Tuesday, 15 May 2018

TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2018

TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Minimum Wage Increase, Business Confidence, Job Creation, and Wage Growth

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was Iain Lees-Galloway reflecting Government policy when he said, “If a small change to the minimum wage is going to be detrimental to them they don’t sound resilient. … a lot of businesses come and go, … That’s the nature of doing business.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think he was reflecting the fact that we have an expectation that people be able to enter into the workplace and receive a decent wage. We increased the minimum wage to $16.50 an hour in April, we have flagged our intention for it to be $20 by April 2021, and the member clearly is articulating that he’s not as ambitious for New Zealanders who are in low-paid work.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to those workers of the businesses who would lose their jobs under the minimum wage policy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would rather speak to the actual examples the member has of a business closing because of an increase to $16.50 an hour.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, does she accept her officials’ advice that the increases will result in job losses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Even that last Government probably got that same advice. In fact, when Labour was last in office and increased the minimum wage nine times, we had the opposite problem and had some of the lowest unemployment in the OECD—a record that on this side of the House we’re quite proud of.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of Iain Lees-Galloway’s statement that changes to the minimum wage need to be signalled, what other increases to the minimum wage will there be this term?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve said, we’ve already signalled in the coalition agreement with New Zealand First that it’s our expectation the minimum wage will be increased to $20 by April 2021.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since the coalition Government announced its aspiration and target of $20 an hour, has unemployment gone up or down?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve very pleased to say it has gone down and is projected to continue to go down.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the Prime Minister any advice on what the effect of that $20 minimum wage would be on jobs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, we routinely receive advice on the projected impact, but in the past we’ve received that same advice and, in fact, what we have seen is unemployment going in the other direction.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she believe her Government’s industrial relations reform contributed to today’s Staples Rodway Business Confidence Survey’s finding that only 15 percent of 500 business leaders thought job security would increase, with 45 percent thinking it would decrease?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am, of course, interested, yes, both in the feedback that we get from those business surveys and also the reality, and I know the reality is that, in fact, a firm’s own outlook is something incredibly important to us as a measure. It’s still a net positive, and that includes for the long-run average. We, of course, also have projected growth of around 3 percent and declining unemployment. The reality is looking very, very positive, and come Thursday will look even better.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does the Prime Minister believe more than half of the respondents to the survey believe this week’s Budget will have a negative impact on the economy and that the Government’s performance around the economy to date has been poor?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would ask for the member’s evidence points, given, of course, again, I’m speaking to the evidence—the reality of what exists out there—and that is projected growth of 3 percent, unemployment declining down to levels around 4 percent, and the fact that when you look at some of the stimulus that’ll be coming on track, like, for instance, the increase via the Families Package, both taxpayers and business have plenty of reasons to feel very, very positive.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister saying that business confidence doesn’t matter, and isn’t that an incredibly high-handed, arrogant approach to take?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. I have, in fact, myself said that I’m very keen to make sure that a survey of perception matches reality.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she, then, just tell me why it is that the survey makes clear that businesses around this country think that the Budget will lead to a declining economy, and that the Government so far is doing a poor job on the economy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, you’ll forgive me for not wanting to allow anyone to get ahead of themselves before the Budget actually comes out. Two more sleeps.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the two years before the election 10,000 jobs were created every month, and will she commit to a similar target over the next two years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And again I would point out that, actually, minimum wage increases therefore—case in point—do not necessarily lead to job losses. We’re not going to apologise for wanting to make this a productive, high-wage economy. That’s exactly the kind of leadership that New Zealand needs.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does that mean the Prime Minister will commit to a similar target to 10,000 new jobs a month over the next couple of years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, what’s important is what happens to your overall employment rate, and that’s why we’ve set ourselves a goal of 4 percent unemployment, because, of course, what matters is whether people are coming and going and staying in the job market, not just new job creation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister accept, though, that there may be a cause for downwards wage adjustment for poor professional performance, such as is coming from the Opposition at this present time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Oh, no, no. It’s a very good question, but it’s not within the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, it’s not actually a good question. Given how important wage growth and productivity are to the Prime Minister, is she aware that between 2008 and 2017 the average wage increased by $13,000, twice the rate of inflation, and will she commit to a target of wages growing at twice the rate of inflation for her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I would like is some consistency from the Opposition. On the one hand, increasing wages are going to lead to businesses closing and job loss, and on the other, we’re apparently not being ambitious enough. What I can tell you is that we are focused on making sure this is an economy with high wages, with decent wages, and with a growing economy, and you’ll see that the proof will be in the pudding.

Hon Simon Bridges: Given that need for decent wages, as she says, will she hold her Government to account and commit to a target of wages growing at twice the rate of inflation for her Government, like they did when we were in Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we’re setting a high bar for ourselves, including making sure that we have the minimum wage continually moving, and not sacrificing the fact that we believe that those individuals deserve a decent wage, decent conditions, and low unemployment.

Economy—Crown Debt, Tax Increases, and Business Confidence

2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What effect will additional borrowing and the proposed increase in petrol tax and levies have on the New Zealand economy?

SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, can I just ask the senior members who are having an exchange across in front of me to cease. Thank you.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government is committed, using the favoured measure of the previous Government, to reducing net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP to 20 percent within five years of taking office. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update shows nominal GDP growing faster than core Crown net debt in the years 2017 to 2022 and, importantly, shows that core Crown finance costs fall both as a percentage of GDP and in nominal terms over the period. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I draw her attention to the evidence we have from when the previous Government increased petrol levies by 40 percent over their nine years in office—the sky didn’t fall and she needs to cheer up about the New Zealand economy.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he accept that increases to petrol tax, the new regional fuel tax, the five-year brightline test tax, and the new “Amazon tax” add up to Kiwis paying around $2.27 billion more tax over the next four years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t confirm the member’s figures, but what I can say, in answer to the question about the so-called “Amazon tax”, is we’re very grateful for the work of Judith Collins in developing that.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, can he confirm that the Government’s plan to borrow around $10 billion more over the coming years will result in more than $1.1 billion in additional debt-servicing costs over the next four years, or $650 for every household?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t confirm all of those numbers from the member, but what I can confirm is that core Crown finance costs, according to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, will fall from 1.3 percent of GDP in 2017 to 0.96 percent of GDP in 2022. I can also confirm that in nominal terms core Crown finance costs are proposed to fall from $3.5 billion to $3.3 billion.

Hon James Shaw: Can the Minister confirm that the money that the Hon Amy Adams is talking about will lead to a reduction in child poverty and better protection of the environment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that, because the evidence is that tens of thousands of New Zealand children will be lifted out of poverty by the Families Package. On this side of the House we are prepared to borrow and invest and make sure that we’re building roads and houses, rather than waiting for the benefits to trickle on down.

SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I am going to remind her that when the Minister is answering, she is of course allowed to interject, but she is not allowed to bring me in—I think she did it at least four times.

Hon Amy Adams: My apologies. Why is the Government imposing additional taxes on Kiwi families, and additional debt-servicing costs, all during good economic times, which is driving an increase to the Australia - New Zealand wage gap for the first time in a decade?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question. What we’re doing is doing exactly what the previous Government did when it comes to the fuel excise duties. In terms of what we’re doing in the other tax changes—they’re actually about getting some fairness into the tax system. I really do encourage the member to talk to her neighbouring member Judith Collins about why those moves are important.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, has he seen today’s Staples Rodway business survey results, which found that more than half of the respondents believe that their Government’s performance around the economy to date has been poor; if so, why is he continuing to dismiss survey after survey showing low business confidence in his Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already said, the thing that correlates to GDP growth is businesses’ confidence in their own activity. That is still strong. We have a Budget on Thursday that will show that we’re going to build both a productive and sustainable economy and manage the Government’s finances well.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, does he agree with the 88 percent of businesses surveyed, who say that it’s important for the Government to avoid taking on further debt; if not, how does he justify taking on $10 billion more debt when the Government’s tax revenue is already forecast to grow by nearly $20 billion over the next four years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s interesting, isn’t it, because the previous Government managed to borrow an additional $49 billion during their term in Government—$49 billion. I’d also add that our revenue is forecast to grow by around 29 percent, but that compares to a 37 percent increase in that revenue by the previous Government. This side of the House is prepared to invest in New Zealand’s future. We’re borrowing at exactly the right time, Mrs Adams, because, actually, we need to build some houses and fix up the mistakes of the previous Government.

Budget 2018—Fiscal Responsibility

3. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government demonstrate fiscal responsibility in Budget 2018; if so, how?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, we will show fiscal responsibility through a strong commitment to our Budget responsibility rules. I am pleased to be able to say that Budget 2018 will show that we are meeting all of these challenging targets. This means, among other things, that we will deliver sustainable operating surpluses and we will reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office. When we announce the Budget on Thursday, New Zealanders will see that we have got the balance right between fiscal responsibility and implementing our plan to rebuild critical public services.

Dr Deborah Russell: Why has fiscal responsibility been an important part of Budget 2018 considerations?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because every Government has the responsibility to future generations to ensure we budget responsibly and have the means to make significant and sustained investments. We need to futureproof the economy to ensure that New Zealand is resilient to any shocks, natural or global, that we may face. Our economy must be fit for purpose for this generation and for our children and grandchildren.

Dr Deborah Russell: How does this fiscal responsibility fit within the Government’s wider policy agenda?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our Budget responsibility rules underpin the Government’s work programme. The Government knows that we need Budget surpluses and a growing economy to be able to fund our public services to the high standards that Kiwis expect and deserve. Budget 2018 will show that we have got the balance right, between being responsible fiscal managers and also rebuilding critical public services like hospitals, classrooms, housing, and police.

Hon Simon Bridges: You just said all that.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: You didn’t hear it, though, did you, Mr Bridges? Budget 2018 also shows that this Government has a plan for a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy, where the Government is a partner, rather than waiting for wealth to trickle on down.

KiwiBuild—House Prices

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: When he told the media last week in relation to KiwiBuild that “The important thing is to have some clear guidelines out there, make them transparent and stick to them”, what did he mean?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): What I meant was that it’s important to have some clear guidelines out there, make them transparent, and stick to them.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he raise the price of a KiwiBuild house from his initial promise of $600,000 to $650,000 and only told New Zealanders about it last week?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We raised the price points for the maximum prices in Auckland and Queenstown to $500,000 for a one-bedroom place, $600,000 for a two-bedroom place, and $650,000 for three bedrooms or more. For houses outside Auckland and Queenstown, the maximum price is $500,000 for all houses. We made the decision based on advice from both industry and the Public Service about what would be the most logical way to do it, and then we announced it.

Hon Judith Collins: What calculation is he using to show that a $650,000 KiwiBuild house is affordable for first-home buyers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ve based that calculation on extensive advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment about what first-home buyers would be able to borrow. But I would note that Ms Schultz, the developer of apartments in Papakura, that that member wanted us to include in KiwiBuild, said that construction costs had pushed the price of her apartments up $75,000. So, on the one hand, that member criticises us for increasing the maximum price of a three-bedroom KiwiBuild home in Auckland, and, on the other hand, she criticises us for not increasing them further so that her friend can take part in KiwiBuild. That’s bizarre.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at that last comment from the member. That person is not a friend; I’ve met her once. The Minister has attacked my integrity.

SPEAKER: The member has taken offence. I think it might even be simpler, without having to rule on that, to say that the comment was superfluous and should be withdrawn.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I withdraw.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How long has he known that his KiwiBuild houses are going to cost first-home buyers $50,000 more than he told them eight months ago?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The decision to increase the price points was made several weeks ago.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did it take him so long to realise that the $600,000 KiwiBuild promise was out of date?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It didn’t take long at all, but we’ve had a lot of expert advice from people, including—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister didn’t hear me. I said “Why did it take him so long”.

SPEAKER: Well—

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the member’s assertion.

SPEAKER: I don’t think we’ve got a point of order any more.

Mycoplasma Bovis—Advice

5. 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 DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Yes, and, in particular, I stand by my statement of the shameful inaction of that member to develop an animal tracing system that works, because National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) has let us down immensely through the whole Mycoplasma bovis response.

Hon Nathan Guy: Does he agree with his senior officials in the select committee last week who said “We were prepared for this—yes we were.”, knowing that biosecurity funding in the 2017 Budget was the highest ever, at $248 million?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I don’t agree with them. I don’t think they were prepared. A lot of changes had to be made by this Government, and we exposed a total inability of the National Animal Identification and Tracing system because that Government and that member refused to implement it properly.

Hon Nathan Guy: What specific recommendations were contained in the most recent technical advisory group report he has received?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can’t repeat all of them—I don’t have the report in front of me—other than to say that at that point, eradication was still possible. They are convening today. I hope that they come back with a similar recommendation. However, the goal posts have shifted. We have a lot more infected farms, a lot more unfortunate farmers are under huge pressure, and the inability of our National Animal Identification and Tracing system has made this job far more difficult.

Hon Nathan Guy: What specific scientific advice has he received that has caused him to repeatedly defer making a decision on eradication or long-term management—specific scientific advice?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Part of the scientific advice is the fact that more farms are infected. I don’t know whether the member’s noticed that, but we’ve certainly disclosed as much information as we get to industry leaders. This afternoon, I’m meeting with industry leaders. We’re happy to share all the information we have. If that member has an idea, perhaps he should have put it in place when he was in Government.

Hon Nathan Guy: When will he make a decision on what option will be funded, when the Budget is two days away, hundreds of thousands of dairy cattle have already begun farm movements, and farmers are screaming out for certainty right now?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can absolutely appreciate the pressure on farmers. Farmers who are shifting their stock—if they’re not under a notice of direction, they are still able to shift their stock. What I would recommend is that they adhere strictly to the legal NAIT requirements. I suggest that they take sound biosecurity measures when they’re shifting their stock and they know where they’re shifting to. This is all basic information if you run a proper farming system and a good biosecurity system. Unfortunately, the previous Government never told farmers the right instructions.

Hon Shane Jones: What reports has the Minister received about NAIT recently?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: One of the most concerning reports I’ve heard is that properties of significance in the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak were set to undergo NAIT compliance activities in 2015, and compliance officers were discouraged from carrying that out. Maybe the previous Minister can explain that.

Hon Shane Jones: In light of that report, what can the Minister confirm as to the reasons as to why there was such a level of inattention and inactivity—political interference?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There has been a comprehensive review of NAIT carried out. It was completed at the end of 2016. The organisation, under the Government’s watch, sat on that report for one year. It only released that after I threatened legal action. And can I say that the 38 recommendations in that will all improve the system; 23 of those recommendations will be followed through by this Government and changes made to improve it as quickly as we can. I don’t know why the previous Government didn’t do the same.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why will it take the Minister two months to get advice from his 2,600 officials regarding the NAIT recommendations—if there is so much urgency, why doesn’t he put the House into urgency and change the law and the regulations and get on with it?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not a parliamentary question and most certainly cannot be addressed to you in the way that fool did.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’ve—the question was out of order. It’s not the first question today that’s been out of order, and the questions that are out of order have not only come from one side of the House. I’ve been trying to let things flow a little bit. This is an important issue and at the core of the member’s albeit not well-phrased question was something which the Minister could understand and respond to.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Sorry, could I have the question again, please, because I just missed it in the hullabaloo.

SPEAKER: Well, the member can have it again, and maybe the member could have a go at making it in order as he did it.

Hon Nathan Guy: If there is so much urgency around the NAIT recommendations, why is it going to take two months after the Minister received the report to get advice from his officials when, if this was a serious matter like the Minister is proposing, he could put the House into urgency and get on with it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can assure you that every single official in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and now Biosecurity New Zealand is focusing on containment and possible eradication of Mycoplasma bovis. That report, which I leveraged out of NAIT Ltd, will be actioned as quickly as possible. The question is, why did that member not take action when he was given advice in 2015?

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Responding to the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s request last week in this House, I seek leave to introduce the Farm Debt Mediation Bill—a member’s bill in my name—and for it to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 1.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to do that at the end of question time, rather than break up question time now.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why? He’s done it now. What are we waiting for?

SPEAKER: Because my view is that when matters come up in the week afterwards they should come up at the appropriate time, which is the beginning or end of question time, not after a particular question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, I don’t want to question your decision making. It wouldn’t be something that I would do. However—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I accept the reason for the laughter, but it’s got to be contained.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You just made the point that that was a very serious question and you’ve allowed a certain flow across the House that I think was, in my opinion, generous towards the Government. The reality is there are thousands of farming families out there who are likely to face significant hardship because of this issue. The bill that is being proposed by Darroch Ball could well see those farmers see little bit more light on the day then they perhaps are at the moment. It therefore is appropriate—

SPEAKER: OK. The member will resume his seat. He’s convinced me of the urgency of the situation and that half an hour might make a difference in it. I am going to let the member seek leave and put the question to the House. But I will remind Mr Brownlee that when he takes his points of order he will not reflect on my chairmanship. My view is being flexible with an Opposition member who was clearly breaching the rules, as was pointed out by the most senior member in the House correctly—giving him a bit of leeway, is not favouring the Government. Darroch Ball, have another go.

Question time interrupted.

Bills

Farm Debt Mediation Bill

Introduction

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I seek leave to introduce the Farm Debt Mediation Bill, a member’s bill in my name, and for it to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 1.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be so set down.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

KiwiBuild—Developer Interest and Impact on Residential Construction

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): My question is the Minister of Housing and Urban Development and reads: How will KiwiBuild—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry. I’m going to ask the member to start again. I’m going to ask members on both sides to stop their cross-the-House conversations while questions are being asked.

6. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How will KiwiBuild help developers build new homes for Kiwi families?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Many residential developments across New Zealand have stalled because the developers struggle to find finance on acceptable terms. This is where KiwiBuild steps in to rescue these stalled developments, in three ways. One, it enables developments that otherwise would not be undertaken to be completed; second, it speeds up developments to add to supply faster; and, third, it enables the construction of affordable homes, rather than McMansions that young Kiwi families cannot afford.

Marja Lubeck: What interest has there been from developers in the initiative?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Over 150 developers have approached us over the last few months wanting help to get hundreds of their developments off the ground. Partnering with developers will mean we can use the confidence that the Crown brings to build more KiwiBuild houses faster, to recycle capital faster, and to achieve our KiwiBuild targets with a smaller impact on Crown debt in the near term.

Marja Lubeck: Are there any indications as to how many homes will be built through this initiative?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, initial soundings by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) with these developers are very encouraging, and we are confident that we will meet our KiwiBuild targets for new affordable homes. We’ll have more announcements on this in the next few months.

Marja Lubeck: How does he expect KiwiBuild to increase new residential construction?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The stalled developments that we rescue will not only lead to more KiwiBuild homes but also lead to the construction of more open market homes in those developments too, increasing supply overall. Forecasting residential construction is inherently uncertain and depends on a number of assumptions, but MBIE suggests that KiwiBuild could generate up to $11 billion in additional residential construction over the next four years. We’re getting on with building starter homes for young Kiwi families.

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 actions and statements on fuel taxes?

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

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he provide an assurance that his Auckland regional fuel tax will only be paid by Aucklanders and not spread to taxpayers outside of Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I can confirm that it is a regional fuel tax.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with the founder of petrol price monitoring company Gaspy that fuel companies appear to be raising prices ahead of the 11c per litre Auckland regional fuel tax, which comes into effect on 1 July?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I haven’t seen that report, but I will say that this Government is taking action on anti-competitive behaviour by the petrol companies. We’re progressing the Commerce Amendment Bill to give the Commerce Commission more teeth. My colleague the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Megan Woods, called in BP recently over their statements, and I’ve directed officials to monitor any price spreading. The petrol companies can be under no mistake as to what our view is of anti-competitive behaviour. If there are indications it’s going on, we will deal with it [Interruption].

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just ask the Leader of the Opposition to just wind it back a little bit—both frequency and volume.

Jami-Lee Ross: If he hasn’t seen that report, what is his explanation, then, for why retail petrol prices increased by 9.3c per litre across the South Island over the last month but only 1.7c in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s true that there is inconsistent pricing within the petrol industry. It is not a perfectly competitive market, but our Government’s committed to sending a very clear signal to the petrol companies that we want the best possible deal for consumers, and we’re willing to use tools like the regional fuel tax to invest in a better transport system in our country’s biggest city.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister what his explanation was. In fact, he was talking to the Minister when I was providing figures, so he probably didn’t even hear it. He didn’t provide any explanation at all.

SPEAKER: He both addressed the question and, almost certainly, improperly replied to the irrelevant interjections.

Jami-Lee Ross: Given he’s in denial about fuel price spreading as a result of his Auckland regional fuel tax, does he accept that he is just as bad as BP and he’ll be on Megan Woods’ naughty step fairly soon?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Any—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I’ll answer it!

SPEAKER: No, well, it’s clearly ruled out for irony. The member knows that.

Education—Programme

8. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions has the coalition Government taken to work with New Zealanders to develop a future vision of education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Consistent with our coalition agreement with New Zealand First, over the last two weekends, Ministers Martin, Salesa, Henare, and I were in Christchurch and Auckland for two education summits involving almost 1,600 Kiwis from all walks of life. The summit events are a key part of bringing people into the process of improving and modernising our education system to set it up for the next 30 years. We want to work together with everyone who has an interest in education: students, parents, teachers, employers, Māori, Pasifika, those with disabilities, and others from our diverse community. As well as this, we’re also seeking to engage with people whom the education system has failed. So far, nearly 10,000 people have taken part in the online conversation and almost 1,400 New Zealanders have contributed their views in our summit events.

Jamie Strange: How will the discussions at the summit inform the wider three-year programme in education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s important that while we undertake reviews of Tomorrow’s Schools and the NCEA, put in place a new early learning strategic plan, reform the way we manage school property, and fix up the vocational education and training sector, we need to ensure that we’re shaping an education system that meets New Zealanders’ hopes and aspirations for the future. The education summit conversations will play a very important role in informing that reform programme.

Jamie Strange: What steps is the Government taking to address some of the issues raised in the summit?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the issues that was raised consistently through the summit was lack of available support for those with additional learning needs, particularly in early childhood education (ECE). Early intervention services make a real difference to a child’s development in learning for the rest of their life. On Sunday, the Prime Minister announced that an additional $21.5 million for early intervention services will help nearly 8,000 more children get the support they need over the next four years. This extra funding will halve the waiting time for early intervention services in ECE, and I would like to thank both New Zealand First and the Green Party for their tireless advocacy to make this happen.

Children—Stand Children’s Services Funding and Closures

9. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement in relation to childcare services that “We need to know who the kids are; what places are best going to meet their needs; and then match them”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Children: Yes. Those comments were made in relation to care placements. Obviously, the better we can match carers and children, the better the outcomes. What we know is that strong, stable, and loving relationships are key for children. Going forward, we also need to design and purchase services that work best for children and will best meet their needs.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Does she agree with the Central Otago Mayor Tim Cadogan and Clutha Mayor Bryan Cadogan about Stand Children’s Services in Roxburgh meeting the children’s needs and, I quote, that they did “utterly critical work, … no other agencies provided the intensive, residential, wrap-around service[s] the Roxburgh facility provided for children who had experienced … trauma.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The mayor’s comments that are made in relation to Stand are made almost on the premise that funding has been cut. I need to assure this House that Stand is still receiving $20 million each year to provide intensive wraparound services to children and their families—the same amount of funding that was received under the previous Government. Stand, though, has decided to close two of their villages—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’re shutting them down.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Stand has decided to close two of their villages. These villages have nine intakes per year with a maximum of 21 children per intake. The Minister has directed the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children to track the 21 children at any given time that would normally be referred to the village. The chief executive of Oranga Tamariki will ensure that any additional support that is required is made available to these children.

Hon Jacqui Dean: If her Government’s aim is about looking after vulnerable children, what service provider will replace the only facility in the whole of the lower South Island providing intensive, residential treatment for traumatised children and their families to best meet their needs?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Oranga Tamariki has given assurances that the children will still receive the services they need through the ministry and through a range of other providers, including Stand, Anglican Family Care, Mirror Services, and Presbyterian Support Otago. That network of services is made up of competent, professional providers who are already moving towards more integrated ways of working across the child well-being, health, and education sectors in the region.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that at any given time in Roxburgh there are roughly 21 children utilising this service and that therefore, by necessity, there are a range of other services available through the country to meet the kinds of needs Stand meets in just seven current facilities?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can absolutely assure the House, on behalf of the Minister, that that is the case. There are other services providing the types of wraparound and therapeutical support that those two villages were providing, as well as there are still seven existing villages, I understand, that continue to operate and provide that therapeutical support.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: How can she tell Stand Children’s Services, the 21 children per month that utilise the beds in those villages, the 220 children per year, and the 85 that are on a residential waiting list that the $3 million funding required could not be secured at this time—and I quote—“because of the restrictions on the Government budget”, when her Government found a billion dollars for diplomats, invested $2.8 million—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s question finished some time ago.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I can assure the children and the families of those children that they will continue to get the support that they need. I will raise with the member who just asked that question that the last time any additional funding was given to these particular services was back in 2009. If the previous Government were that concerned, then perhaps they should’ve made the investment earlier.

Darroch Ball: What is the Minister doing to ensure that children get the best services that they need?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Excuse me, Mr Speaker. I forgot that we had one other question coming, perhaps. On behalf of the Minister for Children today, Oranga Tamariki are holding the first of 14 regional hui with their 525 providers to talk about how they will work together in the future to ensure that all services meet the best needs of the child. Collectively, they receive around $268 million from Oranga Tamariki per year. The ministry is trying to give them greater certainty around their funding and is moving to longer-term contracts—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The ministry is trying to give them greater certainty around their funding and is moving to longer-term contracts, but they are also being challenged to think about the design of future services. These need to focus on the best outcomes for our children and not be locked into a particular organisation.

Minimum Wage—Effect of Increase

10. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by his statement on Q+A, in respect of New Zealand businesses, “if a small change to the minimum wage is going to be that detrimental to them, they don’t sound resilient”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, in the context of the question I was answering when I made it.

Hon Scott Simpson: How many jobs will be lost as a result of what he calls “businesses coming and going” because they are unable to afford increases in the minimum wage and other Government-imposed compliance costs?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s a hypothetical question and—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s a hypothetical question.

Hon Scott Simpson: When he said “businesses need to be resilient.”, what is the Government going to do to help small businesses, other than to tell them to harden up?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This Government is making changes to our tax system, to make it fairer and work better for businesses. This Government is investing in research and development tax credits to support high-productivity businesses, and this Government has a regional development growth fund to support businesses in the region. This is a Government that is very active in supporting businesses around the country, and it’s a good thing we finally got one.

Kieran McAnulty: Does the Minister agree with Mike Hosking, who said last week, “Isn’t that the point of economic expansion and success, the money and profit gets spread about the place?”

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Mike Hosking. I also agreed with him when he said “maybe it’s time we shake off the low wage economy tag, and start handing out the dosh; maybe it is time for a pay rise.”

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be true to say that the Minister’s answer proves the adage that even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day?

SPEAKER: That could well be true, although the Minister is clearly not in the—no, I think we’ll leave that. But I will say it was not a point of order, and for that reason the Opposition will have two additional supplementary questions.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he think his weekend comments that “a lot of businesses come and go” support the Prime Minister’s commitment that “I’m interested in how we can ease the burden on small businesses in particular”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’m advised that it is absolutely a fact that businesses come and go. In fact, just a quarter of the businesses that started 10 years ago still exist today. It’s called capitalism—I thought that member would understand that.

Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Richard Prebble that the response to these changes from business has been hysterical?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think that was a bit unfair of Mr Prebble to say that, although those comments do fit the Opposition perfectly.

Hon Scott Simpson: What does he say to hard-working small-business owners and operators employing staff and often earning less than their employees—that they must simply absorb all increased Government-imposed costs or go bust?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have more faith in them than that member does, clearly, because I believe they are resilient, they are strong, they are adaptable, and that as this Government leads us to a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy, they will be on that path with us.

Growing Up in New Zealand Study—Announcements

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Growing Up in New Zealand study?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Mr Speaker—

Hon David Bennett: Oh, has she got her notes this time? Good on her!

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Today, I announced that the Government would restore more than $1.9 million—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Now, Mr Bennett, your interjections are very, very frequent. Referring to members using notes in the House to answer questions is an area which is totally my responsibility and not for you to comment on. I would like to remind the member that several of his colleagues rely heavily on notes, not to answer questions, which is quite a lot harder, but even to ask them.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Today, I announced that the Government would restore more than $1.9 million of funding to the Growing Up in New Zealand study. Growing Up in New Zealand is the country’s largest longitudinal study of child development, gathering information over time about what it’s like to grow up in 21st century New Zealand. The children and families at today’s announcement were relieved to know that they will be able to continue to be part of the study, to tell their stories, and to share their experiences of growing up in New Zealand.

Angie Warren-Clark: What does this mean for the participants in this study?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Today’s announcement means that all of the 6,800-plus families who have been part of this study since it began can now be invited to participate in the current round of data collection. Our decision to restore funding also comes at a critical point in the project, where, for the first time, this study is hearing directly from the children themselves. Around 2,000 child interviews have been completed this year to date, and with the new funding, interviews of the remaining 4,800 children will now be able to be completed.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: These families committed to this study for 21 years. To pull a significant number of them out at year 8, after a considerable personal investment, poses significant issues with the integrity of the findings and poses ethical challenges. With this funding, we won’t be doing that. Restoring the sample size gives us time to preserve one of the study’s unique characteristics and strengths: its diversity of participants. It will allow us to draw insight across a broad range of communities, to develop policy and services that help New Zealand to be the best place to be a child.

Beneficiaries—Obligation to Take up Seasonal Work

12. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by his joint press statement with the Minister for Social Development of 16 March 2018, which said “Seasonal work can be a good option for many people looking to get back into work and for some could provide the type of work life and meaningful employment they are seeking”; if so, what is his policy response to jobseekers who would rather stay on the dole than take up one of the 7,000 fruit-picking job vacancies that are available?

SPEAKER: OK, I’m just going to ask the member to ignore the additional words that were in the question, over and above what was here.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to the first part of the question, of course I stand by my statements. As for the second part, the policy response for job seekers remains the responsibility of the Minister for Social Development.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by his statement that “people have commitments,” as reasons that unemployed New Zealanders cannot pick fruit, and, if so, how many commitments does an individual need to not have to show up to work?

Hon David Bennett: How many commitments have you got?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Of course I stand by—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! David Bennett, once again you have interjected, involving me in the answer, and what we’re going to do is have you on an interjection ban for the rest of this question time and tomorrow. [Interruption] Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course I stand by my statements in terms of people having commitments. The member fails to understand. This isn’t about being tough; this is about being caring and compassionate for all those people who make up our communities. This is a Government that’s been clear right from the start that we are a caring Government, and we want to see people do well. As a former Minister for Social Development, that member should know that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not his department has given him reports that suggest New Zealanders cannot pick fruit because their hands are too big, as was said by a former National Party Minister?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I haven’t quite seen those reports yet, but I’ll wait for them to come over my desk.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has he discussed this labour shortage with his colleague Shane Jones, who said of unemployed people not in education or training that “They’ll be made to go to work,” and “there’ll be no more sitting on the couch.”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve had many wonderful conversations with Mr Jones. I think we’ve discussed that many times, and sometimes we agree to disagree.

Tamati Coffey: Why does the Minister believe that seasonal work can be “a good option for some”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. I believe the information collected by Work and Income indicates that for some, seasonal work is a good option. For example, we have seen many Kiwis placed into work in the Hawke’s Bay for short durations. For others, as I keep saying, there are barriers that need to be considered, such as travel, childcare, and health—all of which can make them unsuitable for short-duration placements.

Hon Paula Bennett: Should unemployed ne’er-do-well nephs sitting on the couch in the Bay of Plenty, the Hawke’s Bay, and Tasman be expected to pick fruit if they are physically able?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, I suppose it depends on the circumstances: sometimes yes, and sometimes no, because they have family commitments and they can’t just walk away from their family at the drop of a hat.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he agree with an RNZ report that some job seekers would rather stay on the dole than pick apples, and does him constantly excusing people on the dole from working help?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, and no.

Hon Paula Bennett: So what sanctions would he apply to job seekers who have tried picking fruit, lasted only half a day, and would rather remain jobless?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of sanctions, I have no delegations as the Minister of Employment for sanctions. However, currently Minister Sepuloni has a wide-ranging review of the welfare system, and I fully support the review and the work that the Minister is currently doing.

Hon Paula Bennett: So if unemployed New Zealanders in the Bay of Plenty, the Hawke’s Bay, and Tasman, with commitments, are asked to work and don’t show up, does he believe the welfare system should sanction them?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, as I said last week, it’s not black and white; it depends on the circumstances. Obviously, there will be some who have to go through that process. The other side of that is that there are some real excuses why sometimes people can’t travel, like whānau—they can’t just walk out on their kids—like no transport costs, and like no accommodation costs. There are a lot of reasons, but it is not just black and white, as the member well knows.

Hon Paula Bennett: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, that concludes oral questions.

Points of Order

Leave to Take Through All Stages—Farm Debt Mediation Bill

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I seek leave for the remaining stages of members’ order of the day No. 1, the Farm Debt Mediation Bill, to be taken as one question at the conclusion of the bill’s first reading tomorrow.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I couldn’t hear that, because there was interruption.

SPEAKER: Could the member repeat it—essentially, that it go through all stages tomorrow. Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

Bills

Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill

Third Reading

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill be now read a third time.

This bill demonstrates New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the fight against illegal arms trafficking and trading, and to address the devastating impacts this activity has on regional and international security and development. The bill introduces comprehensive controls to regulate the brokering of arms and military equipment by New Zealanders, and New Zealand - based entities. Brokering involves the transfer of arms from one foreign country to another. The brokering regime, in many respects, will complement the controls for the import, export, or internal movement of these items under existing legislation.

This bill has been put together by the previous Government in response to a massive problem that they identified. It has been before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it has had thorough examination from the Opposition, who actually brought the bill to the House. I note their recommendations to the House—myself, personally—that this bill proceed, and that is what the Government is doing.

The bill was introduced to the House on 27 June 2017 by the former Government. It was considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which reported to the House on 29 March 2018. The committee recommended unanimously that the bill proceed, and I personally defer to the wisdom of that committee. With a number of amendments aimed at increasing clarity and addressing submitters’ concerns, the bill was read a second time on 1 May. I do note that it proceeded through the committee stage, and every recommendation that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee made was accepted by this Government, who acknowledged that those recommendations improved the bill.

This bill requires individuals physically in New Zealand, all New Zealand citizens, ordinary residents of New Zealand, and New Zealand entities operating offshore that wish to engage in brokering to (a) register as a broker with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and (b) obtain a permit for each brokering activity.

Hon Mark Mitchell: That’s it, yep.

Hon RON MARK: Brokering permits will be granted if the proposed brokering activity is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations, Mr Mitchell, and would not prejudice the security, defence, or international relations of New Zealand.

The bill creates offences for engaging in conduct that contravenes its requirements, including engaging in brokering without being registered as a broker and having a permit—that was discussed at length in the committee phase—breaching the conditions of a registration or permit—that was also discussed in depth at the committee stage—and providing false and misleading information in connection with a registration or permit, and I note, again, that was also discussed at length at the committee phase, with, ironically, the Opposition proposing further amendments that it never proposed during the actual hearing of submissions on the bill, but never mind.

Given the cross-border nature of brokering, the regime will have extraterritorial effect and will apply to New Zealanders, ordinary residents of New Zealand, and New Zealand - based entities operating offshore. In the same vein, as brokering covered by the bill will always involve the transfer of arms between two foreign countries, the consent of the Attorney-General is required for any prosecution under the bill. This requirement provides a safeguard to ensure that only appropriate cases proceed to prosecution, taking into account, among other things, the need to work with overseas law enforcement authorities to gather evidence.

The Attorney-General may also impose civil penalties, such as formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions in appropriate cases. This bill does not prohibit brokering in weapons or military equipment outright, which is a good thing given our fledgling defence industry, but regulates such activity to ensure appropriate controls are in place to prevent these items from ending up in the wrong hands or place.

All too many communities in our region and around the world have felt the impacts of weapons falling into the wrong hands in terms of lives lost, crime, and conflict, and the crippling effect on development and prosperity. Regulating brokering supports compliance with New Zealand’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty—that’s a very important factor. It also supports our commitments as a participant in the four international export control regimes for conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction - related goods and technologies—other aspects that were considered in depth also in the committee phase and prosecuted by the Opposition, despite the fact that it wasn’t necessarily prosecuted as deeply in the select committee hearing phase. Never mind.

New Zealand remains a strong advocate of the Arms Trade Treaty and other disarmament, arms control, and counter-proliferation efforts. I’m pleased that New Zealand’s able to play its part in the international framework to prevent and deter illicit arms brokering through this legislation. I’d like to conclude by thanking all of those who’ve contributed to this bill—in particular, I’d like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, as well as officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It does give me pleasure to speak on this bill because it is important, but can I start by saying that that was a good bit of reading by a Minister who—it’s not always been clear that he has been in favour of this piece of legislation. Of course, the bill is in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and it’s good to see that the Minister who read that speech on behalf of Mr Peters is doing what Mr Peters says. In the first instance, Mr Peters says, “Don’t be deputy leader anymore.”, and he did that. Then he said, “Go down to the House and read out a bill that shows categorically you’re in favour of my legislation.” The reason I say that is because before the election, Mr Mark, sitting on another side of the House in Opposition, had a very, very different view of this piece of legislation.

If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to read—because you’re not meant to read in the House—some quotes, because I wouldn’t want to actually put words into Mr Mark’s mouth. The first thing he said was that “It is like Foreign … Minister Gerry Brownlee stumbled across Lords of War and War Dogs on Netflix, [and] then decided that this was his ticket to statesman-like respectability.” Well, I can say that as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Brownlee read speeches very well.

Secondly, he went on to say, “this National-led government took us down a rabbit hole to regulate non-existent Kiwis trading non-existent arms in some sub-Saharan fantasy.” I didn’t hear that in Mr Mark’s speech a moment ago. He went on to say, and, actually, he should apologise to the other parties in this house, because it can’t have been National in Government he was speaking of—and I quote—“The peaceniks in … other parties loved the opportunity to dance around the maypole, sing Kumbaya and bag our boutique defence industry but not us.” That wasn’t in the speech just then, Mr Mark. It must be that the people that helped you with your press releases in Opposition are very different from the ones writing the speeches you read in the House in Government now.

And then finally he said, “The United States is the world’s largest arms exporter and has only around 1,300 registered brokers. The number of Kiwi ‘arms brokers’ may well be counted on less than the fingers of one hand”—I note he needs a hand to count—“[but] we can fix this by amendment rather than a whole new law.” And that wasn’t in Mr Mark’s speech then either.

This is an important piece of legislation. There may well not be many, if any, New Zealanders involved in arms brokering, but we have an international commitment, signed up to by the New Zealand Government and supported, I assume, by all parties in this House. The Arms Trade Treaty, which we signed in 2014, bestows an obligation upon New Zealand, and this legislation introduced by the last Government, delivered to the House before the election, and opposed by New Zealand First then, is important because it sends a signal that New Zealand’s laws line up with the rest of—[Hon Ron Mark leaves Chamber] I’m going to say a bit more about you, but all right, never mind. They line up with other countries who have also implemented these laws, and it does mean that if a New Zealander is involved with the arms trade anywhere, we need to know about it. We can keep records on them. They too have obligations, and should they fall foul of them, they can be brought to justice and they can be prosecuted.

As I said in the committee stage of this bill, in the select committee we went to some lengths to question officials to ensure that there wouldn’t be unintended consequences. Of course, things that have a military use can also have a civilian use, and it is important in meeting our obligation that we don’t burden law-abiding citizens who are going about their business, who may well have equipment that they are not using nor have designed for military purpose but that could have a military consequence at some stage if used by somebody else.

I think we got the balance about right. I mean, first and foremost in this would be New Zealanders who legally trade in recreational firearms for purposes of competition, be it in the Commonwealth Games or the Olympics, or, equally, be it for sporting purposes of hunting in New Zealand. We didn’t want the unintended consequence of them being burdened so that they would have to abide by some of the very strong and important rules in this legislation. Officials gave us an assurance that wasn’t the case, as opposed to the last speaker on the bill, Mr Mark, who I think deep down still opposes this legislation. He’s not in favour of it. I think he probably stands up for the press release he put out some time ago, but is doing what his leader is telling him in Government. The National Party does support this bill. We’ve always thought it’s important. We will be voting for it. Thank you.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. I note that this had its first reading in August 2017. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee dealt with consideration of this bill on 29 March 2018, and now we are here—March, April, May—two months later, to take its third and final reading.

I want to acknowledge, firstly, the members of that Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as well as the people of the ministry. Why? Because whilst there’s been a change of Government, the officials of our ministry remain the same. I want to acknowledge that even when we were in Opposition and dealing with international affairs, particularly when it came to the Arms Trade Treaty, it was the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who continued to provide us with information, ensured that we were briefed, and ensured that we were articulating consistent messages on the international arena, particularly around the Pacific region.

So I want to say that, and I also want to acknowledge the work of the elder statesman of this Parliament, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because although this began from the Opposition last year, I think most of us will acknowledge the fact that in that role of foreign affairs Minister, he has taken the bull by the horns to provide good, strong leadership in terms of establishing strong stakes as to our role in this region of ours, the Pacific region, but also our role on the international scene.

I then come back to this bill, which is introducing a new regime to regulate—and the bill refers to the brokering of weapons and military equipment. “Brokering” simply means the transfer of arms from one country to another, and it includes weapons, military equipment, as well as related technologies. The bill also refers to dual usage, both military and for civil services.

I remember when there was a campaign around the region for the Arms Trade Treaty. New Zealand took a very strong leadership role in that. It wasn’t just the Government; there were a number of organisations, both in New Zealand as well as around the region, who felt strongly that we needed to sign up to the Arms Trade Treaty and therefore ratify it, which we did, in 2013 and 2014. One of the reasons was that the Pacific region did not want those weapons of war circulating in our region and being used for the wrong reason—being used in conflict zones, being used in particular areas where human rights would be at risk, and the lives particularly of women and children would be at risk. And so this legislation actually is a good signal for New Zealand that we mean what we say when we are talking to the region, when we are talking to the international community, about us being responsible and us being a country that is genuinely concerned about ensuring that the transfer of arms, weapons, and whatnot from one country to another is being regulated and can be used for individual military purposes and for civil usage, but not for the illegal use of killing, war, etc.

This bill also supports that commitment that we made in 2013 when we signed up to the Arms Trade Treaty and therefore ratified it in 2014. I know around the Pacific region there are many Pacific Island countries that struggle a little bit with implementing the Arms Trade Treaty or acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty, given that climate change is really the issue of the day and is one of the priorities for many Pacific Islands. The argument I’ve used in trying to promote our moral stance around the region is to say to the Pacific Island nations, “Look, as small as we are, it is important to show to the rest of the world that we do take seriously our responsibility as global citizens and that we do take seriously the fact that climate change threatens lives, global war threatens lives, and nuclear weapons threaten lives.” Therefore, it is a responsibility of all global citizens to take seriously the need to regulate the movement or the transfer of weapons and military equipment and related technology.

The bill also supports our commitment as a country in terms of our participation in the four international export control regimes for conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and related goods and technology. Why do we need the brokering legislation? Well, the Arms Trade Treaty requires us to do so. While New Zealand currently regulates the import, the export, and the internal movements of arms, we do not currently have a statutory regime that regulates brokering or the transfer from country to country of weapons and arms. Our voluntary registration scheme was put in place when New Zealand ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, but this bill introduces more comprehensive controls consistent without our obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty, and the bill enables New Zealand to play its part in the international framework to prevent and deter illicit arms brokering.

How much of an issue is brokering in New Zealand? Well, the scale of brokering activities taking place in New Zealand is limited. We currently have about 11 entities registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the voluntary registration scheme. However, of those 11, less than five were potentially interested in actual brokering, and while it’s unknown how many New Zealanders may be involved in brokering activity overseas, without legislative controls we risk facilitating the illegitimate movements of arms and military equipment. So we’re also seeking to avoid having illicit arms brokers shift their activities to New Zealand, and this bill prevents New Zealand from being a weak link in international efforts to address illicit arms brokering.

Is New Zealand currently meeting its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty? Yes, of course we’re meeting our obligations. This bill is seeking more comprehensive controls, particularly inter-territorial application. Who’s subject to the brokering of this regime? Any person physically present in New Zealand if they conduct brokering activity, and that includes foreign nationals in New Zealand—for example, a British national in New Zealand who manages an arms transaction from one country to another is captured. New Zealand citizens—New Zealand ordinary citizens—and New Zealand entities registered or incorporated in New Zealand that may be living or operating overseas and conduct brokering activity from that country are all captured by this regime.

How would the average person know they may be subject to the bill and should be registered as brokers? Well, it’s reasonable to expect most people dealing with weapons, military equipment, or dual-use goods to know that it is a controlled activity and that they should look into how to broker these goods lawfully. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will publish extensive guidelines on its website for prospective brokers on New Zealand’s regime. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade encourages all prospective brokers to first inquire with them to seek advice on the status of the goods they’re intending to broker and whether they may or are likely to fall within an exception.

There are other safeguards in the legislation which I’m supportive of, and I think that’s important. I think people will have confidence that we’re doing the right thing as international citizens of the world, but also applying to make sure that all our citizens, whether here or overseas, are living up to our international commitments to international regimes around export controls of weapons and the like. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and support the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill in its third reading. It’s pleasing that it’s passed through the House quickly and that we’re able to have the third reading today. It is actually a very important bill, and I’ll talk to some of the issues that the previous speaker, Aupito William Sio, raised.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge, again, Minister Ron Mark, who stood and took the call today for the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who is actually the sponsor of the bill and is taking the bill through the House. He stood up and showed such commitment and passion for the bill, which seems to have been somewhat of a reversal, as was highlighted by Todd McClay. With comments like “The peaceniks in the other parties loved the opportunity to dance around the maypole, sing Kumbaya and bag our boutique defence industry but not us. [We will not do that.]” It’s actually good—I’m acknowledging it. I’m being very gracious in my acknowledgment in saying that it’s good to see that he has taken a different position and he’s in the House and he’s supporting what, fundamentally, is actually a very important bill. So that is very good.

I actually wondered what a peacenik was. I wasn’t even too sure exactly what the definition of “peacenik” was. There’s a whole lot of definitions, but one of them is “an opponent of war”. Actually, I’d be surprised if there’s not one member of the New Zealand House of Representatives that would not stand up and say that we are an opponent of war. I’m sure that we’re all opponents of war. The last thing that we want to see is wars or conflicts, and so if that’s what a peacenik is, then I guess I’d maybe have to join the Greens and Golriz and say that, actually, I’m a peacenik, because I certainly don’t want to see proliferation of conflict or wars. So it’s probably the only time you’ll ever hear that, but I’ll make the admission here and now anyway.

The legislation is important, because prior to us actually bringing this legislation—and, of course, what drove it was the fact that we did sign up to the Arms Trade Treaty—we were relying on an honesty system. So someone that was going to engage a Kiwi company, or a Kiwi that was going to engage in brokering arms, was going to have to sign up to a system under the UN, but it was voluntary.

The thing I think is really important about this legislation is that, actually, a Kiwi that was going to start to enter into illegal or dishonest activity around the brokering of arms is probably highly unlikely to have signed up voluntarily to a programme. So what we’ve got now is we’ve got a mechanism in legislation whereby we can go after that person or that company if they do decide to engage in the illegal brokering of arms, particularly into conflict zones.

In the call that I took in the House, I think it was last week, one of the questions I put to the Minister was around an example I used of Iraq post the second war, when they were trying to re-establish their security services and they were coming up against some pretty major threats and resistance, and most of their opponents were better armed because they were dealing with porous borders, where the shipment of arms was actually very easy. It just highlighted the real issue that had to be dealt with and grappled with.

Like I said last week, the good thing is that the international community as a whole have become a lot more organised and a lot more motivated and focused on making sure that the proliferation of weapons and arms is actually controlled properly and stopped where it’s illegal. But the problem was that we had no mechanism to actually go after them and charge, prosecute, and convict. Now we have a very good mechanism to do that, by which we will cooperate and work through international organisations like Interpol to be able to gather the intelligence, to be able to gather the information and the evidence, that we need to actually bring to trial a Kiwi or a Kiwi firm that has decided to engage in the elicit brokering of illegal arms. So that in itself is a milestone and a very important step for us as a nation. We’re sending out a very positive message, and that’s why I’m very proud to stand in support in the third reading of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill and recommend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you very much for the call. It is a pleasure being a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. This is one of the first pieces of legislation I have been involved with for the duration, and I just want to make a comment on our select committee and the way that we operate. I think it’s a very good select committee, well chaired by my colleague Simon O’Connor, and it’s bills such as this that really do bring us together, can I say.

I’d initially like to contribute from the regulatory impact statement. The executive summary, basically, says it all: “New Zealand currently has an export control regime that regulates the movement of arms, weapons and military equipment from New Zealand, and an import control regime that regulates the movement of arms into New Zealand. However, there are currently no controls on persons in New Zealand or New Zealand citizens operating abroad who negotiate, arrange or facilitate the international movement of arms and/or military equipment—an activity known as brokering.” So the piece of legislation that we are discussing closes that loophole and it also enables us as a country to actually ensure that the Arms Trade Treaty that we’ve signed up to in 2013 is enacted in our domestic legislation.

The reason we do these things is because we are a global citizen—we’re part of a global community. The issue of arms brokering is relevant in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Ukraine, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, and the Central African Republic. So that’s the relevance of this piece of legislation. On one hand, we acknowledge that these pieces of military equipment are actually manufactured, and there are a lot of countries around the world that make a lot of money from manufacturing and selling those weapons. This piece of legislation joins an international consensus that says, “While [arms] brokering can be used to facilitate legitimate arms deals … uncontrolled brokering assists the movement of arms and military equipment to illegitimate users or undesirable destinations,” including—those war zones that I’ve just read out, and includes—“countries under [UN] arms embargo and conflict zones, where they are often used to commit human rights and other abuses.”

So, people, that is why we debate and discuss treaties and then enact them in domestic legislation. We do so because we do want to bring peace to the world. I mean, the “Kumbaya” comment is kind of interesting, because, at the end of the day, I do think there have to be principles and values that guide what we do as respective democracies globally. It is through that international consensus, and that forever aiming for peace to reduce human suffering, to promote cooperation, transparency, and also to help build a world that, actually, is more about the good things in life, which is about young people getting a good education and people having dreams and aspirations so that they can go to things like the Commonwealth Games and world cups. It is actually about wanting to be part of a world and having a world that facilitates those types of opportunities that really do look at what human potential looks like.

I mean, I could talk for the rest of my six minutes—and maybe I’m going to get a note that says I have to!—but, essentially, the process that we have all been through has led us to one where we have universal consensus in the House. Even though we’ve tried to beat up on poor Mr Ron Mark, he and his party are going to support this piece of legislation. As I said before, I think that the process that we have been through, and I do hope that Golriz Ghahraman—I note my colleague Duncan Webb isn’t on the speaking list, which is a real shame, because there were some intense discussions about—

Chris Bishop: Intense—intense.

LOUISA WALL: —intense—jurisdiction, about mens rea, about a whole lot of other things that the lawyers in the room had this intellect—they were doing intellectual gymnastics, and I think I’ve mentioned it before. Seriously, I just had to sit there and watch. I think Simon O’Connor and I enjoyed being passive observers at some of those meetings. But we did diligently go through this bill and try to make it a better bill. I think if you read the select committee report, in the commentary, I think that everything that we’ve done in terms of the select committee process has enhanced this piece of legislation.

So I’m not going to bore anyone for any longer. I have been given the eye and the word that I can sit down. So, without further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could I assure the honourable member for Manurewa that far from boring us, she was indeed speaking very intelligently and I’m happy to carry on where she has left off, and I thank her for her thoughtful contribution to this debate. As she noted, New Zealand joined the international Arms Trade Treaty—I have to say it was actually 2014, not in 2013, but that’s a minor point. I’m pleased that she adopted the stance that she did, because it was very clear from the flippant tone adopted by the Minister of Defence a short time ago when he was moving the third reading and reading out the Foreign Minister’s speech that he is still not convinced that this bill is necessary.

Given that we have thoroughly traversed Mr Mark’s sarcastic remarks of last October and the more appropriate and informed comments of MPs from other parties, including my own National Party, since the bill’s first reading last year, I thought it’d be useful for those who are following this debate outside the House to hear a bit of its history and the views of some of our Five Eyes partners on this security issue.

Speaking at the final Arms Trade Treaty conference in March 2013, the then Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, noted that around 500,000 people are killed each year by the estimated 875 million small arms that are currently in circulation—875 million small arms. He went on to say that more than 325,000 people are said to have lost their lives through armed violence since the previous round of negotiations had ended just nine months earlier, in July 2012. Then he went on to make some really interesting and alarming points about the proliferation of AK-47 rifles. “With only eight moving parts, weighing less than five kilograms loaded, and costing less than US$100 in some locations, it is little surprise”, said Senator Carr, “[that] the AK-47 rifle has become a ubiquitous feature of conflict zones around the globe. Around a decade ago, tens of thousands of AK-47 rifles were transported into Liberia in violation of the UN arms embargo—firearms that were used to commit terrible crimes by young boys forced to kill.”

This is a serious issue. This was five years ago when Senator Carr was speaking. Today, around 70 million AK-47 rifles are in circulation worldwide.

In September of that year, Senator John Kerry, who was President Barack Obama’s second Secretary of State, articulated the views of the US administration in supporting the treaty, when Senator Kerry said, “This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. And this is about promoting international peace and global security. And this is about advancing important humanitarian goals.”

While I’d like to say much more, I’ll just put one final comment on record, and that is of Britain’s Foreign Secretary under the former Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Government. These are the words of the Rt Hon William Hague, who was the then Foreign Secretary: “This treaty will help make the world safer, by placing human rights and international humanitarian law at the heart of decisions about the arms trade. For the first time, countries have agreed international rules governing everything from small arms to warships. If these rules are implemented globally and effectively, they have the power to stop the arms from reaching terrorists and criminals, and fuelling conflict and instability around the world.”

I’m sure that we would all agree with those comments. There are many more of that nature that I could put on the record, but I very much hope that the immature approach of our current Minister of Defence will not be seen by those following this debate to reflect the views of members of this House as a whole, because I can assure members of the public they most certainly do not. This is an appropriate, intelligent, and important response to a very serious and challenging matter of international security, and I wholeheartedly support it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today proudly, again, to speak in favour of this bill. As has been said by every member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we did have some robust discussions and we’re all incredibly proud of our work on this bill, but also I would like to thank the officials that assisted us. We called them back week after week, and they responded diligently to all of our queries and were incredibly useful to our—what have been called—robust debates on details of law.

I am so proud of that select committee. I’m also so proud of this Parliament that we are in agreement and consensus over this. I particularly welcome the comments by my then colleague on that select committee the Hon Mark Mitchell, who declared himself to be a peacenik with the Greens, on this issue only. But we are today all peaceniks, with the Greens. We stand today as a Parliament, as a House of Representatives, for peace.

I do want to—as I’ve done on a previous occasion—just draw on my own personal experience on this particular issue, because I have seen war. I would like us to come back to that context—that very important, very real context. Anyone who has lived in war, as I have, will know, will remember, the sounds and the terror, but also, in particular, as one of the ordinary people, the helplessness and that sense of being trapped and having no control over violence that escalates, that ebbs and flows but does seem—particularly in the part of the world that I emanate from—to be never-ending. We seem to be living in a time of perpetual war now—in particular, in the Middle East, but not just in the Middle East.

I’ve looked at the conference that came to be—as part of the arms trade movement—within the UN that came up with the Arms Trade Treaty. The countries that begged for this, the States that came with their representatives, the NGOs that begged for this, included South Sudan, the tiniest, newest nation in this world, who reminded delegates that the eyes of the world, the eyes of the victims, were upon them. Even though some quite powerful nations also fought against this treaty, the delegates at that conference came to an agreement.

I do want to remind us all of what the victims said. One statement said, “Arms cannot continue [to be] commercialized without regulations. The present situation does not allow us to avoid diversion [of] illicit [markets], or to the criminal and terrorist organizations which destabilize our society.” So that’s what we’re trying to stop right now.

There are hundreds of little communities and societies all around the world that are being destabilised by violence, and we see it on TV every day. But New Zealand, until now, has not been part of the solution. We’ve not had a law that regulates arms, or brokering in particular. We are a country that has actually been the centre of arms brokering in at least one major incident, where a shell company registered on Queen Street in Auckland was used to broker some 35 tonnes of arms between North Korea and Iran. That is frightening. That happened in 2014, the year that, actually, this treaty came into effect and we were signatories, proudly, as part of that international rule of law effort.

But today we can say that we are in fact giving effect to that movement and we will be part of the solution. Our laws, now, will define what illegal arms brokering means. So whether it’s an individual or a company that’s registered here, they will have to be transparent with the kinds of activities that they’re involved with. We will have a definition of the types of items that are going to be regulated—whether they’re mixed-use items, whether they’re actual arms—and we’ll have experts feeding into this very fast-moving industry so that we know what we should regulate and how we should do that.

So we should be very proud of that, because New Zealand has always been a beacon for peace. New Zealand has always been on the side of the rule of law, and we will on this day be a beacon, again. This kind of thing can’t be stopped by any one nation. I think, as part of the free world, we have a particular responsibility to regulate, because, of course, arms do get moved between legitimate arms manufacturers who manufacture small arms for recreational use and organisations or groups that can’t buy them legitimately because there are sanctions in place to control them because they’ve been identified as a terror group, and this is the kind of group that fights these proxy wars that go on for ever and ever for profit. Today, we’re going to contribute to stopping this.

I do want to congratulate NGOs here in New Zealand as well, like Oxfam New Zealand, who fought very hard for this on the international stage, and the ex - Green Party MP Barry Coates, who was involved at the forefront of this. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call in this third reading on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. Look, it is an excellent bill. The reasons for it have been very clear and well-articulated by members earlier, and I’d like to add my own voice and earlier presentations.

Can I acknowledge all of the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who worked on this in the robust debates, as it’s been referred to, but I think it’s probably a good example of how the Parliament works that everyone’s come together. I particularly want to pay mention to the officials in the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who worked very hard to pull this together on some elements that were particularly technical. I think too of their patience as we moved through the committee of the whole House, but I’m sure they served the Minister well.

Look, this is a small piece of legislation for this House, but an important one. Unlike the previous speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, I haven’t lived in a war zone, but I was lucky enough—if that’s the right word—to be in Afghanistan and Iraq earlier this year, and one can see the devastation wrought by weapons in general, knowing full well that many of those are brokered into those theatres of conflict.

But some might suggest, after the committee of the whole House, that I have said far too much and spent far too much time on this bill. So it’s an absolute pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It does give me pleasure to speak on this bill. Unlike my namesake on the other side of the House, Simon O’Connor, I’m a newbie to this. It’s one of those wonderful occasions where, having listened to a lot of my colleagues speaking on this as I prepared for a speech on another issue, I couldn’t help but absorb much of what they were talking about, such is the interest in this topic. I couldn’t help it, too—I did look up, and often, as you’ll know, Madam Deputy Speaker, sometimes you’re working here, and I saw the Hon Mark Mitchell describe himself as a peacenik. My mind immediately drifted to the sight of Mark Mitchell with, perhaps, a tie-dyed T-shirt, a ponytail, a headband, and a banjo. I look forward to perhaps seeing him in that, because, as he looked up dreamily, I think that’s how he saw himself.

But going back to the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—as I know you’ll be pleased to see I intend to do—as I read through the papers, there’s one thing that did occur to me. With this legislation, what it will do is actually protect a lot of New Zealanders as well. Being an immigrant nation where many of the peoples who arrived here in different waves, be it the 12th century right through to today, were people who were coming from places for—obviously, you only emigrate for something better. Often, we left areas of conflict and places where traditional rivalries going back centuries, often, had brought about the conditions that required our families to immigrate. One of the downsides of that is that often when we come to a new land like New Zealand, we bring the history of those conflicts with us.

As someone who’s of Irish Catholic descent, I know I grew up with stories of how badly the English had treated the Irish, going back a century and a half. What that did tend to do is manifest itself in a belief that even generations later, you needed to help in those conflicts that had perhaps continued. Of course, the way to do that—and, again, I look at the experience that I’ve had with those who continued to supply the IRA in Ireland through the conflict, and also the Protestant groups on the other side. A lot of the funding for those groups came from groups in the New World, where they’d gathered money through charitable organisations and various others and sent arms and money back to accentuate those conflicts.

So when I see that and remember that and I look at this legislation, I see that it’s actually a piece of legislation that while it will achieve much of what the previous speakers have spoken to, is something we can reflect close to home, providing the protections so that when, perhaps, that requirement, that request, comes from one of those old countries—whether they be in Africa, Asia, Europe, or the Pacific; wherever we came from—for people to assist by way of sending arms or brokering, or sending that back to those areas, then this will actually form: “Well, I’d like to help, but I can’t because there’s a five-year sentence involved in this.”

So I think it’s looking at it slightly from an internal point of view. Again, of course, I look at—it’s unusual, I see, that in New Zealand we do regulate activities overseas. This, of course, gets up there with the regulation we have around child sex exploitation up in Asia. So that is, again, another area where we have previously legislated the activities of New Zealanders who are overseas. So, again, it shows how seriously we do take this—the misery we can cause overseas and, I suppose, the measures we can take within our own country to prevent that happening. So, again, looking through this legislation, it is not only very sensible and not only very timely but also something that provides protection for those overseas who are so often victims.

I see also the prohibition does not apply—it’s got that pragmatic approach to it—to a person who carries out in relation to a weapon that’s related or is a dual-use good. In other words, it may have a civilian use but is intended for military end—so, again, a sensible thing. It’s not designed to prevent New Zealand companies doing business just because something could, perhaps, at the end of the day, end up in those hands. A person who carries out the brokering activities outside New Zealand and complies with an equivalent overseas regime, so as long as it’s not breaking the law of that place, and anything done by a person who is employed by a department—and, of course, obviously, giving that protection within New Zealand.

Again, unlike my namesake, having been something of a johnny-come-lately to this piece of legislation—in the time I’ve had to examine it, it looks very sensible. It’s something that I’m very pleased to stand here and commend to this House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m pleased to take what will be a much shorter call on this bill than I’ve made previously, and I’d like to start by acknowledging, as others have done, various parties who have been involved in the drafting and now passage of this legislation: the officials who drafted and also those who advised the select committee; those who have submitted, members of the public, including NGOs, as has already been acknowledged by another member who’s spoken on the bill; and fellow members of the select committee. I wasn’t part of the select committee from the very start in considering this bill, so I am, in the parlance of the navy, something of a half-tripper in this regard, but I did enjoy my time considering the bill. While the conversations were at times pedantic, I suppose an unkind person might say, these were important matters that we were thrashing out between us.

Also I congratulate the Governments—plural—who have been involved in the passage of the bill. Of course, my party’s Government initially introduced it and the current Government continued it on to this stage. The structure of the bill is clear enough and needs no further explanation from me—essentially, setting up a registration and permit regime.

It’s been noted by other members who have taken a call on this third and final reading that the bill is an important measure to help New Zealand meet its international obligations. There are two dimensions to that. One is the legal obligations that we have via the Arms Trade Treaty, but also we have a moral obligation as a country, not only to other nations but also to ourselves. The heart of the bill, it seems to me—and an important mechanism within it—is the fact that it controls the activities of New Zealand citizens albeit they are not necessarily in New Zealand at the time that they are performing the conduct that’s prohibited by the bill. So that’s not unique to this legislation, of course, but it is quite an interesting characteristic and, of course, completely in keeping with the fact that it is a bill that seeks to regulate and control activity across the border.

I will be interested to see, as I’m sure other members of the House will be, how the bill is applied—or the Act is applied, as it will soon become—in future years. The devil is always in the detail in such matters and those of us who have paid close attention to its provisions will be interested to see exactly how it plays out in terms of those definitions in the application of it both here and overseas. So, with no further ado, it gives me pleasure to commend the bill—along with other members of my party, and indeed it seems the whole House—for it to be passed into law at this third and final reading.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to first of all acknowledge a couple of members who have passed a week or so back. I never got the opportunity to honour them. They were both National Party members: Tony Steel and Katherine O’Regan. I wanted to mention them because I always had a lot of admiration for Tony Steel, not because he was a National Party MP at all, but because he was an All Black and a pretty genial sort of bloke. We had a lot of good discussions about sport in the House.

Hon Tim Macindoe: And a great sprinter.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, a great sprinter, wasn’t he? Wasn’t he a great sprinter and a neat guy, actually. I remember working with Tony on a few things, as we do sometimes across the House, and as we’ve done on this bill.

Katherine O’Regan was a woman who I admired very much, because I went overseas with her about 30 years ago. It was a leadership delegation that she led with Richard Northey. I thought she did some neat things, Katherine, and I was very sad to hear about her passing, too. I remember going to China with her in 1986, and I remember her working so well with our Māori membership in particular. She had quite a distinguished political career, serving as a Minister and very nearly knocking the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, out of Tauranga. I think she lost by 62 votes one year. So I want to just honour those two.

He tika me mihi ki a rāua kātahi anō kua hinga, nō reira e te tokorua nei moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[It is fitting here to acknowledge the two who have recently passed away, so to you both, rest in peace.]

In terms of this bill, it’s been spoken about at length. I will say that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has worked very well together—no doubt about that. Despite National and Labour both being on there, generally we’ve worked pretty tightly, well chaired by Simon O’Connor—no doubt about it. Also, a lot of experience was brought to the table from our member here from Manurewa, Louisa Wall.

Louisa Wall: I miss Gerry.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The saddest part of it all, of course, is that National decided to demote our good friend Gerry Brownlee, and now he’s missing in action. We do miss his experience and what he brought to the committee, which was a lot of humour and a lot of experience and certainly some background. So, he’s sadly missed now and, sadly, he’s been replaced by the former Foreign Minister Todd McClay, who brings nothing apart from sarcasm and reminders about what Ron Mark said about this bill the last time that it was brought before the House. But, as we all know, time has moved on and Ron’s had a good rethink and now—I should say the Hon Ron Mark—realises that this bill is the right bill to go through.

So I want to acknowledge our committee. I think it’s a good committee, and we seem to work from a pretty good position.

In terms of the bill, it establishes, as everyone has said, a regulatory regime for the brokering of weapons and military equipment by New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities operating offshore. Of course, that brokering involves negotiating, arranging, or facilitating the international transfer of weapons and military equipment from one foreign country to another.

Quite rightly, the bill requires all New Zealand citizens, New Zealand ordinary citizens, and New Zealand entities wishing to engage in brokering to register with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and obtain a permit for each brokering activity. Of course, the secretary may grant permits if satisfied that the proposed brokering activity is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations and would not prejudice the security, defence, or international relations of New Zealand.

We’ve traversed many of the components of this bill during the second reading, but it’s important to say that the bill does not prohibit the brokerage of weapons or military equipment, and it’s appropriate to repeat that it regulates its activity to ensure controls are in place. That’s a key point, because the dangers of them ending up in the wrong hands—like Kiritapu Allan’s relations down there in Tūhoe—are probably absolutely minimal, but you never know how Governments respond to that danger when they hear about arms being handed around. As we all well know, there’s quite a sensitivity around who’s got weapons or who may have weapons. We hear and see the horror stories every day. Items such as cars, trucks, and rubbish bins are being used in terms of weapons. Imagine the damage that could be inflicted on our communities if more advanced-design weapons were to fall into the hands of the wrong people. That’s why around the world at the moment pieces of legislation such as this are so important.

In terms of keeping communities safe, in terms of keeping a level of stability in different communities and different countries, and in terms of providing peace and protection, this type of legislation safeguards and makes a number of communities feel safe and comfortable in terms of going forward. The bill on its own, though, won’t be the only solution, but it is us doing our part here to hold Kiwis accountable, New Zealanders accountable, who act or behave in an inappropriate way. It’s not only part of our wider international obligations but also part of the solution to control or limit the damage that can be caused. You know, whilst we can be accused of overreacting or exaggerating what some of the problems might be, it’s better—whether we’re a National or Labour Government or, in this case, a coalition Government—to act on the side of safety.

I also want to highlight, as I did when speaking during the first reading on the bill, that its intent is to enable appropriate conditions—enable appropriate conditions—to be placed on a broker’s registration or permit. New Zealand plays its part in the international framework by ensuring that there are appropriate controls in place that will prevent New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities from being involved in illicit arms brokering and deter any illicit arms brokers from shifting their activities to New Zealand. Now, again, we have to be very serious about this, and we have to err in terms of the safety side of things. I know that the bill, of course, doesn’t excite many of us out there, but it remains important to remember the impacts that some of these weapons that are traded can obviously have on innocent communities around the world.

We’re getting numerous examples of, I suppose—for want of a better word—terrorist activities around the world by all types of people. Some of that comes about because there is no control framework that has been put in place. That’s why it’s my view that it’s vital that we as a country continue to play our part in this international context—that when Kiwis play a role, no matter how insignificant, in the brokerage of weapons, they’re registered with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and they have to obtain the appropriate permits.

I said this last time I contributed to this bill, and it remains just as true today. We all look from the relative safety of our country, from Aotearoa, at some of the effects the weapons have had abroad, from attacks that have taken the lives of the innocent to those that have helped change the landscape of many a nation, and it’s essential that we continue to rally against the illegal trading in weapons and military equipment. This particular bill will ensure that monitoring and reporting in this area will directly prevent Kiwis from engaging in brokerage where there is a real risk that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I didn’t interrupt the member, but I just do want to remind the member, especially as he is a Minister, that we are expected to deliver speeches without reading them—much better improvement this time, but we really should be delivering speeches without reading.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a somewhat more succinct call than the last member, Willie Jackson, on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. Look, I would just like to admire, I suppose, the last member’s ability to take 10 minutes to say what he could have said in approximately 30 seconds. Having said that, I will try to minimise my contribution and stick to some of the facts here.

So, look, this is an important piece of legislation. We’re really looking to just develop some appropriate regulations around the transacting of militarised equipment from New Zealanders. It’s good to see, actually, that New Zealand First have decided to come to the party, as it were, and change their stance. I commend Ron Mark for that in particular, moving away from his comments around the potential “War Dogs Bill”, as he previously called it. Perhaps he had plenty of opportunity to reconsider his stance while he was repurposing military aircraft to fly him around the country.

So, look, as we saw through the committee stage of this, we had Supplementary Order Paper 24, which brought in a few minor amendments there, which was an appropriate reflection to get a few tweaks to tidy it up a little bit. But, look, the main one I wanted to focus on with my contribution was around the classification of dual-use goods, and the exemption of that from this particular bill for people who are conducting brokering activities. Of course, they require a permit under this bill, but they can be exempt if they are transacting in dual-use goods. I’m talking here about navigation, avionics-type equipment, electronics, lasers, propulsion units—any of these sorts of things that could, indeed, have both a military purpose and also an agricultural purpose, for example. Interestingly, that can have quite a contrasting impact on the particular nation that those pieces of equipment then might be utilised in. It could be bringing significant benefit through agricultural purposes, or causing significant harm through military purposes, if used inappropriately.

I think it’s really important for us to have that exemption here in New Zealand because we are, indeed, world leaders in a number of areas. We have a significant electronics programme being developed, and we can look at projects such as the autonomous kiwifruit harvester in the Bay of Plenty—Robotics Plus are doing some great work up in that space. So it would be inappropriate to capture them and restrict them from being able to trade some of those pieces of equipment that may potentially have a dual use. So this gives us the ability to exempt them, provided they have made some effort to endeavour that their goods will not be used for any military-type purpose.

So, look, I’ll just wrap it up there. This bill has been well supported. It’s important that we continue to take a strong leadership stance, especially around the implementation of our Arms Trade Treaty, and I think this makes an important contribution to that, with appropriate exemptions and rules in place. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It’s a delight to rise, as the final speaker on behalf of the Government, to speak in support of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill in its third reading. Before I commence my remarks proper, I want to acknowledge—

Ka huri au ki tō tātou reo rangatira o tēnei whenua.

E tika ana kia mihi atu ki a koutou ngā iwi o Te Pirirākau i waenganui i te Whare nei. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou.

[Allow me to use our revered language of this country.

It is only proper that I welcome you, the Pirirākau people into this House. Warm greetings to you all.]

I just want to acknowledge those people that have travelled from far and wide, from Tauranga Moana, and came to this House this morning. Oddly, it could be said, in some ways it’s related to the substance of this bill.

Right now, this bill—that we are all in full support of as a House—is about the controls in an international environment. It’s the regulation and the controls that relate to weapons and arms in an international environment. I reflect that at the commencement of today we had a significant wero, or a challenge, laid down by the peoples of Tauranga Moana to us, and I reflected just the other day that it wasn’t so long ago, in a less than global world as it was back then, that many of the origins within our own country were predicated on war, and so it was interesting to have that reminder as a commencement to my day today. So I acknowledge the people of Tauranga Moana that are with us.

Too, I want to acknowledge my poor friends here to my left who are getting a bit of a hammering—our dear friends in our coalition, New Zealand First. But I want to acknowledge the work of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his leadership in terms of bringing this bill into the House to complete its cycle. It was started under the previous Government—the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Whilst my friends to my right miss him on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I can say I’m absolutely delighted to have gained him on the Regulations Review Committee. He’s been a very welcome addition to our team; I’m sorry that he has been a loss to yours.

But look, the work was started—sometimes in this role it’s actually nice to not have to bicker and go toe to toe with the Opposition, and this is one of those occasions that we can do so. In bringing this legislation into the House, we join alongside our other Five Eyes parties: the United States, the UK, now us, and Australia already have—in terms of introducing domestic legislation that seeks to regulate the way in which arms are transferred across the world.

It’s been well picked up, but I think it is interesting to reflect on the fact that there are some particular nuances in this bill that do indeed set it aside. My colleague the Hon David Parker, when he made his remarks in respect to this bill, picked up on the fact that it’s not very often that we introduce legislation that seeks to follow New Zealand citizens where they go around the world, and this bill does, in fact, do that. It regulates the way in which a New Zealand citizen can conduct themselves whether they are within our territory or in external territories.

My colleague from the Green Party, Miss Ghahraman, earlier mentioned that it was only in recent times, about 2014 or so, that little old New Zealand, which isn’t a big player, one would think, in terms of international weapons trade and so forth, found ourselves—a little company registered up there in Queen Street in Auckland found itself being implicated in an arms trading operation and it was only a few years ago.

So albeit we’re probably a little player when it comes to these matters at an international level in comparison to some other countries, we nevertheless do have and have had a role that I think has in some ways been a bit of a blemish on our international name, so this bill here pulls us in line. It gives effect to the agreements that we made when we signed the Arms Trade Treaty. It pulls us in line with other contemporary nations internationally and, I guess, gives it effect domestically. Whilst it wasn’t actually needed—we didn’t need to introduce legislation to give effect to the Arms Trade Treaty; we have, indeed, ratified it—this does enable our Government to exercise separate and distinct measures and regulations when it comes to weapons being brokered.

Like my colleagues across the aisle, I don’t need to lament and talk about all the nuances because I think that has been, by and large, said across the House. This is one of the rare occasions—but I do hope that there are more—when we can find agreement from both sides of the aisle in respect of matters that are of fundamental importance to New Zealand and our international brand and the way that we conduct our affairs on the world stage. So, with that, it’s a delight to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Families Commission Act Repeal Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 10 May.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I appreciate finishing the call, even though it’s 40 seconds. I know that my good friend and colleague across the aisle there, Greg O’Connor, is just waiting with bated breath just to hear every word that I may say, especially in regards to this bill. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I just have the counter—just so I do know where I’m at, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll just let the member know when I count it down.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Kieran McAnulty: Stop stalling.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Of course, this is particularly for my other colleague across the aisle there, the honourable member Kieran “Filibuster” McAnulty, as well, just so that he is aware.

The line of inquiry is my question to the Minister in regard to social investment. So when we were talking about the whole aspect of the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill—and we were all supporting this bill, right across the House—my question to the Minister in regard to the aspect of the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) and the roles that are now being appropriated to the different ministries is will they still follow—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll look forward to now continuing on. The question to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, is that she made some comments previously during the debate in the committee stage about the fact that the difference that this Government will take is that it’s going to be more about the people and not about the money, and that fiscal responsibility is secondary to responsibilities of the care and welfare and well-being of family and whānau. My challenge to the Minister is that it’s not an either/or; actually, it’s a both. As I had also indicated in my previous speech, the Minister has obviously become acutely aware of that when it comes to Budget time, because the fact is that when you need the resources to do the things that you think are important, then that’s where fiscal responsibility becomes critically important.

So my question to the Minister is in regard to the line of inquiry that she will take that has come out of the development work of social investment, and in this regard, with SuPERU, because the line of inquiry around social investment asks some very pertinent questions. The questions are this: for all that we invest into the system of government—and in this regard, social development—how do we know that we’re getting a return, and how do we know that the resources we’ve put in are surely making a difference to the family and the whānau that we are working with?

Now, if the Minister can actually give us some response to that—and I’ll get even more particular around social investment. And again, to the members across the aisle, they may need to know about this. Social investment includes things like, for instance, client segmentation. In other words, how do we know that the whānau and family we’re working with are the most vulnerable? It asks some pertinent questions.

I know the Minister has talked about data, but also too, in a sense, it’s not the requesting of the data that’s important. When we were going through, previously, as the Government of the day, the importance of data was ensuring that we were actually appropriating the resource to the right whānau and family. That’s the reason why social investment was important, and so I’d like to hear from the Minister that she and the ministry will still be following that line of inquiry.

The other aspect was around intervention innovation. In other words, why not question the innovations of the programmes that are being delivered? Are they being delivered appropriately? Are they delivered in a way that truly does make a difference? If I think, for instance, of some of our whānau and our family, there is the diversity of need and there’s the diversity of those families in their make-up, and it’s critically important for us to understand that.

Therefore, again, under the line of inquiry for social investment, are she and the ministry still going to follow that line that asks the question around the intervention innovation? In other words, are we going to be strong enough to challenge some of that process, both from the ministry itself and also from the contracted-out services and the procurement of services inside the NGO sector, inside our service providers, as well, that truly make a difference? In that case, and in some cases, is she open to them looking at the procurement of services around that line of inquiry that may mean services that are run, in a sense, more like businesses in their offering that they have? The bottom line—the question in the line of inquiry around social investment—is what works best for the whānau and who can deliver that best for them, and I think that’s critically important as well.

Again, I think about the appropriation role, so, again, just another question to the Minister is around the appropriations. I know that the member Greg O’Connor talked about the fact that this is “Let’s not get caught up in the detail. Let’s not get caught up in social investment, Better Public Services—next thing, we’ll be counting paper clips, staples, and pins.”, and yet in his speech, he talked about the increase around family violence of $76.157 million. So, I mean, he’s a man of detail and he’s particular, and what social investment is about is also that detail. So, to the Minister, in regard to the roles and responsibility that are being appropriated—the appropriations role—if she could confirm to us who will be taking up that role and which Minister will be doing that.

The third question to the Minister is in regard to the social science expert panel, and we think that’s critically important, because the role that they play is to question and query but also to ensure that the framework and the line of inquiry, as I’ve been talking about, is ensuring that we have the science and we have the data that’s appropriated, so therefore we have the right results, which focus our policy and our direction as well. I think those are important.

So those are just some questions that I’d like to pose to the Minister, and I’d like to hear some response. I think it’s important. Again, I want to just complete my speech by saying that I do hope that she continues on the work of social investment. I think it’s proven itself to be critically important to, again, the transition of SuPERU into its different roles in the Ministry of Social Development and also the Ministry of Justice, so I support this direction.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I stand to take a call on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. In 2003, when the Families Commission came into being, it caused a lot of angst amongst a lot of the providers—because I worked in provider-land at the time. It caused a lot of angst, because in the role of the Families Commission it was to act as an advocate for the interests of families. Working within a Whānau Ora context back at that time, a lot of providers that I represented were quite concerned about that. How could a Crown entity actually serve to be an advocate for whānau when Whānau Ora workers were doing that work anyway? So there was quite a lot of angst, and I was quite interested to read some of the speeches that were done in the House back then. I must say that the Hon Judith Collins’ contribution back then was very pertinent. We all thought, “Yeah, she’s right. Why does it take a Crown entity to tell families how to love children, the needs of children, how to love children?” And $28 million being chucked into this great big entity was a waste of money, basically.

So when National came into Government in 2008 I was pleased to see that they started some work around changing the Families Commission and moving it in towards the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU). I was really pleased to see that, because it then started to take that emphasis off what the Government of that day thought that they were doing for families and telling families what was going to best for them. So moving into SuPERU allowed the focus then to become more around policy evaluation and research and the work that came out of SuPERU to inform social investment, as my colleagues have already stated in the committee.

I think, with the advocacy side being taken out of this legislation, it is going to be quite difficult, really, for Government to actually take on that role. Last week, when we were speaking on this bill, a question was put to Minister Sepuloni about why advocacy was actually being taken out, and the Minister got up and responded that she considered that including advocacy in the legislation was—that the Government would be able to do that role better. I disagree with her, because I don’t think they can. I don’t think they can. I think that advocacy whānau for whānau, whānau voice for whānau that need advocates speaking for them, will actually provide a better outcome for whānau. So I was quite concerned about that. It almost said to me that “Government knows best, we’re going to be a nanny State,” and it’s arrogant. I felt that what that did was take the power away from whānau. It took their voice away, and I’m quite concerned about that when I hear about that.

I think that the work that has been done so far in the Social Investment Agency, Oranga Tangata has actually shown through data collection some of the work that actually can come through and show how far the outcomes can actually occur. I think you need some sort of evidence to actually prove that the policies and some of the investment strategies are working for people, and I’m going to say it’s for our people, because a lot of the work around this Families Commission and the repeal of it has been done with Māori families. Māori families show up very highly in all aspects of social services, so it’s really important that the way forward is done correctly, and even though National is supporting this, I think we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think that the Government retaining the social investment agency—I’d like to see them just carry on with the work that we’ve already done, moving further down the road and starting to actually get some runs on the board for some of the most vulnerable people that this whole area around social investment caters for.

Just today I had a meeting with the CEO of Te Pou Matakana, and we talked a little bit about social investment. His comment to me was that that particular piece of policy, through the National-led Government, he was 100 percent behind. He said that it allowed them to do a lot more really positive future work with whānau, and allowed them, as a commissioning agency, rather than working from a deficit model, to actually start making some runs on the future well-being of whānau. I found it rather interesting that he should tell me that, and I said to him, you know, “Where to from here with a bill like this and social investment?” One of the things he said to me was he just hoped that the current Government would actually keep going with the direction that the social investment agency had started out with.

So I think that, as I said, the National Party is supporting this bill, but I think that there have been some questions that have been asked of the Minister that would be able to give us some comfort, and those people, those whānau, out there some comfort that they’re actually being heard, that the information that’s been gathered on them—and I know that our people have been researched right through, from day dot right through all of their lives, but I think that, you know, from that there should be some really key, core lessons learnt; that the Government should be listening to those in some of the areas that our whānau really do need some support in; and that the future for the repeal of this legislation will see that a lot more response from this Government should actually come out of a new piece of legislation.

Without any further ado, I think that a lot of the questions that my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro asked around procurement of services and how they are going to do that—where is the role of the Whānau Ora providers and the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies? I would like to see that they would take a key role in the delivery of services, and I would like to see the Minister put back advocacy within the bill and actually help to give the Whānau Ora providers that role as well, because they do a lot of advocacy work for their people, for the whānau that they help. A lot of people won’t talk to a Government agency. When it comes to things to speak on their behalf, to advocate for them, they won’t. I know I won’t, and I know that my family won’t. My mother certainly will not, but she will talk to someone from a Whānau Ora provider in the Wairarapa, because she has that trust with them. So I think that, you know, taking something out just because you can isn’t really a good excuse. I think we should take all the good bits and put it all together, and then start to move the programmes forward.

Anyway, without any further ado, I see that all of the SuPERU projects have already been devolved to the Ministry of Social Development, and that’s good, because some of those—Growing Up in New Zealand was a very good project, and I think we’ve learnt a lot from that. I am concerned that some of the key learnings that we’ve had from the projects that have been done could be lost in any reconfiguration of what’s coming through next. I think that we can’t lose sight of all the good things that came out of it, regardless of what side of the political fence we sit on. This is about family. It is about making sure that family get heard, have their voice, and are able to articulate that and the words and the feeling that they have as whānau.

So, anyway, I close my contribution today. I just want to say, you know, it’s great that we’re keeping on repealing the Families Commission Act and that we’re moving forward and that National is supporting the next steps. So thank you.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

In Committee

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave to debate the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill as four themes, as discussed by the Business Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose; is there any objection? There is objection.

Part 1 General provisions

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I’m pleased to stand for the first call of what I think will be a long committee stage on this piece of legislation. I want to put on record, in this first discussion on Part 1, and to first of all to make it clear that the public haven’t had the ability to scrutinise the changes in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, tabled by Minister Carmel Sepuloni. One of the changes is in Part 1, so I will speak at length about it, but, of course, this is a piece of legislation with significant changes by the Minister that won’t have the scrutiny of the public, so this committee will need to provide some of the scrutiny in a short period of time, relatively speaking, in terms of getting on top of the issues that the Government want to ram through.

One of the very important issues in Part 1 that this Government wants to ram through is the removal of one of the principles of the bill. When you’re talking about the principles of a bill, it’s pretty substantial. It’s a pretty significant part of the legislation that did go through a select committee process, has gone through to the public—the public have had the ability to provide submissions at length.

Also, I want to put on record a misconception that the Minister allowed to stay in this House in the second reading, and that was about a report back of the earlier iteration of this legislation. I have to say, it’s significantly different from when it first started. But that piece of legislation had four months’ scrutiny with the parliamentary select committee and with the public—the public had the ability to have their voices heard, both in writing and in oral submissions—and all of these changes will get zero. Four months was a shorter process than the set six months, so I accept it’s a shorter process, but four months is a hell of a lot longer than the zero days that the Ardern-Peters Government thinks this piece of legislation should be considered.

I know those New Zealanders who are listening at home will be as equally outraged as I am when the Minister in charge of the legislation dumps a 500-page SOP on the Table in front of us literally hours before this Parliament is considering the legislation. So in terms of the significant change in this legislation in Part 1—Part 1 of 10 parts—Part 1 includes the principles, and most people would agree that the principles are the things that anchor any activity. In this case, it anchors the legislation around a set of principles, and of course that’s why it is included in Part 1.

So I want to read the words that the Government of the day thinks should be removed. This is in Part 1; the principles are in clause 4: “(c) to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency … MSD may identify appropriate assistance, support, and services, under this Act, for those people.” Well, I’m staggered. I’m absolutely staggered that the Minister doesn’t think those people deserve to be included and considered at the utmost priority of a piece of legislation which is the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I’m absolutely staggered that the Government of the day doesn’t think we should include in the principles of the primary piece of legislation those very people that every New Zealander would want to ensure has better opportunities in life—better opportunities in life.

What does some of that entail? I accept there’ll be people at home who are listening to or watching the title of this legislation, “Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill”, and they’re thinking, “What is that all about?” Fundamentally, it’s about making legislation fit for purpose. “Fit for purpose” makes sure that our social security system serves those who need it most—who need it most. But, no, this Minister deems that those people shouldn’t be included in this very important piece of legislation and that that particular piece should be removed.

When we’re talking about people who’ve been on benefits for a long period of their lives—actually, yes, adults we’re all concerned about, but equally across this Parliament—[Time expired]

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): She couldn’t even do two in a row talking about the social investment approach. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m actually glad to take a call right after that last member, Louise Upston, because I had pretty much the antithesis of what she had to say about the social investment approach.

First of all, a couple of things that she said—that she was outraged, and members of the public were outraged or would be outraged that they weren’t able to make submissions on this particular clause or part of the principle. The fact of the matter is they already have. They already did. And for all of the talk that that member and every single member of the National Party have to say on this bill, about submissions and being open and wanting to listen to the public—it just ain’t so. If they did, they would have listened to all of the submissions that were against having the social investment approach put into the principle of the Act—against. All of them were against.

So I guess the question that that member needs to answer when she stands up is “Why didn’t she listen to the people?” If she wants to give all the chances to members of the public to make submissions, then why doesn’t that member listen to them? That’s a question. That’s a question that needs to be answered.

The second thing she said was that this was a removal of the principle. First of all, the principle doesn’t exist in legislation. It doesn’t actually exist yet in legislation. There is no removal. What Supplementary Order Paper 25 is doing, and what we’ve tried to explain ad nauseam to the National Party is that this is just bringing about the original state of what National intended the bill to be, which was policy-neutral. Now all that the National Party seem to be clinging to is the fact that we’re actually trying to make it policy-neutral, even though that was the original intent in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense, and what is, I guess, disappointing and surprising to me is that the National Party want to draw this out and filibuster this as long as possible, even though they know that it’s not needed.

I’d like the members of the public who are watching and looking back on this to understand one thing. I speak for New Zealand First when I’m standing here, but I hazard a guess that a number of the other—if not all of the other—parties that make up the Government actually think the same.

The National Party want to try and fool everybody into thinking that the social investment approach means this—that the social investment approach means “whatever they want to fill in there”. Then they start a bleeding heart sort of thing, going on about why and what the current Government wants to take that out for, and why social investment is such a good thing. But the whole entire premise of that argument is that you actually believe and understand that the “social investment” definition is what they say it is. This is not. It just is not.

I know that Nicola Willis and Lawrence Yule—they made a couple of speeches in the House on the previous sitting day when we were discussing the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. They talked about the social investment approach, because that’s what Bill English wanted—to have his finger in every pie and to put the social investment approach into everything. It’s just unfortunate because those two members, Nicola Willis and Lawrence Yule, they are good people, but they’ve been in for a couple of months now, and it seems as though they’ve already drunk the Kool-Aid of the National Party in their definition of what the social investment approach is. But if you have just a genuine look—look past the smoke and mirrors. Take that little thread that’s hanging out and start pulling it out. Take that thread and start pulling it a little bit. Everything starts to unravel.

There’s a couple of things I want to quote that Nicola Willis and Lawrence Yule said, and I’m going to use them in the explanation of how and why they are so are wrong about the social investment approach and why it shouldn’t be included in this bill, why this Government is taking it out of this bill, and what the actual social investment approach means. It’s vitally important for any National members who want to speak up on this bill to understand actually what it means—and don’t read the notes that are given to you.

Lawrence Yule, for example, says that, “for a”—

Simon O’Connor: Says the member reading.

DARROCH BALL: Well, if that member was listening, he would know that I’m quoting the member. If he wants me to be accurate, then I do have to read it. This is what Lawrence Yule says, “for a small number of families, a massive investment by the State and caring in a wraparound set of services”—[Time expired]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I want to take a call on Part 1 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Part 1 outlines the general provisions and includes the purposes and principles of the bill. However, I want to start by addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the honourable member, Louise Upston. Some of those concerns, I think, were responded to quite adequately, actually, by the member who’s just spoken, Darroch Ball, who was on the Social Services Committee and probably has a much more detailed understanding of how we got to this point.

But let me just start by addressing the complaint made by the honourable member, Louise Upston, that the Opposition were landed with a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I just want to clarify with the Opposition that this is the entire bill. Not the entire bill has been amended. There are amendments in it, and the reason that the amendments are put into the actual bill is so that they can be understood in the context of the legislation. If that member had read this, she would have worked out that there are only a few pages that are actually amended in here. It is not 500 pages of amendments. So that’s the first issue that I want to address.

The second issue I want to address, that that member raised—actually, I think it was raised during the second reading, but I may as well, at this point, bring it up too. There was concern raised that there was no regulatory impact statement (RIS) or departmental disclosure statement prepared for this Supplementary Order Paper, and that’s correct. Officials have advised that the RIS or the departmental disclosure statement was not needed as the SOP does not include any policy changes. It does not include any policy changes because it is a policy-neutral rewrite, which is what the previous Government had attempted to do or at least said publicly that they were going to do, but unfortunately then we saw at least seven sneaky little policy changes put in there for good measure, which we have since taken out.

The member Louise Upston has also raised that she feels that the public should have had a chance to look through this SOP. Just reclarifying for that member, it’s not 500 pages of amendments—this is actually the entire bill, with some amendments in it. The reason that we didn’t feel the need to take it back to the select committee is that overwhelmingly the response from the select committee when this initially went through the select committee—and I was on it, as were Darroch Ball, Jan Logie, and others in the Chamber. I’m sure they can attest to this too. The submissions pointed out their concern with the fact that that Government of the time had said this would be a policy-neutral rewrite, and yet they slipped in about seven policy changes that had not been consulted on or been scrutinised adequately by the public. They have been snuck in to what was meant to be a policy-neutral rewrite. So by removing those, there’s no need for us to take it back to a select committee, because it responds to the concern that was raised by the public at the time, during that select committee submission process.

We’ve been very careful, this Government, to make sure that we’re not introducing anything that resembles a policy change. We have concentrated on making sure that this is a genuine clean-up of the legislation, responding to the fact that people like Sir Geoffrey Palmer have said it was one of the worst pieces of statute in this country, and so we needed to focus on cleaning it up, which is what we’ve done.

So I don’t accept the criticism that it needed to be taken back to the select committee, and if the member was to reflect and check the submissions during that time—I understand she wasn’t on the select committee, so doesn’t have that detailed understanding—she would find that all we’re doing as a Government is responding to what the public wanted in the first place. So I’m pretty comfortable with the fact, actually, that we’re not wasting the public’s time by taking this back to select committee.

The member also said that she was concerned about the fact that this is denying the public the right to scrutinise it appropriately. I’ve already pointed out the reasons why that’s not a valid concern at all. But I also want to point out the fact that at the time this came to the select committee, we were really concerned on the select committee that they were giving it a shortened report-back time frame when it was a 500-page piece of legislation. It was going to be one of the biggest rewrites that we would have seen during our time here. The year 1964 was the last time that it had been given a decent rewrite. Over that period of time, from 1964 to 2016, it has been amended hundreds of times.

So we need to go back to the fact that actually it was the previous Government that was not really undertaking due diligence at their time in office, by not allowing the select committee to have the full period of time to be able to scrutinise the rewrite. I suspect, unfortunately, that that was due to the fact that they had just wanted to get those seven policy changes through in what was meant to be a policy-neutral rewrite.

I think I’ve responded to the vast majority of concerns that were raised. I did want to say also that the member raised the removal of the principle around social investment. I was questioned by the member Jo Hayes about our approach to social investment. I will say that we did remove it from the principles because that was a major change. There were actually 18 submissions just on that one principle being inserted into the un-policy, un-neutral rewrite that the previous Government undertook. Eighteen submissions had advocated for the removal of that particular principle. Submitters had raised their concerns that the principle was discriminatory, targeting certain groups; that it would entrench a punitive approach to welfare; and that it characterised welfare as a burden rather than a community and State responsibility.

In fact, the IHC said, “People with intellectual disability are already subject to a multitude of labels that have been imposed on them by others, … The addition of ‘long term welfare dependent’ will add yet another label …”. It was that negativity that we take seriously in terms of needing to remove from it our social security settings, because for us on this side of the Chamber—and this is where the contrast in what social investment or investing in social well-being is—it is about maximising New Zealanders’ potential, seeing the absolute potential in what they have to offer, as opposed to viewing people as potential long-term liabilities to the State, and only looking for risk factors to be able to measure how the State may be able to avoid having to mitigate risk. And by doing that, the previous Government were absolutely underestimating the potential of New Zealanders—putting a deficit lens on New Zealanders, particularly beneficiaries. Unfortunately, they were never going to achieve the positive outcomes for New Zealanders or help New Zealanders to realise real social well-being, in the way this Government is attempting to do, and no doubt will do. Thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s interesting that the Minister stood up and one of her statements she made was that she’s only doing what the public have asked. Well, the public asked for Roxburgh children’s camp to stay open. The public asked for partnership schools to remain open and functioning as partnership schools. But, however, the Minister has said she’s doing what the public says. I don’t think that rings true, from this side of the Chamber. I think all of those in the public who are listening today may be a little bit confused by the Minister’s words.

In regard to the comments that the Minister made around this, and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) being policy-neutral, her response to the fact was that the reason why we do not have a departmental disclosure statement is because the officials said that this was policy-neutral. So if she was claiming that the advisers said that the removal of her further SOPs of those amendments was policy-neutral, then why, in the second breath, did she also say that they were snuck in as being policy statements? I think the fact is there’s a bit of confusion by the Minister there, because it’s clearly not indicating the fact that they weren’t policy statements, so why didn’t they have a disclosure statement in it as well?

But I want to go to the heart of what we are talking about here, and it’s in Part 1 of this bill. In particular, what the Minister and the current Government have been saying to us is that we’ve snuck this in—in other words, when we look at Part 1, the principles, and we look at clause 4, and especially subclause (e), it says: “to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”. I have to say, one of the interesting challenges is that it’s been called a stigma—the fact that we’re imposing this view. In some words they say it’s “beneficiary bashing”. That’s not the truth. The truth is, if one looks back at Part 1 and the purpose of the bill, here’s what it says—this is an Act that’s over half a century old, it’s from 1964, and in its clause of purpose it declares this: “to help people support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment”. If one turns over, in clause 3(a)(ii) it says: “to help people find or retain paid employment;”, and in clause 3(a)(iii), “to help people for whom work is not currently appropriate—[be] … sickness, injury, disability”. What it’s clearly stating is it’s the circumstances that a family or an individual finds themselves in that the role of Social Security Act and the responsibility of the Ministry is to support them, but, more intentionally, to help them out of that circumstance and situation. That’s what was intended.

Back in the days when Joseph Savage sat back and the Government of the day put together the Social Security Act of 1964, the principle was this: that the best thing for all people is work. Therefore, what is wrong with this clause here: “to help achieve the best possible outcome”? Is there anything wrong with that statement? No. And: “… for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”—is there anything wrong with that statement? All it states is this: if the intention of us is to do good, why would we allow people to still be dependent on a welfare benefit? No—if it is our intent to do good, then we should be helping support them, which is congruent with the purpose of the bill. That’s what the intention is.

I take exception to the Minister saying that these clauses were mean-spirited and these clauses should not be included, when the intent of the clause is quite clear. It says this: “MSD may identify appropriate assistance, support, and services, under this Act, for those people.” I have to say to you, when one thinks through this, the wording of that is quite specific. It’s identifying who the people are that we should be supporting, and how we should wrap around that support to ensure that we help them in the best possible way. It’s congruent and consistent with the purpose of the Act. It’s consistent in the ways of what we’re trying to do. When this Government stands up and proclaims that we’re here to help the people, their welfare, and their concerns, then I cannot see how the Government of the day can oppose this inclusion in this bill.

I have to say, I’d like to see some more robust rationale that would come out on the Government side to explain the reasons why—to explain the reasons why. When we look at the previous Government, it was under the National-led Government that 85,000 children were actually brought out of welfare-dependent homes—85,000. You see, the thing is, what will happen is this: this Government of the day will not set a target, will not set a figure, and what they will do is they’ll just open up their arms—because everyone loves populist politics—to care and love and say, “We’ll do good.” But the truth is, the legacy they will leave behind is another generation dependent on welfare.

Hon Scott Simpson: Servicing misery.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have to say, that’s going to be the real concern: servicing misery in our communities and in our country.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Chair—very pleased to take a call on Part 1 of, effectively, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 around the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I think it has to be noted right from the start that the Minister’s being particularly sensitive, it seems, around the size of the bill. While she’s accurate to indicate that the changes of the Supplementary Order Paper are integrated into it, this is, ultimately, a rather large Supplementary Order Paper—which we are working through, I have to indicate, at haste.

So I’d like to indicate two things, if I might, to the committee of the whole House. One is that it will take me and, I’m sure, colleagues across the Chamber time to progress through this. I acknowledge what the Minister’s said—that it’s an attempt to make this easier, and in some ways it is, but it’s not going to make it any faster. The second is, possibly, a heads-up to the chief whip—or Kieran McAnulty, at least—on the other side, that this committee of whole House is going to make the brokering weapons bill look like a walk in the park.

Hon Member: He loved that one.

SIMON O’CONNOR: So here we are at Part 1—I’m sure he’s incredibly excited about this. This bill, with the SOP’s changes integrated into it, is a bill of 10 parts with 16 schedules and multiple subparts, so I’m pleased to start on Part 1, clause 3—because we’ll be getting to clauses 1 and 2 in the title and commencement phase. Part 1 is the general provisions, notably around the purposes of the bill, principles, and so forth, and interestingly—and we’ll have to get to it later—some examples have been put in. It’ll be interesting to know, in fact—and maybe it’s a bit of an indication to the Minister for future contributions—that clause 14, “Status of examples” is quite explicit in that they’re not to be, effectively, legally binding. It’ll be interesting to know if there have been other examples of this in the past.

However, I’ve misled the committee in so far as I said I’d start at the beginning, which is clause 3, the purposes of the bill. Clause 3(a) says, “to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate”. In and of itself, “appropriate” is actually a loaded word, particularly in a political environment, and politically so at the moment because of all this talk that something is neutral. If we accept the accusations that what the previous Government put forward was not neutral, then the response by the current Government—that it’s basically doubling down on that lack of neutrality and adding its own bits and bobs—makes it, therefore, not neutral.

So we then have to begin questioning words such as “other support as appropriate”, because as I read the purposes of the bill, it goes into a whole list of, effectively, excuses around people on welfare or on social development. It’s an inherent contradiction, I’d suggest, right from the start, that “to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate” seems to imply that there should be support given and benefits given.

But as I begin to read through the purposes of the bill in clause 3 and then continue through the other parts, it seems to me that a lot of the additions, or those things which have been removed by the Minister, are, effectively, putting in excuses for people to remain on benefits. I’ll get into that more when I discuss clause 4, and, with a spot of luck, well after that, I suspect well into days following, to get on to Supplementary Order Paper 28 in the name of one of the O’Connors—one of the O’Connors—in this Parliament.

So, again, just with clause 3(a)—just 3(a)—we’re already getting a question of who is deeming what is appropriate, and are the sections which follow within clause 3, effectively, contradicting what is appropriate? It seems to imply that support will be given as appropriate to get someone into work and into financial support, but, as I’m suggesting, there are some excuses here.

I wouldn’t mind the Minister also answering why, in 3(d) and those following paragraphs—and particularly paragraph (e)—there’s a particular focus on young people. I think that’s incredibly prudent in and of itself—of course we want to focus on young people—but why is it that in clause 3 we talk generally, and then only narrow into young people. So 3(d) is “to provide services to encourage and help young people to move [and] remain in education, training, and employment”. Look, I’ve got no disagreement with that, but, theoretically, would we not have clauses 3(f) and following to say that we’re going to focus on people who are aged, people who have disabilities, and so forth?

It’s just a consistency question, because I hear a lot these days around the questions of diversity and questions of discrimination. They’re often pushed around, and I just have that small concern at this stage that we are actually not embracing the diversity of our New Zealand people, and we may, arguably, be moving into a discriminatory framework here. We’re only in clause 3—we’re barely into the purposes of the bill—and we’re only focusing on young people. So it would be really interesting if the Minister gets an opportunity later to explain why we only are talking about young people—why we haven’t brought in other ages.

And again, I do really want to stress to the Minister that I think the inclusion of young people is a good thing. I’m not disputing the elements here around young people—I think seeking to have them remain in education, training, and employment is excellent—or why we would impose “on the following … people or young people” the provisions in clause 3(e)(i), (ii), and (iii); again, all in itself excellent. It’s probably why a copy and paste job wasn’t done—to put it quite roughly—for seniors, those over 65, and those who are no longer termed as young people.

In fact, maybe that’s a subsidiary question to the earlier question: what are defined as young people? I may have to flick to the definitions page, but is it clear what a young person is? I’m probably ultrasensitive now, in my early 40s, that I don’t fit that, but what are we talking about?

Fundamentally, why are other groups—

Marja Lubeck: Greg’s still a young person—eh, Greg?

SIMON O’CONNOR: And I hear the other side complimenting my youth. It’s just so flattering. Thank you very much.

But no, in all seriousness, effectively, why are other groups not particularly mentioned? We know that our welfare system, our social development system, is designed in such a way—well, they often talk “from cradle to grave”, so why are they not included?

I suppose the last thought I have, particularly around clause 3 alone, is—and it’s probably something I have to draft up as a further amendment—why one of the purposes—

Sarah Dowie: You do that.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, I will do that, Sarah Dowie—if I get time. The purposes of the bill, probably, I think, should have something about giving confidence to the taxpayers that the money has been spent accordingly. It’s an absolute privilege, I would say—not a right but an absolute privilege—to live in a society which enables all to be supported. But an element of that support, Minister, is that the money has come from somewhere, and it’s one of the fights I have in my electorate quite often with people, when they say, “Well, the Government should just spend more,”, and, Minister, that’s regardless of whether it’s a National or a Labour Government, and I’m often trying to explain to these young people that the money doesn’t grow on trees, it doesn’t come out of printers, but it actually comes from hard-working taxpayers.

I think, actually, a number of taxpayers—and, look, I’m certainly one of them—want to know that those moneys are being used appropriately. So when people like myself challenge decisions around welfare spending, it’s not because of a lack of care for people. As is well-known, I have worked not only with those people on the ground, on the front line, but also within Work and Income, within the Ministry of Social Development. But the taxpayer wants to have confidence that that money is being spent appropriately, and that’s always a suspicion in my mind when I hear the more leftist thoughts that, basically, money should just be given to everyone, every time, for anything—and never a question to be asked. That’s not prudent.

It’s not prudent for the taxpayer, but I’d suggest to you as well, Minister, it’s actually not prudent for the individuals. If we are to give people dignity, dignity ultimately stands on them being able to stand on their own two feet. I’m not going to get in-depth on that, but I just wonder—and, again, it probably requires a new amendment to be drafted—whether we should insert something here to say that one of the purposes of the legislation is to give that surety to taxpayers that their money is being spent wisely and appropriately, because as I continue to go through here I have concerns.

When I get on to clause 4, around why we dropped the social investment programme, that’s just a responsibility question. It doesn’t surprise me that a number of submitters were against that. It’s, effectively, wanting money without consequence, and just to use one of those really liberal, progressive terms which people like to use: “that really offends me”. I’ll get more on to that when I touch on clause 4, which are the principles, and I again alert the committee that we’ll get on to Supplementary Order Paper 28, which is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name.

I think I’ve taken up enough of the committee’s time just on that clause, but I am looking forward to moving—

Hon Scott Simpson: Really? Oh, no; keep going.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, I could—I could—but I will withhold there.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Usually I’d take this opportunity to make a few rebuttals of the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, but I can’t at this point, because, actually, I fell asleep halfway through because he was so boring and I didn’t hear what he had to say in the last half. So what I’ll do is I’ll go back to the previous—

Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek the leave of the committee to repeat my last two contributions for the benefit of that member.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m sure, if I sought that leave, it would not be agreed.

DARROCH BALL: So what I’ll do is to—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let me call the member. Thank you, Darroch Ball.

DARROCH BALL: Oh, I just didn’t think that was a point of order at all, so I was just carrying on.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m sorry, that is not for you to determine. Darroch Ball.

DARROCH BALL: Thank you, Madam Chair. So what I’ll do is I’ll carry on with my previous story, because it was a good story about Lawrence Yule and what he was saying and the quote that he made. It does highlight an important point about the social investment approach and the amount of Kool-Aid that he has obviously consumed.

In the same speech that he gave, he used two different definitions of what the social investment approach was, and he didn’t even know it—he didn’t even know it. The first thing he said was “for a small number of families, a massive investment by the State and caring in a wraparound set of services would have been far better than a broad-spectrum approach.” Now, that’s what they want people to understand the social investment approach is. He also said that that side of the Chamber would “proudly champion that through this term of the Government,” and when they get back in the Government, because it’s “the best way of supporting my children, their children, and all of New Zealand’s children.” So that’s according to them what the social approach definition is.

In the same sentence, actually, he said, “The Rt Hon Bill English saw that and saw the cost to the State, the nation, and us, as taxpayers, if [it] wasn’t done properly.” That is the absolute foundation and basis for which they actually have created the social investment approach and how they implement it. They are hiding behind smoke and mirrors around the definitions about what’s best for the children and what’s best for the country, but, when it boils down to it, all it is is about fiscal liability to the State—fiscal liability to the State.

Do you know what backs up my comments? How did they measure them? Better Public Services targets. How more blunt a tool can you get than a target that someone has to meet, and if they don’t meet it, that’s it—if they don’t meet it, that’s it. They measure success in very isolated silos. Then we can start talking about data collection and information gathering and things like that and how poor that has been around the social services around the world. But they use Better Public Services targets—or they used to—to put pins in the map or on the graph about how well, and how much money, they are saving as a State long term—saving as a State long term. Yet the members themselves can’t actually hide behind the smoke and mirrors for too long before the truth comes out. Just like Lawrence Yule said, it’s about how much it costs to the State, costs to the nation on us as taxpayers, if it’s not done properly. The only thing that one needs to do is to look at some research about what the social investment approach is—especially in New Zealand and how it was conducted.

I want to quote from Dr Simon Chapple, who was a senior economist and held public policy roles in New Zealand and abroad, including at the Department of Labour and Ministry of Social Development. Now, his definition of what the social investment approach is: “the key unifying feature is managing and incentivising the welfare system in terms of reducing the future fiscal liability”—reducing the fiscal future liability. So it’s got nothing to do with what’s best for the children or what’s best for future generations or how many people they can get off a benefit and what’s best for those individuals; it’s all about reducing the future fiscal liability. It’s not Bill English’s fault, because Bill English was a businessman and he represents big business and small business, and that’s how they run a business. It’s all about commodities, it’s all about profits, it’s all about how you can make more money; it’s not about the people and all of the wraparound issues that go with them—the wraparound issues that go with them. He goes on to talk about the Better Public Services targets. “If you’d look at the government’s relevant Better Public Services goal, the performance target is about reducing the fiscal liability [in] the welfare system and the number of beneficiaries.”—[Time expired]

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill and add my voice to counter some of the assertions that have been made by the Opposition. I think the assertion has been made that it’s inappropriate to bring back such a large Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the House without public scrutiny. I want to add my voice to the view that, actually, select committees listen to the evidence, ideally, and make changes. We don’t have an iterative process of the committee making those changes and then sending it back to the public for their view. That is not how our process works.

What this SOP represents is actually an accurate reflection of the submissions opposed to the bill that came back from the committee that represented the National majority on that committee who refused to listen to the submissions and the views that were coming to us. The member Louise Upston on that side is shaking her head—though she wasn’t on the committee, strangely enough, whereas I actually heard the evidence and I know what’s come back and what we were told. I believe that this bill, in the SOP form, is a much fairer reflection of what people presented to us, as well as what the Government’s stated intent on the introduction of the bill was, which was a policy-neutral rewrite of the legislation, and that is what we are delivering and debating in this House today.

So, to ensure it was policy neutral, the point in Part 1 is that the Government, with the support of the Green Party, has removed the additional principle that the National Party wanted to add to the Social Security Act. The principle provided that, and I’ll quote, “to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”, and that that is defined as “an indefinite period, not been able to obtain full-time employment;”. So let’s unpack that for a second. “Indefinite period”—that could be three months, as long as you don’t have a defined end-date on when you’re going back to work; that could be two months and you’re deemed to be at risk of long-term welfare dependence because you’re not able to put a date on when you’re going back to work, and that is obtaining full-time employment. I do need to say that many of the submissions that we heard in the Social Services Committee came from people who were working with, or who did have, disabilities, who were telling us very clearly that, by that definition, they would fit the definition of being “dependent” and that this would be characterising them as a burden on our society.

We heard from a previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, that this is entirely consistent with the original 1964 legislation, except that it also said that work was important. Everyone believes that work, for those who are able to work, is important. There is no disagreement with that. But the 1964 legislation said clearly that one of their principles was: “people for whom work is not appropriate should be supported in accordance with this Act.” That was based on the idea that every single person in this country should be able to live in dignity, regardless of whether they are able to participate in the paid workforce. We all have things to contribute and we all have value, regardless—versus this view that is saying that if you’re not able to be in full-time employment for any certain time period, then you are dependent, you are at risk, or you are long-term welfare dependent and a burden on us as a society.

This is what the submitters raised with us as a concern, and the Green Party supports that concern and we are very pleased to see this come out. We are also pleased to see it come out for other reasons that have been just briefly touched on, which is that it is an embedding of the social investment approach. Again, the previous speaker for National seemed to have a bit of confusion—well, he was accusing the Government member of having confusion about the regulatory impact statement. There is no regulatory impact statement for this Supplementary Order Paper, because there is no new—[Time expired]

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. The speaker before me, Jan Logie, seems to be a little confused about principles in the bill. The principles are in Part 1, which is what we are debating in this committee of the whole House. The committee of the whole House is an important stage to be able to look at proposed changes both from the select committee process and, of course, Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are tabled. My colleague Simon O’Connor has a Supplementary Order Paper on Part 1 that he will speak to shortly, so I won’t steal his thunder.

When there is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Minister to the degree that’s been tabled just over a week ago, it actually does require, and good governance should allow, scrutiny other than only this opportunity here in the Chamber. But, in terms of the principles in clause 4, I think the speaker before me didn’t understand how the principles of the bill work. One of them says, “(d) people for whom work is not appropriate should be supported in accordance with this Act:”. There is no disagreement with that. There is absolutely no disagreement. Absolutely, people who need to be supported should be, and I don’t think there’d be any New Zealander that would dispute that.

It also says, and principle (a) states, “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. That is the first principle. That is the first principle that’s stated. The speaker before me started to go off on a complete tangent about the fact that the Government wouldn’t be able to support people with disabilities, so I’m not quite sure where the member has gone with that.

What I do want to say, and I think it’s important for this committee to recall this, is in the departmental report of this legislation when it was in the Social Services Committee—and it’s a pity it’s not returning—the departmental report really quite clearly stated Labour’s and the Greens’ view of this legislation, so I’m somewhat surprised that the member who’s resumed her seat wasn’t focused on those issues. Also, one of the areas that both Labour and the Greens seemed to talk about—and this was an opportunity to put that talk into action—was about placing the well-being of children at the forefront of everything the Government does. Yet there was an opportunity to do that with this legislation that they’ve just allowed to completely slip past.

When we talk about—and, yeah, I accept it will be uncomfortable for members opposite—families who are in long-term welfare dependency, some of those families have significant challenges in areas of dysfunction. By having a principle here that is actually about providing front-line staff—providing Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—a greater ability to respond to the needs—

Jan Logie: Are they social workers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —the greater ability to respond to the need—I’m sorry, but the Greens member has just suggested that front-line MSD staff aren’t trained and wouldn’t be able to do this job effectively. It probably echoes, actually, the Minister’s own complaining and criticism of front-line staff and the decisions they make, which I, quite frankly, think is embarrassing. The Minister should be supporting her staff, first and foremost.

But this principle that the Arden-Peters Government is removing in this SOP is the ability for front-line staff to respond to the needs of some of the most complex cases they deal with. The Children’s Commissioner talks about 10 percent of the children in New Zealand, who come from and have incredible difficulties. Some of their parents, some of their caregivers, are the very parents that we are talking about and trying to support in principle (e) in this legislation, and so it is very surprising that the Minister would get rid of an opportunity to provide greater levels of assistance to those very families and their children.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very keen to talk about the Minister for Social Development’s Supplementary Order Paper 25 under principles, which is to remove the wording in clause 4(e) “to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”. But before I talk about my views on this removal of these words, I want to actually respond to the New Zealand First member Darroch Ball, who I see is so fixated on how to define social investment.

Darroch Ball: Yeah.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, repeatedly—repeatedly—you’re so fixated on that one issue: how to define social investment. I think the member should focus on seeing the outcomes of social investment that we managed to achieve. And the member from the Green Party, Jan Logie, yes, she recognises that jobs are important. We fully agree. Yes, jobs are important, and that is what a social welfare system is about. It’s about providing support to people—those who have no source of income. So, yes, there are people—they cannot be assisted to get into employment, but there are other people that can be motivated.

Kieran McAnulty: Part 1.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: It’s not “Ha, ha”. In reality, yes, there are people—they can be motivated, they can be helped to get into employment, and I can tell the member that I know that the caseworkers work really, really hard—really, really hard—understanding what their qualification is, what their experience is in, and how they can help them fit into some kind of business, for employment reasons. They connect with local businesses, to the extent that they help them prepare their CV, forward the CV to businesses, and arrange their interview times as well. So, yes, there is a lot of work that caseworkers do at the Ministry of Social Development to help these people get into jobs.

So the concern we have is that the Minister for Social Development is taking that flexibility away from caseworkers to be able to help these people—those who just need some motivation, just need some assistance and they will be in employment. And, yes, I ask the Minister what’s wrong with this wording: “to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”? It’s about identifying risk. It’s about finding the evidence. But, yes, I know you should say, “Ha, ha.” The member should say, “Ha, ha.” now, because you don’t want to—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Sorry, Madam Chair. I just meant that member there. So, yeah, because they don’t want to believe in evidence, they don’t want to collect data, they don’t want to see what’s coming up in different information that we can collect. If we try to tailor solutions depending on what the problem is, then we can get better outcomes, but it looks like this Minister just wants to sprinkle money away and hope that the problem will go away. We don’t believe in that. We believe in looking at where the problem is and how we can address that issue. That’s why we believe that this wording is really, really important.

We know that the evidence shows that when people go on benefit at a younger age, it’s likely that they will remain on benefit for a longer time. So that is a risk. The age of that individual is a risk. So if we know that, why should we not act on that? Why should we not help those people in that age bracket who we know are at higher risk of staying on benefit for a long time? I don’t see any problem with that, and I don’t understand why the Minister sees a problem with this. That’s why I ask the Minister what’s wrong with this wording, why she wants to take this wording away. If the Minister will take a call and repeat that, “Oh, this is just the rewrite of the social security legislation.”, then the Minister is taking us back to the 1960s.

Yes, we know that there have been so many sections added to this legislation. The rewrite was important, but we also want to reflect on the changes that have come in these years and how we can make the service delivery better. So I believe the Minister is completely ignoring that bit and is just focused on rewriting this bill and wasting the House’s time—not only the House’s time but I believe that she has also wasted our submitters’ time. Actually, it has been, really, a very undermining process where submitters came with a lot of hope, they thought they were being heard on this legislation, but, no, because of us going back to where we were. That means that whole process was of no use to us here, to make this legislation more effective.

So I really urge the Minister to think again about the whole process. We should not undermine the select committee process, because that is what the Minister is doing. If it’s just about staying away from social investment because that is the term used by the previous National Government that has been so successful—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Kieran McAnulty.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Sorry, Madam Chair—did you call me?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I did call you, yes.

KIERAN McANULTY: I’m struggling to hear—is the microphone on? Anyway, I move, That the question be now put.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this particular part of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I too want to add my concern around the deletion of clause 4(e) in “Principles”. I think that a lot of this particular bill here is focused on the high number of Māori that are actually on benefits. To be honest, some of my family have been long-term unemployed. They’ve been on a benefit for most of their lives. They’ve seen that there has been no hope for them. I think, by removing this clause, they will actually see that Government really doesn’t care—they don’t care. They don’t care that they can linger on as a long-term beneficiary for the rest of their lives. Their children will see it, their mokopuna will see it, and it will be something that will be normalised in that whānau. I don’t want to see that happen.

I’ve talked to a number of my family members that suffer from this long-term welfare dependency, and a lot of them have lost hope. By retaining this particular clause, we give hope that those people—my whānau—will actually have a hope to actually stop being long-term welfare dependent. To be honest, the Supplementary Order Paper that has been submitted by my colleague Simon O’Connor will actually help to put that particular clause in a bit more perspective and actually give some hope to those that are long-term unemployed.

I think that a lot of it doesn’t really address anything around those people that are dependent on welfare. I think we need to give them hope. We need to be able to show them a way and support them. I think that this bill, by taking out those words—and some people might think, oh, well, they’re only a few words, but they’re words that are very, very important.

I think that the key aim of welfare is to reduce dependency. That’s what I believe it to be—to actually reduce dependency, to give people a hand up, not necessarily a handout. Welfare is the type of support that you need every now and then, but not all the time for the rest of your life. I see it in the eyes of some of my family members that are long-term welfare dependants. They have lost hope in their eyes. They don’t see anything past it. They don’t have any support there with this clause taken out. I think that it is a bad move. I would like the Minister, I ask the Minister, I plead with the Minister to please consider Supplementary Order Paper 28 and the wording that my colleague Simon O’Connor has actually put together to reinstate a clause that will look at helping to achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency, to reinstate that particular paragraph in “Principles”, clause 4.

I think that today many people have talked about it, but talking about it and actually seeing the whole thing rolling out are two different feelings. For some of my family members, I think that they do need hope, they do need the ability to be able to get that support from Government to move them off long-term welfare dependency, and I think that the Minister does need to take another look. I think it’s our responsibility as Opposition MPs to keep debating this bill, since it’s not going to be open for public scrutiny; that it is our responsibility to make sure it is scrutinised to the nth in this House to give the people of this country some sort of satisfaction that we gave it the very best that we could across the whole of the House—but mainly on this side of the House, because that is our responsibility to the people, not just to ram these Supplementary Order Papers through, not just to accept a 501-page Supplementary Order Paper. I don’t know why the Minister just didn’t pull out those 22 amendments and just start to debate those rather than doing it the way that she has done it.

So, without any further ado—there are other things that I could talk about. I don’t want to hold up the House any longer, but I think that we need to debate this particular clause to the nth, so we know that we’ve got a good outcome for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): There’s been a few speakers from the Opposition who have spoken in support of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 28 that’s been put up by Simon O’Connor. I’m just going to make it very clear that we will not be supporting that SOP and why we will not be supporting that SOP. The reason that I won’t be supporting that SOP is because it actually reverts back to a policy change that was in the previous Government’s supposedly policy-neutral rewrite, which ended up not being policy-neutral. So inserting principles and changing principles is actually quite a serious task, and it shouldn’t be something that’s done on the whim or off the back of what a particular Government is feeling on the day, with no discussion with the general public about what they think our social security legislation and our social security system should look like. So, by doing that, there are concerns.

Hon Louise Upston: You’re not giving them the chance.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member Louise Upston seems to have completely missed everything I said earlier about the reason why we’re not taking the whole SOP 25 back to select committee. It is because, firstly, this is not 500 pages worth of SOP—this is the whole bill—and, secondly, it’s because the vast majority of submitters wanted us to do what this Government is doing today, so we don’t need to go back and check that.

My second issue with Simon O’Connor’s SOP 28 is it’s just that very tired, old-fashioned, right-wing framing of the benefit system and those that have to access support from it. So to say that to help achieve it—so the actual principle that Simon O’Connor would like reinserted back into the rewrite is “to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”. I just want to say that to assume or to assert that those that need support from the Ministry of Social Development are at risk of welfare dependency already starts it off on such a negative deficit foot, and I don’t think the previous Government understands that by having that type of framing and making that type of assertion, they are actually willing those seeking support to fail. So, you know, like to achieve the best-possible outcome for people—absolutely—but then to assert that they’re all at risk of welfare dependency is just unnecessary and actually counter-productive.

I want to actually refer to a meeting I had not long after becoming Minister with the 20 top case managers in the country, and they were deemed top case managers because, actually, they were the most successful at getting people into work, but the conversation that they had was not about welfare dependency. The thing that they raised as being of number one importance to them and what helped them do a great job was making sure that everyone that sought their support got what they were entitled to up front, so that they could stabilise that person and that family situation. That was what helped them be successful.

The second thing was they’d built a meaningful relationship with that person that was seeking their support, gained the trust of that person, and actually ascertained what their needs were. If they weren’t immediately ready for employment, then they worked out maybe what were the steps to becoming ready for employment. Perhaps it was upskilling and training, so they didn’t try to privilege the next minimum-wage job over an upskilling or training opportunity; they actually worked with them where they were at to see what was the best pathway for them. Then, by doing that—building trust, giving them what they’re entitled to up front, working with them with respect to where they were at, and sometimes, you know, supporting them to take up upskilling and training opportunities, rather than going into the next job that popped up—they were able to be successful in their job as case managers in terms of placing people into employment.

So I just want to point out that it’s not necessarily about—well, actually, it’s not at all about, and it shouldn’t be about, trying to avoid situations where someone might be welfare dependent, because if that’s your primary consideration, then you’re already starting off on a really negative foot with the person that’s seeking your support. So I really liked what those 20 top case managers had to say about how they got to the point where they could support people into meaningful and sustainable employment. A lot of what they had to say were things that the previous Government completely overlooked as being of any importance.

So it’s good to listen to front-line staff. I do value the front-line staff and the learnings that they’ve gained on the job, and I am looking forward to working with them with respect to tidying some of this stuff up.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Now, I’m a new member, and I came to this House thinking that what we did here was we made amendments to laws to make them serve New Zealanders better—that we came here to change laws to make a difference to people. So we’ve just heard the Minister Carmel Sepuloni speak at length about caseworkers and what could be done to help them apply their work better and to get more people out of welfare, so I had a little flick through this 501-page bill and amended Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 looking for the amendments that actually enable any of the things that that Minister just spoke about.

Hon Member: It’s policy neutral.

NICOLA WILLIS: Curious, it is, there is none of that in here. Yet, in fact, what there is is the removal of the very principle that would have empowered those caseworkers to really look at individual lives and make a difference. That is the principle of social investment, and that is what this bill removes.

So we have members opposite calling out a little phrase, which I’m sure everyday Kiwis would be curious to have a definition for, and that is “policy neutral”. I actually think that this is a reasonable aspiration: that members on both sides of this House would say, “Well, let’s work together to tidy up this old Act that’s in a bit of a mess.” In fact, that’s what National got to work on doing, got to work on tidying-up an old Act that didn’t make much sense. But, sensibly, because we do not want to waste time and resources, sensibly, because we do want to be effective and efficient and put children, families, and New Zealanders first, what we did do was we said that on the way through, if there are small incremental changes we can make to improve the way the welfare system operates, we will. And then what happens is the Labour Government come in and they say, “No, no, no, no, no. We are going to take it all—strip it back and make it policy neutral.”

So I’ve been sitting here as a new member thinking: what is this all really about? And, you know what? I think I’ve worked it out. I think that this is actually about the new Labour-led Government not being able to agree on what changes should be made in the welfare area. I actually feel sorry for them. On the one hand, they’ve got the Greens, who want to remove any punitive measures, who don’t think that work should be an obligation, and then we’ve got New Zealand First, on the other hand, who are saying that, actually, we should be introducing ready-for-work programmes. So if we look at Part 1, as amended in SOP 24, and we think about what the general provisions in there are, which are outlined in clause 5, and we look at that guide to the legislation, we say to ourselves, “This is a bit uncomfortable, isn’t it?” Because, actually, there is something inserted here which is far from policy neutral, and that’s the winter energy payment. So I don’t think that’s policy neutral, because it certainly wasn’t policy that was introduced in the bill previously.

So, instead, what I’d like to turn to is the principles of the bill that remain in Part 1 and that I think, based on question time today, there may be some concern about on the Opposition benches: clause 4(b), which says, “the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work.” and clause 4(a), that “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. We had the Hon Willie Jackson get up in the House today and imply that picking fruit is beneath some people, implying that that is not appropriate work for some people. So my question to the Minister is: does she intend down the line to re-examine these principles, which remain in this bill, around the priority of finding work? Because what she did just suggest in the previous speech was that she’s concerned that any change to principle needs to be considered.

So I want to know whether or not these principles are up for review, because it shocks me, and I think it would shock most New Zealanders, that this Government would remove the principle of social investment that was written into this bill, because that principle is simply common sense. [Interruption] Now, the member opposite—I forget his name—the New Zealand First member, wanted some help with a definition. I simply point him to Part 1, that we’re debating right now, where we’ve got a very nice definition of what social investment means in the context of welfare provision. It says, “to … achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency”.

Now, the hoops and jumps you’d have to go through to say that somehow that’s something of malign intent! It is simply ridiculous to suggest that, because what in fact we are allowing to happen by inserting that principle into this bill is empowering those who implement the welfare system to take steps to take measures that best target those who need help. But members opposite want to take a generic approach—want to do silly little things like not calling something an “emergency benefit” but calling it an “exceptional circumstances benefit”. They take issue with the semantics but they don’t attack the substance.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. Well, I think that just really summed up the approach from the Opposition about how we deal with and work with our most vulnerable in our community. What became clear throughout the campaign was that systematic change needed to take place, to make sure that those get full and correct entitlements where they deserve it and where they need it. This is a particular bill that makes sure that those people in our communities actually do get fair and correct entitlements.

I want to pick up part of the point and speak to the principles that the other side of the Chamber keep going on about, and it’s certainly related to Supplementary Order Paper 28, in the name of Simon O’Connor. It speaks to the systematic change that’s needed. It speaks to the ability to make and empower our case managers, and indeed the Public Service that actually work with this particular piece of legislation or this bill, to make sure that they are better equipped to serve our people.

Now, as a former case manager, I can tell this committee—I look across the other side and I don’t see any other former case managers in this Chamber. The Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, made reference to the 20 top case managers, and what they talk about when they highlight what makes them so effective—the Minister’s already touched on some. When I asked a particular one of them, “What were some of the challenges?”, actually, they made it very clear that it was the legislation that creates the systematic problem, which is what this bill is addressing. It actually makes some very technical and some very smart changes to this particular piece of legislation, and that’s needed, because the systematic change that that particular case manager—one of the most successful in the country—talks about actually is defined in its principles. It’s defined in its principles.

So the systematic change we’re talking about is exactly what the Minister highlighted to the other side of the Chamber. Instantly, if we are to consider Supplementary Order Paper 28, what that does is it automatically places a lens on the Public Service and their engagement with the public, and that’s a problem. That’s a problem because this particular Supplementary Order Paper actually takes us backwards. It takes us back in time. It takes us back to, dare I say it—as the Hon Alfred Ngaro mentioned—1964. If anything, in 1964, we know Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in the States. That’s probably something more progressive than what they’re offering in this Supplementary Order Paper at the moment.

This is the systematic change that needs to happen to make sure that, once again, all of our people in this country—and it isn’t just beneficiaries under the definition that I know that side of the Chamber supports or believes in. We know that, actually, many Kiwis right across the spectrum—some that do work, some that don’t work, some that have dependants, some who are unwell—we come in all walks, shapes, and sizes. It’s important that when we hear from the other side—they keep throwing around the term “beneficiary”. That only proves that this piece of work that’s being done, in Part 1 in particular, around the principles is very, very important and much needed.

I won’t go on too much longer, because I know the other side’s chomping at the bit to repeat themselves. I just wanted to make the point, as somebody who has worked in this system, worked with the people on the front line, it’s very clear that in order to get systematic change, we must start with the legislation, and that’s what this bill does.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill today in its committee stage. I’ll talk to the parts of the bill, which is Part 1 that we’re discussing today, which, of course, everyone in this Chamber will know contains the general provisions.

There are 10½ pages of indexing in the contents of those provisions, so it simply signifies how big this particular piece of legislation is. And it’s massive, but unfortunately it is quite changed from the version that we had been discussing as a Parliament, and this Supplementary Order Paper 25, of course, has made some significant changes to the social investment approach that the former Parliament was discussing.

The purpose, as we’ve heard today, of this bill is, as stated in clause 3(a) to “enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate”—and it is appropriate in New Zealand. We are very proud of our welfare system and the welfare state that has evolved in this country over many decades, and it is rightly so that we should be held up as an example of a compassionate country that supports our less fortunate people.

As part of that “Purpose of this Act”, it is, in clause 3(a)(i), “to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment; and”—not “or” but “and”—“(ii) to help people to find or retain paid employment;”. That is the bit in this bill that I find quite ironic from the people across the Chamber. We are asking people to find or retain paid employment when we are constantly hearing about the efforts of the present Government to compromise small businesses that provides most of the paid employment to the people in this country, and where most of our small businesses provide those employment opportunities to the very people that we are discussing in this bill today. It is “(iii) to help people for whom work is not currently appropriate”, and, of course, that is for people who may have some kind of a disability or may be injured or sick. So the welfare system supports people of all ilks.

I’d like to just pay tribute to the Minister for Social Development, who stood up before and mentioned the caseworkers that she had been working with, and to use the opportunity to thank the people of the Ministry of Social Development, the social workers, and all of the front-line staff, because I know that they do a fantastic job in supporting people in their workplace, but it’s one of those jobs that I hope will work itself into redundancy. What a great day that will be when we no longer need so many of those people employed to support people on welfare, because they will all be then in paid employment and able to sustain themselves.

We have heard quite a bit today about the deletion, which is in clause 4(e), where the only deletion in the definitions in this bill has been the piece about helping people achieve the best outcome for those at risk of long-term welfare dependency. We know that the best opportunity for those people is to be off that welfare cycle, to stop this cycle of benefit dependency within families, to set good examples for our children. I’ll use the example of a young man that I knew who got his first job at our local council and it was simply washing the fleet of cars after school. Although it seemed like quite a menial job, the pride that that young man got from actually earning his own money, saving up to buy something that he had aspired to, was quite encouraging, and I think that is what we aspire to for all of our people—that they have paid employment.

JAN LOGIE (Green): We’re hearing quite a lot about how this provision is just about making sure that everyone who needs help gets the right help, and freeing up Work and Income officers to be able to provide that help. I just want to provide a little bit of a reality check on that, because, actually, the regulatory impact statement that supported the introduction of this legislation pointed out that this provision was being included to protect the Crown from accusations of discrimination that might be taken to court—for discriminating against people. And, in fact, that is what the social investment approach does. It discriminates; it’s a risk profiling system that seeks to embed discrimination. We’ve seen it introduced in legislation under the last Government, around the young persons’ services.

At that time, in that service, the previous Government had put into legislation that they could send young people who met a particular risk profile off to a different service. Coincidentally, they got extra obligations and potential sanctions applied to them if they met this profile, and the profile was: prior contact with the department of Child, Youth and Family, gender, reasons for leaving school, and educational outcomes. So that kind of formula had been critiqued by Treasury, where they had found that young people who didn’t have those criteria were more likely to have negative life outcomes than those that had all those criteria.

So you can see in that that this is setting up a process of discrimination that is just going to embed the fact that a whole lot of people who could benefit from getting assistance won’t get it. That isn’t what is being described by the National Party members at all. I think they’re showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what this legislation and this provision were seeking to implement. I raised it earlier—in legislation—around this point about the problems, particularly of including contact with the department of Child, Youth and Family as a measure for providing a different service when we know that it’s about 58 percent, I think, of tamariki who are in contact with Child, Youth and Family are Māori. Actually, we are, in fact, setting up a de facto racial profiling system by doing that. When we have just so many reports telling us that we have embedded racial discrimination across our State agencies, to be embedding a risk profiling model that will result in different service through the Ministry of Social Development is a really dangerous thing to do, and it’s not something that the Green Party is happy to support.

I also want to echo the message that the Minister was stating: we know through evidence and through practice that what works is taking a strength-based approach, and this model is inherently defining people on the basis of risk and what you see as wrong with them, rather than actually sitting down and listening to what they might need. Actually, the truth is they know what they need better than anybody sitting across a desk within a Government institution could ever know.

We need to be creating a system that listens and responds to what people’s needs are, because the truth is people have aspirations. People want to be able to contribute and have meaning in their lives, and our system at the moment—and progressively under the last Government it moved away from being able to provide people with the assistance that they needed. We’ve seen that by the increased homelessness on our streets, by the really entrenched poverty, and by the increased inequality in our society. That was the result of the previous system that was seeking to be embedded by that provision in the legislation. It didn’t work. I really think the Opposition just has to come to terms with that. It is time to get back to what we know works, which is kindness.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 28 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Assistance

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. As we move into Part 2, I am mindful that time is against me on this one, but Part 2 of the bill outlines basic eligibility criteria and requirements. If we can classify them in two parts, they are main assistance and, of course, supplementary assistance, which won’t be anything new to the committee. It’s important, as we’ve moved on from Part 1 and we move into Part 2, that we set out what those eligibility criteria are and the requirements for the myriad of services and assistance that our general public and Kiwis are eligible to receive. Of course, those main assistance provisions are the job seeker support, the sole parent support, the supported living payment, and the list goes on.

But I do want to just pick up on one point that was made before we finished Part 1, and that was saying that just simply changing the name was willy-nilly and tinkering around the edges. I actually think that, as has been stated by the Minister from the beginning of this entire process, those reset buttons needed to be pushed so that we can have a clean slate to then build a system that is far more responsive to the needs of New Zealanders, wherever they might be and whatever assistance they might need.

So it’s important, then, that we get some of those terms right, in and around the services that our people are able to receive. You know, some of those might sound trivial or be of no consequence to the other side, but we believe on this side of the Chamber that these are the kinds of languages and the kind of nuance that we need to see in this particular legislation, and I take it back to my point around the systematic change to make sure that we give those who are actually delivering these services on the ground the ability to empower our people for true transformational change.

Part 2 of the bill also talks about the rates of payment for each assistance type. The bill also carries forward a provision from the Act that will enable the Minister to approve and establish welfare programmes for the purposes of granting special assistance, and we know that those come in various forms.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sadly, I was interrupted by the dinner break, but we have just not long entered into Part 2, and I was covering off some of the broader detail of this particular part.

Just to wind up my contribution, to allow the committee to enter into debate on the matter, I just wanted to touch on a few things that will be amended or are proposed to be amended in this particular bill in relation to Part 2. This part includes minor and technical changes outlining that parents who have lost the support of their partners due to imprisonment receive the sole parent rate of jobseeker support if their youngest dependent child is over 14 years. The 50 percent benefit protection for people with dependent children who are subject to a 13-week non-entitlement period applies when the benefit has not yet been granted. The Ministry of Social Development’s discretion not to pay disability allowance or to pay it at a reduced rate when a client is already receiving similar assistance only applies to an overseas pension, or a periodical allowance if it is made for the same purpose. The maximum rate of the emergency benefit is the rate of the equivalent working-age benefit under the Act. This part also repeals an unused and outdated provision which allowed an emergency benefit to be granted, on the condition that the applicant complied with the requirements to undergo medical or other treatment.

Tacked on to my contribution before the dinner break, I think that provides a general overview of Part 2 in categorising the benefits that are available and also the supplementary support that people in Aotearoa New Zealand can get. I’m looking forward to some robust debate as Part 2 progresses in the committee.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to start my contribution to the debate in this committee stage on Part 2, as Minister Henare, who has resumed his seat, has talked about the very wide range of areas of assistance that’s available under the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. For those that have just tuned into this debate, this is probably the chunkiest, most significant part of the bill. It really talks about all of the assistance that’s available, and what is not going to be debated today is ensuring that those who require support get support in their times of need. Actually, I just want to reflect on a comment that the Minister for Social Development mentioned prior to the dinner break in terms of the top caseworkers. The top caseworkers talked about—you know, one of the critical skills they have is ensuring that those who need support get what support they are entitled to, and so that’s going to be a theme that runs through this Part 2 debate.

I do have a couple of amendments in my name, but first of all I just would like to bring Minister Henare’s attention to the combining of the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit, and ask for some clarification on a matter that came out of the departmental report when the bill was before the Social Services Committee. There’s been quite a lot of comment about how important it is that select committees scrutinise legislation, and last week we spent quite a lot of time in the House debating whether or not mistakes should be tolerated in legislation and the fact that a piece of legislation had to be referred back and a new piece of legislation actually written to correct a wrong. So it is important that we focus the committee’s time, given that the public don’t have the opportunity to scrutinise it. The public don’t have the opportunity through the significant Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 that Minister Sepuloni has tabled, so the committee’s responsibility is to provide that scrutiny and to absolutely ensure that there are no mistakes. The Minister in charge of the bill, Minister Sepuloni, gave her undertaking last week that there would be no mistakes in this SOP, so this is the opportunity tonight in this committee to provide the scrutiny, because there will be no other opportunity.

I did ask for it to be referred back to the select committee so the select committee could provide scrutiny and the public could provide submissions, but on this particular one, which is the unsupported child’s benefit—the earlier intention, which is being unwound by the Minister’s SOP, was to merge two benefits, and that was merging the orphans and the unsupported child’s benefits into what would then be called the supported child’s benefit. We actually haven’t had a clear argument for why this change has been undone, and it’s quite interesting, because in the departmental report the officials’ comment on this particular section—so I do want the Minister to provide a fulsome answer on this particular one—was that there was a drafting error. So here we have a situation where we are putting a significant SOP through without scrutiny, and what we are finding, in a change that they are taking out of the legislation, was something that was already being changed because of a drafting error. So I really hope—and I really want the Minister to answer this in detail—to make sure that the drafting error that was identified by the officials is being corrected by this legislation, and they’re not reinforcing an already wrong issue in legislation.

I accept that a piece of legislation like this is complex; it’s only tackled every—well, we tackled it in our time: a significant rewrite of legislation that had become very clumsy and very unworkable. With this particular section, with Part 2, it is absolutely about making sure that it is clear, that it is concise, that it’s workable, so front-line staff understand the guiding legislation that drives their decisions and drives what they do at the front line to support the very people that need assistance. So it does need to be clear. I’m confused. I’m confused because in the departmental report it talks about the change that was being made that now the Labour Government are unmaking. So we do want to make sure that this particular issue is clarified, that we do have the correct drafting in the new SOP—well, we hope, but we’re not confident that it is—to make sure that it is right, because we have a number of SOPs on the Table. We’re happy to offer the Minister our assistance to ensure this legislation is fit and proper, and it’s fit and proper so that it’s easier for front-line staff to provide assistance to those who need it most.

And let me tell you who’s affected by these particular clauses in this part: step-parents. Step-parents should be entitled—if in the very unfortunate situation that a child’s natural parents have passed away, they should qualify for a supported child’s benefit. That child is not an orphan if they have a step-parent who is a responsible parent who has taken on their responsibility and their welfare, and I’d be shocked—I’d be absolutely shocked—if that side of the Chamber is suggesting that a child who is particularly vulnerable would not be supported through this legislation. Is that side of the Chamber seriously intending to make it harder for a child, or for the step-parent of a child who is responsible for that child’s well-being, or going to deny them support?

As I said, in the departmental report it clearly talks about the fact that the wording in the current Act is due to a drafting error, so in the rewrite legislation that was fixed, and yet the Minister who has presented this 500-page SOP has changed it without a clear explanation of why. So this committee deserves, as I said to those that have only just started listening to this debate or watching this live debate on the internet—this is the only opportunity to get this legislation right. When it affects decisions that front-line staff make every day in supporting those who need it most, they deserve to get it right. More importantly, though, the very children that are supported by this particular clause, which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25—clause 5(2)(ca), which is the orphans benefit, and the change to clause 5(2)(d).

So we do want to make sure that we get this right, because, as I said, the intention of this originally was to correct a drafting error, to make it simpler for front-line staff to support those people who have turned up seeking assistance, seeking financial assistance and support, which we absolutely want to make sure they receive. As the Minister said before, the top 20 caseworkers—one of the top things that they said made them successful was ensuring the people in front of them got what they were entitled to.

This side of the Chamber believes that a step-parent should be entitled to support their child in their care, and that child’s not, in our view, an orphan. So we want to ensure that it is a supported child’s payment, because they’re not an orphan and the child is not an unsupported child. This was a sensible change, and I’m asking very clearly for the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, to clarify the statement from the departmental report about the wording in the current Act being due to a drafting error. I do have proposed amendments on this.

I’ll come back to those amendments, but I want to focus this part of the debate—I know there’s other members on this side that do want to seek clarification, or who have SOPs that they want to put on the Table with the intention of assisting the Minister, and assisting the Government to have legislation that works for the most vulnerable children in New Zealand, and to have a social security system that serves them, that is straightforward and not complicated. We see this as a great opportunity—we’re here to help. We are more than happy to help the Government to ensure that the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill works, and this is the only opportunity for scrutiny.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Every so often in the House we get to debate some bills which remind me why I got into politics. I think this is one of those bills—but I’m not talking about the original bill; I’m talking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, because the original bill, under the masquerade of a policy-neutral rewrite, sought to entrench the previous Government’s social investment approach into legislation. But what the SOP has done is it’s removed those changes to the framing that would have impacted thousands of New Zealanders.

What I want to do is talk about Part 2, which is what we’re talking about today, but focus on Subpart 9A, inserted by the SOP, “Winter energy payment”. This is actually something that is new to the bill, because it only got passed into legislation just before Christmas last year. The first payments are going to be starting on 1 July this year, so that’s why it’s new—it’s putting the legislation all together in the one place.

Clause 65A just talks about what the purpose of the winter energy payment is: it’s to provide financial assistance to help people meet their household heating costs during winter. Clause 65B defines “winter period” as a 22-week period starting on 1 May. For me, living in the far South, that’s actually a bit of an underwhelming definition, but that’s what the bill says. Clause 65C talks about eligibility: those receiving the main benefit, New Zealand superannuation, or a veterans pension. These are the most low-income families and households in New Zealand that are going to benefit from this payment.

Where I live, in the far South, this is going to make a huge difference to people’s lives, because the winter energy costs are huge amounts of people’s everyday income. When I first moved to Dunedin over a decade ago, we moved into just a big old rental. Our first winter was absolutely freezing, so we shut ourselves in the bedrooms and had column oil heaters on. We were scared to move from room to room because the ambient temperature was about 2 to 3 degrees, outside the heated rooms. So the kids and I spent most of the evenings tucked up in bed, watching videos with a duvet on, and yet our first winter power bill that winter was $800. I mean, that’s real money even for us, who had a high income at the time.

Surprisingly, when I moved to Invercargill, actually it was worse. We moved into an old wooden villa—because I like old villas—and ambient temperatures were about 2 to 3 degrees on most mornings. So I would go to bed with gloves on, double duvets, and two hotties. I’d have my iPad in bed and there’d be fog on the iPad screen and my fingers would go numb touching the screen. But the thing is, in both cases I had the money to sort that out. We ended up getting insulation and heat pumps, and now it’s a tolerable—I don’t know how many degrees, but it’s survivable.

But a number of people in my community have been talking to me about their winters. I remember a pensioner who was talking about the fact that she has to go to bed when the sun goes down, with a hot-water bottle and duvet, because she can’t afford to pay her heating bills. Another mum got me to have a look at her home, where it was a cold, uninsulated home, and the kids were getting repeatedly sick because, again, they couldn’t afford the heating and it was freezing.

I used to look after kids in the hospital system where they came in with lots and lots of respiratory infections. My colleagues, even now, are dealing with huge winter peaks. I think the thing is that this winter energy payment is going to make a huge difference to many people’s lives, because it will take that edge off that fear of turning on the heater. But some people are saying, “Well, OK, does everybody need this winter energy payment?”. There are some provisions so that if you’re on a pension and you feel like you don’t need it, you can actually opt out. There are some very wise clauses though that say if you’re actually a couple receiving it, the Ministry of Social Development needs to make sure that you check with your partner first before you actually forgo the money in the pocket.

The other people that may not be eligible are people living in residential rest homes, in hospital settings, where the Government’s already paying their subsidy for their care, because they actually have adequate heating. I mean, visiting my own parents in a rest home, I know that the temperatures are set really high, and they don’t need to actually afford it. But for everybody else, those on a low income, who are going to be in bed with the hot-water bottles this winter, this is going to make a huge difference.

So here’s to entrenching the winter energy payment in our social security legislation, and I commend SOP 25 to the committee. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. What a fantastic choice. I’m delighted that you’ve done so. I have great respect for the Minister who’s in the chair, the Hon Peeni Henare; I know he’s a very decent and intelligent man, but I was astonished when he prefaced his remarks at the start of this particular debate—after the dinner adjournment at least—by saying that Part 2 contains minor and technical changes. I think that’s what I heard him say. Well, I felt that that was the new slogan for a Tui beer ad, and as Ms Upston commented in her comments, this is a very substantial part of a huge bill.

For the benefit of people who may be watching at home, let me show Supplementary Order Paper 25 to them. These are not just minor and technical amendments, Mr Henare; these are very substantial changes, and, I have to say, some of them have been very poorly thought-out. But most importantly—and most outrageously—they’ve just been dumped on this committee with no opportunity for the usual scrutiny that you would expect to be able to take place. This is not just a minor technical bill; we are talking about one of the most important aspects of legislation that New Zealanders can enjoy and, in many, many cases, heavily depend upon.

So I will be most enthusiastically lending my support to the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments that she has indicated. I also look forward to the Minister’s replies to the comments that she has made, the concerns she’s outlined, and, in particular, the answers to the questions that she has raised which, I know, just looking around, from the many colleagues who are here with me, many of my colleagues are going to be raising tonight as well. It’s an important issue.

Given the diversity and the complexity of modern family arrangements—and they seem to become a little bit more diverse with every passing year in this day and age—it’s appalling that step-parents are being discriminated against in this part of the bill. With these latest proposals, whether it’s just unintended consequences—somebody has made a drafting error, as has been suggested—or whether it’s deliberate, either way, these things must be corrected. I implore the Government to step back from the entrenched position that you’ve taken so far and send this bill back to the select committee. In particular, send this part back to the select committee and give submitters; give concerned, interested New Zealanders; and give MPs the chance to do justice to it.

As Liz Craig, the previous speaker, noted, new Subpart 9A of Part 2 in SOP 25 deals with the winter energy payment. I remember being here, in the House, just before Christmas, when the winter energy payment was a major feature of the Government’s mini-Budget. I thought, well, in some respects that’s a nice idea because there are many people who struggle to pay the power bills, and if it’s possible to give them support, well, I’m certainly happy to see that happen.

But what an untargeted and unsatisfactory measure they introduced. So I want to point out to Ms Craig, who said how thrilled she was with it, that there are major blunders. One of the major blunders is the fact that it is so inflexible. Why couldn’t the Government have recognised that there are many people on low incomes and on benefits who are living in homes with very old, costly heating appliances? The best way they could spend the winter energy payment would be to take it in a lump sum and go and get a much more fuel-efficient, climatically efficient, emissions-reducing sort of thing that would, in the long term, save them a lot of money over time and also ensure that their emissions were reduced.

But, oh no. The Government wouldn’t consider that. And so instead we have this “we know best”, one-size-fits-all approach that seems typical of Labour Governments, and here you’ve got a ridiculous anomaly where there are many people who are still earning quite good incomes but are past retirement age who get the winter energy payment, whether they need it or not. I’ve had people say to me, “This is ludicrous that I’m getting this payment, while at the same time there are many people who are on the very lowest incomes in New Zealand who are not qualifying for the winter energy payment.”

About the only thing I can agree with Ms Craig on, in the particular comment she made there, was that the definition of winter is underwhelming. Well, I have to say that all aspects of this particular initiative are underwhelming because they’re so badly thought through.

But I want to make the point again: this is a very substantial part of a very important bill. It has not been given the proper consideration it needs. This is an outrage. It should go back to the select committee. I implore the Government to make that decision. Send it back.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to speak to this bill. There are a number of issues that have been raised by members on the Opposition seats that I would like to just get the Minister to comment on.

The first one is that in some ways this bill—and it is substantial. It’s been described as being of a minor and technical nature, and it does seem odd, in respect of 500 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper; that’s substantial. But, actually, something substantial can still be minor and technical, and I would like some discussion on this. The objective of this legislation was not to create new policy. It was not to create new categories of assistance. It was not to change relationships around.

So my understanding is that this particular bill was really designed to, as it were, simplify existing legislation, to tidy it up. Of course, doing that would lend a great deal of assistance to front-line staff. That was an issue that was raised by members on the opposite benches. There’s a couple of ways you can make things easier for front-line staff who are dealing with welfare payments—the entitlements that we all have. One is, of course, to tidy up the legislation, and that’s exactly what, I think, this particular piece of legislation is trying to do. It’s trying to make things tidier and easier.

But of course the other way that you can make things easier for front-line staff is to have leadership from the top that says that New Zealanders get their entitlements, that they don’t have to bow and grovel and scrape and somehow plead with a Work and Income (WINZ) officer. I think that the stories that we’ve had coming out of WINZ in the last few years, the way that people have been treated there, under the previous regime—it’s utterly shameful, and I am so glad that we have a Minister who will make sure that New Zealanders get their entitlements—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! The member will not bring me into the debate.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I apologise, Madam Chair. So let’s talk a little bit more about the attitudes we have to our fellow citizens in need. We actually want to make it possible for them to get the entitlements that we have given to them—not because it’s charity, not because we’re somehow compassionate or anything; it’s because we think that as New Zealanders we should look after all of us. This legislation is helping us to do that.

I want to go on a little bit further on that. You see, one of the things about the way that WINZ has operated—my apologies, Madam Chair. One of the things that has operated at WINZ in previous years, and that we are now having to combat, is the way that individuals have been made to feel small and mean. They can now go ahead and use this legislation to find their entitlements easily.

There’s another aspect of this. You see, one of the things we are interested in, in this country, is universalism. We have universal super, and we have introduced in here another aspect of universalism, and that’s to do with the winter energy payment. I heard one of the members on the opposite side of the Chamber talking about people who had approached him, saying they found it ludicrous that they were going to get the winter energy payment. Well, I’d just like to point out to that member of the committee that there is a rescue for these people, and I would urge you, Mr Macindoe, to point it out to them: it’s new clause 65D(1), in Supplementary Order Paper 25: “A person entitled to a winter energy payment may make an election not to receive the payment.”

I would like the Minister to comment on this, because I actually see it’s a really important aspect of this. You are not required to take money from the State, but we do want to give people their entitlements. It’s an entitlement for our elderly people—some of the most vulnerable people we have. They can no longer go out to work. They can often no longer earn an income. There are so many of our elderly who survive on superannuation alone. This winter energy payment will make a huge difference to them.

I would like to understand from the members on the opposite side of the Chamber why they do not want to help our senior citizens. Why are you so hard-hearted? Why are the members on the opposite side so keen to take every little scrap away from people? I would like to hear a little bit more from the Minister about that, if you could elucidate exactly why we believe in universalism and that lot don’t.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m back, people. You always notice in debates that the louder someone—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just calm the chorus every time there’s a speaker, for or against.

SIMON O’CONNOR: You always notice, when someone’s yelling loud, that they’re compensating for a lack of argument. But I do agree with the last member’s—I’m sort of sympathetic to the last member’s suggestion of universalism, because I’m sure, when you listen to the left, they talk about universalism and they talk about non-discrimination and not wanting to have any stigma. So to that member who’s resumed her seat, Deborah Russell, I look forward to her putting in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) here, on Part 2, to allow me to access all the benefits that I choose, because that would be universal. It would respect my right, because you wouldn’t want to offend me at this point.

I’d also like to say that if you refused to give me the winter energy payment even though I’m 42 or you refused to give me the sole parent benefit simply because I’m married, that’s discrimination and it’s an offence against universalism. So I just find that, you know, words are really important, but that’s typical of the left.

Brett Hudson: Selective universalism.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Selective universalism, that’s right. There’s another word for that, Mr Hudson. So, look, Part 2 is rather comprehensive. There are 16 subparts, which instantly puts into—well, it’s hard to have various subparts if you’re universal. Surely, it should have been just, basically, a one-page SOP from the Government that just said, basically, “We’ll give money to anyone who wants it.” But Subpart 1 is around what the whole section does. The first is around the residential requirements, and there’s two questions that the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, needs to address here. The first is why someone who’s a New Zealand citizen or holds a residence class must be here for a period of two years. I understand this is what often happens. It’s fairly standard in the legislation, but I’ve been hearing from the Opposition and from Ministers in the chair that, again, stigma, universalism, and non-discrimination are vitally important. So why we’re discriminating against New Zealanders on the basis of their length of time here is a concern and it’s a contradiction that I think the Minister needs to address either on their part or on behalf of their governing parties.

The other is around clause 16, part (2), subpart (a), subpart (ii) of that—I still haven’t worked out how to quite phrase it—just to make sure that those seeking protection or seeking refugee status are also covered. The current piece of legislation says, “is recognised as a refugee or a protected person in New Zealand under the Immigration Act [of] 2009”—absolutely prudent. I’d just like to make sure that those seeking protection—because it’s my understanding that someone doesn’t become a refugee necessarily or immediately.

Jumping then to clause 17 around rates, we’ve obviously got, in clause 17(2), some changes of nomenclature there—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Nomenclature?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Nomenclature. In 17(1), there’s a reference to schedule 4, which is around the rates themselves. I have a general question in this regard—it’s probably just my lack of understanding; happy to admit that—are the schedules able to be updated regularly? Of course, all the amounts of money to be charged—say, in Part 1, clause 1(a) specifies that someone will receive $143.55 a week. I assume things change and are constantly changing in this space, so I think it would be useful if the Minister could confirm to the House that the schedules are easily amended. I’d be fairly confident we’re not going to have to return to the House to move legislation every time we want to change a rate.

Linking into schedule 4 through clause 17, why is Part 9 still there? I know there’s nothing underneath it—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: —but this is meant to be—I know some colleagues laugh and it might seem frivolous, and it’s not the intention. This is a tidy-up bill, and I’m just curious about why we’ve got a part with no substance, and we’re also referring to the DPB—obviously, something that, in terms of what we’ve discussed in this House over many a year, has well passed and gone. So just in the context of while we’re tidying up, why that’s there.

In Part 1 of schedule 4, as referred to in Subpart 1 of Part 2, clause 17, why has the Minister chosen to remove clause 1(ca)? This is around a single beneficiary with one or more dependent children—I won’t read the whole thing for the use of time, but I’d be interested in why that has been removed. Similarly, again, in schedule 4, Part 1, clause 1, we’ve also seen removals of paragraphs (h) and (i). I assume—look, there’s probably very good reason for this, but as I’ve heard from my colleagues, too, this was a bill initially put forward by this side of the House when in Government; I just would like to understand the reasons for the change there.

And I suppose, similarly, too, as you go through—and, again, this is still just only Part 1 of Schedule 4—why are we seeing the changes in the rates? Again, using clause 1 for an example, it’s gone from $140.08 to $143.55. I’d be interested to know: is that reflecting some governmental changes and announcements of late, or is this a follow-through of some of the National Government’s changes; and, if it is the latter, particularly around the family tax credits and so forth, that these are right and accurate. I would not want to see that the changes that National had been proposing have entered accidentally into this legislation, into this schedule 4, and then we have to go back.

Look, the last one that I’ll speak on here, if I might, is still linking to schedule 4 as it applies to rates in clause 17 of the main bill, in Part 2. I think it’s probably going to be of interest to the other side of the House because it’s to do with unions. It could be my misreading of things, but it’s, again, schedule 4, Part 1—I assume that we call it clause 3. One of these days, I’m going to sit down with the clerks and get how I phrase this correct, but it’s around a special rate of benefit. It’s been struck out, and it’s been struck out including in circumstances, as I read it, and I quote, where “a strike, either by the spouse or partner, or by fellow members of the same union at the same place of employment.” So, on my first reading, sort of a “prima farsay” approach—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Prima facie.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Prima facie—that’s always the problem of having a Latinist in here. Why is that special rate of benefit being removed? I feel a bit funny, as a centre-right National Party politician attempting to stand up for—

Jamie Strange: Centre-right?

SIMON O’CONNOR: —the unions, but it appears to me—you know, I thought gentle terms would help tonight. Why is it that a special rate of benefit is being removed in the case of a strike? [Interruption] Isn’t it funny that the Government jump up and down about one self-description when we’re actually talking about how we help other people. It’s funny what they get excited about. They don’t seem to be getting excited about the removal, as I see it here—and I’d love the Minister to respond. As I see it here—again, just for clarity, because I know the officials will have to be working on this—schedule 4, Part 1, clause 3 removes a special rate of benefit to New Zealanders on the basis that they may be on strike, or that their partner or spouse may be on strike, or fellow members of the same union at the same place of employment. I’d be fascinated to know, from that centre-left Government—some might suggest something else, but that centre-left Government—

Brett Hudson: Hard-left.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —that centre-left Government; I’d better be generous in return—why they appear to be removing rights to some of their union friends. It’s a little bit confusing to me.

So, really, the fundamental questions I have here are around the structure of schedule 4: why Part 9 is there in its entirety; why, Minister, in Part 1, under “Jobseeker support”, the dollar amounts are being changed; and then a little bit of clarity around Part 1, clause (1)(ca) and those following—why have those particular sections been removed—with a particular highlight, if one can have a particular in a particular, of why the special rates of benefits to spouses, partners, and fellow members of a union are being removed.

And then, just because I have bounced around in Subpart 1, it really is that discriminatory element, potentially, of the two years’ residence in New Zealand. I’m personally supportive of it; I just remain a little bit confused by this universalistic talk from the other side of why there is a condition. And, finally, that recognition of a refugee—are we going to be able to protect those who are seeking protection under the Immigration Act 2009?

So I’ll leave it there. I do have an SOP to discuss, but that’s under Subpart 5. I’m sure it’s a relief to the House that with these 16 subparts, I’m only given four speaking slots, so you’ll have to see which other four will come.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair, once again. It gives me great pleasure to speak on Part 2 of this bill. The rewrite bill was intended to be a policy-neutral clean-up of the legislation underpinning New Zealand’s welfare system. There’ll be people here listening in New Zealand, so if I can use an analogy of what’s happened here. This is an old classic—imagine an automobile classic. This is an old Ford Model T: a great classic, looked after, it’s still going today—1938. So what’s actually happened, in 1964 it went in for its last rewrite, just to make sure that it was still going, was still relevant, and was still strong. No real need—again, it’s a classic; something you didn’t really mess with.

Last year, this piece of legislation once again went in for a rewrite, which would be a classic case of let’s just go in and get it serviced, but no. Now we come to the garage, really, and the garage really is the philosophy under which the Opposition have been operating: the social investment philosophy, the Better Public Services philosophy. Can I just stand here and admire the members of the Opposition, because the way they have gathered around—the absolute blind faith, the blind loyalty—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hate to interrupt the member, but we’re actually on Part 2, which is the engine of your car—which is actually the assistance. So if you could keep to that, it would be great.

GREG O’CONNOR: Madam Chair, if I can just say, you’ve stolen the words right out of my mouth, because that is exactly where I was going to go—to Part 2. It just shows, again: the wisdom you showed as my police Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ha, ha!

GREG O’CONNOR: —you are continuing to show as a Speaker here, so I can only sit in admiration of your ability to anticipate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Flattery gets you everywhere.

GREG O’CONNOR: So if I can go back to the engine of the car, as the Hon Louise Upston pointed out, in all the things that they will be filibustering tonight, this is the one that is the most important.

This is the engine, the thing that shouldn’t be changed. But, once again, under that blind faith I’m reminded, I suppose, of Stalin. He induced so much fear into the Russian people, into the whole of the Russian Government that after he died the next two Premiers didn’t have to do a thing because everyone was so fearful that he would come back and would take them back. And that goes back to this engine, the man working on the engine. They are sitting there fearful that the author of this will come in here and pluck the engine away from them.

So this is the opportunity we have to rewrite a bill, to make sure this classic engine that we’re working on, Part 2 of which is the heart of it—no vehicle works without a heart. As we look at the pieces of legislation here, those of you at home will know somebody that is disabled. We need legislation. Everything that happens here, you need some good legislation underlying it. What you don’t want to do is when you send it in, and go back to the analogy of when the engine’s been worked on, you don’t want someone to pimp it up, you don’t want a pair of fluffy dice; you don’t want these things. What you want is it to come out better, and that’s the real fear—as this is an opportunity that’s been taken under a philosophically driven Opposition. An Opposition, again, as I say, fearful that the author of this will come in and pick them up by the ears and take them out the back and do—or worse still, the metaphorical Siberia they’ll end up in if they don’t do. But I look forward to—perhaps it’ll take two changes in the Opposition benches before we actually get someone who can come in here with some fresh ideas that aren’t actually hamstrung by the mechanic, by the man who runs the garage, who ran the garage probably two ago.

So I look forward, as the eyes open, as they see that you can actually—in this bill we’ve got a classic here, the classic that in 1936 was built, the classic that in 1964 was again sent in for servicing. That’s what we’re doing now, go through here, even—back on the bill. I’m sorry, I’m all right on this bill, but even if we look at, particularly, the part we’re talking about, the bill where all financial services—previously in the Act the various main benefits were separated all through the Act, particularly in section 2 of the Act, Part 2. But what this does is it brings them all together. How many people actually are not back in the workforce because of the complications that they have when they go in to the office? This will remove an excuse. This will actually help us get people back to work, which is ultimately what we all want.

So, the Opposition—you’ve done good work. However, the good work that you have done is done under philosophy. An engine—you’ve got to remember, now, that this thing is a good classic.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you for this opportunity to address some of the questions that have been put to the committee this evening on Part 2.

Can I start with the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit—in particular, the question raised around the step-parent and their eligibility. The orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit provide financial support towards the cost of caring for a child whose parents cannot provide care or support due to family breakdown or due to a parental illness, incapacity, death, or the parents cannot be found. The Act requires the benefit to be applied towards the maintenance or education of the child or otherwise for the child’s benefit.

The bill, as introduced, included the following changes to the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit: it merged the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit into one benefit called the “supported child’s payment”. It’s not a term that is rare in the debate on this particular matter this evening, and it is about being policy-neutral. It also removed eligibility for step-parents to receive the supported child’s payment—and I’ll talk a little bit about that a little bit more shortly. It also created a single rate of sole parent support for single caregivers receiving a supported child’s payment. The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 removes the provisions related to the supported child’s payment and replaces them with provisions for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit.

Now, the member raised an issue about the eligibility of a step-parent, and there are already mechanisms for assistance for step-parents. Step-parents caring for a step-child can receive the benefit assistance that is available to any parent. If they qualify, they can receive a benefit, with the child included in that benefit. They can also receive a higher rate of accommodation supplement and hardship assistance if they qualify. They can also receive a family tax credit. The mechanisms are already there. In the SOP, it will be removing the original position, which was to merge them, and maintain the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit, acknowledging that step-parents can still qualify.

Can I address two amendments that have been brought on to the floor this evening. The first one is in the name of the Hon Louise Upston, and it refers to Part 2, Subpart 9A, the winter energy payment. This particular amendment seeks to amend the requirements of the Ministry of Social Development to ensure they explain the four-week absence rule to superannuitant recipients of the winter energy payment in all cases. Once again—it’s not going to be a new phrase in the debate this evening—that is not policy-neutral. General information on the website and letters and communications with those affected about overseas absence will affect eligibility. What, sadly too, this particular amendment does—and it’s, shall we say, the unintended consequences—is two things. It perpetuates the belief from the other side of the Chamber that—actually, it treats people with suspicion. It casts aspersions on them, on those who seek support and benefits, and that they are treated with suspicion whether they go overseas or they receive assistance, and it’s a shame that that approach is taken. The other one, of course, is it undermines the good work that many of the good people in Work and Income are already doing to engage with their clients to make sure that they do receive a full and comprehensive entitlement, what they’re already eligible to receive.

The other amendment is in the name of Simon O’Connor. “The purpose of this amendment is to remove both clauses to allow those receiving long-term residential care in a hospital or a rest home, which is funded, in whole or in part, under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, and those receiving residential care services funded, in whole or in part under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to be eligible to receive a Winter Energy Payment.” We, sadly, will not be supporting that amendment. The tabled amendment is, once again, in our belief, not policy-neutral, and also has significant financial implications, which I’m sure the member hasn’t calculated just yet.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. The two previous speeches from Greg O’Connor and also Deborah Russell too were the worst speeches of chardonnay socialism. They were both incoherent and inconsistent. One was full of arrogance, the other was full of ignorance, and obviously both of them did not read the bill, because if they did they would’ve actually known what the bill is all about.

This reminds me, when I look at this bill and the changes that have been made in Part 2 of this bill, and the whole part of the bill in amendments, there was an academic theologian by the name of Marcian. He was in Rome in 160 AD. What he did was that he took the Bible, the writing of the Bible, and the Word, and what he did was that he decided he only wanted to make it sound good so that he was pleasing to the people. This reminds me of him. So he took out all the bits that revealed the truth, and he had all the bits that made people feel good about themselves. The big problem with him was that when he talked about a God of love and a God of hate and a God of war he was unsure about how to make it consistent because what he was afraid of was the truth. This bill that is before us today is similar to that: it’s afraid of the truth. So they’ve got the razor blades out like Marcian, they’ve cut out all the bits, the bits that made them feel uncomfortable. They want to play populist politics, and, in particular, in Part 2.

I want to refer to the part of the bill in Part 2, in clause 59(5), and here’s what it says, it says, “MSD may, on a case by case basis, do either or both of the following: (a) make the grant of an exceptional circumstances benefit subject to any conditions imposed by MSD: (b) impose on [the beneficiary] the work-test or work-preparation obligations…”. Now, what is so hard about that? What’s so bad about that? Well, here, again, are a Government and a Minister and members on the other side who have not read this bill, because you need to go all the way back to the purpose of the bill. What does the purpose of the bill state? Yes, it’s in Part 1 but it relates to Part 2, and it simply says this in clause 3(a)(ii): “to help people to find or retain paid employment;”. Let’s look at the principle of the bill, and here it is, clause 4(a), “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve”—let’s wait for it—“social and economic well-being:”—social and economic well-being.

So here’s what I want to say to the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, and to those opposite: give us the rationale and the reasons why you would take that out altogether. It’s not mean-spirited; it’s consistent and congruent with the intent of the bill. But where does this come from? The previous Minister in the chair, Minister Sepuloni, said to us in the Chamber, just before the dinner break, that this is old stuff that we were bringing in—this Opposition was trying to introduce old ways. We’re talking about the new ways.

Well, I just so happened to go out, into the back there, into the lobby, and what do I have to pull out? The Hansard of 12 September 1938. Let’s look at the speech that was made by the Hon Mr Fagan, who, by the way, was a Labour Minister and a Labour MP. When he introduced the bill—and I know Mr Greg O’Connor talked about it being a car. It was actually not 1936; he’s got to get his models right—it was 1938 when the bill was introduced into Parliament. I love what he says here. Now, you may call it old school, but nothing has changed either in the purpose or in the principles of the Act. But I love this, and here’s what he says to us: “We all know [that] the old saying, ‘Cut your coat according to your cloth.’”—that’s a little bit of the old school; in other words: live within your means—“An idealist and a visionary [must] use all the cloth in making a coat, and find himself minus [his] trousers.”—minus his trousers.

Madam Chair, I hope I haven’t breached any protocols here, but it just seems really simple to me—in 1938, live within your means. So while you’re up there and you want to have the lolly scramble, you want to be nice, and you want to be caring and kind, what’s wrong—sorry, Madam Chair—what is wrong with ensuring the fact that people have the great opportunity which work affords to them? It’s clear that since 1938, amended in 1964, nothing has changed. Those key purposes, those key principles, are consistent today, and here we are in 2018 debating this bill. This is like the Bible of social policy that exists here in Parliament and for us as legislators. Are we going to be like Marcian to cut out all the good bits—

Marja Lubeck: Marcion! Marcion not Marcian.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —all the bits that we don’t like? That’s what we’ll do. Well, Marcion—that’s right. You may like to call him there. I don’t think he was Dutch; I think he was Italian. But that’s OK. But the fact remains this: what this bill is actually all about and what’s being removed by this Government today is they’re taking out the bits they think are nasty. They’re taking out the bits that they think are unkind. There is nothing wrong with giving people an opportunity—for those that are on a benefit—for work, because why? What does it say here? And I’ll read it again for the members on the other side, to the chardonnay socialists: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. Isn’t that the intent of the House? Isn’t that the intent of this bill? If it is, then why would you take out work-test obligations? Why would you remove that? So I move that we accept Supplementary Order Paper 31 in my name, which happens to be written so well, which talks about in clause 59 replacing that which has been amended.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure to follow on from my colleague Mr Ngaro. A few minutes ago, I was listening to the longest five minutes of my life when Mr Greg O’Connor was speaking. I thought to myself, I really want to describe that as a triumph of form over substance, but, quite frankly, that form is so derelict not even a panel beater could knock it into shape. It was followed on then by the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, who made a comment. He’s talking about new Subpart 9A, where I will spend most of my contribution on—Subpart 9A of Part 2, in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25. My colleagues suggested a Supplementary Order Paper about making it a bit more universal; he said, “It’s not policy-neutral. We can’t support that.” Well, how, Minister, is the inclusion of new Subpart 9A anything but policy-not-neutral? How can you describe the inclusion of that subpart as policy-neutral in the first place? It appears that it’s a very selective policy neutrality that you’re looking for.

I also wanted to talk about Dr Russell’s contribution of, now, some time ago. She introduced in her contribution this idea of universality and how the former National Government didn’t care about all older New Zealanders. And, because she introduced it, I just want to take couple of moments to address how wrong she is on this. The National Government had introduced a tax package that would have seen every superannuitant better off each week, and they’re better off through the linkage of superannuation to after-tax average wage. So the superannuitants would have been off in year one pretty much the same as the winter energy payment. But here’s the real difference and the real kicker: because superannuation is linked to the net after-tax average wage, as average wages increase so too would that superannuation increase have further increased—so it would have gone up. And a good Government, such as the National Government, with its focus on economic prosperity and well-being for all, would have ensured that incomes continued to rise faster than inflation so superannuitants would have been better off.

Well, this change that this new Government has put in place, from what I can see, they say it’s universal. It’s universally poorer, because it doesn’t even appear to be linked to inflation, so it won’t go up over time; it will go back over time. And with the spending and borrowing plans of this Government, inflation is going to be rising much faster than it would have done under National, so the erosion of the value of the winter energy payment will be so much faster. There is simply no way a claim can be made that the universality of this new Subpart 9A makes elderly New Zealanders better off than they would have been if this Government had kept the tax package that we had legislated when we were in Government. It simply is not the case.

Let’s talk a little bit more on new Subpart 9A. An earlier speaker regaled us with her tale of living in a colder part of New Zealand, in an old villa that wasn’t insulated, and having to freeze. Eventually, she was able to afford to insulate the home and it got a little bit better. That actually helps to crystallise another fundamental flaw in new Subpart 9A. It actually reflects the two very different philosophies of the left and the right when it comes to helping people who are less advantaged or more vulnerable. While they will give a little bit of money—that will erode with inflation over time—to help people pay some bills, they don’t actually help them solve the problem. The problem is the home is cold. Therefore, to solve the problem you’d help them insulate it. If you helped them insulate the home, then the energy bills are going to come down naturally, but there’s nothing in new Subpart 9A that really helps that. They get a fortnightly payment that’ll let them pay a little bit towards the bill today but does nothing to help them actually afford the works that would help to make the home cheaper to heat and, in fact, need less heat. So where—where—if this is a Government that supposedly is made up of parties that truly care for the less advantaged in New Zealand, is the actual means here to give them long-term help? It doesn’t exist. But it does exist in the amendment that I’ve tabled under my name this evening, which I’d now like to move on to.

This amendment would give New Zealanders receiving the winter energy payment the ability to, in effect, take a payment as an annual payment rather than a fortnightly payment, and they could then use that lump sum to improve the insulation in that home. It is focused on giving them the ability, the financial means, to lift themselves out of the current state of that insulation. It gives them the opportunity and the means to actually make improvements to the home, to add some insulation that will then help to decrease their winter energy bills—therefore, actually making them less reliant on any form of financial assistance.

So why—why—does a Government that claims to care for all New Zealanders, and particularly the disadvantaged, not offer them the means to get themselves out of the situation they find themselves in? No, it takes a party, a former Government, that actually cares about the underlying problems and the drivers of disadvantage—the causes and the real problems—being prepared to actually make change to address and fix those. It takes a party that is prepared to take that view to come up with an idea that says, “OK, you may need some help. So let’s help you get out of the situation you’re in.”, instead of just a little bit of money that’ll keep you where you are and, quite frankly, perpetuate the misery that one is in.

So this amendment, very simply, would change the purpose of new Subpart 9A to mean that it would also provide financial assistance to help certain people meet their heating needs during the winter period by providing for an additional home insulation or new heating sources, and it effects that in two clauses. Into new clause 65E, in SOP 25, “Winter energy payment: instalments, rates, and payment”, it would insert new clause 65E(1)(c), “if the person has nominated, in a form and manner approved by the chief executive, to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources, in 1 annual instalment.”, giving all of the benefit of the payment they would otherwise receive to use to improve the insulation of that home. And then, in a subsequent clause, it just ensures that they don’t lose any of that through the calculations.

It is a simple but effective way of actually looking to help New Zealanders who might be in some financial difficulty, who today might find they have challenges in paying for the heating of their home but under the Government’s plan would find themselves in the same situation every week and absolutely reliant on the small amount of money that they want to give them—the amount of money which, as I have pointed out, inflation will erode away over time; in a very short period of time, quite frankly, with the lack of economic plan that that Government actually has—which none the less would erode over time, and, therefore, be in less of a position to be able to help them meet those continuing energy heating costs.

But instead, in effect, if I think of a former party in this House, United Future, they called the idea capitalising family subsidies—well, in a sense, it’s a little bit like that, where you can get the annual amount in one advanced payment and then use it in a substantial and meaningful way to make improvements to the home that will make one warmer now and with lower heating costs into the future. It is a simple amendment that actually seeks to solve a problem instead of merely placing an insufficient band-aid and claiming that one somehow cares deeply about a group, but the actions of which show they care more about what they say rather than the effects of what they do. If this Government has—in my personal opinion—a soul, they will agree to support this amendment, because they will acknowledge that it actually provides a better long-term solution for those people with winter energy payment issues today.

So I call upon the Minister in the chair to explain to us, if they won’t support it, why they want to perpetuate people’s misery instead of actually solving it; why they want the value of their subsidy, their benefit, to erode in their winter energy payment because it’s not inflation indexed. Why would they do that, when they could simply support this? It doesn’t involve spending any extra money, just paying it in a way that allows people to make the best possible use of the State assistance that they’ve already agreed to offer, and, in doing so, they help people to lift themselves out of the positions they’re in today so they are better off tomorrow.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have to just address this real sense of irony that I’ve got from listening to that last speech—the party that I kind of believe bought the Band-Aid company is accusing us of putting a band-aid over the real need of New Zealanders. It’s actually a little funny. This is the party who had as their primary public service target a reduction of 25 percent in the number of people receiving income support, who didn’t bother measuring what happened to people after they were no longer on a benefit, and who didn’t care if they even had an income or were living in a shed because they were too traumatised to go into the Work and Income that they set up.

So I’ll just move past that irony and get into the content of Part 2 of the bill. It is difficult, though. So the issue that has been coming up continually is about challenging the idea that this isn’t policy-neutral because it’s including the winter energy payment. I’d just like to, again, point out to the Opposition: catch up. Wasn’t it, like, six months ago that we passed that legislation? This is just making sure that that this piece of legislation is actually tidy. So we had the debate, we won—move on.

The other thing is they’re saying that they want to include their items in it and that, really, the Government initially did introduce policy-neutral legislation, despite the fact that there were very clear policy points that were addressed in the regulatory impact statement that clearly indicated that it was not policy-neutral, and that what we have done is introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is genuinely policy-neutral, except, I would say, for one point within this section, which is the health practitioners update that came through from the submitters in the Social Services Committee, and that is just to reflect a standard that goes across our legislation. So it’s not a substantive policy point, but it is different from what was there before, and we are reflecting the change that was recommended by the committee.

So we are removing, in this SOP, by virtue of wanting it to be policy-neutral, the provision to allow parents in split-care arrangements to both receive benefits. I understand that that will be a frustration for some people, but I will say that the intent of doing that is that we are trying to tidy up this legislation without getting into the policy debate. There does need to be a really thorough consideration about how we support our families in the environment where there are very different parenting arrangements from what there were in 1964. Our legislation hasn’t caught up to that. We need to consider split care. We need to consider shared care. We also need to consider the interrelationship between the Social Security Act and the Child Support Act, and Working for Families.

On this side of the House, we don’t want to do that in a piecemeal way. We don’t want to just pass one little part of that without thinking about how it interacts with the whole. When we—in the Greens, at least—committed to an overhaul of the welfare system, it was for a comprehensive consideration about how this legislation can deliver for all of our families in this modern world. We believe that that needs proper, comprehensive consideration, which doesn’t mean passing one tiny little thing out of context.

We also have removed the change that renames the emergency benefit as the exceptional circumstances benefit. We’ve heard from the Opposition side that they’re questioning—saying we’re kind of just being a little bit too picky by saying that we don’t like those words “exceptional circumstances”. Then I question: why did they change it to “exceptional circumstances”? That was National Party policy—for them it was such a big deal they needed to change it. Now they’re saying it’s picky for us to say that we didn’t want that language, despite the fact that of those submitters who commented on it, almost all of them opposed the change to “exceptional circumstances”. They wanted it to remain as an emergency benefit, because that was a clear expression of the purpose of the provision. [Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Chair.

They also were very clear in their opposition to including the discretion to apply work-test and work-preparation obligations to those receiving what would then become the exceptional circumstances benefit. They didn’t think that it actually reflected the reasons that people typically apply for that benefit and was more erosion of the concept of social security by increasing the precariousness of the benefit for people who are already not entitled to any other benefit and who are in such a dire position that they don’t have a financial situation to be able to support themselves. They’re not entitled to any other benefit; this is it for them to be able to have any income whatsoever—an incredibly vulnerable place, and it is not really appropriate to be putting on work-test obligations for people in a transitory, incredibly vulnerable place. So I, speaking for myself, am very pleased to see that removed.

I would also like to speak to the fact that this SOP, in Part 2, moves some provisions from regulation back into primary legislation. That’s part of why this looks so big in terms of the changes. That is something that the Green Party was really committed to doing, because we heard from people that while we need to make the legislation easy to use—that’s true—we also need to make sure that we have parliamentary scrutiny of core provisions. For the Greens the definitions of accommodation costs and cash assets for the purpose of being able to receive and be entitled to an accommodation supplement are critical social security supports that should have parliamentary oversight. When we move them into regulation we lose that ability for a select committee to scrutinise the decisions and the directions of Government that apply to really significant supports for people in our community.

The other provision that has moved back into primary legislation is around eligibility criteria for funeral grants. If anybody in this Chamber has spoken to people who have needed to access those funeral grants and who have struggled to pay for the cost of a funeral for a family member because, actually, those funeral payments at the moment aren’t adequate enough, I really think that those experiences should call us to have parliamentary oversight of those regulations and take responsibility for those decisions to ensure that when people are in times of grief and extreme need, we are responsible enough to ensure that they are able to provide for their family in that time. So I am pleased, from the Greens’ perspective, to see that back in the primary legislation. So on that note, I will sit down.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I’d like to begin by reminding this committee that it is actually a part of the bill which sets out more than 16 categories of assistance that—we have in general agreement—should be available to New Zealanders. It is to the credit of this House and indeed the credit of New Zealand that there is generally broad agreement on the important role welfare assistance plays in New Zealand society, of the important role that having a safety net for those falling into hardship provides. So what this debate actually comes to in this committee today is the way in which we approach that assistance in terms of targeting it at those who need it most.

Here on this side of the Chamber we philosophically believe that it is kinder to someone to help them into the dignity of work and the dignity of independence wherever possible, whereas on the other side of the Chamber there seems to be some question about that. So we see that philosophy in play as we look to the various subparts of this bill, because we see that again and again, where the previous bill that National had put forward proposed to have a targeted approach, a tailored approach, an approach that provided discretion to ensure that those receiving assistance received the right kind of assistance that would allow them to get back on their own two feet—that approach is rejected by this Labour-led Government.

I want to take you through a few examples of that. Let’s look at Subpart 3, because I think it is extraordinary that here we had in the original bill the provision for a supported child’s payment, and the purpose of that was to ensure that where children were in homes where parents had died or where there was a breakdown in the family, that grandparents, step-parents, or other eligible caregivers could be eligible for a supported child’s payment. But no, that’s removed from the legislation here because that tailored approach is rejected on the other side of the Chamber. We would say, “Well, actually that approach is a much more sensible way of ensuring that assistance goes where it’s needed.” That is why we are presenting a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on those clauses, SOP 29 and SOP 30. I commend those SOPs to members of this committee, because actually we can work together on this and we can ensure that this legislation does help those most in need.

We then turn to Subpart 8 on the emergency benefit, which was just mentioned by the previous speaker. What the National bill did—and what this SOP seeks to remove—is provide an exceptional circumstances benefit that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on a case by case basis could make, subject to grant conditions. That is to acknowledge that there are circumstances that will arise that this House has not foreseen and to acknowledge that MSD may want to put in work obligations to make that relevant. Again, on this side of the Chamber, we offer an SOP to allow the other side of the Chamber to take sensible action on that.

Then we come to the matter of the winter energy payment, that my colleague Brett Hudson has spoken about at some length and has offered some useful suggestions on. Here, I think, we come to the nub of the difference between the two sides, because here what the Labour-led Government has said is, “We absolutely reject targeting support at those who need it most. No, no, no, no. We’re not interested in families who might be cold but aren’t receiving benefits; we’re more interested in giving grants, giving energy grants, to superannuitants living in million-dollar houses, taking holidays on the Gold Coast. That’s our idea of universalism. Because we think that those people need it more for our little sound bites than actually the working families who could benefit from targeted assistance.”

So we on this side of the Chamber proudly talk about social investment because what it’s about, ladies and gentlemen, is targeting assistance where it’s needed most, where it can make the biggest difference, where it will actually transform lives. We reject the simplistic notions on the other side of the Chamber that say, “Oh, well, if we say it’s universal, we’re going to sound like we’re a benevolent people of deep care.” Well, it is not benevolent and it is not deeply caring to target other people’s taxpayer dollars at people who do not need help with their electricity bills, ladies and gentlemen, instead of helping people in specific circumstances such as those unsupported children, which I discussed in this area.

So what we stand proudly on this side of Chamber to say is that if you’re going to reform welfare, you’d better do it in a way that actually helps people into lives of dignity and independence. This legislation does not achieve that.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair, I really appreciate that. Can I just pay a compliment to the former speaker, Nicola Willis. What a great asset she is in the House and, in particular, the passion with which she articulated such an important approach to welfare. I get thoroughly sick and tired on this side of the House of being subjected to lectures about the fact that, supposedly, members of the National Party don’t care. I want to tell you that I’m in this House because I care passionately about New Zealanders, and I believe very, very firmly in a generous, compassionate welfare State that is able to assist the many New Zealanders who need our help. I will fight for that principle every moment that I am a serving member of this Parliament.

But you can only do that if you are also determined to ensure that the system works appropriately and, as Nicola Willis has just pointed out, does not throw money around inappropriately in an untargeted, unfocused fashion, because every dollar that we spend as parliamentarians is coming out of the pockets of our fellow citizens. We have an absolute responsibility to them to spend that money wisely, fairly, and appropriately. So I really hope that in dealing with Part 2 of this bill, members opposite will answer some of the questions that have been put to them.

In particular, I want to commend and strongly support the amendment put forward by Brett Hudson. The winter energy payment, which is covered in Subpart 9A of Part 2 in Supplementary Order Paper 25, is a very important part of this legislation, and I commend Brett Hudson for articulating the view that it should be available in a lump sum for those who would find that the best way of deriving the benefit. Because if their homes are poorly insulated—and I hadn’t thought of this when I spoke earlier about my ideas of replacing antiquated, fuel-inefficient, and costly heating appliances—they too would benefit from lump-sum assistance to improve the insulation, which would lower the fuel costs that they have to spend. Surely, that is a sensible way of spending the winter energy payment, if it works for them.

So I say to the new Minister now—when I say “new Minister”, the Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who has just taken over in the chair—I hope that she will answer the question about whether the Government will think again and give the people for whom this payment has been set up the opportunity to take it in the form that will work best for them. Because what works best for my elderly neighbour won’t be the same for my great-aunt down the road or for somebody in a different part of the country where conditions might be colder, wetter, damper, or whatever.

We’ve heard tonight some extraordinary contributions from members of the Government, and yet they seem to keep coming back to this idea that if they talk very quietly and say, “Oh, well, of course, this is a policy-neutral provision”, all will be well. Well, Mr O’Connor, the MP for Ōhāriu—another man I respect—tried to argue that point of view, but, I have to say, that was an extraordinary performance; a contortionist couldn’t have done better. We were treated to some Uriah Heep - like thing, and yet he kept on wanting to talk about how in some way it was Stalinist. I have to say, he lost me, but it was definitely more Dickensian than Solzhenitsyn, the bit that I could follow. Then he gave us a little bit of time on his fluffy dice, and by this point I was wondering what we were talking about. He was going on, on the engine, and clearly, he was revisiting his misspent youth, although I’m sure it was much closer to the misspent youth of the young Labour list MP who is sitting beside him at the moment, because I know how he hoons around Hamilton with his fluffy dice.

This is an important bill, and, as the Hon Alfred Ngaro lamented, Government members who have spoken thus far in the debate seem not to have read the amendments that they are supporting. This is one of the reasons why we are so concerned and, frankly, horrified that the Government has just dumped this huge number of amendments on the committee without going back to the select committee, when they themselves appear not to understand some of the practical consequences of the amendments that they are supporting.

I hope that they’re going to answer some of the questions that have been put to them. I hope that they are going to focus on some of the suggestions. I really hope that they’re going to support some of the Supplementary Order Papers that my colleagues are putting forward, because we want to improve this bill. We want to recover that degree of unanimity that previously existed, so that we can all have a really substantial piece of legislation that we all support.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’ve got a number of amendments in front of me with respect to the winter energy payment. Some have been touched on by the Opposition tonight and some haven’t, but I thought I’d speak to all of them.

I’m really concerned, though, that the quality of some of them and what is being proposed really does indicate that there’s a little bit of trifling going on with the committee. This is a good example of why: we’ve got an amendment from Andrew Bayly, who wants to move that we amend the winter energy payment to put it into line with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) definition of winter. He says NIWA defines winter as the months of June, July, and August, which is 92 days. The advice I’ve got is that the NIWA definition would change the period every year, so it would mean that people would not know how much they were going to receive or when they would get it, and that would cause chaos not only for the people receiving the payment but also for the system that’s set up to deliver the payment. So, actually, no; we want to be able to provide some certainty to New Zealanders that are eligible for the winter energy payment, and what we’ve proposed, in terms of the set period of time, makes absolute sense, so we will not be supporting Andrew Bayly’s amendment.

There’s another amendment that is from the honourable member Alfred Ngaro, wanting us to restrict the election and revocation of receiving a winter energy payment to once every year, saying that it would reduce compliance and unnecessary burden. Actually, if people had to nominate every year that they did not want to receive it, then that would actually increase compliance. In fact, when they opt out, they can, at any time, opt back in, and so that makes much more sense than asking them to opt out on an annual basis. So, we will not be supporting that one.

Maureen Pugh has one amendment, the purpose being that this amendment is to allow the winter energy payment to be taken in monthly instalments, rather than either fortnightly or weekly, saying that that aligns with someone’s monthly power bill payments. For those that have been in Government before—and I know there are members on the other side of the Chamber that have been members before—the administration and compliance issues that come with trying to have differential payments like that are huge. And, actually, I don’t think there’s going to be any major complaints from people if they are receiving it fortnightly as opposed to monthly, considering it could cost millions of dollars to tinker with the system to enable us to do that. So, we won’t be doing that.

We’ve got one amendment from Brett Hudson—

Chris Bishop: That’s a good one. That’s a keeper.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s the same quality as the others, and is asking that the winter energy payment be paid as a one-off lump sum. You know, maybe there’s some good intention there; he’s saying that’s so it could support insulation or new heating sources. The issue with that is you don’t know how long someone is going to be eligible for the winter energy payment, because if they go off the benefit or they go overseas for a period of time, then during that time they would no longer be eligible. Therefore, if you gave them the lump sum at the beginning of winter, you would potentially be creating an overpayment, which is not good for the client and is not good for the State. So, we will not be supporting that one.

I think that’s all the winter energy payment - related amendments, and I, hopefully, have explained really clearly why they would not work and why what we’ve currently proposed in our bill is actually the more sensible and practical way to go.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m really pleased to take a further call. I’m very concerned, actually, that the Minister for Social Development is pre-empting the discussion in this Chamber around a number of amendments that rightly focus on the winter energy payment. I will touch very briefly on a tabled amendment. Subpart 9A deals with the winter energy payment—but again, I think it is a concern, as I read it, that the attempt to quickly address amendments before members have even raised the reasons for them is most unfortunate, but I think it’s also indicative of the Government’s approach to this bill, which is to push it through.

What, of course, is happening—and it will be no surprise to many in this Chamber—is that as this debate goes on, more and more tabled amendments are appearing here, as members on this side of the Chamber continue to find, with growing concern and alarm, the variety of changes that have been made. Look, I’m conscious a lot of discussions happened on Subpart 1, a little bit on Subpart 3, and certainly on Subpart 9, so I want to turn my mind to Subpart 2 “Jobseeker support” and to clause 21, referencing what is known as the work gap. So clause 21(1)(b) states that it is if someone “is in employment but is losing earnings through a health condition or injury”. It makes perfect sense.

The question, really, for the Minister in the chair, Carmen Sepuloni, is: over what time frame? That doesn’t appear to be specified. So Minister, I think, it is very prudent that we look at a work gap. Obviously, it is if someone, as you’ve got in the legislation in clause 21(1)(a), “is not in full time employment;”, and—quite prudent too—if they are losing earnings due to a health condition or injury. I don’t see the time frame specified. It’d be good to understand that and to assure the committee too that “health condition or injury” is broad enough, because those of us who have worked in the health sector know that that’s actually not necessarily a health—well, these are not health terms per se, so just clarity of what is covered in there.

In clause 22 we may have a logical fallacy at play, and I’d probably need someone like Christopher Penk to help me out. Clause 22 is about availability for work, here in Part 2. It says a person is available for work if the person, “(a) is available for and seeking full-time employment and—(ii) is willing and able to undertake it; and (iii) has taken reasonable steps to find it;”. It’s the “is willing” in clause 22(a)(ii) which is the critical and somewhat confusing part to me. Obviously, from my sort of leanings politically, one’s simple willingness to find employment is not necessarily sufficient in itself, although I would admit it’s necessary. However, to go on and then say “(iii) has taken reasonable steps” does seem to be sort of around the wrong way.

The long and the short is, Minister, that if someone is willing to take up work, then one would assume that they will take reasonable steps. However, if someone is, according to clause 22(a)(ii), not willing, then it’s rather hard for them to take reasonable steps to be unwilling. I hope that makes sense. So it basically is questioning why we have clause 22(a)(iii) if clause 22(a)(ii) is being contradicted. In other words, if someone is unwilling or not able to undertake work, then how is it they can prove that they’ve taken reasonable steps? It seems a little odd to me.

Part 2, clause 23—there is a question here around age requirements. I know from experience in the field that it’s normal that it’s at least 18 years—as it’s put here—for someone seeking a job seeker application, but I’m conscious there are a lot of legalities from age 16 these days, including those with children, so I’m just wondering why they’re not specifically covered. I suspect that’s in other subparts to follow. So just a couple of questions there.

Moving now to clause 27 in Part 2, this is around how the jobseeker support is affected by one’s health conditions. It’s really good to see that in clause 27(2), it says, “The certificate must be given by a prescribed health practitioner.” As a former chair of the Health Committee, I’m very aware that we put through a piece of legislation with, I believe, the full support of the House to change the term “medical practitioner”, meaning only a doctor, to “health practitioner”. It’s excellent to see that this has been taken up, but I think we need a little bit more clarity or assurance that that’s not too wide.

I don’t want to contradict the intention of the Health Committee to ensure there’s a broad range of practitioners, and it was something that we discussed in the committee at the time. In the case of clause 27, one would expect that a doctor or a nurse would be a prescribed health practitioner, but health practitioners also include podiatrists and the like. So I suppose, to illustrate the point, could a podiatrist on a non-foot related injury write out a certificate for someone seeking jobseeker support? So I suppose it’s just that sort of common-sense filter and assurance to be given to the committee. It’s prudent that the bill has been updated to say “health practitioner” rather than “medical practitioner”, but, as I say, many people would think that all health practitioners are doctors or nurses, and it actually goes much, much wider than that—chiropractors, podiatrists, and so forth. I can see where certain health practitioners would fit, but if I’m going in with—I don’t know—a viral chest infection, will my friendly podiatrist down the road writing a certificate be sufficient? I hope the answer is no.

Turning to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 30 now, this is around the supported child’s payment in Subpart 5, but I haven’t had the chance—I’m not sure who has, actually—to address my SOP. Fundamentally, it’s really asking the Minister why we’re not allowing people who are not the biological parents, in effect, or those acting as caregivers in the first instance to receive the support. In effect, my SOP is really just reintroducing this into Subpart 5—and I understand from an earlier speaker that it’s because the Government wants to take its time and consider this. I suppose that’s a valid—well, it’s not “suppose”; it is actually a very valid position. However, we often hear from the other side sort of a “Who will think of the children?” cry, so here’s an instant ability to provide some clarity, and if in this comprehensive working of the Government they decide it’s not prudent, well then, they can remove it. But in the meantime, non-family members who are supporting a child will miss out, and I just think that’s a little unusual.

So I’m not going to go into depth with this SOP other than to say that it’s seeking to reintroduce into Subpart 5 in this Part 2 all those elements which allow the—well, a child who has no parent but has someone who’s prepared to look after that child. So we’re talking guardians and so forth, or, to get really technical, there’s several degrees of affinity there, and I just think it’s prudent. I would hope to think that it’s a concept supported by all in the committee. I mean, if this is a child-centred approach, then really the degree of affinity of the caregiver is not all that relevant.

Again, I do understand—I think it was from the Green Party—that they want more time to think about it, I suppose. Well, we’d all like more time to think about things, but where there is an immediate issue here for some family members—and I think one of the contributions earlier was also talking about funeral grants and death. Well, this applies in the case where a child’s parent is dead or missing, so I think it just fits into all of that.

The last bit—because I’m conscious that this is possibly my fourth call and that’s sort of the end of it, which is possibly of great relief to the other side. I do want to just briefly touch on a tabled amendment in my name. This is to Subpart 9A, and seeks, in clause 65C, to actually delete two paragraphs in subclause (2). I am conscious that around the winter energy payment, as I’ve said, we’ve touched on this quite a bit, though we have not touched on this particular tabled amendment.

Currently, clause 65C(2)(c) and (d) are around long-term residential care in a hospital and people who are receiving residential care services. So the long and short of this is that, as currently proposed, someone will not be qualified to receive these payments if they’re in long-term residential care or they are receiving residential care services. There are a few other words around this, but I am conscious of time. I am suggesting via this tabled amendment that we actually delete those. I don’t think someone should be discriminated against on those bases, and I think, again, it’s just coming back to the fundamental issue. I’ve heard a lot about universalism and I’ve heard a lot about discrimination and stigma from the other side, and yet here is a prime example of that in practice, and I’m suggesting, hey, let’s get on the same page.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s been a lot of discussion tonight about the detail within this bill. I think it demonstrates really clearly the value of the select committee process and why when a bill of this magnitude has not been to the select committee it creates this detailed debate at the committee stage of the bill.

But it would be remiss of me to not take this opportunity to comment on the analogy given by Greg O’Connor in the committee tonight when he talked about his classic car—about getting under the bonnet and removing his engine. It was, I think, demonstrated quite clearly, Mr O’Connor, that a vintage car can still achieve uncontrolled loss of traction, as you did—spinning the wheels, going nowhere, but still the smell of burning rubber and petrol fumes.

This bill describes in detail the benefits that are available, and when you look at the list of the benefits that are available within this bill—particularly in Part 2, that we’re talking about—it goes to show what an absolutely generous country we live in in support of our least able people to support themselves. Our welfare system is a very healthy one.

But I did hear last week in the House, as there was question time happening, one member across the House who talked about how we procrastinate in getting people back into work by giving them not one, not two, and not even three, but four chances—he called them—not to go back to work. Well, this bill, in the form that it was delivered to the House last year, is about the social investment approach to these people that have found themselves in a situation where they are in the benefit-dependency cycle, and the social investment approach seeks to remove them from that.

But there is one part of the bill, in the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 25 to Part 2—and it’s indexed at HA—which talks about the winter energy payment. I was a bit surprised to hear the Minister decline my amendment before I’d even had a chance to discuss it. That was an amendment to Part 2, proposed Subpart 9A and clause 65E on Supplementary Order Paper 25, and my suggestion was to insert a new clause 65E(2)(c). That would allow for the winter energy payment to be paid in five monthly payments and two fortnightly payments, and the rationale given by the Minister was that it would cost millions of dollars to implement a monthly payment. The rationale was that it coincides with monthly power accounts, and so it makes perfect sense to align the payments to a monthly power account.

And so my argument is that we load those payments up for people who are receiving benefits. We load them once into a computer. How hard can it be, then, to load one payment to go in monthly, or perhaps fortnightly? It’s not as though we have to do it every single month twice for every beneficiary. But, of course, if you did live on the West Coast an annual payment would be quite acceptable. You could buy two tonnes of coal on the West Coast for $700—

Simon O’Connor: Not if you’re a greenie.

MAUREEN PUGH: If you’re a greenie—there’s not many of them on the West Coast, Mr O’Connor.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Don’t bring me into the debate.

MAUREEN PUGH: Oh, excuse me, Madam Chair. Mr O’Connor highlighted tonight some minor tidying-up that the bill required.

Simon O’Connor: Which one?

MAUREEN PUGH: Some—there was quite some, and I guess that is actually demonstrating once again the value of the select committee process, because that small tidying-up gets done at that point, when everyone has had an opportunity to scrutinise the wording within the bill and provide the input at that stage. But I also heard, earlier in the year, when I was watching from home, a speech given by the Rt Hon David Carter, when he talked about schedule 4 and the winter energy payment. I asked the question why they are not targeted or means-tested, when someone who is on an MP’s salary, receiving super, getting fees-free for his—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Sepuloni made some interesting comments, and I thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing us to speak to our amendments. I know that the Minister answered, in her response to what she read in the amendments, but it’s great for those of us who have put through an amendment to be able to speak to them in the Chamber in this committee of the whole House stage as well.

I want to speak in regard to the winter energy payment, in particular because the Minister made the comment that, you know, it’s quite simple—we’ve actually passed the legislation, we’re just getting on with it and doing it. But when you look at the bill itself, I mean, the whole of Subpart 9A—clauses 65A, 65B, 65C, 65D, 65E, and 65F on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25—it’s quite a substantive part of the bill, and, again, this is absolutely not policy-neutral. This is something that’s come out of the current Government’s perspective on the way that they want to provide this sort of support. So it sort of defies the sense of the words that the Minister has said—that they wanted to provide a policy-neutral platform for this bill.

The other part, in regard to my amendment to Part 2, Subpart 9A, clause 65D on the Minister’s SOP 25, is to replace clause 65D(3) with “The election must be made, and may be revoked, in a form and manner approved by MSD once every calendar year.”, and that’s the pragmatism of the amendment that I’m willing to put forward. What we often see is that there’s just an open-ended response. Things need to be tidied up, and I’d like to hear from the Minister in regard to this, because her response to my amendment was “What if they get off the benefit?” Well, from our side of here, the way that things are structured it’ll be very unlikely that any of them will get off the benefit, because everything will be provided for them.

Jan Logie: Ha, ha!

Hon ALFRED NGARO: And, again, as I said earlier on, the welfare system was meant to be a safety net. That’s right—members may shake their head on the other side there, and Jan Logie can do that, but if she reads, it’s consistent, and if she didn’t like it, then why didn’t she appeal? Why didn’t she appeal the purpose and the principle of the Act, which clearly states the greatest purpose is allow people to have work. That’s the greatest thing for social and economic well-being. But the member doesn’t like that. Instead, she’s picked on little bits, and what we’re trying to say is we want this to be pragmatic and practical, so I think that my amendment is wanting to do that.

I also want to support the amendment from my colleague Brett Hudson. Having been previously an electrician, and worked in, actually, a number of State houses, one of the issues that was constant in the work around repairs and maintenance was often around heating of homes, and what we found was the inefficient use of a heater. And so while this winter heat payment is simply about paying the bill, if we want to be wise, if we want to be considered, and if we want to truly help that family, the best thing that we could do is to be able to help them to insulate the home. Now, I think, actually, the amendment that’s been submitted by my colleague Brett Hudson is a pragmatic and practical approach that would allow for those families to be able to have a subsidy that would allow them insulation at home. It has been proven that when a home is insulated, when it becomes warmer and drier, the savings are three times that of a normal power bill. So it reduces the power bill by at least three times what it would normally cost. So why isn’t that considered? I think that actually that should be considered. It’s practical, it’s pragmatic, it’s the ability to help people heat and warm up their homes as well, and I think that’s important.

When we think about the winter energy payment, I suppose one of the things—and, again, in clause 65A—is where the purpose of the winter energy payment is to provide a “targeted financial assistance”. There’s been so much debate in this committee, and the reality is even from the Government side, in the backbenches—Deborah Russell in her speech spoke about universalism. So then why are we not removing the words? If we want to be true to the truth about what this bill is trying to do, it is not targeted. It is not means-tested. Actually, it’s an open, universal aspect where even members in this House who are eligible to have SuperGold cards can receive the winter energy payment.

So I’d like to ask of the Minister that she would ask of her officials why it is that they wouldn’t remove those words. If it’s not targeted, then actually say so; just simply declare the fact that this is a universal approach, which means that everyone and anyone who is eligible can apply for this. We know they’ve got a voluntary clause in there that allows other people to opt out. Well, the reality is that many of them probably won’t. We hope they would, but many of them won’t. So we hope that these amendments—and I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to speak to my amendment in particular, and I hope that that adds to the debate in the committee.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. I would like to start by talking about the winter energy payment, because that is something we saw as a big change in the way we were debating this bill. In Part 1 what we heard was that they were defending the fact that this is a policy-neutral bill—so, yes, we want to keep it policy-neutral, but when we came to Part 2, here we find that there are winter energy payments.

But what I want to comment on, on winter energy payments, is that when it says that it is available for people that are on the main benefit, I don’t understand why it’s available for people only on the main benefit. There are so many types of benefits that people can receive from the Ministry of Social Development, and those people receive those benefits because they are in real need. So they are going through some financial constraint. If they are going through some financial constraint, they all should be eligible for the winter energy payment. So it will be really good to see the Minister answer this question: why will only the people on the main benefit be receiving the winter energy payment and not people receiving other benefits? That is really unfair for people, those who receive other benefits, that they will not be eligible for the winter energy payment. When we talk about people on superannuation, there is no such criterion. Everybody that is receiving superannuation is going to receive a winter energy payment. So it is really unfair, when it comes to looking after people on really low incomes, that the support is not going to be available.

Along with that I would also like to talk about my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), Andrew Bayly’s SOP, that is to define winter according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s (NIWA’s) definition. So if it is actually to help people that are feeling cold in their houses, then why not adopt this definition—and the Minister has already dismissed that definition. I want to know what the basis is. So if the basis is that the Minister wants to provide some certainty, that certainty can be provided through definitions that are provided through these scientific institutions. It’s about helping people, helping people that feel cold in their houses, so the definition of winter from NIWA should be adopted because according to scientific evidence that is when the cold weather starts, that is when the temperatures drop, and then the temperatures actually pick up. So there are a few issues there on the winter energy payment that need to be answered.

Very quickly, I also want to touch on an SOP by Simon O’Connor. This is to amend the Minister’s SOP. This is replacing inserted Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 with a new Subpart 5 to restore a wide range of circumstances under which a supported child’s payment is eligible. The Minister touched on this issue before when he took a call, but it’s not very clear how this payment will work, because we’re talking about children that are not orphaned; we’re talking about children that are not unsupported—we’re talking about children that are supported. So we want some clarification around it, because now in clause 31 the Government has decided not to combine the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit.

So we want some clarity around what’s going to happen to the supported child’s payment, as was proposed in this legislation. It’s very clear that this SOP that has been put forward—this is based on what was in the legislation before—will be available to people that are looking after a child that, for some reason, doesn’t have his or her biological parents available. They could be no more, maybe they are missing, or maybe there is a breakdown in the family, so there could be reasons why a child needs someone else to take care of him or her. It could be a grandparent, it could be a relative, and there could be financial constraints on them, so we cannot assume that they do not have any financial constraints—or maybe they have their own budget and now, all of a sudden, if they have to look after another child, it could become really difficult for them. So it is the Government’s responsibility to look after those children.

This change actually will make New Zealand children poorer. We hear this Government talking repeatedly about doing more for children, making New Zealand the best country to raise a child in, but when it comes to legislation that actually delivers, when it comes to action, that action is completely missing.

So I’m really disheartened. I’m really sad to see that this Government doesn’t care about this special support child’s payment, and thinks that we don’t need it. So I really want to hear from the Minister why the Minister is actually making this change, and how the support child’s payment will work for these children in special circumstances. We are talking about people who will be providing assistance to children or looking after these children in the long term.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take a call on clause 59, Subpart 8 of Part 2 of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, “Emergency benefit: discretionary grant on ground of hardship”. On reading through—that’s clause 59(5), amended by the SOP—I’ve noticed that the Minister for Social Development has deleted quite a few of the options in this particular part of the bill. I just want to talk a little bit about that because I think that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) finds it difficult enough for declining clients. Emergency benefits are there for that reason. But I think that amended subclause (5)—“MSD may, on a case by case basis, make the grant of an emergency benefit subject to any conditions imposed by MSD.”—does put MSD at risk. There is no other option for them to be able to go back to use for granting an emergency benefit. As I can see, through this SOP there are only clauses 59 and 60 that deal with emergency benefits. I don’t believe it is wide enough for MSD to be able to make a decision.

I think the whole area around “subject to any conditions imposed by MSD” is the issue, so therefore, I’m supporting Alfred Ngaro’s SOP 31. SOP 31 says, “MSD may, on a case by case basis, do either or both of the following:”. So that’s either to “make the grant of an exceptional circumstances benefit subject to any conditions”—similar to subclause 5 in the bill—or option (b), “impose on P the work-test or work-preparation obligations (and associated sanctions) attached to the equivalent benefit (if MSD is satisfied that P has the capacity to comply with those obligations).” By looking at this SOP, I can see that it does actually give MSD an option—an option to be able to make a decision, and also to be able to be accountable for the granting of the emergency benefit.

We have to understand that some people are pretty expert at being able to get emergency benefits—that’s not all people; that’s just some people. As I’ve said before, in my past contributions, benefits are there to help people during a rough time; however, we need to make sure we have various things in place to ensure that the people that really need these emergency benefits are going to get them, and that there is a test in place that will actually support MSD staff to ensure that the granting of this emergency benefit is going for the right reasons to the right applicant, who is not being seen to be taking advantage, let’s say. So that’s why I stand here and support Alfred Ngaro’s SOP 31. I think it has good wording in there. I think that it does give some protection and another option for MSD staff to be able to make a decision around the granting of an emergency benefit.

The second point that I also want to make, around supporting proposed amendments, is around Brett Hudson’s winter energy payments. I think that we need to have some additional options there on the table for those that are eligible over the winter period for the winter energy payments. I think that an option for providing for additional home insulation or heating sources is great. I think that if the person is under this particular clause that Brett has put forward—I think that there needs to be some flexibility around those winter energy payments.

I hope that a lot of the applications, etc., are fairly straightforward for superannuants. I discussed this with my mother on Sunday, on Mother’s Day—a great discussion at Mother’s Day lunch—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member for our timing—we got the clocks wrong.

JO HAYES: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. We got the clock wrong, so I’ve just indicated the end of the call. Does the member want to continue?

JO HAYES: Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you very much. Sorry, I was looking at it and thinking it was going a bit slow.

As I said, I was discussing this with my mother, over the winter energy payments. She’s 86 years old—she’ll be 87 this year—and she seemed all confused about it. Therefore, I just hope that the process for winter energy payments, should they come into being, is going to be fairly straightforward for our kaumātua. It’s quite confusing.

But I think that in clause 65E, inserted by SOP 25, “Winter energy payment: instalments, rates, and payment”, Brett Hudson’s amendment to insert new clause 65E(2)(c) “for recipients who have nominated to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources,” is a good option. I think that if you add winter insulation into there, it will actually—if you look at it, it should actually reduce heating expenses for those who have the insulation put in. I think that that’s really good. I know that many people do watch their power bills. I know that my mother watches her power bill over the winter time. I’m still not sure whether or not her house is fully insulated. She’s renting a flat, but I’ve been talking to the landlord about that to make sure. I know that if he was given this option to, under the winter energy payments, get some sort of payment there for insulation, that would go a long way towards reducing the amount of times my mother has to use the heat pump in her home.

Based on all of the other winter energy payment amendments that this side of the Chamber has put in, there are some very sound arguments about where to from here for winter energy payments. I think it would be very good for the Government to actually accept some of these options in this bill, especially around, as I say, winter insulation and options around Alfred Ngaro’s SOP to do with the emergency benefit. I think that, as I said, benefits are there to give people a hand up not a handout, and I think that we need to be able to empower MSD to make sure that they can get their protections in place and their kind of lists of things to be able to grant an emergency benefit, wholly knowing that they have done all their checks and balances. So, as I said, my contribution now comes to an end. I thank you, Madam Chair.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of a vote—[Interruption] No, we are in the middle of a vote. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 29 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 31(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Subpart 5 and to insert new Subpart 5A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 59(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The amendment tabled in the name of Joanne Hayes has been ruled out of order as it is the same as the previous amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new clause 65(2) be agreed to:

delete paragraphs (c) and (d).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Bayly to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new clause 65B be agreed to:

replace the definition of Winter period with the following definition:

Winter period is the period of time consistent with the NIWA definition of winter.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brett Hudson to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new Subpart 9A be agreed to:

in clause 65A, after “.”, insert “The purpose of the winter energy payment is also to provide financial assistance to help certain people meet their heating needs during the winter period by providing for additional home insulation or new heating sources.”;

in clause 65E(1), insert the following new paragraph:

(c) if the person has nominated, in a form and manner approved by the chief executive, to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources, in 1 annual instalment.; and

in clause 65E(2), insert the following new paragraph:

(c) for recipients who have nominated to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources, by 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new clause 65D be agreed to:

replace subclause (3) with the following new subclause:

(3) The election must be made, and may be revoked, in a form and manner approved by MSD once every calendar year.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Maureen Pugh to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new clause 65E be agreed to:

insert in subclause (2) the following new paragraph:

(c) or, should anyone entitled to the winter energy payment choose to elect to, by five monthly payments and two fortnightly payments.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new Subpart 9A be agreed to:

insert, after clause 65F, the following new clause:

65G Winter energy payment: obligations to inform

MSD must take reasonable and appropriate steps to explain, to every person who is, or appears to MSD to be likely to be, affected by them,—

(a) the rules about the absence from New Zealand contained in the following provisions:

(i) section 203 (general rule: benefit, including a winter energy payment, not payable while beneficiary absent from New Zealand):

(ii) regulations made under section 415 (regulations that contain exceptions, and other contrary or related provisions); and

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of Maureen Pugh to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 80 and to insert new clauses 80A to 80D be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m just interested in the procedures of the House. The normal understanding has been is if a member has a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in their name, that they are permitted to speak in the committee stage, and there were a number of members who weren’t given the opportunity to speak on their SOPs in that stage of the committee stage. I’m interested, in terms of—is this a new procedure of the House, that even if an SOP is in a member’s name, they won’t be given the opportunity to contribute?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you very much. I thank the member for her intervention. I’m just quickly looking through my list. I understand that there was one member who had an SOP that didn’t have an opportunity to speak. I’m not sure whether that member sought the call. I’m not sure that I saw the member seek the call, and I apologise to that member for doing so. However, the debate had been running for more than two hours—probably closer to two hours and 15. I do apologise to the member—I see that you are there. However, we have now closed that debate and we are now moving on to Part 3. But I do take your point. I do acknowledge that that was an error on my part; however, I didn’t see the member seek the call.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Just speaking further to the point of order, Madam Chair. As you would appreciate, this is a significant piece of legislation, a large piece of legislation with multiple subparts in that part that we were debating. So we’ve had a situation where, yes, I’d taken an earlier call in the part and had said that I wished to speak later on my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I didn’t speak at all on either of the two SOPs, so the committee has now voted on something, the public don’t have scrutiny on it, and I wasn’t afforded the opportunity to speak on the SOP that’s now been voted on. Madam Chair, I’m deeply concerned about that as a process of this Chamber. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just a moment. I can deal with this. We will take it one at a time, thank you. We’re just checking our notes. Hon Louise Upston, you did have an opportunity to have a couple of calls; I’ve indicated at least two. The Clerk’s just checking whether there may have been a third. Had you—

Hon Louise Upston: I didn’t speak on the SOPs.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is a matter entirely for the content of your call when you take the call at the time. That is entirely over to you. Look, I apologise. We have voted on it, and I have indicated to the member the debate had been running for well over two hours. There had been plenty of calls taken. We are now moving on to Part 3, which are “Obligations”.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. So, first of all I’d just like to thank you for acknowledging me. I do confirm that I did seek the call, and I was very loud, I thought, in calling for my amendment. So I just do want that noted, if I may, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It has been noted. Now we are moving Part 3, which is the—

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, Madam Chair. Just speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have ruled on the point of order.

Hon Tracey Martin: I apologise. It’s just that it happened in the last Parliament as well, so it’s not really a new situation for these current members.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’ve spoken on the point of order. Can we now turn to Part 3, the debate on clauses 90 through to 167.

Part 3 Obligations

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. Kicking off on Part 3, if I may—Subpart 1 of this bill—I’ll speak, hopefully, at least loud enough that all can hear me that wish to, however many or few in the Chamber that may be. So in clause 90, talking about what the part sets out, clearly there are a couple of different things: MSD, which is no doubt defined elsewhere as the Ministry of Social Development, and, of course, beneficiaries and their partners. Set out, then, is the set of consequences for failure to comply with the obligations under this part. To a large extent, these are similar in the tone as other parts of the legislation, but the specific obligations that are set out are worth noting in themselves. So it is at Subpart 2 that we see the ministry’s obligations, and, in particular, steps to make people who are affected aware of their obligations.

A question that I would like the Minister to provide some guidance on, please, relates to the wording of clause 92, namely that “MSD must take reasonable and appropriate steps to make a person to whom an obligation under this Part applies—(a) aware of that obligation;” and so forth. I’ll cover those specific requirements in a moment, but, first, it seems to me that where the legislation talks about “an obligation”, it might be more helpful if it talks about “obligations” if more than one does apply, and perhaps just as a matter of drafting if it were to have said “at least one obligation”, that might be the clearest possible way of defining that.

The term “reasonable and appropriate steps” I can’t find as having been defined in the legislation. Perhaps it would be the case that if the proverbial push came to the colloquial shove, it might be obvious enough what those reasonable and appropriate steps were in any given case, but some further clarity on that could be useful to those who are reading this legislation as diligently as the members of this committee are no doubt reading it now—in some cases, for the first time. So the awareness of the obligation—or, as I say, obligations—is the first of those three parts that the MSD is needing to make a person aware of.

The second is an awareness of the consequences of failure to comply with the obligation, and, in particular, the sanctions that might be imposed under Part 5. It seems unclear whether the awareness that’s required of MSD has any particular form. Is there envisaged, for example, that there will be a pamphlet setting out the consequence of a failure to comply? That might be helpful, I think, in any practical circumstance. Now, I don’t suggest that the staff of MSD be micromanaged to the point where the legislation would need to set out what kind of reasonable steps would need to be taken and what the consequences of failure might be. However, it might be a useful mechanism in the legislation if it were to point to the existence of regulations that could then be created, which, in turn, would spell out what those consequences of failure might be. I suppose, while we’re at it, we might say that these are consequences of failure that could be reasonably contemplated, as opposed to all possible consequences of which there might be very many—indeed, possibly an infinite number.

Finally, of course, is an awareness of the person’s rights under various sections of the Act to review and appeal the decisions relating to the obligation. The requirement that a person who’s affected by the obligations in this legislation be aware of such appeal rights, I think, is only meaningful to the extent that they will be aware of what it is that would be involved in an appeal. So not only to be aware of the fact that such right exists but also how they might be exercised seems to me something that would be really helpful if it could be spelt out, if not in the legislation itself, then perhaps by way of guidance from the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni—indeed, the sponsor of the legislation—as I am sure she has something in mind that would be helpful to place on record so that if further clarification is needed in the future, then it can be gained as readily as simply reading Hansard and her remarks therein.

In terms of overseas absence rules in clause 93, moving on—[Time expired]

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do intend to take the maximum number of calls in this opportunity in Part 3. There were questions I specifically asked the Minister in Part 2 that there wasn’t a reply to, so I am hopeful that the Minister in the chair will answer specific questions in this part. She’s shaking her head, which isn’t particularly encouraging. As I’ve said in the earlier parts of this debate, there is no opportunity for scrutiny outside the Chamber for this particular piece of legislation and for the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has tabled, so I do hope that the Minister takes this seriously, as this is the only opportunity for scrutiny.

What I wanted to raise was that in Part 3 of this legislation, there are, similar to Part 2, multiple subparts. I want to just ask about a couple of them. Subpart 1, in clause 91, is, basically, talking about what the obligations are and then what the responding sanctions are. We’ll talk more about the sanctions in a later part of the debate, but I’m interested specifically in Subpart 3, which is around beneficiaries’ obligations.

The part that I’m looking for, that I’m surprised that the Minister hasn’t included in this, is around people with disabilities. I want to speak quite clearly about particularly those who have children with disabilities, who have lifelong permanent disabilities, and the obligation, on an annual basis, that they have to file paperwork and medical certificates to confirm that, yes, they are still permanently disabled. I would’ve thought that that would’ve been a simple change that the Minister could’ve taken on, given her significant discussions around improving support for people with disabilities.

So I’ve been looking to see the change that has been included in Part 3 around beneficiaries’ obligations, because that is an obligation that I would’ve thought, for all of the Minister’s words around improving the welfare system, would’ve been the first on the list—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill without amendment and progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.