s heritage and part of this country.

Now, the question I’ve got for members opposite is if a person is unable in this Parliament to be able to say just 60 words—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order, members!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, these people are so liberal! They’re so keen for people to have a say if they agree with them, but they’re not prepared to listen to a contribution that simply says that if people cannot utter 60 words in the language of English or Māori, how do they practically expect them to be able to participate in the important democratic functions that are part of this Parliament.

Now, what this is all about is, somehow, the member who’s introduced this bill is going to go out, in terms of the community of the Pacific, whether it be Tongan or otherwise, and somehow pretend—somehow pretend—that she’s an advocate for that community, that she’s going to make lives better for Tongan New Zealanders simply by this small symbolic bill, and I say that she is mistaken. This Parliament has had enough from this Government that is all about symbolism, all about intent rather than substance. I would much rather—if the member that brought this bill to the Parliament had a bill that was addressing the real, practical issues that Tongan families in New Zealand have, I’d have some sympathy. But the idea that somehow—somehow—we become a more inclusive society with a bill of this sort around those allegiances is mistaken.

I also want to make this point. Actually, we in New Zealand—we in New Zealand—are very liberal in terms of our approach to the 100-plus cultures that make up our country. Have you not just noted in Australia members of Parliament being forced to resign and have elections because they hold citizenship of another country. I don’t think it is possible to run an argument that New Zealand is not inclusive, respectful, and celebratory of whether it be the Tongan, the Samoan, the Cook Island, the Ukrainian, the Russian—the many dozens of cultures that make up this country. So my simple point is this: actually, the official languages of this country are English and Māori. Yes, of course I want people of Tongan, Samoan, Russian, or whatever cultural roots they have to be able to continue their language. But when it comes to the official institutions—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! The member’s time has expired.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. First off, I would like to say thank you to Rino Tirikatene for giving me his slot to speak on this really important bill, because I’ve been sitting here getting absolutely wound up about people not understanding the importance of this bill. The last speaker, Nick Smith, who said that he doesn’t believe New Zealand is not respectful to other cultures, has just filled five minutes with absolute disrespect for the other cultures that we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

First of all, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, I congratulate you for this bill. When I first saw it, I thought, “Damn, I wish I’d come up with that.” What an awesome thing to put in here, because this is a lost opportunity for New Zealand. We have an opportunity here to be front-leading and to show the world we are such a modern Government and a shining example for the rest of the world.

I recently visited Holland. In fact, I’m still jetlagged because I only arrived yesterday morning. But I was talking to some local government reps about the fact that I had been given the privilege in the House to take my Oath of Allegiance in Dutch. They were blown away. They said that would never happen in Holland, and the reason for that is that our people are very conservative, even though people have this idea that the Dutch are so progressive.

The whole missed opportunity is twofold. First of all—and this is something that only people who have a first language that is not English can understand—when you do something like giving an oath or swearing allegiance and you do it in the words of your mother tongue, it makes a connection with your heart. It doesn’t come out of your brain. It’s not something that you read out from a paper you’ve read, or you’re doing a speech on a topic that you’ve learnt; it comes out of your heart. So when you are doing it in your own language, you actually 100 percent commit. I can say anything—I can swear like you wouldn’t know it—in your language, English, because it actually doesn’t really mean anything. If I say those same words in Dutch, it actually makes a connection.

Now, I have to disagree with the member Darroch Ball from New Zealand First. This is not about two or four or six MPs; this is about the cultures that we represent in this House. We are supposed to be an inclusive Parliament. We are supposed to be representative of the nearly 5 million people that we have in this country. We heard from the Minister Aupito William Sio that we have nearly 400,000 Pacific people now in New Zealand, so for them to be able to hear that this House recognises them in that respectful way is absolutely priceless.

We have a problem here where people don’t make a connection with this institution because it’s so far removed from real life. We complain about people not turning out to vote. We say, “Look, why are they not watching Parliament TV?”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And changing the oath is going to change that? Give us a break.

MARJA LUBECK: It’s because they see boring, old-fashioned, back-to-the-1950s people like Nick Smith giving speeches that don’t touch people’s hearts.

Nick Smith gave a speech that, to me, was in a history book of the 1950s. In the 1950s, the New Zealand Parliament actively encouraged the Dutch settlers to disperse all through the country—not to stick together in their communities, but to learn the English language, forget about Dutch, and try and assimilate into New Zealand. So does that sound familiar to anyone? Does that sound like any of the other groups that have gone through the same thing? We should be setting an example here of being inclusive and of taking people with us into this House, and we cannot do that by just doing things on the go.

So Mark Mitchell made a comment about the fact that these are not official oaths and, you know, the words that are used may not be right—and that’s exactly it. If this was an official process, we would be able to get our oaths translated. There would be processes for it, and we would be using the correct wording.

I had to go to the Dutch Ambassador, His Excellency Rob Zaagman, whom I’d like to thank very much for helping me with the translation of “swearing allegiance”, because those are words that mean nothing to me. But actually saying them in my own mother tongue did.

So I do support this bill. I commend it to the House with my whole heart. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill. I’m going to do a risky thing tonight. I’m going to ignore the advice of a lawyer who was much better than I ever was—Harvey Specter—and ask a question to which I don’t already know the answer. My question is this: are there any other nations in whose parliaments or equivalent institutions it is acceptable to swear an oath or declaration or affirmation in Māori or in New Zealand Sign Language or in English, other than in English-speaking countries? I suspect there are not very many.

We’ve heard a number of pragmatic objections to this bill, and those have been well canvassed, but I do want to touch on a couple of points that seem to be the subject of some confusion. One is the statement that English is not an official language. Now, I do accept that there is not an Act of Parliament that says as its heading, or similarly prominently, that English is an official language of New Zealand. However, English is used for official business in this country and is recognised in some statutes, for example, the Tax Administration Act, as Dr Deborah Russell will no doubt know, where it’s actually mandated that returns, for example, must be in English—perhaps only in some circumstances; I’m out of my depth on that matter. But it’s simply not accurate to say that English is not an official language of New Zealand, any more than it is to say that we don’t have a constitution in this country just because we don’t have a single piece of paper that has at the top of that page the word “Constitution”. Of course we have constitutional arrangements, both written and non-written alike.

I will agree with the comment made by Mr Ball in relation to the fact that in the explanatory note of the bill, by its own admission, it is a “starting point”. I had highlighted those words in my own notes and added the word “floodgates” because it seems to me unclear what the starting point is leading to by way of end point.

That leads me, as well, to reiterate the point which may have been lost in translation, so to speak, in relation to the scope of the bill, whereby it’s true that the title of the bill and the stated purpose is that it apply only to MPs. New section 4B in clause 5 says that “If an equivalent in any other language of any of the oaths or affirmations set out in this Act is prescribed by regulations”, etc., then using that would have the same effect. Now, the Oaths and Declarations Act does not contain only oaths and declarations that relate to the affairs of this House. So perhaps inadvertently—and perhaps it is a seemingly minor but technical detail, but, nevertheless, it is an important one in understanding what this bill is not only intending to do but what, in fact, it would actually do.

It seems to me slightly self-absorbed to the point of being elitist that we are concerned about this, if, indeed, we are only to be concerned with oaths and declarations for members of Parliament, as distinct from the many oaths, declarations, and other such important statements to be made throughout this land. So perhaps the scope of the bill should be either narrower or broader. But, in any case, to pitch it only at members of Parliament seems to me slightly ill-conceived in a way that makes me feel a bit embarrassed as a member of Parliament that we would concern ourselves with this right of ours but not extend that to other New Zealanders and other professions.

A couple of more general points I think have some symbolic value. One is relating to certainty, and that speaks to uniformity, but also I think unity—and I think the point made by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith is important in this regard. If, in this country, we are standing in this country’s Parliament and able to give an oath in a way that is the same as all the other members of the House, then that speaks to a unity that is perhaps lacking in certain other regards in the way that our Parliament is run. So it seems to me that it would be a shame to derogate from that.

I’ll conclude my remarks by noting that it seems a bit disappointing, no doubt, for the Government that its own partners don’t support this bill—or at least one of them—and it disappoints me to say that I agree with New Zealand First in this regard. So I, along with my colleagues, will not be supporting this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—five minutes in reply.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Five minutes. I acknowledge English as the dominant migrant—migrant—language of Aotearoa New Zealand society. The first speaker said a foreign language that he learnt was French. Well, French is the sixth most spoken language in New Zealand. Since the arrival of the coloniser—I’m saying “coloniser”—they were the foreigner in this land, and now in this House we speak a language that is not an official language. Thank goodness for Standing Order 108 that allows the English language to be spoken to the Speaker. If that wasn’t there—I did my research—in Standing Order 108, then I would be able to speak Tongan, because that is an unofficial language just like English is an unofficial language in this House.

I want to acknowledge Jan Logie for speaking the truth about this little secret, the little secret that Te Reo Māori was made an official language of New Zealand in 1987, followed by the New Zealand Sign Language. But there is no law in this land that makes English, the first foreigner of this land, an official language. I want to remind the member who spoke of his heritage as English that this is a good time to remember that manufacturing false hierarchies based on language and culture in order to enforce a class system is a very, very long story of colonisation in this land which we all call home, Aotearoa New Zealand. If we all call this land—“all” does not mean you wait until you go to the Chinese New Year festival so you can say something in Mandarin, or you can go to the Tongan Language Week and start saying something in Tongan or the Samoan Language Week, or save it for churches to start saying something in their language.

Why are you saying that when—oh, sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. Why are members of Parliament speaking another language when they are in their presence? Why, is what I want to know—why? Then when it comes to the law of the land, to the place where you come to serve all the people of New Zealand, can they speak? The first word you say in this House is “I”. My first word I said in this House was “Ko ahau” in Te Reo. After Te Reo I spoke Tongan. The first time I spoke the unofficial English language was when I said “Mr Speaker”, after I had acknowledged the land, God, and everybody, because it is my identity. It is my identity because Tongan New Zealanders add value to this land.

The top player of the Commonwealth Games was a Tongan New Zealander whose heritage language is Tongan, whose parents are in Tonga—a Tongan migrant. I say to you that Statistics New Zealand has a projection that in 2038 more than half of this land are going to have ancestry from, first of all, the tangata whenua; from Asia, where Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi said his oath in Hindi; where the Korean—where is she—where Melissa Lee spoke in Korean; where Marja Lubeck spoke in Dutch; where the Hon Aupito William Sio spoke Samoan; where the Hon Jenny Salesa spoke Samoan. They will make more than half of this country.

We waited for the leadership of Dame Tariana Turia in 2004 to take her declaration in Te Reo Māori. How many years after the first foreigner—Pākehā—arrived here? I actually can’t do my maths at the moment. We waited for her to do that. And we waited for 2008 for the Hon Aupito William Sio to say, “I’m a New Zealander too. Can I be afforded the same privilege as the first foreigner to speak my language in this House?” I put it to you—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I put it to this House: is it OK, is it OK for just English to be spoken, for the English speaker—is it OK for them to not have to go to all parties and seek their agreement to speak their language here? Or is it only OK for Tongans or for Samoans—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.

Noes 65

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move, That the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. This is, as the speaker Jan Logie from the Green Party in the previous debate indicated, a perfect member’s bill. It’s a small piece of legislation that makes a necessary and worthwhile change to a principal Act that is now outdated and timed for review in terms of the penalties that exist in it.

The current Litter Act of 1979 allows councils to give infringement offences for littering, and this bill that I am proposing would see the maximum infringement increase under that Act from a measly $400 to a far more realistic $1,000. The bill amends section 13(4) of the principal Litter Act 1979, and that occurs in clause 5 of my bill.

I’m sufficiently old enough to remember as a schoolchild in the 1970s slogans like “Do the right thing”, “Be a tidy Kiwi”, and “Only lazy people litter”. I’m also the member of Parliament for Coromandel, and—

Tim van de Molen: It’s beautiful.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It’s a beautiful electorate, as my colleague Tim van de Molen indicates. It’s a beautiful electorate, but too often as I travel around my beautiful electorate, and I visit the beaches and the bush and the scenic attractions that are so well known not only nationally but internationally and are visited by so many people each year, I see with great sadness the amount of litter that is prevalent in our natural places—in our beaches and in our bush. I fear that over the years since my childhood in the 1960s and 1970s, we’ve lost something of our cultural sense of what it is to be a tidy Kiwi, and that notwithstanding the good work of organisations such as Keep New Zealand Beautiful and others, we seem to have lost the focus on what it is to not despoil our natural spaces with the scourge that is litter.

In 1979, Allan Highet was the Minister of Internal Affairs, and on 23 October in that year, in the second reading debate of the principal Act, the Hon Allan Highet said this, and I quote: “Infringement notice provisions in clauses 13 and 14 are an innovation that has attracted remarkably little attention. … Over the years”, he said, “I have received many representations asking for some sort of instant fine to be written into our statute books, … Most of us have come to live with it when it comes to parking and other minor traffic offences. The procedure laid down … is based on the traffic law, … it will be up to each local authority to decide whether or not the infringement notice provision should apply to its district.”

In the ensuing years since that legislation was passed, back in 1979, local government officers and enforcement agents have simply largely stopped issuing infringement notices for littering, and they’ve done it pretty much because the maximum fine of $400 is hardly worth the effort of administration and enforcement. So this bill that I’m proposing would increase that rate to $1,000.

I took the opportunity earlier this evening to go on to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s inflation calculator. When I plugged in the information on what the cost of $400 was in the fourth quarter of 1979 and I compared it with what the value of $400 back then would be today, in the first quarter of 2018, the Reserve Bank’s calculator indicated that $400 back in 1979 would today be worth about $1,444. So my initial calculation of increasing this $400 infringement rate from the 1979 level to a rate today might have been a little bit underdone. I’m hoping that if this bill goes to select committee, we might be able to increase it a wee bit. Maybe we can get it closer to $1,500 or something like that, because infringement notices are important and they have to be worthwhile for local government to actually do something about them.

Why I like the infringement notice system is because it’s one of the most common enforcement systems and effective enforcement systems that jurisdictions like ours have for responding to relatively minor, but none the less important, offences such as minor parking offences, traffic offences, some fisheries offences, dog control offences, for instance—animal welfare, and those sorts of things. But in terms of littering, we’ve got out of sync over the years since 1979.

An infringement system provides a level of sanctions somewhere midway between a mere warning and a sort of wet bus ticket approach, and a formal court legal prosecution system. Infringement notices avoid the need for attendance at an expensive court hearing by the person alleged to have committed the offence. So it’s a particularly good method for people who may be visiting parts of the country where they don’t normally reside, or indeed tourists who are from overseas. It means that they, in turn, don’t need to attend a formal court hearing in the jurisdiction or the place where the offence took place.

It means that the matter can be resolved quickly, efficiently, and, ultimately, without a criminal conviction for the offender. Systems like this reduce the cost of enforcement for local councils, and they also make it possible for our judicial system not to get clogged with relatively minor matters that are expensive or that involve the full trappings of a formal court process. There’s no need, for instance, to lodge formal court proceedings and there’s obviously no need to engage lawyers or waste valuable court time.

An infringement system is a compliance and enforcement tool, at the end of the day. Under the system, people who are believed, on reasonable grounds, to have committed an infringement such as littering may be issued with an infringement notice. In most people’s minds, in the minds of the public, they would see that as a ticket or an instant fine. The notice on the instant fine would set out the offence they are considered to have committed and what the infringement fee payable would be. At the moment, a maximum of $400 is really literally impossible and not effective in terms of dissuading people from littering.

So if they pay the infringement notice, what it means is that the instant fine is paid and no other action is taken. They don’t receive a criminal conviction, and the dispute is settled. If they want to take the matter further, then they can obviously go through a normal court process.

Littering is pervasive, it’s frustrating for all of us, and I think that as New Zealanders, we all want to live in a country that is clean and green, and we don’t want to see litter tossed around in our natural spaces. This is a small but effective piece of legislation that ultimately will be not a silver bullet but a step in the right direction in terms of sending a significant message to litterers. It will also empower and engage local government to further and more effectively police and enforce our Litter Act laws.

It’s no secret that had the National Party been given the privilege of sitting on the Treasury benches, it was our intention to do a complete rewrite and review of the principal Act. It’s my hope that eventually the new Government will pick up that piece of work, because I think it’s an important piece of work that needs attention. But in the meantime, as an immediate and simple solution to a problem that is causing an issue in electorates like mine and in other parts of the country, I think that this proposal to simply increase the maximum fine for an infringement notice that local governments can apply in terms of our Litter Act, from a measly $400 to $1,000—and maybe at select committee we might look at that upper limit, but I think $1,000 is a good point—sends a serious message, and I hope that the House will support and endorse this bill.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Madam Assistant Speaker, I rise to make a contribution on the first reading of this particular bill. Having heard the contribution of its sponsor, Scott Simpson, I understand the sentiment. I would tend to agree that several of our towns and communities are frustrated by the fact that there is dumping and littering in public spaces, and they do want to ensure that the quality of life that they experience in their towns and cities and in public places can be preserved and looked after by just keeping the place clean.

We do believe that this bill should be supported and go to select committee so that it gets a full hearing. Again, the point was well made that it hasn’t been since 1979 when the principal Act was introduced into the House that there was a significant look at its provisions—more fit for purpose, for the modern context.

The other point that I would say is that increasing the fine is a somewhat punitive step towards addressing the issue, when we know that the reality of enforcement, monitoring, and being able to actually catch the perpetrator of littering is somewhat difficult, and, more and more, councils are reliant on the public to report instances where they see people littering in public places. In fact, I’m sure many members in the House would agree that even with social media now, there’s a lot more community pages that are actually posting instances where in their local town there are some common areas where people do dump.

I thought I would raise those issues because we think that by going to select committee there will be an opportunity for the submission process to pretty much raise these issues but also look at what the opportunity might be in terms of addressing the issues of monitoring and enforcement, but also the issue of promotion. We know that the principal role for promoting, I guess, a clean town and city is undertaken by Keep New Zealand Beautiful, an incorporated society, and that is an important function which goes hand in hand with the monitoring and enforcement provision and with the infringement fine. They all exist together.

In a comprehensive look at this issue, it’s been somewhat of a concern to me that simply increasing the fine from $400 to $1,000 might not achieve the intended outcome. In fact, councils, in how they apply the infringement fine, would have a graduated step as to the levels of fine according to the type of litter that has been distributed. So, for example, cigarette butts vis-à-vis dumping of rubbish vis-à-vis dumping of tyres vis-à-vis dumping of vehicles—they’re all different and, I think, require a different approach. It’s for that reason, again, that the select committee will draw out a better approach than simply an infringement fee and actually address the issue of dumping in our communities, which I think will be a welcome step from councils if we have a serious look at the matter.

It will be an important consideration for the select committee. This is to ensure that they are covering the issue of capacity of councils to monitor. Many councils don’t actually have a lot of people working in this area. Small councils have people who multitask and do the monitoring and enforcement of litter. Larger councils will have up to, say, four or six—or mid-sized councils, let’s say. So, again, the capability within a council to undertake this role, I think, has an impact on whether or not the intended consequence or the intended effect can actually be achieved.

I wanted to go back to the principal Act and identify what litter includes so that there is some specificity as people are working through the issues on the bill to know what that is. In the principal Act: “litter includes any refuse, rubbish, animal remains,”—because often pets are dumped—“glass, metal, garbage, debris, dirt, filth, rubble, ballast, stones, earth, or waste matter, or any other thing of a like nature”. Those are all the kinds of ranges of things—materials that are considered within the interpretation of “litter”.

But let’s come to the issue of glass, because I have young children. We know just about all the playgrounds within our district and we enjoy taking our children there. When you have young children, there is nothing more frustrating than when you go to playgrounds and the bins are overrun with litter—often household waste—but also broken glass because people have used these recreational areas around where playgrounds are for other activities. It’s again worth noting that the principal Act actually separates out broken glass and offers a more significant penalty. I raise that matter also because these are the types of niggles that really impact on people when they think about litter and when they think about quality of life and what needs to be improved.

But, more importantly, broken glass in a public place is very dangerous, so I do think that separating out the definition of broken glass and attributing a higher penalty or higher fine there is actually quite important. There has been an instance that I’m aware of where a young child has gone to a playground where there’s been bark and there’s been a bit of broken glass there and they’ve cut themselves.

But where this will all filter back down to is whether or not the infringement can actually be enforced, and that will be the proof of the pudding, so to speak—whether or not the bill will achieve its intended outcome. If there is going to be reliance on the role of the public to report littering—and these are things that need to be considered, as we considered similar types of illegal activities within the conservation estate and, I guess, safety around rangers, as people reported. I think we really need to ensure that the select committee flesh out all these types of issues so that we can get a better bill. So while I acknowledge Scott Simpson for introducing the bill to the House, I think the issues that I’ve raised clearly set out that there is room for improvement and there is an opportunity to ensure that the intended outcome of this bill can actually be effected.

The other aspect that I want to clearly state, as I have before, is that, by and large, a punitive approach in and of itself does not achieve as much as actually promoting and investing in the promotion of public education around the impacts of littering on the quality of life within a community. In fact, lots of our kids now are the greatest promoters, and the campaigns within schools—Keep New Zealand Beautiful, the anti-litter campaign—and the ways in which young people are taught to pick up rubbish after activities within public spaces achieve a heck of a lot, and we can never underestimate the investment into the public promotion component of this issue.

Finally, can I say that once the select committee—and I’m inviting the select committee to have a broad range of amendments back to the bill, because the final point that was raised was a comprehensive review of the Litter Act. If we consider the huge problems around dumping of rubbish, I think that is an outstanding area that certainly would be improved by considering a comprehensive review. So I support the bill, we support the bill, to go to select committee.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I rise in absolute support of my colleague, the Opposition spokesperson for the environment, the Hon Scott Simpson, and, of course, the previous Minister for the Environment. I want to acknowledge that I’m in total support of his contribution and reiterate that while this is a small bill, it is very much an effective bill and builds on the work that he had done previously with the National-led Government in waste minimisation.

Using an infringement system and increasing the fine with respect to litter is a small but effective way to discourage people from disposing of their rubbish in inappropriate ways. I think, probably, there are two types of people in New Zealand: there are those that go into the bush or recreate and only leave footprints—and, thankfully, I think that that is the majority of people—but there are some people that simply don’t subscribe to that principle. I think, in my electorate, there’s nothing more frustrating than, for example, driving down the highway and watching somebody throw a carton of fast food out the window—

Brett Hudson: Carton of Rothmans in the Wairarapa.

SARAH DOWIE: Ha! I’m talking about fast food at this stage, but throwing some rubbish out the window without any regard for the effect of that. This infringement system certainly will allow for an effective and fast measure to be taken against those types of people.

In my electorate, I, as the local MP, held a beach clean-up at the wonderful Ōreti Beach, which is 26 kilometres of beach and the last bastion in New Zealand—you can actually drive your car up on to the beach and take in the magnificent views and recreate. There are some problems, obviously, with some of our people and their speed along that beach, of course, but sometimes what they can do is act inappropriately and take their rubbish up into the sand dunes. It is quite inappropriate that at that wonderful scenic beach, a place where many Southlanders recreate, some people go and leave their rubbish. In some cases, we have even found a burnt-out shell of a vehicle, which is absolutely crazy and completely inappropriate. But what these people don’t realise is that they leave clues, and, when council officers come a-looking, they can come across evidence that links those people to their rubbish.

They need to take heed of that, and they need to take heed that—as the Minister spoke of previously—it is something that, obviously, the Government is taking seriously, given that they’re going to support this bill to committee stage. But, obviously, there is a sea change going on with regards to the environment—that we are taking litter very, very seriously; that we are taking the inappropriate disposal of rubbish very seriously, and that it needs to stop. This bill goes a long way to showing that we are serious about cleaning up our act and making sure that New Zealand is a beautiful place.

In my last couple of minutes, I also want to talk about another organisation in Southland that builds on that thought, and that’s Southland disAbility Enterprises. They hold the Wastenet contract for recycling and appropriately disposing of a lot of Southland’s rubbish. They have a mantra for their organisation, and that is to enrich the lives of people with disabilities—because it is people with disabilities that are employed at that organisation—through providing meaningful employment and encouraging personal development within a successful business framework.

They take the disposal of rubbish very, very seriously. They recycle many things, and through the Waste Minimisation Fund are looking to dispose of bale wrap, which costs a lot of money, actually, to get rid of and recycle and deal with appropriately. They’re actually doing it for free. They’re saying to farmers, “Look, we’ll take it. We’ll deal with it.”, and it sorts out a very big problem in Southland. I support this bill. It goes a long way to solving litter.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Congratulations to my colleague Mr Simpson for having his member’s bill chosen from the ballot. This is a simple bill—a very, very simple bill. It has only one real change in it: changing the maximum infringement under the Litter Act from $400 to $1,000.

You know, for a party that’s trying to convince us that there is in fact a notion of a blue-green, I have to say: is this it? Could there not be a little more than just a change from $400 to $1,000? I mean, I did notice that, in passing, Mr Simpson suggested perhaps another change could be made—perhaps it’ll come up as a Supplementary Order Paper—when he’ll go from $1,000 to perhaps $1,500, thereby doubling the complexity of this bill. But it’s hard to know what it’s going to achieve. Nevertheless, we’re going to take it to select committee, because we do want to examine some of these issues. We actually do want to introduce some of the complexity that the alleged blue-greens have not yet been able to do.

I grew up in the 1970s and 80s, and I remember the Be a Tidy Kiwi campaign. I’m sure at least a few of us in this House do—don’t worry, Mr Strange; you won’t remember it, but I do. Look, that campaign has been relaunched in the last year. Here, I just want to pay brief tribute, actually, to my daughter Sophia Wright, who has been following me in the House this week and dug this little nugget of information out of a newspaper article for me, talking about the relaunch of the Be a Tidy Kiwi campaign. There’s some really fascinating research. It says that the average distance that a New Zealander is prepared to walk to a litter bin is 8.4 metres—a mere 8.4 metres: about as far as it is from me to Mr Simpson, who has proposed this complex bill.

So New Zealanders won’t even do much in terms of, you know, picking up litter and taking it 8.4 metres to a bin. The bins that, in the original Act, are required to be provided and maintained—“(1) Every person, public authority, and department of State shall at all times provide and maintain in every public place under his or its control”—and that “his” tells you how old this bill is. You’ve got to have those public receptacles, but New Zealanders won’t even walk 8.4 metres.

That suggests to me that the problem is not the level of the fine. The problem is not $400 or $1,000 or—doubling the complexity—$1,500; the problem is attitudes towards littering. We need to do a lot more than just increasing the fine. You see, the problem is not just litter; the problem is dumping and it’s fly-tipping.

Look, I want to tell you about a story from my own electorate of New Lynn, in Green Bay. It was a problem that came up, oh, two or three years ago where there was a serial nappy dumper roaming West Auckland streets, dumping diapers and nappies. They were being stuffed in plastic bags, and someone seemed to be driving along the streets in the lead-up to the Waitakere Ranges and dumping plastic bags full of used nappies. Now, that’s the fly-tipping that’s going on. That’s not just littering—that’s a little bit more serious than just littering.

Even more seriously, at the start of this year—in the first week of 2018—28 oil drums were discovered in a carpark in the Waitakere Ranges. They were just being dumped there. That’s not mere littering, and I think we need to have a little bit of a discussion about the difference between littering—which is maybe just dropping some rubbish—and fly-tipping and dumping. That’s something that we could seriously have a look at, and as to whether we perhaps need a range of differentiated fines for that.

But even then there’s the question of whether increasing the fine will actually compel good behaviour. So there is a whole set of issues that we can examine around this issue of littering—a whole set of issues that perhaps could’ve been comprehended already in this member’s bill. It’s those sorts of issues that we will discuss in full, at length, and see if we can do something substantial in select committee. That’s why we will support this bill to the select committee.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you very much. It’s an honour to rise and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill, the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill, and I would like to congratulate the Hon Scott Simpson for having his member’s bill pulled from the ballot and having it here in the House tonight.

While this legislation accords well with New Zealand First’s focus on law and order, and the party does recognise that litter is a risk to New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand, this bill will not achieve its stated aim, which is to be a greater deterrent for littering. This bill, we believe, is an ineffective instrument for deterring littering, which is the aim of the bill.

Now, to be effective, it would be imperative to have buy-in from the local authorities, and we’re just not clearly getting that from the councils at the moment. Councils have discretion as to whether they punish litterers via the infringement notice and at what rate. For example, in Christchurch at the moment the maximum infringement fee for littering has remained unchanged at $100 from 1991 until 2016. Now, the general willingness across New Zealand’s territorial authorities to hand out fines is actually really low. Tauranga City Council did not issue a single fine between 2012 and 2016. Christchurch: a solitary fine for $100—that was the only littering infringement recorded in the five-year period. Between 2012 and 2015, Hamilton didn’t issue a single fine for littering. In Wellington, neither Porirua City Council or Upper Hutt City Council issued a single littering fine between 2012 and 2016, but the neighbour Hutt City Council—now this is interesting—they’ve been handing out infringement notices willy-nilly, the most prolific in New Zealand, recording more than $100,000 in fines, with $24,200 in 2016 alone. Wellington City Council: just a few more infringements than other parts of the country, but they’ve dropped from just under $9,000 in 2012 to just under $2,000 in 2016.

Now, what will achieve the aim of this bill? We believe it’s all about education and educating the next generation. We’ve heard tonight about the Be a Tidy Kiwi campaign and bringing that back and teaching our young people to be tidy. Also, the Keep New Zealand Beautiful campaign; it was originally founded back in 1969. That’s all about litter reduction and waste minimisation. Every year in September, it’s Keep New Zealand Beautiful month. Teams and volunteers all over the country do the right thing, they hold litter clean ups, and these events are in their communities.

Just today, Dunedin City Council is working to get recycling right, and that’s the focus. It’s not on infringement; it’s on educating the community. So what they have said today is that they will help Dunedin residents to get it right when it comes to recycling. They’ve been holding kerbside inspections and they will be helping people improve their recycling, reducing contamination, and keeping the staff that collect and sort out the recycling safe. Now, some of the common contaminants that they’re finding are the soft plastics, also the milk or juice cartons, and hazardous materials, which are getting in to the recycle bins as well. And nappies, we’ve heard about how people are nappy dumping, also medical waste, and dog faeces—mind you, rather that in the recycle bin than on the pavement. But really, the message from councils that we’re hearing is about recycling, and it’s about continuing bin inspections throughout 2018.

So, in summary, just a little history here in Spain, the Napoleonic conquest put an end to torture in 1808; Norway abolished it in 1819; Portugal in 1826; and torture was abolished in Britain in 1640. Now, I mention this as a way of reminding the House that it was some time ago that we sought to maintain some sort of proportionality between crime and punishment. After nine years of living in an ivory tower, spitting on the poor people below, unfortunately some members of the National Party cannot wean themselves off that habit. Do we really want to drive a wedge between territorial authorities and the public, issuing thousand-dollar fines for littering? There’s a real irony in the party that oversaw the degradation of our lakes, rivers, and estuaries who now want to whack the average citizen with gigantic fines for littering. We will not be supporting this bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this fine bill in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson, a fine member of this House.

When Mr Simpson was introducing this bill, he harkened back to some of the days in New Zealand’s past when we had certain programmes to encourage Kiwis to do the right thing. Now, I wouldn’t want to claim to have as many miles on the life odometer as Mr Simpson, but I too can remember some of those campaigns such as Be a Tidy Kiwi and Keep New Zealand Beautiful. In fact, in those times there was even the television advert that would ask a young man if he knew where Victoria Falls was, and his answer was “Somewhere near Lake Taupō.” Those were great old days and great old programmes. But it appears that New Zealanders, despite the passing of time, have still not learnt of their own volition to do the right thing by fellow New Zealanders in the sense of not imposing upon them their own waste or despoiling the beautiful countryside, which, of course, is so important to New Zealand that we’ve seen tourism overtake other economic activity—farming and dairy being one—to be our largest export.

So if New Zealanders of their own volition are not going to do the right thing, it is contingent upon Government, through a member’s bill, to consider that maybe we can give a little incentive or two to help them on their way. The bill proposes the most simplest of changes, taking the maximum fine for littering from $400 to a maximum—and that’s an important point, to a maximum—of $1,000. The change does not mean that the simplest piece of littering will result in such a fine. In fact it would be extraordinarily unlikely that it would stand up to any sort of test, were that to be the case.

So Mr Simpson, with what he has noted himself is the perfect member’s bill, is saying that we have a challenge in our society, that people are still, after all this time, not thinking of others at times and are littering and despoiling the environment for others. So here’s a small lever we can apply that might create—it certainly creates an incentive, and it might create some greater deterrence from people doing the wrong thing and instead have them—because no one is required to litter. Unlike any number of other situations you could envisage in society, when you could place a sanction on someone and question whether that’s the right thing to do, we’re not arguing here about the least worst alternatives or taking a situation and saying, “I’ll apply some sort of sanction. Which of the two worst ones would you like?”

What we’re saying is, if you don’t litter you won’t be fined. No one is required to litter. No one finds themselves, I would argue, in a position where they feel forced to. So it is simply saying, “Well, if you’re not prepared to do the right thing by New Zealand society and your fellow New Zealanders, if you choose to do the wrong thing and you are caught, you might find it hurts a bit more than it has done in the past.” I think that’s a very reasonable situation in which to be applying a greater punitive sanction.

I just want to finish with a couple of points that I heard members on the other side talking about. There’s a saying that if you have a situation or a problem and you make the problem or the solution more complicated than it needs to be, it’s called boiling the ocean. We’ve seen it with at least two speakers on the other side tonight. So the Minister of Local Government talked about, “Well, maybe we should treat a certain type of littering differently from another type; broken glass.”—that somehow we should, within the regime, treat broken glass as different to another sort of litter and apply a different sanction to that. Then Ms Deborah Russell said, “Well, you’ve got different types of littering, whether it’s pure littering, fly tipping, or dumping, and maybe we should treat them differently as well.” So you end up, if you take it to its logical conclusion, with a complicated matrix of different types of rubbish being dumped and the different forms of littering that you might have. Well that’s just, I would argue, purely ridiculous. If Kiwis are going to despoil the environment for other Kiwis we have a law, the Litter Act. We have a means to provide a greater deterrence from that antisocial behaviour. Let’s take it. Let’s just work the bill through as it stands. I commend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Well, it might be news to Mr Hudson, but the Litter Act actually does treat the wilful breaking of bottles and glass in a different way to other types of littering, and it imposes quite a severe penalty of $7,500 for that.

What Minister Mahuta was talking about is a much more comprehensive look at the Litter Act and where it can be strengthened, because this is a very flimsy little bill; it doesn’t do a great deal to help reduce litter in New Zealand. It is also a bill that Mr Simpson picked up from his former colleague Mr Naylor, who drafted it, I understand, and put it in the ballot back in 2015.

It’s not exactly what local authorities want either. They, at their conference last year, passed a remit wanting a much more comprehensive review of the Litter Act because there is a significant problem with the enforcement provisions, and I think there’s been some media coverage of that recently with regard to the Wellington City Council. Councils can only use the provisions if they’ve actually got an officer who has seen somebody littering and observed that, or has got reasonable cause to believe that someone has just committed an offence. So the difficulty is more with enforcement rather than the actual infringement fee itself.

Nevertheless, the Green Party will be supporting this bill to select committee because it just does this one small thing of increasing the maximum fine from $400 to $1,000. But the bill, on its own, is not going to take us very far at all. It may also be news to Mr Hudson that we still have major education campaigns around littering, and that Keep New Zealand Beautiful is the major agency that does that. It has got a Do the Right Thing project, which is a coordinated approach to encouraging people to reduce litter nationwide.

I think the information that the very good chair of the Environment Committee, Deborah Russell, referred to was drawn from quite recent research, published earlier this year by Keep New Zealand Beautiful, which looked at the way we behaved nationally in relation to litter. Now, that research, which was done last November-December, found that in New Zealand, about 84 percent of the time, New Zealanders did do the right thing about putting litter in the bin. It also found that Wellingtonians were ahead of people in Auckland and Christchurch in doing the right thing and putting litter in the right place. So, generally, people do the right thing.

The biggest problem they found and the biggest proportion of litter—some 78 percent—was cigarette butts. So what the researchers highlighted is that in the litter space, rather than the fly-tipping waste space, we need to be doing some more education on how you get rid of cigarette butts, rather than just dropping them beside the bin.

So this small bill will only do one thing. It won’t do any action in the space around education, and as others, such as Minister Mahuta and Deborah Russell, have noted, we need more comprehensive action in terms of this 1979 legislation. But as Associate Minister for the Environment, I am not prioritising a review of the Litter Act, because our priority is actually improving the implementation of the Waste Minimisation Act, and ensuring that the levy that applies to landfills is extended to more landfills. We can have more funding in the Waste Minimisation Fund so we can actually reduce the volumes of waste going to landfill, because that is a substantive issue.

The way to actually tackle litter is not just simply increasing one of the infringement fines; it’s actually a much more comprehensive programme of education and building on New Zealanders’ willingness to do the right thing through littering less, recycling more, and thinking about what people buy, rather than just this punitive thing around the infringement fee. But it is worth going to select committee to consider the issue, so we will be supporting it to select committee.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Labour Party will also be supporting this bill to go to select committee, not because it’s some great leap forward in respect of waste minimisation, and as the honourable member and Associate Minister for the Environment, Eugenie Sage, noted, there’s far more to be done.

I congratulate the member Scott Simpson on getting his bill drawn. I wonder if perhaps he’s a little disappointed that what he appears to have thrown in quickly one night has actually been drawn, when he had so much more opportunity to do greater things here. I mean, is this a bill about the environment? Is this a bill about improving our environment? Or is it a classic National Party bill which further criminalises and increases penalties as a knee-jerk reaction to some problem? I expect it’s the latter. It may be that Thames-Coromandel District Council said to the member, “Oh, look, we’d like to be able to slam those fellows, those tourists, those freedom campers, or whatever, with a bit more of a fine if they throw their rubbish out of the window. Bang—let’s up the fine.” And there’s no evidence whatsoever—there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever—that by increasing the fine it will reduce littering.

In fact, what we have seen is that even with the $400 fine it’s barely ever used. It’s barely ever used. And do you know what? By increasing the fine, litter officers will be less likely to use it. So what we have is simply a knee-jerk reaction. But, look, what we can agree on, to my friends across the House, is that we need a society which recognises that littering is a bad thing and we need to address it. I’m hopeful that at select committee we’ll be able to go a bit further than “remove $400 and insert $1,000”, because you know what? We’ve got massive issues. Of all the things we could’ve addressed—we could have addressed plastic straws and plastic bottles. We could have addressed the 60 million cigarette filters that are thrown away and don’t decompose in our lifetime. But, no, we simply increase a fine.

I wonder if the member even actually took the trouble to read the Act, because he talks about needing these fines. Well, did he actually realise that there is a fine for up to $20,000 for littering and up to $30,000 where there is a public danger there? So where there are these truly egregious cases—go and have a look at section 15 in the Act. I can see the look on his face: “Oh, really?” I’m sorry, it’s there. Go back and have a look. If someone leaves a car body on your Invercargill beach, member Dowie, then you can actually charge them, convict them in a court of law, and they have to pay up to $30,000—so there you go. We’ve got a knee-jerk deterrent here, and it’s simply not going to work. But, look, at select committee I’m hopeful we will be able to improve it a little and enter into this discussion about it.

The other thing to remember is that in terms of the education—it actually used to be called the Litter Control Council, but it’s now Keep New Zealand Beautiful—you’ve got an organisation there. The function of that organisation is to advocate for the reduction of litter. So what we need is much more education so that that 8.4 metres that member Russell referred to will in fact—people will not only walk further to the bin; they’ll pick up other people’s rubbish and put it there too. We know that we do have a fantastic country, and whether it be the beaches of Coromandel or Invercargill or even the windswept beaches of Brighton in Christchurch, we don’t want the litter there.

So, look, I do commend the member for touching on something which is close to the hearts of New Zealanders, and we do want to ensure that litter goes where it should. But as the Associate Minister mentioned, it really is not so much about where we put our litter; it’s about not creating it in the first place. So I look forward to having that discussion about education, about regulating what kind of materials are produced so that they can be biodegradable, about properly funding our anti-litter council—our Keep New Zealand Beautiful organisation—and really addressing these matters at their heart, and not another knee-jerk reaction of upping a penalty because that’s what the other side do. But let’s have the discussion. Let’s get on with it. And let’s keep New Zealand beautiful. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to support this bill, which will increase the maximum fine for littering and illegal dumping infringement offences from $400 to $1,000. I thank and congratulate the hard-working MP the Hon Scott Simpson, and also I would like to congratulate and thank my very good colleague Maureen Pugh. I understand she actually worked very hard and did a fantastic job and drove this bill through the local government sector. The bill had unanimous support from local governments.

New Zealand is well-known for its pure, green, clean image, and that is actually the fundamental basis for our flourishing tourism industry. It is important for New Zealand to maintain that image. Also, it is important for our residents to have a very clean and safe and also litter-free, attractive environment. So that is why it is important to deal with illegal dumping and littering issues in New Zealand. Of course, when we do this, it’s not just for safety or tourism purposes but also because illegal dumping and littering can have many other issues and problems—for example, I will say it’s dangerous because dumped waste can be dangerous for people, particularly when it includes sharp objects and glass.

So it is important to make sure that we do not have this issue and to make sure that people stay safe. Also, it is costly, because to remove this dumped waste can cost councils a lot of money, and it means more money for ratepayers. Also, for the environment—we want to make sure that the environment is safe not only for people but also for birds and fish, so there’s another reason. Also, when we go to the waste dump areas you’ll find that these areas tend to be ugly and therefore the value of the properties in the area can be reduced because of the illegal dumping and also the littering issue.

So, actually, I have done some research online about this particular issue, and I find that, actually, all councils have policies. That means the issue is very common in New Zealand. They all have policies, and most councils have this tiered arrangement of fines. Again, I can say that all these councils are troubled, because the issue has been there for a long time. All councils have fines but the maximum is $400, because that was set by law in 1979. The toughest policy I can find is from the Auckland Council, because the Auckland Council would fine $400 for all second or subsequent infringement offences. So all $400, but a maximum, still, of $400. So still not really enough, because, since 1979, as my good colleague Scott Simpson just mentioned, $400 in 1979 now is equivalent to about $1,500. So we do need to increase the fine to make sure that people take notice of this particular issue.

Now, at this stage, many people are still not aware of the fine, because the fine itself is not punitive enough, because people still do not pay attention to this $400. That’s why we say to make it $1,000 or even more may be better for us to spread the message. And, as a matter of fact, in 2007, when Manukau City and Waitakere City councils increased the maximum fine from $100 to $400, the New Zealand Herald had an online discussion, and there was overwhelming support for increasing the maximum fine from $100 to $400. This was over 10 years ago. Now it’s time for us to deal with the issue and raise it even more. Thank you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I’m delighted to take a stand tonight to support the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill. I’d like to firstly congratulate the Hon Scott Simpson on having his bill drawn—congratulations for that, and I look forward, also, to working with you on the Environment Committee as we draw out this small but important bill. I appreciate—

Matt Doocey: Size isn’t everything.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —here we go—the attempt around addressing Keep New Zealand Beautiful. I appreciate the sentiments. However, what I think we do need to address is the wee elephant in the room around the infringement system. I think it’s very important to note that in the last term of that Government there was $43 million worth of collected fines that were unpaid. So this may not be the only mechanism, or may not be a useful or meaningful mechanism. Half of those fines were remitted, so for half of them, people were let off. So money is not necessarily a deterrent in this factor. In fact, $400, as it currently is, may in fact be a huge amount to some people. A thousand dollars, again, to some people is not very much. Is it something that is actually going to be a deterrent? It’s part of the kete, and we acknowledge that. That’s part of the kete of us addressing littering.

What we do need to address, really, is waste minimisation strategies across, and we do need to look at landfill, and that’s an important aspect. However, I wanted to give some examples from my local community about dumping or littering. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council reported that from 1 January 2017 to 18 February 2018 it received 362 service requests to collect dumped rubbish in the Western Bay of Plenty, and recorded 10,200 kilograms worth of waste illegally dumped. Now, Mr Simpson, you and I are neighbours. You’re from the Coromandel and I’m from the Bay of Plenty. So I would suggest that it’s somewhat similar in our communities. This is a disgrace. That’s a lot of waste.

I want to give you an example. As you know, I ran a women’s refuge, and part of the thing that we had to do in order to survive, because we were unfunded by Government—your Government—is run a second-hand shop. One of the difficulties of running a second-hand shop is people treat it like a dump site. So, over the weekends, they would bring their couches, they would bring their bags of clothes, they would bring all of their bits and pieces, and they would leave them there. Then other people would come in and they’d sort through that stuff and they’d wreck it, and then that would be left in this huge mess. So I would suggest that we would very likely have contributed to calling for that. We were also given some free dumping as well—a tonne a month. So that helped.

So, finally, in conclusion, I’d just like to say that it isn’t just about littering; it is about a whole systematic process around improving our beliefs and values around our beautiful Earth. But I do commend the member for bringing this bill, as little as it is, as small as its contribution to the kete of resources is. Our select committee and our party look forward to debating this issue further. Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s been an interesting debate, and I want to thank members from across the House for their contributions—well, most of them. This is, as I said in my introduction to the bill, a small bill. It’s a very small change to an old principal Act that dates back to 1979. No one, least of all me, would pretend that it is anything remotely close to being a silver bullet in terms of solving the litter issues that confront our nation, but it is a step in the right direction. So I commend members of the Green Party and the Labour Party for supporting it through to select committee, and I’m sure that when we get to select committee we’ll have a good discussion.

I was particularly heartened by the contribution of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who indicated that, in fact, select committee could be a place for a wider discussion about litter and litter issues. That’s a good thing. I’m very happy for that discussion to take place. But what did disappoint me was the contribution from the select committee chair. She’s new to this House. Deborah Russell has potential, I think, as an MP, but she will soon realise that sarcasm in a speech of the sort that she gave tonight is a very poor substitute for substance. If she is to make progress in a parliamentary career in this House, then she would do well to have a little look at the legislation, consider it carefully, and not revert to mere sarcasm as a way of debating in the Chamber—or, indeed, actually leading the select committee.

Labour have come late to this discussion on litter, and they’re making up for lost time. What we didn’t hear in the debate was a commitment at all from the lead party in the coalition Government about their commitment to reducing litter. We heard talk about waste minimisation, and that’s fine. No one would object to waste minimisation proposals. In fact, the previous National Government made great strides, did more than any Government in the history of New Zealand, in terms of providing for our natural resources and our natural spaces. So that’s a very proud record.

But Labour come to this debate about litter particularly late, and they’re in catch-up mode. There was an obscure member, whose name I don’t remember, but I think he came from Hamilton somewhere, and he clearly has much to learn. My colleagues at some stage will probably tell me what his name was, but he needs to go back to Hamilton where he comes from. He spoke a lot about Christchurch, and for someone who comes from Hamilton, that struck me as very, very strange. Angie Warren-Clark gave a much better contribution, and what Angie Warren-Clark may not know is that immediately prior to me coming to this House I was chief executive of a children’s charity—Make-A-Wish—and we also ran shops of the sort that she described. So I’m very familiar with the situation, and very au fait with it. Certainly, on the Labour side of the House, they don’t have any monopoly on that kind of background or history.

So this is a small bill. It’s a bill that will be discussed in detail by the select committee. I’m looking forward to submissions from around the country. I hope that local government will take the opportunity to submit, because there are a range of levels of enforcement for litter. Many local territorial authorities have their own regimes, their own structures, their own ways of dealing with litter, but in my part of the world, in the Coromandel and the Western Bay of Plenty, it is an issue, as it is in many other parts of the country.

This bill is a good bill. It’s not a silver bullet but it’s a step in the right direction. It’s a bill that will, I think, help send a message—a message to New Zealanders that this Parliament takes litter seriously, and that we have a real challenge in terms of changing our cultural approach as New Zealanders to litter and actually just not dropping litter. So I want to conclude my contribution on the first reading by just going back to my original call to support this legislation: to remember those slogans that we knew when we were growing up in the 1970s and 1980s of doing the right thing, being a tidy Kiwi, and that only lazy people litter. I’m very happy that this bill appears to have enough support to go to the select committee, and I endorse it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Litter (Increased Infringement Fee) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.

Noes 10

New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of Decile System) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move, That the Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of Decile System) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This bill deals with how to better tackle the effects of disadvantage in our schools through an improved funding system. This bill is based on existing National Party policy that we announced prior to the 2017 election. This bill is in line with a whole lot of work that the former Government and ministry worked on. The concept is that you can be more sophisticated and targeted around the delivery of funding to disadvantaged kids, because fighting disadvantage is at the heart of this bill.

This bill is about getting the right funding to the right kid at the right time so that they have a better chance of a happy and successful life by succeeding at school, because there is no better way to fight disadvantage than through education. The decile system was originally introduced as an attempt to target extra funding to those schools in poorer areas, to lift the achievement of disadvantaged kids at these schools. However, the decile system is a blunt tool for achieving this goal. It assumes that household income is the best and only factor in determining whether a child will or will not achieve at school and that all children who need this funding attend schools that are identified as low decile.

It has been the best way of guessing where these children are, and that is the problem with the decile system. It is a best guess based on a flawed assumption. The decile system is failing many thousands of students who are at risk of not achieving because they don’t attend low-decile schools, and it has created a class system amongst our schools. Those lower-decile schools are stigmatised as “poor neighbourhood equals poor quality school” in the eyes of the public. Not only does this unfairly stigmatise schools but it unfairly stigmatises the students attending those schools. They know their decile rating and they know what it means.

This bill amends the Education Act 1989 to remove the decile system as a means for allocating public money to schools to fight disadvantage. The bill proposes a sophisticated alternative model that more accurately targets funding to those students who need it, regardless of where they attend school, because with better data, better analysis, we can better predict which young people are at risk of not achieving, and actually by analysing the data we see that household income alone is not the best indicator of whether or not a child is at risk of not achieving at school. We now know that there are a range of factors that more accurately predict educational non-achievement. This bill creates a needs index based on a social investment approach. The needs index will consist of a number of weighted and ranked indicators that, when taken together, more accurately predict whether a child will achieve at school.

To allow for flexibility, the bill sets out that these needs indicators would be prescribed by the Minister in regulation after consultation with the relevant people and would be updated annually. These needs indicators may include proportion of time spent on benefits, father’s offending and sentence history, Child, Youth and Family notifications, youth justice notifications, school transiency, mother’s age at birth—just to name a few. Using sophisticated data, we know where these students are. The funding model doesn’t guess where they might be. This funding model identifies the child and delivers funding to the school that they attend. This way we are getting the right funding to the right child at the right time.

It is of utmost importance that we protect privacy. No parent wants their child to be stigmatised. We spent a great deal of time considering how we could protect children’s privacy in this bill. We have ensured that data collected under this bill must comply with the Privacy Act 1993. The bill ensures the anonymisation of individual data so that individual students are not able to be identified. What this means in practice is that schools receive funding for those students at risk of not achieving, but there is no identification of individual students.

In reality, teachers and principals know who these students are. We have always trusted them to direct funding to those students in need, and we will continue to do so under this bill. Furthermore, the data collected for calculating the needs index, including needs indicators of the individual students, is not subject to the Official Information Act (OIA).

Another important consideration when drafting this bill was combating the potential for schools to continue to be ranked, but this time based on the level of funding they receive for children who are at risk of not achieving, via an OIA request. This is why we included a clause that ensures information regarding the level of funding a school receives for children who are at risk of not achieving is not able to be requested under the Official Information Act. This clause protects schools from the current stigma they receive under the decile funding system.

As I have said, this bill is based on existing National Party policy, and, as part of that policy, we made a commitment that no school would receive any less funding than they do now. This bill would see many schools receive more funding, as those students at risk of not achieving are more accurately identified. Under our policy, those schools identified as having fewer students at risk of not achieving would receive the same level of funding as they do now. We would expect that the Government would make the same commitment.

The reality is that we need to get funding to these children if they are ever to take advantage of any tertiary fees-free policy. If we have $2.8 billion to spend on free tertiary for kids from wealthy families, it is unconscionable that we don’t have more funding to put into disadvantaged kids at school so that they have a chance of success.

When I asked Minister Hipkins to meet me about my bill, he assured me that after he received a ministry briefing on my bill he would meet with me. What transpired, after emails and phone calls to his office requesting a meeting, was silence. Then, at the eleventh hour, at 4:40 p.m. last night, the Minister sends me an email with a letter explaining that he will not support the bill, based on advice he received from a memo from the ministry, dated nearly a month ago, on 5 April. A memo and a letter, I am disappointed to say, make a range of false assumptions about my bill, without providing me the courtesy of sitting down to talk through his concerns.

This range of false assumptions will no doubt make up the basis of Mr Hipkins’ and, indeed, his colleagues’ contributions to this debate. Had we met, the majority of these false assumptions would have been easily reconciled. In lieu of this meeting, I will work through some of those assumptions now: number one, that my bill misunderstands the equity index the ministry has been developing and creates something completely different. Well, we do understand the equity index because it was developed under the previous National Government. We designed the overall system that the ministry and this Government continue to progress. The premise behind my needs index is exactly the same: a child is at low or high risk due to the full combination of factors in their lives, not because they have one specific indicator.

Number two, that a decision to replace the decile system would be better achieved outside of legislation. The reason I am proposing this bill is to bring transparency to this process. National announced the decile system would go; we announced the equity index. Six months into the new Government and there has been silence. We don’t know what they’re doing behind closed doors, we don’t know whether or not they’re progressing the equity index, and we don’t know what the indicators are—it is all a mystery. My bill gives greater transparency to the process of replacing the decile system. My bill would require that the needs indicators be consulted on and published, but remains flexible about which ones are prescribed and how they are weighted.

The Minister is being incredibly clever by sitting on this memo for three weeks. By not meeting with me and asking questions, he has enabled the ministry to rule out the bill based on incorrect assumptions. What he didn’t realise was that we wouldn’t get to the vote tonight, so the good news is we have a couple of weeks so that he can meet with me to clear up these assumptions and so that he can change his position.

Minister Hipkins simply doesn’t have a reason to vote against this bill. He has tried to gather up every little excuse he can find, all based on assumptions and misunderstandings, and that he knew could have been cleared up had he met with me, which is why he didn’t. This bill just doesn’t suit Mr Hipkins’ political purposes. He’s probably going to do 95 percent of what we were going to do, but he hates the thought of giving National any credit for this work in social investment. It’s clear that he wants to repackage all the work that we’ve done and wants to call it his own, and he cannot stomach working with me or the National Party on my bill that gives disadvantaged kids a better chance. And that is very sad.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, I rise to take a call on the Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of Decile System) Amendment Bill. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry, members. I omitted to say, “The question is that the motion be agreed to.”

JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to congratulate the member—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting her speech, but I think it’s important that new members don’t get into bad habits. The member Simeon Brown was questioning the absence of a member from the House, and you should pull him up on that one.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I did not hear that, but the members all know that we are not to mention the absence of any member.

JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Firstly, I congratulate the member Erica Stanford for having this bill drawn from the ballot. Unfortunately—well, no, actually, I’m not going to even say “unfortunately”, because I have never seen a piece of legislation that I could never ever support as much as I cannot support this piece of legislation. And out of anyone in this House, anyone in this Parliament—full Parliament—there is probably no one that has the knowledge, the in-depth personal knowledge, that I have on decile funding. Over 28 years, I have worked at a decile 10, a decile 9, deciles 5, 6, and, latterly, a decile 1 school, and I have been principal of four of those schools. So I have a pretty broad knowledge of decile funding. I also agree with the member that it is a blunt instrument. I will agree on the point that decile funding is something that we do need to do something about. We do need a level of equity funding, but this is not the way to do it.

This is so far wrong, and I’d have to say that there is an absolute misunderstanding of decile, full stop. Decile is not just about funding. Decile funding itself is only 3 percent of schools’ operations grants—only 3 percent—and we’re talking about legislating only 3 percent of the funding that goes into schools. Decile, to me, as a principal of a decile 1 school, meant so much more than that. Decile 1 was also where we got to determine the eligibility for our professional learning and development contracts that we entered into with the Ministry of Education. It also gave us allowances.

As a new teacher in our decile 1 school, I had several staff members that were eligible for the Voluntary Bonding Scheme. So this bill talks about abolishing deciles, so does that mean we say to those teachers, “Oh, sorry, you’re not eligible any more because we’ve got rid of those deciles.”, or does it mean “Oh, we’ve got 25 children this year who come under this scheme. Next year, it might be 24, so you won’t be eligible because 25 was the cut-off point.”? We haven’t thought these things through, obviously. This is not the way to do this.

Decile, more importantly for me, meant that other services such as Family Works, who provided our social worker in school, provided us the social worker because we were a decile 1 school. Suddenly, shall we get rid of decile, so we won’t have the social workers in school any more because they go to decile 1 to 3 schools? But the bill says we’ll get rid of deciles. That’s the name: “Abolition of Decile System”. So has that been thought through? I don’t think so. It is not in there.

As I said, I agree that deciles are a blunt measure. They are not a great measure, and we do need to do something about them. But that work is currently being done, and this would override all of that work absolutely completely. It would confuse what is happening.

Also, when I was reading the bill, I was completely confused by the bill that defined the decile system, because the bill had to define that decile system because it’s not anywhere else in legislation. So it defined the decile system to then prohibit the use of the decile system. So to prohibit the use, you had to actually define it first—I know; very funny that that would actually happen that you could do that—and then prohibit the use of the decile system to allocate public money. It just doesn’t make sense that that would happen and that we would do it that way.

As I’ve already said, using the legislation is inconsistent with the approach that the Education Act 1989 takes to school funding. It is not the way that we do that. We do not use legislation.

Here’s an example. A few years ago, when I was on the negotiation teams for the primary principals’ contract, the then Government worked with the ministry to introduce a literacy and numeracy payment to primary school principals. The Minister had the flexibility in the funding arrangements to put that into the schools at that particular point in time. There was funding that went alongside that to actually develop literacy and numeracy in the schools. The Minister could make that arrangement, and it happened quickly. It did not need to come to the House to change legislation. Using legislation to determine school funding is just a wrong way of doing it. We need a system that can be flexible and can change with needs.

Also, we know that we haven’t got this right. We know that we’ve got lots of work to do in this area. So if we put this piece of legislation in and then we find that a year down the track—and I’ll talk about how quickly things can change in school funding very shortly—that needs to change, we would have to go back through the whole legislation process again. That is not good enough for schools, who need flexibility and need things to change when things happen to schools. We need to be responsive to what the schools are telling us.

Now, what I said before was that I would talk about how things can change in school funding, and, yes, we had a Minister a couple of years ago who decided to change things up in school funding, so when it came to the 2016 Budget, instead of getting the inflation-adjusted Budget increase in our operations grant, a four-factor social investment funding model was used. They used their model of social investment funding to identify the numbers of children in each school. What a load of rubbish. That was the biggest insult to schools that I have seen. I was the principal of a decile 1 school—a school where 75 percent of my children were identified as coming under that particular system. Why did I know that? Because it said on my funding advice notice how many children in my school were identified under that social investment model. And that Opposition tells us that that data is going to be kept private. Well, it’s already shown to us that you told us in that funding advice notice how many children—sorry, the Opposition told us how many children we got.

So here’s how the narrative changed. The narrative changed from “Oh, you’re a decile 1 school.” to “How many children were on your funding advice notice?” And then the narrative changed to people saying, “Oh, I wonder who those children are?” So we had all of that happening, and yet we’ve got an Opposition who will tell us that that information will be kept private. Currently, we have a system in the decile system where we can go in to review if we don’t agree with the decile ratings that are given to us. This will not happen under this. It cannot happen under this, because, according to the member over there, Erica Stanford, she tells us that that data’s going to be completely private. Well, if the data’s going to be completely private, how can the school challenge the data and say that the number of children is going to be completely different to what it is? It just doesn’t make sense with what schools are currently expecting.

Here’s my final point before I finish here, and this is the point that really winds me up. We’ve been told that this bill will—

Hon Member: I thought she was wound up before.

JAN TINETTI: Yeah, you thought I was wound up before. This is the part that winds me up. We get told that the reason for bringing this bill in is that “Oh, decile 1 schools, decile 2 schools have this whole stigma.” My school’s name was Merivale School in Tauranga. Tomorrow, we take the decile 1 tag off it. Do you think that that’s going to stop people saying, “Oh, do we have an issue around poverty, and does poverty mean that things are harder in those classrooms?” Having the decile 1 target there is just a fallacy that the Opposition have used to deny poverty and to deny the effects of poverty on our children and in our schools. It really makes me irate that we have had to put up with this discourse and this narrative for so long, and we absolutely and wholeheartedly oppose this bill.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Firstly, can I just say to everybody watching that that was the most extraordinary speech, and I have a prediction: it will go viral. It will go viral for several reasons. It will go viral because the member opposite, Jan Tinetti, didn’t read the bill. It will go viral—I’m not allowed to say that the Minister of Education wasn’t in the House, but what I can say is that it is extraordinary that he has not spoken on this bill.

This is a bill about disadvantage. This is a bill about helping some of our most disadvantaged children and schools. And to get a lecture from the Government about the fact that we don’t care when they’re voting down a bill about disadvantage is extraordinary. Can I acknowledge Erica. She’s a fantastic new member of Parliament. She’s done extraordinary work on this bill. Can I also acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata.

But let’s cut to the chase. The reality is that most, and many, principals and students who’ve talked to me about decile, they want it scrapped. The Government MPs also want it scrapped. We know that, because they’ve said it previously. So the big political debate is what you replace the decile system with. So to have a speech again from that member about the fact that somehow decile might be OK, and actually there’s a problem with replacing it, totally ignores her party’s previous position on it.

The second point—the question is then what you can replace it with. Again, we have been really clear, and it is extraordinary that the Minister wouldn’t even bother to meet with a member who has spent hours developing this bill. Ministry officials have spent hundreds of hours on the equity index, and this bill implements what people have spent an extraordinary amount of time on, as part of the funding review, to deliver.

So we get this letter, at the ninth hour, that says a whole lot of reasons that are based on totally incorrect assumptions around the bill. The facts are that this bill enables not only the scrapping of the decile system—we had put forward more money to enable disadvantaged kids to get more—but also, a fairer distribution under this bill. It does intelligent things like try and ensure that in the future you can’t have the publication of some of this information, which the member raised in her speech. We’ve worked through with the Privacy Commissioner, and also the Official Information Act (OIA) provisions, all the very intelligent things that the Minister is going to have to deal with.

Erica hit the nail on the head. The reality is we’ve come up with a very sophisticated policy idea that is coming through this Parliament, because we believe it affects disadvantaged kids, and we do need legislative change around some of the OIA provisions. We can’t understand why on earth a Government that lectures us constantly around child poverty and disadvantage could possibly turn up to this House and vote against this bill even getting a first reading.

You know what? We do know why. When it comes to partnership schools, they’re scrapping them. When it comes to the fact that there’s been this record increase in Māori and Pasifika achievement, they won’t acknowledge it. When it comes to a bill that will help some of the most disadvantaged children in New Zealand, the Minister won’t even do the courtesy of meeting with a member that has implemented one of the most sophisticated mechanisms for disadvantaged children. And that is one of the saddest things that I have seen in this House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. There’s another thing that’s sad. It’s that the previous Government didn’t implement this when they had their nine years to do it. It’s sort of like all of a sudden the National Party cares about disadvantage, and all of a sudden now they care about children who are struggling.

Anyway, it’s a pleasure to rise to talk about the Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of Decile System) Amendment Bill. As we know, the bill amends the Education Act to abolish the decile system and replace it with a needs index. There is quite a bit that has been mentioned by the other side that I do agree with. There are challenges with the decile system. My colleague Jan Tinetti also alluded to that. Some of these issues are around a perceived sense that some schools are more worthy than others, and at times that can affect things like house prices. People can get a false perception of the value of a school, and that certainly is a reality. It’s absolutely unfortunate and it’s absolutely false. As we know, there are excellent teachers working across schools, all across our country, in a range of different deciles.

Just a couple of key things that this Government has focused on, and that’s creating an inclusive education system. There’s an aspect of this bill that does worry me quite a bit, and that’s about how it’s not inclusive for the students. By pegging the funding to the student, you’re basically singling out the students who are the ones who, in this case, would be the lower achievers—the ones who are struggling. I don’t think that’s fair on those students.

Addressing the impact of socio-economic disadvantage on student outcomes and reducing the disparities between those from disadvantaged circumstances and other children is critical to achieving the aims of this Government, which are around having an inclusive education system.

There is no doubt that there are students who are having a tough time of it. My wife and I fostered a boy a few years ago. He was having challenges around education and in other aspects of his life. Sad to say, he actually slept with a knife under his bed. He was only 12 years of age, and he slept with a knife under his bed, and that’s in New Zealand.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.