Wednesday, 13 June 2018

WEDNESDAY, 13 JUNE 2018

WEDNESDAY, 13 JUNE 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Regional Economies—Northland and Bay of Plenty

1. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding regional economies?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): With a suitable level of modesty, I can report to the House that an investment package for Northland, announced on 1 June, was not only robust but new levels of bandwidth have been required and I’m assured by the local media that litres of ink have been ordered. Not only is the $46 million going to give arms and feet to the promises made by the last regime; this time round a party with heart is delivering the fiscal fuel.

Clayton Mitchell: What reports has he seen recently regarding regional economies?

Hon SHANE JONES: To the House I can report—I was not expecting it so soon—that the ASB regional economic scorecard gives Northland top marks. I can assure you that not only has that region achieved top marks but another surge region which enjoys my focus and attention—the Bay of Plenty. Key indicators show that those regions are warming, the investors are confident, and the populations see no longer vacuous language but genuine action. And as befits the regent of the regions, I’ll take what’s coming my way.

Clayton Mitchell: Is this Government’s Provincial Growth Fund biased towards Northland?

Hon SHANE JONES: Right. Look, there’s been some tawdry attempts to characterise these announcements as some sort of political gratuity. These announcements are based on the longstanding promises that were made to a region that has been neglected. As a consequence of the arrival of this Government, Northland, led, I must say—I never thought I would say it—by two fine former MPs, has put forward proposals. And I’ve encouraged other regions to emulate the qualities, certainly in terms of advocacy, of Mr Carter and Mr McCully—not all qualities where the latter is concerned.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: To the Minister, when he announced to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, “There’s rule No. 1 in politics: to the winner goes the booty.”, in what way was he thinking that the tax New Zealanders pay is his booty?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, the fund was created with the development of the first genuine MMP coalition Government. As a key personality in one of those parties, whose mission is to show heart out in the regions, I would remind the member that the word “booty” has multiple meanings, and it reflects the fact that key regions around the country who have given up waiting over the last nine years realise this time round that not only is the rhetoric robust but the purse is rich.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he, of all people, talking about booty?

Hon SHANE JONES: Part of my whakapapa is belonging to a pirate.

Justice System—Three-strikes Legislation

2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, with the possible exception of the last one!

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the three-strikes law be reviewed by her Government before the next election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we are putting together a package of justice reforms. It is clear that, at this time, one partner in the coalition Government does not want to see the three strikes as part of that, but that package of reforms will come forward in the short term.

Hon Paula Bennett: So will the package of reforms come forward without the three-strikes law being reformed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is quite clear that the three-strikes law does not have the support of one of the members of the coalition Government at this time. The full package of reforms that will be put forward as we come towards the summit in August will be about the wide range of issues that are needing to be addressed to improve our criminal justice system. The three-strikes law is a very, very small part of a wider picture where most New Zealanders understand we need to do far, far better than we have in recent years.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does her Government expect her coalition partner to change their mind before the next election and the three-strikes law to be reviewed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s a matter for the coalition partner.

Hon Paula Bennett: What did she mean yesterday when she said, “Of course that law will be looked at.”, and how does this reconcile with Mr Peters’ view that there will be no changes to the three-strikes law?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s the job of any responsible Government to continually monitor how laws are being implemented.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has she considered making Mr Peters the Minister of Justice, as he seems to be the only one that knows what’s going on?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, is doing an excellent job in finally addressing the complete failure that has been left by the previous Government that allowed the prison population to grow, had no plan to address the underlying causes of crime, and no vision for a future in New Zealand, when we’re actually more safe and secure, not just building American-style mega-prisons.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does she stand by her Minister of Justice, who on Radio New Zealand said in the context of a question in regards to the Prime Minister that—she talked about it being pushed back a few years, so that’s not off the table; and, if so, is that because you’re hoping for a new coalition partner who might vote for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I’m very confident of is that on this side of the House, we have a coalition Government that shares one very important thing: we can do so much better than the last lot.

Hon Paula Bennett: So how many reviews, working groups, inquiries, special summits, teams, reference groups, advisory groups, expert advisory groups, independent expert advisory groups, lived experience task forces, and other loose gatherings of paid contractors has the Government established to date?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The number of reviews being undertaken by the Government at this point in our time is very similar to the number of reviews that were undertaken by the previous Government in their first days. But what I would add to that is to say that, actually, when you come in and see so much to be done, so many areas underfunded, so many programmes not delivered on, you do need to get some help to do that.

SPEAKER: Order! Just both sides—can they just wind it back a bit.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with her Minister for Regional Economic Development, who said in a speech at Fieldays this morning, “I agree with Mike Hosking that this Government is setting up too many working groups.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I haven’t seen those comments from the Minister for Regional Economic Development, but what I do know is that working closely with him and with other partners in this Government we are starting to address the issues that were left behind by the previous Government. If the member doesn’t think that it’s important to understand what a shambles she made of meth testing, then perhaps she does have to have another think.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked quite a straight question about whether or not she agreed with the comments of the Minister for Regional Economic Development. That was answered in the first part, and I don’t believe that the second part was necessary at all.

SPEAKER: I do agree with the Hon Paula Bennett. It wasn’t necessary and the Minister should remember he’s answering for the Prime Minister, who told us of her kind approach.

KiwiBuild—Housing New Zealand Tenants, Affordability, and Shared Risk

3. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions on KiwiBuild?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I stand by our actions in building modest homes for New Zealanders, with our first homes under construction. And I stand by my statements.

Hon Judith Collins: What assurances can he give new KiwiBuild buyers that if a neighbouring Housing New Zealand tenant undertakes antisocial behaviour, that Housing New Zealand tenant will be evicted?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, people all over this country of different persuasions and colours and tendencies all live together in diverse communities around this country. This Government is not going to engage in the kind of vile demonising of State house tenants and stereotyping State house tenants to try and stigmatise people who need the benefit and the security of tenure that only public housing provides.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that the Minister addressed the question to the point of antisocial behaviour. I did not raise issues of ethnicity or diversity. I raised a point about antisocial behaviour.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think buried in the rhetoric was an answer.

Hon Judith Collins: When he discussed with banks about changing their lending criteria to make it easier for property developers and buyers of KiwiBuild to borrow, what was the response of the banks?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We haven’t had discussions with banks over changing lending practices for KiwiBuild, but we have had a number of very constructive discussions with the financial community about improving lending practices to support off-site manufacturing and, in fact, lending for multi-unit developments—apartment developments. Those stations are ongoing and constructive.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Does the housing affordability measure released today impact KiwiBuild?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The housing affordability measure out today shows that more and more Kiwi families are locked out of homeownership. The affordability of a first home worsened in Auckland, Wellington, Tauranga, Christchurch, and Hamilton, and Wellington was one of the worst—up 4.7 percent. This is why we need a massive Government intervention like KiwiBuild to turn this around and build modern, affordable starter homes for young families. It will take time—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!!

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will KiwiBuild make housing more affordable?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, through KiwiBuild we’re building modest starter homes for families who are locked out of homeownership across New Zealand. We don’t accept that that is a situation that should be allowed to continue. By increasing the number of affordable starter homes, we will provide young families with the first step on the ladder and the security that homeownership brings.

Hon Judith Collins: When he says that the Crown will partner with property developers and “share the risk”, how is the risk shared, and what risk is the taxpayer taking on?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A very good illustration of this approach is the buying off the plans initiative, which I’m pleased to say has over the last month drawn nearly 100 formal submissions from developers who want to partner with the Government through KiwiBuild. There is every likelihood that this initiative will yield several thousand KiwiBuild homes over the next few years. By buying off the plan or underwriting these homes, we will not only speed up developments that are currently stalled because of a lack of liquidity but also we will guarantee the supply of affordable housing that the market has so patently failed to deliver.

Hon Judith Collins: When he told the Social Services Committee this morning that he would “happily buy off struggling developers”, does it mean that he will take on the risk of any future issues such as leaky homes or building faults?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re not providing a blank cheque to failing developers, but we are incentivising the construction of affordable homes, that that party absolutely refused to do. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now the member will answer the question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re not providing a blank cheque to developers for leaky homes or any other thing, but I will note that Bindi Norwell of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand this morning welcomed the success of the buying off the plans initiative. She said this is exactly the kind of initiative we need to increase the supply of housing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Judith Collins: How does he propose limiting the Crown’s shared risk with property development companies if in the future the property development company either goes broke or is in some other way wound up?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s an entirely hypothetical question, but we will be exercising sound commercial judgment because this Government is not prepared to stand by and see the housing market fail young Kiwi families. We’re willing to roll up our sleeves to work with the private sector and build houses. It’s as simple as that.

Families Package—Winter Energy Payment

4. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Families Package help New Zealanders meet the cost of living; if so, how?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, through the Families Package the Government will introduce a winter energy payment to help New Zealanders on fixed incomes meet the extra cost of heating their homes through the winter months. The winter energy payment amounts to $450 a year for single people and $700 per year for couples with dependent children when fully rolled out. After 1 July, everyone receiving superannuation, a main benefit, or a veterans pension will start receiving this assistance—approximately 1 million people.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the winter energy payment necessary?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We can see why the payment is needed, in recent research and statistics. According to research by the University of Otago, about 1,600 additional people die each winter mostly from respiratory and circulatory problems, and, in many cases, because of cold housing. The research shows that the risk of dying in winter is increased for those who have low incomes and are living in rented accommodation. What’s more, according to Statistics New Zealand’s latest household living-costs price index, since June 2008 the increase in the cost of living for beneficiaries has been 61 percent higher than for the top 20 percent of earners, and for superannuitants the increase has been 75 percent higher. The winter energy payment is necessary because this Government does not accept that in a country like New Zealand people are sick and dying because they live in cold, damp houses.

Willow-Jean Prime: And what other announcements has the Government made that complement the winter energy payment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The winter energy payment is just one of the Government’s policies that will help people who are living in cold and damp homes. As part of our 100-day plan, the Government passed the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, enabling the Government to set minimum standards for the quality of rental housing. We’re currently consulting with the public on the healthy homes standards, which will cover heating, insulation, ventilation, draught-stopping, drainage, and moisture. For too long, too many Kiwis have had to deal with substandard housing that damages their health. This Government believes that every New Zealander deserves a warm, dry, healthy home to live in, and we are acting to make that a reality.

Transport Infrastructure—Auckland Capital Programme and Regional Fuel Tax

5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Is he satisfied that the capital programme and the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax proposal cannot reasonably be fully funded from sources other than a regional fuel tax; if so, why?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The capital programme in Auckland Council’s proposal for the regional fuel tax includes essential projects like Mill Road, Penlink, 200 kilometres of bus priority improvements, the Eastern Busway in the Botany electorate, and a number of new park and rides. I’m satisfied that we need to take urgent action to deal with the transport infrastructure deficit that we’ve inherited, and the regional fuel tax is the most immediate and efficient way of funding the local share of these projects. Given the second reading of the bill passed unanimously in this House last night, I’m glad that the member has finally come round.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question used the words “cannot reasonably be fully funded”. Those words are lifted from the bill. There’s a test in there that he’ll have to apply at some point, as Minister. He didn’t answer the question and answer the question using those words.

SPEAKER: I was listening carefully. I think, towards the end, he did use an expression about it being the most efficient and XY approach to it. It’s not for me to judge the quality of the answer, but there was one in there.

Jami-Lee Ross: When did he ask the Mayor of Auckland if the mayor would keep his promise to find 3 to 6 percent savings in his own budget, so that $150 million could be raised without needing a regional fuel tax?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, interestingly, I have had those conversations with the mayor, and I’m happy to advise the member that including the cost savings that he refers to, Auckland Council’s core operating costs have grown over the last 10 years at an average of 2 percent—more slowly than Auckland’s population. By contrast, infrastructure investment—that is, mostly building more roads—has increased by 7.8 percent on average per year. The member cannot be seriously asking Auckland Council to cut roads to pay for other roads.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did he ask his former colleague, now the Mayor of Auckland, to find $150 million within his own budget, or was the first port of call a new tax?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think I’ve answered that question. The member is suggesting that the funding, the $150 million a year, could be found by Auckland Council cutting its costs. The increase that he has regularly pointed to in Auckland Council’s expenditure is infrastructure investment expenditure. It makes no sense to cut infrastructure to pay for more infrastructure.

Jami-Lee Ross: Has he seen reports of the Mayor of Auckland’s promise to find 3 to 6 percent savings in his own budget, and, if so, why does he not expect the mayor to keep his promise, rather than using a fuel tax instead?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think I’ve answered that question, but I am going to say this: we are the party of investment in growth. We want to see Auckland growing. We’re prepared to make the big decisions, to get ahead of the growth, finally, and put behind us the years of neglect that held back Auckland’s growth and prosperity and led to the population of Auckland spending hundreds of hours, every year, sitting in gridlock because that party did nothing.

Dr Deborah Russell: What effect will the capital programme and the regional fuel tax proposal have on congestion?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The projects in the capital programme for the regional fuel tax are a subset of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, which is the largest civil construction programme in New Zealand’s history. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project is projected to keep congestion at 2016 levels, despite an increase of 300,000 people in Auckland. It will also make a massive difference to public transport travel times, incentivising more people to take advantage of more efficient and reliable services.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on the benefits that the projects funded by the regional fuel tax will have for the people of Botany?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, like all of Auckland, the people of the Botany electorate will benefit immensely from the projects funded by the regional fuel tax. The fuel tax allows the building of the Eastern Busway between Panmure and Botany, with stations at Pakuranga and Botany; plus, we’re building the Reeves Road flyover at the Pakuranga town centre. The Eastern Busway will more than double public transport ridership in the Botany electorate, and there are also safety improvements on Botany Road - Ti Rakau Drive, more buses between Botany and the airport, a Botany bus station, and park and ride.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is he now telling the House that he supports the Reeves Road flyover that he told Generation Zero he wouldn’t support?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t believe I ever told Generation Zero that I didn’t support the road fly-over, but I will tell you this: we are supporting Mill Road and Penlink, as a result of this regional fuel tax—roading projects that that party asked for and campaigned for for nine years, and never did a damned thing about.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why should Aucklanders have to pay through their back pockets because this Minister won’t stand up to the Mayor of Auckland and expect the mayor to keep his promises at the election? He’s looking at fuel taxes but doesn’t expect the mayor to do anything.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are committed to investing in Auckland’s growth and prosperity, and we’re not going to engage in the kinds of white-anting and political game playing that delayed the City Rail Link by six years while that Government refused to make investments and refused to invest in Auckland’s growth.

Prisons—Definition of Low-level Offenders

6. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his Government’s justice policies and decisions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): As with yesterday, yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that we are filling our prisons with low-level criminals?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is a low-level criminal?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As we know, with the rapid rise in the prison population under that Government—that member’s Government; a party that did absolutely nothing to address the problem—we know that the growth in the—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question!

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the member. I actually agree with the interjection, but we should give the member a chance to do so, all right?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, Mr Speaker; do you want me to start again?

SPEAKER: Well, you haven’t really started answering, so you might as well.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I thought the preface was important, Mr Speaker. We know that our prisons more recently have been filled with those not committing violent crimes but with those committing what I would describe as “street crimes”, and, in particular, with younger offenders, young male offenders, those with mental health issues, those with addiction issues, those with literacy problems—all people who have problems that, with a little bit of effort and a little bit of political will, could be fixed, and we could make them productive citizens again. That’s what this Government will do.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question. I don’t know if the House does, or if you do, but I still have no clear idea around what a low-level of criminal is.

SPEAKER: I think I heard quite a long list of groups which fell into that category.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So, taking just part of the criteria that he’s just laid out for the House, does he realise that only 2 percent of the current prison population will fit inside his own criteria that he’s just given us?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is complete nonsense, and that member would have to provide some evidence or some back-up to that assertion. The reality is that the bulk of the growth of the prison population are those who are not committing violent offences but those who are committing offences, often consecutive convictions, but who have a bunch of problems, and a prison system that is doing its job of correcting people—because we call it a corrections system—can actually turn those people out to lower reoffending and, therefore, reduce the number of victims of crime; something that Government failed to do anything about.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker, I’ll provide that evidence to the Minister. Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption]

Hon Mark Mitchell: No, he asked for the evidence.

SPEAKER: No, but you know that you don’t reply, don’t you?

Hon Mark Mitchell: I apologise, Mr Speaker. Is someone like Jade Wilson, who was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for brutally beating his girlfriend after she made a “rubbish” breakfast one of the low-level criminals he said would be placed on home detention rather than in prison?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. That’s not correct. We know that the temptation for members opposite, because of their failure in Government, will be to try to characterise any effort to take people who are in prisons, who can be helped—[Interruption] They will try and label them at the violent end of the offending spectrum. The reality is this: our approach to criminal justice is to take those people—that chunk of the prison population whose offending is driven by a range of factors, and who, with a bit of effort, can actually be fixed. They can be changed. They can be turned into productive citizens, and, more importantly, we can reduce reoffending and have fewer victims of crime. I am stunned that members opposite are not interested in reducing reoffending and having fewer victims of crime—but they can defend themselves.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the percentage currently in prison of low-level criminals?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I don’t have that figure, but what I do know, and what is driving all parties in this Government, is that we have a reoffending rate in our prison system of 60 percent. Now, members opposite are clearly prepared to tolerate that level of failure, but, within that 60 percent of reoffending of current inmates are more victims of crime. My objective, and my heart, goes with those people who would be the victims of those reoffending. I want to stop that happening. This Government wants to stop that happen, and we are going to do it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question. I just simply asked how many low-level criminals are currently in our prison system, and he started waffling about just about everything else but that.

Hon Grant Robertson: That question is the responsibility of the Minister of Corrections, not the Minister of Justice.

SPEAKER: I will deal with that part first. This is the Minister who, I understand, is in charge of a criminal reform package which involves making decisions around a range of areas including bail and sentencing levels, and, if that is the case, he is certainly responsible for having some knowledge in the area. But, when there’s such a very specific supplementary question based on a general question, I think members can’t insist on a specific answer. So I think what I’m saying is that both members are wrong. Further supplementary Mark Mitchell?

Hon Mark Mitchell: I’m happy to take another supplementary, Mr Speaker. What plans does the Minister have in coming to this House and clearly identifying for us what a low-level criminal is?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, what I can say is we know that 43 percent of those in our prisons have not been convicted of crimes associated with violence. We know that many more have been convicted of crimes that have, for example, the word “assault” in their title but their conduct is not one that you would characterise as one of violence. What we do know is that we have a lot of people in prison who have mental health issues. They have addiction issues, and they have a range of other problems, and if we actually put the time and effort into it, we can actually change those people for the good, turn them out to be productive citizens, lower our reoffending rate, and have fewer victims of crime. That’s this Government’s priority.

KiwiBuild—Construction Sector Response and Effect on Auckland Housing Supply

7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What has been the reaction of the construction sector to the KiwiBuild Invitation to Participate?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): There has been an overwhelming response to the KiwiBuild “buying off the plans” tender. There’s no shortage of stalled developments—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! One member answering at a time.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There’s been an overwhelming response to the KiwiBuild “buying off the plans” tender. There’s clearly no shortage of stalled developments looking to build homes for first-home buyers. Almost 100 proposals have now been received from developers, which could result in the building of several thousand KiwiBuild homes. That is a bigger response than we’d hoped for and a vote of confidence in KiwiBuild.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will these proposals build affordable homes for Kiwi families?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, KiwiBuild will allow homes that otherwise would not be built or would be delayed to be built and built faster. It also guarantees the supply of houses young families starting out can afford. At the moment, only 5 percent of new homes are affordable for first-home buyers; KiwiBuild will underwrite or buy off the plans affordable homes that otherwise would very likely not be built.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will KiwiBuild address the current slow-down in building activity in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A recent report by Colliers said that the Auckland housing market was in a hiatus because of slowing pre-sales, rising construction costs, and high land costs. I note that Colliers said they considered a fully operative KiwiBuild is needed to really change the game.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Submissions of Experts and Parliamentary Support

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statements by Professor Janet McLean in respect of his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that “The foundational principle of New Zealand’s constitution is that the government of the day may continue in office for only as long as it continues to enjoy the support of the House of Representatives” and “This bill gives a Parliamentary leader of a party (including the Prime Minister) the power to sanction MPs who by their actions indicate they intend to cross the floor of the House including in a possible vote of no confidence. This would be a serious change to the New Zealand constitution and undermine one of its central democracy-protecting mechanisms”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In respect of the first quote, yes. In respect of the second quote of my very good friend Professor Janet McLean, no, because the fundamental premise in that statement that a leader has those powers is wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister cite any constitutional law expert who disputes Professor McLean’s key point that his bill undermines New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy and key constitutional conventions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I can’t, principally because every academic and constitutional expert who has submitted on the bill has submitted on a fundamentally flawed premise that the leader has the power to remove a member of Parliament. That is not what the bill provides for, and, I hate to say it, but they are all wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is the Minister so keen to quote university academics in respect of his criminal law reforms but so keen to dismiss them with respect to his electoral law changes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what that member is referring to, but he is the one who has quoted, at length, academics on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. But I stand by the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister have the parliamentary support for this bill, given his recent failings in coalition management over the three-strikes law?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A sad reflection on that member—I wonder why it is that he is so concerned about MPs being kicked out of his party, but, then, that’s a matter for him and his future prospects. But no—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt to answer my question and simply chose to try and have some cheap shot at me. My question was very simple: does the Minister have the parliamentary support for the bill?

SPEAKER: That wasn’t what the member asked. He had a cheap shot himself. He got one back, but the Minister will now answer the question.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The answer to the principal question is yes.

Health Services—Conflicts of Interest and National Oracle Solution Programme

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his decisions and actions regarding the National Oracle Solution programme?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, in their context.

Dr Shane Reti: What conflict of interest information did independent reviewers Deloitte not want the public to know when they emailed the ministry about their conflict of interest on 5 April this year, stating, “Our preference is that this information is not made public.”?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s not an area for which the Minister has responsibility.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, the member can repeat the question or revise the question if he wants to, but right at the beginning, the Minister is not responsible for a Deloitte’s email.

Dr Shane Reti: It was from—in reply—Deloitte’s to the Ministry of Health, specifically responding to a request from the Ministry of Health around conflict of interests.

SPEAKER: Can the member read it again.

Dr Shane Reti: Certainly.

SPEAKER: I’ll listen to it again.

Dr Shane Reti: What conflict of interest information did independent reviewers Deloitte not want the public to know when they emailed the ministry in response to their request about their conflicts of interest on 5 April this year, stating, “Our preference is that this information is not made public.”?

SPEAKER: OK, well, we’ll go to the “this information” bit.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m sure that I can’t speak for what Deloitte did or did not want people to know, so I’m not really sure what answer he’s looking for from me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no question about what Deloitte was responsible for. What is in question here is information that was to be released by the Ministry of Health that Deloitte requested should not be released, and that is something the Minister does have responsibility for.

SPEAKER: I mean, that is right, but I’m not sure that’s what was asked. I’m going to ask Dr Reti to ask the question again so that we can be very focused on this, because it is an important one.

Dr Shane Reti: What conflict of interest information did independent reviewers Deloitte not want the public to know when they emailed the ministry about their conflict of interest on 5 April this year in response to the ministry’s request, stating, “Our preference is that this information is not made public.”?

SPEAKER: I’m now going to say that I accept the earlier answer. There is no indication in that question and no evidence that we’re talking about a specific group of official information. That has not been established.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The purpose of this line of questioning is to build on answers that the Minister of Health has already given to the House in previous oral questions, and that is that because Deloitte declared a conflict of interest, there is no problem. Now, the member is trying to drill into why it is, in that circumstance, that certain information which would establish the clarity of the conflict has not been released. I think, to the degree that the Minister has already answered in that way, it is within the Standing Orders to continue to probe that line of questioning.

SPEAKER: What I am saying is that in the second of the three attempts, the Minister did address the question, and in any of the attempts, previously or now, no one has established, to my knowledge, anything to do with an Official Information Act request—well, something that the ministry wanted to release, which has been alleged by Dr Reti or Mr Brownlee—being turned down. That has not been established in the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What you’ve just suggested may well be a question; I accept that. But the point here is that Dr Reti has in his possession an email from Deloitte and he is simply asking the question of the Minister: “What were they requesting should not be released?” Now, you don’t have to have official information about that. If we had that, we’d already know. It’s the purpose of coming to the House and asking a Minister a question. The Minister of Health has previously stood here and said, “Nothing to see, nothing to look at—no problem here.” There is quite clearly a problem now that this email has come to light.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t want to get into the substance of the answer, which I think the member’s inviting me to do, and I think he might know that it is a standard practice when information from private companies is to be released that there’s notice given of it. But what the Minister responsible has told us is that she doesn’t know what the member’s talking about, and that’s the problem. Further supplementary, Dr Shane Reti.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You’ve only used one so far with all of this.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you. Will the Minister endeavour to find out exactly what information Deloitte did not want to make public in the email of 5 April this year?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is of interest to this Government that there isn’t a conflict of interest or that any conflict of interest, real or perceived, is managed appropriately. The Ministry of Health is aware that there could be a perceived conflict of interest that could’ve been managed better, but the real issue here is that this Government had to commission an independent report as quickly as possible because the last Government mismanaged an IT project of over $100 million of taxpayer money. That is—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you’ve been very quick to stop questions when they start to stray into political territory. You’ve been quite firm on Mr Twyford today and, indeed, Mr Little as well. That member is resorting to just straight out political attack because there apparently is no answer to the question “Will she endeavour”—or “Will he”, in this case; the Minister—“endeavour to find out what the information is that Deloitte did not want released?” It was a simple question, and it could be answered yes or no. I know we can’t expect a yes or no answer; we certainly didn’t expect that tirade at the end of her in-explanation.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There is no way that the public would not be interested in the reason why we commissioned an independent report of Deloitte, and trying to draw a bow of some imagined conflict of interest is pretty ridiculous. Let’s just shoot it home to the real reason we’re doing the report.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m not sure that that was that helpful. But I will say to Mr Brownlee that if his colleagues weren’t interjecting I think it’s quite possible that the Minister wouldn’t have been diverted on to such a long response. [Interruption] Order! Order! Paula Bennett will stand, withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Dr Shane Reti: If it is an imaginary conflict of interest, when the Minister replied in written question No. 6360 saying that, “none of the reviewers have had any involvement in the National Oracle Solution programme”, how does he explain Deloitte’s Thorsten Engel being an independent reviewer when Deloitte reveals in Official Information Act (OIA) documents that Thorsten Engel also organised workshops on the programme in 2011?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The project didn’t exist in 2011, and that is why we can say with confidence that none of the reviewers had any involvement in the National Oracle Solutions programme or even the preceding one. Yes it is the case that Thorsten Engel ran some workshops in 2011 for the Health Benefits Ltd, which no longer exists, but that is not really a substantive input into the National Oracle Solutions programme, obviously.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister inform us how much money has been spent on the National Oracle Solution programme, and what has that delivered?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The cost of the National Oracle Solution programme blew out to over $100 million under the previous Government. Thus far it hasn’t delivered any results, and that is why this Government has commissioned an independent review to try and get some oversight over the project.

Dr Shane Reti: How can Deloitte be independent reviewers and not reviewing their own work when OIA documents show part of the independent review contract was “assess the solution is designed and built”, and yet in 2013 Deloitte was paid for “design and build support”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I understand it, Deloitte was very clear, and the member should well know this because we’ve released the consultancy services order to him. They were very clear about any potential conflict of interest and they explained how they would manage it. But the real issue here is we’re waiting for a final report on an independent review of a project that was $100 million of taxpayer money that hasn’t delivered any results.

Business—E-invoicing

10. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has he made in relation to e-invoicing?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): As part of Budget 2018 I announced new operating funding of $5.8 million over two years to support the einvoicing project. E-invoicing is the ability to directly exchange an invoice document between a supplier’s and a buyer’s online accounting software. E-invoicing is a significant modernisation of the way we do business, which is a priority for this Government.

Tamati Coffey: How does e-invoicing advance the trans-Tasman single economic market agenda?

Hon STUART NASH: Good question. In March of this year, our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia committed to advancing work on a common approach as to e-invoicing as part of the trans-Tasman single economic market agenda. I’ve been working with Australian Ministers—the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services; the Hon Craig Laundy, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation; and the New South Wales Minister of Finance, the Hon Victor Dominello—to progress this work. The commitment by the Australian Government and our Government confirms that we are on track to fundamentally change the way Government to business and business to business connections are made.

Hon Members: Good work!

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you.

Tamati Coffey: So what advice has the Minister seen on the benefits of e-invoicing?

Hon STUART NASH: Another good question. E-invoicing creates economic benefits through faster payments and reduced transaction costs. My officials advise me, based on comparable Australian research, that they estimate that a 15 percent uptake of e-invoicing by New Zealand businesses and Government agencies could save up to $500 million a year—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How much?

Hon STUART NASH: —$500 million, Mr Brownlee. It’s a lot of money—it’s a lot of money. E-invoicing can deliver significant productivity improvements and savings from fewer invoice errors and less time spent resolving errors.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister explain how long this has been in gestation, and why does he think it never happened prior to his arrival?

SPEAKER: The first part of the question can be answered.

Hon STUART NASH: Well, what I can say is this is the first Government to fund this initiative, and the reason we have funded it is because it’s vitally important that we drive business productivity right across the sector.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Water Bottling Activities

11. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Yes, in the context in which my statements were made and my actions were taken.

Hon David Bennett: What were the compelling factors in convincing her to allow the purchase of land near Whakatāne by a Chinese water bottling plant, and can we expect that future applications will be similarly granted by the Minister?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The factors are set out in sections 16 and 17 of the Overseas Investment Act. They are things like increased export receipts and things like increased jobs. Cresswell NZ Ltd was proposing an additional 60 jobs in Whakatāne and $42.5 million in investment.

Hon David Bennett: Has she taken to Cabinet any proposals to change the criteria that left her with no choice but to support that application?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the member will be aware, this Government is changing the Overseas Investment Act to make it fairer for New Zealanders. We are doing that to prevent overseas speculators buying our houses, and Mr Parker, who is leading the policy on that, has on the agenda other changes and a review of the Act.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight and simple question: has she taken to Cabinet any proposals? We did not get that addressed at all.

SPEAKER: It was certainly addressed and it was made very clear the Minister in charge has it as an agenda item.

Hon David Bennett: What is the Minister’s timeline for taking proposals to Cabinet that could see bottles of New Zealand’s highest-quality water subject to some royalty on their product?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: That is not an area I have ministerial responsibility for. Minister Parker is leading that work as environment Minister.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, she refused to answer the question.

SPEAKER: No. I’m slightly flabbergasted. It was a very clear response: I am not the Minister responsible for this; Mr Parker is. I don’t think that could be much clearer.

Hon David Bennett: Has the Minister discussed with the Minister of Trade and Export Growth how the overseas investment criteria could be changed to implement core Green Party policy to impose an immediate moratorium on new bottling?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I am confident that the Minister who has responsibility for that issue of water bottling is looking at all the issues, and we will have discussions.

Marama Davidson: Was the Minister able to consider the environmental impacts of taking the water when she made this decision?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: That is not a matter that the Minister for Land Information can take into account under the Overseas Investment Act; it is a matter that is considered under the Resource Management Act. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council notified its application.

Marama Davidson: Was she able to take into account Te Tiriti concerns and the opposition of mana whenua when making this decision?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The application concerned the purchase of sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act. That Act limits the issues that can be considered. I considered those issues, and I wasn’t able to take those concerns into account.

Hon David Bennett: I’d just like to table a document from the—

SPEAKER: You mean you want to seek leave.

Hon David Bennett: I seek leave to table a document from the Green Party co-leader, saying “We don’t like this decision.”

SPEAKER: What document, Mr Bennett?

Hon David Bennett: It’s a news report.

SPEAKER: Oh, Mr Bennett. I have indicated to members previously that attempts to table documents which they know Speakers have repeatedly stopped even taking the leave of the House for was disorderly. This is the final warning for members on that issue.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought we were finished for the day with question time, but can I take a point of order. I’m actually seeking leave to table a copy of an answer provided by the corrections Minister’s office on 22 March—

SPEAKER: Order! It’s not an answer to a parliamentary question, is it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, it is.

SPEAKER: Oh, sit down.

Housing—Funding for Transitional and Emergency Housing

SPEAKER: Question No. 14—question no. 12. It just feels like 14.

12. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Ministry of Social Development taking to ensure community housing providers, including marae, are able to access funding for transitional and emergency housing for people who are homeless this winter?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has announced a $100 million investment to tackle homelessness. The Ministry of Social Development is proactively reaching out to the housing sector, to community organisations, to marae, and to the general public, encouraging them to approach the ministry with any opportunities to provide more housing for people in need this winter. One hundred and sixty-four people have come forward since the Prime Minister made that call, and now 44 households have a place to stay over winter that is warm, dry, and safe that otherwise would not have been. That includes three seasonal worker accommodation facilities in Hawke’s Bay that were empty during winter and are now providing accommodation for 27 families.

Marama Davidson: Given we know there are still too many people struggling to find affordable, warm, safe housing this winter—

SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot start a question with a statement. So the member must start with a question, which generally means a question word, and without a statement. Thank you.

Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he confident that the funding is sufficient to provide adequate housing for those who need it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re doing everything possible to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads. The $100 million investment package that was announced will fully fund programmes that were promised under the former Government but not properly funded. It will extend emergency and transitional housing and extend the Housing First programme for dealing with chronic homelessness. We are doing everything we can to ensure that no one this winter needs to be sleeping in a car.

Marama Davidson: Is the Minister on track to meet the target of 1,500 extra transitional public and Housing First places by the end of this winter?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Since the start of this year, the Government’s been doing everything we possibly can to bring on more housing supply. Since the start of the year, an additional 542 transitional and public housing places have been brought on board, and I want to note the special contribution made by iwi and marae. They have come forward since early May, and of the more than 160 contacts that we’ve had, there have been six from iwi groups and marae who have offered accommodation.

Points of Order

Tabling of Documents—Local Government Official Information and Meetings (Rights of Members) Amendment Bill

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given a letter of no confidence has been sent by councillors to the Mayor of Auckland, I seek leave to table a bill in my name, which would provide a greater degree of transparency and flow of information to councillors. It’s titled Local Government Official Information and Meetings (Rights of Members) Amendment Bill—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. The member seeks leave for that. Is there any objection? Yes there is.

Debate on Investment Statement

Debate on Investment Statement

SPEAKER: We come to the debate on the Investment Statement, He Puna Hao Pātiki, 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing. There has not been one of these debates in the last eight years. The previous one wasn’t debated and I’m not sure that, in fact, there has been one before. This is a tight debate on the assets and liabilities of the Government and the management thereof.

MICHAEL WOOD (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on He Puna Hao Pātiki 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing.

I am very pleased to lead off this octennial debate on the Investment Statement. For members who haven’t had a chance to review the statement thus far, I recommend having a good look at it. It was certainly a statement that the Finance and Expenditure Committee really valued working through. I think the value of it is that it’s a statement which is produced under the Public Finance Act once every four years. So, as parliamentarians, it sort of lifts our eyes a little bit from the day to day, week to week, even the annual Budget cycle and asks us questions about how we are actually using the assets and the liabilities of the New Zealand Government to ensure that we meet the needs of our fellow New Zealanders and enhance their well-being. That fundamentally is about what the 2018 Investment Statement Investing for Wellbeing is all about.

In a broad sense, it considers those assets and liabilities. It considers their condition. It considers how they are used, and it attempts to draw some conclusions about how they might be used in the future.

I just want to read a direct quote from the summary guide that Treasury produced around the Investment Statement, which I think sums it up really, really well. It goes like this: “Fiscal sustainability is not an end in itself. It is a tool to support the well-being of current and future generations, including helping to achieve social and environmental goals.” So it’s a stocktake: what do we have now, the assets and the liabilities; and then—most importantly—what do we actually do with that? I’m sure we could all think of individuals or companies or organisations who maybe have a good asset base but maybe they don’t actually utilise it very well. The Investment Statement is about pointing us in the direction of asking the “why” questions: why do we have these assets; what do we do with them for the benefit of New Zealanders?

The numbers are quite striking, and let me just touch on a couple of those. They’re worth going through to talk about the scale of the investments that the Government has on its balance sheet. So, as at 31 June, the New Zealand Government owned $314 billion worth of assets and owed $197 billion worth of liabilities. That’s a net balance of around about $117 billion, which works out, if you average it out, to about $24,000 per New Zealander. Now, of course, these aren’t liquid assets. It’s not money that’s just there to use, but it gives a sense of the value that we have on the balance sheet that we can in one way or the other utilise. Fifty-two percent of those assets, interestingly, are held in the social portfolios. That’s things like land and buildings, our hospitals and our schools, and the land that they are based upon. So, again, not especially liquid, but they are major assets, significant assets, and we need to think about how we best utilise them.

What’s really important about the Investment Statement is it does give us that sort of intergenerational lens to look at these assets. One of the things that Treasury does when they are putting together the Investment Statement is to consider the resilience of those assets to shocks which might arise, and within the Investment Statement there are a number of models in particular that Treasury runs through to determine New Zealand’s resilience to various shocks which could arise. So they consider, for example, another economic shock similar in scale to the global financial crisis, which, of course, hit 11 years ago now. They consider our resilience to shocks like a major event such as foot-and-mouth—an outbreak of that in the agricultural sector.

Of course, that was very poignant, because I think the Finance and Expenditure Committee met with Treasury a couple of months ago and the modelling around the foot-and-mouth outbreak was presented to us. Then, of course, more recently, we’ve had to really start to get to grips with an outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis—not quite as significant as envisaged in terms of foot-and-mouth, where they modelled an economic impact of $22 billion on the New Zealand economy, which would have led to a net debt increase of 22 percent, but very significant none the less.

It really does speak to the value of appropriate fiscal management, appropriate management of our balance sheet, because pretty quickly the Government’s been able to put aside nearly $1 billion to deal with that problem. So there we go. That’s that principle of long-term, sustainable fiscal management: not just managing the things that are immediately in front of us but being able to look ahead five, 10, 20 years to the next generation to make sure that Government is managing its asset base as appropriately as possible to deal with those shocks when they might come up.

Of course, one of the major ones—just thinking of my colleague the Hon James Shaw—is, of course, the prospect of climate change on the horizon. It’s not just a prospect; actually, a very real and current risk to New Zealand’s prosperity, and something that we need to think about in terms of our stewardship of the assets that we hold. So those are the sorts of questions that the Living Standards Framework does point us towards.

It’s also pointed out in the Investment Statement the state of some of the current assets that we oversee at the moment. What Treasury does is not just look at the age of assets but actually undertake a reasonably sophisticated analysis of the condition of the assets that we hold. Really, it’s kind of a bit of a check on Government’s management, but it’s also pointing us in the direction of what we might need to do in terms of future investments.

There are some concerns that come through our Investment Statement. So at this stage, Treasury is telling us that 20 percent of our hospital assets are rated in a poor or a very poor condition. Again, that’s not necessarily just about age; that can actually be about state of the buildings, how well they were put together, how well they’ve being maintained, and, ultimately, how fit for purpose they are for New Zealanders to use. Treasury also noted in its report that 38 percent of school buildings and 25,000 State houses are older than 50 years. Not every single one of those is necessarily going to be in a poor condition, but it points us to a bit of a risk in terms of our management of that stock and the need for a forward-looking Government to be putting appropriate investment in to make sure that that stock is kept in good condition for the benefit and for the well-being of all New Zealanders.

The next thing I want to turn to in respect of the Investment Statement is really looking ahead, and there’s a whole section—I think it’s part four of the Investment Statement—which talks about the path ahead. What it really focuses on is the work that Treasury is doing around the development of the Living Standards Framework. Now, this isn’t an entirely new concept. In fact, Treasury has already produced, I think, two versions of the Living Standards Framework; it’s a piece of work that has crossed both this Government and the previous Government. Really, what the Living Standards Framework is about is taking the concepts in the Investment Statement, that long-range intergenerational view of how we work for the well-being and the betterment of our fellow New Zealanders, and actually really measuring ourselves against those things.

One of the things in this House that we often get really focused on are sort of those short-term metrics that get put in front of us, and it’s not that they’re unimportant; it’s just that they don’t tell the full story. So, of course, every year we have the Budget in this House and we focus on the bottom-line numbers—the fiscal deficit or the surplus. We focus a great deal on GDP growth. But the work that Treasury is doing that’s in the statement here around the Living Standards Framework really asks the question: well, what’s that all for? What is the purpose of that? Are those the only measures that we can use to determine the well-being of our fellow New Zealanders? And of course the answer is no.

You can imagine, for example, that you have a family that’s on a very high income—if I can just draw a quick metaphor—but imagine that there’s a creek running through the backyard that’s heavily polluted and it’s making the family pet sick. Imagine that a couple of the kids have got mental health problems and can’t get the help that they need. You wouldn’t say that that family is existing in a state of well-being, even though there’s quite a lot of income coming in.

So the Living Standards Framework work being led by Treasury looks at the broader sweep of measures. It looks at our natural capital—things like our water resources and our forestry resources. Just think about the water resources and how reliant we are on those for our agricultural prosperity or for our power generation. We actually need to account for the value of those water resources. It looks at things like our social capital, the trust that we have in one another, and the value of the rule of law that we have in our country, which has an enormous economic value in terms of the investment that we might to have here. It considers things, for example, like our level of civic participation. Are we a successful society if people lack confidence in Government and our institutions and don’t participate in our democracy? It looks at our human capital: things like our cultural attributes, our knowledge, our skills, and the mental and physical health of our people, and physical and financial capital—things like do we have fit for purpose transport systems, electricity networks, and other core infrastructure.

The words on the front of the Investment Statement are He Puna Hao Pātiki, which translate as a pool for gathering flounder with a net. This is put forward by Treasury as a metaphor for being a source of well-being. Well, the Investment Statement tells us that New Zealand has significant resources that, with wise governance, we can use for the benefit and the well-being of all New Zealanders. I’m very pleased to present the Investment Statement and the report of the committee to the House, and am pleased that the Government is taking note of it in its development of the Living Standards Framework, which will form a key part of Budget 2019. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I am happy to take a call on this debate into the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) on the 2018 Investment Statement. As has been noted already by the chairman of the committee, who has just resumed his seat, this is the second Investment Statement that has been presented by Treasury under the Public Finance Act. The first, of course, was in 2014, and it’s worth reflecting, in fact, that it was under the previous National Government that the first Investment Statement was put together and presented to the House. I do think it is a worthwhile document. Given that it’s a four-yearly document, it’s not one that has such a high degree of public awareness, and, obviously, only being the second such document, it is still a reasonably new document.

It was certainly interesting talking with Treasury officials and Mr Makhlouf, the Secretary to the Treasury, about this document and some of the ways in which it can be improved. One of those points that I particularly wanted to reflect on, that we discussed as part of the committee, is that the document itself currently, in most of its assessments, only provides a snapshot of the state of the assets in various iterations. That’s not entirely helpful to the House or to the public when we want to understand the trajectory over time. Of course, every Government over many years is dealing with replacing ageing stock in a number of areas, and that is a continuing piece of work. So it would be far more useful to the House, I suggest, if Investment Statements going forward don’t simply provide a snapshot without any context but provide that in the context of how that movement has changed over time and we can see whether there has been, in fact, an increased focus on asset performance under the various asset heads.

The other area where I think the Investment Statement could be significantly made more useful is if there were indications given of international benchmarking so that we could see, for example, where our net worth as a country—relative, say, to GDP to make it comparable—sits compared to other countries. Otherwise, again, they are numbers which are very interesting as far as they go but make it hard for the public to understand the trajectory and also the relative place of New Zealand in the world.

Having made those initial comments, it is worth noting that the net worth of the Government since the first Investment Statement—or, in fact, since the time the National Government was in place—increased by $17 billion. When that is reflected upon in the context of the years over that Government, what it actually shows is that during the period of the global financial crisis (GFC), the recession that was in place before the GFC when we took office, the Canterbury earthquakes, the Kaikōura earthquakes—to go through a period of considerable fiscal upheaval when the Government, in fact, had to turn around a poorly performing economy and get us back to a situation of strong economic growth that this Government has been fortunate enough to inherit. So, over that period, to see the net assets of Government increase by $17 billion, I think, is still worthy of comment.

The Investment Statement talks to the importance of resilience of the New Zealand economy and it talks, I think rightly, about the need to ensure that New Zealand has the headroom to deal with a wide range of potential financial shocks that can hit our economy at any time. While Treasury has modelled three such potential shocks in the document, under questioning at FEC they did have to concede that they were entirely reflective of a range of assumptions that Treasury themselves had decided to use. For example, they’ve modelled what they say would be the impact of a foot-and-mouth outbreak, and yet they have our international trade markets returning after six months. I think anyone who’s involved in the agricultural sector would suggest that to think that our export markets would have recovered after six months after something like a foot-and-mouth outbreak is, in the most generous interpretation, an optimistic view of the world.

So we would certainly take issue with some of the specifics of the modelling, but what we do agree with is that it’s utterly important that our economy has the resilience and the headroom to absorb not just one shock nicely paced after the next shock and where there are nice, recoverable gaps, but actually the ability to absorb—as often happens—a number of major shocks in quick succession. You only have to look at the period from 2009 to 2012 to see exactly that having happened in New Zealand.

So while Treasury has looked at a range of shocks which might happen one by one and assumes there’s always time to recover, in actual fact, we don’t know the size, the frequency, or the repetitive nature of these shocks. That is why it is so critical that New Zealand retains considerable debt headroom, so that should things turn bad—whether of our own making, whether of nature’s making, whether of the world financial system’s making—we have the space to adapt and protect New Zealanders, as we were able to do successfully during the period of the early 2010s.

The Investment Statement, on page 23, makes it very clear that the ability for New Zealand to continue to maintain and maximise its assets is entirely dependent on and underpinned by our economic growth. Our economic growth story and the ability for us to have strong, continuing, robust economic growth is fundamental to ensuring that our balance sheet—which is what this document is talking about—continues to be able to be a good story for New Zealand.

I think this is where we have considerable concerns over the direction that this Government is currently taking us in, because we know, actually, that decisions of Ministers and Government policy—and Treasury says this themselves in the document—are critical levers in determining whether we will (a) have the economic growth to maintain and grow our asset base, and (b) have the levers and the decision-making framework right to make good investment decisions.

If you look at already the early indicators out of what Treasury is telling us since this Government has been in office, we already see Treasury revising downwards their estimates of GDP per capita growth. We already see New Zealand’s GDP growth dropping. It was 4 percent per annum back in 2016; now, for this year, it’s looking to be around 2.8 percent. We were actually ahead of Australia for many years. Under the GFC, we were regarded as one of the leading lights in the world economy during difficult times. Now, we’re being seen as a “middle of the pack”, a bit of an “also-ran”, and “used to be good”.

You only have to look at business confidence—and the “falling off a cliff”, to quote one of the reports out recently—to see the report card that businesses have given this Government on its ability to manage economic growth. It is that growth that this document makes very clear underpins the ability of a Government to maintain and grow its asset base, because if the tax revenues from growth don’t flow through to the Government, then the ability to maintain and grow our asset base is significantly constrained.

I want to comment on two other aspects in particular. One is to comment, with interest, on the changing mix we’ve seen over time of the assets in New Zealand and the mix between the physical assets that New Zealanders can understand and touch and feel and see, and the financial assets. To see that change over a period of time is one of the really useful reflections of a long-run document like this that looks to report on our balance sheet and the mix of assets and how they’ve changed over time.

But the other comment I wanted to make and reflect on was the very interesting reports around page 60 to 65 of the document, where it looks at the performance of our listed companies—what we know as the MOM companies, or the mixed-ownership model companies—that the National Government put in place under our term in office. One of the core things of asset management and managing your balance sheet well isn’t just how much you can own and how old they are but whether you’re getting the balance sheet to work well for you. This document makes it very clear that as a result of the previous Government and as a result of the changes that are made, the performance of each of those companies through the mixed-ownership model has improved markedly. The return on capital has improved, the operating margin has improved, and the net profit after tax has improved, and that is because the National Government knew that often ownership structures and the structures you put in place to maximise the assets are important.

This ideology that says that only things that are owned by Government will ever be successful is fundamentally wrong.

Hon Scott Simpson: It’s flawed.

Hon AMY ADAMS: It has been proven to be flawed time and time again, and yet, already, we see this Government coming in and cancelling private sector involvement in projects like Tāmaki redevelopment on the basis that only the State can own and operate housing. Well, this document tells us the story that good asset management is often about getting the ownership structure right, getting the expertise right, and driving performance of those assets.

This is going to be a very interesting document to look back on in four years’ time, as we see the impact of the economic vandalism of this new Government play out and their ideology take hold and destroy the very good gains that Treasury themselves have noted were achieved under the last Government and that have led to the $17 billion improvement in our net asset position.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It’s great to have an opportunity to speak today to the 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing. I think it’s important to start at the beginning here because we haven’t had this debate—as you yourself noted, Mr Speaker, at the beginning—for, well, ever, in fact, and this is an important document. I want to make sure that all New Zealanders who are watching or listening know what we’re talking about, because it’s easy, when you say “It’s an Investment Statement that measures the value of our assets”, to not even know what that is. So, for the sake of those following along at home, an asset is defined here as: “Government’s assets are the things the government owns. They include buildings, infrastructure and land, as well as funds to support our accident compensation and superannuation schemes.” So it’s very important that we’re not just talking about physical assets per se, but about the net wealth and well-being that we have in our country.

So on that score, New Zealanders, when we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, can be justifiably pleased about our relative standard of living, which is not about any one particular Government, but, over time, is about the fact that New Zealanders have been able to build up a pool of assets that support everything that we do in the country. This value amounts to $65,000 in assets and $41,000 in liabilities for each New Zealander. So that’s quite an interesting number to mention, because I could have said “We have $314 billion of assets and $197 billion of liabilities.”, but if we actually bring it down to an individual person’s level, we’re in net positive territory, and that is a good thing. That’s something that all New Zealanders should be pleased about.

But the trend over a period of time has been that our liabilities have grown from time to time, and our assets have generally trucked along at around about the level, per person, that they are now—obviously, growing in dollar terms, but proportionate to one another. So we can be pleased overall that as a country, New Zealand has a relatively high net worth, but we’ve always got to be careful about the management of the assets that make up that net worth.

What the Investment Statement largely does—it does two main things, and I’ll talk about both of them in the time that I speak today. The first of those is to assess the performance of the Government’s investment across a range of indicators, and then to look at it across—as Michael Wood said in his intervention—the longer-term intergenerational issues as demonstrated by the Living Standards Framework. Then, in the second half of the Investment Statement, it goes into specific sectors and areas and looks at how we’re doing at managing the assets there and what the future path might be, and I will return to a couple of those towards the end of my contribution because they are quite illustrative.

So the areas that the Investment Statement measures our assets on are their effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, resilience, and adaptability. It then does that by looking at two parts of our assets portfolio: the social portfolio and the financial portfolio. The social portfolio includes all of the sectors that you would imagine would be in there—justice, health, education, the Department of Conservation, Housing New Zealand, and so on—and it obviously draws a number of conclusions from those.

If we just look at the first of those measures, which is that of effectiveness, this is where in the story of perhaps scratching just below that level that makes us pleased—the fact that we have a positive net worth—some questions have to be answered. So when we look at page 48 of the report, on how does the social portfolio of assets stack up on the efficiency graphs, well, this is where we have some real concerns because in four sectors, representing $62.77 billion, or 38 percent of the social portfolio’s assets, they have aged assets that—to quote the report—“adversely impact performance:”.

It will not come as a surprise to members of the House that, for example, in our social housing area, the housing portfolio is aged, with approximately 40 percent of assets greater than 50 years old. This is the issue that New Zealand and this Government, on coming into office, have had to face up to—that our social housing is old and aged and needs urgent updating. That’s why, among other things, we’re continuing to invest in making sure that we improve the quality of that housing and that we add to that housing stock—that we add to that asset base. But if we don’t take a long-term, intergenerational view of the assets that we hold, then this will continue to be a problem for us.

At the very heart of the Living Standards Framework and well-being approach—which this report goes on to talk about—is that we cannot just manage for the three-year cycle. We have to manage beyond that and do long-term, sustained investment, and housing is a critical area of that.

But the next area that the report goes on to talk about in terms of efficiency in the social portfolio is in healthcare, and this obviously has had quite a lot of attention in recent times. What the report tells us is that district health boards are reporting that around 19 percent of assets are in poor or very poor condition. That is the nub of the problem that we see played out at places like Middlemore Hospital, where we’ve seen the issues around the mould in the walls, or places like Dunedin Hospital, where people have to wear hazmat suits to go inside functioning parts of the hospital.

That is the situation that New Zealand now finds itself in, where we have a previous Government that failed to invest in these areas, and it is the very reason that in Budget 2018 we have invested $750 million in new capital spending for health because we’ve got to start to get on top of this. The comparable figure in Budget 2017 was $150 million. That is how we end up with assets in the position that we find them in today, where nearly 20 percent of the assets in our health system are in poor or very poor condition. We cannot allow that to go on. The only way of resolving that is long-term, sustained investment in our assets.

Then, in the education portfolio, for school buildings, 38 percent are 50 years old or older, and the report goes on to make the point that inconsistent maintenance across the portfolio has resulted in some assets being in poor condition. Again, not having enough information has been a major issue about that, but this will require a long-term, sustained investment in our school buildings to ensure that they are of sufficient condition.

So that’s just one example of what the report tells us about the state of our assets. It’s all very well to look at the high-level indicators and say “Yep, we’re doing OK.”, but only one step below that is a definition of the state of our social portfolio assets that I believe many New Zealanders would be very concerned about.

I don’t have a lot of time to go into the other half of the analysis around the financial portfolio, but I do just want to lift out one of those, and that is—actually, I’ll try and do two, if I’ve got time. One of those is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and one of the very first things that this Government did was restart Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund because the value of that asset to New Zealanders has diminished as a result of the previous Government deciding that for nine years, they would put no Government contributions in at all. Some $20 billion, approximately, has been missed out on for future generations of New Zealanders because of a short-sighted policy that was all about making sure they made it into surplus, rather than investing for the long term, which is what this asset management approach that we are advocating here would do.

So, actually, with regard to the Superannuation Fund—now that we are getting on with it—around $7.7 billion of Government contribution is going in over the next four years. That is projected to see the value of that asset grow to $63 billion by the time we reach the end of that forecast period—$63 billion. That’s the kind of difference we can make when we look to invest in the long term, and that is the approach that underpins the well-being approach, the well-being Budget, and the Living Standards Framework that is in here.

So I welcome this report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I welcome their endorsement of that well-being approach. I say to all members of the House that these kinds of debates are a good opportunity for us to look to the long term—look past year-on-year Budgets, even—and look to what will make the biggest difference in the well-being of New Zealanders. To my mind, that is long-term, sustained investment in our social capital and in our physical and our natural capital. We can do that if we make that a priority, and that is what this Government is doing.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. This is a very good document prepared by Treasury, and I think it should be compulsory reading for everybody in this House, every MP, and particularly for the Ministers and particularly the Minister who’s just resumed his seat, because I’m sure, if he read it fully, he would see that the Government books and the Government assets were left in extremely good condition by the former Government.

When we look at this document from Treasury—and I’m one of those MPs who, having been a Minister for quite some years, are very, very respectful of the advice from Treasury. Even if it doesn’t always meet political agendas, it is actually always carefully thought-out and considered.

One of the things that Treasury makes very clear in the document is that the Government should only own assets when, one, social and economic benefits outweigh the costs; two, the risk cannot be transferred to the private sector; three, the Government has most relevant expertise; and, four, the Government needs to be directly accountable. That is actually quite a tall order that I suggest that every Government and every Minister should put beside any of their big-spending plan decisions.

Well, I well remember one particular—some people in this House were very upset about the mixed-ownership model for some major assets, but, in fact, that particular mixed-ownership model was incredibly successful according to this particular Investment Statement. By selling down a minority stake to the private sector, to private mum and dad investors and others, in three generation retailers, Meridian Energy, Mercury Energy, and Genesis Power, and Air New Zealand as well, this Government—or the Government before, with us, and also the people; the Crown—was able to actually make a far better return on their investment, which actually means more money being available for things like schools and for things like law and order.

Coming to the huge chunk of the Government asset base, which is that represented by the Housing New Zealand Corporation, I see in the report that the report makes very clear that there is a problem with the oversupply of three-bedroom homes compared to those that are needed in the community. That was something that the previous Government, of which I was part, was deeply concerned with—to make sure that we were able to actually get people who could move into one- or two-bedroom homes into those and out of the three-bedroom ones, but at the same time to build homes that for larger families were going to be far more efficient and effective for them, taking into account that not all families come with 2.3 children, and nor should we expect them to.

So we could also say that it was very concerning today to hear from the Minister that we have a situation where the State tenancy register, or housing register, is the highest it’s ever been, with over 8,000 families in need. This is significantly higher than what it was last year. This particular statement from Treasury makes it very clear that there was a lot of work going on with replacing housing by the previous Government, and to try and state, as some have said today, that that wasn’t being done is actually quite false.

On page 102 of the report I see that the redevelopment activity of Housing New Zealand houses was accelerating, with a 1,421 replacement and new homes delivered in 2017 against a target of 1,339, and 1,400 replacements over this year were expected. There was considerable work going on—at the same time bearing in mind that it is very disruptive for people who have lived in a State house for some time to be asked to move into a different State house, often losing neighbours who they valued and community facilities that they knew well.

I see that Housing New Zealand, in this report, is planning for a 15 percent reduction in construction programme build costs by 2021. I would be thrilled to find out how that is possibly going to happen, because all I can see out in the building sphere is that those costs are going up. I’m also concerned about the fact that in the report itself, the Investment Statement, it states that low commercial returns mean that Housing New Zealand Corporation cannot afford to replace houses in the case of a stress event—for example, an earthquake damaging a significant number of assets. I think that is actually a very real concern, and it is something that we should be concerned about as a Parliament. I think the fact that Housing New Zealand can’t make much of a commercial return makes it even less likely that Housing New Zealand should be favoured over the private sector, who can, in many cases, ensure that they can take the steps that they need to. Certainly, I think that that is something that can be looked at, and I’ll certainly be asking some questions later this year about that.

In response to the Canterbury earthquakes, I see that there was a huge issue for Housing New Zealand in Christchurch in particular, and Housing New Zealand undertook a large initiative and programme to restore the city’s public housing stock to pre-earthquake levels by mid-2016. That is an enormous task that Housing New Zealand took on and achieved, and we have never heard anything from what is now the Government about that excellent work.

I think we can also see that some new stock for Housing New Zealand is being “challenged”—it says here in the report—“by land-use regulation,” I think that means the Resource Management Act. They’ve also said that Housing New Zealand is being challenged by building costs, and yet we also see in the report that Housing New Zealand is counting on a 15 percent reduction in building costs. I have no idea why that would be, and there’s no explanation around that.

I also see that the report notes that Housing New Zealand is challenged by capability and capacity in the construction sector as well as availability of funding. Well, we already know that Housing New Zealand is now going to be required to buy or to borrow in order to build more State houses under the Budget that’s just been announced and voted on just a month ago. That tells me that, actually, Housing New Zealand’s going to get itself into debt, and we already know it’s not making commercial returns that are of much use to it when it comes to repairing or to building new housing stock. I heard today that the costs—the maintenance cost repair and maintenance bills—for Housing New Zealand in the last year were close to half a billion dollars, at $490 million. That’s no new stock; that’s just repairing and maintenance. So I think these are very serious issues when you come to one of the biggest assets a Government has, which is the assets of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. These are serious issues.

We’ve heard the previous speaker, the Minister of Finance, talk about the dreadful state of New Zealand’s public health system. I actually think that is a completely unfair thing to say about our public health system. I have certainly experienced the public health system. I have been delighted with the careful and considered way in which decisions are made, and I have been delighted by the state of many of the buildings that I have seen in the public sector—bearing in mind that every building, every hospital, will have something that they want to improve.

I also see from the report—and this is the statement itself from Treasury—it notes that New Zealand’s health system was tied with Norway for fourth place in the world in a 2017 Commonwealth Fund comparative study of 11 OECD countries that looked at average care process access, administrative efficiency, equity, and—most importantly for New Zealanders—healthcare outcomes. That’s what matters. They noted, though, that there were, obviously, certain losses and various other challenges and some inefficiencies around the asset condition of some of the particular district health boards and also some of the controls of that. That is the sort of thing that happens in a big undertaking, and health is one of the biggest undertakings—in fact, I think it is the biggest undertaking of Government.

It notes also resilience, and particularly that around mental health and emergency management obligations. These are the things that happen, and should be taken account of, with every one of the entities that Government has.

Overall, I think it’s a very good report. It deals with a lot of issues in a very sensitive and sensible way without emotion and without hyperbole—which I think is often sadly lacking in Parliament—and it deals with things in a way which I think New Zealanders can have some comfort in. Treasury, and they may all be quite young chaps and “chap-esses”—and girls—but they are very sensible—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —people who are doing very, very well, and I support them.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the 2018 Investment Statement. The Investment Statement’s important because—and others have articulated it—transparency around Government and the way Government manages the assets and liabilities on behalf of the people of New Zealand is important. However, this document differs from all previous Investment Statements published because it uses organising principles from Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, and that, on many levels, is quite exciting. I know that the contributions today haven’t necessarily been that exciting, but the fact is that this report starts to move towards measuring more than just the value of things.

I want to just pick up on some comments by the Hon Amy Adams. The Hon Amy Adams, in her contribution, suggested that this Government inherited a strong economy based on an increase in assets of $17 billion—it’s not exactly word for word, but I think that’s along the lines of what she said. One might accept that statement at its face value. I think if you look into the books—the physical assets of what was handed over from one Government to another Government—probably we had an increase of around $17 billion.

However, you could also argue—and what is so great about moving to the concept of having a Living Standards Framework is you could also argue that this Government inherited a social account in extreme deficit when it comes to the well-being side of what is the well-being Investment Statement for 2018. That’s why it’s so interesting that we’re starting to get this shift away—and it’s great to have consensus across the House—and this move away from not just dollars and cents but also measuring the well-being, and how those dollars and cents are spent and how those assets affect the well-being of the people our nation.

I mean, one can add up all the prisons that are inside this document—one can add them all up and there’s a value to them—one could put into it the billions of dollars that some might suggest should be spent on an American-style mega-prison, and you could argue, as the Hon Amy Adams has said, that there’s a lot of buildings that are worth a lot of money, so therefore the country’s got a lot of assets and it’s in a really good financial space. One would have to discount the human capital that was then being incarcerated inside those walls and completely write off the value that that human capital has to the country, and therein lies the difference.

Therein lies the difference, and that’s why there is the living standards approach. It says here, “The Treasury has been developing its living standards approach since 2012”—so it’s obviously something that the previous Government supported; it’s obviously well supported by the previous Government because they started to develop it, so that’s wonderful that we’re all on the same page—“to ensure its analysis and advice considers the wide range of factors that impact on wellbeing.”, and that’s well-being across the spectrum.

Now I’m particularly thrilled about it because I’m working on the child well-being strategy with the Prime Minister, and the child well-being strategy will take some of the indicators that are inside this current document. It will add some other indicators and some other markers that we will have to measure ourselves against, and one of those will be: how is this spend of these dollars impacting on the well-being of children? So if we go back to the example that I’ve given, which is around building American-style mega-prisons, how would spending that many billions of dollars impact on the well-being markers for our children? Incarcerating a parent away from them, they then suffer as being the child of a prisoner, and so on and so forth—how does that spend impact all the way through? What are the ripples all the way through New Zealand society? That’s how starting to actually do measures on a Living Standards Framework starts to break us away from what has been sort of a fixation on merely the amount of dollars.

The Hon Grant Robertson actually mentioned this, as well. If we go to page 110 and have a look at the asset base that we have inside the Ministry of Education, for example. If we have a look at it there, it says in one of the figures—and it’s in writing on page 111—“On top of this, [the Ministry of Education] expects that $5.39 billion from baseline funding will go towards maintaining the existing portfolio. This includes funding redevelopments, and replacing ageing assets (approximately 74 percent of buildings are greater than 20 years old).” It also notes, however, in the paragraph previously that “Planned capital expenditure cannot be covered by depreciation”.

Now what was really interesting about the previous Government was that we used to have a fund that we set aside for all school buildings. Once they reached 45 years old, there was an assessment done on them. They were either refurbished or they were actually replaced. That fund was done away with in the last decade. I think it had to do with leaky buildings, and that’s why that fund was done away with, and so what we see is—and it’s what the Hon Grant Robertson alluded to. When one starts to make knee-jerk, short-term, narrow-vision, totally dollar-focused decisions, one doesn’t see the long-term stretch of how documents like this and Budgets over time and using a well-being investment strategy can protect us for the future.

Another example he gave of that was actually superannuation. It was the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I also wear the hat as the Minister for Seniors, and the fact that there is $20 billion less than there used to be for the well-being of New Zealanders as they get older is unfortunate. It’s that type of well-being measure—how will this budgetary item affect, long-term, the well-being of our citizens?—which is the exciting part as we move forward.

I do just want to pick up on some of the comments made by the Hon Judith Collins, and it was around the conversation around Housing New Zealand. She pointed to some comments inside the paper—I mean, remember this is Treasury, and Treasury has come a long way. Their job is to look at the money—we understand that. You can’t take it away from them; that’s exactly what they’re paid for. But I would have to say that even in the past seven months, there has been a much more human face to Treasury. They really welcomed the opportunity to expand on the well-being concept and start to participate with the Government about how we can better frame this for the long term.

So it’s interesting that the Hon Judith Collins picked up around a lack of commercial return from Housing New Zealand and equated that, somehow, to “This Government should not support its citizens into social housing.”, or, at least, it should not own the social housing that it supports its citizens into, but, somehow, that should be paid to private providers. I’m struggling, inside this document—perhaps Judith Collins could enlighten me at some other time. But those citizens who require our social housing are being supported by the taxpayer. So the citizens that require social housing, that are going into Housing New Zealand homes, are being supported by other New Zealanders. If the money we pay for their social housing is then paid to a private provider, that becomes somebody else’s profit margin, as opposed to reinvesting in what is the taxpayer’s money going around in a taxpayer pool.

Then Ms Collins also levelled some criticism about the maintenance levels of the Housing New Zealand housing stock. I would have thought that the last thing that anybody from the Opposition would have got up to do just seven months into a new Government was to stand up and criticise the amount of money that has had to be set aside to maintain what are taxpayers’ assets. I would suggest that that shows a failing on whoever was running the place in the last decade, because they didn’t maintain the assets by which the taxpayer had placed in their care.

But I come back to the document. It’s a great document, it certainly is. I do think it’s good reading, and I would encourage every member of the House to read through it, but it’s the movement that we’re starting to make towards deciding that what a Government’s job is is not just managing the money; it’s making sure that our citizens have homes, that our children are safe, that our schools are able to cater for them, that they have teachers in front of them, and that the needs that they have can be looked after. That’s wider than just dollars, and so this is a start on a pathway towards greater well-being being recognised. Kia ora.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Well-being, and what was even more pleasurable was to see the previous speaker, Tracey Martin, who obviously spent some time looking at this report. I know that the Hon Tracey Martin has many interests, but her new-found interest in financial matters, I think, must be applauded and commended.

Mr Speaker, this is the second of these reports, and, of course, we don’t always get the opportunity to talk about these here in Parliament, as you noted earlier. The first one was released in 2014, and I’ve got to say that New Zealand is very, very unusual, because most countries around the world don’t actually do this. They do not actually go about, in a systematic way, assessing their assets and their liabilities and looking at the balance-sheet side of their business. Everyone focuses on operating expenditure, and rightly so. But the balance-sheet side of Government is just as important, as it is for companies operating in the market.

The report has picked up this new framework, which is called the Living Standards Framework, and, of course, it has four pillars of well-being—namely, capital, social, human, and natural. I think, to some extent, they provide a reasonable logic in terms of how we might go about assessing the balance sheet of the Government. It’s a new framework, and, of course, we’re working through a process of trying to understand it. Certainly, it raised some questions in the Finance and Expenditure Committee when we heard from the officials around this document, but I think that’ll be something that will need to be developed over time, and the logic of some of the linkages in that categorisation, I think, needs to be strengthened and worked into a framework that everyone is and can become comfortable with.

The result is it’s good news all round. In 2017, the net worth of the country in terms of the Government’s share of it was $117 billion, or $24,000 per person, made up of assets of $314 billion and liabilities of $197 billion. When you compare that figure to 2009, basically, the assets increased by $97 billion, from a figure of $217 billion. So, you know, assets have gone up by $100 billion since National came to power in 2009 till when we, unfortunately, lost office last year. That, on the face of it, is very good, and if you’re looking at it, it means that the country has a more robust financial structure, but it’s something that is a theme I’m going to return to later.

Looking at the asset breakdown, it’s interesting, because most people will sort of have a view on what the Government invests its money in, but 52 percent of the balance sheet is allocated to the social portfolio—land, buildings, and equipment used for the delivery of social services. Of course, we’ve heard a number of the speakers talk about education, social services—a whole raft of those types of operations.

The next significant category—and this is the one I don’t think people really appreciate—is the size of the financial assets that the Government owns. It owns them through a whole raft of entities: the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that the Minister was talking about before, ACC, the Reserve Bank holds a lot of assets and also debt liabilities, and the New Zealand Debt Management Office. There’s a number of other entities that hold a huge proportion of financial assets, quite rightly, in conducting their business, whether it’s in terms of their banking operations or, principally, through the investing operations of those arms—such as the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and ACC—into listed companies shares and other forms of investment.

The smaller and last main category is the Government’s commercial property, which represents about 18 percent of all the assets. I think that Treasury note—their sort of conclusion is that the Government’s balance sheet is currently strong, providing resilience in the face of adverse events.

I think one of the aspects that I found interesting that was covered in the report is actually how resilient is the New Zealand Government in the area of if we have further shocks, and, of course, we always have shocks. The conclusion was that New Zealand is broadly tolerant to plausible adverse events. Treasury ran three adverse events ranging in scale and differing scenarios between rural crises, earthquake risks, and the impact of financial sector meltdown, as we had during the Asian crisis and a number of others like those. We at the committee had quite a lot of discussion round that, because the assumptions used in those scenarios weren’t actually that evident, and, in some cases, the resulting outcomes didn’t seem well linked. It was a question we spent some time looking at. It’s very important that we do have robust modelling, but I do applaud that the stress testing was a function that had been undertaken. It’s a very important one to understand—risk.

The other aspect was around value for money. I think one of the areas where Government loves to spend money is in commercial property, and, as I’ve said before, commercial property represents about 18 percent of total assets of the Government. I think there’s always a tension between people wanting to have nice, flash offices, perhaps in regional areas, when in fact there is no need for the Government to build very good buildings—they could rent buildings. So we have this classic of “Do we invest in a building or do we rent?” I think this assessment around value for money, particularly in the area of commercial property, is a very important aspect, and it was one that we were keen that Treasury started to turn its mind to in terms of its focus around making sure that if we are investing in assets—hard, physical assets—there’s a good, justifiable reason for that. Procurement is also linked to that in terms of Government practices, and how we go about doing it in the way we conduct procurement, which is really, really important and will, of course, have a strong bearing on the outcome.

The one part of this report that I was very disappointed in—and I did say this to Treasury officials—is its lack of focus on the intangible aspects in the balance sheet. If you go out into the commercial sector now, every company—of substantial size, at least—will be turning its mind, if it hasn’t already done so, to the intangible value of its business. In most cases—in many cases, at least—the value of the intangibles will be far more significant than the hard, physical assets. When I looked at the balance sheet breakdown in here, the intangible component was only $3.5 billion and it was thought it was going to increase to just under $4 billion. I think that that view is incredibly conservative. In fact, I don’t think any blowtorch had been put on the value of intangibles, and I think it significantly understates the value of the Government’s balance sheet, not only in financial terms but in terms of assessing its intellectual value that the Government holds and also some of the other brands that New Zealand has round tourism, etc. I think, in the end, we’ve ended up with a very overly conservative valuation around that.

But the report also raises the question about what is the optimal right size of the Government’s balance sheet. I heard people from the Government side talking about increasing asset value and underspending and all that sort of stuff. Well, we do need to invest in hard assets, but we do also need to ask ourselves what is the best form of investment, and it may not actually be investing in hard assets. I think there’s much more choice around it. Part of it’s driven around the ability to fund investment on a sustained basis over time.

But there’s consideration of other financing options such as in property—I referred to the classic rent versus the owned—but also in terms of things such as public-private partnerships and mixed-ownership models, which offer other ways to hold assets without necessarily having to have 100 percent of the value sitting on your balance sheet.

Of course, most companies that are well managed will be looking at their balance sheet and making sure it’s optimally designed. If they can take cash out of it they will, and there’s no difference between those companies and the Government. On that basis, I think it’s very important that Treasury continue to look at that factor in the next report. Thank you very much.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in the debate on He Puna Hao Pātiki, the 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing. And I just wanted to start by picking up on some of the points made by the previous speaker, Mr Andrew Bayly, who was talking about how in corporate New Zealand—in fact, right around the world now—intangibles are being valued and reported on in corporate reporting. The fact is that in this Investment Statement that is an area that is pretty thin, but I would say that is actually probably the best articulation of the need to finish the work on the Living Standards Framework, because the point of the Living Standards Framework is for us to actually get a much more comprehensive and well-rounded view of the sources of value and what our assets actually are in this country.

So I’d just like to acknowledge the work that Treasury have done getting us to this point. It has taken about four or five years of work on the Living Standards Framework to be able to get to the point where we’re even able to say what we’ve said in this Investment Statement, which is quite different from the previous Investment Statement of a few years ago, and I’d like to assure Mr Bayly that the next Investment Statement will be at least as different again from this one as this one is from the last one because the Living Standards Framework and the underlying measures will be so much more developed than where they are today.

So I kind of see this as an important milestone in progress, but it is an incredibly complex area. I actually started my career in this domain, at PricewaterhouseCoopers in the UK in the late 1990s, when they were first starting to try and work out how to evaluate, measure, report, and assure intangible—or should we say non-physical or financial—assets as part of the corporate reporting process, and it has been an incredibly long road. Even here in New Zealand, we are only now just starting to dip our toe in the water in terms of the New Zealand corporate space, but that’s after 20 years of development in this field internationally.

So if you can take the work that you see in the private sector and then try to amplify it in both size and complexity to scale up to the level of a country, you can imagine why it is quite a significant challenge to be able to come up with a comprehensive report that actually includes all of the things that Mr Bayly is referring to, that covers all of our economic assets as well as our social and environmental assets as well.

So I did just want to start by referring to how the Investment Statement has changed and how it is likely to change again in the future, and it has to take account of the changes that are going on in society as well. It does that specifically referencing demographic changes in the coming decade, climate change and the impact that that is going to have on our economy, and technological change, particularly in the domain of artificial intelligence, workforce automation, and so on, and how those forces interacting with our economy are likely to affect our Investment Statement.

As Mr Bayly said, this report is pretty interesting not just for what it does show but actually for what it doesn’t show, and there is a reference that I’ll just choose to focus my comments on in the domain of natural capital alongside the kind of economic, financial, and physical capital that we’ve got pretty well covered and the social and human capital domains which are still—they’re kind of better covered in this report than they have been in the past, but still there’s a bit of progress.

But it’s actually in the domain of natural capital that we’re pretty thin on the ground, and there have been a few reports recently. There was the Our Land report that was released recently. There was the system of economic and environmental accounts that were released earlier this year as well. In all of these reports, including in the investment report, there have been significant gaps in our knowledge, whole areas that we refer to but then don’t provide data for because we actually just don’t have data for them and we don’t have good ways of measuring them or for gathering that data. But people ask: why would you have natural capital? What is natural capital? Why would you have it in the Government’s budgetary cycle as part of the Investment Statement? So I’ll just try and illustrate with a few stories that I think demonstrate the value of valuing nature and of natural capital.

So, first of all, in Tolaga Bay at the moment there is significant damage that has been caused by flooding, which is exacerbated by run-off from clear-fell forestry in the surrounding region. If you can imagine the clean-up costs from higher levels of river than there would have been otherwise and the cost of having to clean out the excess wood that has washed down into the valleys and down the river, the cost of all of that implies there is economic value in permanent forestry on those hillsides because the cost of the clear-felling causing that increased flooding is a direct economic cost. Therefore, the forest remaining on the hill is an economic asset, and some people would refer to that as kind of ecosystem services. And it’s a pretty, kind of, basic way of looking at it, which is, well, what’s the avoided cost of maintaining your natural environment—your natural asset base? But it would be one that I think would be evidently clear to the people of Tolaga Bay this week.

Another one is in the domain of climate change—a topic true to my heart. For example, we know that the cost of storm damage, or repairing roads and rail and airport clean-ups from the increasingly frequent and severe storms that are coming as a result of climate change—over the last 10 years, that clean-up cost has gone from $19 million to $90 million per year, in 10 years. So it’s quadrupled in size as an outgoing cost over the course of 10 years. Obviously, there are factors that you can zero out, like population increase and so on, but actually, the cost of those storms and damage as a result of climate change—that’s just happening in the transport space.

The third one, and I guess this is also particularly pertinent right now—and particularly our farmers will have something to say about this—is, of course, in biodiversity and biosecurity. The damage to our ecosystems and the sensitivity that our ecosystems have has a direct economic cost. If you think about the impact of Kauri dieback if that continues on and we lose our most precious tree species—the impact that that has on our kind of cultural sense of who we are but also actually in terms of tourism. If you say that myrtle rust could take out pōhutukawa and mānuka, then obviously, again, that starts to affect who we are and how international people think about us and mānuka honey and some of those products. And, of course, the big one is Mycoplasma bovis. The value of maintaining a healthy ecosystem has a direct economic value to us.

So it is an area that needs a great deal more development. We know instinctively that our natural environment is of core economic benefit, perhaps more so to New Zealand than to some other countries because of the nature of who we are as a country and our economy. That’s why things like the system of economic and environmental accounts that was released, why the Living Standards Framework, why the Our Land report, why Indicators Aotearoa—the set of comprehensive social and environmental indicators that Statistics New Zealand is working with alongside Treasury—are so important. I think that when we think about all of those things together in that domain of work, actually, that is the kind of the thing that we want to be able to see represented in the next investment report because, you can imagine, whether it’s the Bonn markets internationally who looks at these reports to get a sense of how confident they are in our economy and how we’re managing—that there is perhaps a great deal of risk that’s sitting there unquantified and currently not on the books.

So I really commend Treasury and the rest of the Public Service for their work in producing this. I’m very much looking forward to how it evolves in future years.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be taking a call this afternoon on the 2018 Investment Statement. A core part of that statement is the balance sheet. For the uninitiated, it is one of the first times we are giving one of these debates in the House. For the uninitiated, it is really just a simple “what you own and what you owe.”

It’s a statement of assets and liabilities in the same way that any business or farm or even household might do. So I turn to the balance sheet part of the statement and it says, “The balance sheet has been growing strongly in recent years.”, and goes on to say that the “balance sheet is currently strong, providing resilience in the face of the adverse events.” I ask members of all parts of the House: why would that be? Why would it be that the current balance sheet is so strong? The answer to that, really, is down to good management.

We had a strong and growing economy for the last few years of the National Government. We rebounded well from the effects of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. In the election year last year, we went into the election having six years of unbroken growth, with the exception of one quarter. We had an economy that was growing faster than the US, the UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the EU. We had an economy that was creating more than 10,000 jobs each and every month. The result of that strong and growing economy was that we were able to start paying down debt and improving the Government’s balance sheet.

Now, members opposite from time to time do mention debt. They do mention that during that time that we were in Government that debt did go up, and that is absolutely true. In the first few years we were in Government, debt did increase. The reason for that was because when we came into Government in 2008, we had a global financial crisis to deal with, and, actually, it was prior to that—New Zealand was the first country in the world that went into recession, ahead of the rest of the world. So we did have to take on a lot of debt and that obviously, affected our balance sheet.

Subsequent to that we had two Canterbury earthquakes—two Canterbury earthquakes. So those twin shocks, the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis, both contributed to higher unemployment across the country. That meant the Government had less revenue coming in and more going out. So what does that mean? It means that we have to take on debt if we want to continue to live up to our obligations of paying people a decent amount so that they can get by and they can be supported. It happened across the Western World. Balance sheets across the Western World all blew out as a result of debt increasing.

Every time during that time that we announced some sort of saving—some sort of saving to ensure that the balance sheet wouldn’t blow out any further—we had Grant Robertson across the House saying, “That’s outrageous. You shouldn’t be cutting expenditure; you should be increasing expenditure.” Well, that would have increased debt even more, so it’s a little bit rich to have members opposite from time to time complain that we took on more debt and made the balance sheet worse.

That brings me to the next point in this statement, which is “Seeking value for money”. Now, in the seeking value for money part of the statement it says, “Direct Government ownership is only one form of intervention. The choice to own needs to be rigorously assessed against alternatives.” I completely agree with that. That is exactly the case—it should be rigorously tested.

The problem is with the Government we have now they’re not doing that, and we’ve seen that recently. We’ve seen that in three ways. The Government have ruled out any sort of public-private partnerships in education, in health, or in corrections. If you think about it, that’s actually quite mad, because for every school around the country that I’ve met, their biggest headache is buildings—the biggest headache is buildings. It takes up a huge amount of time that principals could otherwise be putting into improving education for their students. Instead, they spend it on their assets.

It’s left the incredible situation that we have in Marlborough, where we have Marlborough Boys’ and Marlborough Girls’ colleges who want to co-locate. It’s what the community wants. It would be a public-private partnership. We have the incredible situation where the Government is saying, “No, we know best. The community doesn’t want it. The schools don’t want it. But we know best, and we won’t have co-location.” They should be asking, frankly, the local MP Stuart Smith and talking to him about what the community wants. Unfortunately, they won’t listen.

It also confuses me a little bit, because we do already have a significant amount of private involvement in the education system. Actually, if you removed private schools in the State-integrated sector, that would lead to a huge amount more that the Government would need to spend on education and would further blow out the balance sheet.

Dr Deborah Russell: That’s not true. There are lots of places in Whanganui college. They don’t have to go to Wanganui Collegiate.

ANDREW FALLOON: Well, the member opposite mentions Whanganui, and that’s actually quite a good example. There are a number of other schools around the country at the moment that will go to the wall unless the Government steps in and helps them, and that’s absolutely what should happen, because if they don’t do that, then all it’s going to do is put more cost on the New Zealand taxpayer.

I now want to come to the state of the balance sheet. During National’s time in Government, there was a $97 million increase in total assets, and that was a net worth increase of $16 billion. Now, we did that at the same time as the mixed-ownership model. We sold down stakes in three energy companies and also in Air New Zealand. Now, the reason I raise that is because what it shows is that you can both sell down assets and also improve the state of those assets, and also increase the amount of revenue you get from them, because that’s exactly what happened with the mixed-ownership model. It is a tragedy that that Opposition opposed that and won’t take it any further.

I want to turn now to the Living Standards Framework. I was quite interested in this, because part of that talks about natural capital. There’s been a case recently where natural capital has been talked about. I specifically want to raise a point in here which talks about “Natural capital … includes land, soil, water, … atmosphere, plants … animals, [and] minerals.” Isn’t that interesting—minerals. All of it sounds very nice, except when you consider what the Government’s done recently in Taranaki. They made a disgraceful decision to shut down the oil and gas sector.

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not true.

ANDREW FALLOON: There was no—well, it is true, I’m sorry, Mr Hipkins. They now have a death sentence. They’ve been told that there’ll be no more oil and gas exploration any further from now on. Gas will run out. Oil reserves will run out. They have an absolute death sentence.

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not true either.

ANDREW FALLOON: Yes, it absolutely is, Mr Hipkins. What’s going to happen if the oil and gas sector can’t continue to explore? It’s going to run out. It’s a pipedream if you think it’s not going to run out.

I want to turn now to a few comments made by my colleague Amy Adams. She had some concerns about the standard within the framework that’s been put forward. She mentioned in her comments that it only envisages for one shock to happen, whether it be an earthquake, another global financial crisis, or some sort of incursion, and as we all know from recent history, that’s not always the case. As I mentioned before, we had two earthquakes in Canterbury on the heels of the global financial crisis, so any standard has to recognise that there could be more than one incident at any time.

Unfortunately, that could happen right now. We have, unfortunately, had an incursion in relation to biosecurity, and that relates to Mycoplasma bovis. Amy Adams mentioned foot-and-mouth, and that’s a very good example. It wouldn’t take six months to get over—it’d be much longer than that, and, in fact, if you look at Mycoplasma bovis, that’s going to be a lot longer than six months. The Government themselves are talking about two years. That’s going to have a huge impact not only across the regions that are affected—particularly in my area of mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury—but across the entire country.

I just want to end by saying that this is a document that spells out how successful National was in our time in Government in getting the books back in order, and we’ll do that again in three years, when we’re required.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. He tino hōnore tēnei māku te tū ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pukapuka kātahi anō ka puta mai, arā, He Puna Hao Pātiki.

He aha tēnei mea te ripanga kaute? E ai ki te ture me whakaputa tētahi rīpoata, tētahi rautaki e whakamārama ana, pēhea te nui o ngā rawa, ngā rauemi o te Kāwanatanga, o te Karauna, pēhea hoki te nui o te nama o te Karauna, he aha ngā nekenekehanga o ngā tau ki muri, he aha te tirohanga whakamua.

Ko tēnei pukapuka He Puna Hao Pātiki e mea ana, i te mutunga o te marama o Pipiri i tērā tau, neke atu i te $314 piriona te wāriu, te nui o ngā rawa, ngā rauemi o te Karauna. Tata ki te $117 piriona te nama o te Karauna. He āhua pai tēnā—he pai tēnā—ki te tirohanga. Engari he aha ngā taimahatanga? Māku e kī atu. I roto i te iwa tau kua pahure, nā koutou ki tērā taha o te Whare, kāhore koutou i whai whakaaro ki ngā mea tika. Kāhore koutou i hoatu i te moni ki ngā mea tika. I roto i tēnei rīpoata, tēnei pukapuka, ka kitea—tata ki te 20 paiheneti o ngā hōhipera he taretare, he pakaru. Neke atu i te 38 o ngā kura me te 25,000 o ngā whare Kāwanatanga, neke atu i te 50 tau te tawhito.

Tēnā pea he āwhā kei te heke nei, tēnā pea he rū whenua anō, engari e pai ana. Kei konei mātou i tēnei taha o te Whare ki te whakatikatika i tēnei. Kua kite i roto i te tahua Pūtea kātahi anō ka puta mai, e hoatu moni ana mātou ki te hanga whare, ki te whakatikatika i te hauora, te mātauranga, ki te āwhina i ngā rohe, ki te āwhina i ngā whānau anō hoki.

Engari, e hiahia ana ahau ki te kōrero ki tētahi mea hou kei roto i tēnei pukapuka. Kei te wāhanga tuatoru, arā, ko te whakapai ake i te hono o te whakahaere ripanga kaute ki te oranga. He mea hou tēnei, he mea nui tēnei. Tēnei mea te oranga—e titiro whānui ana mātou ki tēnei mea te oranga. Ehara i te oranga o te pūtea, o te moni noa iho. He nui kē atu te oranga o Aotearoa-Niu Tīreni i te nui, iti rānei o te pūtea o te Karauna, i te nui, iti rānei o ngā rawa me ngā rauemi o te Karauna, i te nui, iti rānei o ngā nama o te Karauna mehemea kei runga, kei raro i te raina mehemea he whero, he pango rānei.

He aha te pai o te whakapau moni mehemea kāhore tātou e āta titiro ana, āta wetewete ana, āta tātari ana ki te oranga o te iwi? Mehemea e toko ake ana te oranga o te iwi? O te tangata? He tirohanga whānui ki tēnei mea te oranga. Ehara i te oranga o te moni anake engari ia ko te oranga o ngā rawa o kiko, ā-tāngata, ā-hapori, ā-ao tūroa anō hoki. Ka noho hei tūāpapa mō te oranga. E hāngai ana tēnei ki ngā mātāpono whakarite i roto i te Anga Pourewa Oranga a ngā taumata ora, arā, ko te Living Standards Framework a te Kaitohutohu Kaupapa Rawa.

Arā noa atu ngā āhuatanga ka kīa ko te oranga tae atu ki te whai whare, te whiwhi pūtea hoki, te whiwhi mahi hoki, whai wāhi ā-hapori kia kaha te pārekareka o te ratonga o te taiao, te mātauranga, te hauora me te taituarā anō hoki.

He tuatahitanga tēnei, he tīmatanga pai. Kia ora.

[E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I am honoured to stand and speak about this newly published document He Puna Hao Pātiki.

What exactly is a balance sheet? The law says that a report, a strategic statement, is required, stating the size of assets and resources of the Government,of the Crown, as well as the extent of Crown liabilities, along with how we have fared in the past and projections for the future.

This document, He Puna Hao Pātiki, shows that at the end of June last year, Crown assets and resources totalled about $314 billion. Crown liabilities came to almost $117 billion. That sounds fair enough—it looks good—on the surface. But what are the challenges? Let me tell you. In the past nine years, those of you who are on that side of the House, you did not consider the right things. You did not resource the right areas. This report, this document, reveals that almost 20 percent of hospitals are dilapidated or in disrepair. More than 38 schools and 25,000 Government buildings are more than 50 years old.

We may well have storms ahead or another earthquake, but that’s all right. We on this side of the House are here to put things right. We have seen in the recently announced Budget that money has been allocated for building houses, for fixing up health and education, for regional development, and for family assistance.

But I want to talk about a new thing in this document. It is in the third section and deals with improving the alignment of the balance sheet to well-being. Now, this is something new, and it is a big deal. Well-being—we are looking holistically at well-being. It is not just financial well-being. It is not just about money. Well-being for Aotearoa New Zealand is not merely about the abundance or lack of Crown funds, it is not just about the plenty or paucity of Crown assets and resources, and it is not simply about the large or small Crown liabilities, whether we are above or below the line, or whether we are in the red or the black.

What is the good of spending money if we don’t look carefully, if we don’t consider thoughtfully, if we don’t analyse properly the well-being of people? Is there any improvement in people’s well-being? This takes a broad view of well-being, not just in monetary terms, but in terms of practical, personal, social, and natural well-being. These are the fundamentals of well-being. This is in line with the principles outlined in the Living Standards Framework as described by Treasury.

There are plenty of other indicators of well-being including homeownership, receiving an income, having a job, having a place in the community, and enjoying the provisions of the environment, education, health, and support.

This is a first, and it is a good start. Kia ora.]

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me pleasure to speak to He Puna Hao Pātiki, 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing. Despite what we’ve heard, I think everybody agrees that this is a very good document. This is the second time this has been done in four years, and it actually paints a very strong and positive picture.

The total Government assets of $314 billion against liabilities of $197 billion mean that our total net value is $117 billion in Government assets and the Superannuation Fund, and that’s around $24,000 a person. And, actually, that is a very good result. For a public sector and for a public entity and for a Government set of books, that’s a really good result, and that is a 97 percent increase in assets since 2009. In a time when we went through the global financial crisis (GFC), the massive Christchurch earthquakes, and even the Kaikōura earthquakes, the increase in that value of those assets is significant.

I do want to take a little bit of time to talk about the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which the Minister of Finance commented on—how good it is that contributions are now being made. The simple reason that contributions were stopped was because of the GFC and the pressure on the Government’s books brought about by the Christchurch earthquakes, some hard calls had to be made—calls that any business in New Zealand would make. We’re now through that process. The books are looking incredibly good, thanks to nine years of a National Government, and there is some money to invest.

However, if you look at the net worth of GDP—so the value of these assets is about 30 percent of the net worth of GDP—there were some interesting comments made by Treasury, and I want to flesh this out further. When we questioned how this related to international comparisons, they said, simply, “We’re in a good space.”, but that was their instinct, not their knowledge, and I actually think, as we go forward, we need to get better and we need to transfer to measurable results against other countries to know how we stand.

In this document and in the Treasury briefing, they talked about stress testing—stress testing the financial resources and capability of our balance sheets in New Zealand to deal with shocks like the GFC, and like the Canterbury earthquakes. But, in this case, they’ve measured against a Wellington earthquake, foot-and-mouth, and another GFC. We questioned some of the assumptions about that in Finance and Expenditure committee and, actually, I’m left with thinking that more work needs to be done. We have the ability to manage one of those shocks at a time, but Treasury clearly told us that if more than one occurred, that would really stress us.

So in the new fiscal testing theory that they are using and the regimes they’re using, most of the financial investment decisions will now be measured with a fiscal stress test in them. They will measure them against what the likely shocks are in the next five to 10 years, and that’ll be part of a new tool.

I do listen to the other side with some interest when they talk about what happened to debt, what has happened to property, and how it was being looked after, and I do question whether, if they were in the same position over the last nine years going through the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes, they would have actually made any real different decisions. You see, the housing stock in New Zealand has over 25,000 houses that are over 50 years old, 38 percent of schools are over 50 years—they weren’t decisions that were made in the last nine years. Successive Governments have allowed an under-investment in long-term thinking.

I come from a background in local government where, in 2002, the Government introduced legislation for local government to look at long-term asset management. I actually think this paper and this document and the thinking will lead the Government—no matter what political party—to go down a similar path. As we try to make New Zealand more resilient, I actually think this is a very good second effort, and with refinement, in four years’ time I think we’ll have a far better long-term understanding of where we’re placed.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): When we look at this document, the 2018 Investment Statement, on the face of it it looks somewhat tedious—just like a set of accounts, a set of numbers, a set of perhaps decisions to be made. But it’s the subtitle of this document that carries the real interest—the subtitle of this document that tells us what we are really about here in Government, and that is Investing for Wellbeing. I find this an absolutely fascinating document because it so clearly links the numbers, the figures, the assets, and the liabilities with our real purpose here, which is to invest for the well-being of our nation and of our citizens.

What I want to talk about is why this matters—why it is important that we talk about well-being; why it’s not just a word. You know, I was listening to our colleague Mr James Shaw before, and he talked about how, I think, in the late 1990s he was working at PricewaterhouseCoopers in London and they were starting to work on how to measure some of these aspects of well-being. I found that very interesting because at the same time as Mr Shaw was doing that in London, I was studying philosophy here in New Zealand, and then again in my doctoral work.

In that study of philosophy I read, in particular, Aristotle and the Stoics and many of the ancient accounts of the good life. There was an account of the good life there with a word that they used to sort of talk about what the good life might be. It was a life of Eudaimonia—a Greek word. As a Greek word, it can be translated into English. Sometimes it gets translated as “happiness”, but that doesn’t quite capture it. Sometimes it gets translated as “flourishing”—the flourishing life, the life well-lived, the life where potentials are explored, the life where people have the capacity to engage in the world.

Now look, the ancients often had an inwardly focused account of the good life. It’s really only in the later Stoics—people like Marcus Aurelius—that they started to have a focus on what it might be for a society to be a flourishing society. I think we can use both those ways of look at looking at the good life, both for individuals and for society.

What is it to have the eudaimonic life, the flourishing life? Again, the ancients had an answer that I didn’t quite like some of the time. They said the good life was the life of philosophical contemplation. I always thought that was nice for someone who had someone else to do the dishes for them. I always wondered who was going to do the work.

But there is a broader account of it, and again this one particularly comes from Aristotle, that the good life is the life lived by the autonomous man—man—living in his home with his wife, his children, his servants. Secure, with a place to live, an income, and activities that he was engaged in, and being part of a community—that was the good life and the flourishing life. For Aristotle, people who could do that—men who had those resources—were citizens of a society, and, of course, that explains why women were excluded from citizenship.

In the 21st century, we think we are all citizens and we look to make sure that each and every one of us can lead the flourishing life, can lead the good life, can lead the happy life of engagement. The way we do this is by making sure that each of us as citizens has the resources—the assets, the liabilities, the income—and the social structures around us of the health system, the education system, and the welfare system in order to be secure and to live the life of well-being, to live the good life. Once we can do that, we can choose so many different ways to live.

This is why I want especially my colleagues in the National Party to listen to this, because a person who is leading the flourishing life is a person who is free to make choices, to choose how they’ll live their lives. Whether they like living alone or living in a community, whether they like playing sport or playing the piano, whether they prefer watching, Jane Austen adaptations on BBC or Dancing with the Stars—and, for the record, Mr Assistant Speaker, I do both—those are choices that a person who is free, who is flourishing, can make.

This ancient account of flourishing was somewhat lost, and, in particular, in the 20th century in ethics and in political theory there was very much a utilitarian turn, a cost-benefit analysis, a weighing up of one for one. Frankly, if we just looked at the words “Investment Statement”, that is quite a utilitarian statement, very much focused on just the sort of straightforward cost-benefit analysis. But towards the end of the century we started again to have that focus on well-being, that focus on what life could and should be like, and so we turned from that row on row of figures into the rather more thinking about how we can live the good life. That’s why it is so important to link resources with the outcomes.

I think this document is absolutely fascinating because it so clearly and explicitly sets out to link the resources we have with living a good life, with living that life of well-being. On page 5 of this Investment Statement, we have an attempt at saying what well-being consists of for us. It says, “Wellbeing comprises tangible and intangible aspects of life experience, including housing, income, employment, community engagement, enjoyment of environmental amenity, education and health and security.” Aristotle would have been proud to see those words in a Government document in the 21st century.

They are really important aspects of how we live our lives. Now, this is not new work for Treasury, but what I find really fascinating about this is that Treasury was already engaged in its work when it started talking about the four capitals—the four ways that we might think about our resources. Again, here they are, sitting on page 72 of this excellent document. We talk about natural capital, human capital, social capital, and physical and financial capital. The work in this document expands and starts the work of expanding on those capitals until we get into a real sense of what well-being might be.

So the question we have to ask ourselves is: do we have the resources to create the flourishing life for everyone? And this, of course, is where the numbers become important, because what do the numbers tell us? Well, in supplementary questions that the Finance and Expenditure Committee asked of Treasury, we found that some of the numbers are telling us that we’re doing really fantastically well. So, for example, when we compare our net worth compared to our GDP, New Zealand does very, very well compared to lots of other countries. So our net worth in terms of a percentage of GDP is something like about 38 percent. That’s pretty impressive when Australia’s is negative 19 percent, Canada’s is negative 31 percent, and France is negative 130 percent. We’re actually doing well in that regard.

But the numbers do tell us some other stories as well—that we’re not doing so well in some other respects—and, in particular, the social assets are a problem for us. We know that our social assets are run down. We know that those social assets that we rely on to provide us with well-being, the social assets that matter to us in terms of whether we have housing and education and health—we know that there is a real problem in that social portfolio.

But the housing portfolio—and this is on page 48 of the report—has aged, with approximately 40 percent of assets older than 50 years old. The district health boards are reporting that their assets are run down or in poor condition and 38 percent of school buildings are 50 years old or more.

We have run down the resources we need to ensure that each of our citizens has the capacity to flourish, and that’s one of the critical things that this statement tells us. So that’s why it is really important for us to focus us on rebuilding our asset base in those social assets to ensure that each and every one of us—every child and every adult, no matter where they live in this country—can live the flourishing life, so that they can lead the life of well-being. I am so looking forward to seeing the future work that Treasury does on well-being—how to measure it; what it consists of—and I am looking to seeing those numbers linked to our physical assets, our resources, to ensure that we as the Government of New Zealand make it possible for each and every New Zealander to flourish.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I’m slightly offended at the comments of the last speaker, Deborah Russell, when she suggested that anything over 50 was run down or worn out. I’m not sure about—I’m over 50, Mr Assistant Speaker. I don’t know about you—you’re obviously a younger man than me—but saying that anything that’s 50 years or older is run down and decrepit? I’d have to disagree with that member.

The report is an interesting one. It states clearly the situation as it is today, but I think it is also useful and interesting because the main point for me is this report challenges us to think about the status quo or to challenge and question the status quo. It asks us to consider our assets and liabilities within a framework—within this Living Standards Framework—and that’s a different way of thinking. So that’s a good thing. I’m not saying the standards per se are the right standards, but I’m saying that challenging the status quo is a good thing.

If we look at our balance sheet we might think—it’s a little bit disappointing hearing some of the speakers on the other side conclude from this statement that we need to put more money into, say, housing or that we need to put more money into schools simply because they’re run down. That is not a conclusion that should be reached after you read this statement. The conclusion that we should be reaching is that we need to think differently about how to manage our assets and liabilities.

If I can go through a couple of those assets and liabilities which have already been changed in the last nine years—I’m referring to ACC, a very large asset on the balance sheet. As we know, that is a very large asset on the balance sheet and, as we know, that is a fund that is now fully funded, so that is a different way of dealing with ACC and it’s changed in the last nine years. So that means people who suffer from accidents, effectively, pay for themselves from the levies that ACC have collected in advance. We don’t collect the cost of the recovery of that person at the time. It’s already been funded, and that’s a very good way of fully funding the ACC.

Should we be funding the Department of Conservation differently? I know there is a lot of discussion around that. There is talk of charging for walkways across our conservation estates. That’s a good thing that we’re discussing, in thinking about different ways of managing that asset.

Should we be thinking about our healthcare, our hospitals? A lot has been talked about the hospitals as being old—some of them—and therefore concluding, incorrectly, that the health system is broken. The health system’s not broken. The buildings may be old, and the owners of those buildings may not be the right owners—because this statement questions who should be the right owner of these assets. Who should be the owner of $30 billion - odd of social housing?

We here work in buildings, some of which are not owned by the Government. We have agencies and we have departments that reside and work out of buildings that are not owned by the Government, and that’s the way it should be. But why should all our doctors and nurses work out of a building that’s owned by the Government? It makes no sense to me at all that the Government should be the owner of our hospitals. It’s nonsense. As I say, we here, ourselves, don’t work and reside every day in a Government-owned building, even though we are Government employees and work for the State.

Similarly, Government after Government after Government have proven that they are useless landlords as far as Housing New Zealand Corporation is concerned. We cannot and do not know how to manage $28 billion to $30 billion - odd worth of houses that house 65,000-odd tenants. We’ve proven that.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, National did, yes.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: The problem with the opposite side is that they just cannot admit that Governments historically, including the previous Labour Government, were no better. In fact, this side would say they were worse. At least on this side we encouraged private sector involvement by way of community housing providers. An example—exactly the right example—is where private investment owns the houses but the social services that those tenants require and need are delivered. They’re still delivered, but the business of ownership is not that of the Government. In fact, in the Wairarapa we have no Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. They were sold about 20 years ago to a trust—the first community housing provider.

So my point I think I’ve made is that we need to continue to think about who is the right owner. Now, remembering of course that the Government spends about one-third—one in every three dollars in the economy is spent by the Government. We’re a big business. We should be thinking about our business. In fact, we should be thinking about what our purpose is. Is it to own buildings? Is it to own hospitals? Is it to own schools and social houses? I say no, absolutely not. It is not the purpose of a Government to build big, flash balance sheets with physical assets. ACC—absolutely the right thing; that’s exactly what the previous Government has done to think about the way things should be funded. Superannuation: another problem that we all face, on both sides of the House. It’s a longstanding problem and it will continue to be a problem as our population ages and more of us are older. So let’s think about a way of addressing that. Let’s discuss it and put it on the table. This document asks us to do that. This document asks us to think about the way we look at our assets and liabilities.

There is the New Zealand Defence Force. We could privatise our army, but I don’t think that would be a very good idea. Some might suggest that—I don’t know if the Minister of Defence would suggest that, but he’s got a lot more experience of that than me. Of course, there is roading and the New Zealand Transport Agency’s role in this economy. Why does the Government have to own all the roads? Why does the Government have to fund 100 percent all of that tarmac? Why can’t we use the private sector to help fund it? The same with the universities—we should be thinking about that asset. Is it a lazy asset? Do those universities own too many buildings? Do they own too many farms?

We need to question ourselves about what assets we should own and what our purpose is as a Government to support our citizens. Just imagine if we sold $30 billion worth of housing assets and gave it to the 65,000 tenants and said, “See you later. Find a place to live. We will still look after you. We will still wrap around those services. We will still take taxpayer money to support those who are most in need, but we do not need to house you.” I just wonder what those 65,000 people might say. So that’s the assets and liabilities. I think it’s a good document because it asks us to rethink the way we manage those things. But I do have a few issues with the framework, because now that’s suggesting four pillars, and even though we’d like to have all the pillars at the top—10 out of 10—that’s just not going to be the case.

So any decision that is made here, I ask: how do we get the ratios right? It’s going to be tough enough with the Reserve Bank looking after inflation and any other topic that Mr Robertson might task them with, because you twist one and the other one pops up—you can’t push them all.

So my question is—and it’s an interesting framework—how are we going to get those ratios right? To use Michael Wood’s analogy of the wealthy family with a dirty stream and the sick family pet and the mentally ill teenager, the wealth is important—it is really important. That family is going to be way better off than a poor family in the same situation, so wealth is important, but so is the dirty stream, so is the sick animal, and so is the mentally ill teenager. So we have to get a balance, and we have to account and measure for it.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. If there was any doubt in anybody’s head about where that particular member, Alastair Scott, sits in the economy, you’ve just heard it all: “Privatise everything. Privatise the schools, privatise the hospitals, privatise the prisons, the army, the roads, and the hospitals. The roads—privatise the roads. Let’s sell the roads off. Let’s sell the army off, as well, and privatise everything—the housing market.” He’s singing the song of the previous Government, who thought that was a really good idea, but it was a terrible idea, because the market doesn’t work for everybody. In fact, you just need to come to Rotorua and ask all of those people that are without houses and have been homeless for quite some time. The market has absolutely not worked for them, and that’s why the Government has to have a hand in actually looking after our people.

That’s why I’m proud of this right here: He Puna Hao Pātiki. It’s an Investment Statement; it talks about how New Zealand is going. While there’s one thing that I agree on with the previous member—it is actually a fresh look at how we’re doing as a country, as an economy—he seems to think that we need to relook at all of those things, like privatising it all. I fear that if in the future we change hands again, as a Government, that privatisation agenda is going to rear its ugly head all over again.

What this is is it’s actually an investment in the well-being of New Zealanders, and that’s something to be celebrated. When I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we welcomed this in, I’ve got to say, the first thing that I noticed was the big, bold title on the front, which is written in Te Reo Māori, and then, threaded throughout it are translations of Budget documents, of balance sheets. But it’s an indication that, actually, we’re trying to make Treasury a little more Māori-friendly, and isn’t that a good thing?

So, on that note, I want to acknowledge Trevor Moeke, who actually did the hard yards in making sure that this was a document that we were very proud of and that it reflected the bicultural nature of New Zealand. That’s it in a nutshell—it sets the tone for the whole document. So I want to acknowledge him, going forward.

This is actually a requirement of the Public Finance Act that we release this particular Investment Statement. It talks about the value of the Crown’s portfolios, all of our assets, all of our liabilities, and it does it with this new thing that we’re bringing in: the Living Standards Framework. Isn’t that refreshing, that we’ve got a new idea about how we’re going to look at our Budget sheet?

When I go out there and I talk to people about how we’re doing as a country, I say—actually, let me refer to one example of a couple that I know in my electorate. They are about to embark on family life. They both have good jobs, full-time jobs, so on the balance sheet they should be doing really well, right? Well, wrong, actually, because the balance sheet doesn’t tell everything. The balance sheet actually just tells you what the numbers look like, and, unfortunately, we know that the numbers don’t tell the whole story.

The numbers, actually, are just one side of it. The other side of it is how well you are actually doing. I think that if you were to ask this couple, they’d tell you that they’re struggling quite a bit. So while the Government might think that they look great on paper, actually, there are some real issues going on out there in the New Zealand society. It’s a concern, which is why I think that it’s important that we’ve moved our balance-sheet reporting to looking at it through a well-being framework—the investment for well-being.

This is Treasury’s work to ensure that we’re going to have a better understanding of the connection between the decisions made by Government and the well-being of New Zealanders. Both are really good things. Well-being is, as I’ve just said, a holistic approach to our balance sheet. It comprises both tangible and intangible aspects of life experience, and I’m looking forward to New Zealanders actually wrapping their head around the Living Standards Framework, which—on page 72 of this very hefty document here—talks about the four capitals: natural capital, social capital, human capital, and physical and financial capital, as well. If people haven’t heard of that, I encourage them to google it to have a look, because that’s the direction that this Government is moving in, and I wholeheartedly support it, too.

One of the other things that I wanted to talk about in this particular document is about how we’ve put in place a few stress tests. It’s been referred to by some members in the House today. But what good is a balance sheet if you can’t actually test it out and do a few hypothetical tests about how well it’s going to cope in the face of some adverse effects? We know that here in New Zealand we live on shaky ground. We know that volcanoes blow. We know that the earth shakes, the people move, and the buildings fall over. So what this investment for well-being statement has done is it’s actually stress-tested against three different tests.

One is a severe Wellington earthquake. We don’t like to think about that—that scares the children. But, actually, it’s a very good indicator because it’s very possible—and very probable, too. Also, the outbreak of a foot-and-mouth disease—we’re saying “foot-and-mouth” in here, but, as we know, as we’ve been listening closely to for the last month and probably even longer, the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis has become a real problem. Actually, it’s something this Government is sorting out as we speak. But, actually, that’s something that you can have in your balance sheet and say, “Are you well-insulated against shocks like that?” Well, that was one of the stress tests. Another one was a major international economic downturn—how our balance sheet would stack up against that.

Well, you’d be pleased to know that the conclusion was that the balance sheet is resilient against those three stresses. I think that all New Zealanders would be happy knowing that we haven’t just produced the financial statement here, but that we’ve actually stress-tested it, as well, and that in the face of shocks like that, three of those stress tests were actually going quite well, and we will make it out the other side if we do have events like that.

I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge what’s going on in Gisborne at the moment, as they’re trying to clear up their own backyard due to unforeseen circumstances—things that nobody could have ever planned. But, actually, it is a stress, and it is a stress on the Government’s books, and we have to make sure that we’re resilient against those kinds of stresses.

So this is a great document. This is an innovative piece of work. I look forward to the development of it over the next few years, and even longer, as we stress test it, and as we look towards measuring up the numbers to the well-being of New Zealanders. I think that it’s an innovative document that we all need to make sure that we support.

For those that have no idea, “he puna hao pātiki” actually refers to a pool for gathering flounder with a net. It refers to the well-being of our people, and that’s exactly what this Government is prizing itself on—bringing manaakitanga back to New Zealand politics, bringing love back to our people, because they’ve been missing for quite some time.

There are quite a few things in here that the document talks about. It cuts it up at the end of the document into different Government departments, and it puts out the statement very well so that people—well, average people; not people that are wrapped up in the bureaucracy of Wellington, but actually people out there, regular New Zealanders—can actually understand what this document is all about.

There’s plenty of things in here to be proud of. This is the Investment Statement that this Government, in its first term, is very proud to be putting forward, and I’m very happy to recommend this to the House. It’s a beautiful document. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

A party votewas called for on the question, That the House take .

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.

note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committeeon He Puna Hao Pātiki 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing

Bills

Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): This bill is about reforming the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act of 1982. Friendly societies were formed some years ago, and continue to be formed, under the premise of helping out their members in times of sickness and widowhood, and they are funded by voluntary subscriptions and/or donations. On the other hand, credit unions are financial cooperatives that have been set up to encourage savings, thrift, and financial education, and to enhance the social and economic well-being of their members and society as a whole. Any surpluses that are generated by credit unions are reinvested for the benefit of the members. There are currently 13 credit unions in New Zealand, with 190,000 members. They have deposits to the value of $1.7 billion and a transactional value per annum of around $10 billion.

This bill is a continuation of the good work started by the National Government under John Key and Bill English, when they faced the global financial crisis in 2008 and the fallout from that, including South Canterbury Finance and other finance companies’ failures and other issues in the finance sector. The reforms were set out in a broad suite of reforms to simplify legislation and to ensure that consumers were at the heart of that legislation. For example, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act of 2014 was followed by the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Regulations of 2015—and, prior to that, the Financial Markets Authority Act of 2011. So the consumer was put at the heart of that legislation to ensure that they understood the risks that were involved and their obligations.

This current bill is in line with the World Council of Credit Unions model law, and, in fact, the world credit unions’ association points out that New Zealand is an outlier when it’s compared to the other countries that are involved—particularly Canada and the UK—by not having incorporated credit unions and friendly societies. The credit unions in Australia, in particular, were often raised by submitters at the select committee stage, where they were able to incorporate—in fact, had to incorporate under the companies Act—and were able to demutualise. That is not possible under this bill, so that allays a lot of the fears raised by some of the submitters.

The key broader changes are that the bill aims to remove unnecessary operating and compliance costs, promotes greater efficiency and accountability, brings credit unions into line with other financial services providers in New Zealand, seeks to maintain the element of mutuality and common bond between members, and modernises and updates the Act to ensure that it is refreshed and suitable for modern-day credit unions.

The specific changes in the Act—a little bit more specifically—simplify the statutory objects of an association of credit unions to cover the conduct of the activities for the benefit of its members. It provides for the incorporation of credit unions, as I mentioned. It allows credit unions to be bodies corporate and to have what is known as the powers of a natural person. This takes place under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act, rather than under the Companies Act, as I mentioned earlier. It introduces certain measures to reduce the minimum number of credit unions required for an association, which is in line with the changing face of the credit unions, as they amalgamate and we have less of them. And it allows friendly societies to offer securities. Friendly societies, particularly around insurance, have been constrained by their ability to raise capital and to provide other services that their members require, and so this bill will allow that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to congratulate Stuart Smith again on this bill that he has brought to the House—the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill—and reflect back for a moment and then project forward after that.

If I reflect back to credit unions in the past, the fact that they are membership organisations there for the benefit of their members has provided a great deal of usefulness to New Zealanders on an individual basis. Obviously, there are benefits to their members, but there are also other benefits to having a structure such as a credit union. If I think of Credit Union South a number of years ago, because of the nature of their organisation, which, admittedly, is now outdated and, thanks to this bill, is being addressed—even at the time, a decade ago, there was a small rural town in Otago, similar to many small rural towns throughout New Zealand, which found itself in a position of losing banking services, and this is a process which has only sped up over the past few years and will continue as moving to the online platform progresses. But for this small rural town—in this instance, in Otago—they were facing the prospect of losing all banking services, and so what that meant to the individuals was that there was nowhere to go and cash a cheque. For older folk who 10 years ago still used a cheque book—some people still do, but fewer now—there was limited ability then to get change if you were a retailer in the town. There were issues around the security of carrying cash, of course, for extended periods of time. There were issues about how retailers got their cash to banking services. In this instance, it would have been a good hour’s drive—so time out of the day, inefficiency. So small towns facing the loss of banking services was quite significant to that town.

In this instance, Credit Union South were approached by the local authority, and a negotiation was held whereby Credit Union South put in an ATM machine and trained up local staff. This facility was put in the local community centre and library—and problem solved. Credit Union South deserve a lot of—I shouldn’t say “credit”, because it’s corny—congratulations and admiration for stepping in where the trading banks had literally walked away and stepped out. And it goes back to my point that as a credit union, the objective of the union is to look after people and return profits back into society by way of good interest rates, good pricing, good fees, and all that sort of thing—plus a good dollop of community service.

Then I just want to project forward a bit to Stuart Smith’s bill, which modernises those credit unions in New Zealand, modernises the structure and the function of those credit unions. Now, the current Act is something like—is it 38 years old? It has been around for a while. Of course, it didn’t anticipate online banking or online trading—even ATMs were very new at that time.

I think one of the aspects of this bill—which will pass—is that it will allow credit unions to lend to small and medium sized enterprises (SME) instead of what is, at the moment, a rather cumbersome process, where Credit Union South, for example, can lend to an individual who then has to on-lend to an SME. Well, this side of the House are all in favour of making doing business easier. This bill will achieve those objects, and it will achieve them very well.

As I was reviewing the notes for this contribution—one of, I hope, several, because there are a number of aspects to it—I couldn’t help noting the commentary around the bill from the financial services sector, and, in particular, I just want to note Otago Daily Times’ Dene MacKenzie, who, in fact, welcomed the credit union reforms. Well, good call, Dene MacKenzie, but also we live in a part of New Zealand which has a very good credit union: Credit Union South.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill. I want to commend the member in charge, Stuart Smith, for bringing this bill. Many members don’t presently have a member’s bill either in the ballot or before the House, and many that do have quite simple and, some might even uncharitably say, trivial bills before the House, but Stuart Smith has taken on a substantial and quite technical challenge in reforming a very old piece of legislation that is essential to the operation of a significant part of our financial sector—being friendly societies and credit unions. So I commend Stuart for doing so.

I just make another background observation: some people believe that a free society is one that consists only of individuals acting independently. Actually, a free society is one where individuals come together and create all manner of institutions to solve collectively problems that they cannot solve by themselves. This Parliament is one such institution that has evolved over a long period of time to solve collectively a group of problems that are difficult to solve individually. I might go further and say that the Parliament’s possibly gone a bit beyond the original brief, but nevertheless that is the intention.

When it comes to friendly societies and credit unions, they are a particular type of institution that people have come together and formed in order solve certain problems: how do people in small communities—as Jacqui Dean recently referred—access financial services that larger incorporated banks may not wish to serve; how do people break through any trust issues they may have with the financial sector, especially after some of the bank failures of last century, to have a financial institution that they feel they can trust? Indeed, friendly societies and credit unions are important institutions in our society that have solved a lot of problems for people, and I commend Stuart Smith for bringing to the House a bill that will improve the legislative framework under which they operate in this country.

I’d also like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 40, an amendment in my name, the genesis of which is that while there are many enthusiasts for Stuart Smith’s bill—some of them actually based in the Epsom electorate, and I’ve heard from them extensively—there are also a significant number of credit unions, which, in fact, represent about half of all of the New Zealanders who subscribe to this kind of institution, and they are not in favour of being compelled to incorporate. These institutions tell us that, in actual fact, they will face costs that to some very small institutions will be greater than their annual surplus—there’ll be significant compliance costs imposed upon them that they cannot realistically bear.

I just ask, in the spirit of a free society and people being able to form institutions to solve their problems: where is the right in us, as a House of Parliament, in imposing costs that will be ruinous to institutions that are working for the people? I put it to submitters and my fellow members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and also to Stuart Smith when this bill was examined, that, actually, it might be possible to have it both ways.

So, with that background, I present this Supplementary Order Paper. Members may be alarmed at the considerable length. There are actually bills that come before this committee that are shorter than the Supplementary Order Paper I’m presenting to the committee tonight. Let me give some explanation as to why it is so important that we put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that modifies just about every clause of the original bill. The reason for that is that if there was simply to be an exemption saying that the requirement to incorporate does not require—[Time expired]

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I seek leave to table a document. It’s a letter from the law firm of Lane Neave outlining the legal costs which would be likely incurred when incorporating a credit union.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’ll be interesting to see the letter that the member Duncan Webb has just sought to table. But I just put to him this: the people who operate the credit unions, they’re the ones who bear the costs, and if people in this committee want to ask themselves who to believe about what the costs are—should it be a law firm best known for setting up that member’s superannuation trust in Christchurch, or should it be the credit unions up and down the country who have had these costs of incorporation imposed upon them—I’d put it to the committee and to the people living at home that I’d listen to the people affected by the law, not the people grandstanding on the law.

Going back to this new Part 3A in the amendment that I am putting forward, it takes us through the current bill, and it tells us, section by section, how we make the changes in order that a credit union which chooses not to incorporate may be able to still operate under the law as it exists. So, for example, should a credit union want to—if you just let me get to the right page; as I said it’s quite voluminous—an unincorporated credit union may offer credit union securities. Under the current bill that’s proposed it would not be clear. A requirement for offering credit union securities would be the requirement to be incorporated. What proposed new section 146K makes clear is that a credit union that does not choose to incorporate also has that option.

Or proposed new section 146N, for instance: “Unincorporated credit union may make loans to members”. Obviously, a very important aspect of being a credit union is the ability to advance credit. In order for that to happen, you would require incorporation under the bill as it stands. What this amendment does is it allows credit unions that have not incorporated to continue doing that.

The principle underlying this amendment should be clear and should be simple. It is that if you operate a credit union—for example, if you operate First Credit Union, a very significant credit union in this country; if you are the Police Credit Union, another very significant credit union operating, both of which have supported this particular amendment being put forward—then you will have the option of remaining unincorporated, and the various sections of this proposed amendment will allow you to continue doing business as you always have, without the requirement to incorporate.

So that’s what’s on the Table, and I hope members will consider it very carefully, because the question when they decide whether or not to support my amendment is this: no matter how trivial they may think the costs are for forcing other people to incorporate, what right do they have to force any cost if it is not necessary and if there is an alternative that will allow both sides to continue operating as they would prefer? If they think that’s an obscure view, I can tell you, even the bureaucrats in this city agree with me. They have said that existing credit unions should not be required—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, name them. Name one.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it hasn’t happened very often, but the officials who were involved in the select committee report on this particular issue—and I wouldn’t want to name a particular civil servant; you know, I’m not Winston Peters—said that existing credit unions should not be required to incorporate against their will unless there are sound public policy reasons for imposing such a requirement. Well, I have proposed an amendment that will allow them not to incorporate and that will allow those who wish to incorporate to do so.

Everybody can be happy under this bill. The challenge is: are members prepared to do the legwork—as I have, in bringing forward this Supplementary Order Paper 40—to accept that sometimes things are more complicated than they would like, and to give a choice to those institutions that people have come together and formed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It’s with the utmost disappointment that I listened to the twaddle from the member from Epsom, because—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is that to do with twerking—“twaddle”?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s an actual word. But it’s very rich coming from a member whose party pleads regulatory reform and a streamlined bureaucratic framework to say, “Let’s have a two-track”—twaddle track—“for these friendly societies and credits unions.” What absolute rubbish. And as for his costs argument, it’s palpably false.

He’s quite right. I did go to my good friends in my former firm of Lane Neave and I said, “How much would this really cost? He’s saying it’s going to cost 20 grand.” Wrong—quite wrong. Let’s be clear. As we would well know, Lane Neave is an extremely high-quality, expensive law firm. Gerard Dale, partner—who is an expert in the area of credit unions, I would add—said, “Perhaps between six and, at the very top, 12.” In the letter, which I have tabled, you will see it outlines a list of tasks: updating the credit union’s rules, registering incorporation, updating the trust deed, attending the members, so on and so forth—all of the legal work needed to be done could be done at a very, very modest cost.

Here we have a member who finally deigns to turn up here at committee stage with not, it must be said, a huge amount of input on the bill. He’s off doing what he does best—and that’s saying something—and he turns up with this last-minute Supplementary Order Paper, which we haven’t seen hide nor hair of till the very day of committee stage. Well, you know, not only is it a bad idea; that’s just bad process, as well. It’s entirely unacceptable, and what we would have is another 40 sections of the Act.

Sure, we need to reform this Act, and the reason we need to reform it is because it’s outdated. So what Mr Seymour is saying is “Let’s have two tracks: one shiny and new, and one broken, rusty, outdated, and not working.” Well, you know what? I don’t want to leave credit unions in New Zealand in that situation, and Mr Stuart Smith doesn’t want to do that, either.

I congratulate him on taking the step to pull these credit unions into the 21st century, because incorporation is important. It’s important for a whole lot of reasons, not only to give a credit union corporate personality, so that it can act swiftly and decisively, but also to protect those members. I think that’s one thing which Mr Seymour is doing a disservice to whoever he’s actually acting for there, because the trustees and members of these credit unions are at risk. They take on liabilities, and the liabilities of a trustee are personal. Once we have an incorporated framework, we have a limited liability entity. That limited liability entity acts as a shield for the good-faith conduct of the officers of that credit union—

David Seymour: Well, then, they can choose to incorporate.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and that’s important. You know, that’s important, and if you’d taken a moment to think about it, Mr Seymour, you wouldn’t be doing what you’re doing now and having this half-baked idea in the House. You could’ve made your arguments in this kind of detail in another forum.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Don’t bring me into this debate, thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I apologise, Madam Chair. Mr Seymour could have brought this to select committee in the kind of detail he has now, had a robust argument, and lost it there, instead of troubling this committee with it.

So this Supplementary Order Paper 40 is deeply flawed. It’s ill-conceived, it’s delivered late, and it’s entirely poorly founded. The bill itself is of great merit, and I commend it to this committee.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this bill in the committee stage. It was an excellent bill to work on, and I think I really thoroughly enjoyed working on it with colleagues from across the House in a very collegial and collaborative process. I want to speak about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 40, which Mr Seymour has brought to the floor this afternoon. I rise to oppose this Supplementary Order Paper because it would undercut the entire bill. It would just totally subvert the purpose of the bill.

So I want to talk about what’s going on here. Look, the credit union sector in New Zealand is very, very small. There are about 13 credit unions—about 13 entities—that are going to be affected by this bill. When this bill appeared in the House, there was a great deal of consultation about it. We got submissions from, I think, virtually all the members of the friendly societies and credit unions sector in New Zealand. The interesting thing is that those submissions were kind of split down the middle. Some of the credit unions were very strongly in favour of this legislation, and some of them were very strongly opposed to this legislation.

Now, one of the reasons that those who are opposed to it said they were opposed was because they were worried about mutuality. Now, mutuality is a very important principle of credit unions. It’s about the members helping each other, and it’s an ethos they all buy into of people helping people. They do marvellous work. Look, credit unions will open bank accounts for people leaving prison, they will open bank accounts for people who are homeless—they’re not bank accounts, they’re credit union accounts, but they function like that. They will provide financial services for people who can get them nowhere else. So they really do provide a marvellous role in our society. As far as I can tell, the people who are involved in credit unions do really look after their members. It’s what they do—it’s about mutuality.

Now, some of the credit unions who were opposed to this bill opposed it because they thought that mutuality would be taken out, and we specifically put in a clause to address that. At the select committee stage, we specifically addressed that worry. So whatever reason that credit unions now oppose this bill—some credit unions still oppose it—it cannot be because of the issue of mutuality. So perhaps it is around the issue of the cost of incorporation, but I think we’ve just heard some very powerful evidence that, actually, the costs are not a huge amount. There will be a cost, but it is not a huge amount. So I don’t think that that argument’s going to hold water, either.

So why should we introduce what would, in effect, be two separate regimes for a very small group of entities? There are only 13 entities involved in this, and instead of having one set of rules for all of them, this SOP would then end up with us having two sets of rules for just 13 entities. That seems a very odd thing to do—to introduce yet more complexity into this sector of the economy.

I think one of the things that we’ve been asked to do as a Parliament and at the select committee stage is to make a judgment—all right? We don’t just follow some sort of process of voting or of trying to weigh up preferences. As members of Parliament, we are asked to reflect, to consider, to debate, and to exercise our judgment as to what is the best position for us to end up in. Now, in this circumstance, where the credit union sector was actually—you know, some of them were in favour of this particular bill; some of them were against it. We have been called on to make a judgment, and the judgment of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and the judgment, as far as I can tell, of all the Parliament bar one—is that in fact we should adopt a more contemporary structure for credit unions, we should have a structure for credit unions that is consistent with what the rest of the world has done, and we should in fact try to make sure that the structure that credit unions use is appropriate for the 21st century—and that’s the structure of incorporation—while retaining mutuality.

For that reason, I reject this SOP. I urge the House to reject this SOP, and I support this bill.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take a call on this bill. Look, any bill that starts with the word “Friendly” must have me involved. So even though I’m not a member of the infamous, world-famous, globally sophisticated Finance and Expenditure Committee, they’ve got me in because I’m the Parliament’s most friendly parliamentarian. That’s all I needed to be here. It said “Friendly”—I’m there.

Can I just thank Mr Stuart Smith. This is obviously your life’s work, a lifetime achievement. If nothing else gets achieved, your passion, your world, will be achieved by adopting this. Look, well done, because it can take a long time, and it has, but there you are.

I was somewhat disturbed when there was some unfriendliness by the ACT leader, who spoke and started talking about unfriendly things. It started well when there were terms like “collective”, and, I thought, it sounds even better when you say “collective bargaining”. But we’ve got him to “collective”, at least—that’s a positive. He then mentioned the word “free”, and I thought, “Jeepers, something’s happened over recess.”, but none the less it was the same old. And no, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 40—no, no, and no. And thanks to the hard-working member for Christchurch Central, who’s got a quote, has come back with the proof, and said, “Look, it’s not as bad as what’s being promoted.” It’s typical of free enterprise to start saying, “We’re trying to make things easier. We’re trying to make things better.”, but it was just going to end in clutter, confusion, and horror, and go against the whole impetus of this, which is—as the MP next to me, Dr Deborah Russell, says—about mutuality, which is actually the cornerstone of what’s being proposed.

I’m really happy that this clarifies the legal status to that of an incorporated society. That’s what the submissions, as a quick flick through told me—that they needed to have that because they were wanting to be modernised and brought into this century to be able to operate effectively.

I was lucky enough, like many of you who took the time, to visit fire stations over the past month for International Firefighters’ Day. During that time, I visited four fire stations. It’s always a pleasure seeing the—well, I was going to say “Fire Service”, but it’s now Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). But the thing I did get to talk about was the Firefighters Credit Union at the central fire station here in Wellington, which, I found by reading somewhere, was born out of a night shift meeting there.

I had a long chat with many long-serving members who actually took me through. They said, “Look, what’s going on at Parliament?” “Heaps”, I said. Then we were able to bring this up. I said, “Look, I have seen your name—I do sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, where the Department of Internal Affairs, the Fire Service Commission, and FENZ report in to. But I have seen your credit union mentioned on another bill, and what do you guys think?” They were pretty supportive, and the great thing is that they tell you the stories about why. Members here in the Opposition have talked about that: why they got together, the thrift impetus, the ability to save in a trusted mechanism—that they were confident that they could get a return. It may not be much, but they felt safe knowing that their mates collectively were contributing to a scheme, and what’s being proposed would enable that to continue and face the technological and other changes in the century ahead.

So I’m happy that we’re clarifying the legal status. I’m happy that we’ve got the mutuality component cornerstoned or underpinned in this legislation, very happy that we haven’t gone and got all sort of silly around putting SOPs and things like that, and therefore I’m happy to commend this to the committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Oh, thank you. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this issue. Having been a member, the Finance and Expenditure Committee is—as the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, noted—an august body that spent a lot of time working through the fine elements of this bill. I think it’s a great opportunity to be here supporting my colleague, the MP for Kaikōura, Mr Stuart Smith, who I think has done an excellent job—excellent job—working through what is quite a technical bill into a piece of legislation that takes the industry from a very obsolete sort of framework into something that is now of a stage where it is flexible, modern, and progressive.

So it is with some alarm that I see Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 40, tabled by the honourable member from Epsom, and it’s not like it’s just a one-page SOP. This is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper—

David Seymour: Has the member read it?

ANDREW BAYLY: I have been reading it, and I am staggered that the member who’s putting forward this SOP, who was actually in many of the discussions, has chosen to use this opportunity to present such a comprehensive SOP. I just can’t understand the rationale for the member to be wanting to put up an SOP that absolutely puts a dividing line through what is really a very small industry in terms of the number of operators—as we’ve heard before, 13 credit unions in New Zealand. I cannot understand the rationale for it. I cannot understand why a member from ACT would want to propose such an approach of having a two-stage framework.

Of course, these people represent 190,000 people across New Zealand, have $1.6 billion in assets, and look after good New Zealanders. As the previous speaker noted, it’s not only the fire brigades they look after; it’s a whole range of organisations, playing such an important part in all of our communities across New Zealand. That’s why I just want to say that I absolutely support this.

I think one of the key elements of this bill is in terms of making sure that the first thing is that the incorporation of credit unions could occur. They were locked into this prehistoric sort of framework, and what this has done is modernise that and given it a flexibility which I think is a very good move.

The second thing is—as the speaker Dr Deborah Russell across the way recently spoke about—the issue of mutuality. We spent some time on that, and it’s not an easy topic to understand, but, basically, a credit union has to operate in the best interests of all its members and for its members. That’s what, essentially, mutuality is about. What this does is it ensures—even though we’re putting through the other changes—that the credit union must still operate on those purposes, or those bases. I think retaining that provision is absolutely essential.

Not only that but, given that modernisation, what it also does is it allows credit unions to go and get more sources of capital. There’s a whole clause—clause 9B, which inserts sections 58A to 58E into the principal Act. What it does is it creates more opportunity, and makes it easier for credit unions to go and raise additional funds to meet their minimum capital requirements. As we all know, these entities are under the control of the Reserve Bank, and it’s important that they meet their prudential controls and also make sure that they run an operation that’s financially viable.

In terms of the area of operations, I think there is a slight widening of scope. One of the critical things we heard about was this inability for a credit union to lend directly to a member’s business or operation or non-incorporated entity, partnership, and all that’s been opened up, provided that member has greater than a 25 percent share. I think that creates a more modern vehicle to make sure that these things are much more relevant today. Also, with the accessing of other financial services like ATMs and all that sort of stuff using up-to-date platforms, this creates a vehicle for those 190,000 people, and hopefully more, to be able to continue to get finance from reputable institutions across New Zealand.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I feel I have a little bit to respond to. One in particular—if you don’t mind me saying, Madam Chair—is that Standing Order 302(1) says the committee of the whole House is here to “consider whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House.” I can’t help but comment that we’ve had a number of contributions—one particularly friendly one which failed to do that entirely but nevertheless managed to fill the five minutes. I think we could get a lot more done here if we stuck to some of these Standing Orders put down by our forebears.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I do need to remind the member that relevancy is within my purview and not the member’s.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely, and we can each have a view on that. I’m just putting forward mine, but, ultimately, I respect your judgment, Madam Chair.

I want to also just reply to some of the speeches that I’ve heard. Dr Duncan Webb: I think his most substantial contribution was a dispute on what the legal costs might be, based on a quote provided from a law firm that he used to work for. Now, I’ll put aside the obvious conflict of interest and just say to people listening or watching at home that we’ve all had a quote from our lawyer that later turned out to be a bit of lowball when we got the final bill. I would put a lot more store in the credit unions’ estimates of the costs that will be imposed upon them if they’re forced to incorporate than in the quote from a member’s former law firm.

I’ll also just respond to what Deborah Russell, the Labour member that spoke immediately after him, had to say. She’s correct that the intention behind this amendment is not about mutuality, and other members have commented that that complaint has been resolved somewhat. It is about the requirement to incorporate. It is about freedom and choice.

I go back to Duncan Webb and just make a couple of comments. One day the member will learn, as he becomes more experienced, that politics not actually about winning arguments; it’s about winning hearts, minds, and votes. And you can be as snarky as the member would like, but, unfortunately, it doesn’t play well at home. He might like to consider that he himself is actually quite susceptible to personal attacks and throwing around insults, but it won’t get him far politically, and that’s why he’s going to be saved from some right now. But, nevertheless, he needs to start arguing on the substance. The fact that remains, and that nobody has challenged on the floor of this committee tonight, is that this amendment, if advanced, would save many credit unions—including some of those that represent the majority of New Zealanders who subscribe to credit unions—tens of thousands of dollars.

And I’ll take that opportunity to give people some help with understanding the ethos of the ACT Party, because they seem to believe it was strange that ACT would put forward an amendment that made a piece of legislation longer. Well, we don’t necessarily measure regulatory impost by the length of the legislation. What we measure legislation by is actually the impost that it puts on New Zealanders, and, even though this amendment would lengthen the bill—and, earlier, Andrew Bayly certainly pointed out that it is quite a long amendment, and I explained why that was in my earlier speech—what it would do is it would reduce the costs imposed by this Parliament on institutions in this country. That is what is consistent with ACT’s principles, but it’s also something that all members of this House should strive to do—to reduce the negative impacts that we impose on those people that we’re making laws for.

So I just appeal to the committee again. Some people may have gone off a bit half-cocked, but once they consider the wisdom of allowing those credit unions who do not wish to incorporate to have a track to not do so, to save them a large amount of money in the process—it may not be large to some members, but it’s large to those credit unions who will have to pay it—actually, we can have two tracks for credit unions in New Zealand. There’s no law or principle that says there has to be one type of credit union specifically. I think this amendment would be a useful addition to the bill, and I hope that members will consider it in due course.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank all of the contributors to this debate. It has been a very enjoyable and rewarding piece of legislation to work on, and the select committee stage was very collegial, as has already been mentioned. But I want to turn to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 40 in the name of David Seymour. I won’t go there in terms of what ACT policy is and ACT Party principles; I will stick to the SOP.

In terms of the cost, which has been referenced by several people and particularly Mr Seymour, I have had some quotes, not from Lane Neave but from other legal firms, and I’m assured that the costs that Lane Neave have come up with are pretty much the costs that were quoted back to me, as well. However, what I want to point out is I don’t want to spend other people’s money for them unnecessarily, but I would like to point out that this bill will actually lower credit unions’ costs in the long run because of the unnecessary need for trustees. So it will be a much more efficient process for them, and that will quite quickly save them more than that money, and so I don’t accept the member’s point.

I would also like to point out that other pieces of legislation—and all pieces of legislation that have come in in that sector—had a one-off cost when they were implemented, and particularly the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, the Financial Markets Conduct Act, and the Non-bank Deposit Takers Act all had far higher one-off costs on the introduction of those pieces of legislation. This is much smaller than that, but I do accept the point that we should not impose costs on people and sectors unnecessarily—and this one shouldn’t.

I think having a 26-page SOP dumped on the committee at this point without an opportunity for really close analysis of that SOP is really fraught with danger. I would like to point out that proposed new Part 3A has many cross-references that won’t work, and so that’s an example of something that’s not going to work in the bill. Provisions in new Part 3A conflict with provisions in Part 3, so if this whole piece of—

David Seymour: Well, that’s the whole point.

STUART SMITH: No, it’s not the point, in fact. The legislation wouldn’t work. So if the point of the SOP is to make the law unworkable, then it would get a pass mark with probably an A+, but, unfortunately, that’s not the point here.

So I think the SOP may well be well intentioned to placate some credit unions that are unhappy with change, but change happens all over sectors and around New Zealand, and people do have to change with it because the world has changed. Under the provisions in the SOP, it’s not clear how these credit unions would ever be able to incorporate in the future, nor is it clear how they would be able to amalgamate with other credit unions. So those credit unions would be damned to a small cul-de-sac, in a legal sense, and it would be the end of them in the not too distant future. So thank you, Madam Chair.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The answer is very simple: they could shut down and reincorporate, unless the member Stuart Smith is saying that under the legislation he proposes there could never be a new credit union. The logic there is fairly simple.

I note that the member in charge said that proposed new Part 3A in my Supplementary Order Paper 40 conflicts with section 3 of the principal Act. Well, members, that’s the whole point. It’s supposed to change the bill and make it better. Yes, there are conflicts. I challenged him—and he heard me—to name one such conflict, given that the point of the committee stage is to debate whether the bill returned from the Finance and Expenditure Committee actually is consistent with the principles and objects agreed in the second reading, and he couldn’t name one. So I put it to the committee that actually this amendment does achieve its objectives and there is nobody here who could say why it won’t.

I just also—I know it’s treasonous to give advice to your enemies in war, even when the war is only a committee stage. But several members said, “Why on earth are you, David, putting this Supplementary Order Paper up in the committee stage when you could have done it in the select committee?” Well, I hate to tell members, but our forebears who put together the Standing Orders decided to have a committee of the whole House stage precisely so that members could put amendments to bills that had not been available during the select committee, or that a select committee had not agreed to but the whole House might nevertheless agree to.

If members making that argument want to argue that we should dispense with the whole committee of the whole House stage of our legislative process, then I guess they can go to the Standing Orders Committee and have their go at having the committee of the whole House abolished. Madam Chair, that would be terrible—you would be out of a job. So I just put it to members that there is nothing wrong and nothing illegitimate with putting an amendment up at the committee of the whole House stage. That is the whole reason for it.

When challenged with reading the amendment and working out why they can’t support it, I’ve sat here all afternoon and I still haven’t had a member who can come up with a specific. The best arguments that they seem to be able to make is that they would not like to impose excessive costs on New Zealanders but they’re going to do it anyway. In fact, that’s the generous version. The member in charge is aware that it’s wrong to impose excessive costs. He just thinks it’s OK to do it this time, and the members on the Government side of the House, unsurprisingly, have little concern about the costs they impose on New Zealand business and society whatsoever.

So here I am. I appeal to the committee of the whole House one more time. If you would like to make better law, if you would like to promote freedom and choice, if you would like to give—

Dr Deborah Russell: Text “David” to 3333.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —protection and self-determination to those people—and Deborah Russell says people should text “David” to 3333. And I just say to anyone living at home that that is a good idea. Thank you for that interjection, Deborah Russell, which legitimised me mentioning that in the Chamber.

But I put the more serious appeal to people that, actually, I’m here today with this amendment that would improve the legislative framework for the credit union sector, and I hope that members will give more consideration than has been evident so far when they come to cast their votes on this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.

JO HAYES (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of David Seymour to replace clause 4(3) and to insert new clause 42A be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. [Interruption] It will be done in silence. [Interruption] Order! Votes will be conducted in silence.

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

Ayes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 118

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 118

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

Second Reading

JAN LOGIE (Green): I move, That the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill be now read a second time.

Every year, over half a million New Zealanders are directly impacted by family violence. This violence costs lives and robs all too many people of their sense of stability, possibility, and well-being. We remind ourselves that it’s not OK, but all too often we’re at a loss of what to actually do to protect the victims. So it’s with great pleasure I welcome back my Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill to the House and thank Government members from the bottom of my heart for their support. This bill will provide employers with a framework to respond to the impacts of domestic violence in their workplaces now and provide victims with a pathway to safety, and it re-establishes us as world leaders in the fight against gender-based violence.

There were 167 submissions on this bill, with 161 of them in support of the intent. The submissions came from unions, community groups, women’s groups, men’s groups, the Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner, business, and individual submitters—a true cross-section of our society. I want to thank all of the officials, submitters, and members of the Justice Committee who actively engaged to help develop a workable piece of legislation, which you can see in the form of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 39 on the Table. We always knew the original needed some work, and I will talk through some of the changes that we’ve made in this SOP.

First up, it will provide up to 10 days’ leave a year to victims of domestic violence or people caring for affected children. We’ve removed the requirement to provide a domestic violence document to be able to access that leave, and I’m grateful to the many submitters who drew our attention to sick leave and tangihanga leave as examples that we could follow.

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

JAN LOGIE: So as I was saying before I was interrupted, this bill will enable victims and people caring for children who are victims to take up to 10 days’ leave a year to deal with the impacts of domestic violence. It will also add new options for flexible working arrangements, to provide employers and victims with a better template for talking through their needs in the workplace. This will have a flow-on benefit for meeting health and safety obligations. Employers will be required to respond in a much shorter time frame than the three-month standard for flexible working arrangements, because we believe the impacts and the safety issues require this.

We’ve worked with New Zealand First to get a time frame that will work for all businesses while recognising the safety needs of victims, and we look forward to their SOP at the committee stage. While employers will maintain the ability to decline requests that they’re unable to reasonably manage, victims will be able to appeal a decision on certain grounds. We believe that this strikes the right balance between practicality and a duty to help someone who is in danger.

We’re removing Part 3 of the original bill, which related to the Health and Safety at Work Act, in favour of WorkSafe providing guidance to employers. We think this is more consistent with the original legislation and we have the assurances of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that this will happen, and we are confident with that. The bill will also strengthen anti-discrimination measures in the workplace, because we know this is essential if we are to enable victims to safely disclose to their employers.

There are some in this House who say that employers are doing this all already, so it’s unnecessary. These same people seem to think five days’ sick leave is enough to deal with flu, going to court, counselling, and children experiencing trauma and recovery from assault. I do want to acknowledge the many employers who are already doing the right thing by their staff, and the unions who have been seeking through bargaining to get these protections for staff. It really does feel as if this bill’s time has come.

However, we can’t delude ourselves. Even in the Public Service, many, if not most, attempts to get these protections into contracts have, in fact, failed. We heard plenty of evidence through submissions that not all employers are adequately supporting their staff or know how to. Court staff told the select committee that victims regularly raised concerns about not having enough paid time off work to give legally required evidence in cases of domestic violence. Both Women’s Refuge and Shine presented evidence of women losing jobs because of the abuse or leaving jobs because they were too scared or embarrassed to tell their employers.

I want to particularly thank the survivors of domestic violence who bravely told their stories to help us understand the potential of this legislation. I want to particularly recall the story of Ann Simmons for the House. She told us about coming home from an afternoon shift as a nurse an hour later than expected, and her partner not accepting her reason for being late. He went on to punch her in the face and the stomach, throw her across the room, and rape her before he passed out drunk. She got help to get out, and her partner was arrested and charged but released once he sobered up—still, obviously, dangerous. She had no annual leave and had used most of her sick leave due to previous assaults and staying at home to protect her children. She had to call her boss and tell him she was a victim of domestic violence and needed time off—a really hard thing to do. In return, her work suggested she resign. If this law had been in place, she might’ve been able to hold on to her job and not, in her words, “become yet another solo mum on the DPB.” This was Ann Simmons’ story. This story could be any of our stories.

A New Zealand survey of 450 people commissioned by Women’s Refuge last year found 60 percent of victims of domestic violence were in full-time employment before they entered an abusive relationship, and yet more than half of them lost their jobs during that relationship. Those who stayed in employment were subjected to numerous hardships affecting their future employment prospects, and those who left found it difficult to re-enter the workforce. Respondents from the survey frequently spoke about being forced to quit or having their employment situations made difficult by the abuser. This is clear evidence that the status quo is not good enough.

In the words of the New Zealand Public Service Association, “We can’t keep treating the workplace as if it’s somehow outside of our communities. We are all responsible for ending family violence and we cannot leave this responsibility at the workplace door.” When half a million New Zealanders are directly impacted by domestic violence right now, we know we need to do more than just business as usual. We need to step up as a society to create more pathways to safety. It’s not enough to say “It’s not OK.” if we don’t back that up with action. That is why I offer my sincere thanks to the Government parties in this House tonight for their support for a better future for all of us.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a huge honour to stand and take a call on this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at second reading.

I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Jan Logie, and the bill that she’s brought to this House. I think we came into Parliament in the same year—in 2011—and no one can challenge her absolute 100 percent relentless focus and dedication to making sure that victims of violence issues are raised and brought into this Parliament.

I have to say that I want to thank her for not getting up and making a speech about how much it’s only the Green Party or herself that cares about these issues because, actually, the people on this side of the House care very deeply about these issues as well. And if we choose to disagree that the intent of the bill—we do not feel that it’s actually going to achieve what is the genuine intent of the sponsor of the bill—it doesn’t mean that we don’t feel very deeply and passionately about these issues.

I can tell you now from my own personal experience, and I was reflecting on this, that I came on to the committee very late and I got involved in the—and I’m disappointed that Jan Logie is sitting there shaking her head because when I listened to you I did it with respect. A big part of the kaupapa of this House is that that happens, and you’re sitting there just shaking your head at—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Please, I ask the member not to include me in the debate—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): —and to address the Chair as opposed to the member.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was reflecting before I came to the House to speak tonight. I too dedicated most of my adult life to trying to prevent and stop domestic and family violence and trying to ensure that the victims of domestic and family violence were protected from the offenders and the perpetrators of it. I didn’t just do this in New Zealand, although I had a 14-year policing career that kept me on the front lines. Some of the toughest places, actually, to police during my time were the East Coast and Gisborne. At that time, we were still dealing with some massive social issues, and some of them are still there, unfortunately, including the issues that we had with Rastafarians and some pretty horrible gangs.

But I didn’t just do it there; I actually did it in Iraq and I did it in Somalia, and made sure that in the programmes that we were implementing, always at the heart of them was making sure that family violence, that violence against women, that violence against minorities, that targeting of minorities was at the forefront in driving what we were doing. So when I came on to the committee, I was very interested in this bill because I honestly felt that if there was something in the bill that would make a fundamental change in the way that victims of violence and family violence could be supported and helped, then I thought that was a very good thing to do. But when I actually looked at the bill and started to look at it closely, I realised that, actually, what we were trying to do is just somehow transfer the issue back into the workplace.

Now, I agree—I totally agree—that the victims of crime should feel confident that they can go and talk to their employer, they can discuss what they’re dealing with, and the employer will be able to work out a plan for them to mean that they feel safe and secure in their employment, and that they are supported in terms of whatever they’re having to deal with at home. I think that you’re right. A lot of the submissions from business clearly demonstrated that they were already doing that.

The submissions, though, were from big business, and let’s make a clear definition here. It’s that big companies are able to absorb far more costs and compliance than a small to medium sized business. The reality here in New Zealand is that 70 percent of our economy is small to medium sized business. I can tell you right now, as a business owner—and I’ve been a small-business owner and I transitioned a small business into what would be seen as being a big business. I can tell you right now that as a small-business owner, the thing that kept me awake at night, the thing that I worried about—well, there were two things. One was cash flow, because small businesses without cash flow will wither and die on the vine.

Hon Andrew Little: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The other thing—I mean, you might find it funny, but this is actually true, all right?

Hon Stuart Nash: We’re dealing with this with the invoicing today.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. The other issue is making payroll. When you have employees, the first responsibility that a small-business or medium-business owner has—and I’m talking about those because those are the ones that are going to be affected most by this bill—and the thing that they worry about most is making payroll. All of us here in this House—although I acknowledge Jo Luxton in the House because I’ve listened to her speak. She’s a small-business owner, and I think she understands completely the challenges that are faced by small business—whether it be cash flow, whether it be personnel—and worries about being able to make that payroll and actually pay your employees.

That is something that is important, because, actually, if the business fails, they don’t have a job. They’re not able to put food on the table for the family. The problem that I saw with this bill is that what we’re going to do is we’re going to say, “Small and medium sized businesses, you’re now going to have to find a way to manage an additional 10 days of leave. Small and medium sized businesses, you’re now going to have to find a way of managing the compliance costs and the compliance issues that come with that. Small and medium sized business owners, you’re going to have to find a way of being able to manage what are often very complex domestic violence and family violence issues back at the home.”

Actually, in my experience—and maybe it’s changed—actually, some people do want their privacy protected. Some people don’t want to—you might look surprised. Some people don’t want to discuss their issues in the workplace. Some people actually just want to maintain a separation between the two.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: It’s not forcing anyone to.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So—well, no. You’re not forcing them, but part of the argument that you’re making is that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Not me. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. Yeah, one of the arguments that has been made by the member is the fact that it’s going to allow people to speak about their issues in the workplace. If they want to do that now, they can—if they want to do that now, they can. Is there anything right now that’s preventing a victim of family or domestic violence from being able to go to an employer and talk to them? We know the answer to that. The answer is no. There is nothing stopping them. How do we know the answer to that? Because it’s happening right now. It’s going on. The submissions in front of the select committee said, “We are doing this now.” It is happening—

Jan Logie: No!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s not what you said in the opening speech. In the opening speech you said that you had businesses—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I remind the member to address the Chair and not to include me in the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry. Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. The member said in her opening comments that businesses had come in front of the select committee and said, “We’re doing this right now. That’s what we’re doing.”

Jan Logie: Did you listen to my speech?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s not what the member said.

So we do support the spirit of the bill, and we are going to be submitting some Supplementary Order Papers on it. One of the Supplementary Order Papers is going to be aligned to and supporting the premise that if a person is suffering from family or domestic violence, then they are entitled to take annual leave or sick leave because they have been a victim of family or domestic violence. I mean, to me, that seems like a very, very good compromise, because it’s capturing exactly what the spirit of the bill is, which is allowing someone—they don’t have to go and get a certificate from the doctor. They don’t have to apply for some annual leave. They’re able to go to the employer and they’re able to say and state—or someone on their behalf—that “We are having issues at home.”, they have been a victim of domestic or family violence, and they’re immediately allowed to and can access their annual sick leave and annual leave entitlement.

We’re also going to submit a Supplementary Order Paper that’s going to require or ask that within the first six months or before the policy is implemented, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment goes out and undertakes a nationwide educational campaign with small and medium sized businesses so that they understand what their obligations are under the Act, and it allows them to get ready. It allows them to prepare. It allows them to have the flexibility in the workplace that’s going to be required, and it’s going to mean that, hopefully, the policy will at least be implemented with some sense of a seamless implementation, instead of just immediately applying this on to a small or medium sized business that actually is not ready for it, does not understand exactly what it means, does not understand the additional compliance issues that are going to be placed on it, and, actually, if you have a small or medium sized business owner that doesn’t understand what it means or how to implement it, in reality—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired. I apologise. I also mucked up the time clock.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I just begin by acknowledging the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, for the work she has done not only on this bill that she’s sponsoring but actually on domestic and family violence generally. The fact that we have somebody of the calibre of Jan Logie in that role in this Government is testament to the commitment that this Government has to seriously addressing domestic violence in New Zealand today.

There’s a good reason for that, and that is that domestic violence and the occurrence of it in New Zealand today is an absolute scourge on this nation. If we want to be serious or get serious about addressing many of the social issues and the social ills that we have today, we have to start in the home and we have to start in those homes where domestic violence occurs. It is, regrettably, not a small number. I have a particular interest in this as the Minister of Justice, because I know that for many children exposed to family violence, they wind up in the criminal justice system in a different capacity and for different reasons.

Seventy percent of those who are in our prisons today have been exposed to, or are victims of, violence in their young lives, and that’s wrong. We have to get serious about doing something about it. That’s why other legislation that Jan Logie is responsible for that’s being shepherded through the House is very important, but it’s also why this bill is so important, too.

The last member who spoke, the Hon Mark Mitchell, I respect his experience as a former front-line police officer in dealing with domestic violence, because that is the experience of pretty much every front-line police officer in New Zealand today—a large chunk of their time is spent dealing with domestic disputes and domestic violence. You talk to front-line police officers and they will tell you of the situations they are dealing with—the sheer terror that children live in, the sheer terror that women live in—and we are working on giving police the front-line means to deal just with that issue more effectively.

But I differ with the honourable member when he said we should not be kind of bringing it into the workplace, because the reality is that the issue and the consequences of domestic violence are in the workplace across New Zealand already, and this is about giving workers who are victims of domestic violence the confidence, the means—in a sense, the permission—from this Parliament to step up and say, “I need help from my employer.” It is a message from this Parliament to all employers to say, “We need your help in this battle against this insidious affliction on this great country of ours.”

I know the member referred to many of the submissions from employers—they came from larger employers—and the Hon Mark Mitchell is absolutely right. It is easier for large employers to absorb, perhaps, the inconvenience of somebody having to take leave and sort out their personal affairs while they deal with a situation that is not of their choosing. Victims of domestic violence do not ask to be victims of domestic violence, like pretty much every victim of criminal offending, but they need help, and the truth is that the victims of domestic violence are not victims of domestic violence depending on who they work for or the size of their employer. Domestic violence and the occurrence of it do not discriminate on the basis of who you work for, and so every employer does need to be brought into the fold, and then we can ask ourselves, “Well, what will be the inconvenience to employers?”

Well, actually, it’s not all employers who will have a victim of domestic violence on their staff, particularly small employers. But for small businesses who might worry about this, the message to them is very clear: it is unfortunate for that business, but actually this valued staff member needs help at this time. And what a great way to win the further loyalty and commitment of a staff member who needs help at a traumatic time in their lives, for that employer to say, “Look, I know this is going to cause me inconvenience and personal inconvenience, and perhaps some of your work colleagues, but it is more important that you are able to deal with this incredibly difficult event or series of events in your life, to help you come to terms, to help you to make other arrangements, so that you can come back and have a sense of peace and stability in your work.” What a great message that is from an employer, from a manager, of any size of business, and that’s what this bill allows to happen.

It is not unusual to hear from the employer community about worries about provisions of extra leave, but this is leave that is triggered by the particular occurrence of domestic violence. And the honourable member is right too that not every victim of domestic violence will necessarily seek leave in these circumstances. Because of the nature of it and because domestic violence is often an insidious event, it is accompanied by threats and intimidation and it reduces the victim’s confidence and sense of personal confidence, and so they don’t want to disclose to very many people and sometimes don’t want to disclose at work. But wouldn’t it be right if we actually developed a culture and a set of values in this country where, actually, it is OK to disclose this and not feel as if you’re being stigmatised—not feel as if you as a victim have done something wrong, but that you can have the confidence to ask for help, to ask for leave, and to ask for the indulgence of the employer and your work colleagues so you can help yourself.

Dr Duncan Webb: That’s right—dignity.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is about treating people with dignity. We do have to take every step we possibly can to reduce—and wouldn’t it be lovely to talk about eliminating—domestic violence in this country. We have to take every step possible, and this is one small step about giving victims of domestic violence and those who support them the means, the ability, the opportunity to say “I need some help. I need some leave. Please help me at this time.”, because, actually, a good employer will allow that to happen. A good employer will see the sense in making sure that that employee can continue to live their life with a greater sense of peace and sort out those difficult sorts of issues.

I’ve seen some of the excerpts from the submissions that were made to the select committee, and these are from front-line NGOs dealing with this issue on a day-to-day basis. Surely, this Parliament must stop and take pause and listen to what it has been told through the representations that have been made to the select committee and say, “Now is the time.” In the 21st century, in this country at this end of the world, this quite wealthy country that is otherwise peaceful, that is otherwise a great country to live—now is the time for this Parliament and for this country to take this insidious issue seriously and do what we can to get rid of domestic violence, to save the victims or those who would be victims in the future, and create that culture and create that environment where victims can actually do something about it with confidence.

For that reason, the Labour Party supports the bill, has supported Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie in the tremendous work that she is doing, and will continue to do so, and we know that this piece of legislation is just one of the important pieces of legislation that will help to deal with this issue. There are more systemic and structural issues we have to deal with, and that will come in in the future Government-sponsored legislation that is just about to come back into this House.

So this is important and this is an opportunity tonight for this House to rally together and say, “We get it. We understand it. We have empathy for victims.” We understand the challenges for employers, but in the end this issue is too great and it is too important and it outweighs that sense of inconvenience and we must get this right if we are to help victims and future victims of domestic violence and if we are to reduce that insidious crime in this country.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this second reading debate on this member’s bill, not because this is a matter that derives for any member of this House any degree of pleasure at all, but simply because the House is considering this matter in a careful and thoughtful way. I listened very carefully to the contribution of Jan Logie, and, as my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell indicated, there’s not a member of this House or probably anybody in New Zealand that would doubt her sincerity in terms of commitment to addressing issues of domestic violence, which as the Minister of Justice has just indicated is an absolute scourge upon our society in every shape, form, and manner.

As the Minister of Justice said, the real issue here is one of systemic and structural form rather than employment law. It’s actually got very little to do with employment law and industrial relations, but it has got an awful lot to do with our focus and our approach as New Zealanders, as citizens, as members of a functioning society where we have for too long accepted and tolerated domestic violence in whatever shape or form it presents itself.

But to punish and hit employers is not the way to resolve this issue. There’s something that is becoming increasingly apparent from this new Government—and, effectively, we can say with some confidence that although this is a member’s bill, it’s going to be supported by members of the coalition parties that form the Government, and that they are using this piece of legislation as part of that jigsaw puzzle, part of that suite of legislative initiatives that are designed to add extra cost, less flexibility, and more rigidity to the industrial relations environment.

They make some kind of connection between domestic violence and employment that gives a sense of somehow the employer being at fault, being responsible. That’s the sense of the discussions that we’ve heard from the Minister of Justice; that’s the sense of the contribution that we heard from the member promoting this bill—that somehow employers and business people have an infinite capacity to pay for almost anything and everything that this Government thinks that they should.

If there is a cost to be made to employers, why not spread it more widely? If the way to manage domestic violence in our society and in our workplace is to hit employers, well, why not spread the cost of that more widely through our society as a whole? Why not have the taxpayer fund the annual leave that’s being sought from this bill?

This is a bill that, as I said, adds to that suite of legislation, of which now there are about four or five pieces of legislation either in the House or going to be introduced to the House, that just makes it harder for business people and for businesses to actually employ people. This is going to be a further burden upon an already struggling, difficult commercial environment, where business confidence is low and falling.

If the Government was really keen on this, they’d fund it out of their massive surplus. They’d fund it in a way that didn’t apportion financial blame on employers, and they would separate those two connections. Everybody would agree that domestic violence is something that needs to be resolved and addressed and ultimately removed from our society, but punishing employers doesn’t achieve that.

Now, I come to this House from a background of commercial involvement, as an employer, as a manager, and as a senior executive in a number of large New Zealand businesses, and I well remember personal situations where—I can think of one, and this was a long time ago, in a far less enlightened time. We had an employee in one of the branches around the countryside who would regularly arrive on a Tuesday or a Wednesday at work with a black eye and bruises. This woman often wouldn’t arrive on a Monday because she was not able to arrive on a Monday because she had been so badly abused and beaten over the weekend.

Now, her work colleagues in that branch knew of that situation. They did what they could to involve legal officers—the police—they did what they could to provide personal and emotional support of every type and shape, and, as an employer, we knew and made allowances, as most responsible employers do. They do take care of their people and they do take initiatives to provide flexibility in the workplace, and they do whatever they can. Sure, there are always going to be one or two that are not going to do what they should do, but that’s true in every facet of human endeavour.

But this is a Government that wants to somehow connect employers with a responsibility—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Apologise to the member. Kieran McAnulty will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So the vast majority of responsible employers do take these matters seriously and do what they can, and making it compulsory to add an extra 10 days’ annual leave simply doesn’t assist the process or the problem. In fact, what it actually does is, in a perverse way, it probably gets the back up of employers—good, responsible employers—and it creates a situation where suddenly there’s a degree of animosity, and I think that’s a very sad thing. I think that goes against the grain of what it is to be a responsible employer, what it is to be a responsible staff member, and what it is to be a responsible citizen in a society that doesn’t accept or tolerate domestic violence.

So we have this sense from the new Government that businesses have this infinite capacity to fund everything and to solve every social ill, and, actually, that’s not the case. The net result of this piece of legislation, should it proceed through the House, will be added costs to businesses, and, actually, it will mean fewer job opportunities for people who probably need a job, who need the support and the stability that comes from having regular income and a good job with a good employer. If those opportunities are going to be diminished or denied, then that is a perverse and negative outcome of this piece of legislation—which I’m sure is well intended, but, like most aspects of hard-left socialism, it’s based on a premise that someone else should pay, that somebody else should put to right issues that are actually not of their making or their concern in terms of their day-to-day business.

Business people don’t go into business to be regulated in such a way that means that they can’t do business. So we already have a generous leave regime, and to add further complexity and a new regime just adds, I think, to the difficulty of doing business, and adds nothing to providing solutions to the problems and issues that the member Jan Logie so rightly wants to highlight and raise by this bill.

So I am concerned that as the National Party, we could support a more moderate bill. We could support a bill that had a tighter definition and that was more realistic in terms of understanding the needs and conditions of a modern, flexible work environment, but, unfortunately, this Government doesn’t seem to get that, and I think that’s a shame. I think that’s a real shame because, ultimately, it will be New Zealanders that don’t reap the benefits of a strong and growing economy, don’t have the security of good jobs, and don’t have the security that comes from being an employee in a good, fair, and reasonable employment situation. So we think that this bill adds complexity, rigidity, and a further complex regime, and we don’t support it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It’s a pleasure to rise and talk about the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. As other colleagues have mentioned, I’d like to thank you, Jan Logie, for the work that you do and have done for many, many years in this field, and for this very good bill.

I would like to start with the fact that this bill came to the House in the 51st Parliament. It came to the House on International Working Women’s Day. I read the Hansard, and I was absolutely proud of this House and the stance that each and every speaker made and the statements they made about domestic violence. I was proud that day to look at all the members and to think, “Yes. They get it. They understand the issue and they’re going to have a solution.”

In fact, reading the Hansard, I would like to quote the Hon Amy Adams, Minister of Justice on that day, and this is what she said: “You know, I have been an employer. I have run businesses. What you know when you run businesses is that your staff are your biggest asset, and, frankly, it is just good business and good economics to look after them. It is not about doing something because you have to do it; it is about investing in the people who pay you far more in dividend when they have a happy and productive and successful life. But I also know, as a mother of young children who has had to balance things, that when businesses are prepared to be flexible with you, it engenders a loyalty and a commitment and a productivity that I have always thought paid itself off in spades.”

So that is what I was expecting from the National Party. That was what I was hoping for: some compassion—

Hon Judith Collins: Don’t look at me. I’m not Amy Adams.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! I’m looking beyond you, ma’am. This is what I was expecting and hoping for, and this is what I was calling for in this House when I worked on the front line of a domestic violence service—a women’s refuge. [Interruption]

Kieran McAnulty: Keep going, mate. Don’t worry about them.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Thank you. So the thing that has constantly surprised me with what I hear tonight from that party is about the cost to the employer—the cost to the employer. I too am a business owner in my other life. The cost to the employer is the loss of good staff. The cost to the employer is the loss in the workplace, dare I say it, of a staff member being killed. The loss is going to organise and have to prepare for a new staff member—to train that staff member to replace that staff member. These are the things that actually cost businesses. I notice that the New Zealand Public Service Association wrote a report in 2014. Domestic violence costs employers an estimated $368 million. The cost of replacement workers within that and the training for them is $153 million.

So when we are told by the Opposition that this is an economic argument, I dispute that. I dispute it absolutely because we know that when we take care of our staff, when we protect them, when we support them, and when we treat them with respect and dignity, then they are more productive, they’re more loyal, they’re better staff, and also they’re safe, and that is part of this, as well. We have 41 percent of domestic violence victims in paid work. That cost to employers is $3,371 annually per employer. There is a loss of productivity, there’s cover for sick days, there’s recruiting and training—it goes on.

But I want to talk to you about the cost of the employee and what it takes her to get to a place of safety. In my experience working in the field of domestic violence, I have worked with many, many women, many who have had brilliant employers, and we were always very, very grateful for those employers because it eased the way for our women and their children to be safe. It absolutely eased the way.

Let me tell you about an employer who knew that something was wrong. This woman had confided in a number of people, they had seen a very scary man come to the workplace and they didn’t know what to do, and they didn’t know how to have the conversation. Eventually, that woman left her partner and advised her employer that, yes, she needed help with domestic violence. They rang the refuge on her behalf and they hooked her up with us and we put her into the safe house. She was very lucky in that they gave her paid time off. They organised a transfer for her to another city because he was stalking her and terrifying her. They helped her with her relocation. They helped her when she moved to that new community with ongoing counselling. They were a brilliant employer. That woman left with a moko. She had been working for that employer for 20-something years. She left with her moko. She had to organise her new living arrangements. She had to go into Work and Income around her moko. She had to do a whole pile of medical treatment. She had to go and do all sorts of things that took about seven days. They paid her, and she was lucky for that.

But I have worked with many women who have just said, “It is too hard and I need to give up my work.”, and they’ve gone on a benefit. Some of you here may have had a relationship breakdown—not in the nature of violence, I hope. Fifty percent of your assets go at that point. Can you imagine, in an intimate partner - violence relationship, it’s much more than 50 percent. You’re too damned terrified. So you need to find things. You need to get furniture.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Sorry, ma’am. You certainly need to find all sorts of things. There are things that need to happen that are very difficult. They have to see lawyers. They have to see the police. They have to spend time in doctors’ offices, often, and they have to go and see Work and Income and confess what has happened to them. All of these things are things that these women need to do in order to get safe and it takes time, and a good employee is gone from your workplace because of it.

So I am delighted that across this side of the House, our coalition Government is going to support this. I am delighted that we are not just trying to do good; we’re actually putting it into legislation so that those bad employers, those employers who don’t care, or those employers who just don’t know what to do will know what to do, and we will begin to have a more honest conversation about family violence. We will begin to have a more honest opportunity for women and children to leave if they need to, and, in doing so, we show that we all care and we hope to eliminate domestic violence from our country. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I am a relative newcomer, but I am on the Justice Committee and have heard many of the arguments talked about, and heard some of the submitters as well. So my call tonight is to emphasise that I am very sympathetic to the aims of this bill. I am sympathetic to the member Jan Logie, who proposed it, and, as others have said, there is no doubting that member’s sincerity and her desire to improve the plight of the victims of domestic violence. We don’t agree that this is the way to do it, but I absolutely agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

A culture change within this country needs to happen. I do not believe it is an employment issue; I think it is more a health and welfare issue, and I have been speaking about this with my colleague Harete Hipango, who has had more than 30 years working in the area of law and family violence. When we look at the measures and protections that are already available under existing law around domestic violence protection orders, stress, and medical certificates that provide leave for people, it does appear to me that this bill takes New Zealand’s small businesses in a direction that they cannot afford.

There are larger businesses in Australia who have been able to accommodate these kinds of leave provisions. When you have a team of 2,000 or 3,000 employees, that kind of arrangement is relatively easy to achieve. It does require an enlightened employer. But in a small environment—and New Zealand has a great many small to medium sized enterprises, with very small employer bases—employers could not afford and could not sustain an individual taking an additional two working weeks’ leave for domestic violence. So when we discussed this at select committee level, we looked at the way in which, for example, a corner dairy might cope with having somebody come into work and say, “I need time off for domestic violence leave now.” At that time—and I see it’s back in the bill—there was also a provision for a support person to take leave to be able to assist the person who was the victim, to drive them and so forth. But, again, in a very small employment situation, it is almost impossible to imagine that being able to work without it seriously undermining the business and, therefore, endangering the jobs of not only the people who are the victims of domestic violence but also those who are employed by the small to medium sized enterprise, so we felt it was impractical at that level.

We support the spirit of the bill, absolutely, but look at what it seeks to do. The bill proposes to make changes to five Acts: the Domestic Violence Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Holidays Act, and the Human Rights Act. When we look at the Employment Relations Act, to allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to request a variation of their working arrangements and then, under the Holidays Act, to have those 10 days’ paid leave, we are starting to see building up a situation that is very difficult, and very difficult to sustain long term for a small business in terms of there being any of the opportunities that might exist to support somebody who has been a victim of domestic violence. When we were in the committee, and in reading the papers and the advice from officials, we were provided with many examples of employers who are doing the right thing, who are recognising and providing appropriate support, flexibility, and leave for employees who are affected by domestic violence and who need to suddenly go and see a lawyer, go and take their children from school to medical appointments, and so forth. Any of us who have raised a family know very well how quickly we need to be able to respond as parents to the needs of our family, particularly if we are also in a situation where there is a domestic violence overlay.

When we see employers willing to take action and there are measures and provisions within existing laws to enable that action to occur, one starts to wonder what the real advantages of this particular bill would be. So in discussion at the select committee, we all agreed that there needed to be not only enlightened employers but also an awareness campaign for the public so that victims of domestic violence, employers, and everyone else, frankly, in this country who are not aware be aware of what they are allowed under the law and what the provisions are.

The flexibility and leave provisions do already exist. The employers have a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Act to provide a safe workplace, including protections while at work against threats that may be posed to a victim of domestic violence. So the opportunities for individuals who are victimising their partners, for example, or for someone in their wider family, to come into the workplace and threaten partners—they can be blocked in their access not only physically into the workplace but also via email or telephone.

Employers are required under existing law to consider requests for flexible working arrangements—and that’s provided for in Part 6AA of the Employment Relations Act—and employers must provide sick leave under the Holidays Act for an employee whose physical or mental health is affected by domestic violence. I would suggest to the member and to others who are in agreement with this legislation that the additional measures within this bill are not ones that are going to comprehensively change the landscape, but they will, in a very real and meaningful way, make it very difficult for small and medium sized enterprises to accommodate victims of domestic violence.

I mean, really, in terms of the essence of this bill, if an employer decided that they would not allow domestic violence leave, then, in the provisions of this, they can do that. They can turn it down on the basis that it would be difficult for them to be able to afford it, and that is a provision that an employer could easily and readily use. There are rights of appeal, and we talked around those, but, ultimately, it would be very difficult for the person who is a victim of domestic violence to argue against an employer who said “This cannot be afforded. This business will go under if we have to allow these provisions, so I am going to turn it down.” So, ultimately, how much real momentum and real power would come from this bill? I would suggest: nothing very much.

There is nothing stopping employers from offering more in addition, and, as I said at the select committee, we have heard a number of excellent examples of ways in which employers have accommodated the domestic violence issues of victims because they want to keep these good staff, because they want to support them, and because they are human beings who understand on that human level how important it is to have a supportive working environment. If an employer has spent a lot of time training and nurturing an individual who is an employee, that employer is going to be highly motivated to try and keep that person and support them through a time of stress. So given the ability of an employer to act flexibly now and to offer more in addition, why would we not—through awareness and public awareness campaigns, in particular—ensure that people know to ask and know to request it from an employer?

I think the additional administrative requirements under this bill were too extensive for us to support. Providing 10 days’ leave for a support person does require employees to provide domestic violence documents such as a police complaint or a statement from domestic violence support organisations, so there is a lot of additional material that would be required.

I think the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41 in the name of my colleague Mark Mitchell—which we’ll go into in more detail at another time—is a very good compromise, and we need to do all that we can to reduce domestic violence. The measures that he has outlined are a more moderate change that makes it clear to employers that the reasons associated with domestic violence are valid ones for granting annual and sick leave, but that that be taken within the existing provisions. So when we look at what is around at the moment, we already have four weeks of annual leave, 11 days of public holidays, five days of sick leave, and three days of bereavement leave, and they are provided currently under the present law. It can be a very big burden on some employers, and we are genuinely fearful and have spoken with a number of employers who do not feel that they would be able to, in addition to those provisions that already exist, allow an additional two weeks of paid leave—10 extra days. So the SOP which the Hon Mark Mitchell will be tabling is one that I think will be enlightening for many of the members.

Labour didn’t agree to have a support person. Labour didn’t agree to the 10 days unless it was limited to 12 months. So there are a number of difficulties with this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise—your time has expired.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill in its second reading.

Can I take this moment, please, to acknowledge all members of the Justice Committee, because I have looked through all the submissions and I’ve been made aware of all the dialogue that took place at select committee and the work that the select committee did to come to a place of agreement. Can I acknowledge the work, particularly, of—I don’t want to diminish the work of the National Party members of the select committee, but I want to specifically acknowledge the work of the Labour Party members of the select committee around the suggested amendments they have made in the report back to the House. I think they are wise amendments.

All members of the select committee took this seriously. Nobody was flippant with the consideration of this bill. But it is a reality that the bill has been reported back to the House without the select committee being able to agree.

I want to acknowledge Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie, to use her full title—Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. If there has ever been a reason why Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie was originally elected to this House, I would say this is one of those moments—to acknowledge that there are purposes in life, and this is one of those for Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. It’s a very long title. We need to come up with some sort of acronym.

New Zealand First actually shares the concerns of the National Party. New Zealand First shares the concerns around small and medium sized business. We don’t share the reasons for their concerns. Business is not separated from community. Business owners are members of our community. Actually, business owners—some of them are victims of domestic violence. So we don’t see them being a disconnect, and this is why there have been quite a lot of behind-the-scenes, collegial conversations between myself and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie and, strangely enough, the Minister of Finance.

So if I go to the conversations, in the first instance, between New Zealand First and the author of the bill, New Zealand First will be placing two Supplementary Order Papers on the Table in the committee of the whole House, and they will be reflecting some of the concerns that have been addressed by some members of the business community.

I want to acknowledge those members of the business community, however, who came into my office and said, “We don’t even understand why there’s a 10-day limit. We don’t even understand why there’s a 10-day limit. If an employee of ours walks on to our property and they have been beaten or they are scared out of their wits, or somebody is following them and chasing them or trying to make them lose their job”—which is one of the other protections that is inside this bill that is not going to be supported, unfortunately, by the National Party—“then we will protect that person—not, actually, because they’re a good employee. That is irrelevant, if they’re a good employee or not—it’s because they’re a human being.” It’s because they’re a human being and it is part of what we do for each other, and that is the change that this Government is trying to make. That is the change this Government is trying to make.

So New Zealand First will be putting two Supplementary Order Papers on to the Table in the committee of the whole House, and they have been agreed between myself and the author of the bill. Actually, I was most interested in the women’s submissions around this bill, so I particularly read those submissions from women’s organisations, and one of the Supplementary Order Papers reflects the submission from the Rural Women of New Zealand. They’re a group of women that often don’t get a lot of credit for what they do about being the backbone of this country, but they’re a highly practical, reasonable, really hard-working group of women who know what it’s like not only to be out there working on the land and making sure that you’re running an appropriate business but also they’re in small communities and they know what goes on. So the first Supplementary Order Paper will reflect that.

The second Supplementary Order Paper will reflect some concerns we had about the fairness about—and I find that very interesting. The Hon Maggie Barry just argued that to an employee who says “I need to take domestic violence leave.”, any small business can say “Look, I’m sorry, but actually the business can’t stand it right now.”—right? The business can’t stand it right now. She quite clearly articulated, and she even went far enough to say, that it would be almost impossible for an employee to argue against an employer of a small or medium sized business declining that leave on the basis of the financial vulnerability of that business, but, at the same time, said that the business couldn’t afford it, so therefore they are going to vote against it. It was a confused contribution, but there you have it.

It was a confused contribution, and it’s a little bit like—the other suggestion is that victims should just use their sick leave. These people are not sick. They are being harmed by somebody else. They haven’t got the flu. It’s not the flu. They are being harmed and, in some cases, hunted by other people. This is about stepping up.

But New Zealand First is also concerned around the fact that—we understand. It’s not that we have put this in bottom lines around businesses, but we understand that businesses are members of our community, they’re making a living, and they’ve got to pay their mortgages and put food on the table, and that is why we have had conversations with the Minister of Finance. We are continuing to have these conversations, but in the first part of these conversations—and we’ll be able to be clearer as we come towards the committee of the whole House—is that the Tax Working Group will be considering any leave taken under this piece of legislation as a tax-deductible expense. So that means that we are making sure that we recognise those business owners that are part of our community—the small and medium sized businesses—that absolutely—

Hon Maggie Barry: So the taxpayer foots the bill.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, and now we’re hearing that Maggie Barry is shouting out that the taxpayers will foot the bill for domestic violence. I’m not quite sure who Ms Maggie Barry thinks is footing the bill right now for domestic violence. With the police numbers, with the imprisonment numbers, with the violence against children, and with the violence against women and men inside their homes, who does the Opposition think is currently footing the bill for domestic violence? Who does the Opposition think is currently paying? It is the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer, but Ms Barry continues to harp on about the fact that it can’t be the business owner, it can’t be the taxpayer—but then, who is left? Who is left to take responsibility and be brave? All of us have to take responsibility and be brave over this issue. All of us on this side of the House are prepared to do so. All of us—

Hon Maggie Barry: Tragic.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, “tragic”, she says now. Oh my goodness! Oh my goodness—and I’m repeating what Ms Barry says because it puts it on the Hansard, and I want it there for history. I want it there for history that Ms Barry has said that the taxpayer should not pay for domestic violence, business should not pay for domestic violence, and she considers that while it’s tragic, with a tone—

Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is totally misrepresenting my position. I am offended and dismayed by her inaccuracy, and I would like her to withdraw and apologise. I take offence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member, and I apologise to the member for what has just occurred. There are some provisions within the Standing Orders that if you feel that you’ve been misrepresented, you can follow those actions in order to correct that. So I encourage the member to do so.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just clarify. Is the member able to correct the Hansard as part of that procedure, because the member just clearly stated that she wanted it on the Hansard—something that she misrepresented in the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): There is a process that needs to be engaged in, so I ask the member to engage in that process. As a result of that, that may result in corrections, but we cannot pre-empt that. So—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The Hon Maggie Barry has clearly taken offence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: She has said she’s taken offence. I would suggest that the right action would be for the Hon Tracey Martin to withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for her intervention. I’ve already given a way forward. On the matter of offence, or the use or misuse of language and whether it is unparliamentary, there are longstanding Speakers’ rulings that state—and I will refer the member to rulings by the Rt Hon David Carter, as well—that the House must take offence in order for that course of action to—[Hon Judith Collins moves forward in her seat] No, Ms Collins, I’m speaking and I’m ruling. I’ve given the member a course of action to undertake, and the member has the opportunity to do so. I am now going to call the Hon Tracey Martin to continue with—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I hope you are not going to relitigate what I have just said.

Hon Judith Collins: When I am sitting in my chair and I have moved myself, I don’t expect to be told to sit down or to be quiet while you’re about to say something—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I—

Hon Judith Collins: —when I haven’t actually said anything.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): The member will resume her seat. The member will resume her seat.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Point of order—

Hon Judith Collins: I have been a member of this House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, I haven’t called the member yet.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Point of order, the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’ve been a member of this House for 16 years. I’ve dealt with a lot of Speakers, and I have never been spoken to in such a condescending way as you have just done. Perhaps that’s going to be the new standard from now on, but I suggest it’s not going to help this House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I would ask the member to resume her seat, and I asked the member to resume her seat before. I am the Speaker in this House. When I’m on my feet, you will resume your seat and you will be silent. I have given the member a course of action to undertake, and she is going to do so. That is the end of this matter. I call—

Hon Member: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, that is the end of this matter.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. All I’d request you to do, as the Speaker of the House, is review Standing Order 110(1) in relation to this matter. Otherwise, the member may lose her opportunity that she’s entitled to under the Standing Orders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will review the matter, thank you. Thank you, and I will report back to the member—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Well, when you say that the House must take offence, are you the House for that purpose, or should we have a vote?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): For the purpose of this, I will adjudicate whether the House has taken offence, and the House has not taken offence. I’m going to now call the Hon Tracey Martin to resume her speech.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. Let’s get back to the bill, shall we? New Zealand First will be supporting the bill at second reading. We will be bringing two Supplementary Order Papers, one to reflect the submissions by Rural Women New Zealand and a second Supplementary Order Paper with regard to assisting small business when it comes to the employee’s opportunity to lay a complaint or express a concern about a decline around the request to actually change their flexible working hours.

We will continue to work with the Minister of Finance, who has said that this item will be sent to the Tax Working Group for them to consider that the amount of days taken under this particular leave provision could be made tax-deductible for business. We will continue to have conversations with the Minister of Finance’s office around how we can ensure that small and medium sized businesses, particularly, are not penalised for doing what they want to do. They want to care for the people in their communities, regardless of whether they are a good employee or regardless—they are just another human being that they are associating with. They want to do the right thing, and we’re going to try and support them to do the right thing. So, again, I honour Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. Kia ora.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You are calling?

Hon Maggie Barry: I’d like to take a call in the debate according to Standing Order 110, “Misrepresentation”, under “General Procedures”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Now, I just want to clarify with the member. You’re seeking another call; you’ve already had a call in this debate. If you’re seeking it, you are not permitted to seek a call if you are wanting to correct or—I’m assuming you’re wanting to do this in terms of the point of order you raised before about misrepresentation. Is that correct?

Hon Maggie Barry: Under 110.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes—you are unable to do that according to the Standing Orders. You’ve already taken a call in this debate.

MATT DOOCEY (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just looking at this Speaker’s ruling 37/5, “When arising”, it says, “A member who has been misrepresented must wait until the end of the speech of the member concerned before rising to make an explanation”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m referring to Speakers’ rulings 38/5 and 38/6 when I make that ruling. Miss Barry has been given a course of action which she can undertake. She is going to avail herself of that course of action. I’m not going to rule on this again. I’ve already given Miss Barry an opportunity do so, if she would refer to Speakers’ rulings 38/5 and 38/6.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders, which certainly have precedence over Speakers’ rulings, say, at Standing Order 110(1), “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted, misunderstood, or misrepresented in the same debate.” Are you saying that that Standing Order no longer applies to the Hon Maggie Barry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is the member choosing to do so as a point of order or as another debate call?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it says here that she can do that, and that she cannot introduce any other matter other than the correction of the misquotation, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation. I think that’s very clear.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment. Now, I’m just going to respond to that point of order by the Hon Judith Collins. Miss Barry, if you were standing to make a correction to something that you had made within your speech rather than an interjection, you would be given leave to do so—you would be given the call to do so. However, what you are attempting to do is to correct something that was made by interjection by another member. That is not permitted by that Standing Order. [Interruption] Now I’ve—yes. If you’re attempting to correct something in your interjection, that’s—

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Quite simply—and we are seeking your guidance on this, genuinely—what happened was that while the Hon Tracey Martin was making her speech, she stated clearly that she wanted to put on the Hansard some interjections that the Hon Maggie Barry had had, and then she proceeded twice to misquote her and misrepresent her with the single purpose of putting her on the Hansard. All the Hon Maggie Barry is doing is requesting through the Chair, or through you, Madam Assistant Speaker, to be able to stand in this House and correct the misrepresentations that were made by the Hon Tracey Martin.

Hon Andrew Little: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment. Look, I have already given my ruling. I will refer the members to Speakers’ rulings 38/5 and 38/6. Now please, this is going to be the end of the matter. There is a process which the member can engage in. I’m not going to take any further rulings on it, and I am going to call the next member.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much. I think everyone in this House and, indeed, the vast majority of New Zealanders realise that New Zealand has an unacceptable level of violence—all types of violence. Now, this bill focuses on domestic violence or family violence, but I think we’re all concerned about the level of violence, including domestic violence, family violence, and sexual violence, and I think we all agree that it’s beholden on all New Zealanders to support victims of these types of violence and to raise awareness on how abhorrent it is to us in society.

This bill has been around for several years, and some relevant legislation has been changed since it was drafted. Although we want to take every possible opportunity to improve outcomes when it comes to victims of family, domestic, and sexual violence, we don’t believe that this bill will make a significant difference.

Action on domestic and family violence is an issue that’s close to National’s heart. During the time that we were in Government, we introduced numerous new initiatives to combat domestic and family violence. But of course there’s no silver bullet. And I have to agree with parliamentary under-secretary Jan Logie that this is an issue that everyone in our society needs to take responsibility for. There is no silver bullet, so during our time in Government, our initiatives were wide-ranging. They involved 16 different portfolios in an effort to redesign the way that the Government responds to family violence. We created a Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence, proposed changes to civil and criminal laws, and provided better guidance on the Domestic Violence Act and how we should apply it.

We knew that we needed to intervene earlier, and to be more effective in getting perpetrators to change their behaviours and break the intergenerational cycle. We focused on protection orders. We wanted to make them easier to get, more tailored to individuals’ conditions as victims, and to direct perpetrators to change programmes and services. One of the successes was the introduction of the National Home Safety Service, and that kept over 1,000 victims of family violence safe every year in their own homes. We overhauled family violence laws. We improved access to information so that judges and police could work more closely on family violence cases, and to try and improve information-sharing regulations.

I was particularly impressed by the integrated safety response pilots. One of those was based in Christchurch, and I followed it closely. And in meeting with both victims and the social services that supported them, I found that it made a real difference to the lives of those victims. And the main reason was that it provided very timely—in fact, there was daily triage action and intensive case management.

We also involved the use of independent victim specialists to work with high-risk victims and to keep them safe. It was an extremely successful programme, and I heard that from the people who accessed the pilot, but also for the organisations that monitored the results, including the independent committee on reducing family violence and the Family Violence Death Review Committee. Both were extremely supportive of the programme, and I strongly encourage the new Government to continue this work. It’s intensive, it’s expensive, but it works.

But going back to the bill: after reading 167 written submissions and hearing 35 oral submissions, our members concluded that the bill is unworkable and may in reality be detrimental to the employment of victims of domestic violence. From my experience employers understand the value of the employees and they value and support them when they’re in difficulties, both at a personal level—and that’s in terms of well-being and harmony in the workplace—but also in terms of good business practice: minimising the turnover of staff and supporting employees to be as effective as possible in their job, and so that they can contribute to the team.

In fact there are numerous examples of companies that go out of their way to support their employees in lots of ways, particularly if they’re victims of family violence. And on top of good, sensible business practice, there’s legislative responsibilities that employers already have to support victims of domestic violence. For example, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015—and I do think the original bill was drafted before National made major changes—that Act requires employers to provide a safe workplace, and that includes protection at work against threats that could be posed to a victim of domestic violence. Employees can trespass threatening partners, and they can block access by email or telephone. And I think this bill covers some of the problems that the Hon Tracey Martin has highlighted.

Under the Employment Relations Act, employers are required to consider requests for flexible working arrangements for victims of family or sexual violence, and they do make these changes. And, furthermore, under the Holidays Act employers must provide sick leave for an employee who is physically or mentally affected by domestic or family violence and, again, they do this.

During the select committee process we heard many examples of employers recognising the need to provide appropriate support, to provide flexibility in working conditions and leave, and we also saw no evidence that employers were being unreasonable in their approach to this important issue, and nothing to justify a new range of complex regulatory requirements that are actually proposed by this bill. We heard that numerous employers were going out of their way, beyond legislative responsibilities, in the interests of looking after their employees, and we absolutely commend that.

So although we support the philosophy behind the bill—who wouldn’t?—we can’t support the bill as it is written. And I would like to give the House a heads up on Supplementary Order Paper 41 that my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell will be introducing. It will make sure that it is explicit that domestic violence or family violence is a valid reason for a request for annual, sick, or paid leave—paid annual sick leave. It’s an intelligent and sensible way to provide the 10 days of leave for domestic violence victims without burdening small businesses with extra costs and extra regulation.

As I have said, employers are keen to support their employees, and this provides a solution for them to do just that without a blowout of extra costs. We do not agree that paid leave should be available for a support person. Domestic violence, family violence, whatever you call it, is absolutely abhorrent. It is not something that the Government can combat alone. All New Zealanders need to support victims of violence, and they need to make it very clear that violence in any form is not acceptable any place, any time, or to any people, and particularly within our families in this country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] Sorry, did I hear someone say, “Yes, there is objection.”? No, go ahead.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In an earlier call that was taken by the Hon Tracey Martin, as a result of an interjection I made when that member was speaking, that member misrepresented my position, and I took offence at that. I would like the record to state what my real beliefs are, which are that domestic violence is a problem that we all have to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that she’s sought leave to correct that. So it’s not about making a speech. You made an interjection that was misrepresented, so this is your opportunity to correct that interjection.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The Hon Tracey Martin, after my interjection, then went on to misrepresent my position. So—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s right. That’s what I’m saying, so it’s about your interjection that you’ve sought leave to correct.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So my interjection was around a separate matter. The member, the Hon Tracey Martin, then went on to misrepresent my position and everything that I had said, for the purpose of getting it in the Hansard. I want to get the record straight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand. I’m trying to be helpful to the member. She has sought leave from the House to correct that misinterpretation of her interjection, which she’s perfectly entitled to do under the Standing Orders. But she must keep to that misrepresentation of the interjection.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the misrepresentation of my interjection was to expand the notion that I was in favour of domestic violence and not in favour of taxpayers’ money being—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, but this is heard in silence.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member was misrepresenting my position on domestic violence and the relationship between taxes by taxpayers being paid to help victims.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your personal explanation is not about the previous speaker’s misrepresentation; it’s about your interjection—that’s what you sought permission from the House to correct.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the interjection, which was around the tragic circumstances of domestic violence, was then misrepresented in a way that was not true. My beliefs are that domestic violence is a tragic situation and that I believe that we should do everything that we can to relieve the victims from their suffering, and that is the position that I hold and the one I wish to make clear and to stand on the record for Hansard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will now stand on the record. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The exercise that was engaged in just then did not seem to me to be a personal explanation correcting that member’s statement on the record. What it was was her affront at an inference that another member drew, and her further inference that she drew about what that member herself was saying.

That contribution from the Hon Maggie Barry just then, as a point of order seeking a personal explanation, did not conform with the Standing Orders. It was not a personal explanation on a so-called misrepresentation.

Matt Doocey: Speaking to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I don’t need any help. As the Speaker, I have accepted that. I have attempted to get the member to stick to what she sought the leave to do, and I’m satisfied that we now have an end to it.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to support with pride the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I will start with the acknowledgment and tautoko to the many members across this whole House, not the least from the Opposition benches, who have been singing, rightfully, my colleague Jan Logie’s praises, because this is her member’s bill.

I quote the Opposition MPs saying, “No one can challenge her focus or her sincerity on this matter of domestic violence, and for ensuring that there are supports for all people impacted on by domestic violence, and for understanding that we have a responsibility to stamp it out from our society.” But what people have not focused on so much, especially from the Opposition benches, is that she also understands the evidence and she has the smarts to put this legislation through, because this is coming from her lifetime commitment, dedication, and passion for this work, her dealing with front-line agencies and organisations at all levels, and her deep, profound understanding of exactly what victims and people go through when they are facing domestic violence. So it’s not simply about her sincerity, it’s not simply about her dedication; she knows this stuff and she knows what works. So I wanted to make sure that I put that right up front.

What does this bill actually do? This bill is going to make sure that people affected by domestic violence have up to 10 days’ extra leave to be able to deal with the effects of that violence, and that a victim of domestic violence can rearrange their working arrangements—so it could be working in a different location, it could be changing their working hours to make things easier to be able to deal with the extra stress, damage, and harm of domestic violence. It also looks at changing the onus of having to provide personal contact details, which we know can also put people at risk. A lot of people are having to put themselves in a situation where they cannot be found, because it is unsafe or where it is too risky for someone to know where they are and to be able to find out where they are and track them down. We know how absolutely critical safety of contact information is. So these are the sorts of amazing positive steps that we can take right now to improve workplace legislation.

I was also relieved to find out that this bill proposes that under the Human Rights Act there would be a protection for a person affected by domestic violence from discrimination, protected from discrimination in employment, quite specifically and quite—named, actually named. As someone who has come from 10 years of working with Human Rights Commission, I specifically welcome that proposal in the legislation. So that’s what the bill does. That’s what the legislation sets out in writing, but what does it actually say for us as a country? It says that we take this matter seriously. It says that we’re going to do things immediately and that can make such a massive difference in the lives of people who are suffering and being harmed by domestic violence.

This is the second reading and so I have read through some of the submissions. I was also the chief panellist on the Owen Glenn inquiry into domestic violence and child abuse, and I understand deeply and, sadly—I understand, sadly, too well—exactly what happens when someone is faced with the stress of having to deal with the harm from domestic violence but also the stress of having to hold down a job, and I understand the absolute appreciation that one would hold when their employer has been able to make allowances. This is the very sort of bill where we can make that massive change.

So I was proud to take a short call tonight to celebrate this step that we are going to make together in this House, alongside many other steps, to end the culture of violence and abuse in our country. But this is an effective step that we can take together right now that also makes sure that we understand that employers and workplaces are a part of our community. They are a part of health and safety and welfare, and this is a brilliant way, an evidenced way, a way that has been shown to work overseas that we can get on to this important work, alongside changing the culture of violence and abuse in this country. I am so proud of standing alongside Jan Logie and this member’s bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at its second reading. I didn’t get a chance to talk on this bill at the first reading, and, indeed, I wasn’t at the Justice Committee, but I have read the select committee report. I would just like to start by taking the opportunity, as many of the members have done, to congratulate Jan Logie on this bill and commend her for bringing it to the House. I do know from having debated Jan prior to the last election in my very first ever debate—she may remember it at Auckland University, where I was very much outnumbered by many people in the audience as well as speakers; it was a pretty tough night. But listening to her then and listening to her since then in the House, I have great admiration for her hard work in making a difference in this space, for her tenacity, for her determination, and for her passion.

Domestic violence in this country is a great stain on our reputation and it is something that we need to take seriously. It’s a significant and insidious issue that we must strive to reduce. Now, the intentions of this bill on the face of it are very good, and its aims are worthy of consideration. But just because something sounds good doesn’t mean that it is good, and when you delve down into this bill it is quite clear that the bill won’t actually make any real difference, despite its very good aims. As we’ve heard from a number of speakers tonight, including Jan Logie herself, there are a very small number of ratbag employers, who will always exist and will continue to exist under this bill.

Most businesses—99 percent of businesses—are flexible. They give victims of domestic violence time off under the current legislation—and even above and beyond that—allowing people to see the police, to get their kids sorted, and their lives in order. But for the very, very small percentage of ratbag employers—as we’ve heard about tonight—this legislation won’t make any difference, because they will continue to be ratbag employers because this very bill gives them a huge out. New Part 69ABD—grounds for refusal of request by an employer—gives them an incredibly long list of outs. So while this bill sounds great and gives many rights to an employee, it then takes that all away by saying, “Well, ratbag employers can continue to be ratbag employers by using the refusal to request the application under this very legislation.” So while we’re putting this in place we’re going back and taking it all away again.

I was the chair of the business association, the Browns Bay Business Association, not the biggest business association in the country but they’re a very important one in my electorate, and—

Hon Member: Vital.

ERICA STANFORD: Vital. I would like to say that in dealing with all of those businesses I can say that they were all fantastic employers. They were decent human beings, as Tracey Martin said, and they looked after their employees. Most businesses in New Zealand do that already. For the very small percentage of ratbag employers, they’re going to continue to do that under this legislation. All we are doing is taking a giant stick to very good employers and smacking them about the head and saying “Well, you’re already doing a good job but here’s some more compliance costs. Here are some more costs on your business, even though you’re already doing an amazing job.” The very small percentage of ratbag employers will continue to be like that.

The division between this side of the House and the other side basically boils down to a couple of points: that there is no clear evidence to show that employers aren’t currently recognising and providing appropriate support. In fact, the select committee heard from many employers who were doing a very good job. There was no real overwhelming evidence to show that there was, in fact, a problem to solve.

Secondly, the bill uses an incredibly wide definition of domestic violence, which includes verbal abuse, monetary pressure, and other aspects that are difficult to define. On top of this wide definition, the Government is proposing amendments to put no time limit on how long ago that domestic violence occurred. So we have no identifiable problem within our current legislation, no reliable definition of domestic violence, and no set time limit.

While the spirit of this bill is commendable, the current leave framework is working and there is no requirement for such a bill. We will not be supporting it. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Can I begin by stating my support for this Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at this, the second reading. I too would like to acknowledge my colleague Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, domestic and sexual violence, Jan Logie.

Can I also point out that there is a Supplementary Order Paper 39 that the said Minister has tabled in the House. I’m glad that people have read the report of the Justice Committee because every single issue that was highlighted in there from the Labour Party has been implemented in this Supplementary Order Paper. So, actually, wake up people. Read the Supplementary Order Paper.

I do want to state that I was a member of the Justice Committee in the 51st Parliament, and with my colleague Poto Williams we listened to many of the submissions. So I’m going to talk about some facts that came out in that process. So the first fact is that Women’s Refuge surveyed 450 women in their care. Prior to being in their care, 60.1 percent of them had been in full-time employment; after they had entered an abusive relationship that fell to 27.5 percent. After they’d left those abusive relationships, actually, only 34 percent of them were able to gain full-time employment. So what does this mean? If you’re a victim of family violence, actually, it doesn’t just go away. It affects you for the rest of your life. You become damaged, and because of that damage and because of our knowledge we need to keep you in work. What does work actually do?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually not me. Not me.

LOUISA WALL: We need to keep victims, sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, into—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’d be nice if you kept me in work, but—

LOUISA WALL: Well, you don’t need to be kept in work; you’re working. It helps you to build stability, resilience, and it also helps to break the cycle of abusive relationships, and increases independence. So all of these factors actually point to the solution that my colleague Jan Logie is making through this bill.

The New Zealand Public Service Association Inc. says in terms of lost productivity related to domestic abuse, it costs us $368 million per annum. I’d like to acknowledge the champions of pieces of legislation like this who don’t need legislative reform. They are The Warehouse, they are the University of Auckland, they are ANZ, they are Countdown, and they are Foodstuffs, and they’ve been ably supported by Women’s Refuge. I also want to acknowledge that Countdown have the Shielded Site. So this is a protected site. This is for women who want to disclose abuse, and they have 120,000 visits each week. People can go on to that site and disclose. So we have incredibly—excuse the pun—progressive businesses that actually want to take some responsibility to address our appalling statistics.

I’d like to quote Suzanne Snively from the National Business Review, who on 12 June 2018 said this: “The Domestic Violence (Victims’ Protection) Bill currently before Parliament presents an opportunity to bring about some of the most significant social change in New Zealand since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1893. And it’s good for business.” How about that? So, Jan Logie, your bill tonight is creating significant social change, and I’m incredibly proud to stand here to speak in support of that.

In 2014, Minister Amy Adams said there were 100,000 incidents of family violence. In 2016, that had gone up to nearly 120,000 incidents of family violence. Nearly 50 percent of all homicides and reported violent crime in New Zealand is family violence - related. We are the first country in the world, ladies and gentlemen, for intimate partner violence. A third of New Zealand women experience intimate partner violence. What is the cost of family violence for us as a country? Seven billion dollars per annum. That’s an average of 13 women, 10 men, and nine children killed. Twenty-four percent of women in our country suffer from sexual assault, six percent of men. If you’re a disabled woman then you’re twice as likely to be a victim of violence. The victims of this family violence, ladies and gentlemen, are women. So that’s why my colleague Jan Logie has focused on victims and supporting victims to stay in work. What we know is that work provides a pathway to gain confidence and to escape the abuse. Workplaces, therefore employers—small, medium, and large—are part of the solution. The bill that’s been presented tonight is a solution for family violence. If we want to rid our country of family violence then this is the bill that we must all support.

Hon Member: Seriously?

LOUISA WALL: Did someone say “seriously”? I am saying seriously.

I’d like to quote ANZ HR manager Gina McJorrow, who spoke in the submission process and she said this: “It’s counter-intuitive but it costs very little. The cost of losing someone to sick leave, turnover, or unexplained absences, lower performance, and disengagement all adds up. Providing paid special leave is not as expensive as you think.” So the reality of the situation and the evidence that we have from employers who have implemented this solution is that it works, and it costs less for them to implement these policies than absences, and actually in some cases deaths.

The reality for ANZ, the reality for Countdown, is that 18 months ago, two years ago, they bought into this solution because they had staff members who died. They were murdered by their partners. So they wanted to provide an opportunity for those women to be able to say, “I’m living in an abusive situation. I am the victim of violence, and I need your help.” So what this bill says is that we need to help and we need to provide an environment where businesses take responsibility for ensuring that workplace hazards are eliminated, and it’s not about the money. The excuses from the Opposition, that this is going to cost business, I just find sad. I find it sad because I’ve talked about the consequences of family violence, the consequences to women. So I find it sad—oh, actually, maybe it is an appropriate differentiation between our side of the House and the Opposition that they want to prioritise the cost to business as opposed to being part of a solution to eradicating family violence.

I am going to take this opportunity, and I’ve talked to my mate Jan Logie about this, because during the select committee process there was one issue that my colleague Poto Williams and I had with her, and it was actually about her focus on victims. Actually, we said that if you really want to eliminate family violence, if we really want to eliminate family violence, then why isn’t this part of a White Ribbon solution? A White Ribbon solution would actually extend some of these provisions to our men, to our perpetrators, because we want them to go to court, we want them to have counselling, we want them to have access to that transparency in their workplace so that they can get help too. But Jan was really clear that, for her, the focus is on victims first. I guess she comes from that perspective because it actually is always about the powerful over the powerless. But I guess we have to start questioning that concept of power actually, Jan, because we live in a society where violence has become normalised.

So if you normalise a behaviour, because no one wants to address it, then actually do you have power? If you have got no conscious control or conscious ability to say “Why am I doing this? Why am I hitting my wife? Why am I hitting my partner? Why am I abusing my children?” to an environment, that’s actually damaging them. So that would be my only plea that actually—and I know and I want to acknowledge that some businesses now are actually providing the opportunity for perpetrators to get the help they need too. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, I just remind members that this is a second reading debate, and according to Speakers’ rulings 108/4 and 108/5, we are discussing the bill that is before the House. The fact that there is a Supplementary Order Paper can be referred to, but the contents of that Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail. We are on the second reading. The Supplementary Order Paper comes in at the committee stage.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the last speaker for this side of the House, I’ve been sitting listening to all the contributions tonight, and I was really surprised at the one that was given by Louisa Wall just before I stood up, because there is no way that this side of the House is not sympathetic towards the victims of domestic violence and family violence.

The way that the members on the other side of the House are articulating their speeches tonight, it’s almost like they’re misrepresenting this side of the House. Yes, we do believe in protecting those victims of domestic violence and of family violence—we do. We want to see them protected, as well. What this bill does, though, is it is almost like attacking a group of people—employers—and the previous speaker spoke about—

Louisa Wall: How is it attacking employers?

JO HAYES: No, just listen. The previous speaker spoke about big employers like Countdown and The Warehouse, who actually have got programmes going inside their organisations to work with domestic violence victims and family violence victims, and that is great. What we’re saying on this side of the House is that small businesses will struggle under this piece of legislation. It’s like taking a great big hammer and banging them over the head with it.

My colleague Erica Stanford also talked about the ratbag employers, and there are those employers out there. With this piece of legislation, you’d give them an excuse to actually marginalise those staff members that are victims of domestic violence, because they are ratbag employers.

I wasn’t on the Justice Committee to hear the submissions, but the report that came out of the select committee hearings told me that there are a number of employers that come and they do a good job in supporting those victims of domestic violence. We do care on this side. We believe that it should be a broader way of actually addressing the situation, not going along and just cherry-picking out various groups of people in the community. What we are saying is actually take a broader look at the whole subject. Don’t try and do that and marginalise good employers who do do the work by supporting those victims of domestic violence.

Now a lot has actually have gone around this House about that, and as I start to wind up my contribution, I just want it on Hansard that this side of the House—the National Party side of this House—does support victims of domestic violence. We just want to make sure that the approach is wholesome, it is fair, and it protects everybody, so that people can actually hold their jobs and be helped along the same way, but adding an additional 10 days on to current leave entitlements isn’t the way. There are other ways, and I do ask the Government—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Every member in this House is entitled to their view, and they’re entitled to have that opportunity to make their view. So just calm—OK?

JO HAYES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I encourage that side of the House—the Government benches—to look at the work that the National Party did around family violence and to adopt the process and the procedures that we laid out in our family violence approach. So without—

Hon Maggie Barry: Integrated Safety Response.

JO HAYES: That’s right. This is not an employment issue. My colleagues have already said that we know whereabouts this issue actually belongs, so I implore the Government to have a look. Do not put your blinkers on or your blindfolds on when it comes to this issue, because it is too important to let this issue slide away just because people are trying to politic in here. Look at what everybody’s contributions are and build a piece of legislation that will address the subject from all points of view, from all areas within our society.

I cannot support this bill. It is far too narrow.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am absolutely thrilled to stand and speak at the second reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. Right, I’m just going to go very briefly into what this bill does and then recall some, I guess, case studies, as it were, based on the years that I’ve spent in the sector working at the front line with women who’ve experienced this. So what does this bill do? It’s an omnibus bill, which means that it will amend a whole suite of Acts: the Domestic Violence Act, particularly, but also the Employment Relations Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the Holidays Act, as well as the Human Rights Act.

Now, we’ve all stood up—well, from both sides of the House, members have stood up today and acknowledged the fact that domestic violence has damaging impacts on the people who are subjected to it—largely, women. We’ve also acknowledged that staying in employment is critical to reducing that effect of violence. We’ve all talked about it, yet only one side of this House actually supports this bill and puts our money where our mouths are. Everyone has the right to live a life free from violence, and as I mentioned, no one disputes that. For many, though, that’s just words, and talk is cheap. Many women I’ve worked with in this sector, and as I mentioned, I’ve worked for many years at the front line, I recall spending hours advocating on behalf of women who needed some sort of reprieve at points, some sort of compassion from employers because of what they were going through and how that impacted on every facet of their life, including their lives at work.

Many of them needed someone to advocate on their behalf because of the trauma that they’d gone through—the fact that reliving what had happened in itself was re-victimisation, the fact that there is still stigma and shame that disproportionately affect women from some groups, especially some of the ethnic communities that I come from, because we’re already small communities and reasonably marginalised. So, understandably, the entire community doesn’t want to feel like they’re being tarred with the same brush, but that doesn’t mean that we can ignore the fact that it exists, and the impact, the disproportionate impact, that has on women from those communities.

I remember specifically two stories that I will recall today. One woman I worked with was a cleaner at a reasonably large hotel. She’d experienced high levels of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. She wasn’t sure what to do, whether she could speak to her employers about the fact that she needed some assistance or not. In her case, and in the case of the other woman I worked with who was in an admin role in a company, I picked up the phone, spoke to their employers for them, and, for them, luckily, their employers were willing to listen and willing to accommodate what their needs were.

Some women don’t necessarily want to talk about it, because they’re just tired, and having to explain time and again to people who are supposed to be helping them or supporting them can just make things too difficult, really. That’s why this bill is important, because one of the things that it does is send a really strong signal across our society that we all have a role to play in keeping women and children safe.

So what exactly are we talking about here? In terms of safety, when we talk about safety there’s the direct safety, of course, that women—and I say “women” because, disproportionately, women are impacted by domestic violence. But there is extensive research that tells us that it’s at that time, when she leaves the abusive relationship—that’s the time when it’s most dangerous for her and her children. That’s the time, often, that women’s lives are at risk. And what happens? Why is it important that women need to have some sort of accommodation at work? Because that’s often where the stalking happens. It’s about disrupting routine, because domestic violence is not just about incidents, it’s not just about physical, emotional, physiological, sexual, and financial abuse; it’s about power and control, which then means that when an abuser is wanting to continue to exert that power and control over a woman, they then look for what that woman’s routine is: “Where can we stalk her? When she drops the kids off at school, when she goes to work. We know what her email address is.”

I read in one of these papers that the most common form of harassment is through phone calls and emails at work. Physical stalking happens at work as well, and that’s why flexible working arrangements or paid leave when a woman needs it are crucial to keeping her safe, because they disrupt that routine, and not one person on that side of the House has even alluded to them. That’s what this bill will do.

Members opposite have talked about the fact that there’s sick leave, that there’s bereavement leave, and that there’s paid annual leave that women can access. Two points that I’d like to make to that: firstly, that’s not what sick leave is for, or what any of those other types of leave are for. Secondly, in many cases, especially when there’s physical abuse involved, women have already used up their sick leave.

There is the safety of children as well, in terms of the disruption to children’s lives, in terms of direct safety to children, and in terms of the indirect safety that children need to be protected from when the mother is being abused, stalked, and harassed. The break that we need, the disruption to the stigma and the shame that still exist that prevent people from talking about it—so, making it OK for women to talk about what’s going on at the workplace and to seek help. We’re not saying, as some members opposite have said, that somehow—the Hon Scott Simpson mentioned that members on this side of the House are somehow implying that the employer’s at fault—no, we’re not—or that there’s some kind of connection between employment and violence.

There’s a connection between violence and every aspect of a person’s life. We take our whole selves to work, and we should have the right to stay safe wherever we are, whether that’s at home, on the street, or at work. Unfortunately, the Hon Scott Simpson used the words “punish and hit” employers. No, that’s often what happens to the women who are experiencing violence. The cost for the employers was brought up, but there’s a cost to not acting. My colleagues on this of the House have talked about the cost directly to employers. There’s a massive cost—I think it was $7 billion—to society as a whole when you include the flow-on costs of domestic violence as well.

An interesting point that I want to note that the Hon Maggie Barry made, actually, and I quote so that there’s no issue around misrepresentation, is—I quote—“employers … are already doing the right thing”. So if this is the right thing, why aren’t we doing it? That’s what I want to know. Why is this House not voting—why is that side of the House not voting to do what is, apparently, the right thing? So is it right or is it not, and if it’s right, why won’t members opposite support it? That’s what I want to know.

The member also mentioned that it’s not an employment issue—I think I’ve addressed that—that there’s domestic violence protection orders, medical certificates. It’s not a sickness. It’s not a sickness, and that’s not enough. That’s not good enough. And that it’s easier to achieve for large employers and not for small—yes, I take that point. It is easier to achieve for large employers, but what are we saying here—that it’s too difficult, that safety, that protecting, supporting the safety of women and children, is too difficult for us to do? Erica Stanford talked about ratbag employers. It’s not about the employers; it’s about the message that we send. It’s about, ultimately, the protections and the supports for the women who are undergoing or who are subjected to this.

There are horrific statistics that we have in New Zealand around domestic violence, and we have an opportunity here. This may not be the be-all and the end-all. Minister Andrew Little has talked about everything else that this side of the House is doing to end violence against women, but this is one critical part of it. It’s a critical role that we stand here to play, to ensure that we all play the role that we can play to end this scourge on society.

With that—actually, one more quick point: I understand from submitters that, actually, more employers were in support of this bill than against. I put that to members opposite in consideration of this bill, and, with that, it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

JO HAYES (National): I move, That the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes changes to the Marriage Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004. The subsequent changes mean that this bill’s title will also change to the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Act. I needed to say that in the opening of the second reading of this bill.

I’m very pleased to have this bill make it so far into the House—the second reading. I want to thank the Justice Committee for the rigorous analysis that was done on this bill, and the submitters that came in and gave their views on this bill, as well.

The bill is quite narrow-focused, because the bill that was developed, authored by Dr Jackie Blue, came about because of issues with migrant women being forced into a marriage by their parents. So, therefore, the bill started all the way back then, around about 2013, whereby Dr Jackie Blue brought it to the House. She put it into the draw, and I was fortunate enough to have it in my name just recently. I want to acknowledge the Hon Maggie Barry, who also was a holder of this bill, caring for it until such time as it was pulled out of the ballot.

As I said, the bill is quite narrow-focused. The reason that the title of the bill had to change was because during the deliberations within the select committee, there was a big discussion around the inclusion of civil unions, because we wanted to block off various areas where coercion of marriage could actually slip in. So civil unions were included in this bill. There was also a big discussion around de facto relationships, and I must admit that I too almost overlooked the area around cultural marriage and how that was viewed as a de facto - type relationship. So, therefore, I was very pleased to get some advice and have a discussion with Priyanca Radhakrishnan from out of the committee over this. So, and so that’s why de facto relationships have been included, and hence the changes to the two Acts.

So some people may say—and even when the bill was drawn out, I had phone calls saying—“So that means my 16- and 17-year-olds can’t get married?” That’s not the guts of this bill. What it does—and I did say this—is that young people aged 16 to 17, if they wanted to be married once this bill becomes legislation, that consent would have to come through a Family Court judge, and that was the final way of actually blocking out a forced marriage or coercion to marriage.

I want to make my contribution quite brief tonight, because I know that there are others that also want to contribute their pieces to this bill. I want to acknowledge the women of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, and I think that they have done a great job in actually supporting this bill and helping to shepherd this bill through. I’m really pleased that tonight we’re starting a celebration of a bill that has—from my last discussions across the parties—cross-party support. I think Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians have done a great job in supporting this bill right through.

There are lots of contributions that I look forward to hearing from tonight and, most probably, the next time we have this bill to carry on the second reading, so it is without any further ado that I wholly support this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating that member, Jo Hayes, for being the lucky holder of the bill at the time that it was drawn from the ballot, and for shepherding the bill through to this stage of the House, and to say that Labour will support the bill. The bill addresses a very important issue that won’t affect people in huge numbers, but we know that with the changing make-up of New Zealand society, there are some cultural practices whereby certainly older members of families wish to see younger members married at an early age.

It is incumbent on this House, as the Parliament of a liberal democracy such as ours, to make sure that those in the community and the more vulnerable in the community—and that includes younger people—have appropriate protections, so that where there is a possibility that young people may be vulnerable to forced marriages because of family and other cultural expectations, in this country they are afforded some protection, and this bill takes the right steps to provide that protection. So for young people who are 16 or 17 years of age and who are under the pressure of family expectation to marry at that age or to enter a civil union, they cannot be compelled to do that. There will be a requirement for the Family Court to provide some supervision and for a Family Court judge to go through a process to ascertain the genuine wishes of a partner to such a marriage or civil union, and, if necessary, to call on a cultural report or take whatever other appropriate steps, and for a Family Court judge to give their blessing, so that we can be sure and the community can be sure there is appropriate consent. That, I think, and the measures contained in the bill provide an appropriate protection that will apply to the small number of people who will be under this sort of pressure.

I think the honourable member Joanne Hayes adverted to this herself, and that is concern about the application of these processes to potential de facto marriages. The reality is, unlike with a marriage and unlike with a civil union, where the partners to those arrangements have to apply for a licence or go through a formal process, you don’t have to for a de facto marriage; it’s just a question of living together in a relationship that looks like marriage. That’s what a de facto marriage is. That can happen without the intervention of the State or any agency or organ of the State, and so I suppose I am just left wondering what the mechanics would be of a process that would bring a party, or parties, to such an arrangement before a court to seek consent for a de facto arrangement.

It may well be that those arrangements will simply happen by dint of happenstance and no one will get to exercise an appropriate consent. It doesn’t mean to say that at least one of the parties to such an arrangement might not be under some sort of coercion, might not be under some sort of force. Unless that person has the means to bring themselves before the court, I think that would pose some difficulties. Nevertheless, let the committee of the whole House tease that out a little further and explore it and examine it. It may well be that there’s an opportunity for some appropriate change by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, but I simply raise that point.

The principle of the bill, the objective of it, is absolutely correct, and we want to see these measures taken because that is important. A bit in the way we did when the legislation we’ve just passed before the House in relation to domestic violence, a coerced marriage or a coerced relationship is simply another form of domestic violence, and if this provides protection to young, vulnerable people to prevent them from being the victim of this form of domestic violence, then it is another entirely appropriate and sensible bill for this House to promulgate.

Like the previous member, I acknowledge that this is a very focused piece of legislation and it does not require, I think, me to pontificate much further. So I will bring my contribution to an end and confirm once again that the Labour Party supports the bill. It will do good things for that small number of members of our community who might otherwise be vulnerable to this, and it is yet again another plank that you would expect from a Parliament taking its responsibility seriously to reduce or eliminate the prospects of domestic violence.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the sponsoring member, Jo Hayes. She has done an outstanding job of shepherding this bill through the Justice Committee. I’ve only recently come on to this select committee, but Jo has been at every meeting and she’s done an outstanding job of explaining the bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Full name.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Jo Hayes—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I just want to commend her for bringing this bill to the House.

Can I just say that the only real issue that I had with it—and there was a fair bit of debate on the committee about this—was around de facto relationships and whether or not we were going to require 16- or 17-year-olds to have their de facto relationship approved and recognised by a judge. Initially when I looked at this, I was against it, because what I was concerned about was that if a young lady entered into a de facto relationship that wasn’t approved by a judge and then, for some reason, the relationship fell apart, she would lose any rights in terms of property rights or legal rights because the de facto relationship would not be legally recognised. So we had quite a big debate around this, and where we landed on it was that—and Priyanca Radhakrishnan was actually very good at pointing out the fact that in some cultures, they could actually use a de facto marriage as a vehicle to having and recognising it as a type of formal marriage. They were going to find a way to get around the spirit of what the bill was actually trying to achieve, and so I personally recognise that.

We landed, I think, in a very good place where ultimately we decided actually that to protect the young people, their marriage and their de facto relationship should go in front of a judge and the judge should sign off on that and authorise it. But we had a fair bit of debate on it. It went back and forward and through quite a few of the meetings. We had the advisers come to us, I think, on two or three different occasions so that we could really test it, but I’m very happy with where we’ve landed on this.

So, overall, the bill is a very, very good one. It puts in place the protections that we, as a country and as a nation, should feel very proud that they have been put in place, and I recommend this bill to the House.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is indeed a privilege to stand and take a call on this bill, and it’s actually quite an emotional one for me because a lot of the work that I did in the sector, in the refuge movement—a large part of it, at least—centred around the issue of forced marriage, and it’s one that, personally, I’ve been part of years of lobbying, along with the Shakti Community Council, the organisation that I worked for at the time. This is a bill that is reasonably simple. It makes quite a simple change to the Marriage Act, but it has a long history, it has a complicated past, and it has an absolutely transformational future.

At this point, I want to thank the member Joanne Hayes, whose name the bill is in, and also Dr Jackie Blue, whose name the bill was in formerly, I understand. Of course, as the Hon Mark Mitchell pointed out, we had some very robust discussions at the select committee about this. We nutted out the various bits of the bill that we thought might potentially be problematic. I actually want to thank all the members of the Justice Committee for the part that they played in that process.

This bill is about keeping minors safe. It may not impact the lives of a large number of 16- and 17-year-olds, but, for those that it will impact, it will play a huge role in keeping them safe.

So at this junction, actually, I just wanted to begin with an excerpt from a poem by a Lebanese poet Kahlil Gibran, “On Children”. He says:

“Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

and though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,

for they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,

which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them,

but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.”

That, in essence, in a sense, is what this bill is about. So what does it do? I mentioned that it’s reasonably simple, in terms of what the bill does. Currently, under the Marriage Act 1955, 16- and 17-year-olds who want to get married have to get parental consent in order to be able to do so. This bill, if it passes into law, will change that, and it will take away the requirement for parental consent and replace that with Family Court consent. So what that means is if you’re a 16- or 17-year-old and you want to get married, you go to the Family Court and get consent.

That takes away the loophole, in a sense, because when we’re talking about forced marriage with regard to 16- and 17-year-olds, in most of the cases that I have seen and in most of the cases that front-line service agencies have seen it is the parents who force those children into marriage. The reasons are diverse, and I’ll go into that a little bit.

My Master’s thesis was on this topic—on the topic of forced marriage more broadly, and it included underage marriage as well. So forced marriage sits squarely within the continuum of violence against women, and it’s often closely linked to honour-based violence.

Forced marriage occurs for many reasons. Sometimes it’s to do with immigration, because if a young girl here is a New Zealand citizen, then there are some cases—and I’ve worked with a case that falls into this space as well—that, basically, parents would try to get her married to someone from overseas because there was an immigration aspect to it and there was money involved as well.

Sometimes parents are mortified when their children—especially their daughters, who have been exposed to a different set of norms and practices here in New Zealand—want to, say, date or dress in certain ways that are considered unacceptable. In some of those cases, and, again, not all—at this point, I just want to make the point that we’ve got to be very careful that we don’t tar entire communities with the same brush. This doesn’t happen across ethnic communities, and it’s actually a human rights violation rather than an aspect of culture, as it were.

So in some of those cases that I mentioned, girls are coerced into marriage to preserve a sense of honour, as it were, and that of their families. Sometimes it’s actual forced marriage; sometimes it’s threatened, and that’s used to control the sexual interest or behaviour, or to protect perceived cultural or religious ideas and ideals of honour.

A forced marriage is different from an arranged marriage because the concept of choice is not there. Duress is not confined to just physical coercion. Sometimes, and oftentimes, it’s huge amounts of psychological and emotional coercion that are at play as well, and that’s actually very often much harder to detect than the physical coercion. Sometimes parents actually think that they’re acting in the best interests of the child because that’s the mind-set—and I don’t want to go into too much detail because this is taking a little bit away from the bill, but it is the context within which the bill sits. Sometimes that emotional and psychological coercion is not seen for what it is. It’s seen as looking out and trying to protect the best interests of that child.

I worked with a young woman who was dating someone who was from a different religious background to herself. The family didn’t want that relationship to continue and didn’t want that marriage to happen, and in some of those cases, forced marriage is then used to ensure that a marriage doesn’t take place or that a relationship is broken.

Now the issue of forced marriage is often positioned as cultural rather than a human rights issue, yet in 2005, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe said, “Forced marriages and child marriages constitute serious and recurrent violations of human rights and the rights of the child. It is an outrage that, under the cloak of respect for the culture and traditions of certain communities, there are authorities which tolerate forced marriages and child marriages although they violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim.” The position that I adopted—and I continue to adopt, throughout the work that I have done in this field—is that it is important not to succumb to cultural relativism by turning a blind eye to the issue of condoning it as a cultural or religious practice, because it’s really not.

Forced marriage is practised in many societies around the world. It’s not confined to specific cultures or religions. No major world religion condones the practice of forced marriage. Finally, profiling it as such is actually detrimental to the women who are trying to get out of such practices, because whole communities don’t condone this practice. It’s only an issue amongst those who choose to exert power and control over the women in their family, and, as the Hon Andrew Little pointed out, this is actually a form of domestic violence.

So this bill—we had I think it was close to 30 submitters on this bill. Eighty percent were in favour. As I mentioned before, it’s taken an incredibly long time—years of lobbying and advocacy from the sector—to get to this point. So I just want to thank everyone, once again, who has been involved in ensuring that this bill has reached where we’re at today, where I understand there’s unanimous support across the House for it. We have worked well together. This will actually impact the lives of people, and especially the 16- and 17-year-olds we’re talking about, who are more vulnerable, who struggle just to survive, and whose voices are often not heard in this House.

So I thank everyone in the sector who’s worked to ensure that those voices are heard, and I thank everyone for supporting this bill. It’s a great pleasure and a great privilege that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.