Wednesday, 4 July 2018

WEDNESDAY, 4 JULY 2018

WEDNESDAY, 4 JULY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility

SPEAKER: Members may remember that I undertook to come back with a considered ruling in the area of ministerial responsibility. Questions to Ministers are one of the core accountability mechanisms possessed by the House. They enable it to hold the Government to account for its actions and policies. Standing Orders and precedents should be interpreted in favour of Ministers answering questions for matters for which they are responsible. Only Ministers can answer to the House for matters of public administration, and exemptions from answering should be rare.

An important element of ministerial accountability is collective responsibility. The House expresses its confidence in the collective whole of Government, rather than in individual Ministers. In all areas of their work, Ministers represent and implement government policy (paragraph 5.24, Cabinet Manual). However, since the introduction of MMP, the concept of collective responsibility has changed somewhat, with parties in Government having the ability to agree to disagree. Such arrangements need to be taken into account when considering ministerial responsibility.

As far as the House is concerned, a broad view is taken of the concept of ministerial responsibility. The starting point is Standing Order 378, which permits questions to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, and proceedings in the House or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible.

The question of responsibility has received significant attention from presiding officers over many years because of its importance to the role of the House in holding the Government to account. Speaker Carter ruled that where the Speaker judges a question to reveal a reasonable likelihood of a connection to ministerial responsibility, an informative answer must be given (Speaker’s ruling 155/1).

Ministers may be answerable for things that are operational matters (Speakers’ ruling 160/3); are outside their legal control but within their portfolio responsibility, such as the statutory powers exercised by an official (Speaker’s ruling 160/1); occurred in the portfolio before he or she was Minister (Speaker’s ruling 155/5) because questions relate to portfolios, not individual people (Speaker’s ruling 156/1); are contained in coalition agreements where they have implications for Government business (Speaker’s ruling 156/4); and are a matter that impinges on ministerial responsibilities, particularly where a Minister has made statements or answered questions about it (Speakers’ rulings 156/5 and 157/1).

It has long been accepted the Ministers are not answerable for their actions as members of their parties (Speakers’ ruling 157/4). They do not have ministerial responsibility for their actions or statements as a member of Parliament. However, it is not always easy to distinguish the capacity in which a member is speaking.

As a rule of thumb, if a Minister speaks about a matter that might be interpreted as being Government policy, it will be taken as being a statement in a ministerial capacity, unless the circumstances in which the statement is made would make that interpretation impossible to sustain. In general, it is the subject matter of comments made by a Minister that determine whether he or she, or another Minister, has ministerial responsibility for them, rather than the place in which they were made or the audience to whom they were made.

Where statements are made by Ministers that might be interpreted as being Government policy, it is open to members of the House to test whether, in fact, they are Government policy and to question the Government about them.

I will have this ruling circulated.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—IMF Forecasts

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The International Monetary Fund (IMF) today released its latest annual article 4 report on the New Zealand economy and the Government’s economic plan. The forecasts in the report indicate the economy is expected to grow by about 3 percent a year over the next five years, that unemployment will continue to fall, and that wages will continue to rise above inflation. The IMF said that New Zealand’s economic expansion remains solid and that the economic outlook is favourable.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did the IMF say about how the Government’s economic plan will help drive growth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: IMF staff noted that the Government’s policy agenda seeks to support productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth. They noted how growth-friendly measures in the December mini-Budget and Budget 2018 would help drive this growth. In particular, the IMF said that our research and development tax incentive could be an efficient instrument to support R & D spending in the business sector. They said that tax reform could play an important role in shifting incentives towards broader business investment and that the Provincial Growth Fund could help boost regional growth while taking pressure off the main centres.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did the IMF say about infrastructure investment in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF noted that the current Government has increased spending on infrastructure, but I do acknowledge their comment that we might still see infrastructure gaps continue over the next few years, which goes to show the extent of the infrastructure deficit that this Government inherited. It was interesting to see the IMF comments on rail, notably that there are important gaps in New Zealand’s rail infrastructure. These gaps did not appear over the last nine months. Since the IMF’s report was finalised, the coalition Government has announced a record 10-year nationwide transport infrastructure investment—$4 billion next year—which reintroduces rail into New Zealand’s productivity and economic growth story.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the finance Minister this: with respect to the IMF’s alternative executive director for New Zealand, Grant Johnston—what was his connection with New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Grant Johnston, who—

SPEAKER: Order! I don’t think that relates—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He wrote the report.

SPEAKER: Well—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I help you in this matter by—

SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t—in fact, I don’t think the Acting Prime Minister can. I think that all of us know the oft-repeated Speakers’ rulings about using Government supplementary questions to have a crack at the Opposition, and while not all members of the House might be familiar with the direction that the Minister of Finance is being invited to take, it is one which is not appropriate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, I think that a member of Parliament should be entitled to set out the CV and the public esteem both here and internationally of someone who wrote the report. That, surely, is not a malicious political position to take. So can I ask my question, sir?

SPEAKER: The—[Interruption]—I beg your pardon? One thing I’m certain of is that the Hon Ron Mark can’t add to the submissions that have just been made by the Acting Prime Minister, and trying to do so when I’m getting to my feet is most inappropriate. On the question that has been raised by the Acting Prime Minister, I think saying that he’s trying to build the credibility of the report, as opposed to taking a shot of the Opposition, is too long a bow for me to risk.

Economy—Business Confidence and Economic Policy

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister) Sometimes, no.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with David Parker that business confidence surveys are junk?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the way that I just heard a most credible report from the IMF—so independent and so far removed from New Zealand, written in the main by the executive director for New Zealand, Grant Johnston, formerly of John Key’s economic advice office—yes, I do agree with Mr Parker’s wise comment.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he disagree with senior bank economists in New Zealand who’ve said, on the back of plummeting business confidence, that the Reserve Bank will need to revise down the GDP growth outlook, and when it comes to what firms are saying about their own activity, it’s a case of, “ignore this information at your peril.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, Mr Robertson, the finance Minister, very clearly put out, in the most succinct and abbreviated and learned fashion, that the IMF disagrees with those comments. They forecast 3 percent growth for the next five years—all right? I hope that member’s still around.

Hon Simon Bridges: So are the ASB, the BNZ, the Westpac, and the ANZ economists wrong about these?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that those accounts written by, in the main, offshore, Aussie-owned banks, are not in the best—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So is the IMF.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no. The IMF, Mr Brownlee, is not owned by the Aussie banks. That was your mistake the last time you were in Government.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I never made any such allegation. That’s besmirching my reputation. The reality is that the IMF operates out of Washington DC.

SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that is not a point of order. It’s—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s ridiculous.

SPEAKER: I suppose that balances it up, doesn’t it—sort of ridiculous each side.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept his Government’s policies such as many working groups, labour law reforms, high fuel taxes, and the shutdown of oil and gas are creating uncertainty in cost and played a role in plummeting business confidence and in the declining GDP growth outlook?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I tell that Leader of the Opposition that there are two very countervailing comments from the market. One is from the mass majority of New Zealanders who are workers, and work confidence and employment confidence has never been so high for a long, long time. And then at the other end of the spectrum, people that are thought—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s why they’re striking!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, look; can you just listen, because you’ll learn something, I assure you. Perhaps not you, Gerry, but the rest will. Can I just say, at the other end of the spectrum you have the stock market, which is back at the new record today as I speak.

Hon Simon Bridges: When you told journalist Richard Harman that “the coalition Government will not ‘blink’ like the Clark Government did when it was faced with the ‘Winter of Discontent’ loss of business confidence in 2000; and said “I believe that some people lost their nerve in that administration and that sadly affected the shape of their economic direction. That was disappointing because they had a chance to do much more in terms of structural change to the economy and they didn’t do it.”, what structural change to the economy does he believe is required?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The very structural change that you are seeing from a very visionary Government in 2018.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I can only say things slowly. You’ll have to wait. Shouting out, “What is that?” after I tell him what its nature is won’t do, and I’m sure his PR advisers have told him to act more leader-like than that, stand up more slowly, be more careful, and try to be a gentleman. Now, if I can help that member, the reality is that this Government is setting out on some serious structural change; namely, to no longer neglect infrastructure, to ensure that the provinces have their real day in this country, to ensure that the ordinary people are the stakeholders in our future—in short, to grow this economy and make sure that the mass majority, not the elite few, are the beneficiaries.

Hon Simon Bridges: So in terms of the core economic, macroeconomic, and prudential policy settings and structural change, what was he referring to?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As Ricky Martin would say, macro, micro, inside, upside, the whole lot.

Hon Simon Bridges: When he said to Anika Moa that the blame started in July 1984 when the free market, a massive experiment, took over with devastating consequences, what policies would he implement to take us back to before then?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you for raising the Anika Moa programme. I think it’s the most popular programme they’ve ever had on television of late, for that night anyway. But the point I was making—and I was making it very clear to her—was that as Rogernomics was beginning here, a man called Keating, under leader Bob Hawke, who knew the market in Australia, was starting. One country took incremental change; the other country had a revolution. The Australians grew 35 percent in real terms greater than us, and imagine what a country we would have been if it hadn’t been for the myopic neoliberal nonsense that his party inherited, even though their best leader at the time told them not to; namely, yours truly.

Hon Simon Bridges: Given his statements about the need for structural reform and given the free market experiment has clearly failed, in his view, since July 1984, does he believe a more command-and-control economy is required?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The present Government, strangely enough, shares a view of the then National Party leader Jim Bolger, who defended the neoliberal experiment but in a recent television interview said that it was wrong; the policies simply didn’t work.

Hon Member: What would he change?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, what we’ve changed is we have our Damascus experience before we start off, not when we end off.

Hon Simon Bridges: Given that he said, though, that structural change is required, that that experiment failed, and that more changes are needed—well, just what are they?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, they were outlined by the Minister of Finance today. He talked about research and development. The IMF recognises that. He’s talking about the provincial recovery and infrastructural investment. The IMF referred to that. The IMF even said that the foreign ownership controls on housing would help the housing situation in New Zealand—all those things there. And I want to know why the National Party economic adviser at the time, who is writing this report, was ignored by the National Party that paid him.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is he concerned that his Government has implemented and proposed policies that will increase the cost of living for New Zealanders by over $100 a week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are not concerned by the constant repetition of the figures and predictions that we’ve disproved in all the days and all the weeks since that member started raising them. It was rubbish then and it’s rubbish on 18 July 2018.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does he say to Treasury analysis that 1.7 million families—that’s 75 percent of New Zealand families—will be worse off by $17 per week as a result of his Families Package compared to the previous Government’s package, which he repealed? [Interruption]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—I don’t have to look at Mr Robertson for an answer to that, because the proposition is baseless, without any foundation. That member has had that debunked every day he’s asked the question, but he keeps on asking it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Treasury’s analysis that 1.7 million families—that’s 75 percent of New Zealand families—will be worse off by $17 per week as a result of his families income package compared to the previous Government’s package, which he repealed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the July offensive that that member is seeking out to make sure is his salvation as a leader, by 18 July, is not going to work. We know the inner machinations of the National Party, and this doomsday critique of the Government is not going to be successful, because what the member has just said is false.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, if he said “doomsday scenarios from the Opposition”, why did he say that dark clouds were coming when he formed the Government back—what was it—in November last year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because some of us can actually read into the future, around the corner. [Interruption] I’m the only person in this House who predicted that Trump would win and Brexit would be successful—not after the event. That was said back then because I had a sense that there was going to be a long, hot summer, that it would affect the economy—and there’s been a downturn. Then you’ve got the dispute between Trump and the Chinese—that may have an effect on our trade. So it’s always wise to understand the people and surroundings you’re dealing with. That’s why I said that.

Hon Simon Bridges: What, then, will be the growth figures for the next couple of years?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the IMF was at pains to point out, if it’s going to be 3 percent for the next five years, it’s just quite possible it’ll be 3 percent every year, or thereabouts.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you for the Winston show!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No trouble; it’s free.

SPEAKER: I just want to check that the Acting Prime Minister and the deputy leader of the National Party have finished. I’d just like to make one other suggestion, and that is that when the leader is asking questions, if the deputy leader doesn’t interject or wave her arms around, it means that people get a clearer understanding of what the leader is asking.

KiwiBuild—Eligibility

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he confident his KiwiBuild policy will support those most in need of assistance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Yes, because the need is great.

Hon Amy Adams: Why is the income cap for KiwiBuild houses set at more than double the average household income, given his stated commitment to help younger generations and middle New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because the need is great, because the housing crisis has reached so far that those earning a combined household income of $180,000 are struggling to buy their first home.

Hon Amy Adams: So does he consider it fair, then, that those on middle and lower household incomes will be competing with people like members of Parliament and senior public servants on an equal footing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure if that would quite work for members of Parliament, given where their combined income might reach, but the truth is that a ballot is the fairest way of dealing with this. The member and I have both experienced the pain of losing out in a ballot, and I can assure her it gets better.

Hon Amy Adams: Isn’t his announcement of a KiwiBuild income cap of $180,000, which makes more than 90 percent of first-home buyers eligible for the 1,000 KiwiBuild homes he hopes to build this year, nothing more than an admission that he can’t deliver affordable houses to lower and middle income families and has had to widen the market to try and ensure KiwiBuild doesn’t become “KiwiFlop”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. What it is an admission of is the scale of the housing crisis in New Zealand, that has seen even those in the sixth to ninth deciles be shut out of being first-home buyers. This is an ambitious programme. New Zealanders know that we’re actually having a go at correcting the first-home buyer market, unlike the previous Government.

Hon Amy Adams: How can he describe KiwiBuild as a home affordability scheme when a first-home buyer with hundreds of thousands of dollars in other assets, or a newly returned citizen who’s lived overseas and paid no taxes here for maybe decades, qualify for a house on the same basis as a struggling local family?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not the policy of this Government to shut New Zealand citizens out from Government programmes.

Hon Amy Adams: So in what circumstances will a KiwiBuild house not go through the ballot but be sold directly to an eligible purchaser, as the materials released today say, despite his press release asserting that every eligible buyer will have an equal chance through the ballot system?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Any houses that go through the ballot will mean that people have an equal say. There is, as the member knows, the buying off the plans initiative that has been developed, and the full details of that will be released in time.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry, I did listen carefully. It was quite a specific question I asked of the circumstances in which the direct sales to purchasers, set out in material released, would apply. We heard about how the ballot works and buying off the plans, but not how that particular pathway for sales to individual purchasers would apply. It’s in their materials; I just asked for clarification.

SPEAKER: I thought I understood, but I think if the Minister just repeated the final part of his answer, that will help clarify.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, the final part of the answer was with reference to the buying off the plans initiative, and I said the final details of that and the overall process will be announced in the near future.

School Buildings—Auckland, New Classrooms

4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What investment in new classrooms for Auckland has the Government announced today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, I announced $49 million for a new primary school and additional classrooms for two other primary schools in Auckland. It’s one of our fastest-growing areas, and this Government is committed to making sure there are enough classrooms that are fit for purpose to keep pace with population growth. The funding announced today is part of a $332 million investment in school property in Budget 2018.

Jo Luxton: How many additional students will benefit from the $49 million for new classrooms in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Twelve hundred students in total will be accommodated from today’s announcement. This includes spaces for 350 students in the rebuild and expansion of Paerata Primary School, 240 students by expanding Waterview Primary School, and 650 students in a brand new school for Scott Point.

Children in State Care—Historical Abuse, Compensation for Serious Offenders

5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent decisions and actions has the Government taken about high tariff offenders?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On the advice of the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Corrections, Minister Davis and myself agreed that compensation claims to serious offenders, including those arising from historical abuse in State care, should be progressed.

Hon Louise Upston: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure no further rapes, murders, assaults are committed by these offenders?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t think I have responsibility for the high-tariff offenders’ offences. My role and responsibility lie with compensation for those who have been victims of abuse in State care, and there are two very separate things going on here that I think that member needs to be very clear about rather than trying to run them together.

Hon Louise Upston: What does she say to the parents of Natasha Hayden, who was murdered in 2005, when they ask, and I quote, “What about the life of the people they’ve killed or molested. What do they get?”

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I want to make it very clear that everybody in this House, from every political party, empathises with victims of crime, particularly the ones who have suffered under horrific crimes, as that member has pointed out. But there are two separate matters here that we are talking about: one is the crime, and these people are not getting compensated for their crime. The issue that we’re talking about here, where the compensation is going, is to where people have been assaulted or abused in State care as children. We have a legal obligation to compensate them if they are found to have their case proven, and as a Government we are committed to abiding by the law.

Hon Louise Upston: What confidence can the public have that these offenders that have recently received large payments from the Ministry of Social Development, on that Minister’s instruction, won’t continue to create more victims of crime?

SPEAKER: Order! That is not an area the Minister has responsibility for.

Hon Louise Upston: What measures has the Minister taken to ensure that funds that are given to New Zealand’s worst offenders will be used appropriately and won’t be used to commit further crime and create more victims?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Every action that this Government has undertaken is within the law. I do need to make the point that National has also always supported compensating these prisoners, so let’s make that clear. However, National wanted restrictions, but all the advice that they were given whilst in Government was that the law wouldn’t allow them to achieve what they wanted. Their plan was a failure. This Government is abiding by the law.

Health Services—Counties Manukau District Health Board Review

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Louise Upston, you have one of your own members asking a question, and continuing a debate when that happens is not a good thing to do.

6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the answer “yes, absolutely” given on his behalf yesterday when I asked him, “Do Ministers, including him, have any responsibility to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately managed by the chief executive of the department that reports to them, when that chief executive was involved in a district health board that was under review and an audit was being provided to that individual as Director-General of Health”; if so, what action has he taken to ensure all conflicts regarding the Beattie Varley review into the Counties Manukau DHB were appropriately managed?

SPEAKER: I have been warned that this, as with a supplementary later, is going to be longer than might normally be allowed.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. The member’s question assumes that there was a conflict to be managed. As the member heard in the House yesterday, my office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). As the member is fully aware, the State Services Commission is looking into the matters that member has raised in this House. If the member has any evidence to back up his claims, I urge him to provide it to the commissioner, as he has been requested to do.

Jami-Lee Ross: When he confirmed, on 16 December, that Beattie Varley were to proceed with the interview process, was he aware that part of Beattie Varley’s terms of reference was to review the remuneration and additional allowances of a former DHB senior executive?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not seen a draft of that review. I have been assured by officials that there is an appropriate process in place and that they will report back to me at the appropriate time.

Jami-Lee Ross: When he confirmed, on 16 December, that interviews were to take place, did he apprise himself of the fact that remuneration and additional allowances were part of the audit that was being reviewed?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was assured by officials that an appropriate process was in place. I don’t see it as the role of the Minister to interfere in an appropriate process, and so I did not interfere.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did he read the memo to him, dated 15 December 2017, from Dr Lester Levy, which specifically referenced inappropriate activity around the “authorisation of salary increases, allowances, and benefits”, which were the subject of the audit that was being reviewed by Beattie Varley? Did he read the memo?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member should not be playing politics while this matter is being looked into by the State Services Commission. If he has any evidence to back up his allegations, he should provide it to the commission, as he has been requested to do.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if he read a memo. I gave the date of the memo and the author of the memo and some subject matter of the memo. He didn’t address anything to do with it.

SPEAKER: And it wasn’t answered.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can’t recall the exact contents of that memo. I tend to read the memos that come through my office, and I am aware that there have been allegations of financial mismanagement at the Counties Manukau DHB. I’ve also been assured by officials that an appropriate process is in place to work through those allegations and that they will report back to me at an appropriate point in time.

Jami-Lee Ross: Was he aware that the internal DHB audit being reviewed by Beattie Varley audited, in part, transactions dating back to 1999, a time period covered by Stephen McKernan as CEO?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the member heard in the House yesterday, my office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau DHB.

Jami-Lee Ross: Has the Minister, when he’s learnt about the Beattie Varley review—and, according to answers given yesterday on his behalf, he’s confirmed an interview process was to proceed—taken any steps to learn about the audit, understand what issues were involved, and ensure all conflicts of interest were managed appropriately, given the time period dated back to when the acting director-general was the CEO of that district health board?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I contest that. My office has been advised that the substance of the draft review does not cover the period of time the previous acting director-general spent as chief executive of Counties Manukau DHB. If the member has any evidence to back up his claims, I urge him to provide it to the commissioner, as he has been requested to do.

Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a memo to the Minister of Health from Dr Lester Levy regarding financial issues at Counties Manukau DHB, dated 15 December 2017.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

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

Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave to table a document which has been redacted to remove the name of a senior executive, subject to review. The title of this document is Salary and Allowance Validation, as part of investigation notes from a regional internal audit, dated 7 May 2017.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

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

Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave for the document I just tabled, entitled Salary and Allowance Validation to be published under the authority of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, that is, in my understanding, a matter for me or a matter for standard arrangements. I want to make absolutely clear that documents worked in a proper manner get the protection of the House with regard to matters of defamation. What I’m not prepared to have is to have the Clerk put in a position of publishing a document as a result of this House taking a decision to publish a document unseen, which might subject the Clerk to defamation, from which he is not protected by the privilege of the House. So the answer to that is I’m not going to put that question to the House.

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did take steps to investigate this matter yesterday. It is my understanding that if the House grants leave for a document to be published under the authority of the House, then privilege does cover that document and the Clerk of the House.

SPEAKER: My suggestion on this one is that the document is tabled and we take a decision tomorrow—when members have been able to see it and I have been able to consider the privilege matter carefully—as to whether or not it should be published. Do members have a problem with that? Normally, you’d stand up, rather than put your hand up.

Jami-Lee Ross: I didn’t want to be knocked down again, Mr Speaker. Could I ask you to give consideration, if not publishing under the authority of the House, to giving this document to the State Services Commissioner?

SPEAKER: Well—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. As a former Minister of State Services, I know where the place is. Something could be delivered to the State Services Commissioner. I don’t think it’s the role of this House to privilege that member with documents being given to the State Services Commissioner. If the member has documents that he thinks the State Services Commissioner should have—[Interruption] Order! Grant Robertson will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: If the member has documents that he thinks the State Services Commissioner should have, he should give them to him directly. If something has been tabled in the House and we take a decision to publish it tomorrow, then it will in that way be available to the State Services Commissioner. But can I just say that I don’t want, without proper notice, this House being used to protect members in matters which might otherwise be defamatory, except as has normally been the case with debates.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, are we in some difficulty now, though, because the House has considered—has the House considered the leave? I think it has.

SPEAKER: I think we’ve got—it’s tabled, but that’s not published. If the Clerk takes a decision around the further—where it goes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is a tabled document not public?

SPEAKER: The short answer to that is it’s certainly not published. It’s the publication that causes the defamation, which is my understanding, although I know that there are people sitting not far away from the member who might have a better understanding than I do.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: $500 an hour, like Winston.

SPEAKER: $5,000 an hour, I thought the member—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, I think it’s a relatively important point—

SPEAKER: It’s a very important point.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and it’s one that might need a little bit more consideration, because as I understand it, once a paper or anything gets tabled in the House, it becomes publicly available.

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No one can—people can’t go into the Bills Office and ask for it?

SPEAKER: I’ll just make that point absolutely clear. It has been my experience that Clerks of the House have taken decisions not to make publicly available documents that have been tabled.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: And is that the case here?

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, look, I think the sensitivity here is clearly that the member who has just sought the leave of the House to table it does not want to put himself in a position where he can be muzzled by some legal action. Quite clearly, he has tried to do something that he believes—and I certainly believe—is in the public interest, but it would be unfortunate if in trying to do that, the procedures of the House put him into a position of some difficulty with some potential legal action being brought against him, which could see at least a muzzling of this issue for a time and a closure of any discussion of it for a time. We’d like to know that the process that you’ve outlined, which is that it is tabled today and then considered for publication tomorrow, which would grant the member a certain amount of—well, it would grant privilege. Can we just make sure that in the intervening 24 hours, it’s not going to be a problem?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I want to deal with—I think there are two matters that are here that I want to deal with. The first one is to make it absolutely clear that the member tabling a document here is protected by the privilege of the House, but the further circulation by any person is not protected. I will refer members to Speakers’ ruling 146/1. I’m not going to read the whole thing out, but I’ll read out the important part of it: “Therefore, the Clerk’s Office will not make a document tabled by leave available, other than to members, where it contains material that is known to be the subject of a court suppression order; the purpose of which is clearly and primarily to defame; that is pornographic; or that is confidential to a select committee. Ideally, the House would not allow such documents to be tabled by leave in the first place. If they are, the member has the option of clarifying the status of the document in order that the Clerk’s Office may safely release it, or the member can take responsibility for its release himself or herself.”—146/1. All right. Mr Hipkins, did you have another point of order? OK. I think we’ve—and does the member have any further supplementaries? Right.

Consumer Credit—Review of Lending Practices

7. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is the Government doing to address predatory lending practices?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last week, I released a discussion paper outlining findings from the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). The Government is looking at measures to protect consumers, including a cap on interest rates and fees, strengthening enforcement and penalties for irresponsible lending, and introducing more prescriptive requirements for affordability assessments and advertising. These predatory practices, often targeted at the most vulnerable, are trapping families in high-stress debt spirals that are causing harm and distress.

Paul Eagle: What evidence has he heard that suggests the 2015 amendment to the CCCFA did not go far enough?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The review confirmed what I’ve heard across New Zealand, that widespread levels of inappropriate lending, including lenders charging up to 800 percent annual interest, offering loans that are clearly unaffordable, and lashing people with huge penalties and fees, has continued. I have heard from people facing this insidious and crippling debt, from budget advisors and social agencies doing what they can to help, and from across the financial sector. Without exception, there has been acknowledgement that the 2015 reforms did not go far enough, and they support this Government’s action to stop these predatory practices.

Paul Eagle: What are the next steps the Government will be taking in credit reform?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Public consultation on the discussion paper is open until 1 August, and I urge anyone who has been affected by predatory lending or debt collection practices to have their say. I also want lenders in the financial sector to submit. We do not plan to stop people lending, so we do want to hear how we can both keep people safe in borrowing and support honest business. The Government will be looking to make policy decisions later this year to finally address these practices that have gone unchallenged for far too long.

Business Confidence—Reliability and Reports

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he still stand by his statement to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that business confidence surveys are “junk”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): No, because the member is misquoting me. I was referring to the correlation of the ANZ Business Outlook survey to GDP. The ANZ business confidence headline measure is a poor predictor of economic growth. I stand by that view, because the survey has just a 20 percent correlation with economic growth since 2000—that’s close to two decades of data. Other data with greater merit for forecasting economic growth include consumer confidence and employee confidence, and I was even told on the way to the House today that the number of points conceded by the Canterbury Crusaders in each season in Super Rugby since 1996 has a stronger correlation to economic growth than the ANZ survey.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I seek leave to table a document which is a transcript of the Estimates hearing—

SPEAKER: So is the member seeking to—now, I just want to—is it a corrected transcript?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s uncorrected, this one.

SPEAKER: All right. Is there any objection to that document, which would normally be available when the committee reports, being available now? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think the opinions of business leaders matter?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. And, for example, I share the concern of some businesses about rising protectionism. It’s why we’re pursuing an ambitious trade agenda to lift exports and export growth, but I would note that the problem with using confidence surveys rather than real economic data is that some of the surveys significantly understate growth prospects under Labour-led Governments while overstating growth prospects under National Governments. That is a proven fact, not an opinion.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that the opinions of business leaders as expressed in business confidence surveys are junk—exactly what he did say—or they matter; which is it?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I said that the particular measure that I spoke of, which was the ANZ one that I referred to in the first answer to the primary question, was junk, because it is junk as far as it is to be seen as a predictor of economic growth, which is what the member presents it as.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m asking you to advise us as to what the member should do who is told by another member, Mr Goldsmith, that he wishes to table a document, believing that he’s going to prove or otherwise that the Minister did make the statement, and when it’s consented to, which we have done, then doesn’t use the transcript that he has from the select committee but carries on as before. Mr Parker said, “I didn’t say that.” and when we consented to him to table that document, we either want to hear the proof that he was right or that he was wrong.

SPEAKER: The member has until midnight—or the end of the sitting time at least today to table the document. Mr Parker did not indicate that he did not use that word. [Interruption] Mr Parker did not indicate that he did not use that word. He indicated that the circumstances in which it was used differed from the way that had been alleged.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I seek leave of the House to read the transcript.

SPEAKER: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he interpret the Minister of Finance’s statement this morning on Radio New Zealand, “I take all business surveys seriously” as a rebuke or as a belated effort to repair the Government’s relationships with business after his “junk” comments?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t. I listened to that interview and I thought the Minister of Finance handled it very well, and made the points—not that he needed my affirmation, but he made similar points to those which I’ve already made.

Tamati Coffey: What correlation is there between increased confidence in the ANZ Business Outlook survey and exports declining as a percentage of GDP?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s interesting to note the correlation between increasing confidence in the ANZ business confidence survey and falling exports as a percentage of GDP under the last Government. Despite setting a target of raising exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP, the last Government let exports fall to 27 percent—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This is in exactly the area that we’ve discussed with the Acting Prime Minister recently, and I’m going to protect him the way that I’ve protected other Ministers.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he rate as junk the ANZ’s conclusion this morning, regarding the fall in job ads by 1.2 percent over the quarter, that, “Recent deterioration in business expectations of activity and hiring intentions appear to be flowing through into job ads.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Minister of Finance just brought to my attention, they’re up year on year, and I also note that we’ve got low unemployment, we’ve got dropping unemployment, we’ve got economic growth, we’ve got a Budget surplus, and we’ve got a report from the IMF that says that the prospects are very good. I suggest that the member stop trying to talk down the economy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Acting Prime Minister’s comments today in a Politik article in relation to business confidence, “We said on the night of going into coalition with Labour that there was going to be a possible blip on the horizon because [of] all those years of slow growth, but [it’s] getting better … It’s almost inevitable. You can see it in the Bible for goodness sake.”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No—order! Sorry, I think the technicians thought the member had finished. So the member can continue from after the quote, but get to the end of the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes—and if so, does he have any insight into how the Bible can explain the current low levels of business confidence?

Hon David Parker: Whilst I went to a youth group as a child, I am an atheist. Therefore, I don’t pretend to be a current expert on the Bible. But, in respect of the sentiments other than those biblical, I absolutely agree with him.

Education—Charter Schools, NCEA, and Primary Teachers’ Industrial Action

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding students and teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his statement that he will work in a way that respects and engages iwi given Sir Toby Curtis’ statement today: “If the Minister hasn’t gone to the schools to talk to the people in the schools, if the Minister hasn’t gone and spoken to the parents, if the ministry hasn’t gone to the schools and talked properly to the teachers, if the ministry hasn’t done their job properly, I’m left with no other view than that this is a process of bullying that we have never had or experienced in this country.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: yes, absolutely, because this Government believes that Māori students, regardless of where they’re going to school, are entitled to a world-class education so that they can fulfil their full potential. Where I differ from the quotation of the member—I don’t think Māori students should have to leave the public education system in order to get the quality of education they deserve.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he commit to asking the Education and Workforce Committee to urgently take out provisions from the Education Amendment Bill that remove the partnership school model in light of the claim in front of the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with Sir Toby Curtis, who, when asked about what he would want to say to him and the Prime Minister regarding partnership schools, said that “this is a situation that calls for a bit of aroha”; and where is the love for these students that he won’t even bother visiting?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I do agree with the member that, in fact, in all of the decisions we make about education we should show a little bit of aroha, and I am currently considering the applications of the existing charter schools to become State schools, and I am not going to make comment on that while that process is ongoing.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he take responsibility for his actions and start listening given a large group of principals have given him a “fail” mark on NCEA, primary teachers are striking for the first time in 24 years, and there is a claim lodged in the Waitangi Tribunal alleging multiple breaches by him and the Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll answer all three of those things. But, first, this Government is going to great lengths to listen to all New Zealanders’ views when it comes to education, and we keep being criticised by the Opposition for doing so, who seem to alternate between saying we’re consulting too much and alternating between saying we’re not consulting enough. With regard to the threat of strike action by the primary teachers, this Government is not responsible for the current pay and conditions that the teachers are dissatisfied with. All of those agreements were reached under the previous Government. With regard to charter schools, this Government’s position on charter schools has been very clear from the beginning. And, with regard to the NCEA, we are listening to everyone with regard to the NCEA. I have spoken to some of the principals who have been signatories to that advertisement that appeared in the newspaper and they made it very clear to me their view, to almost directly quote one of the principals who I spoke to, that the principals should have been consulted first, they should have come up with the recommendations, the Government should have given them feedback on that, and then the principals should have made the decision. The Government disagrees with that approach.

Animal Welfare—Animal Abuse in Farming Sector

10. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What extra steps, if any, are MPI taking to ensure animal abuse in the farming sector is identified and addressed effectively and without delay, following the footage released over the last week by SAFE and Farmwatch?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture): The video footage pertaining to the Northland farmer released by Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) and Farmwatch is currently being investigated by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI). Last week, I announced by Framework for Action on Animal Welfare in New Zealand. It identifies four pillars: an independent voice in animal welfare; transparency and inclusive decision-making; strengthening codes across all uses of animals, ensuring they set high standards and underpinned by effective monitoring and enforcement; and capacity-building to ensure that people have the skills and capacity to meet animal welfare standards. I am engaging with the Chief Executives Forum so they are clear on my expectations that they will provide industry leadership, as well as being involved in the development of the framework.

Gareth Hughes: Does she agree that this case highlights the need to establish an independent commissioner for animals to promote oversight of welfare issues and to be a voice for animals?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Since becoming the Minister responsible for animal welfare, I have heard many views on animal welfare calling for an independent voice for animal welfare, including at my recent animal advocates hui in June. My framework for action outlines the need for an independent voice for animal welfare to ensure advice on animal welfare is future thinking, timely, trusted, and well-informed. As part of this, Cabinet will consider the possibility of establishing an independent voice such as an animal welfare commissioner.

Gareth Hughes: Will she consider amending the law to allow CCTV surveillance on farms and slaughterhouses, as is happening in France, the UK, and Israel, or promote the use of cameras with landowner permission, as is currently allowed under the law?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: At present, the current legislation does not allow MPI or any other law enforcement agency to trespass and install covert cameras on private property for any offence under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. There is currently no Government policy on the use of permitted cameras on farms, but my expectation is for the industry to step up and ensure there is support to identify animal welfare issues, and that the appropriate avenues to report such issues are available.

Gareth Hughes: Will she consider whistleblowing protections for workers who make complaints about animal abuse?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: There are confidential hotlines for farmers and workers who can provide information on potential animal welfare offences. The Protected Disclosures Act exists to encourage employees and contractors to report serious wrongdoing, including criminal offending in the workplace, and provide protection to whistle-blowers. In the case of potential animal cruelty, contractors and employees on farms should report this immediately to MPI as the appropriate authority to investigate. My expectation is industries support those farmers they represent at the farm gate in understanding what the rights and avenues for reporting animal welfare issues are. My animal welfare framework for action will address these situations further.

Gareth Hughes: Will she request a ramp up of random and repeat inspections for farms subject to complaints?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I’m informed by MPI there are currently 183 active investigations under way involving animal welfare, with 23 animal welfare inspectors across New Zealand, 4.9 million milking cows alone, with 14 million hectares of farmland in New Zealand to cover. I will assure, through my framework, the capacity for effective and timely enforcement is accounted for. This work is currently being developed.

Gareth Hughes: Does she agree that New Zealand shouldn’t be reliant on animal welfare groups such as SAFE and Farmwatch to gather evidence on animal abuses?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Cruelty to animals is not accepted by any New Zealander across the country. I want to thank those animal advocate groups who have stepped up, but like I said in my former answers, industry also has to play its role to ensure that no animal cruelty is allowed on any of our farms, in our homes, or wherever we have animals.

SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, I have been advised that there’s been a fire alarm in the Beehive, and, as a result of that, that building is currently being evacuated. I want to indicate that I’m also advised that there is no indication yet of there actually being a fire, but can I make a suggestion to members who would normally go back that way that they might be entertained and stay for at least the first part of the general debate until that matter is clarified.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development

11. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does he believe his conduct in respect of the proposed exemption for the Te Ārai property development from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill meets the standards expected of a competent Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): Yes, and again I note for the benefit of the member that it is the Prime Minister that is responsible for assessing whether my conduct meets the standards expected of a Minister.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the following version of events in respect of Te Ārai correct, and, if not, which part is incorrect? Sometime in January, shortly after the tangi of Russell Kemp, Shane Jones met with John Darby, Ric Kayne, and iwi. Then, sometime after that meeting, he discussed an exemption for Te Ārai with Shane Jones and Kelvin Davis—and that neither man made any mention of Ric Kayne or John Darby being involved in the development, just mentioning the iwi. Then on 19 March, he received official Treasury advice, which, for the first time, informed him of the interests of non-iwi developers in the land, and which opposed allowing an exemption for Te Ārai. And then, three days later, not having taken steps to verify the actual extent of iwi ownership in the land, he recommended an exemption for Te Ārai to a Cabinet committee, and this was formally approved by Cabinet on 3 April?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and it’s inaccurate in a number of ways.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he consider it to be an acceptable standard of conduct for a Minister to take a paper to Cabinet recommending land be exempted from the laws of New Zealand due its particular ownership, without knowing the details of the ownership of that land?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In general terms, yes. I have admitted as a matter of detail that it would have been better if we had more information as to the beneficial ownership of some of the lots. I have noted to the House previously, however, that the golf course, the forestry land, the sand mine areas of more than five hectares, and other areas of sensitive land would not have been affected by the exemption.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did he include former Ngāti Manuhiri land in the proposed exemption to the bill, that he has repeatedly claimed was only made to protect Treaty settlement assets, given that Ngāti Manuhiri no longer own the land and haven’t owned it for several years?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve released the Treasury advice to me and the Cabinet paper. It is clear that the motivation for this was the concern about the diminution in value of the iwi assets. There was concern amongst Treasury and other advisers, including Te Puni Kōkiri, that we not create a precedent that said that there wasn’t an article 1 right for the Crown to do as we have done, that we emphasise that it was being done in the interests of fairness, essentially, and that’s what we did.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just seek to clarify? The Minister referenced then releasing the Treasury advice, which hasn’t to date been released. Is he, in that answer, therefore now releasing that information?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That information was released yesterday, and it’s been available to the member since then. Indeed, it’s been released in its totality and there weren’t even redactions made in respect of legal advice for which we could have claimed privilege.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell us as to what reports he has seen that say that the people behind the primary question on the Te Ārai exception are Steven Joyce, Sir John Key, Michelle Boag, and Wayne Eagleson, who made the submission in the first place?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen those reports. It is also true that I made my decision on the basis of the documentary record and my involvement in it, and I think that the documents show consistency with the answers that I have given in this House.

Hon Amy Adams: Did any member of his ministerial office have any written or oral communication with any member of the lobbying firm Thompson Lewis about the Te Ārai development, and whether during or after the time a principle of that firm was engaged as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The only correspondence that I’m aware of was that there was an unsolicited email, which copied submissions at two different stages to my office, to my parliamentary email. That email wasn’t brought to my attention or responded to by me or anyone else in my office.

Police—Appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Police

12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Was he told of the comments made by Wally Haumaha to the 2004 Operation Austin inquiry that Louise Nicholas’ allegations were “nonsense” and that “nothing really happened and we have to stick together” during the appointment process for Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police; if not, when did he first learn about those comments?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Acting Minister of Police) In relation to the first part of the question, no. In relation to the second part of the question, the Hon Stuart Nash was told on Thursday, 28 June.

Chris Bishop: What did he mean this morning when he said on Newstalk ZB, “To be honest, I probably would have done things differently. I would have undertaken a bit of due diligence myself, made a couple of calls and had a couple of discussions with a few key people?”; and does that mean that he would not have appointed Mr Haumaha if he was aware of the comments made by him in relation to Operation Austin?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Those were questions that the Hon Stuart Nash made in response to—so they were answers in response to questions asked of the Hon Stuart Nash. In any event, the Government has commissioned an independent inquiry into this matter, and it is not in the public interest for me to provide any further response.

Chris Bishop: How was he not aware of the comments made by Mr Haumaha, when Louise Nicholas raised concerns a year ago with police that his appointment as assistant commissioner would, in her words, “come back to bite police in the arse”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I said, in response to the primary question, the Hon Stuart Nash was told of the specifics of the comments attributed to Mr Haumaha on 28 June; that is, last Thursday. The matter is now the subject of an independent Government inquiry and it’s not in the public interest for me to comment any further.

Virginia Andersen: What actions has the police undertaken to change police culture since Operation Austin and the inquiry?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Police is now a fundamentally better organisation than the one described by the commission of inquiry in 2007. As Dame Margaret Bazley herself has said, the police has made a colossal change. Over the last 10 years, under the current and previous commissioners, women now make up 50 percent of district commanders, and they are increasingly entering senior ranks. The police can always do better and that’s why we’re pushing for greater diversity amongst the force.

Chris Bishop: Did the Rt Hon Winston Peters disclose to him during the appointment process of Mr Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner that he was a former New Zealand First candidate?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have provided all the evidence that that statement is not correct. He can go to the Electoral Commission if he likes. He can get the evidence but not come down here and, like the rest of his questions, just repeat baseless innuendo which is false. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, I am prepared to rule, and that is that there is again something which is longstanding but often ignored, and that is that when statements are made, they should be authenticated. Now, we have had in this House a very clear statement to the contrary from a member without parliamentary responsibility but with responsibility as a party leader on that matter. So I am ruling the question out of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Doesn’t the essence of what you’ve just ruled mean that Mr Peters should in fact authenticate the claim he makes that the man was not a candidate? When we have relied on, firstly, a local newspaper celebrating his success as being appointed New Zealand First’s candidate, which was only withdrawn—

SPEAKER: OK, and subsequent to that we’ve had a very clear statement from the Acting Prime Minister that the newspaper article was inaccurate. We’ve had the word of the member, which, while it was not done in a formal setting like a primary answer, must be taken. Unless the member has any evidence to the contrary—and I think evidence about who are candidates and who are not candidates is very easily obtained—then I’m going to stay with my ruling, and that is that we will accept the word of the Acting Prime Minister that the particular individual was not a candidate.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Would it be reasonable in this circumstance, then, for the question to be reworded, with the gentleman concerned referred to as a New Zealand First party member who was seeking candidacy?

SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to do that, he may, but he doesn’t get an extra question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the House is being invited to do now is to go beyond the privacy provisions that there are in the electoral law of this country, which mean a person can be a member of a party and that is confidential to the party, not to the whole country. Mr Brownlee, in his naivety, gets up and he suggests we go past the privacy provisions of the electoral law in this country and enrolment in this country and party membership in this country just because he wants to indulge himself.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s an unreasonable characterisation. It’s quite unreasonable.

SPEAKER: I’m now going to rule that this whole discussion is hypothetical, because National have used up all of their supplementaries and there is not an opportunity to reword anything anyway.

Speaker’s Statements

Fire—Executive Wing

SPEAKER: Can I inform members that there was, in fact, an actual fire on the ground floor of the Beehive. It has now been extinguished, but my understanding is that the Beehive is still currently evacuated while further checks are occurring. For any members who want to go to Bowen House, my advice would be that they go outside. The Beehive is not yet available for people to go back into.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

It’s a great pleasure to speak. On average, 384,000 families are now better off by $65 a week, 64,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, and 26,000 more families now benefit from Working for Families. Under the Best Start scheme, there is $60 a week for newborn babies born from Sunday—actually, born a little earlier if they were expected after Sunday, but because of the nature of these things, sometimes they come a little earlier. One million New Zealanders are now benefiting from a winter energy payment, all because of this side of the House. This Government believes that elderly and low-income people should not go cold during the worst months of winter. That’s the difference between members on this side of the House—this coalition Government—and members on that side of the House, who did not care when they were told, month after month, of people in poverty, people deprived, and people not in their own homes. They did nothing.

I want to say how very proud I am to be part of a Government that has, in a very short space of time, exhibited what it means to be compassionate in Government, what it means to be caring, and what it means to understand the plight of so many ordinary New Zealanders who have only ever asked for a chance to get ahead, who have only ever asked for the rules to let them have a chance to look after themselves and their families—that’s what this Government is delivering.

If it’s not enough just on those income support measures—just on those measures to offer a little extra assistance, to redistribute the wealth of this great country, to give those who have missed out for too long a chance—then let’s look at housing. Isn’t it fantastic that today—just today—when our amazing and very humble Minister of Housing and Urban Development launched the website by which you can register your interest in a KiwiBuild home, within two hours, 1,100 New Zealanders were lining up to get a KiwiBuild house. That tells you what we knew all along: that there was a crisis in housing in New Zealand—something that members opposite spent year after year after year denying. There has been a crisis, and this Government is fixing it. That’s what you do when you’re compassionate and you care and you understand the plight of ordinary New Zealanders.

It has been a great day. We are committed to 100,000 affordable homes over a 10-year period. The counting started on Sunday; we are well under way. I don’t quite know why it is that so many of the first ones are being built in the electorates of members opposite. We don’t normally like to rub their noses in it and say “We told you so.”, but hey, you know, we are generous to a T, and that is us, too.

You see, the difference is palpable. We inherited a country where income inequality and income disparity were getting worse and worse. People could not get pay increases; people’s incomes did not keep up with the real cost of living. Now we’re doing something about it. So I don’t see the expressions of concern now from the nurses and the teachers and others as anything other than an expression of their hope, that now they know they’ve got a chance. Now, they know they’ve got a Government that’s on their side, that’s going to give them a chance, that takes a long view, and that is about restoring the status and the standing of teachers, because that profession is so vital to the future of New Zealand and future generations of New Zealanders.

This is a Government that in nine short months has established an enviable record of achievement. We are putting New Zealand back on its feet. More to the point, we are putting New Zealanders back on their feet, putting them back where they belong, putting them back with a chance to get ahead, and giving them a sense of hope once again. I feel it wherever I go, and I am very proud to have as the Prime Minister of my country and of a Government that I am a part of a woman who has shown what it means to be compassionate, shown what it means to be understanding, shown what it means to be humble. She is doing what tens of thousands of working women have done for many decades—gone off and become a mum—and is still leading this country with values, with caring, with principles.

This is a proud time to be a New Zealander. This is a proud time to be part of this coalition Government. We’re doing great things.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Nine months into this Government, we are seeing a level of arrogance and dismissiveness and know-everything that I haven’t seen in a Government just this early on, and what an appalling attitude to process. This is a Government that thinks it knows so much better than everyone else, that process is a mere inconvenience to be swept aside when it doesn’t suit. The dismissive attitude to anyone who doesn’t agree with them, who’s simply just “wrong”, is appalling and, as I say, contemptuous of New Zealanders who do have an interest in what happens in this country.

Let’s have a look at the examples. You’ve got the oil and gas decision, where the finance Minister didn’t even bother to ask Treasury what the economic impact might be. The energy Minister didn’t bother to take the advice that she was given about the actual emissions profile impact of that. We’ve got a police Minister who hasn’t bothered to read advice given to him by his police commissioner, because, of course, Stuart Nash knows so much more about policing than the police commissioner ever would. And we’ve got a corrections Minister who isn’t actually sure if he’s read the advice. He hadn’t read it; he had read it; he’s not really sure; but, anyway, apparently it doesn’t matter—look over there, there’s a squirrel!

But, actually, one of the worst examples I’ve seen of this appalling approach to process is in this rapidly unravelling situation around Te Ārai development. This is important because you have here one developer of a multimillion-dollar piece of land selling sections almost exclusively to wealthy foreigners being carved out of a piece of legislation. Now, any time a Government says “Actually, here is the law, but this one developer shouldn’t be subject to it.”, of course there are going to be questions as to why. So we asked the questions: well, why is that—why does this Government want to carve out this exemption? And, actually, we’ve heard a number of interesting stories.

But before I get into that, I do think it’s worth making this very clear: on this side of the House, we’ve got no problem with these developments. We do recognise the value of foreign money coming in to grow our businesses, to grow our economy, to build more houses for New Zealanders, and, actually, we also recognise that sometimes having wealthy foreigners coming here creates real prosperity for this country, and it certainly doesn’t impact housing affordability for New Zealanders. So we don’t have a problem. But what we wouldn’t be doing is passing a law saying “It’s not OK for anyone but just this one group that we’ve carved out.” with very real questions around it. That is our concern. No problem with the development, but the process is hugely dubious.

This is a Government that has railed against any sort of foreign money into development, any sort of foreign ownership. So why would you carve out these properties? Well, Mr Parker said on a number of occasions, on Morning Report and repeatedly in this House, that he had to do it to avoid a Treaty breach—this was an iwi settlement asset, so it had to be carved out because otherwise there could well have been a Treaty breach. According to Mr Parker, he didn’t know there were other developers involved in this property for quite some time.

Well, I find that incredibly hard to believe, because let’s run through what we do know: Shane Jones told this House that in the middle of January, he was meeting with those very developers—meeting with John Darby, meeting with Ric Kayne—and he knew absolutely that they were involved in the development. The Finance and Expenditure Committee submission on 15 February made it very clear that John Darby and Ric Kayne were involved in this development. The New Zealand Herald article that came out on 5 March made it very clear that this was a Ric Kayne development, and yet the Minister in charge of the legislation claimed no one bothered to tell the very Minister in charge of the law about any of that until, apparently, mid-March, when Treasury, we understand, told Mr Parker, “Oh, yes, there are some other developers involved in the land. Not really sure how much they own. By the way, we don’t think the exemption should go ahead.” And yet, still Mr Parker is claiming that the reason it went ahead was to protect an iwi asset, to protect against a Treaty breach, and apparently it was the Treasury advice he relied upon in reaching that decision.

So I’m going to be very interested to see that Treasury advice and see exactly what it says—and isn’t it interesting how long it’s taken to come out? So even when Mr Parker found out there were other developers involved, which was before the paper went to Cabinet, did he then ask the obvious question: how much of the land is iwi-owned; how much is owned by developers? No. Today, in the House, he admits, himself, that that is not up to the standard we should expect of our Ministers, and that’s the only thing I agree with Mr Parker on—that is not up to the standard we should expect. This is a process that has a lot more questions to answer.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is just the beginning. This is a compassionate Government that is making meaningful change; making meaningful difference to make people’s lives better. That is an Opposition that is desperate; that is tilting at windmills. This is a Government that has delivered a transformational Families Package, which follows a foundational Budget, which will build a stronger economy and restore critical public services. This is a Government that is doing its job. This is a Government that is doing the right thing.

On the Prime Minister’s Facebook page this week, following the transformational Families Package, comments from the members of the public: “Leading by decency.”, “Wow!”, “Thank you, it’ll make a huge difference to families including ours.”, “Finally, a Government that cares.”, and “So impressed. Thank you for helping us out, Jacinda. Much love from my family of three kids, five pets, and a hard-working fiancé while I look after the home.”

This is a Government that cares about people. It will deliver for parents with the Best Start payment; for children by increasing the rate of the orphans benefit, unsupported child’s benefit, and foster care allowance; students, with the increases in accommodation allowances; superannuitants, with the costs of heating their homes over winter with the winter energy payment. And it will be done while taking account of our ambitious programme, which will meet Budget responsibility rules.

What does the Opposition say? Simon Bridges says he’s for the Families Package but also that he opposes it. He criticises the main elements but won’t commit to removing them. He says it’s not targeted enough; he also says it’s targeted to only a few people. The National Party also doesn’t support the universal winter energy payment, but does support universal superannuation payments. They need to say what they actually stand for.

I want to refer back to why it is so important that we have this winter energy payment. I want to refer back to 2011—seven years ago—when a fundamentally important piece of research was released out of the University of Victoria and the University of Otago which revealed that a quarter of New Zealand households were estimated to be in fuel poverty. They said, “New Zealand has a poor history of housing regulation, so existing houses are often poorly insulated and rental properties are not required to have insulation or heating. Average indoor temperatures are cold by international standards and occupants regularly report they are cold, because they can’t afford to heat their houses. Fuel poverty is thought to be a factor in New Zealand’s high rate of excess winter mortality—16 percent, about 1,600 deaths a year—and excess winter hospitalisations, at 8 percent.” What shame that was. That was seven years ago. Now, making money available for insulation is absolutely important, but addressing the issue of fuel poverty—people not being able to afford to heat their homes—is absolutely critical. That’s what this winter energy payment delivers.

I’ve lost count of the homes I’ve visited where the elderly stay in bed until the afternoon, where children are admitted to hospital every single year because there are holes in the walls, because there are gaps between the windows and the outside, where there’s mould on the walls, and where people air their homes. They air their homes and there’s still black mould on the walls. That is why the winter energy payment of $450 for singles and $700 for couples is so critical to begin to address these issues—to keep those 40,000 children that are admitted to hospital every year out of hospital. This is just the beginning: a warrant of fitness for rental housing, more State housing, more affordable housing, an increase in the accommodation supplement, which will benefit 135,000 households, and the urban renewal of poor-quality housing. This is a compassionate, determined Government that knows what it stands for.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Last week, I raised in the House matters involving the Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB) and an internal audit into unauthorised and excessive uses of public funds at the DHB, dating between 1999 and 2016. I’m going to continue raising questions in the House about that audit and how it’s been handled by the Minister and the Ministry of Health. These are not so much allegations; they’re questions based off reports that I hold in my possession.

On 15 December last year, the then chair of the Counties Manukau DHB, Lester Levy, wrote to David Clark, highlighting concerns about management and financial practices which the board had commissioned an internal audit on. Dr Levy’s memo to the Minister outlined that the board was concerned about a range of matters, including how salary increases, allowances, and benefits paid to a former senior executive were authorised. The internal audit report was subsequently reviewed by a Ministry of Health - led review carried out by forensic accountants Beattie Varley, Deloitte, and the former Solicitor-General Michael Heron QC.

On 12 December, Dr Levy had also written to the State Services Commissioner and Ministry of Health asking for assistance. Dr Levy wrote that “Because of the very serious and troubling nature of these issues, we consider it of the utmost importance that the review process gains greater momentum.” In reply to Dr Levy, the State Services Commissioner wrote back on 20 December, saying, “The scope and nature of the review relies on utilising the Director-General of Health’s powers.” This is an important point.

I raise these particular considerations because the Minister of Health has stated in the House that the acting Director-General of Health, Stephen McKernan, raised the Beattie Varley review with him as Minister. I’ve consistently asked in this House what steps the Minister took to ensure any conflicts of interest were appropriately managed. I’m going to continue asking those questions.

The Beattie Varley review that Mr McKernan discussed with the Minister was a review of the DHB’s own internal audit. Some of the very serious and troubling issues in that audit involved salary transactions that were not properly authorised or were excessive or inappropriate. Part of the suite of documents making up the internal audit was a document I tabled today, entitled “Salary and Allowance Validation”. It’s essentially a list of every salary and allowance change relating to a senior executive that was audited. This document highlights every time a salary or allowance did not properly comply with the board’s internal procedures or standard accounting practices. There is a specific column where the auditor notes if the salary or allowance received authorisation properly. For each year between 2002 and 2006, the auditor found salary increases that were approved by Mr McKernan and were not properly authorised. In 2003 and 2005, the auditor found at-risk payments that were approved by Mr McKernan and were not properly authorised. In 2005, the auditor found that 168 hours of annual leave and education leave for the senior executive were cashed in with approval from Mr McKernan, which, according to the auditor, a legal opinion did not support. In 2006, the auditor found a one-time payment approved by Mr McKernan for the senior executive, which the auditor labelled “unusual” as well as not being properly authorised.

We know that all these issues were being reviewed by Beattie Varley, because in the letter I tabled yesterday regarding terms of reference, they specifically state that they believe their instructions to include “review the remuneration of the senior executive, including the receipt of additional allowances, travel allowances, and other vehicle leasing arrangements without proper authorisation”. These fundamental questions must be answered. If Mr McKernan was the chief executive during the time in question and he was named in the audit documents, and those documents were then reviewed utilising the powers of the director-general, when he became director-general, did he take any measures to ensure the conflicts were managed appropriately?

We also need to know why the Minister, who was apprised of these issues as far back as December by Lester Levy, did not ensure conflicts were properly managed. We need to know why Mr McKernan was discussing the review with the Minister, given his name appeared in the audit documents.

I’ve consistently asked in the House whether the Minister took steps to ensure conflicts of interest were appropriately managed. Dr Levy raised these with the Minister in December, the Auditor-General raised these with the Minister in January, Rabin Rabindran raised these in person in the Minister’s office in March, and Mark Darrow, a former board member, raised these in a letter with the Minister in April. The Minister knew as far back as December. The Minister has received information about the internal audit. The Minister has a responsibility to New Zealanders to ensure conflicts are properly managed. I submit that he answers these questions to New Zealanders.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Madam Speaker—Mr Speaker; I forgot boys can be Speakers too in this House. I ask the House: when is income not income? And the High Court this week, in the past couple of days, has ruled: when it is debt, that is not income.

Ms F has challenged the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for eight years—eight years of scrutinising and intrusive looking into her life and her financial transactions—to come to a common-sense outcome that debt is not income. Ms F—we protect her identity. I’m very glad about this, in the public environment now, on this news, yet for eight years, her privacy has not been protected at all. Five years of having every single financial transaction judged because MSD wanted to—they smelt blood and they were out to get her. And they kept moving the goalposts. Whenever it turned out that there was nothing to see here, they moved on to something else, and they kept doing this. And, for eight years—living under a dark cloud of threat of crippling debt on top of debt that Ms F already had—MSD were trying to make her pay back over $100,000 of debt.

This is a hangover from nine years of a punitive National Government who directed public agencies to be punitive, to hunt for scalps, to search for blood. This is the outcome of a public agency spending a lot of time and money to go after one of our citizens where there was nothing to go after.

Now, we’re going to change that. We are going to ensure that we overhaul that culture of Work and Income and of all of our public agencies and ensure that the public have faith and confidence in our Public Service organisations. We don’t want to keep hearing consistently about decisions that have been made by our public agencies that have imposed hurt upon trauma, and we need a system change and attitude change.

I am very grateful to Ms F for even having the tenacity to put up with years and years of court to push it through. We know she wasn’t just the tip of the iceberg of who this has happened to; she’s the pin on top of the tip of the very large iceberg of who this has happened to. Many thousands of people over many years, even at the threat of being taken to court, have instead just said, “I will pay.” Even when the payments have been unjust, they have just had to give up and say, “I will pay.” So I have huge appreciation here today in this House for Ms F, for beneficiary advocates, for the work of We Are Beneficiaries, for the work of Auckland Action Against Poverty, for all advocates, but, most of all, for people who have ever received a benefit at all in their lives—and that’s a lot of us, by the way, in this whole country—who have put up with the dehumanising treatment for far too long, led through by the previous punitive Government, and have even managed to stay afloat at all.

But I have faith in the Ministers and this Government to turn that around, and I am so proud that the Green Party negotiated it in our agreement—to overhaul that very culture, to remove the sanctions. And I am so proud to have Jan Logie pushing that through on behalf of all of us, because our country needs this. Being cruel is not sustainable. Being cruel is not sustainable for people or communities or land or environment or our future, and so this Government will pull its socks up and will overturn that culture that put harm on top of harm.

What we want to hear about is a system that treats beneficiaries with respect and dignity—a system that is inclusive, rather than trying to separate out beneficiaries as a separate group of New Zealanders. They’re just us, and many of us have been one at some point in our lives. But, in actual fact, the way that society operates is that we are all beneficiaries. We all benefit from the interconnected help and support that we give each other at some point in time. Not one of us stands alone independent in this life. Beneficiaries, people who receive a benefit, people on low incomes—they’re just us, and I am so thankful that the High Court made a common-sense decision and said debts are not income. Thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): We had a speech from Andrew Little that was quite interesting because he had a bit of gravel in his voice. He had this undertone. He almost sounded like Chris Stapleton, who’s a country blues singer, singing “Tennessee Whiskey”. He thought that if he could give it that growl, if he could give it that bit of gravel, somehow it would have prominence to it and people would believe it, because he thought that power in his words would make a difference. We heard the slogan saying, “It’s a great day today.” We can celebrate all the good things that the Government’s been doing, but one thing that’s really important is that all of those words need to be held to account.

Today, we had the Rutherford College kapa haka group come up here, and I was honoured to be able to take them around Parliament. This is one of the questions that the students were asking me. They said to me, “Mr Ngaro, what’s the most important thing in your role here in Parliament, as a member of Parliament?” I said to them, “It’s the power of your words.” You see, I said to them that for all of the things that we say inside this House, there’s Hansard that records those words. When you are in Government, or even as an MP in your local electorate, you then have the power of your words. When you declare a statement or you’re saying “This is a vision, this is what we’re going to do, and this is what we want to achieve.”, your words are held to account. You can give a bit of gravel, you can give it a bit of undertone, and it can sound, you know, sort of sexy and cool, but, at the end of the day, it’s all held to account. That’s what’s important.

I want to hold to account this Government, because one of the promises that it has made is around children in care—the welfare of children, the issues around poverty that impose upon children, and the harm and the well-being of children, which has become critically important to this Government, as it has declared. I want to read out here that in this House, on 11 April, the Hon Tracey Martin said—these are the words that she said when I asked her a question—“we have a large body of work under way, which includes continuing our social worker recruitment … developing new ways to recruit kin carers by working in partnership with iwi and our Pasifika community, … 24/7 caregiver support and inquiry line … improving inductions for caregivers, increasing the number of safe and loving places”. Those were the words that were proudly declared in this House by the Hon Tracey Martin. I have a lot of respect for her. Her intent is right, but, like all things, all intent is held to account in regards to what you achieve.

So why is it, with these words that were declared quite openly both before the election and while in Government, that we’re hearing a different tone from our community? Let’s think about what that tone is. Nothing reflects it better than down in Otago, where Roxburgh’s Stand children’s camps were delivering services for traumatised children—children who are the most vulnerable. And the Minister has declared there are about 6,000—in fact, 6,100—children that are currently in care. When the community came together, this is what they said: for all the talk that this Government talked about—“When we are the Government, children’s welfare will be the priority.”—here’s the reflection of the truth, here’s the walk of that talk: Roxburgh children’s camp closed. And here’s what the children said: “We’ve missed out in the general lolly scramble, unlike the America’s Cup and other lucky people.” In other words, for all the talk, that’s not the walk that’s coming.

In the declaration by the Minister in regards to kin carers, why are we having Kate Hawkesby declaring this: “There are carers that are quitting in big numbers.”? In fact, there is a huge decline, and the reason for that is—from the caregivers themselves, they say this—the system is broken. Here’s from one of the caregivers: “I just got tired, worn down, and broken, because it wasn’t really the children; it was the system that broke me—the system—because there’s no help there.”

When your words declare that you want to fix a system that’s broken, when you haven’t given the support—in fact, I want to quote here from the national care standards for Oranga Tamariki that were set, and this is from the Cabinet paper. Here’s what it declares on page 26, here’s what’s come out through the Cabinet, and they all agree with this: “to provide caregivers with support or assistance to access support including where a caregiver requests this, ensuring training is available for caregivers.” Why is it that our caregivers are stating for themselves that they are struggling?

I want to finish off with this quote that’s come from another caregiver who’s saying that they want to provide the best service and care for our children. And here’s what they say: “Regular contact, checking with us, and seeing our emotions would be great, but we don’t see it. It’s literally like the movie Hunt for the Wilderpeople. I laughed when I saw it. They drive up, they dump the child, they stay for about five minutes, and then they leave, and that’s the last we ever hear from them.”

Your words are important. The community will hold us to account. It’s great to be able to see that we’re holding them to account for the things that we see aren’t happening in our community.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak in this general debate because these are positive times. I agree with Alfred Ngaro, the previous speaker, that it’s important that you do hold to your promises, and, as a brand new Government, we announced our Families Package in December 2017 and then, two days ago—on 1 July, actually; three days ago already—we rolled it out. This is our Government’s major response to child poverty.

I know the Hon Andrew Little has already mentioned the numbers involved, but I think it’s important that we’re really clear on how many people are actually benefiting from this Families Package, so I want to repeat those numbers: 64,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a consequence of this package, 26,000 more families will be eligible for Working for Families assistance, and 384,000 families with children will be better off by an average of $65 a week, which is the biggest boost in household income in a decade. Let’s also not forget that we have 1 million people that will be warmer this winter. It’s a winter energy payment that will look after 700,000 senior citizens, and 275,000 families will be getting help to stay warmer in their homes this winter. We’ve seen a lot of people getting sick and even being taken to hospital over the winter months because they can’t stay warm. We’ve even seen people die, and this Government believes that that is simply unacceptable. That is not the New Zealand that we should be settling for.

Our Prime Minister took the time out over the weekend to make the announcement of the Families Package on Facebook, and the post so far has hit over 16,000 likes and loves and has been shared over 3,000 times. There have been lots and lots of comments made, and I’d just like to read a couple out that are specifically touching: “Thank you. This will make a huge difference to so many families, including ours. Finally, a Government that cares.” and “Thank you, and as a grandparent raising grandchildren, thank you for the additional clothing allowance for our mokos. I found out about the increase on Friday, and I cried straight away because of the struggling lately.”

Now, you can sneer about these struggles, but in my previous role as president of the flight attendants’ union and, later, as the head of aviation at E tū union, I’ve seen those struggles first-hand, and I’ve seen how over the last nine years, because of changes made by that previous Government to employment law, we’ve seen a decreasing share of the economic growth going to working families. It has created the working poor, and that’s really important to think about, because the majority of the children in poverty are actually in families where both parents work. Both parents do shift work. They work their butts off. They hold multiple jobs, they work shifts, and they still have no time to look after their kids. They still have no money to provide for their families. They’re locked out of the housing market.

Now this Government has changed all that. We’ve changed it. We’ve given New Zealanders hope and a chance to get ahead, and we’re doing that with the Families Package and we’re doing that with KiwiBuild. We’re opening the door to affordable housing for so many families and people, and we’re addressing what has been a real housing crisis. The Hon Andrew Little told us that there have been 1,100 people so far that have registered for this scheme, but I was told just before that we are already up to 2,000 people that have registered for this.

So, like our Prime Minister, we are most proud of the fact that we are not scared to have empathy and well-being as measures to inform our policies. We have compassion, and this Families Package, like the Prime Minister said, is one of our proudest moments. Under the leadership of our right honourable Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, we finally have a plan to fix the neglected problems of the past. We have ambition that things can be better, and we have the willingness to try new things.

But instead of being constructive, the Opposition are negative and they seem confused. Simon Bridges is for the Families Package, but, at the same time, he opposes it. He has plenty of criticism for it, but yet, at the same time, he doesn’t want to commit to removing it, either. On Morning Report, he called it “not targeted enough”. But then he went to talk again about his tax cuts for all, which are the most untargeted things you can think of, because the money will go to the top 10 percent, whereas this Government’s Families Package delivers for middle and low income families.

We are proud that we are rebuilding the foundations, growing the economy, and creating a New Zealand where everyone gets a fair go.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is quite remarkable is the complete disjunct between the words that we hear from Government members and their actions. They’re actually scrambling around. They already seem like a tired, worn-out, old Government that’s desperately trying to sell a message of greatness and hope to New Zealanders, but what New Zealanders are experiencing doesn’t match up with the rhetoric, because what they’re experiencing in reality is a Government—a centre-left Government—that doesn’t appear to care.

It certainly doesn’t care about hard-working Kiwi taxpayers, because what do they do? They come into office and they legislate away some tax relief and benefits that the previous National Government had put in, just to leave 1.7 million Kiwis worse off—worse off. Many of them are worse off by a thousand dollars a year of tax relief that they were legislated for under the previous National Government. They try to say they care and their actions are different, but that isn’t enough for them. It isn’t enough for them. They really want to sock it to New Zealanders.

They talk about helping New Zealanders to stand on their feet. I actually think they may mean that, but the only reason they want to help New Zealanders on to their feet is because that makes it easier to get to their back pockets, because what are they doing? What are they doing? They’re imposing more taxes and lifting the cost of living so that New Zealanders are worse off.

What have we seen? They cancelled those tax changes. The Amazon tax, making Kiwis pay more for the goods they consume; the brightline tax changes; and that dog’s breakfast of a bill that will change the Overseas Investment Act—those changes are seeing rent rises. What’s more, on top of that—because that’s not enough for them—there are nationwide fuel excise increases that, over three years, will see hard-working Kiwis paying 12c a litre more for their fuel.

But that’s not enough. Regional fuel taxes—Auckland have got theirs already. Fourteen other regional councils around New Zealand are expressing an interest to get a piece of theirs just as soon as they can, including the Greater Wellington Regional Council. They’ll get it. They’ll apply for it, they’ll get it, and on 1 January 2021, Wellingtonians and many other New Zealanders will also be paying an extra 11.5c a litre for their petrol on top of those excise increases, and it all adds up. It all adds up to a higher cost of living for New Zealanders, not even just in the fuel for their vehicles but also in the goods they buy—particularly food.

Rents going up and the loss of tax cuts all make life that much harder for the people in New Zealand that they’ve always claimed to represent, over that side. They’ve completely lost their way because here’s the thing—particularly with these tax changes around fuel. It has been acknowledged by the Minister responsible that it is a regressive tax and that it will hurt lower-income New Zealanders more than the wealthy, but they proceed with it anyway. What is his answer to New Zealanders who struggle to get by and who will struggle even more because of the actions of that Government? What is his answer? “It’d be good for them in the long run.” How patronising. How patronising of a Government that has been in office for only nine months and that purports to care for the poor and needy of New Zealand and then smacks them every which way they can. It’s an absolute travesty.

On top of that, we have to ask why. Why would they do this to these people? Apart from a lack of care and compassion, why would they do it? It’s because of poorly targeted and wasteful spending elsewhere. The Government inherited the books in great shape, with massive surpluses and an economy that—until they got their hands on the levers—was looking to perform exceedingly well for the coming years. They waste $2.8 billion to get 900 fewer students, they give Shane Jones a $3 billion slush fund, and then they suddenly find the larder’s empty. So what do they have to do? They have to find other sources of revenue to make up for the fact that they’ve wasted so much elsewhere.

So this is a Government that is the architect of the misfortune of New Zealanders and the architect of its own misfortune. They want to tell New Zealanders that it’s all rosy under the coalition Government, but that’s not what New Zealanders are feeling, it’s not what they are experiencing, and it’s not what the horizon looks like for those hard-working Kiwis. Just nine months into a change of Government, every day and in every way this Government is trying to make Groucho Marx look like a wise man when he said “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s time has expired.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I 1 Hūrae, i whakarewa ake tō mātou kaupapa, te kaupapa mō ngā whānau, arā te tohatoha i te moni me te tautoko ki ngā whānau. I a au i te kāinga i noho ahau, i mātakitaki ahau i te kōrero o tō mātou Pirimia, a Jacinda Ardern, e awhiawhi ana i tōna pēpi a Neve Te Aroha. E kōrero ana ia i runga i Pukamata e pā ana ki tēnei mahi, hei ko tāna ko tēnei te mea e whakahīhī ana ia kua tutuki i a ia i Te Pirimia. I kōrero ia e pā ana ki te pupū ake te whakaaro o tēnei kaupapa mō ngā whānau, nā, e tino whakahīhī ana ia kua tae mai te rā kia whakarewa i tēnei kaupapa. Nā i kōrero ia, kua piki ake te wiki kua hoatu ki ngā whānau kia noho ki te kāinga me te pēpi ki te 22 wiki anō hoki. Kua tīmata te tohatoha, te hoatu i te $60 ia wiki ki ngā whānau kātahi anō te pēpi ka whānau mai ā muri mai i te tahi o Hūrae, mō te katoa o te tau kotahi—mō ētahi o ngā whānau, rua tau, toru tau. He aha te mea? He aha te take? Nātemea hei tiaki i ō tātou pēpi, ā tātou taonga tuku iho, kia māmā ake te whakatupu i ngā pēpi, i ngā tamariki, nātemea ko te piko o te māhuri, tērā te tupu o te rākau. Ko ā tātou tamariki tērā.

Nā i kite ahau, neke atu i te 16,000 ngā tāngata i hoatu i te kōnui, te manawa nui anō hoki ki tōna kōrero, ki tōna karere i runga i Pukamata. Ki ahau nei, he Pirimia manaaki tangata kia hoki mai te manaaki ki roto i te mahi Kāwanatanga. He Pirimia aroha ki te tangata, awhi, tautoko anō hoki.

Nā e hiahia ana ahau ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te tohatoha i ngā moni mō te wā o te hōtoke, mō te wā e kaha nei te makariri. I tēnei wiki, i kite ahau i tētahi kōrero i runga i tōku ake Pukamata mō tētahi māmā i Moerewa, tētahi pouaru, e rua ana kōtiro, e amuamu ana ia, e tangi ana ia mō te makariri o tōna kāinga. He kāinga rēti tōna. I taua rā tonu i haere ia ki te toa ki te hoko i ngā mea hei whakatikatika i tōna ake whare kia mahana tōna whare mō ana kōtiro. I tangi taku ngākau. E mōhio ana ahau ko tēnei moni e hoatu ana ki wēnei whānau, ka ora ai wēnei tamariki, ka mahana ai wēnei whānau. Kia kaua koutou e wareware, ko te ture kua whakature i tērā tau anō hoki arā ko te Healthy Homes Guarantee tētahi atu ture hei whakapai ake, hei whakamāmā ake i tēnei tū āhuatanga.

Kotahi meneti e toe ana, e hiahia ana ahau ki te whakautu ētahi o ngā kōrero o tērā taha o Te Whare. Hei ko tā rātou, e hē ana tō mātou hoatu i te moni, tō mātou tautoko i ētahi o ngā kaupapa. Nō. Kāhore. Kāhore ahau e whakaae ana ki tērā. Nā koutou te hē. I te heahea koutou ki te tuku atu i te moni ki te 10 paihēneti o ngā tāngata, ngā tāngata whai rawa, engari te nuinga o ngā tāngata ka noho tonu i roto i te rawakore, i te pōharatanga anō hoki. E kore rawa ahau e whakaae ki tō koutou whakaaro, ō koutou kowhete i a mātou mō tō mātou mahi hei tautoko i ēnei whānau i tēnei wā taimaha.

Nā, e tika ana te kōrero o tō mātou Minita mō te taha pūtea. Hei ko tāna: he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? Tāna i kī atu he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. Nā ko tērā te mahi o tō mātou Kāwanatanga.

[On 1 July, we launched our Families Package, which is an allocation of money to support families. While I was at home, I watched the news item where our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, was cuddling her baby, Neve Te Aroha. She talked about this programme, the Families Package, on Facebook, and how proud she was to be the Prime Minister when it was introduced. She described how the idea for this package for families came about and how proud she was that the day to launch this initiative had arrived. She talked about how the number of weeks given to families to stay at home with their baby had increased to 22. The distribution has begun, giving $60 per week to the families of babies born after 1 July, for the year—for some families, for two or three years. What for? What is the reason? The reason is to nurture our babies, our inherited treasures, to bond with the babies, with the children, because it is the looking after of the sapling that makes a tree grow strong. Our children are the same.

Now I saw that more than 16,000 people gave her Facebook speech and message a thumbs up or a heart. In my view, a Prime Minister who cares for people will bring caring back to the way Government works. She is a Prime Minister who loves people and who will embrace and support them.

I want to talk about allocating money during the winter, when we are beset by the cold. This week, I saw on my own Facebook a report about a mother from Moerewa, a widow with two daughters, who was complaining and crying about how cold her house was. She had a rented home. That very same day she went to the shops to buy what was needed to improve her house so her home would be warm for her girls. My heart wept. I know that this money that we are giving these families will benefit these children, it will keep these families warm. Let us not forget that the legislation that was passed last year, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, was another law which improved and eased this type of stress.

I have one minute left, and I want to respond to some of the comments from that side of the House. In their view, we were wrong to give this money and to support some of these initiatives. No. No. I cannot agree with that. You are the ones who are wrong. It makes no sense to give money to the top 10 percent of people, of the wealthy people, while most people remain destitute and in poverty. I can never agree with your thinking, or with your objection to our actions to support these families at this tough time.

Now, our finance Minister is right. He asks: what is most important in this world? His answer is people, people, people. And that is what our Government is about.]

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last month, I had the honour of attending Fieldays up near Hamilton, Mystery Creek, and what was really nice about this particular Fieldays was just walking around the different stalls, seeing the innovation from the agricultural sector and seeing the young people. There were a lot of young people there. I want to talk about those young people, and I’ll come back to them later on, but we need these people joining the agriculture sector, because if we want to increase our exports, we need to attract more young people to this space.

I just want to talk about some of the Government’s decisions and their impacts on Clutha-Southland. It’s not all doom and gloom. I do want to congratulate them—despite being a lion in Opposition, they’re a bit of a lamb in Government, and one of those areas where they were a lion was the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I want to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay, who’s in the House today, and also the previous Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser—absolute stellar job for New Zealand. For New Zealand to increase our standard of living—we’re a small country at the bottom of the Earth—we need to trade more. So I just want to congratulate the Government on passing the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. If they didn’t pass that, that would have really hurt Clutha-Southland.

You would’ve also noticed at Fieldays the Minister of Agriculture came out with a rural-proofing policy—a rural-proofing policy. Now, let’s have a look at some of their policies and how they’re affecting Clutha-Southland. Immigration: Labour campaigned on cuts of 25,000 to 30,000. New Zealand First campaigned further to 10,000. Well, I’ve got restaurants in Queenstown—take the Lone Star, for example. They struggle to open some lunchtimes because they can’t find staff. I’ve got a restaurant in Te Ānau, the Ranch Bar and Grill. If you go there, it’s a wonderful restaurant. They can’t even open up the upstairs of their business. They’re functioning at 70 percent of their business. How are they supposed to make money?

We also saw during the Budget the Primary Growth Partnerships, which led to some really innovative projects and value-added projects being cut. The oil and gas decision—this is a decision which will cost New Zealand hundreds of millions of dollars. This decision didn’t even go to Cabinet. Irrigation—just cut off. Biological emissions into the emissions trading scheme—this is going to cost, on average, $5,000 per farm.

Another example of the Government being a lion in Opposition and a lamb in Government: the Minister of Agriculture was forced to go around with his begging bowl for the Government Industry Agreement for Biosecurity Readiness and Response agreements, which were put into force in 2013 by the Minister for Primary Industries at the time, Nathan Guy, where, basically, if there’s a biosecurity incursion, the industry forks out up to 12 percent. The Minister of Agriculture, a month or two ago, went round with his begging bowl and increased it to 32 percent. Take M. bovis alone—this is going to cost the industry a couple of hundred million dollars more.

Take the regional growth fund, or the “New Zealand First survival fund”: just under $60 million was applied for from Northland—$62 million given out. That’s right—less was applied for and more was given out. The rest of New Zealand: $250 million was applied for, and only 42 percent was given out, so over 62 percent of that fund was given out to Northland.

I just want to talk about Labour campaigning on looking after vulnerable children. On Monday this week, in a small rural town in Otago, the Roxburgh children’s camp had a celebration—well, it wasn’t really a celebration; it was a bit of a farewell. Over 70 members of the community turned up, because it’s closing down. This is a camp that looks after some of the most vulnerable children in Otago and Southland. These children have been sexually abused, physically abused, and mentally abused. I just want to read out a comment from the Central Otago mayor, who called the closure “an absolute bloody outrage”: “I’m just heartbroken … the Minister for Children Tracey Martin … [needs] to look at herself in the mirror and ask if she has any integrity for what she’s done to the children of the South.”

While I’m on it, if we want a strong farming sector and a rural community, we don’t need to cut essential health services. We took office in 2008 amongst a global financial crisis. We had the Christchurch earthquakes—some of the most expensive disasters, GDP-wise, that any country in the world’s ever faced. We borrowed more to keep these services going. Labour took office late last year, and what do you know? Roxburgh children’s camp, no more; Lumsden maternity hospital—probably gone; we’re trying hard—and 600 grand out of the Rural Health Alliance. This Government needs to start listening to rural New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Could I just, before I respond to that contribution, take the opportunity on behalf of New Zealand First to extend our condolences to the Jones family. Of course, the Hon Shane Jones is a highly respected member of our caucus and, I know, someone who has many friends and is one of the great characters in this House, and I know that you will probably all join me and us in extending our condolences and showing our respects to his family on the passing of his father.

I guess the contribution we’ve just had from the member for Clutha-Southland, Mr Walker, actually follows on from that funeral theme. It has been emanating from the Opposition benches over recent times. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was actually borne out by some facts, and we’ve just seen the forecast from the IMF: the 3 percent GDP growth, out for five years; unemployment trending lower; and, importantly, real wages beating inflation. That is the challenge: to get a growing economy where everyone benefits, not just everything going up to the top 1 percent. As we look at the egalitarian message we’ve done around this, we’re taking foreign buyers out of the housing market so our citizens get a better shake of the stick. But there’s an old maxim “Don’t listen to what people are saying about the markets; listen to what the markets are saying about themselves”, and oh what a story they’re telling. The sharemarket, where actual people put real money and invest, is at record highs.

I want to highlight off the back of Mr Walker’s contribution the fact that the latest quarterly update from the Ministry of Primary Industries on primary industry exports is up to $42.2 billion, up 10 percent, at a record level. We have challenges of growth, not stagnation. Dairy revenue is up 14 percent, and, encouragingly, that’s off the back of value-add. It’s not on more volume. We’ve actually got 200,000-odd less cows than we had two years ago, but we’re starting to trend in the right direction in that value-add.

Horticulture is up to nearly $7 billion, up 4.7 percent. Arable is up 20 percent, and a lot of that is based on herbal remedies and natural remedies that we’re manufacturing and adding real value to. And forestry is up 11 percent as we embark on our nation-building 1 billion trees strategy.

Of course, Mr Walker alluded to the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund. He may be sceptical about that, but I can tell you his mayors and his constituents are very excited for the first time in a number of years to actually have some money available for their infrastructure and their projects. There’s the $1.1 billion tax credits that came in the Budget to help us innovate, help that value-add. There’s the trade deals, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, as Mr Walker alluded to. There’s the EU trade deal. We were at the British High Commission this morning—and I know Mr Walker was there as well—and they’re enthusiastic about a UK trade deal.

We have been there for those farmers in Clutha-Southland with the M. bovis, and, yes, they should contribute some themselves, but we’re putting up $886 million, the vast majority of that coming from the taxpayers of New Zealand. But, of course, the industry that I do want to highlight is the red meat sector, and isn’t it great to have a $9.2 billion industry, up 10 percent. But, of course, one of the challenges that we have as an industry is the pipeline of synthetic proteins—this disruptive technology coming down the pipe at us. We must respond as a nation.

But imagine my shock and surprise, as a farmer as much as a politician, when I saw our national carrier, our national champion, highlighting and showcasing the very threat that we face, the Impossible burger—and not just putting it on the menu but showcasing it, putting videos out, and talking a big game. It’s paying journalists to go overseas. The Air New Zealand charter in its guiding principles actually says that one of their aims is to promote New Zealand companies, and in this case they have badly let their rural constituency down. Those constituents that only have the choice of Air New Zealand have no choice to take their business elsewhere—the tens of thousands of meatworkers, the farmers, and the truckies. They all have to—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. Before I call Nicola Willis, there’s been a box that’s been sitting in that area without a member behind it for the vast majority of this time. It’s to be taken down off the bench. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I’m standing up today to talk about the state of the Minister of Education, to talk about the growing gap between his words and his actions, the growing gap between his intentions and the reality of what’s going on in education, and the growing gap between his ideology and the results for our children. This is a Minister, who in February this year, told us that his approach would be one that was respecting, engaging, and drawing in educators; that his approach would be about broad engagement and shared results; that there would be a lot of co-design, consultation, and collaboration—and all of this was used to justify the fact that that Minister wanted to have 13 different reviews in education.

So then we ask ourselves: if those were his intentions, what is the reality in education right now? We have primary teachers striking for the first time in 24 years. The engagement’s not working so well for them, Mr Hipkins. We have school principals, respected, longstanding, experienced leaders in our community—37 of them—taking a full-page ad in the New Zealand Herald to protest the Minister’s approach to the review of NCEA. And, don’t worry, they’re not backing down from that. Twenty-three more principals have joined them to say, “We’ve had enough of this Minister’s approach, too.”

As if that’s not enough, today we had respected educators of more than a hundred years’ combined service and Māori leaders of great standing in our community—Sir Toby Curtis and John Shewan at the Education and Workforce Committee—telling us why they were making a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal following that Minister’s decision to terminate the agreements with partnership schools. I want to talk about that, because if there is one action that throws into high relief the gap between the words of this Government and what it actually does, the hypocrisy of this Government, it is the callous disregard for the students—

SPEAKER: When I stand up, the member sits down. She used a word which is on the proscribed list, and she will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

NICOLA WILLIS: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. If there is one action that throws into high relief the disregard this Government has, it is the way that they have approached partnership schools. Because those are schools that were set up to target those often let down by mainstream schools—Māori, Pasifika, and students from decile 1 to 3 schools. Those were schools that were embraced by communities determined to do better for their own people. They were schools that were innovating—that were having the courage to do things differently. They were schools that were delivering results: less truancy, more achievement, more engagement from whānau, fewer suspensions. They were schools that, in the words of Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, had a kaupapa about what is good for our children. They were staffed by people working hard to make a difference to the lives of disadvantaged kids.

So what does the Minister think? How did he engage, collaborate, and cooperate with those schools? Did he visit them? No, not a single one. Did he talk to the students achieving in those schools? No, not a single one. So did he engage with the whānau? Did he engage with the leaders? Did he engage with the teachers at that school? No, he didn’t consult a single one because their ideology didn’t match his and, therefore, they weren’t worthy of his listenership. It is to the shame of the Government that they have been prepared to terminate the agreements of partnership schools without any consideration to the 1,500 children whose parents and families have chosen those schools because they believe they deliver better for their children.

So how does that action match up with the words of the Minister? Well, I won’t say it for myself. I’ve already got myself into trouble for that approach in the House today. I’ll use the words of others. I’ll use the words of John Shewan and Sir Toby Curtis, who were before our select committee today, who said that what they think the Minister’s approach amounts to is a clear case of bullying—totally unacceptable. They say that they think it’s one of the most skilful forms of bullying they have seen. They said they think the actions are manifestly unjust, that there was no evidence base for them, and that the decisions swam against the tide—the tide of action against inequality, the tide of doing things for those who are disadvantaged.

So before I sit down, let me say that when I talk about partnership schools, I’m not just concerned for those children. I’m concerned for every child and family affected by the 13 reviews in education, because of the callous disregard this Minister is prepared to show when actions don’t fit his ideology. He needs to do better. He needs to listen. He needs to live up to his words of engagement, because if we want our education system to improve, the voices of all should be heard.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yesterday, I spoke in relation to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill at its second reading. What a difference a day makes. We’re here today asking the questions—I think I perhaps spoke for two minutes in relation to this bill, which was probably sufficient in relation to the matter.

I guess rising today to speak in committee stage, as a whole, is a different case, and I wanted to really just start to have the conversation a little bit more in case people don’t fully understand what this bill means.

So, firstly, let’s again address the purpose of this bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We’re on clause 1, which is the title of the bill.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: The title of the bill—right.

Tamati Coffey: Four minutes!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! I’ve got five minutes to talk on the title of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, you don’t have to talk for five.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: My apologies—I thought we were doing the whole part. Okey-dokey. So this is not my best work today—ha, ha!—I’ve got to say.

Marja Lubeck: Go word for word, Angie.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Word for word—I have to find it. Essentially, if we look at the work that we’ve had to do over this last month or so, essentially, we have very few pages here. So I’m just pulling out the bill in relation to—oh. Department—[Handed bill] Oh, thank you!

Hon Chris Hipkins: Sit down for a minute, and I’ll just sort it out.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh, we’re going to have some—all right. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Given the way the bill is drafted, and to ensure that the debate can be a reasonable one, I seek leave for the debate on all of the clauses in the bill to be taken as one debate, with each clause put separately at the end.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not. Just a moment—just for clarification, it’s now one debate, but each question will be put separately.

Clauses 1 to 7 and Schedule

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. My apologies to the committee. I thought that that’s what we were doing.

OK, so this bill amends the principal Act, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act of 2012. Essentially, the bill is to look at the costs of a board of inquiry and to make sure and set up that those costs are recovered, and the costs are recovered by the consenting authority or the consenting organisation or the organisation seeking consent.

Essentially, there isn’t a lot more in this bill to talk about. It’s actual and reasonable costs, there is the provision under the clause to ensure that—apply and consent are asked specifically for what those costs might be—there is the possibility to get that information, and, essentially, the bill clarifies the cost incurred by the Environmental Protection Authority in deciding applications. They’re already cost-recoverable, and this is just the process of the board of inquiry.

So, essentially, there isn’t a lot more to say about this. However, I think there’s really one matter that we need to just look at, and that was the truncated process, to just make the point that during select committee we had seven representatives from the oil and gas and seabed mining industries that were spoken to or targeted for consultation. Four out of five of those respondents supported this cost recovery; the other didn’t make mention of it.

So, essentially, we have a situation where there is not a lot going on, everyone agrees to it, and, accordingly, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I don’t think that this committee of the whole House is necessarily going to take too long. The parties across the House, I think, are in agreement on this bill.

There is one aspect that I want to raise, and I hope that the Minister in the chair, David Parker, will take a call just to rise and talk a little bit about the Supplementary Order Paper 48, that he has in his name, that makes an amendment to clause 5. This, as I understand it, is in relation to a submission that was received after the Environment Committee reported back to the House, from the Law Society.

The Law Society made several good comments and recommendations to the select committee, and it was, I think, useful that cognisance was taken of those matters. This is not a contentious piece of legislation. It’s a tidy-up piece of legislation. It, effectively, seeks to remedy a drafting error that occurred during reforms to the Resource Management Act and to the principal Act that this refers to in the last Parliament.

That is an error that occurred due to drafting, and it’s no criticism of the Parliamentary Counsel Office officials who were responsible. It was a very big piece of legislation—some 700 clauses. It ran to 250 pages, and one could easily understand why that situation arose.

But I do have a question for the Minister in the chair. I’m keen to know, if he could just explain to the committee of the whole House about his Supplementary Order Paper and what that might mean for this piece of legislation.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I thank members for their contributions. And, in response to Mr Simpson, who just spoke: you’re correct that this is necessary to correct a defect in the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

And I won’t recount at great length as to why that was a flawed process. We’ve been through that at earlier stages of the debate. But the effect of the imperfection in that Act was that the cost recovery rights of the Crown to recover from an applicant the cost of running a hearing for their application was omitted. And, therefore—people are entitled to make applications. There is a cost to running the process after they make an application, but the cost cannot be recovered from the applicant and, therefore, it falls to taxpayers, and that’s wrong. So the amendment bill fixes that.

The Supplementary Order Paper, as Mr Simpson said, makes it clear that the principles of cost recovery that sit in the existing Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, at sections 143 to 147 of that Act, apply here. You know, it’s really for the avoidance of doubt—I think that was probably the effect of this anyway. The Law Society said the legislation would be easier to follow and it would put the matter beyond doubt if this amendment was made to the amendment bill, and so Supplementary Order Paper 48, in my name, inserts in new section 52A new subsection 52A(6) at the end of that section, which says “See sections 143 to 147 in relation to recovery of costs incurred by the EPA.”

If members—or members of the public, indeed—go to those sections 143 to 147, they will see that they are indeed about cost recovery—section 143 being “Principles of cost recovery”; section 144, “Methods of cost recovery”; section 145, “Cost recovery to relate generally to financial year”; section 146 saying that charges can be prescribed by regulations; and section 147 saying that those charges can constitute a debt due to Environmental Protection Authority. So that’s the purpose of that Supplementary Order Paper.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 5 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 24 May.

Part 3 Obligations (continued)

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. Very quickly, I would to recap that I was talking to my amendment, which is to insert new subclause (3) in clause 120. This is about newborn enrolment with general practitioners. My amendment is seeking to improve health and social outcomes for infants and children by requiring that newborns are enrolled with a general practitioner of the family’s choice before they are six weeks old.

As the committee would have realised, this amendment is actually based on my member’s bill, which the Government is not supporting. So through this amendment, I’m giving another opportunity to this Government—which keeps talking big on doing more for children—to show that, actually, they want to match their words. So this is their second opportunity. This is because in clause 120, “Health care enrolment and compliance with core health checks”, we see that people who are on a benefit have to take reasonable steps to ensure that each dependent child is enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. Also, in that clause, we also see that “(2) A person to whom this section applies must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a dependent child under the age of 5 years is up to date with core checks under—(a) the programme that immediately before 15 July 2013 was known as Well Child; or (b) any similar established programme in its place.”

The issue here is that when people are on a benefit, they are provided with all the support and encouragement, and they are provided with help to get their newborns enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. But, when a person is not on a benefit, that kind of support is not available. So, to me, it’s a matter of consistency.

Hon Member: So it’s compulsory?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: It’s a matter of consistency—when people on a benefit get all that support, all that encouragement, then other people should also have that kind of encouragement and support available to them.

We know that all new mums don’t maintain an Outlook diary to remember when to take the newborn for their health check-up. So we want to see that there is a proactive system for everybody, not just for families that are on a benefit. I’m sure those new mums will really appreciate getting a call from their nominated general practitioners saying, “We have received a pre-enrolment request on behalf of your newborn, so could you come to the clinic to complete the enrolment process.” I’m sure new parents and new mums will definitely appreciate that, because it’s very easy to miss appointments in those early days when the family is settling in with a newborn. So it’s all about providing support, and, also, because it is in line with what’s already in this legislation, it makes sense that we see that not only people on a benefit but other people also have a similar kind of support available to them.

We also know that if people are on a benefit and they are not complying with this—that is, after all the encouragement, all the support, all the help that they are provided—then there can be consequences. These consequences can be in terms of sanctions. This could be their welfare payment—benefit payment. So that emphasises the importance of getting their children enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. Why can’t we have a similar kind of importance put on children that are born to parents that are not dependent on a benefit? So that is what my amendment highlights.

I would like to actually ask the Minister to address the committee and tell us if the Minister is deciding not to accept my amendment—this is their second opportunity to prove that they are really wanting to do more for newborns, they are really wanting to do more for children. If the reason given is, “Because this is just a rewrite bill, we are not going to make any policy changes.”, then I will say this has been such a waste of time. It has been a waste of time of this House, a waste of time of the select committee process, and a waste of time for all the submitters, because while we are rewriting this bill—and I fully understand the rewrite was required because it became so disjointed with so many amendments, in this bill and in this part as well—we want to make sure that we are efficiently using the House’s time. Something that is so crucial, so important—why can’t it be extended to all parents? It will be a very easy amendment. So that’s why I want to move my amendment, which is to see that all newborns are enrolled with general practitioners.

In my previous call, I have already described how this amendment, or this enrolment process, would work. It’s really important to see that the newborn’s family gets to choose the general practitioner. So that is part of this amendment as well. So they decide which general practitioner they want to see for their newborn. Then it’s about getting a call from that general practitioner to ensure that the newborn actually is enrolled and is connected to all the services that children of people that are on benefit can be connected to—and, as I said before, clause 120(2) is connecting them to Well Child or any similar programme established in its place.

So it’s a matter of equity. This service should be available to all parents, irrespective of their dependence or independence in terms of their income. I truly believe that all newborns deserve to be looked after and connected to these various services that are available free of charge. It’s not only for newborns, but new mums also get a lot of services through the Well Child programme which are—[Bell rung]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s an honour to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. It’s fair to say on this side the House that this legislation initially came out of the National-led Government, and so there is a lot here in this bill that we’re very supportive of. In this process of the committee of the whole House, it’s an opportunity to again—even if we were in Government—improve the bill, and that’s the intent of this. So as a way of sort of declaring that, we’re putting through our amendments. They may be small amendments, small changes, and we hope that the Minister will see these as an opportunity again just to improve maybe small anomalies that need a slight change, a slight amendment, and that’s the purpose of the committee of the whole House.

We’ve got a number of amendments that are coming through, and there is one on clause 93, in Part 3, and it’s in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. It’s an amendment to clause 93 and it’s inserting a new clause 93B. This is in relation to the provision headed up: “Steps to explain overseas absence rules”. The amendment wants to insert new clause 93B, which reads, “A person may apply to the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development for an exemption to 203A on the grounds of, for example: (a) Caring for children who may be located overseas (b) Health conditions which require time in warmer conditions (c) Serious illness to immediate family overseas”.

This, as I’m sure the Minister would appreciate, often relates to some of our constituents, some of our superannuitants, here that have come from the Pacific nations and from the Pacific Islands. In fact, in the Chamber presently—and in the select committee—we are talking about an extension to the portability of the pension fund to nations of the Realm, and this amendment, I think, is quite relevant. What it does is it seeks to clarify what are some of the steps and it gives an explanation for the absence in the four-week absence rules that apply in this regard.

So I’m hoping that the Minister will see that this is, again, a contribution that’s practical, that’s simple, and it seeks to give clarity to those who are beneficiaries, who are superannuitants, who are seeking then to, for these three reasons—one is caring for children located overseas. Often it is the case that some of the family members will go back to those places. It could be Australia and other places, but in this regard I want to give examples of going back to the Pacific Islands. There are many situations where there have been health conditions—again, family members, for very good reason, need to return back and go to those islands, and, again, it is frequently the case that they return to those islands. And then the third reason is where there is serious illness to immediate family members overseas and there is genuine cause for concern. We often call it tangihanga, as you’ll know, Mr Chair, and it’s where there isn’t a chance to go back when superannuitants have lost a loved one, and it’s a very genuine and authentic reason for them to be away from New Zealand as well. So I seek that this amendment would be able to be inserted there.

The amendment has an explanatory note saying that with the winter energy payment available for superannuitants in all cases, they do need to explain the four-week rule so that people don’t miss out on their entitlement. And in the committee we’ve had a number of speeches, and even in the general debate, talking about the power of the winter energy payment. I won’t go into that, but if it’s going to be something that’s consistent with what this current Government has put through into this bill, which is the winter energy payment, then I think this consistency will reflect itself in this amendment, which I think is very pragmatic and practical, and, again, I think it would be very useful in this regard.

As I said, we don’t want other people to miss out on that opportunity to be able to get the winter energy payment. So I want to submit this amendment in the name of my colleague and friend the Hon Louise Upston as a pragmatic solution—and, again, the explanatory note, for those reasons, as well. I hope that the Minister may be able to see that she gets advice from her advisers and is maybe able to stand up and actually agree—that would be wonderful—and say that new clause 93B would be a very valid clause that we could include in this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Fantastic. I was worried—not because of Parmjeet Parmar; I thought she might get three calls before I even had a chance.

Look, I’m really pleased to return here to Part 3. I know we’ve spent a bit of time on it, but there’s quite a lot of substance in this part. So I just want to address two particular issues in Subpart 1 of Part 3 and then at least attempt to talk to two of my tabled amendments.

The first two points are to do with clause 91 in Subpart 1 of Part 3. It’s just, once again—well, I’ll raise an issue which I’d like the Minister to provide an answer to, because in clause 91 it talks about the failure to comply without a good or sufficient reason. I’ve raised the question before: the difference between good in the moral sense or good in the ethical sense. In other words, is the reason that’s been given something that the case manager deems as good or bad or deems as right or wrong? So I wouldn’t mind an answer to that.

Then in clause 92 I’d also raised the issue around Map. That’s the acronym—Map. The Minister will know that’s manual and processes, or rather the acronym which stands for the manual and processes—how available that is to the public. The long and the short in terms of the Ministry for Social Development’s (MSD’s) obligations is noted in clause 92, “MSD must make people affected aware of their obligations, consequences of non-compliance, and their review and appeal rights”. I completely understand that that’s done in voice and there’s various fliers and documentations, but having worked in MSD in a variety of roles, I know that Map is a fantastic resource, certainly for those on the front line or those of us in management too. I’m just really keen to know how accessible Map is going to be, because while I know how to find it on the MSD or the Work and Income website, it takes quite a bit of effort. So it would be great if the Minister can address those two points.

But I’d like, if I might now, to turn to my tabled amendment. Granted, it was tabled almost a month ago at the very end of the last discussion. It’s a suggestion to the Minister—and I would really welcome her feedback—to insert new clause 91A. This is to go, of course, just above clause 92, and inserts the heading, “Obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”. The importance of this—again, Subpart 1 is about the obligations that people have. I think, quite rightly, the Minister and those who have worked on this document have put in a goodly number of obligations, and I think one is missing and that’s particularly to do with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It’s frequently told to us here that the child must be at the centre of all that we do. In fact, that’s an excellent notion. In fact, it’s a notion shared by all cultures. I say that because often it’s just sort of put out there that one or two cultures in the world have that notion; it’s shared by all cultures in the world. We always want our children to be at the centre. One the great expressions of that is the UN convention and charter around the rights of the child.

In particular, I’m asking that the Ministry of Social Development takes appropriate steps to ensure—well, that the convention is understood but in particular, on top of that, I want to be really clear to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, that I’m not suggesting that we incorporate the entire Convention on the Rights of the Child. That would be absurd. So being the minimalist that I am, except in words, I’m suggesting that we indicate Article 8, which says, “States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations, as recognized by law without unlawful interference”.

I think the particular context here is that it is very clear in UN law and in this convention—one that this country has signed up to—that a child needs to understand who they are. It is very clear that they have a nationality; in this case they’re New Zealanders. And what’s really fundamental to me is those family relations and the context—and we have had some discussions in this Chamber around this bill—but wider than that; actually acknowledging who one’s mother or father is somewhat under challenge and, in particular, there is the suggestion that a father doesn’t need to be named. I’m not going to go into a full biology lesson, but fathers are relative—I know there are some people who could be quite excited by these things. The key is that I think it is an important right that a child does know who their mother and father are, and particularly the latter because obviously they don’t always have to be involved at the last. What’s important is that efforts should be made.

I think I really want to stress that in suggesting this tabled amendment, it’s not suggesting that it must—[Time expired]

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be taking my first ever call in the Chamber after giving my maiden speech yesterday. I do hope I do you justice, and I hope that you pull me up if I’m not obeying the rules of the Chamber.

It’s a fantastic pleasure to be here taking a call on this bill. My colleagues have already spoken to a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs).

I’d like to jump straight into Part 3 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. In particular, what struck me was clause 131, “Meaning of suitable employment”. Of course we all want people to be back on their feet as quickly as possible and gainfully employed, but this struck me as a little bit—let me just explain clause 131. It’s saying that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is satisfied that the employment is suitable for the person to undertake for the specific number of hours per week. That’s part of what’s called the work test, which goes a back a few clauses to clause 125, where beneficiaries must satisfy a work test. So which type of beneficiaries? We’re talking about job seekers: people who get the jobseeker support, and people who get the jobseeker support for health conditions, including the spouse and partner as well.

So what are some of the questions that I’ve thought about in this? The first is that there’s no guidance around what is suitable employment for this person. So suitable employment might depend, in fact, on what their skill set is, and also the external factors surrounding where this person lives, what part of New Zealand they live in. I think that there’s a bit of hesitation or a lack of guidance for the ministry on what suitable employment is, so I definitely want to ask the Minister to explain what the role of suitable employment is.

This brings me to my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, and I’m very happy to see a tabled amendment in her name here, which is an amendment to clause 131. It’s great to be here to speak on behalf of her amendment, to talk to this clause. So what is her tabled amendment about? Essentially, she is calling for subclause (1) to be added to clause 131, so that “(1) MSD must have regard to regional skills shortages, seasonal work and the rate of unemployment when determining if employment is suitable.” This is important because, of course, the reason employment is suitable is required for the work test.

Let me just give you a couple of examples. I’m from Auckland, which is a big urban city, and some of the skills shortages there are more around manufacturing, high-end IT skills, but they may not be the same sort of skills that are required in some regional areas. For example, my colleague the Hon Louise Upston is from Taupō, and it’s likely that there’s not a big IT sector in Taupō, so there’s not going to be a massive skills shortage of IT skills in Taupō. So I just think that this bill requires some regional specifications, and so that’s why I commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for submitting this amendment to make sure that this bill takes account of localised factors, such as urban versus rural. I just commend that for clause 131.

I’ve got about 30 seconds left. [Interruption] I’m trying to do my best. Otherwise, look—

Hon Member: Don’t weaken now. Don’t weaken now.

DAN BIDOIS: As I said, this is my first ever call, and it’s just such a pleasure. I didn’t know SOPs were this big. This is over 500 pages—and I only just learnt what an SOP is the other day.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I thought I’d take a call following the four speakers that have spoken on this bill, just to address some of the issues that they’ve raised, and also to speak to some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been referred to.

I will start by just saying to the member that just spoke, Dan Bidois, that the entire 500 pages is the entire bill with the amendments in it. It keeps getting referred to as if it’s an entire amendment, but it is actually the whole bill with amendments inside it. If we had tried to separate it out, it would have been incredibly confusing, so that’s why it’s 500 pages long; it’s not 500 pages of changes.

There were four tabled amendments that were referenced by the previous four speakers: two that have been put up by the Hon Louise Upston, one that’s been put forward by Simon O’Connor, and one that’s been put up by Parmjeet Parmar. The thing that they all have in common, before I go into detail about why we won’t be supporting them or why I don’t support them, is that all of them are not policy-neutral. We’ve been quite clear from the start that we are making this a truly policy-neutral rewrite. That wording was actually the wording of the previous Government in respect to this bill, but the reality was that there were policy changes in it, and so this Government has made an honest attempt to make this policy-neutral. Basically, the SOPs that I’ve seen that have been put forward don’t tick that box immediately, therefore can’t be supported, because they are policy changes and we are not supporting policy changes in a policy-neutral rewrite of the Social Security Act.

I will speak to some of the specific ones that have been raised. Simon O’Connor has a tabled amendment up that he, himself, referred to, which was to insert new clause 91A. What he’s asked for, as I said, is not only not policy-neutral but it’s not actually within the scope of the bill or the purpose of the Social Security Act. We would need to rewrite the purpose of the Social Security Act and make major changes to the actual piece of legislation to make his tabled amendment relevant to what we’re discussing here in the Chamber today, and I think there is no desire across the committee for that to happen. So without going any further, that’s really all that can be said for that particular tabled amendment.

We’ve got the Hon Louise Upston, who has a tabled amendment up which wants to insert new clause 93(b), which would create exemptions to the winter energy payment. Firstly, as I said, that’s not policy-neutral. The serious concern I have about it, apart from the fact it’s not policy-neutral, is that it would be completely out of line with other supplementary assistance—so the accommodation supplement and disability allowance, which, like the winter energy payment, can only continue for a 28-day absence. So this is about consistency. If we were to do what the honourable member Louise Upston was asking, then we would be continuing to make a mess of the social security legislation, when this whole exercise is about cleaning it up. So we don’t want those inconsistencies. There are other reasons why we couldn’t support it, but the two reasons I’ve given are very clear, so I will leave it at that.

Moving to Louise Upston’s other tabled amendment that has been put forward, which would require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to “have regard to regional skills shortages, seasonal work and rate of unemployment when determining if employment is suitable.” Actually, this is some of the work that this Government is quite serious about, particularly with the work that we’re doing around our regional growth fund and with respect to skills shortages that are taking place, not only through MSD but also in portfolios like immigration. So there’s a lot of work already happening in this space, but, as I said, it actually wouldn’t be policy-neutral, so we’re not going to insert that here, and there are a number of other reasons which I won’t go into.

Then there’s one other that was discussed. I think it was the member Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment. This was in regards to her wanting to require a newborn’s responsible practitioner—I’m assuming midwife or other medical professional—to consult with the newborn’s mother about which general practice to nominate as the newborn’s primary healthcare provider. There are a few other elements to it. It’s not only not policy-neutral; it’s not within scope of this bill. That is a health matter, not something that sits with the social security legislation. There is also—can I just state that clause 120 does already set out what was introduced by the previous Government, which was a social obligation for beneficiaries with children to take all reasonable steps to ensure their children are enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. So I think that really covers off the concern that the member Parmjeet Parmar had.

So those are the reasons that I am not supportive of the SOPs that have been mentioned so far during this debate.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My amendment, which has been submitted in my name, to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill proposes an amendment to clause 166, which is found at the very end of Part 3 of the bill. It amends clause 166(2) so that it states, “The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; the Human Rights Act 1993; and the Health and Disability Act 2000 apply to P,”. The reason for that is because it talks in that part of the bill, in clause 166, about the application of the health and safety legislation, and I just wanted to highlight that the need to apply the consideration to people with disabilities is an extremely important part of their rehabilitation, their opportunity to enter the workforce.

I know that New Zealand has made huge strides over the last few years in how our communities, and our country, in fact, think about disabilities, people with disabilities, and how disabled people live. We’re a country that’s been at the forefront of some of these issues internationally. For example, we were instrumental in passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are 1.1 million people in New Zealand who experience some form of disability, so it’s a far from insignificant number. And we are also one of the few countries in the world to recognise New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of our country.

I draw our attention to New Zealander Robert Martin. He’s a living example of what can happen when a disabled person is supported by their community and given a chance to enter the workforce, and he has become a member of—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but she seems to be talking about an amendment that we don’t have yet. Has she recently—can you tell us which amendment that is?

MAUREEN PUGH: Do you want me to bring it out?

Hon Member: Read it.

MAUREEN PUGH: I did read it when I started. It was to amend clause 166(2).

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We don’t have a copy of that. Has it not yet been submitted to the office?

MAUREEN PUGH: Yes, I believe so. I’ll sign it.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK, I’ll take another call right now.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. This time I want to talk to my amendment—this is a different amendment—to clause 146, in Part 3. This amendment to clause 146 inserts new subclause (1)(a). This is in line with what is already there in clause 146, because clause 146 is headed, “Person who fails to comply with the requirement to attend interview is subject to sanction”. In that, there are two subclauses and these two subclauses don’t cover the policy that I want to see introduced here, because this is about providing cover for all aspects when someone is subject to sanction. So we want to make sure that the sanctions are not applied without having a full review of that person that goes for an interview. It’s really unfair for that person if any kind of sanction is applied without providing the full support that a person might need when that person turns up for an interview.

So in clause 146 what we see in the first subclause is that, “A person (P) is subject to a sanction … if MSD is satisfied that [the person] has failed, without a good and sufficient reason, to comply with a requirement under section 144(4) to attend an interview.” There is a provision for young people not to have this sanction. So my amendment is to see that a person not only attends the interview but is also actively involved in the process; the person is prepared and is ready to work. It’s important that person doesn’t only attend the interview but they are also open to accepting the role and undertake the interview in good faith.

In this call, I want to commend the work that the Ministry of Social Development staff do and the work that Work and Income do, because they work really hard to help people get into employment. We know that one of the roles of our welfare system is to be a safety net. People can fall back on the welfare system if they don’t have any source of income—it could be for several circumstances. But when a person is fit and is capable of getting back into employment, then Work and Income plays a very important role in helping people get into employment. I have heard that businesses get calls from Work and Income case managers asking if there are any vacancies. Then what happens is that if they find a suitable match in their database—someone who is on a benefit who can get to work—they send that person for an interview.

I think it becomes really important to know what happened in an interview if the role is declined—if that interviewee is declined for the opening that was available. It is really unfair for the interviewee to not know what went wrong during the interview process and why the job was not offered to that interviewee. So what my amendment is saying is that the case manager should be actually requesting an assessment report from the potential employer to see that the person was willing to take up the role and was prepared for the interview. With that, what will then happen is that before the sanction is applied on that person for some reason, the case manager can see if that individual needs any help to be prepared for an interview.

We know that people can be on a benefit for a long time for several reasons. It could be intergenerational or it could be because they have gone on a benefit and they have somehow lacked motivation to get back into employment and they are not sure how to be prepared for an interview. So this assessment report will help the interviewee when they turn up again for an interview. It will help them to be fully ready to take up that job, and show the willingness to take up a job, because if the potential employer is declining that interviewee because the interviewee expressed unwillingness to take up the role, or because some other indication was given in the interview, then the intention of that person to be in employment is not fully proven.

Before I finish, I want to quickly respond to the call that the Minister in the chair took on my amendment to clause 120. Clause 120 applies to people that are on a benefit, and my amendment, which inserts subclause (3) would mean that the provision about newborn enrolment with general practitioners would apply for all parents. That should not be only for people that are on a benefit. Why can’t it be extended to everybody? I did hear the Minister say that they want to keep it policy-neutral—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I speak on a proposed amendment to clause 167 in Part 3, I just want to address some of the comments that were made by the Minister in the chair in regards to the amendment to insert clause 93(b) that I spoke to in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. Her comments were that—the fact that this amendment was not in line with the intent of being policy-neutral. I would have to say that this amendment, all it does is actually extend the aspect of what are some of the grounds in which there can be an exemption. So it wasn’t changing the intent of the policy; actually, it was in line with it. It was actually giving clarity in regards to steps to explain the reasons why a beneficiary may have been absent. So I still don’t understand, as the Minister has said, where that amendment is a change in the direction of the policy, when it was just a simple amendment to the current intent of the policy. I just wanted to make a brief remark on that.

My contribution at this time is in regard to Part 3 and the amendment to clause 167. It’s amending clause 167, on page 113. Currently, under that, the amendment says, “ ‘Obligations suspended where MSD has exercised discretion to pay benefit while beneficiary overseas’, under subclause (2) insert new subclause (3) …” The new subclause that I would like to insert—and before I do that, I’ll just read the other two clauses that are there. Clause 167(1): “This section applies if MSD has exercised its discretion under any regulations made under section 415 …”; clause 167(2): “During the period of absence for which the benefit is paid, [a person] is not required to comply with his or her work test or work-preparation obligations or young person or young parent obligations.” So subclause (3), proposed by this amendment, would then include: “Any person is exempt from the obligations in Sections 163, 164 and the regulations under section 415 should they be overseas for the purpose of attempting to gain access to an overseas pension or equivalent scheme”.

And I put this forward for a number of reasons. One of them is that I’ve had a number of constituents that have come to see me in my office who have talked about the fact that, although they may have worked overseas—and one of the examples of the countries that they worked in was Canada—and while there are social security agreements with that country, they’ve often had difficulties in working with officials to try to work out the rough calculation in regard to the proportion of the social security agreement from Canada to that in New Zealand and to try to see how they can work out those jurisdictions. And so one of the challenges they’ve often talked about is the time and residency in that country and trying to work that through.

So it’s a genuine concern that has been raised—and not just one; I’ve had three of them that have come over the period of time through my office who have talked about some of these challenges. And so I feel that this amendment is genuine in the sense of being able to give a provision so that it allows for discretion. And the discretion that the clause is talking about is where a person can be exempt from those obligations in clauses 163 and 164 and for the purpose of attempting to gain access to an overseas pension or equivalent scheme. Even in the Social Services and Community Committee, we’ve been talking about the sense that social security agreements that are currently with ten countries—and in those ten countries, they then have to work out what the equivalent ratio is.

So I hope that the Minister and officials will look into this amendment. I think it’s a genuine attempt to try and meet what is sometimes an anomaly inside the system, where people who have genuinely lived in New Zealand for a period of time then go on to work overseas and then, because of that, when they’ve tried to come back and tried to work out their entitlements, they’ve often had to return back to those countries to try and do that. And we hope that they won’t be penalised because of that and that they’ll have the opportunity to be able to do that.

So I put forward this amendment. I hope the Minister will take a call, when she does, to respond to that. And, again, as I said before, this is not a change in the direction of the policy; this is an addition to it to meet the concerns about this that have genuinely been raised with constituents in our community, and so I hope that the Minister will take a call on this at some stage, respond to this amendment, and more than just saying that it’s not in line with the policy, I’d like to hear as to what in particular the Minister sees—advice from her officials—that means that this is not in line with a policy-neutral approach.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just speaking to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s tabled amendment, again, there’s no point going any further if the amendments that are going up are not proposals that are policy-neutral, because we’re not looking to change policy in this rewrite. So I need to make that really clear, and from what I can see of the amendment that he’s discussing, it would create the same inconsistencies that I mentioned earlier with respect to the winter energy payment tabled amendment that’s been put up by the honourable member Louise Upston. So it really stops there.

The member Parmjeet Parmar has also discussed an amendment that she’s put forward under her name, which would amend clause 146 to insert a new clause 146(1)(a). Again, it’s not policy-neutral. But I also want to speak to this one, because it’s probably one of the strangest amendments that I’ve seen put forward, asking that there be an expectation that, when someone goes for a job interview, a report back be given to the case manager on how well they did and whether they were prepared for the interview and whether they were engaged during the interview process. Well, I’d really like—no, actually, I don’t want to know. A number of issues arise for me, from hearing that, but, clearly, an interview is subjective, and the assumption that that member is making by putting this amendment forward is that people would not prepare or would not be committed to the interview. We know, though, that not everybody does well during interviews; it’s a very difficult process to engage in, and, actually, many politicians in this House, including myself, have failed in interviews at certain points in time—so, very subjective, very unnecessary. Not only is it not policy-neutral, as I said; it’s a strange proposal, and it’s been put forward with no thought of what you would do if the person actually was deemed to have failed the interview process, which would be very hard to measure in the first place.

So I think if we’re going to continue with the committee stage of this bill, some serious amendments would be welcome, because, actually, that is not one that I would consider a serious contender, in terms of something that anyone in this committee could consider.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I’ll have another go at speaking to my amendment, and hopefully I’ve got the process right this time. My amendment refers to Part 3—right towards the end, in the “Miscellaneous” section—clause 166. It’s the “Application of health and safety legislation, etc”. And my amendment to clause 166 amends subclause (2), on page 113: “The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the Human Rights Act 1993 apply …”. I request that the Minister gives consideration to also including the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act of 2000, and the reason for that is to give credibility to and acknowledgment of the role that the disability sector plays in the workplace and the care that is needed when employing people with disabilities in the workplace.

Over the last few years, New Zealand has made huge and very important progress internationally in how we think about our disabled people and how our disabled people live in this country. And, as I said before, we are a country that has been at the forefront of some of the changes in relating to disabled people. For example, we were instrumental in passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are 1.1 million people in this country who experience some form of disability. And we’re also one of the few countries in the world to recognise sign language as an official language of our country. And that’s demonstrated to us even in this House.

I draw our attention too to New Zealander Robert Martin. Now, Robert Martin is a living example of what can happen when a disabled person is given the opportunity to fully participate in his community and in a workplace. And he’s begun work now as a member of the United Nations advisory committee on the rights of disabled people. Robert Martin was a baby who was put into an institution because he was handicapped. He was hidden away from the public. He was out of sight and out of mind. Robert has an intellectual disability, but as an adult he has become a very strong advocate for the disabled community here in New Zealand and now throughout the world. And, of course, he’s got the distinction of being the very first person with an intellectual disability to become a member of the United Nations committee. He’s representing New Zealand in Geneva and advocating for disabled people around the world, and I know there’s a very proud member of Parliament here who has Robert in her electorate in Whanganui.

Disabled people simply want the opportunity to participate and have a life like anyone else with their families and be part of a community and be part of a workplace, and they also want choices. They want choices in how they live their lives and how they participate in a workforce.

I’d just like to quote some stats here from the labour force participation rate. Disabled people participating in the labour force—25.2 percent; whereas non-disabled—72.6 percent. And I just want to acknowledge the work of the former Minister, the Hon Nicky Wagner, who did a huge amount of work in advocating for people with disabilities. I know the work that happened in Christchurch in getting 300 people into work, in connecting them with businesses in Christchurch, was a huge step forward, and, in fact, it was so successful down there in Christchurch that it was oversubscribed—it actually got more people into work.

So my amendment, simply, draws attention and asks for recognition of people with disabilities so that they can be fully integrated into the workforce. We know there’s a lot of support and advocacy that is done for people with disabilities, but we also want to make sure that they’re well-supported as job seekers here in New Zealand. I thank you, Madam Chair.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that the question be now put.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have started the question. I will finish it.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor inserting new clause 91A be agreed to:

before the cross-heading above clause 92, insert:

Obligations under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

91A MSD’s actions must be consistent with United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

(1) MSD must take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that its actions are consistent with those required by—

(a) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and

(b) in particular, Article 8, clause 1 of that Convention, which requires that “States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference”.

(2) In undertaking the obligation in subsection (1), MSD must undertake all necessary means to ensure a dependent child’s identity, nationality, name, mother, father, whakapapa, and any other necessary family relationships are identified.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Louise Upston to clause 93 be agreed to:

insert new clause 93B:

93B A person may apply to the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development for an exemption to 203A on the grounds of, for example:

(a) caring for children who may be located overseas

(b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions

(c) serious illness to immediate family overseas.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Maureen Pugh to clause 97 be agreed to:

insert new clause 97(1)(c):

(c) in the case of an offender being released from prison MSD must, no less than 4 weeks before release date, ensure that the offender is able to have access to entitlements upon release and assisted with bank account requirements.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor inserting new clause 98A be agreed to:

insert new clause 98A:

98A Beneficiary must supply New Zealand Business Number

(1) MSD may in writing request an applicant for a benefit or a beneficiary to provide evidence, to the satisfaction of MSD, of the New Zealand Business Number number of the applicant or beneficiary when relevant.

(2) MSD may refuse to grant a benefit and must suspend payment of a benefit if satisfactory evidence of the New Zealand Business Number of the applicant or the beneficiary is not received within 10 working days after the date on which the request is made (the deadline).

(3) MSD may in writing extend the deadline if an applicant or a beneficiary provides a reasonable explanation for not providing the evidence within the deadline.

(4) This section does not apply to a beneficiary who is unable to provide satisfactory evidence of the beneficiary’s New Zealand Business Number within the deadline or extended deadline specified because of any health condition, injury, or disability.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor to clause 100 be agreed to:

insert new clause 100(1)(a):

(a) This notification must take place at least 10 working days prior to departure.

(b) Clause 100(a) does not apply in emergency circumstances.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Alfred Ngaro to clause 119 be agreed to:

replace clause 119(1) with:

(1) A person to whom this section applies must take all reasonable steps to ensure that each dependent child aged between 6 and 15 years inclusively is enrolled at and regularly attends a registered school (as defined by regulations made under section 409).

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar to clause 120 be agreed to:

insert new clause 120(3):

(3) Newborn enrolment with general Practitioners

(a) How pre-enrolment request made

A newborn’s responsible practitioner must, before the newborn is discharged from the hospital or from maternity care,—

(i) consult the newborn’s mother and any other family members the responsible practitioner considers appropriate about which general practice to nominate as the newborn’s primary health care provider; and

(ii) send a pre-enrolment request on behalf of the newborn to the nominated general practice; and

(iii) ensure that the request is entered into the maternity system.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jo Hayes to clause 130 be agreed to:

insert new clause 130(d):

(d) attend and participate in work experience for any opportunity of suitable employment to which the beneficiary is referred by MSD.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 131 be agreed to:

insert the following new subclause:

(1) MSD must have regard to regional skill shortages, seasonal work and rate of unemployment when determining if employment is suitable.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar to clause 146 be agreed to:

in clause 146, insert subclause (1A):

(1A) MSD may also ask for an assessment report of P’s interview to determine if P was prepared for the interview and was engaged in the interview process.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 149 be agreed to:

in clause 149(1), replace “must also do the following things:” with “must fulfil the following requirements:”, and insert after paragraph (d) the following new paragraph:

(e) ensure that each dependant child under the age of 5 years has received their immunisations as listed under the National Immunisation Schedule.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 158 be agreed to:

insert the following new subclause:

(3) Notwithstanding section (2), a person who has disclosed an overseas pension or equivalent scheme that is inaccessible from New Zealand is not compelled to travel overseas, by MSD or at their own costs, for the purposes of attempting to obtain an overseas pension that they may be eligible for.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 163 be agreed to:

insert the following new subclause:

(3) Any person who has an overseas pension or equivalent scheme but is unable to access it due to international differences in pension, superannuation and other such scheme policies is permitted to disclose this to MSD in lieu of the rate of the overseas pension that they cannot obtain.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 164 be agreed to:

insert the following new subclause:

(4) MSD may not suspend a benefit if a person who fails to comply with a notice given under section 163 does so due to complications arising from an overseas pension or equivalent scheme being inaccessible from New Zealand.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Maureen Pugh to clause 166 be agreed to:

in subclause (2), replace “2015 and the Human Rights Act 1993” with “2015; the Human Rights Act 1933; and the Health and Disability Act 2000”.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 167 be agreed to:

insert the following new subclause:

(3) Any person is exempt from the obligations in sections 163, 164 and the regulations under section 415 should they be overseas for the purpose of attempting to gain access to an overseas pension or equivalent scheme.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Factors affecting benefits

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair—good choice, if I may say so. After that humble start, I’ll proceed quickly to clause 188 within Part 4, being, obviously, within the proposed amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 25 to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. This is an important clause, and, indeed, an important part, because these are factors affecting benefits. In the case of clause 188, we’re turning our minds to situations in which the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) may refuse or cancel a benefit of a person if that person is not ordinarily resident in New Zealand. So there are serious consequences for a person who is affected by this clause.

I’ll speak to the amendment that I have in my name regarding that clause in detail in a moment, but first I’d just like to note that the way that the clause operates is significant to the comments that I wish to make. First, subclause (1) talks about situations in which MSD can refuse to grant a benefit, cancel it, and so forth if a person is “not ordinarily resident in New Zealand.” Elsewhere, we can find some guidance as to what the phrase “not ordinarily resident in New Zealand” means. However, the importance of subclause (2) is that it provides an exception to that. In that sense, it’s an exception to an exception. So we’re talking about situations in which the section by which the MSD may refuse or cancel a benefit, and so forth, does not apply.

The paragraph labelled (a) currently reads “New Zealand superannuation payable to a person resident in a specified Pacific country under section 31 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001”, and then it adds some detail in brackets. So that’s saying that the exception to the exception applies in such cases.

The first aspect of my amendment focuses on the fact that the word “payable” actually has a narrow meaning in the sense that it does not necessarily capture a situation in which a person is already being paid New Zealand superannuation. Now, if we look in the context of the whole subclause, in the first paragraph, listed (aaa), which I note sounds like someone who is hard of hearing and has a stutter—“Eh, eh, eh?”—we’re talking about “New Zealand superannuation being paid”. The next one, (a), is “New Zealand superannuation payable”. The third paragraph, (ab), is “a veteran’s pension being paid”. Again, the distinction is not contained within that one clause in relation to a veterans pension that is “payable”, as is stated in the fourth paragraph, simply labelled “(b)”. Finally, in the next paragraph, (c), it is “a benefit payable under any reciprocity agreement”—to me that perhaps should be “reciprocal agreement”, which is why I stumbled perhaps a little—“with another country adopted by an order made under section 359”.

So within that single section, we’ve got a number of different ways in which we can see that the legislation deals with people who are receiving, or may be eligible to receive, such benefits as are listed within it. The significance is that in looking to apply this law, and if it were to be challenged by a person who’s had the exception invoked upon them and their benefit stopped, notwithstanding that they are not ordinarily resident in New Zealand, we need the clarity, we need the breadth, and we need the certainty that says, in any of those situations, whether you are merely eligible to be receiving those payments or you are, in fact, receiving them, you are, in any case, able to claim the protection that is intended under the clause.

I do believe—and I invite the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, to agree or disagree with me as she will—it is the intention of this provision to enable these sorts of broad exceptions, and, to that end, in each case, I believe we should see stated clearly “payable or being paid”. So that’s the intent of the first aspect of my amendment.

Turning now to the second aspect, but in the same subclause, we see, under the words “of that Act”, referring specifically to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—[Bell rung] Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to continue this contribution. Addressing the second part of that amendment, the reason that I’m proposing to the Minister that we have additional wording there is, again, for certainty but also flexibility in a situation in which that might arise.

So, currently, to recap in terms of the meaning of that particular subclause, we’re talking about New Zealand superannuation that is payable, or, as I’ve proposed a moment ago, being paid, to a person who is in a specified Pacific country. I’ll just pause for a moment to note that there are good reasons that we allow such exemptions to people in those certain Pacific countries, reflecting the nature of our relationship in New Zealand with peoples of those countries. Referring, however, to that particular Act and, actually, within it—more specifically, section 31 of that Act—we’re not allowing ourselves, as a legislature, if we pass it in that form without my amendment, to contemplate that there might be a situation in which an equivalent piece of legislation comes onto the statute book and replaces that. And yet, in that situation, what we would want to happen, I’m sure—I’m sure the Minister intends that to be the case, and I can see it in her eyes now. The intention, as I say, is that this equivalent provision would still actually apply.

The wording of my amendment, that second part of it, is very deliberate and very specific along those lines. I have said, or proposed to say, “or under any other equivalent legislative provision in replacement thereof”. The word “or” obviously indicates the flexibility. We want that situation not only where the current legislation being referred to remains in force but also contemplating that a future Parliament might change that, and not wanting to bind the hands of a future Parliament. The words “any other” indicate that, actually, we want to be expansive in our idea of how we can sort of contemplate that this might arise, such that this would be replaced, and I don’t imagine that this Parliament would pass legislation to exclude the benefit of those who are in other Pacific countries that meet the criteria, but it is possible. So if we say “any other equivalent legislation” then we cover ourselves to the maximum extent possible and there are no unintended consequences in terms of people in those nations but otherwise applicable to this Act being excluded.

The next little piece of wording within my amendment that I’d like to focus on is the phrase “legislative provision”. You can imagine that I spent quite some time thinking about how better to express my very earnest desire not to have any unintended consequences as far as that’s concerned, and I settled eventually on the phrase “legislative provision” because, again, I’m desiring to be as broad as possible so far as that is concerned. If I had said “another Act”, if I’d said “a statute”, then I would be indicating that it would only be another piece of primary legislation that would trigger this effective alternate reality, if I could put it like that, where this exception to the exception could apply. Instead, I say “legislative provision” because I also want to include the notion that a regulation made under the authority of this House but by a Minister—technically, of course, by the Governor-General under Order in Council, but, in any case, a legislative provision that is not primary legislation. Of course, regulations, as we all know, no doubt, are legislation too—they’re secondary legislation, and, of course, we have such a thing as tertiary legislation, so I note, again, with the intention that any relevant and equivalent provision would actually be caught by this change that I’m proposing today.

So I conclude with the hope, indeed, the desire, that the Minister will be able to speak to that and just to confirm, in the first instance, that her intention is, as I’ve expressed it to be, as I genuinely think it is, no doubt, in good faith—the Minister is intending that as many people who are intended to be eligible will be eligible. So it is that I’m making this proposal, first, that not only people who are in fact being paid or eligible to be paid but also both of those things—and also so that any legislative changes that are made don’t inadvertently exclude the intent of the section.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): OK, well, this is the only amendment I’ve seen for this part so far, and I do want to commend Chris Penk, because he has brought an amendment here that is so incredibly policy-neutral that it does nothing. Effectively, what you’ve got here, in terms of what he’s trying to do—it doesn’t change anything. Adding “that is being paid” does not add anything, as in order to be paid, it must be payable in the first place. So, actually, it doesn’t add anything new. It is so neutral that it changes nothing, and so therefore it is redundant.

The second part of it, in terms of the member wanting to futureproof with respect to any changes that might be made to secondary legislation or through regulation—the reality is that if those changes are made, then any other additional changes that need to be made throughout the legislation are also looked at. So there’s no need to futureproof it, because that can be done at the time those hypothetical changes would be made. I will just end it at that.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I’ve got a few questions that I would like to ask in regards to Part 4, but, firstly, I just thought that Chris Penk made an excellent contribution in relation to his amendment, and I was a little uncertain around what the Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, means by policy-neutral, because his amendment is an excellent one, and it is policy-neutral. Earlier on this afternoon, I heard the Minister complaining about amendments not being policy-neutral, and now we get one which is policy-neutral but it’s so policy-neutral that it’s not a good one!

So I think the House would benefit from some description as to what the Minister determines to be policy-neutral and what the Minister doesn’t determine to be policy-neutral, because I think there’s a bit of confusion being given by the Minister. We’ve got a number of amendments, and these relate to the bill very clearly—trying to improve it, trying to make it better. We want to ensure that this legislation is put through in the best possible form, as any good Opposition would want to do, so having a definition of what policy-neutral means would help us and assist us in this debate as it continues, and I’m sure it will continue for quite some time.

I have a couple of questions, and my questions relate to clauses 203 and 203A. These clauses relate to benefits not being payable while a beneficiary is absent from New Zealand. Rightfully so, there are some exceptions to this rule. Those exceptions relate to those who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veterans support, and any reciprocal agreement with another country. So there’s a number of exceptions to that rule. And then a new clause has been added in by Supplementary Order Paper 25, section 203A, which relates to the winter energy payment. There are a few questions that I’d like to ask.

My first question is whether that’s a policy-neutral change which has been made by the Government, because that’s a big debate—it’s a big debate, the policy behind the winter energy payment. The Minister has made it very clear that this bill is not about changing policy—it’s policy-neutral—however, that was a budgetary measure which was put through. The Opposition opposed it. It was an election promise. There is a lot of debate over whether it should be. I mean, we had questions in question time over this issue. So to have something which has been questioned about in question time by the Opposition, and then to argue that it’s policy-neutral is something which I think is a little bit of a stretch, and I would like the Minister to clarify whether this section is policy-neutral, and, if so, why it is policy-neutral.

Greg O’Connor: You’re confusing it with being policies-neutral.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, you’ve got very weird policies on the other side of the House, don’t you, Mr Greg O’Connor?

So the next question I’d like to ask is around why the decision was made for it to be four weeks during the winter period. So if someone is eligible and receiving it—there’s the opt-out clause there as well, but if someone is receiving it and they leave the country for four weeks, then they become non-eligible. So why was the decision made for four weeks?

I guess that flows on to my second question, which is: how is that measured? Is there a registrar for registering that you’re going to be overseas? Is that information picked up by customs? I’d find it helpful if the Minister could clarify how that information is collected and how the ministry or the department—I think it’s the chief executive has to be satisfied. In clause 203A(2)(b): “the chief executive is satisfied that the 1 or more absences do not affect the beneficiary’s eligibility for the payment under section 65C.” So I’d appreciate some guidance from the Minister on how the chief executive is satisfied in relation to the winter energy payment—that they know that the person has been away for four weeks.

So there are a number of questions, but basically it’s the process for the information in relation to the winter energy payment. I guess, what measures are in place to ensure that the payment is then stopped? Does that automatically happen? Because I understand that you don’t automatically opt out; you have to physically opt out. It’s not an opt-in scheme; it’s an opt-out scheme. So is someone warned or are they given a letter to say that they are no longer going to receive that payment from a particular time? So there’s a number of questions around how that then affects their benefit. Is it automatically cut? What is the measure? Thank you very much.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I’ll just be quickly speaking to some of the factors. I’m a little bit confused about the issues the member Simeon Brown has raised, as I’m not entirely sure if they lie with Part 4, but I will respond to some of them. With respect to why the 28 days was settled upon for absence overseas, it was because that’s consistent with other policies. So currently you need to inform if you are going to be overseas for 28 days with respect to the disability allowance and accommodation supplement as well. So this is about consistency, and that’s what we want to ensure that we have with our social security legislation.

He has asked how introducing the winter energy payment could be deemed policy-neutral. Keep in mind that at the time the previous Government did the rewrite, the winter energy payment didn’t exist. It was something that was introduced by this Government, so of course it has to factor into the legislation; that’s just an absolute necessity.

And, also, he has asked about how people will inform if they’ve been overseas. Well, it’s really interesting that you ask that question, because the process that we’ve undertaken to ensure that people are informed about the winter energy payment and what they’re entitled to has really significantly increased the number of people informing the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) of things like the fact that they will be overseas. So, with regard to the winter energy payment, letters went out to everyone. On an average week prior to that letter going out, MSD was being informed of, on average, 125 people who were saying they were going to be leaving the country for 28 days or longer. And following that letter, it’s increased to 800 per week that are contacting MSD to let them know that they’ll go overseas.

So in many ways this has been a bit of an awareness-raising exercise, and, probably, prior to this many didn’t know that they were supposed to inform MSD of the fact that they were going away. So I think that that is an indication and a lesson to all of us that we do need to keep people informed about how they maintain eligibility, because not everyone knows that. So this exercise has been very successful in doing that.

Going back to Part 4, because, as I said, I’m not really sure if Simeon Brown was speaking to Part 4—

Simeon Brown: Section 203—have you read your Act?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do want to just cover off what are the essential changes in this rewrite that you would think—that we would think—that the Opposition would be interested in, but Simeon Brown is yelling out, unnecessarily, things that are irrelevant to this debate.

So, as I said, what is important to note is that Part 4 outlines provisions and factors affecting benefits. The bill as introduced contains two minor and technical changes which we would assume that the Opposition would be speaking to. That is, clarifying that where a non-beneficiary client has an outstanding warrant for their arrest and is a risk to public safety, their supplementary assistance will be stopped immediately with no 50 percent protection for any dependent children. And the term “shared custody of a dependent child” has been updated to “shared care”.

Can I just say that this is a really good indication of the good faith in which we came into this, because some of the policies that exist in the legislation as part of the previous Government’s administering of the social development sector are not necessarily things that we agree with, but when we are undertaking a policy-neutral rewrite, that is not the time to turn all of that upside down. So some of these measures that are in here that we are tidying up but not necessarily changing to any great extent—or not changing to any great extent—may be things that are considered as part of the welfare overhaul. Because, as I said, it’s not that we agree with every policy that’s in here, but during a policy-neutral rewrite—that is not the time to try and make those changes. So that is the good faith in which we entered this exercise.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh! Makes a change, Alfred. Hey, thank you very much. Look, two things need to be very quickly noted to the Minister who’s just resumed her chair—and thank you for her response to Simeon Brown. Mr Brown was referring to clause 203, which sits within Part 4. I think it’s incorrect to be suggesting that his discussion about the “General rule: benefit not payable while beneficiary absent from New Zealand” is out of scope. That isn’t correct, nor is it out of part.

Secondly, as my contribution will indicate, there’s more to Part 4 in terms of changes than simply the two that the Minister has pointed out. I’ll be tabling a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOP)—and I know that other colleagues are at the moment—around this.

So I want to spend a little bit of time, if I might, in Part 4 on clause 192, just to help the Minister there—192 in Part 4, before clause 203, which is also in Part 4. This is to do with the “Beneficiary resident in institution for treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction”.

Hon Member: Is it the AA, eh?

SIMON O’CONNOR: So it’s not the AA, eh, which is referred to earlier by Christopher Penk. What is important is that the changes being made—and I suppose I’m just wanting to seek some clarity from the Minister, which may take the time over the dinner break—is they have removed in the SOP the reference to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and also reference to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and to replace it, which I think is well-meaning, with the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. I think the intention of the Minister is obviously to apply what is seen as a more updated Act in this space. I am wondering, as the former chair of the Health Committee who stewarded the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill through the House, that there may be at least two misunderstandings at play that would require some alteration.

So I have SOP 34 tabled at the moment, which is suggesting we go back to the original wording. That is, that we have clause 192 referencing the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. It’s possible that a further SOP might be needed in order to make sure we can bring in the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. As I say, there are two important factors which need to be addressed. One is timing of the substance addiction Act of 2017. The second is a fuller understanding of—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. Committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Colleagues, the House is resumed in committee for the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Before the dinner break, we were debating Part 4. Simon O’Connor had the call, and he has two minutes and two seconds remaining.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’ll take it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Simon O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you very much. I’m not sure that’ll be the best decision of the night, but I’m pleased you have.

I was talking on Part 4, clause 192(3) in particular. It was around the decision of the Minister to change references to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and to instead replace it with the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. And I was signalling to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, before the bell rang that I had two particular issues to raise. None is particularly political; it’s more just trying to get an understanding of whether the right decision has been made about bringing this more recent legislation in.

I suspect it is simply a belief that this new substance addiction Act of 2017 is more timely and, therefore, will help around the treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction, but the two elements are to do with the dates—particularly when the substance addiction Act comes into force, and the second is around whether or not that new legislation is broad enough for, actually, the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction.

You’ll excuse me, Madam Chair, as I attempt to pull up, hopefully, still, my notes—there we go. So the first element around this new bill is the timing. So I wouldn’t mind the Minister clarifying, if they can. The Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act was something that had come through the Health Committee when I was chair and, very importantly, a number of elements of that legislation to do with the treatment around drug and alcohol, actually do not come into force until at least a year after Royal assent is given.

So we’re now switching to the legislation that’s referenced here—the substance addiction Act. The commencement date says “this Act comes into force on the day that is the first anniversary of the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” So I suppose what I would like some clarification from the Minister or her officials on, if possible, is just a complete understanding that, while rightly including the substance addiction Act of 2017 into this amendment, many parts of it, Minister, are actually not in play at the moment. They’re not actually in force.

Some sections are. Sections 4 and 86 through to 96, along with sections 116—[Bell rung] Thank you very much. So some parts of this substance addiction Act are in force, but a goodly number are still not in force. So I suppose I think we want to avoid a situation where, through this social legislation rewrite bill, we’re not referencing or an Act now which is not in force. And fundamentally, and I think rightly, we’re here to try and treat those with alcohol and drug problems; you can’t fully do that—or someone can’t fully do that—under an Act which is not fully in force.

The second element moves away from the date per se but to the nature of what this substance addiction Act is in comparison to the drug addiction Act of 1966. I think it’s really important to understand—and I’m very happy to be corrected on this—the substance addiction bill this Parliament passed is for the absolute top-end addicts. This is not an Act which is designed to help all people with drug and alcohol problems, and this is where I think we’re running into slight problems, potentially.

The social rewrite bill is using that substance addiction Act in terms of how we treat alcoholism and drugs. It is only designed, as a piece of law, to affect the absolute highest end drug addiction. We’re not talking the alcoholic or the drug addict who goes to Alcoholics Anonymous, or something. We’re talking about, if I might, someone who has neuroadaptation to the substance. This means someone whose brain chemistry has been so affected by alcohol that they can no longer function. They’re craving for a substance, have had multiple unsuccessful efforts to control that substance, and, importantly, out of the Act, use the substance despite several harmful consequences.

What we’re talking about here, Minister—and you may well know it already, so I’m sorry to be presumptuous—is someone with such an alcohol or drug dependency that they have literally fallen down the stairs multiple times, multiple fractures, and are continuing to try and get alcohol. So I suppose what I’m highlighting to the committee is that it’s good that it’s been mentioned—the substance addiction Act, here in the social rewrite bill in clause 192—but it’s only aimed at looking after a very small, very particular group of people. So perhaps if I put it another way, the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is very broad. It provides and manifests ways to help people with those addictions right across the panoply of care, whereas the substance addiction one that has now been inserted does not. It is only focusing on a very narrow—very narrow—group of people.

And finally, which I think is important—well, actually, it’s the third one that’s jumped to mind. A lot of it’s actually about the detaining of people. The whole point of this substance addiction Act 2017 is to, effectively, detain a person who has such a high level of alcohol and drug abuse. I don’t think that’s the intended aspect of this social security rewrite bill. I don’t think the Minister, or anyone, is actually wanting that those coming to the Ministry of Social Development who are getting treatment for alcohol and drugs are going to be subject to that sort of high-level treatment.

So, fundamentally, it’s asking: why are we putting that particular Act in place? Why are we not keeping to the more general Act of 1966 around alcohol and drug harm? I think that’s the general question. Then the specific questions, in three parts, are the dates and an appreciation that many elements of the substance addiction Act are not yet in force. They will become in force probably in about—what are we in at the moment? July—probably in September or October this year. I assume we might be up to about Part 7 of this rewrite bill by then, but I think it’s important that it’s in play.

The second part of it is, ultimately, an appreciation that the substance addiction Act is not for all alcoholics and drug users; it’s for that absolute high end—I probably could count, Minister, on two hands the number of people who fall within the ambit of that legislation.

And then, finally, an appreciation that even if it’s correct to have that Act referenced here instead of the drug addiction Act, it’s about detaining New Zealanders in some ways, and it’s something that the Health Committee really spent a lot of time over. It’s about detaining people, in a sense, against their will.

So it doesn’t, to me, quite fit here in section 192—that swapping out. I could imagine it would be part of it, but not a complete—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. As we are now debating in the committee Part 4 of this bill, I just want to reflect on comments that were actually made by the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, just prior to the dinner break. And I suppose the comments created a little bit of a concern, but, also, I’d be interested to get some clarity from the Minister, when she stands, to then address some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and the issues that have been raised in regards to Part 4. She was reflecting on the welfare overhaul. She was talking about elements of the social security rewrite legislation that is before the committee, and then she also indicated that there are elements of it that she did not agree with; in fact, she was quite clear that, actually, they would change at a later time, but that at the moment they just needed to get through.

I’d like to remind the Minister that the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is the most significant rewriting of the legislation in a number of years. In order to be able to make those changes, I’m just wondering whether the Minister can clarify what changes she would make, because I would think that she would take the opportunity now to be able to make those changes. So that’s the first thing I’d like to, sort of, see: whether the Minister can talk about that.

The second thing that would be important, as we are now continuing the debate, is what’s come up in responses from the Minister, in regards to her responses to SOPs that we’ve put forward—she’s ruled them out because they are not policy-neutral. Yet, when our colleague here, Chris Penk, put forward an amendment that was policy-neutral, it was not acceptable. I know my colleague Simeon Brown asked the Minister—and I hope that she will be able to take the opportunity to do that—to clarify what she deems as being policy-neutral. So that we can continue to, sort of, look forward to our SOPs—at least having the opportunity to be able to have some form of debate on them, and maybe have some consideration by the Minister.

So my contribution at this time is just in regards to an SOP in the name of the Hon Louise Upston, who can’t be here this evening. This SOP is in regards to Part 4, clause 191. Just to give you the context of this, this particular clause of the bill talks about “Factors affecting benefit: hospitalisation”. It talks about “Hospitalisation” in clause 190—“The main benefit under this Act of a person … is affected by hospitalisation”. It gives, under that clause—those who are dependants, those who are spouses inside of that. It then talks further on, in clause 191—“Benefit of spouse or partner increased after 13th week of hospitalisation”—“(1) This section applies if—(a) a person’s … main benefit under this Act is reduced under section 190; and (b) … has a spouse or partner who is not in hospital or has been in hospital for less than 13 weeks;”.

The SOP in the name of the Hon Louise Upston seeks to make a change. Members will see that on SOP 25, this has been removed. The words that have been removed in subclause 3—the first part of the subclause notes, “Nothing in this section entitles a single person or a couple who are”. I then quote the removed parts—the crossed-out parts—“married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship”, which just then has been replaced with a new part which states, “in a relationship”.

So I was speaking on behalf of the Hon Louise Upston, who would like to see that again. This is important. There are numerous other pieces of legislation that actually acknowledge the different types of relationship. Again, I would hope to see that the Minister will see, actually, this is policy-neutral. There’s nothing here that would actually be inconsistent with other forms of policy that’s there. That would then allow the Minister to consider this. I hope that the Minister will consider this here as well. The Hon Louise Upston also notes that this Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 33—amends the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and amends clause 191 to specify the types of relationship which are applicable to this clause.

So there are other SOPs I will be speaking on, but two things. First of all: the clarification around what’s policy-neutral. The second is just in regards to the comments that the Minister made that, in regards to the welfare overhaul, actually, she changed a number of things. I’d like to know what those things are. I think that’s important for us, so that we can think that we’ve got an opportunity at the committee of the whole House to debate those.

Then, obviously, the third part of this debate is in regards to SOP 33 and Part 4, clause 191 as well. I hope that the Minister can consider this, and in her response, consider, actually, allowing this amendment to be part of the bill as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next member. It is custom—and I think there have been Speakers’ rulings in this House—that we don’t mention the absence of a member from the Chamber. You can certainly speak on behalf of another member, but it’s not in the rules to mention that that person is away.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this Part 4. I was, unfortunately, away in Auckland working and I missed out on the—

Simon O’Connor: You just mentioned your own absence.

MELISSA LEE: Yeah, I know. I’m talking about myself, so I think I’m actually OK. I missed out on the opportunity to speak on the amendments that I had presented. So I’d like to thank members who did, in fact, speak on them.

Moving on, I’d like to speak on the amendment to clause 174 in Part 4. Clause 174 talks about the “Benefit of a person affected is reduced by amount of overseas pension”. Basically, what it is is that if someone is being paid an overseas pension and they are also entitled to the New Zealand pension, the amount that they are being paid overseas is deducted from the amount that they are being paid in New Zealand. There is also subclause (2) where that first part does not apply, and there are two categories. One is for the New Zealand superannuation payable overseas under section 26 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, or the veterans pension payable overseas under section 182 of the Veterans’ Support Act, and I’d like to put forward an amendment in my name to add another clause.

My amendment to clause 174 is to insert the following new paragraph (c) in subclause (2): “a person whose overseas pension is currently inaccessible from New Zealand.” The reason I am doing this to amend the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is to make it clear that those people—you know, in New Zealand there are so many people who go overseas and work overseas, and often they pay into a retirement savings plan or a pension plan. Sometimes they pay into a savings plan for which, in some of the countries, the language is actually different, and it is called a pension plan. I have specifically written about this issue to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, since last year.

For New Zealanders who are currently working in Korea, for example, they’re teaching English at local schools, but they are not paying into the Government superannuation fund because the pension that they call “pension” is called “pension” in that language. It’s like a KiwiSaver. It’s like a savings plan, and there is no differentiation between a savings plan that they have to pay into and the actual Government-funded pension, but it’s all called pension. So New Zealand recognises those savings plans as a pension, and they think that they’re being paid as superannuation, like a pension. I know, it sounds a little bit confusing, and what—

Simon O’Connor: I think it’s a conspiracy.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Mr O’Connor. It’s not a conspiracy. What happens is that when New Zealanders, after having worked there and having paid into a savings scheme for their retirement, just like New Zealanders do in New Zealand into a KiwiSaver—that does not mean that they should be punished for making plans for their future. What happens is that when they leave Korea, for example, the savings that they have made in that country are not withdrawable. They cannot withdraw them to move to a New Zealand superannuation, KiwiSaver type kind of a scheme, and often New Zealanders who work in Korea are left thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket.

I have been contacted by a lot of these people who are working over there, asking the New Zealand Government to go into negotiation with the Korean Government to work on this social security agreement. I know that the previous Government worked on that and that this Minister is currently working on that, and I know that they have agreed on the details of the language. Having said that, there is an issue specifically for these people who have saved into a savings scheme but cannot withdraw from it. Their Australian counterparts, their Canadian counterparts, and even their American counterparts can withdraw their money from their savings scheme to move it to their country and put it into their KiwiSaver type of retirement savings account, but New Zealanders apparently can’t.

I would like to ask the Minister whether that has been included in the social security agreement with Korea to give effect to this so that when New Zealanders who are now in New Zealand who cannot access those funds because they are not allowed to because they are now living in New Zealand—[Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Melissa Lee.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will repeat it. I ask whether those New Zealanders who have now returned to New Zealand and who cannot access the thousands of dollars in money that they have saved in their accounts in Korea can, in fact, find their way to bring that money over to New Zealand, or, in fact, whether they would be missing out on their superannuation in New Zealand just because they’ve got a pension scheme—that word, “pension” scheme—in Korea. The language, the translation, makes it very difficult for them to differentiate between a superannuation type of scheme and a savings plan for those people.

Yesterday, our newest member, Dan Bidois, spoke. It was an amazing maiden statement, I have to say.

Hon Member: That’s right.

MELISSA LEE: That’s right. One of the things that he talked about was the fact that he’s worked in so many different countries, and that reminded me about this particular issue. One of the things that he said was that apart from working in developed countries, he also worked in some parts of the world that, often, we don’t actually go and work in—places like Kazakhstan—and that made me wonder what kind of situation Kazakhstan has in terms of the superannuation or pension schemes that a lot of Kiwis save into. I looked it up, and I think in Kazakhstan there isn’t a superannuation scheme that Kiwis who work in Kazakhstan can save into. I think they’re exempt from it, whereas in countries like Korea, Kiwis who work in environments like in an education facility—whether it’s private or Government, they have to save into a savings scheme.

I know it sounds really—when the employer says you need to put it into a savings scheme, they have to say yes, but the thing is it’s not a Government-funded pension scheme. Some do; some don’t. But even if they do, they should be allowed to bring their funds back to New Zealand so that they are entitled to that money that they’ve put away. If they’re not, what I’m asking—and what I’m seeking in this amendment in my name—is to exclude those funds so that they are not disqualified from accessing New Zealand superannuation and so that their superannuation in New Zealand will not be deducted from the sum that they’ve got overseas, as often that section 174 would have us believe.

The other issue that I would like to talk about is that often—it might have been in an earlier clause, but I think it’s relevant to this part as well—when people who are on a benefit go overseas for more than a certain period of time, their benefits are deducted. They can be overseas for only a certain period of time. If they are, in fact, going overseas to deal with their savings or superannuation type of situation, like in the examples that I’ve given, they would not be prejudiced in that cutting of benefit, for example, to make sure that they are just trying to get what is rightfully theirs. So I would like to put forward my amendment to clause 174, to insert a new paragraph (c) in this clause.

I would like to urge the Minister to consider that this will, in fact, benefit a lot of New Zealanders who don’t work only in New Zealand but all over the world. They may be caught in many different situations where they do the right thing by putting money away for their retirement, just like with a KiwiSaver type of savings scheme, and they’re not able to access it. If they can’t access it, they should not be penalised, and if they do try and access it, they should be given the right to access it, but if they can’t, they should not have to go with less money in their superannuation payments in New Zealand. It seems only fair, and if the Minister thinks that there is a real reason why these New Zealanders who work overseas should be penalised, I would like to hear of her reasoning behind it—why she doesn’t think it’s a good idea—and perhaps she could talk to some of these people who write to me, or I could forward to her the emails and the letters that I have received from them.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Madam Chair, I wanted to stand and speak. I know that this is an area that that member, Melissa Lee, is particularly concerned about, as she’s spoken to me about this. I hear her concerns. I do just want to say that the issue here is that this is a policy-neutral rewrite. So we’ve received that tabled amendment from Melissa Lee, also one from Dr Yang. Both of them are proposing to make quite significant changes to our overseas pensions—the elements in our legislation that are specific to overseas pensions. This is not the place to make it. There are not policy changes that are going to occur as part of this policy-neutral rewrite. If they have suggestions with respect to overseas pensions and how they’re treated through our Social Security Act, then I suggest they use their right to put up a member’s bill or something like that, but not through this particular process. So I wanted to speak to both of them at the same time, given that they are both on overseas pensions.

I also wanted to say to the member Melissa Lee that I can’t speak to the social security agreement that is being signed between New Zealand and Korea, because it hasn’t been finalised yet. So we’re waiting for that, and when that is done, I’m sure not long after then, that will be known to the public. Then, at that point, that will provide an opportunity for that member in particular, given her interest in this area, to scrutinise the decisions that have been made as part of that agreement between New Zealand and Korea.

Can I also just refer back to some of the comments that were made earlier by the Hon Alfred Ngaro, questioning what “policy-neutral” is. Look, we’ve had this conversation many times in this House, and short of asking you to google search both those terms and put the definition together, I will just say that we understand what a “policy” is in this House; “neutral” means no change. Therefore, I think it’s really—in terms of it doesn’t make any significant proposals; so no significant policy proposals in this area. All it’s doing is tidying up and making things consistent, keeping in mind, as I’ve mentioned in the House many times before, that this bill was, initially, written in 1938, updated in 1964, and amended hundreds and hundreds of times. People like Sir Geoffrey Palmer have said that it’s one of the worst pieces of legislation that we have on our books, because it’s so untidy, which is why the previous Government committed to doing the rewrite in the first place. So I do acknowledge that we just had differences of opinion with regard to what “policy-neutral” was, so that is why we’ve come to this committee with the Supplementary Order Paper.

So I’m not going to continue to go over what is “policy-neutral”. That same member—I was going to say Sir Alfred Ngaro. No; the Hon Alfred Ngaro! The Hon Alfred Ngaro also asked me to pre-empt what the welfare overhaul changes will be. Well, that’s actually not part of what we’re discussing in committee stages here. I mentioned that some things may be considered there, but I’m certainly not going to pre-empt those changes today in the committee or make any major announcements, so we can lay that particular request to rest.

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

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, a very good choice. The Minister of Justice mentioned my amendment. I think my amendment actually fits perfectly with this particular bill, because my amendment is related to clause 172, “Interpretation”, under “overseas pension”. It says an overseas pension currently “is not a Governmental occupational pension”, which is, of course, reasonable. The problem here is sometimes it’s very hard to define whether this is a Governmental occupational pension or not. It is very important for us to understand that we have different pension systems in different countries. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) should take all these different pension systems into consideration, which can be similar to, but not necessarily clearly defined as, Government occupational pensions. This is about basically trying to make sure all those overseas pensions which are similar to Government occupational pensions will also be treated as, basically, Government occupational pensions. So those that are similar in nature to the Government occupational pensions should be considered as Government occupational pensions instead of overseas pensions.

The purpose of this amendment, of course, is to ensure that MSD takes those other pension systems into consideration whenever it is not clearly identified or clearly defined as a Government occupational pension, but is not really an overseas pension, so that MSD officials will look into this. This will ensure that MSD understands the nature of certain overseas benefits, pensions, or periodical allowances, and that the affected persons are consulted and not unfairly treated and penalised.

Of course, some pensions are clear-cut: these are Government occupational pensions—very clear, 100 percent. Sometimes they’re not so clear-cut: they can be 50 percent occupational pension, 50 percent, perhaps, just State pensions. Sometimes they’re even less clear-cut, and you can’t even tell if it’s 50 percent or 30 percent or whatever. So in those situations, officials should really take into consideration other factors to make a decision, so that if those pensions are, in nature, Government occupational pensions, then we should really treat those as Government occupational pensions instead of overseas pensions.

There are many reasons why it’s sometimes hard to define whether these are Government occupational pensions or just State pensions. For example, sometimes the pension system isn’t well established because it is just new, and sometimes the pensions are from different systems and they’re very hard to understand, because, of course, different countries could have different systems in terms of pension systems, social systems, and/or social welfare systems. Also, sometimes it’s hard to get information to understand those pensions because of a lack of transparency, a lack of information, and also sometimes it can be difficult to communicate and to clarify. That is why I believe it is important to add one particular section there to say that an overseas pension is not a Government occupational pension as defined in Schedule 2, or similar in nature to Government occupational pensions as described in Schedule 2 and as discussed with the person.

The reason why I bring up this particular issue is because some years ago—maybe over a decade ago—the pension issue was a major issue in the Chinese community in New Zealand. To the credit of the former Labour Government, they settled the issue and they talked to the Chinese community. In the end, they came to a conclusion, but at that time it was a major concern to many members of—[Time expired]

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really thrilled to get this opportunity. I thought I was going to get overlooked tonight; the competition has been extremely tough.

The reason I’m excited is I actually think I’ve got the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—SOP 33—that the Minister will approve. The reason I say that is because I’ve done a bit of homework on my SOP, which is submitted in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. It proposes an amendment to Part 4, clause 191, and in subclause (3) suggests replacing the “in a relationship” phrase, on page 127, with “married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship.” The reason that I’m speaking to this one again is because if you take a look in clause 191 of the bill, then we see that in clause 191(1), in (b) and in (c), and then we move on to 191(2), the terms that are used in both of those bits talk about a “spouse or a partner”. So in 191(1)(b), it refers to “[The person] has a spouse or partner who is not in hospital or has been in hospital for less than 13 weeks;”, and 191(1)(c) refers to “a main benefit under this Act is payable to or in respect of [that person’s] spouse or partner.” So I’m suggesting, for the purposes of consistency, that when we move on to 191(3), we use the same language in that subclause, which says that “Nothing in this section entitles a single person or a couple who are … [in a] relationship”.

The words “in a relationship” are open to interpretation. To give you an example, as defined in the dictionary, one interpretation of “in a relationship” is “the way in which two or more … people [or things] are connected, or the state of being connected:”—that could be a relationship between a member of Parliament and their constituents. The other term for “in a relationship” is “The state of being connected by blood or marriage.”—so, you know, you can trace your relationship, via your heritage, to a common ancestor. The other interpretation of “in a relationship” is “The way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other”—so landlord-tenant relationships. So I think the words “in a relationship” are so open to interpretation, and in order to be consistent with subclauses (1) and (2), where the words “spouse” and “partner” are actually used, I think that we owe it to the bill to maintain that consistency throughout.

I also have a couple of other questions for the Minister. One of those is whether the 13 weeks of hospitalisation actually refers to community-based services for respite care—those places may not be, in terms of the definition of a hospital, actually a hospital, and whether they would comply with this Act, or whether there could be an exemption for respite care services which provide that community-based care for carers, for their family and whānau.

The other question I have for the Minister is around the clarification for this part of the bill, clause 190, which is headed up “Factors affecting benefit: hospitalisation”, and whether the word “benefit” does, in fact, apply to superannuitants as well. So I’m just not quite sure whether that application is meant to apply to superannuitants or not. The definitions indicate that it does, but I wasn’t sure whether it was intended to capture that cohort.

So I do believe I have a very good argument for accepting this SOP, and I’m sure that this one here is actually going to find favour with the Minister and be approved. For that reason, I have great pleasure in speaking to my proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston, and I certainly look forward to—[Time expired]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I want to point out, again, that this is a similar situation to what we had earlier. It is so policy-neutral that it makes no absolute difference at all.

Basically, what the member Maureen Pugh has pointed out is that the Supplementary Order Paper 33 is attempting to amend clause 191 to specify the types of relationships which are applicable to the clause, stating that just putting “relationship” is not enough. However, on page 323 of schedule 2, in the “Dictionary” of the bill, there is a line where it’s got “in a relationship, for a person, means that the person is—(a) married; or (b) in a civil union; or (c) in a de facto relationship”. So it’s already considered there. Obviously, all those words are not required throughout the bill, because of the fact that “relationship”, when you refer to this page, is then explained further, and that’s the definition of it. So a very good argument, Maureen Pugh, but not quite this time. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I still don’t understand. I mean, I know that the Minister wanted to school us on what policy-neutral is. We do know what policy-neutral is; we want to know what her interpretation of it is. Again that is another good example of being policy-neutral but not good enough. So I think, actually, what we do understand now is that what the Minister is saying is: actually, it’s policy-neutral under her own definition. If it’s good enough for the definitions in the dictionary of the bill, why isn’t it also good enough—and in this House there’s been many debates to recognise the different types of relationships. I mean, let’s be real: in this House, there have been debates acknowledging whether it’s a de facto relationship, a civil union, or a married relationship. Why is it not good enough to have it in the legislation so that it’s very clear there? So I still think that, actually, I’m sure many of us on this side don’t agree with the Minister’s response.

But, Madam Chair, I know you are looking for new and fresh forms of debate, and I would like to give that to you in the form of, in Part 4, new clause 203A, in Supplementary Order Paper 25, and this is, in particular, to do with the factors affecting benefit and the absence from New Zealand. I note that hasn’t been debated as yet in Part 4 and I think it’s particularly important because this is to do with the winter energy payments. Now, I know that the Minister keeps saying that this is policy-neutral, but it wasn’t there before; it is now, under this new Government. Anyway, we won’t go into that debate. That was a debate that was had. But, under this, it talks about the “special absence rule”. So we talk about the winter energy payment: “[payment] is not payable for 1 or more days while a beneficiary is absent from New Zealand”. We get that; we understand it. Subclause (2): “The winter energy payment is payable to a beneficiary for 1 or more days during any 1 or more absences”. We get that as well. It then comes to subclause 2(a) “the payment would, but for those 1 or more absences, … (b) the chief executive is satisfied that the 1 or more absences do not affect the beneficiary’s eligibility for the payment under section 65C.”

I would like to actually include in this, because I think it’s important, that we have the recognition of many of our beneficiaries, and I’m speaking of the Pasifika community in particular. There are many who are superannuitants who often will return back to the Pacific for a number of different reasons, and I’d like to include in this—and it’s not a Supplementary Order Paper, but I’m going to debate it—that if the Minister would consider then having in section 3 a clause that would state: “a person may apply to the chief executive”—in this case, again—“for exemption, in a special absence, under the special absence rule for—(a) caring for children who may be located overseas; (b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions”. So there are many instances where—I know I’ve had constituents and others who have come to our offices and talked to us about the need to actually go away to warmer climates, because often that suits their conditions; their health conditions as well. And, more importantly—“(c) serious illness to immediate family overseas.” And, on many occasions, that’s the case.

Now, if the Government is clear that the winter energy payments are for those superannuitants, it doesn’t want to disadvantage those who, for a genuine reason, have had to leave the country. Again, it could be for caring for children who could be located overseas—often grandchildren, or “(b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions”. Often it’s the case—again, because constituents that I know of have had to go back to the beautiful islands, whether it’s Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and of course the most beautiful islands, the Cook Islands. They’ll go there because the conditions actually allow them to be able to recuperate and to recover. But (c) is “serious illness to immediate family overseas.” I think this is not unreasonable. Again, if I reiterate the points that the Minister has said: this is just simply adding to—it’s not changing—the policy intent. It’s not changing the policy direction. It’s making sure that it ensures that, for those who are genuinely absent from New Zealand for genuine reasons and considerations, the chief executive will take these into consideration and they will not be penalised for that.

So I think this has been a contribution that I’ve made on a part that actually has not had any debate so far in Part 4. I think that I’d like to consider that the Minister—I know what she’ll do: she’ll come up again and she’ll talk about her own views, but I think, as Maureen Pugh said, she had the Golden Kiwi ticket. We don’t talk about Golden Kiwi; we talk about Lotto tickets now, but anyway, back in our day, it was Golden Kiwi. I do hope this could be the Golden Kiwi. The Minister may just consider that this could be the one that is policy-neutral enough to be able to consider this for an amendment and a change to the bill.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Actually, what I’m standing for is not the Golden Kiwi; I’m standing to correct. Earlier I said the definition for relationships was in schedule 2 on page 323, but it’s actually, in the version that everyone’s got in this Chamber, pages 337 and crosses over to 338.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to Part 4 of this bill and to ask the Minister some questions.

Hon Member: Get on with it!

LAWRENCE YULE: I am getting on with it. While this is not necessarily an area of great expertise for me, this part of the bill—and I particularly refer to clause 176 and the new clause 177—is, specifically, about identifying the other parent. It’s specifically about that. Under the previous legislation, if you could not identify the other parent or identify who is in law the other parent; had not applied for a formula assessment of child support, as required by section 9 of the Child Support Act; or had not given, in evidence in proceedings under the Child Support Act 1991, all information that is required of a parent as a compellable witness under section 122 of the Act, then, effectively, some of your benefit was taken away.

So this is not policy-neutral, this part. This is a new policy that is being brought in by this Government, under this legislation, and clause 176(3) seeks to replace subclause (2) with a new clause 177. I agree with some of the subclauses in clause 177, which say that “(1) MSD must not reduce a benefit under section 176(2) if MSD is satisfied …” of, effectively, five conditions. Two of them I completely agree with. They are “(c) the beneficiary or any of the beneficiary’s children would be at risk of violence if the beneficiary did or took steps to do [anything that changes things]”, and “(d) [a] child [that] was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation;”. However, clause 177(1)(a), (b), and (c) are open to interpretation.

My contribution seeks to ask the Minister to explain to this committee how the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is going to be satisfied of those three conditions, the first one being that “(a) there is insufficient evidence available to establish who … in law [is] the other parent;”. How exactly are they going to do that—simply by saying that they don’t know, they’re not sure, they can’t remember, or there were a series of potential other parents? How is MSD actually going to be satisfied when that person says there is insufficient evidence? The second point is “(b) the beneficiary is taking active steps to identify who … in law [is] the other parent;”. What does that mean, Minister? Does that mean they are asking around? Can they remember? Was it at that party? You know, those are all the things that, actually, we’re asking MSD to identify, and I actually think the members on the other side are placing a big onus on these people. Then the third one is “(e) [is there] some other compelling circumstance for the beneficiary’s failure or refusal to do any of the things referred to in section 176(2) and in any event”—this is where it gets really good—“there is no real likelihood of [parent] support being collected in the foreseeable future from the other parent or the other parent’s estate.”

All those things are judgments. They are, absolutely, judgments made by MSD, largely—

Andrew Bayly: And who is judge and jury?

LAWRENCE YULE: Absolutely, Mr Bayly—largely at whatever the parent said happened: their recollection of the event, their recollection of the relationship, their recollection of “Actually, we don’t know.” The reason I bring this up—and it relates to a further clause which is in this bill, clause 186, which actually affects benefit maintenance claims—is that, in my short while as a member of Parliament, I have had a significant number of constituents come to me and say that, actually, they are being rorted by their partner using tax rorts and a whole lot of other things, and they’re not getting maintenance. So, in this clause, we say, “MSD may refuse or cancel [benefits] for [the] failure to take reasonable steps to obtain maintenance.”

Now, even that in itself, for the parent, is an extremely difficult thing for them to do sometimes—extremely difficult. And when you put all those things together, I think, while this is not policy-neutral and you may not have preferred the policy of the National Government, you are putting MSD in an invidious—sorry, the Government is putting MSD in an invidious position—Madam Chair, I apologise—of actually asking MSD to make all these decisions.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just, hopefully, to stop that from continuing, because it’s going down the wrong track. I just want to point out to that member, Lawrence Yule, that the exemptions with respect to not naming the other parent have not changed in this version at all; they are the existing exemptions that were there, that now are still there, that are carried over. So there are no changes with respect to that at all. As I said, it’s policy-neutral. If we had changed those, then it wouldn’t be policy-neutral.

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look actually, firstly, I would really encourage the Minister to respond to what I thought was—

Andrew Bayly: And the Government members.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’ll take the speech here, Mr Bayly. In an earlier call, I was asking the Minister quite a serious range of questions around the whole alcohol and drug element. I don’t intend to rehash that in any way, but I would really encourage the Minister to respond to that. I know one can always look at things frivolously, or interpret what is being done in the committee stage as frivolous, but, actually, it’s relatively important to make clear that, when we are referencing new legislation—in this case, the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act of 2017—that’s being done appropriately. And, without belabouring the point and trying to make it too heavy, if we get that wrong, then we’re not fulfilling the correct duty of care for those under the control of the Crown. And again, fundamentally, Minister, if it helps, it’s around the clarity of dates, because this new Act—this compulsory Act—does not come into effect for a whole year; so, in other words, parts of the Act are not effective at the moment. Secondly, it is for people with the absolute highest issues of alcoholism; therefore, does it encompass all people?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s around a tabled amendment that I’m attempting to table. Am I able to seek if that’s valid now or not—whether I can speak to it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can speak to it while they’re still considering whether it’s valid. Go for it!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Marvellous! The philosopher in me loves those distinctions. Marvellous!

Look, I would like to talk, fortunately not in Greek and Latin, to a tabled amendment fresh, potentially, on the Table—so fresh my hands are burning. It’s a suggestion to insert new clause 213(a), and it’s to do with factors that affect eligibility—in this particular regard, to the Minister—around the child disability allowance.

It may not be well known to this House: generally speaking, when people are in the armed forces and are serving the Realm of New Zealand here in New Zealand, if one of their children is receiving a child disability allowance, all is fine—or, to use the colloquial, all is tickety-boo. However, as you might imagine, if someone is going off to serve the Realm overseas, they lose access to the child disability allowance. And that makes sense, because if, like myself and others, you’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan, you’re not taking your children with you.

The issue, though, Minister—and it’s something I’ve raised in this House unsuccessfully for seven years, and I think there’s an opportunity here; I believe it would be policy-neutral, because it would get the support of the House—is in those relatively rare circumstances where a serving military officer who has a child who is accessing the child disability allowance, at the moment, their eligibility is curtailed when they leave the Realm. However, think of the circumstance, for an example, where a military officer is dispatched to be a military attaché in one of New Zealand’s embassies, and, as you might expect, takes their children; they should be able, I would suggest, and it’s through this amendment, to continue being eligible for the child disability allowance.

So, in this Part 4, a new clause 213(a) that I am suggesting, is to put a factor of eligibility that serving the Realm in a military capacity overseas enables them to still maintain and retain the child disability allowance. I really need to stress it’s in very particular cases. We’re not advocating here that all our serving personnel in the likes of the Sinai, in East Timor, up on the North Korea - South Korea border, in Iraq and Afghanistan—that our soldiers serving overseas—are to be taking their families; we’re talking about very particular cases. So, really, we’re coming back down to those who are at our embassies and those who are serving overseas in situations where they take their family.

I suppose the fundamental principle behind this is equity and fairness. Fundamentally, what it’s about is that if he or she has signed up, has taken the Queen’s coin and is serving the Realm, they shouldn’t lose entitlement because of that service. And I suppose that’s the fundamental issue here that we have around eligibility and criteria in Part 4: that, in effect, these men and women who are serving the Realm, who are overseas with their children, are being affected and are losing that entitlement. And it just doesn’t seem particularly fair to me that they should be.

I think, really importantly as well, this is not an unusual provision as far as I understand things. This is not completely unusual; it is very particular to the defence forces—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to sign your Supplementary Order Paper.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Fundamentally, at the moment, people who are in the foreign service and in the police, I understand, still keep their entitlement when they are serving overseas. It affects just our defence force members. So this is a situation—and perhaps an example helps illustrate this—where a constituent of mine a number of years ago, who has served the Realm with distinction, has come in, has a child affected with a disability, has been, rightly, and thanks to the Government regardless of political colour, receiving that benefit, but at the moment that he and his family were deployed to one of our overseas missions, he was put at a disadvantage—he, his wife, and, in particular, his child. He lost this entitlement. It was a factor affecting the benefit, as is fitting of Part 4. It was a factor which has seen that he is at a disadvantage—his family’s at a disadvantage—because of the service he’s giving.

And I just think, fundamentally, that’s a flaw. I think it’s actually where the House can come together at its best and strongest, when actually we’re just acknowledging that, yes, the law, over time, has just had a few problems that need tidying up. And I think this is an excellent case in point. It will, Minister, I suggest, affect only the defence force. This will be, probably, they suggest to me, no more than 10 people a year—if we’re lucky. In fact, as my current research indicates, and by current I mean “just now”—this is something I’m also seeking to introduce as a member’s bill; in fact, it sits in the ballot at the moment—we’ve probably only got about two people in this space at the moment overseas.

So, in terms of what we can achieve here in Part 4, we can go through, as we rightly have done, looking at all the entitlements we’ve got, from insurance recovery to failure to assist child support. We’ve got hospitalisation. We’ve got alcohol and drug treatment. I suppose it’s a plaintive plea—an alliterative plaintive plea—that we do look at this very small element to do with our defence forces. We may well be able to look—and, Minister, your officials may well be able to look—over the course of tonight at how that’s already affecting those within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; how it’s affecting the police. In fact, if they are, for some reason, against the advice that I’ve been given, not included, then perhaps they should be included as well. It’s not going to have a major impact on the policy-neutral elements that have been suggested, because it’s such a small amount of money in and of itself when one thinks of the child benefit, and in total it’s a very small number of people who are going to be affected. But, as I say, it’s a situation that has arisen directly out of a constituent query to me. It’s something that I will continue to pursue.

I do understand the Minister’s intention; it has been mentioned to us many times in this regard: that this bill is seeking to be policy-neutral and not trying to put anything in that’s too problematic. I think, twofold—one, this is not going to have a major financial impact, although will benefit and be gratefully received by those who, again, serve the country, but, secondly, I think it will be neutral in so far as I would hope every member of this House would support it.

So to wrap up where these contributions have gone, working backwards, fundamentally, the new tabled amendment seeks that the eligibility criteria for our defence force personnel serving overseas—usually in a military or a defence attaché role—with their children do not have as a factor affecting their benefit that service overseas; that, in effect, they continue to receive the child disability allowance; and that they continue to receive all that they would if they were in the Realm. It’s not able to go into the tabled amendment, but the factor is that a lot of New Zealand embassies are, effectively, New Zealand land. I know there’s a distinction between who owns the land, but it’s seen as New Zealand property, so that may help us conceptualise it.

The final point is really just an encouragement, if possible, Minister, to address my earlier questions around the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. Fundamentally, in swapping out those two older bills, as tempting as it was with the new one, is that new bill actually in effect? I can tell you, as the former chair of the Health Committee and reading the bill, it is not. And, secondly, will this provide the appropriate duty of care required?

So, look, that’s where I’ll end those contributions.

Hon Members: Hooray!

SIMON O’CONNOR: It may be a relief to the Minister—and probably to Mr McNulty—

Kieran McAnulty: McAnulty

SIMON O’CONNOR: —that on this Part 4 I have given now all four speeches. But the more he interjects the more I may need to—no, only kidding.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If that seemed longer than five minutes, it was indeed. I’m sorry, I do apologise. We forgot to set the clock.

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

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Jian Yang to clause 172 be agreed to:

in clause 172, under the definition of overseas pension, replace paragraph (c) with:

(c) is not a Government occupational pension,—

(i) as defined in Schedule 2, and or

(ii) similar in nature as Government occupational pensions as described in Schedule 2 and as discussed with P

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 174 be agreed to:

in clause 174(2), insert:

(c) a person whose overseas pension is currently inaccessible from New Zealand

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Chris Penk to clause 188 be agreed to:

in clause 188(a), before “payable”, insert “that is being paid for or is”

in clause 188(a), after “of that Act)”, insert “or under any other equivalent legislative provision in replacement thereof”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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 33 in the name of Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 191(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): [A member sneezes] Votes should normally be taken in silence, bodily functions excepted—some.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 34 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendment set out in Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni replacing clause 192(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment to the agreement not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor be agreed to:

insert, after clause 213, the following new clause:

213A Child disability allowance payable overseas to members of Defence Force

(1) A person to whom a child disability allowance is payable in respect of a child may be paid, or continue to be paid, the child disability allowance in respect of the child in the circumstances set out in subsection (2).

(2) The circumstances are that—

(a) the person is a member of the Defence Force; and

(b) the person is carrying out duties of the Defence Force outside New Zealand; and

(c) the child is absent from New Zealand in order to be with, or near, the person.

(3) In this section,—

Defence Force means the New Zealand Defence Force constituted by section 11(1) of the Defence Act 1990

member of the Defence Force has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Defence Act 1990.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Enforcement: sanctions and offences

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is going to be a very robust part of the bill to debate, because it talks about something that has varying views across the political divide—even in the current Government coalition—and it’s to do with sanctions. We know that prior to the election, there were differing views. I know that New Zealand First had a very clear perspective that they needed to be robust, they needed to be reviewed, and they needed to make sure that, actually, they complied, and this was to do with those that were receiving a benefit. Whereas on the other side were the Greens, who were very clear that they wanted to remove as much as possible, almost all sanctions, because they felt that they were too punitive. So I’ll be interested to see the debates that happen over this part.

I want to start off my contribution with regards to Part 5, and it’s with the amendment in regards to Part 5, clause 217. What this talks about is that this is to create some continuity and consistency, and this is policy-positive. None of this neutral stuff, right? There’s neutral and positive, and this is policy-positive. I’d like us to refer to the evidence in clause 217. What this amendment will do is actually make it consistent with the clause in Part 3, which is clause 99. If I read this for the benefit of the members opposite and the Government, it states this: “The beneficiary must notify change of circumstances” and the “beneficiary must without delay notify MSD of a change in the beneficiary’s circumstances”, and it highlights and indicates what those changes are.

What this amendment is seeking to do is ensure that in clause 217, when it talks about the hierarchy of sanctions, it makes it very clear in the insertion of a new line. In that first part of clause 217, it is to insert the new line, which says that “MSD must advise P”—that is, the beneficiary—“of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands impacts of any breaches”. Now if one reads in the explanatory note, it is simply to do this: “This Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 99 to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the person receiving the benefit to notify MSD of any changes. It ensures that people have an obligation to notify MSD even when they believe their change in circumstances may affect their entitlement, not just in [circumstances] where they are unsure that it will.” It’s consistent with clause 99 where, again, the consistency is that the beneficiary must notify of those changes.

I think this is quite a pragmatic view to be able to ensure that we make a change to clause 217, which I think is critically important. It also affects clause 216, where it talks about the obligations to carry out the sanctions for failure to comply, and where it states quite clearly that the obligations referred to are: “(a) obligation to comply with a requirement under section 104 to attend and participate in a work ability assessment or reassessment:”—as well—“(b) obligation to comply with a work-preparation obligation under section 110 or 111:”.

I know that my colleague Darroch Ball across the way would agree with this. He’s been a strong supporter of the Limited Service Volunteers and felt for a long time that they’ve been very effective in being able to help those young people that are in need to be able to comply with the rules and regulations but, more importantly, to give them an opportunity to be able to have a career.

So I think, actually, that this amendment is quite clear. It’s precise. Number one, it allows for consistency, which is in clause 99 in Part 3, and it ensures that it is clear for the beneficiary, in this particular instance, to ensure that they understand and know that the fact is that they must comply. But, more importantly, it puts some onus and accountability and responsibility back on the beneficiary themselves, and I think that’s really important as well. It’s not just dependent on MSD to do its job. It will do its job, it will comply, and in most of these cases, we think that’s critically important.

So this is just the first of my contributions, and I think that I’d like to, again, put this order up. If the Minister that’s in the chair, Kris Faafoi, who is very capable—I know that this may not be his brief. He may not have skills, but he is a good Minister. He is a great Minister and a great person, who I think understands this, and I’d like to see that Minister stand up, take charge, and agree to this amendment. This could be the Golden Kiwi of the night. I think he would agree with this. I submit this amendment to the committee.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Excellent—thank you, Madam Chair. I rise, and it’s fantastic to take a second call—my second ever call—on what is a fantastic summation going on here by my colleagues. We’ve got the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and I’m just happy to be here to talk about what is, as my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro said, a very important part of the bill—talking about the sanctions.

I want to talk in particular about clause 232 in Part 5 of this bill. So what are we talking about here? We’re talking about the clause that looks at the good and sufficient reason for non-compliance, such that there’s a default from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). So what I have here is an amendment from my fantastic colleague the Hon Louise Upston, and she has an—

Simon O’Connor: Dame—is she a Dame?

DAN BIDOIS: She’s not a Dame. She has an amendment here to amend clause 232 of Part 5, and it is to replace paragraph (a) with the following: “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including the availability of online MSD services;”.

I think that this is a really important paragraph to add in an age of technological change, where they should have access to update their enrolment details or changes in circumstances, changes in address, and changes in employment status via the online capabilities. I just think that this is an important amendment to make. It brings us together into the 21st century and makes sure that the beneficiaries have a requirement to go online and update their status in order to avoid being in default and being put into default by MSD. So I just think that this is a really important thing, and I commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for putting this forward.

You know, I spoke about incentives in my maiden statement yesterday. I think that this part of the bill is all about putting the right incentives in place to ensure that beneficiaries are given the push that they need in order to do whatever they can to get back into the workforce and become gainfully employed. So I do want to wrap up by just saying that my honourable colleague Louise Upston from Taupō—

Kieran McAnulty: Keep going—you can do it. Come on, keep going.

DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! I really commend her for what is, I think, a really important part of the clause. I’m all about making sure that everybody has access to online services.

So I think I’ll just leave it there, and we’ll keep going from that. I’d like to get some debate and discussion on this amendment because I think it’s a really important part to debate, and all I’ve heard from the Government is complaints. Where is their discussion and their debate on this amendment? So—

Hon Member: You’ve got a lot to learn, sunshine.

DAN BIDOIS: Absolutely. I will just leave it there and say that I once again commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for putting this amendment on the Table. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to follow the speech by Mr Dan Bidois—a hard act to follow, but I shall give it my very best. Specifically in relation to Subpart 1—

Kieran McAnulty: You don’t mean that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Please be careful with the personal pronouns—you’ll bring the Chair into the debate. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to focus on clause 215, under the subheading “Types of sanction”, and let me precede my comments about the amendment that’s placed before us by the Minister by just looking at the significance of that clause in the context of the legislation as a whole. What we’re looking at is “Sanctions for failure to comply with certain obligations under this Act”. This is important because the Act does, obviously, provide certain benefits, which is, of course, the very purpose of the thing, but it does also note that in circumstances where a person makes himself or herself ineligible, then certain sanctions will apply. So this is no small matter. This is a very serious thing, indeed, for people who are caught up in such circumstances.

Now, originally, subclause (1) had said that “MSD must under section 217”—and I note those words are significant, for reasons that I will come back to shortly—“impose a sanction for failure without good and sufficient reason to comply with the obligations under this Act that are specified in section 216.” Now, in the replacement version of that subclause, we’ve got something slightly different, because, actually, what we’re doing now is referring to the section itself, and not section 217. So the words “under section 217” have been replaced by “under this section”. It’s actually completely unnecessary for a subsection to refer to itself or, indeed, a section to refer to itself. That’s because the presumption would be that if a section is making certain provisions for those who are subject to the Act to comply with, it would be under exactly that section, and you would only say that it was section X, Y, or Z that’s referred to if it was a section other than the section in which those words are contained.

So I’ll seek the advice of the Minister on whether those words are indeed redundant and, in doing so, perhaps confirm or deny his view on whether he agrees with another aspect of the wording as well—that is, whether the phrase “good and sufficient reason” has sufficient clarity in this proposed law. It seems to me—and I might be wrong; again, I’m happy to be corrected if that’s the case—that the phrase is not defined in the legislation itself. So my question of the Minister—and perhaps her officials, if necessary—then becomes whether this phrase has a particular meaning in the law of the land already, perhaps in another piece of legislation or in cases in which such matters have been brought before the courts. Is there any jurisprudence, in other words, around the phrase “good and sufficient reason”?

Why is this important, I hear you ask? Well, the answer is: because this is the basis of the determination of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), according to whether a person has failed to comply with the obligations under this Act. I will note in passing that an improvement, in my mind, has been made in this new version of subclause (1). It talks about compliance with one or more obligations under this Act, whereas the previous version had simply talked about “the obligations”. Under the old version, this would imply that all the obligations have to be met, whereas, in fact, it is failure to comply with just one or more that will trigger this obligation or, indeed, ability for MSD to impose sanctions. So I will give a shout-out to the Minister and her various teams of officials, who I think, in this case, have made a worthwhile change from the old to the new versions.

My next point is just around the meaning of the word “considers”—so, MSD “considers”, that a person has failed. I wonder if we should instead have something along the lines of “reasonably considers”, so that a reasonable standard, an objective standard, is required by the legislation. This will mean that it’s subject to judicial review. If a person believes that he or she has been unfairly excluded—unfairly sanctioned—then because the requirement has to be reasonable in terms of the exercise of that power by the department, by virtue of the word “reasonable”, or perhaps some other variation such as “objectively” or “in the honest belief”, perhaps. These, obviously, have different meanings and different import, and my question to the Minister is really seeking assurance that these different variations, these different kinds of standard, have been considered.

Similarly, there is no guidance in this particular clause as to whether we’re talking about a standard based perhaps on the balance of probabilities. Is it the case that on the balance of probabilities—a more than 50 percent chance, in other words—a person has failed to comply with their obligations? Alternatively, we could have a higher standard that would provide greater protection if we were to say that MSD considering the obligations not having been met would be something like “beyond reasonable doubt”. That particular standard is used in criminal law. My personal view is that it’s not an appropriate standard for this type of legislation, because we’re not talking about criminal activity; we’re talking about something lower and less serious than that—merely failing to meet obligations. But, nevertheless, I think it’s a reasonable point to make and something that, again, I invite the good Minister to turn her mind to.

My final point, I think, depending on how well I go in expressing it in the remaining time, is perhaps a bit pedantic, but, as we’re frequently reminded, and quite rightly, words do matter—words have consequences. I mention that in the sense of this debate that we’ve been having within the debate, the meta-level debate, about policy neutrality. We’ve been invited by the Minister to talk about things and propose amendments, indeed, that are policy-neutral. She’s indicated that she won’t entertain ideas that change the policy settings as outlined in the Act. That much is reasonable, but, on this side of the House, we’ve had different views about what “policy-neutral” means, and I suppose the obvious point there is that because all words have meaning and all words matter, if we’re changing any words, or, indeed, grammar, punctuation, and so forth, then we are changing, in some small way, the policy.

So that’s the balance that we need to strike, and so it is that I say—and I think in a policy-neutral way, but it will perhaps be put to the test by the Minister on this—that the following phrase is ambiguous, and I’ll quote it verbatim and, therefore, I hope I’ll be forgiven for referring directly to the text, because exactitude is important in this matter: “MSD must under this section impose a sanction if MSD considers that a person has failed without good and sufficient reason to comply with one or more obligations under this Act that are specified”, and so forth. An alternative wording would be “If MSD considers that a person has without good reason failed to comply with one or more obligations under this Act”, the significance being that the phrase “without good and sufficient reason” could actually, technically—syntactically, at least, it’s possible—refer to the phrase, and qualify the phrase, “If MSD considers”.

I don’t imagine it was the intent of the Minister and her Government that we’d be talking about MSD considering without good and sufficient reason that a person has failed, etc. I think it’s much more likely that she intended the wording to mean that it was the failure of the person concerned without good and sufficient reason—in other words, to have failed for some reason that is sufficiently strong that would be justified in the circumstances. As I say, that seems to me the logical, the natural meaning—the natural interpretation. But in these cases, of course, we are dealing not merely with my view or even, indeed, the personal view of the Minister or any other person in this House, or any other person in this Government; we are, in fact, dealing with a series of words that, together, have meaning. In the context of this legislation, they have a meaning, specifically, that certain benefits will accrue unless they’re denied under the operation of this section. That is why it’s so significant. That is why it’s important that we have absolute clarity. And if this wording is to be the subject of a test in a court of law because the reasonableness of the decision is put to the test, then we must have clarity on that point, and I invite the Minister to do so.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I find it really interesting that that member had so much to say on Part 5 given that, actually, this was one of the parts of the bill that the Social Services Committee and all sides of the House agreed on. So, in terms of how we currently have it drafted, it is almost exactly in the same form as what was given to us by them. There were very little changes because that section was actually policy-neutral.

To come to the committee of the whole House now and throw out proposals for changes goes against what their members on the select committee had proposed at the time. There was agreement in the select committee that Part 5 was policy-neutral and that it achieved what it had set out to achieve. The only small change, if I’m to be completely honest, is that clause 215, in Subpart 2, has some minor language changes, but the rest of Part 5, in terms of what we are proposing tonight, is exactly the same as what was in the rewrite from the previous Government. So to come into the committee now with these random suggestions and changes really does suggest that certain members are looking to waste the time of this House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. In some ways this is a reaction to the Minister once again suggesting that, in effect, members of this committee don’t have an ability or the right to re-engage a bill as it goes through the House.

I think in terms of Part 5 the Minister is quite correct: there are very few substantial changes. But I think one of the great things about the Westminster democratic system is that we’re able to re-engage the text every time, and to try and find opportunities to make it better. I have growing concern, nay alarm, that actually there’s attempt to just shut this discussion down and continue to discuss policy-neutral. We have yet to have—and I’m not going to belabour this too much. We’ve had the terms “policy” and “neutral” pushed through without actually any definition.

What I need to pick up on is around sanctions around evidential drug-testing, so we’re looking at clause 240 and following. The particular reason for this is because we’ve had a question in the previous section, in Part 4—which was not answered despite two attempts—around the addition of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. Because of what’s happened in a subsequent part, Part 4 now has contiguous elements in Part 5. When we’re looking at clause 240 onwards around the evidential drug-test, most of it is fairly logical when you begin to consider a person who is capable of fulfilling the requirements as proposed here in clause 240 onwards. However, because of what was voted on, as I understand it—and agreed to in the previous part—we are now including or can include people who have a very high level of drug and alcohol addiction and problems.

As I noted to the committee at that point—I’m waving something at you, Mr Chair, sorry—these are people with such a high degree of damage, for want of a better word, due to drugs and alcohol that the question begins to arise whether they could ever fully engage in an evidential drug-test as prescribed now in Part 5. Their ability to engage in this evidential drug-test, again simply because we have introduced a discussion of the substance abuse Act—and I’m still not clear if the Minister fully understands what that Act is or has done. But we may have clients of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) who are physically unable, even as MSD clients, to conclude an evidential drug-test as prescribed in clause 240, clause 241, through to clause at least clause 247—I do apologise—right through to clause 249. They physically may not be able to engage in an evidential drug-test. In fact, it reaches such a high degree of problem that you may not even be able to do a blood test. So an evidential drug-test—we’re talking about the likes of saliva and breath. The other thing is they may not have the mental competency or acuity to actually be able to engage that test too. So I think there is a lack of understanding, perhaps, in the wording of these clauses of how to include those people who have such a high level of impairment.

So, fundamentally, I think most of it works for most New Zealanders. But the fundamental element of law is that we want to get it right first time. Now, I know we don’t often get that right, but we try to do our best. So I suppose the suggestion to the Minister is, once again to explain by including or bringing within the ambit those being thought of in the substance abuse Act of 2017. We’re introducing a level of client that sits outside the norm of what we’d expect to see within MSD, and, therefore, they will not be able to fit what is required here.

So I suppose the fundamental element that then kicks out of all of this—I’m trying to slowly describe it, but as I’ve often found in committee stage, it’s good to be accurate. These are people, arguably, who could be sanctioned—who could be sanctioned—for not being able to take a test. As we read through Part 5, we obviously have what the effects are, the failure to do it, the costs of a drug test, and then, particularly in clause 244, “Recompliance”, and then clause 243, if someone has such a high level of addiction that they cannot engage in these tests, then, first and foremost, they’re going to incur more and more costs, and according to clause 244, they’re not going to be able to re-comply. They’ll never, in effect, be able to re-comply. So I think the Minister will probably need to address that. In fact, she may be able to point out to me that there is a clause further on within Part 5 that says basically MSD can just—[Bell rung]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I was listening to the member Simon O’Connor while I was also going through the amendments that have been tabled. The member Simon O’Connor said, “There seems to be a lack of understanding of the wording in these clauses.” The lack of understanding in the wording and of this part and of this entire legislation is evident in two of the amendments that have been tabled.

I don’t know if this is just a very bad cut-and-paste job, but we’ve got one amendment that refers to Part 5, clause 232, and then in the explanatory note talks about amending clause 99, which is actually in Part 3. Then if we look at the other one that’s been tabled by the Hon Louise Upston as well, which looks at Part 5, clause 217, it’s got the same explanatory note pasted referring to Part 3, clause 99.

So in terms of trying to understand what the members on that side of the House are attempting to propose in terms of amendments, it’s very difficult when something as simple as this happens. I suggest that perhaps the members on that side of the Chamber would like to maybe take these off the Table and fix them up so that we can actually analyse them properly, otherwise it really is a waste of time.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Well, it just seems that the Minister seems to be getting a bit angry because she’s not liking the debate that’s happening in the committee of the whole House. The committee of the whole House is an opportunity to debate the issues. She talked about the fact that at select committee these issues weren’t raised up. Now, it’s not unheard that the fact is that when the bill returns back to the House, actually, amendments are quite commonly brought within the committee of the whole House—that’s the reason why it’s there. So, actually, to have these amendments—OK—is not inconsistent with the process.

The second thing: I’m glad that, Mr Chair, you’re the only adjudicator.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And the honourable member might actually come to the amendments, rather than talk about the process about it.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Chair. So what I want to address is actually the comments in regards to the amendments that the Minister Carmel Sepuloni actually got up just a moment ago to talk about. I actually spoke to this amendment in regards to clause 217 in the name of Louise Upston, and the reason why we mentioned a clause in Part 3 in the explanatory note was for the purpose of consistency. If the Minister would like to look into that, I can do that for her.

The reason why the explanatory note referred to Part 3, clause 99, was because it states this: “Beneficiary must notify change of circumstances”. If we look at the amendment, it clearly states to insert in line one: “MSD must advise P of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands the impacts of any breaches”. The point that was made in this clause was to clarify the fact that there is consistency from clause 99 through to clause 217. So I just wanted to flag that. I want to put that on the record for the Minister so that she understands the purpose and the reason for that amendment.

The other part that the Minister was talking about was Louise Upston’s amendment to clause 232. Again, for clarity purposes, it’s consistent with the changes—what’s been amended and, by the way, already supported and passed—in Part 3 in clause 99, which, again, are about the issue around compliance. It reads here, in proposed amended clause 232(a): “compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including availability of online MSD services;”.

The point in the explanatory note is the point of consistency with Part 3. So I just want to say that, you know, the Minister maybe tried to school us to go away, make changes, and come back again. If the Minister reads the explanatory notes, that’s the purpose and the reason for that.

So I want to again look at that point—and this is in clause 232 in Part 5—about “Good and sufficient reasons for non-compliance: default by MSD” and again talk to that point around the “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified”. Sorry, this is the new insert that we are seeking in this amendment. It would say this in clause 232(a), that it would read—and this is the new insert—“Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD,” and the new part is “including availability of online MSD services;”.

Now, it may be a small part—and, again, what we are saying to the Minister is clear. We’re not disagreeing with the sanctions. We’re not disagreeing with the policy intent of the bill. The committee of the whole House is to make small amendments, and hence the reason why these tabled amendments are simply small amendments. It’s talking about including the fact that the Ministry for Social Development has the number of online services that it has. So all we’re seeking from the Minister in this amendment is that she would include that inside—as a small amendment, not a policy change. Policy-positive is what I like to call it—not policy-neutral—and this is the inclusion of this part.

So those are the contributions I want to make. It’s to bring clarity to the explanatory notes. It’s to say that the fact is that we think that’s important, and, again, these are small but significant changes, as my colleague Chris Penk actually said. It’s in the detail that it becomes important. It’s important because when we think about those on the front line that deliver the policy platform that’s in the intent of this, we want there to be no misunderstanding. We want clarity that this is exactly what the bill says, and it should be inclusive of all the different services.

We know there’s been an increase. We had that in Estimates. We talked about the increase in the number of online services that are offered through to a number of our customers—those who are clients, those who are beneficiaries as well. Why can that not be included?

I don’t think this is unreasonable. I think it’s a very pragmatic and practical way of including that. I hope that the Minister will again see this as something that she could include. It’s policy-positive, it’s a way of moving forward, and, again, it’s no change to the policy intent or direction. We believe in sanctions.

I’ve yet to hear a speech from the Greens. I’d love to hear that and hear what they have to say.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased to be taking another call on Part 5. As the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, has pointed out, this is very much intact as it was prior to Supplementary Order Paper 25 being tabled. But, as my colleague Simon O’Connor has pointed out, the committee stage is actually our opportunity to improve legislation as it goes through, and so we do take this time to analyse in some detail, and this is what our obligation is as legislators in this House.

I go back to a tabled amendment in the name of Louise Upston. It refers to Part 5, clause 217, and it’s that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) “must advise [the person] of the hierarchy of [the] sanctions and ensure [that person understands] the impacts of any breaches.” The hierarchy of those sanctions require that for a first breach of this clause, there is a reduction in their main benefit; for the second failure, there is a suspension of a main benefit; and then, for the third failure, there is a cancellation.

So when we have a look at what the obligations of the person are, they are that they must be available for reasonable work opportunities, and the second obligation is that they must accept any reasonable offer. For my area, down in West Coast - Tasman, the seasonal workers are also a very big part of the employment opportunities that are presented to people on benefits, and so this obligation that they must accept any reasonable work offer is very reasonable indeed. The third obligation is that they must participate in interviews—they must go for interviews. I can tell you that in my experience in talking to some employers, even turning up to an interview can be quite a challenge, and so I do support the fact that we have this hierarchy of sanctions that are available to MSD to implement for breaches from people who are on those benefits.

I’d just like to also go back to a contribution made by our newest MP in the House, Dan Bidois, who is from the great electorate of Northcote. He spoke to Part 5 as well, and he referred to Louise Upston’s tabled amendment to clause 232(a), where the “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including availability of online MSD services.” He did outline a few examples, but there are a few more that I would like to use to show why the online availability could be included in this bill. One of the things that comes to my mind, mainly because, I guess, I’m a rural MP in the great electorate of West Coast - Tasman, is that we have absolutely no public transport. Not from one end of the electorate to the other—

Simeon Brown: Not even a bus?

MAUREEN PUGH: —is there any opportunity for public transport. The closest we get are school buses. So having availability of those online services is absolutely essential.

We’ve got to also realise that under the current environment, the ability for people to drive to MSD offices, to update or to interview, etc., is becoming more and more challenging. Part of that reason is because hardly anyone there can afford the fuel any more because of the fuel taxes that have been imposed. So the online availability is absolutely essential to people, especially in rural and provincial New Zealand. As champions of the regions, I would expect that New Zealand First would appreciate that we do need to use this technology.

We see often in this House that we have supplementary—what are those bills called when we get a whole group together?

Simeon Brown: Oh, lots of bills. Oh, cognate.

MAUREEN PUGH: Yeah—can’t remember. I can’t remember what they’re called.

Hon Members: Omnibus.

MAUREEN PUGH: We have omnibus bills—but yes, we do. We have omnibus bills where—statutes amendments—we parcel together a whole lot of minor changes that are required in bills, and so—I’ve lost my train of thought. But, anyway, I think I’ve made my point, and I do think that we do have an opportunity to bring this up to date and fit for purpose for the 21st century.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Because it’s more than once that they have been raised and I did talk about the fact that it seemed that the explanatory note was not fitting with the actual amendments, I’m also going to point out why the amendments are not appropriate, given that Maureen Pugh has just spoken to this.

The first one I’ll speak to is Louise Upston’s one that is looking at Part 5, clause 217, and is seeking to insert, prior to line 1, “MSD must advise [person] of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure [person] understand impacts of any breaches.” Basically, we won’t be accepting that because it’s unnecessary as clause 92 in Part 3, which we’ve passed, already requires the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to make affected clients aware of their obligations, consequences of non-compliance, and their review and appeal rights. So exactly what you’re attempting to do here is covered in clause 92 in Part 3. So it’s unnecessary.

Then the other amendment that you’ve spoken to and others have spoken to in the House is under the name of the Hon Louise Upston, and it is to amend Part 5, clause 232(a): “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including availability of online MSD services;” Currently, that’s covered by “good and sufficient reason”. In terms of expanding on what good and sufficient reason might be, that’s in the operational guidelines. So it is quite a long list, but it’s not exhaustive, because you just don’t know what circumstances people may have that may actually be good and sufficient that you couldn’t account for.

One of the ones that is in the operational guidelines, to my understanding, is what’s been proposed by Louise Upston, and that is the availability of online MSD services. So it is covered. We don’t want to list all of these in legislation, because you’d be cluttering it unnecessarily. So having it in the operational guidelines and leaving some room for discretion, so that it’s not an exhaustive list—and that’s acknowledged—means that when someone has circumstances that you may not have pre-empted that, of course, are circumstances that are good and sufficient, then there is scope there to consider those as well.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you very much—I was pretty quick. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk to my amendment. It’s in Subpart 4, under “Offences”. It’s clause 271(4), and I want to insert paragraph (c) in that clause. So what does it say? It says “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a penalty that is”, and it’s got “either or both”. What I want to do is change both of those to “and”. So: “(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months: (b) a fine not exceeding $5,000.”, and my amendment is paragraph (c), which also includes “and; (c) a 13 week stand down from a benefit”.

I think that by inserting this clause, Minister, it really does drive home the seriousness of what the person committing the offence has done. It really does drive home, I guess, that penalty for her or him liable on that conviction. I want to state that because I think that in many ways—yeah, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. It’s a long time, but if you have a conviction for a penalty that keeps you in prison for 12 months, that is something very serious, and I don’t see why my 13-week stand down added to those offences, Minister, cannot be added to this particular section, especially when we cover quite a lot of the areas of offences.

As I’ve read through this section, I’ve noted that there’s some quite light-handed stuff in here. I think when people start to defraud and tell lies to MSD over receiving taxpayer-funded benefits, and they lie, then I think that the penalty should be harsh. That’s why adding the 13-week stand down from a benefit is something that will actually drive home that penalty.

So it is without any further ado that when we start looking at offences in this particular area, I think that we do have to take all of these things really seriously. I think that, without which—you know, why do it? I think the 13-week stand down from the benefit on top of those other penalties will show the seriousness of what this side of the House looks at when it comes to offences, thank you very much.

So, without any further ado, that is my amendment—

Darroch Ball: Lies in Opposition, eh?

JO HAYES: If you want to talk, then call for a contribution. Otherwise it might pay to just sit back and be quiet. So, yes, he’s getting very, very angry.

Hon Member: Have a Snickers!

JO HAYES: Ha! As I said, the offence is serious. It’s a serious thing when it comes to any benefit. We need to be serious in our ability to convict and to penalise those who seek to crock the system. So I would like the Minister to adopt that and maybe contribute to this—tell me why it can’t be added to this particular part of this bill here. I would really like to know why we can’t actually add it. So that’s my question to the Minister.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to take a short call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and just, firstly, respond to a couple of the comments made by Minister Sepuloni in relation to the very good amendment in the name of Louise Upston.

Now, this amendment relates to Part 5, clause 217, and is to insert prior to line 1, “MSD must advise P of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands impacts of any breaches”. Now, the Minister did respond saying that that is already required elsewhere in the legislation. I think a question I’ve got for the Minister—and I would appreciate her commentary—is: does that require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to also inform the beneficiary each time they get a strike? I mean I wouldn’t call them a strike. That’s the second point I can make a bit later, but if they were to—at stage one, stage two, stage three, are they informed of the hierarchy? Are they informed of any further breaches at each step along the way? If not, I think there needs to be an obligation on MSD. If a beneficiary is going to be sanctioned at one point, shouldn’t they then, therefore, be able to be given further information? If it happens again—what will be the consequences if it happens again? What will be the further consequences? Should MSD be making that clear, and shouldn’t there be an obligation on them to make that very clear at each step along the way?

I’m happy to write up a new amendment to reflect that, so as to slightly amend the one in the name of Louise Upston, if that would assist the Minister. I know that the Minister is trying to say that if it’s not policy-neutral—not wanting to listen. Well, this is, essentially, policy-neutral. Essentially, it’s just trying to ensure that MSD’s obligations are making sense. The committee stage is the place where we propose amendments which try to assist and try to ensure that the legislation is as good as possible.

Kieran McAnulty: He’s starting to panic and he’s still got 2½ minutes left.

SIMEON BROWN: Now, I know Mr McAnulty is sitting there across the other side of the Chamber chirping away like he knows everything, but he still hasn’t taken a call on this bill, which I find to be quite surprising. It’s an important piece of legislation and he is trying to make a good impression in his time here, but he should really take a call and actually talk about some of the legislation which is obviously quite impossible.

So the second question I’ve got, and this is, I guess, getting more towards a policy point—but we do have three stages to these sanctions. In some ways it does resemble “three strikes and you’re out”, because you end up having, firstly, one stage a cut, and then a second, and then you have your benefit cancelled at the end. I was wondering whether Cabinet’s considered this and what support, or not, there was from the different coalition partners for that, because it does resemble, in many ways, the three-strikes legislation, which I see one part of this coalition does agree with and other parts don’t.

Anyway, leaving that aside, I would like to move to clause 240, which is regarding the evidential drug-test. It says here in clause 240, which is “Request for evidential drug test if sanction imposed for failing screening drug test (1) A person (P) who has failed a screening drug test and has been given a section 235 notice … of a sanction on the basis of failing that test may request that P’s sample taken for the screening drug test be subjected to an evidential drug test.” Then, in clause 240(2): “P’s request for an evidential drug test—(a) must be in writing in a form approved by MSD for the purpose”. Now my question regarding the words “in writing” is in relation to whether that is physically written down or whether that is something which can be emailed to the MSD case officer.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, come on. Don’t forget the faxes, mate.

SIMEON BROWN: This is actually important. I know Mr McAnulty wants to chirp in again, but actually we live in the 21st century, where we use emails, and what we’re talking about here is language that says “writing”. I want to know from the Minister—I’ve got a question for the Minister and I’d like to have an answer to this question around whether “in writing” should be physically in writing or online. So we need to have that clarified.

I’m happy to have an amendment put up there to change that to clarify the legislation to make it clear, because if MSD hasn’t moved into the 21st century, then they’d better, and the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is a great opportunity for us to get them into the 21st century. Thank you very much.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you very much. This is very efficient. Thank you, Mr Chair. I understand the Minister has just said that Louise Upston’s amendment—basically, including the availability of online assistance has actually been mentioned. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to focus on language assistance, because too many immigrants have difficulty in understanding the policies and understanding letters from departments. These can cause concerns or anxiety for many new immigrants.

Now, in Part 4, I was speaking to my amendment. I didn’t finish because of time limits, but I was going to say that, actually, over 10 years ago, quite a few Chinese migrants received letters from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) regarding their so-called pensions in China. Of course, there was confusion among officials about whether what they had in China was really an overseas pension or not. In the end, of course, with the support of many other people, these Chinese community members actually approached local MPs—including, actually, the Hon Phil Goff—who helped to sort this out. In the end, of course, MSD officials in those years were very helpful. So the language barrier was overcome because of support from the Department of Internal Affairs’ Ethnic Office—what we now call the Office of Ethnic Communities. So with the support of those departments people were able to communicate with all sorts of agencies, but MSD is particularly important because so many migrants need the support of MSD.

Once they received a letter in English—often they are not able to really understand accurately—they would have support from people, either translators or from those community associations, so it is important for MSD to provide language support at certain stages. Now we understand that we have all sorts of support for new immigrants. Language support is a key part. I understand that in the police we now have many people who can speak Mandarin or can speak other languages who are there to support all these ethnic groups. We also understand that we have Language Line, where people can get support for various services. So it is important for MSD to either make sure that they have volunteers there to support these people, or they have staff to support these new migrants—particularly when they are trying to deliver some very important messages or notices. So it is important for them to make sure that these migrants are able to understand the messages. This kind of support, I believe, is particularly important.

The Minister mentioned that online services are there—which is good of course—but, at the same time, whether we are able to have information in different languages online is another matter we may look at. For example, I understand that earlier this year—actually, a few months ago—the Minister of Education was going to do a survey, but they used English without some other very important languages for other very important ethnic communities, including Mandarin, Chinese, Korean, and all these people. They don’t have language for these people. So it is important for us to understand that all services—important services—need to be provided in different languages so that we make sure that all communities are connected.

MSD is a very important part of the Government. Without proper language support, many of our ethnic community members will not be able to get the service or could be penalised because of that misunderstanding. So that is a key part of our services. I hope that not only will we have online services but we will also have online language services. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 217 be agreed to:

insert before the first line:

MSD must advise P of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands impacts of any breaches.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 232 be agreed to:

in paragraph (a), replace “MSD;” with “MSD, including availability of online MSD services;”.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Jian Yang to clause 232 be agreed to:

in paragraph (a), replace “MSD;” with “MSD, including language assistance;”.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jo Hayes to clause 271 be agreed to:

insert, after subclause (4)(b), the following new paragraph:

(c) a 13 week stand down from a benefit.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Administration

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure if we’ve been sent here tonight as a collective group to torture Matt King, but—[Interruption] Look, we have, in many ways, moved through a lot of the substance of the bill now. Part 6, however, is quite long, but is particularly around the administration of what we’ve been through.

So as has been noted before, this is a bill in 10 parts, of about 600 pages. To be fair, it is mainly the existing text with some rewrites. But Part 6 is titled “Administration” and is broken down into a series of subparts, which are really about how one applies, inquires, grants, and commences benefits, how one ends benefits, the expiries and the payments, and tax and deduction. So it’s not the sexy part of the bill, but it is sort of the engine, if you will.

Because it’s the engine and because it needs to be an effective mechanism, I do have a particular issue around clause 289A, in Supplementary Order Paper 25, which is around the termination of the winter energy payment—so that’s clause 289A.

Simeon Brown: It is getting cold.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know, it is getting cold here, Mr Brown, but that’s not why I’m raising it. Look, the winter energy payment has been done to death as a concept, and I don’t intend to relitigate that part of it.

Simeon Brown: It is a dead concept.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Someone has suggested it’s a dead concept. But my concern really is the almost circular nature of how this particular clause—it’s a new insertion by the Minister. In many ways, why is it added here and why is it in the form that it is? The issue that we’ve got is we’ve got effective insertion almost randomly—that’s indicated by the fact that it’s clause 289A rather than a whole new number. It’s just in between clause 289, which is about another benefit being more appropriate, and clause 290 about certain benefits being granted. So it’s unclear to me in terms of the legal progress why it’s just randomly been inserted there.

But the fundamental problem is that clause 289A here in Part 6 says “After the review”—whatever “the” review is. And that’s a problem right from the start because it’s using the definite article rather the indefinite article—that is, “the” rather than “a”. So what is “the” review? I would imagine, again, having been in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), that there are reviews in the plural, so, you know, I would expect the indefinite article. But then: “MSD may terminate a winter energy payment”—fortunately, it’s the payment, not the person, though that would also achieve the same end. But: “MSD may terminate a winter energy payment under section 65F”.

So what we have is a section here in Part 6 which then refers back to something in Part 2. The problem we run into immediately is clause 65F talks about “Winter energy payment: termination on review”—I’m not going to read the whole thing, but then it says to terminate you have to go back to section 285 and also section 289A. So we start in Part 6, and Part 6 refers us to Part 2, and Part 2 then refers us back to Part 6. By this time I’m getting rather confused. Now, some on that side might suggest it’s a matter of mental ability, but I don’t think that’s the case. So we’ve got a confused section, fundamentally. Why is it put in here at this point? Why then is clause 289A referring back to Part 2?

When you get to Part 2, you’re immediately sent back to Part 6—in this case clause 285, in the first instance, which is around the entitlement and rate payable. When you look at clause 285(1)(a), and this is in Part 6, it says that MSD may review a benefit—I’m expurgating here—where the beneficiary is or remains entitled to receive the benefit. Well, one would assume that if someone has received the winter energy payment based on age—as I understand it, that’s how you receive it—it’s sort of nonsensical to suggest that that may not remain. I suppose that could be a question of whether that’s the fundamental criterion, but we’re not talking like a sickness benefit here, where the condition may abate or change; we’re talking about a winter energy payment based on a person’s age and the season.

So if you’ve gone from Part 6 back to Part 2, jumping back to Part 6, clause 285(1)(a), we’re talking here that there remains—[Bell rung] Thank you very much. One of the things you learn, the MP for Northland, is a little bit of humility.

But, fundamentally, what we’ve got here, then, as I said, first and foremost, is backwards and forwards within a situation where the termination of payment is based on, say, a remaining entitlement. So I suppose there’s some confusion of—

Kieran McAnulty: We want to hear from Matt King.

SIMON O’CONNOR: He has put me off—that’s right. It’s one of the striking things that through the interjections of Mr McAnulty, he’s given about four speeches in this entire thing.

But, fundamentally, clause 285(1)(a) is basically working out whether a winter energy payment continues on the original basis of entitlement. As I was saying, if this was a sickness benefit, it makes sense. You go back and you review, because that illness may have gone, dissipated, or so forth, or in such a way that someone can return to work. The winter energy payment—as I said, its two legs are, effectively, age and, effectively, the season, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me why that’s one of the reasons. Clause 285(1)(b) does make a lot of sense. Where the beneficiary was not entitled to receive the benefit, I can certainly understand that MSD may review and decide for some reason—I don’t know; for theory’s sake that the person had fraudulently indicated their age, forgot that they’d received the letter, or something like that—that they may want to review it. But we just have a fundamental lack of clarity here in the way that it is completely structured.

To make matters worse, I would suggest, once you’ve dealt with clause 285, which is relatively substantial—there’s a series of other parts—well, actually clause 285(3) then puts someone through an enormous process of review, which, again, doesn’t reflect the simplicity of clause 289A. All of a sudden, someone who’s receiving a fairly minimal contribution is now having to go through at least a series of reviews by the committee and appeal to authority, the courts, and even a medical board. So there’s a proportionality question, I think, which is arising in the structure of this part, and it all comes from the insertion of this termination of the winter energy payment in clause 289A, and, fundamentally, why it turns back to section 65F. I haven’t had the opportunity to table an amendment to make it clearer, but, actually, there are, I suspect, and suggest, ways of making clause 289 easier, in nominating what would be the very particular reasons that one might terminate a winter energy payment.

Again, I think the fundamental point here is that this is, in some ways, an allowance by age and by season. It is not based on one’s youth, on one’s employability, on one’s sickness, illness, solo parenthood, or otherwise. So, in effect, what we’re doing here, or what is being done by introducing clause 289A, in Part 6, is beginning to put New Zealanders who are receiving the winter energy payment into a rather complicated system of review, and I think it’s symbolically suggested by the very fact that we have to go to Part 2, which sends you back to Part 6.

As I noted, though, once you’ve got to Part 2, it then also sends you back, which is really confusing, and I’m hoping the lawyers may assist me. While I’ve already, I think, indicated why it’s odd to go from clause 289A—it says, “Check out section 65F”; section 65F says, “clause 285”. It goes on to say, “See also section 289A”. In other words, section 289A, in Part 6, says, “Go to clause 65F”, and clause 65F says, “Go and look at section 289A”. This is a circular clause—a circular argument. It is nonsensical.

Hon Member: I thought you were a monarchist, Simon.

SIMON O’CONNOR: It’s policy circular—it’s not only neutral, this is policy circular. It makes no sense.

Now, look, I am happy to admit—look, even Her Majesty would be upset about this—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sit down. Members do not bring Her Majesty into the debate, at all.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That’s right. It is quite correct, and the great thing about that is that there’s another eight seconds. So, marvellous! But, really, what I’m saying is that we’ve got, effectively, a circular debate here. So I’d really welcome the Minister, if she’s able to take a call today or, obviously, in future discussions on why this is so circular. As I said, fundamentally, clause 289A refers to Part 2, and that, in itself, just sends it straight back there.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): That member, Simon O’Connor, who was just speaking, was attempting to say that Part 6, in terms of what’s being proposed through Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, is nonsensical. I just want to say that member is nonsensical. It was very hard to follow his argument when it was based on so many factually incorrect assertions.

Firstly, I need to inform that member that the winter energy payment is not based on age. Superannuitants, veterans—yes—but also all main beneficiaries can get access to the winter energy payment. So it is not age-related in any way.

Also, that member kept referring to the sickness benefit and the invalid’s benefit. Unless the member is citing legislation pre-2013, when those benefits actually still existed, then I have no idea what he’s talking about, because they haven’t existed since 2013, when his Government, at the time—the previous Government—changed the legislation and folded what the terms of those were into what became the supported living payment. So, as I said, it was very difficult to follow that member’s argument because of the fact that there were so many factually incorrect assumptions and statements made.

So perhaps reading the actual SOP would bring him up to speed with more recent legislation, and perhaps next time he won’t start his speech by referring to my lack of intelligence, when, clearly, someone has not read the bill.

MATT KING (National—Northland): I’ve never had to work so hard to get a call. Raymond Huo and Jamie Strange have been sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for this contribution, and I didn’t want to be outdone and have the thunder stolen by Dan Bidois on his first day in the House.

I would like to refer to clause 301, “Effect of no longer being subject to work-preparation obligations”, and then subclause (1)(b)(i): “a general obligation of the person under section”—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. [Interruption] Order! I’m on my feet. Sorry to interrupt the member, it’s come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill with amendment, progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and no progress on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.