Wednesday, 25 July 2018

WEDNESDAY, 25 JULY 2018

WEDNESDAY, 25 JULY 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Points of Order

Leave for Introduction and Setting Down as Members’ Order of the Day No. 1—Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2), a member’s bill in my name, and for the bill to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 1.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is objection; it will not be set down.

Business of the House

Business of the House

JO HAYES (National): I seek leave for the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 2 today.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none; that will occur.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Health Services—Medicinal Cannabis

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he believe New Zealand should implement a comprehensive medicinal cannabis regime that would widen access to medicinal cannabis and license high-quality domestic production?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government’s view is that if the other members of Parliament were serious in this matter, then they would not have put it into a member’s bill, in a ballot that may not be drawn in favour of the bill, and they would in the last nine years have showed their integrity and sincerity on this issue, rather than playing silly politics.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree that New Zealanders deserve greater access to high-quality medicinal cannabis products to ease their suffering, but that we must also have the right legislative and regulatory controls in place to manage that access?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government’s position is that having observed nine years of nothing on this issue, in the first 100 days the Government sought to change the law to enable a consideration by Parliament, and that’s happening as we speak.

Hon Simon Bridges: Noting what the Prime Minister has said about members’ bills, will he be open to considering National’s proposed medicinal cannabis scheme on its merits?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question is that if that was a sincere offer, then prior to the bill being tabled that member—leading a party, supposedly—would have offered us a chance of consultation. But no: after nine years of inertia and nothing, he then turns up with a bill that may not be drawn.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does the Government’s current Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill remain totally silent on how a medicinal cannabis regime would operate in practice, essentially proposing to increase access now and leave it to officials to think through the controls and the consequences at a later time?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is that that bill will be reported back to Parliament and, as he will know if he’s observed the parliamentary process, there may be changes, there may be amendments, there may be adaptations—

Hon Simon Bridges: They won’t have gone through select committee.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that member had members on the select committee. Why didn’t you talk to them, or is his party a leaderless rabble?

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he believe that a medicinal cannabis scheme should have clear parameters and rules around who can buy and who can sell the products—parameters that are not included in the Government’s proposal? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! There were four separate interjections from the Government benches then. I hesitate when we’re discussing this topic to suggest methods of members calming down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be good advice, though, Mr Speaker, especially for the one that’s asking the questions. Could I just say this, though: the reality is this is a work in progress. We all know that. That’s the form of democracy we have and this Government was so concerned to respond to a public desire for a change here that in the first 100 days of its coming to power it acted, as against nine years of utter nothing.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the Prime Minister’s comment just then that the bill is a work in progress, and given that it’s just come back from select committee, is he acknowledging that it’s not fit for purpose and doesn’t do what it needs to do?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What this Government is saying is that unlike the previous Government we have not got a tin ear. We listen and whilst the bill’s before this House we will be prepared to make changes if it’s warranted, and that party over there looking for an alternative leader can consult amongst themselves.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he expect terminally ill and chronically ill New Zealanders to only access the cannabis products they need legally through pharmacists?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say that the members on this side will be taken by the degree of passion and deep feeling that that member is exhibiting today and we just wonder where it was the last nine years when he didn’t raise a finger about people’s pain and agony and suffering—not a mutter, not a murmur, not syllable, not a sound until he lost power and now he wants to act.

Hon Simon Bridges: Taking all of the issues with the Government bill into account, I ask again: will he be open to considering National’s proposed medicinal cannabis scheme on its merits?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I tell that member that if he was sincere in that offer, why did he not send me and my colleagues and my fellow MPs on this side of the House a copy of his legislation? Maybe he was embarrassed by what it said—maybe he was embarrassed by its content, but he most definitely did not exhibit any political collegiality by sharing this wonderful bill he’s got. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? Withdraw and apologise.

Clayton Mitchell: I withdraw and apologise.

Business—Costs

2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports or correspondence, if any, has he received about cost increases on New Zealand businesses as a result of the Government’s policies and actions; and is he concerned cost increases on business will increase the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I, receive reports from officials on most Government policies and actions, and where appropriate they provide advice on the impacts on New Zealand businesses—for example, on the increase to the minimum wage. I have received some correspondence from businesses on the impact of Government policies, but this is far outweighed by the correspondence this Government has received from New Zealand families who are benefiting from the Families Package. In answer to the second part of the question, it is possible, as it has always been, that businesses will pass on any cost increases they face to their customers. From the point of view of this Government, that’s why we have implemented measures to lift incomes and wages, including today’s excellent announcement that 5,000 mental health and addiction support workers will now get access to a pay parity deal they were previously excluded from.

Hon Amy Adams: What quantification does the advice he’s received tell him about how Government changes have increased costs on small business, and how that will increase the cost of living of New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I get a range of advice. It doesn’t all quantify impacts on New Zealand businesses. For example, the advice from officials on the minimum wage increase varies, as it did for the previous Government—that it may cause some reduction in employment, although that doesn’t actually tend to follow. It also has said that it may have minimal impacts on inflation, although, in the case of the latest change, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials indicate that it would be very small.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he have any advice at all that he has sought that gives him any understanding of what the cost on small business has increased by as a result of his Government’s policies and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I get a range of advice, as I said, from officials. But the member is falling for the classic accountants’ trick of seeing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. So investing in our transport system in Auckland actually means better productivity for businesses. So, actually, the things that the member thinks that are costs are investments in our future that her party failed to make.

Hon Amy Adams: So what does he say to Grant Allen, a hard-working small-business owner who’s written to me recently with copies of six letters from suppliers who are all notifying him that they’ve had to increase their prices because of higher fuel, labour, and compliance costs under this Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said before, yes, there are increased costs for transport projects right across New Zealand and especially in Auckland. That is because we are addressing, as a Government, a legacy of nine years of underfunding of transport. When we get this right in Auckland—which we’ll do—we will make sure that the $1 billion a year of lost productivity in Auckland caused by traffic congestion will go back into the economy and grow good-paying jobs.

Hon Amy Adams: Is he saying that he has no concern about the issues raised by small-business owners of increasing costs under this Government, which have been described by another small-business owner as a perfect storm of rapidly escalating compliance, wage, fuel, and insurance costs, and which are flowing through to raise the cost of living of New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re working very closely with small businesses on things such as extending the subsidy for professional payroll intermediaries. We’re moving to e-invoicing. We’re changing the research and development regime to reduce bureaucracy. If the member’s interested, she might like to attend one of the Minister for Small Business’ roadshows, that are on modernising the way you do business. If she happens to be in Matamata on 21 August or Queenstown on 27 August, or even Westport on 31 August, she can find out just what this Government is doing for small business.

Economy—Reports

3. 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): I’ve seen a range of reports that highlight the strong fundamentals underlying the New Zealand economy. This includes the IMF’s annual article IV report, which forecasts GDP growth remaining strong at around 3 percent over the medium term, unemployment continuing to fall, and wages continuing to rise above inflation. The IMF said New Zealand’s economic expansion remains solid and that the economic outlook is favourable. There is always more to do to ensure New Zealand has an economy fit for purpose for the 21st century, but we have strong foundations to build on.

Dr Duncan Webb: What do recent reports on the economy say about the environment for business investment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its report, Infometrics has said, “We do not believe current … confidence levels signal a major contraction in business investment.” This is consistent with the views I’ve seen expressed by some business leaders, such as Rob Campbell, who said recently that “The worst thing that we can do as the business sector is to be drawn into the negativity of lobby groups or media outlets. This is a great place to open and operate a business. Negativity is for those who stand on the sidelines watching and commentating.” This Government is getting on with the job of governing and making sure the economy is more productive, sustainable, and inclusive—

Hon Simon Bridges: What a joke. He’s the only guy you can get quotes from—he’s the only guy you can get quotes from.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and Mr Bridges’ negativity won’t do him any good at all. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before the member does a call—I think it’s happened most days in the last couple of times that we’ve sat, or couple of weeks that we’ve sat; Mr Bridges, do you know what I mean?

Hon Simon Bridges: No, I don’t.

SPEAKER: OK. In your interjecting—

Hon Simon Bridges: We weren’t sitting last week.

SPEAKER: In the last weeks that we sat—you are constantly interjecting, bringing me into the debate. You will learn not to.

Dr Duncan Webb: What do recent reports on the New Zealand economy say about wage growth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The report from Infometrics said that wage growth is finally feeding through into a better outlook for household spending. This has been backed up by others, such as ASB senior economist Mark Smith, who recently said, “It’s been pretty tough going for a lot of those people at the lower end of the income scale. The New Zealand economy’s doing very well, but a lot of people are asking, ‘where’s the pay off for me?’ ” This Government is determined to lift the wages of the lowest-paid New Zealanders, to improve the incomes of families, and to make sure that economic growth continues but that all New Zealanders get to have a share in it.

KiwiBuild—Buying off the Plans

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements in the House yesterday?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, in the context they were made.

Hon Judith Collins: When he advised the House that “The types and amount of risk the Crown may take through the Buying off the Plans initiative were assessed as part of a business case I took to Cabinet.”, what was the specific amount and types of risk?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Could the member repeat the question—the latter part of the question?

Hon Judith Collins: When he advised the House that “The types and amount of risk the Crown may take through the Buying off the Plans initiative were assessed as part of a business case I took to Cabinet.”, what was the specific amount and types of risk?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I said yesterday to the member, the specific amount will vary from development to development, but there is an in depth risk assessment process in place for each development, and I’m happy to share the elements of it with the member. The KiwiBuild unit advise me that risk is managed through an initial assessment of each project, a short-listing process, a second review of the proposal, and a workshop with the developers. The KiwiBuild unit then evaluate the amended proposal. There is then an opportunity to clarify any issues raised. The project then goes before an evaluation panel. The evaluation report chair prepares a final evaluation report, and then the contract itself is negotiated.

Hon Judith Collins: When he told the House yesterday that, “residential developments across New Zealand stall because developers struggle to find finance”, what makes him think that he is a better judge of the solvency of a building company than those banks that are currently refusing to provide the finance?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the member’s assertion in that question, but I want to make it very clear in relation to this question and questions that the member raised yesterday, in the case of developer insolvency, the Crown, though KiwiBuild, carries no risk whatsoever. When we buy off the plans and underwrite, the Crown simply makes a commitment for houses that have been completed and are ready for sale. So if the developer becomes insolvent, there is no risk whatsoever to KiwiBuild, and in relation to rising construction costs—

Hon David Bennett: Have you ever done that in business?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —which is one of the other risks that member has raised, again there is no risk whatsoever to the Crown through KiwiBuild. Those risks remain with the developer.

SPEAKER: Order! Before a member calls—David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I’ve just warned his leader for something and he’s repeated it.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Judith Collins: When he told the House yesterday that new houses are to be built in a Mangēre development, did he know that part of that land in stage 1G is still privately owned and his premature announcement has likely increased the price that the Crown is going to have to pay for it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m happy to look into that matter that the member raises.

Marja Lubeck: Why is the Government working with the private sector to build more affordable homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because many residential developments across New Zealand have stalled because the developers are struggling to find finance on acceptable terms. That’s exacerbating the shortage of homes that has built up over the last decade. This is why KiwiBuild steps in to (a), enable developments that otherwise would not be undertaken to be completed; (b), to speed up developments to increase supply faster; and (c), to enable the construction of affordable homes rather than the McMansions that young Kiwi families cannot afford.

Hon Judith Collins: How robust is this assessment process that he’s referred to today for KiwiBuild, when part of the stage 1G of the Māngere development that he announced the other day is actually still owned by a private owner, who has—although approached by Housing New Zealand—decided that the price has just gone up?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think, rather than take the member’s assertion at face value, I’ll get the facts and get advice on exactly what’s going on in relation to that development.

Marja Lubeck: What advice has he had on how the KiwiBuild unit manages any potential risk?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The KiwiBuild unit advises me that there is a robust process to manage any potential risk. There’s an initial assessment of each proposal, and the KiwiBuild unit selects potential developers to enter the process. Next, the unit holds workshops for responses—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member has read that before.

Marja Lubeck: What are the risks of not undertaking the Buying off the Plans KiwiBuild programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the main risk is that we’ll continue to see residential developments across New Zealand stall because developers cannot get finance on acceptable terms. These homes will not be built; they will take longer or they will be too expensive for the families who need them, and this would mean that we would not be able to increase supply of modern starter homes for young families. This Government is committed to building affordable homes for young Kiwi families.

Families Package—Salvation Army Survey and Winter Energy Payment

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Will the Families Package address concerns raised in the recent nationwide survey commissioned by the Salvation Army; if so, how?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The findings from the recent nationwide Salvation Army survey reflect what this Government has been saying: too many children and families have been doing it tough. That’s why we put $5.5 billion into our Families Package to provide extra support for low and middle income families. The Families Package has given 1 million people access to the winter energy payment, 26,000 more people will be eligible for Working for Families, 65,000 children will benefit from the Best Start payment each year, and 136,000 people have an increase in their accommodation supplement. These changes will improve incomes for 384,000 families by an average of $75 per week and will lift 64,000 children out of poverty by 2021.

Willow-Jean Prime: What does the Salvation Army survey show about the impact of winter heating costs on families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Salvation Army survey was conducted in June this year, and it showed 45 percent of those surveyed had gone without heating in the last year due to the cost. The Salvation Army reported that one in 10 people surveyed were warming their home using their oven or stove. They said that we are seeing our most vulnerable people struggle this winter. That’s why the winter energy payment is so important. This payment provides financial support for all beneficiaries and superannuitant households, effective as of 1 July this year. The survey showed that families need more support in order to keep homes warm over the winter, and the winter energy payment provides that extra assistance.

Willow-Jean Prime: What impact has the winter energy payment had so far?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have received an overwhelmingly positive response to this extra support. One of the comments received was “I just want to thank you on behalf of the elderly for your consideration in this matter. I am sure to many superannuitants this would be critical for their health and well-being.” Another person emailed me to say, “I would like to say a big thank you for the winter energy payment. It is going to make a big difference to me. My husband is seriously ill, under hospice care at home. He feels the cold so much, and we have to have our heat pump on day and night. The payment means I don’t have to worry.” I am proud that this Government has made life easier for those families so they can stay warm and healthy over winter.

Health Services—Adult Cochlear Implants

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I stand by all my actions, including my defence of the former acting Director-General of Health against the spurious attacks by Jami-Lee Ross, which were this week totally rejected by the State Services Commissioner. Mr Ross should apologise for attacks on this hard-working public servant’s integrity—attacks which Mr Ross did not find himself able to make outside this House.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has his Government cancelled the previous Government’s commitment to increase the number of publicly funded adult cochlear implant surgeries from 40 to 100, from the 2017-18 financial year, at a cost of just $6.5 million?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The previous Government got a long way behind on cochlear implants. I agree with the member that they did put some more money forward in election year for a short-term hit to make a number of cochlear implants, and I congratulate them on finally putting some response forward after years of neglect. We are working on a sustainable solution to follow on from that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So when the Minister claims that there is $8 billion short that he will fix when he has an opportunity in Budget 2018 to sustainably fund the increase in adult cochlear implant surgeries, why did he not take that opportunity?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member has not listened clearly. I have not claimed an $8 billion shortfall; I claimed a shortfall in health spending. This Government has pledged to spend an extra $8 billion in health over the term of this Government.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he understand the sentiments expressed by people like Danielle McKay, who was “so upset and disappointed in the new Government.”, and will he revisit his decision not to fund more of these life-improving surgeries?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Again, I reject the member’s assertion that we will not fund more of these. He has not been listening. During the last election campaign, the previous Government responded to unfavourable media attention by reprioritising money from other initiatives—taking money off others—in order for a one-off funding boost that’s running out, and that funding has been used up. They simply did not fund this sustainably, and they should look at themselves in the mirror, because I don’t know how they can do this. After nine years of underfunding, to do one thing and then claim that they’ve fixed the whole system is outrageous. We will find a sustainable solution, unlike that crowd, who simply underfunded health for years and years and years.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When will he find a sustainable solution?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member will have to wait and see.

Health Policy—Medicinal Cannabis

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the Government’s Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill and the Government’s medicinal cannabis policies?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. New Zealanders are a compassionate people. No one wants to see people suffering, and medicinal cannabis provides another option to find relief. This legislation that we’ve put to the House goes further than any previous Parliament has gone. It represents real progress in making these products more widely available.

Dr Shane Reti: In what sorts of locations will medicinal cannabis be allowed to be grown under this bill?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Those details will be worked through by the regulatory body that’s been set up. Today, a bill—which has not yet been tabled—was entertained in front of the media by the National Party. They haven’t consulted more widely on it, so we haven’t seen it. But one thing that seems clear is that the regime that they’re putting forward, from what we can see from the media, would compromise the ability of the regulators to respond to an emerging market situation with an evolving safety profile and changing technologies. It doesn’t look like any solution at all at this stage.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the use of loose-leaf cannabis allowed under this bill?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think that’s unlikely, but we will see what the experts say. This member wants to politicise the issue rather than listen to the experts. It’s all a political game. If they’d really wanted to make progress, they had nine years to do that.

Dr Shane Reti: How does that answer reconcile with the reply to written question No. 489, where the Minister states, “The Bill will not restrict the exception and defence to the possession and use of cannabis to any particular dosage form.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven’t got that particular detail in front of me—and what the member’s question was, because the member’s question is a critical point in that, and how it was framed—but I will be taking advice from experts. This is not a political game for us on this side of the House. We are going further than any Government has gone before. And we’re very proud of it, because people suffering shouldn’t be made into a political game, like that member is trying to do.

Dr Shane Reti: Why has the Minister not done the work and presented a detailed and workable medicinal cannabis scheme, as we have presented today?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t think anybody believes the member, let alone himself. We have just put through a select committee process, which was thorough. The member is risking disrespecting those people who presented to that committee. There was an opportunity for constructive engagement, to make real, meaningful change, and that member’s party is just playing a game with it.

Health Services—Mental Health Services for Young People

8. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent progress has been made to improve access to mental health and counselling services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Three-quarters of all lifetime cases of mental illness start by age 25, and we need to do more to support young people with mild to moderate mental health needs. That’s why, on Monday, tenders opened for the Integrated Therapies Pilot programme, which will trial free counselling for 18- to 25-year-olds. This excellent initiative reflects the confidence and supply agreement between the coalition Government and the Green Party.

Dr Liz Craig: What’s this pilot programme designed to achieve?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is increasing international evidence that psychological therapies can help improve the mental health of young people. This pilot programme is adapted from the UK’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme, which looks at people’s needs and responds accordingly. The pilot will help us find out what works in the New Zealand context, including what works for young Māori and Pacific people, rainbow young people, and those with disabilities.

Dr Liz Craig: So what other Government initiatives to support young people’s mental health are being rolled out?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: On Monday, a second cohort of mental health support workers started as part of the Mana Ake programme in Canterbury and Kaikōura. Mana Ake supports children in school years 1 to 8 living with the legacy of earthquakes. It helps them to be resilient and experience positive mental health so they can engage and learn at school. There are now 21 Mana Ake workers, including psychologists, social workers, and counsellors, working across 38 schools in the region, with more to come later this year—more good news.

Education—Partnership Schools

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by the decisions he has made on the future of partnership schools and will he guarantee that the schools have had a fair and robust process with good communication?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, and yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: How can he say that it is a fair process when the schools themselves are quoted as saying, “The Government and Minister Hipkins have put their foot on our throats … [and] muzzled us”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t accept that criticism. The Government has implemented the policy that all three parties in the Government campaigned on. We were very transparent about that, not only before the election but, in fact, when the charter school model was introduced by the previous Government.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the decision to cut the roll of Te Rangihakahaka, approving, effectively, 25 percent of the school roll they asked for, what does he say to the school leadership, who have said, “[I] believe we’ve been sold out by officials and politicians.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I made the decision about the current maximum roll for that school based on the current capacity of their facilities. I was not willing to approve an increase in the roll above that; they have capacity, on the advice I have received, for 75 students. With some improvement, those facilities might be increased to 85. But any increase above that, in their maximum roll, would mean that they were well outside the guidelines for school operating environments—classroom space—that the Ministry of Education sets for all schools. It is one of the criticisms that this side of the House had of the charter school model: that they were operating in facilities that were substandard and would not be accepted in public schools.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he promise to investigate claims by Alwyn Poole of a flawed process due to missing and inaccurate information around their application, and on what date will these schools and children know their future?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, no, because I have received all of the information that the Villa Education Trust supplied to the Ministry of Education in association with their application, and I worked my way through that in making the decision that I did about their application, which was to request more information. I’ve made an undertaking that that school will have a final decision by September, once that information is supplied, of course. If that information is available to me earlier than that, I may be in a position to make a decision earlier than that. I would note that by giving them a decision by September, that still gives them four months to work their way through the transition process, and I note that when the school was established in the first place, they had less than four months to establish themselves.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the flawed process which has seen the Villa Education Trust school still in a state of limbo, bullying claims against him and the ministry, and iwi leaders lodging Waitangi Tribunal claims against the Government, when will he stop being so vindictive and shafting the school leaders—

SPEAKER: Order! That question is ruled out. Does the member have a further supplementary?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I answer the first part of the question?

SPEAKER: No.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member can take another point of order, but I have ruled the question out.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker. If a member makes an assertion in a question and you deem to rule the question out, either the member should have to withdraw and apologise for it or the Minister should be allowed to reply to it, otherwise it remains on the record of the House and the other side, the other party who is, ultimately, the subject of the criticism, doesn’t have an opportunity to respond to it.

SPEAKER: There were probably about three reasons for me ruling that question out, including the very initial phrase in it. The question was totally out of order and has been ruled out as a result. We’re not going to go back to being able to answer half a triply-flawed question.

Provincial Growth Fund—Ngati Hine Forestry Trust

10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Is it still the case that the eligibility and assessment criteria of the Provincial Growth Fund, as laid out by Cabinet in December 2017, includes the criterion that “investment should neither socialise losses nor privatise gains”?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I didn’t hear the answer, but I presume it was yes.

SPEAKER: It was yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he square that answer with comments in the May Ngati Hine Forestry Trust’s newsletter talking about the joint venture with the Crown, to which $6 million has been allocated from the Provincial Growth Fund, that “Without providing any specifics, the Trustees can advise that the financial returns to the beneficial owners to be received from this Forestry Right upon harvest will be substantial.”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is no such trust as the “Ngatahine trust”, and that member should be required to get himself informed or desist from insulting a tribe up north.

Hon Member: That’s not a point of order.

SPEAKER: No, it’s a very clear point of order. There’s a challenge as to whether that supplementary question is properly authenticable, and it’s a very strong assertion from the member who lives in the area that there is no such trust, and, therefore, there can’t be a question. If the member has the newsletter here—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order, I can only go on the website of the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust, which includes this newsletter that I’m referring to. If they’ve got their terminology wrong, well, then I can’t be expected to deal with that.

SPEAKER: Well, I think there might be a couple of points, mightn’t there?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now he’s reading from it, but it wasn’t what he was reading; it was the way he was pronouncing it. There is no such tribe as “Ngatahine”.

SPEAKER: Well, I think I’m going to be the last person—and the person sitting on his left certainly won’t be supportive of everything that’s mispronounced being ruled out. Ask the question again, please.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: With pleasure, Mr Speaker. How does he square that answer with comments in the May Ngati Hine Forestry Trust newsletter, talking about their joint venture with the Crown to which $6 million has been allocated from the Provincial Growth Fund “without providing any specifics the Trustees can advise that the financial returns to the beneficial owners to be received from this forestry right upon harvest will be substantial”?

Hon SHANE JONES: The Ngati Hine Forestry Trust has indeed effected a transaction with the Crown.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s called mates rates.

Hon SHANE JONES: That transaction will increase the number of trees, moving towards the overarching 1 billion trees figure, and the fact that they believe that the transaction suits both their interests and ours is hardly page one news.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the last time the phrase “mates rates” was yelled out in connection with this, you ruled that out of order. Is that still your ruling, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I think it was in a slightly different context, and I’ll let it go this time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the newsletter correct when it says that the Crown will fund all the costs of planting, managing and harvesting a pine forest on this 3,600 hectare private block in return for an unspecified share of the proceeds, and then the Crown will plant at its cost a new pine forest on the land it has cleared which will then be owned 100 percent by the trust?

Hon SHANE JONES: The details referred to by the member reflect transactions that are commonplace in the forest sector. Given that this is a Government that is working tirelessly to rehabilitate that sector, I realise that news probably is a form of education for the member on the other side of the House. The transaction most certainly enables the Crown to work with the landowner and boost the number of trees that will be grown, train the number of people required to tend the trees, and what proceeds are available at the end of the cycle of the tree growing will be shared between the two parties.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: On what percentages will that sharing of proceeds be?

Hon SHANE JONES: These two-bit suspicions are unworthy of the House’s time. They’re more akin to the habits of some figpecker bird. The actual commercial terms of that transaction lie within the confidentiality provisions entered into between the Crown and that particular party.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, while you can’t be the responsible for the quality of an answer, I think you can express on behalf of the House a concern when a Minister begins by saying that it is beneath the House’s dignity to start questioning public expenditure. That, sir, is completely inappropriate and does, I think, point some of the sensitivity the Government feels around this particular issue.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, it is well within the rights of any member to point out the pettifogging, time-wasting nature of Opposition questions that do not elucidate information but waste the time of the House.

SPEAKER: I—[Interruption]—no. I am ready to rule. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Down. Down.

SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I apologise, Mr Speaker.

Hon Members: What? Didn’t hear it.

SPEAKER: Well, I could hear him. Now, I was on my feet and about to rule on Mr Brownlee’s point of order. I think the way Mr Jones started his answer was not helpful. I’m not sure that his response to the point of order was helpful either, but I think all these things have to be taken in context, and if the member thinks that the interjection came from behind him then I think we’re not at a high point in the House at the moment, and therefore I’m not going to rule Mr Jones’ response out.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he regard a concern for probity and transparency in the spending of a billion dollars of public money as “two-bit suspicions and pettifogging”?

Hon SHANE JONES: The principles outlined in the Cabinet paper governing the allocation of the $3 billion provincial fund are robust, and all Ministers exercising their powers as a consequence of that Cabinet paper are not pettifogging, and, on regular occasions, that information is available. The fact that the Opposition are jealous that such a fund exists, the fact that the provincial leaders are every day barracking us to do more—I can’t be held responsible for the mental dishevelment of the other side of the House.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he or his officials discuss the project with Ngati Hine Forestry Trust acting chief executive officer and trustee, the recently retired New Zealand First MP Pita Paraone?

Hon SHANE JONES: To the best of my knowledge, the trustees of that organisation include a Mr Pita Cherrington, who I went to St Stephens School with; a Mr Waihoroi Shortland, a candidate of the Māori Party and also a fellow colleague of mine at St Stephens School in the 1970s; and, indeed, on occasions, Mr Pita Paraone. The leader of the Ngāti Hine tribe was most certainly within those discussions.

Benefits—Sanctions

11. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she believe people on benefits should face reasonable consequences and sanctions if they are not available for, and do not take reasonable steps to get, a suitable job, do not take any offer of suitable full-time, part-time, or temporary work, or work that is seasonal or subsidised, do not attend and take part in any suitable job interviews they are asked to, and do not take and pass any drug test potential employers or training providers require?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I do not accept the characterisation of beneficiaries inherent in the question. At the end of June 2018, only 0.8 percent of all current work-tested beneficiaries had a sanction in force. Between 2014 and 2018, this had fluctuated between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent. Contrary to the narrative that side of the House is trying to spin, the vast majority of people with work obligations fulfil them. I’d also like to point out that there are thousands of working-age New Zealanders accessing our welfare system with ongoing high and complex health and disability needs. We have a responsibility to these people to ensure that they can lead a dignified life and continue to contribute to their communities. I believe that people should be supported into meaningful work and to live in inclusive communities where everyone has the opportunity to participate.

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order. That was a lengthy answer by the Minister, but it didn’t actually address the very specifically, carefully worded, primary question down on notice.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the last part of it certainly did.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that people who can work should work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe that the vast majority of people who can work want to work, and this Government is committed to supporting them into meaningful employment.

Hon Louise Upston: What is the process for someone who is on a job seeker benefit that occurs before a sanction is applied?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can the member repeat the question? I’m not sure if I heard it properly or understood.

SPEAKER: I’m with the member. Could the member repeat it?

Hon Louise Upston: What is the process for someone on a job seeker benefit that occurs or takes place before a sanction is applied?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I will speak to the question as well as I can. The process for a person who is on a job seekers’ benefit, obviously seeking support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), is that MSD is tasked with giving them the most effective support that they can to support them into what is meaningful employment for them, and that is what we’re committed to doing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: if the admonishments in the question are in any way a fact, how can she explain how the people on the benefits went from 286,000 in 2008, at the height of the global financial crisis, up to 289,000 in 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think that’s a very good question. The assertion from the other side of the House has been that they were more successful at getting New Zealanders into employment. National did not get 70,000 people off benefit. There were more people on benefit as of the end of last year—289,000—than when National came into power in 2008, when it was 286,000. We are now, under this Government, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate that we have for a long period of time, at 4.4 percent unemployment.

Hon Louise Upston: Why has there been a 21 percent drop in sanctions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I explained yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition in general are little bit confused. What has occurred is that I was concerned that mistakes were being made when benefit suspensions and cancellations were being put in place, and so I put in place a process, as of the beginning of May, whereby a senior person in the office had to sign off on any suspensions or cancellations. The policy didn’t change in terms of when it might be applied, but the sign-off was in place to ensure that mistakes wouldn’t be made. Clearly, in the past mistakes were being made, because there’s been a 23 percent reduction in the number of suspensions and cancellations because of a better process being put into place.

Hon Louise Upston: Should there be obligations on people receiving the jobseeker support, and should welfare be a fair go, not a free ride?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are obligations in place for people receiving welfare. What we need to make sure of is that as a Government we don’t do what the previous Government did, which was to stigmatise all New Zealanders having to access the support of MSD. We take a strengths-based approach to New Zealanders. We want to support them with meeting their aspirations, and I have to say that the recent action from the Opposition has been highly predictable: when the polls are down, attack the beneficiaries.

Mining on Conservation Land—Policy Consultation

12. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: What progress on policies or principles has she made in relation to the implementation of no new mines on conservation land as detailed in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, thank you. Minister Woods and I are making good progress on how to implement the policy. We will consult our Treaty partners, local government, the minerals industry, environmental and community groups, and the wider public through a discussion document to be released within the next three months. That consultation document will be a chance for the public to contribute their views on the issues the Government should consider in implementing the policy, the best tools to use, and any transitional measures.

Sarah Dowie: Does she agree with regional economic development Minister Shane Jones that for areas like the West Coast, the extractive industry must have a future and that mining would be made possible on stewardship land by reclassifying it?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There were several questions in that. Mining is important on the West Coast, but so are the other sectors, like agriculture, dairy farming, forestry, fishing, and tourism. We need a diverse economic base, and that’s what the Minister for Regional Economic Development is ensuring we have throughout the regions. The whole number of mines—the member should be aware that the two largest gold mines in New Zealand are not on public conservation land. There are 112 mining access arrangements on the West Coast; only 54 of those are active. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member, I am going to ask Mr Jones just to turn down the volume on his interjections. I have an open mike, and he is coming through my mike, so use your inside voice, Mr Jones.

Sarah Dowie: If we are to have no new mines, does she agree with energy and resources Minister Megan Woods, who is promoting the potential use of the West Coast to be a source of rare minerals, which are essential for wind turbines and electric cars?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Not all mines are on conservation land. Areas like minerals for new technology can be found equally on private land.

Sarah Dowie: Does she agree with the Hon Damien O’Connor that “We need to continue with mining in order to construct key infrastructure around the country.”?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, and mining will continue because the two largest goldmines in New Zealand are not on conservation land. There are coalmines that are not on conservation land.

Sarah Dowie: Why doesn’t the Minister admit that her policy has become a farce and it is now Government policy to allow mining on stewardship land by simply carving it out of the conservation estate?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member is confused. There has been a review of stewardship land which has been going on for some time. On the West Coast, there are a million hectares of stewardship land. Stewardship land is conservation land to be managed to protect its conservation values.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, we are going to start again and members who are on their feet and leaving the Chamber or members who are on their feet are not going to interject.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It has been amazing to get around the length and breadth of this country over the last couple of months, from Gore in the South to Kerikeri in the North, to talk with thousands and thousands and thousands of New Zealanders from all walks of life. The poor man’s Donald Trump over there—I can tell him that they never raised changing the Australian flag with me. That was weird by even his standards. They never raised the tweets from Donald Trump with me and whether it was him or someone else that did them. But I tell you what they did raise. They did raise the economy; they were worried about it. They did raise the environment; they were worried about what’s happening. They did raise health. They did raise education. They did raise welfare. They raised all of these issues and they were worried about the direction that this Government is taking them in—absolutely worried.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And the polls?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: “Mr 2 Percent” wants to know about the polls—“Mr 2 Percent” over there. Actually, I think his personal ratings are lower than that. I was talking about his party rating. He wants to know about public meetings. Well, we both had one about the same time in Invercargill. Mine got 500, I think he scraped in about 90—and he’s the Prime Minister.

People were worried about the economy. They see what’s happening to business confidence and they listen to Iain Lees-Galloway who says that the business groups are scaremongering about that. They hear all that, but are they scaremongering when services are down, when construction figures are down, when GDP per capita is down, when the only things that we see going up are beneficiary numbers under Carmel Sepuloni and New Zealanders—young New Zealanders—leaving for Australia up 2,000 already under this Government.

You can’t slash oil and gas. You can’t muck around with industrial law and take it back to the 1970s when only Winston Peters was in our Parliament. You can’t have incoherent immigration policies. You can’t do those things. You can’t talk down the farmers each and every day of this week. You can’t try and ban all of the mining and then say that you’ve got a strong economy where New Zealanders have jobs and options in this country.

They’re also talking about law and order, and they think what Andrew Little is doing in law and order is a naive disgrace. That’s what they think. They think it’s entirely naive. Everyone knows—no one wants to build more prison beds, but to have no plan to reduce offending and to simply soften up our bail laws, our sentencing laws, and our parole laws—that’ll make Kiwis less safe. That came through at every single meeting of the 70, amongst the many, many thousands I talked to, Andrew Little, all around New Zealand.

Welfare came up, and I was able to tell New Zealanders what a tragedy it is to see 4,000 more people on the jobseeker benefits at the moment—4,000 more. While, on the other side of it, Carmel Sepuloni and Jacinda Ardern are saying, “Don’t worry about the sanctions; don’t worry about the penalties.” Well, I know that New Zealanders are a fair-minded people, Winston Peters, and they say, “Fair go.”—fair go to the taxpayers who get up every morning and do the work, and fair go to the beneficiaries, actually, who will do better if they’re not languishing on the dole queues, who are out there going for a job, in terms of their esteem, their purpose, and their life outcomes. That’s the way we’ll go. On this side we stand for a fair go not a free ride, Winston Peters. We stand for a fair go and not a free ride on this side, and that’s what we want to see. I will ensure—National will ensure, on this side—reasonable obligations for Kiwis all around this country. That’s the right thing to do.

Finally, can I say, on medicinal cannabis, how proud I am of the National Party. When this side wouldn’t do the work, we did the work of Government. I want to say what an amazing job Shane Reti, Michael Woodhouse, and Chris Bishop did on that. They have provided positive solutions, because we listen to New Zealanders, even if that Government is incoherent, incompetent, and doesn’t know what it’s doing, on this side of the House we’re ready to govern in the interests of New Zealanders.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): It’s a pleasure to rise to take the call after that speech from the Leader of the Opposition with regards to positive solutions, particularly on the topic of cannabis. I just want to lay out, in this general debate speech here, how we got here and what issues we’re actually talking about when we speak to the issue of cannabis. I want to demarcate, for the public out there that may be listening, the two separate issues of recreational and medicinal cannabis. I think this is really important, because so often they end up conflated in the public discussion.

The issue of recreational cannabis is one that will be dealt with in the context of our commitment negotiated in the confidence and supply agreement between the Green Party and the Labour Party, with a referendum on adult recreational use on or by 2020, which I’m very proud to be working on with the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little. He’s demonstrated his incredible responsiveness on a number of proposals that we’ve put forward with regard to its design, including the likes of citizen juries.

So, today, the predominant focus of this call that I’m taking will be on medicinal cannabis. Alleviating the pain and suffering of patients and their whānau denied access to legal medicinal cannabis requires urgent, open, and collaborative cross-party action. That’s because patients deserve a guarantee of access—affordable, consistent supply. We’re talking here about people’s lives, not just facts and figures on statistical sheets.

I want to read some of the thousands—literally thousands—of stories that have come through my office in the past few months. One is from Jasmine: “My name is Jasmine. I am 28 years old and I am my father’s caregiver. My dad sustained a neurotoxic brain injury via his occupation in 2001 and has a degenerative spinal condition. He suffers from a range of medical problems, including severe mental illness, nerve damage, and inability to walk or stand unaided for more than a few minutes. He spends most of his life confined to a bed and will soon require a wheelchair. Cannabis allows my father many benefits that cannot be obtained with the use of any other single drug without the risk of heavy addiction or chemical interactions with his other medications. This man is a pensioner who contributed 30 years of his life to the workforce, raised two children, was permanently injured and made to fight for rightful compensation, had his wife taken by cancer, and, due to current legislation, is a criminal who will face two years’ minimum prison sentence should the police ever wish to search our property. My father wants nothing more from what life he has left than peace and quiet and to be left alone.”

Yesterday, the New Zealand Drug Foundation’s annual poll was released, demonstrating that in the last 12 months there’s been a near - 10 percentage point increase in public support. Eighty-seven percent of New Zealanders support growing and/or using cannabis for any medical reason, such as to alleviate pain. Look, I know that correlation does not imply causation, but the most deeply related event that has occurred in the last year is, absolutely, the public debate that occurred around my medicinal cannabis member’s bill in January, which attracted support from diverse quarters, such as past Prime Minister Helen Clark and, of course, the likes of Grey Power. This member’s bill was, however, voted down. On the night, I said that we had not won the battle but that we were winning the war—the war that is so crucial for patients, for people who are suffering under a demonstrably unfit for purpose status quo.

The Government’s more restrictive bill did, however, pass with unanimous support. Today, the Health Committee has reported it back to the House, and it does not, unfortunately, recommend the changes asked for by submitters. The Greens will continue to push for those changes, for the patient voice to be central, which brings me to the National Party member’s bill introduced today. I am stoked that they have come around to the idea of a comprehensive, common-sense medicinal cannabis framework, but, to be honest, I’m still quite perplexed that they voted down the similar scope that was before the House six months ago. All the while, patients have been suffering and in pain. We do, however, wholeheartedly invite the seeming change in tune for a progressive medicinal cannabis scheme, and we look forward to continuing to work across the House, collaboratively, for the betterment of patients.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): And they call themselves a Government. What a dishevelled, disorganised bunch that we look out across today, led by a group who have never had a new idea since they were in their student union days—free this, free that, sock the rich, smack the businesses; they’re still caught back in the 1990s—supported by a grumpy curmudgeon who spends most of his time polishing his baubles of power to see his reflection in them, supported by a small individual who enjoys playing planes and ships in the bath, but, more importantly I think, supported by an individual who saunters around regional New Zealand—sort of John Wayne without the horse and the saddle and the gun.

And then, of course, over on the other side, is the Green Party. They are split to the core, because they have not reconciled the fact that they have accountability now that they are part of a Government. Most of them still see the role of MP as being a perpetual protest, day after day, going from one protest movement to the other.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, out of the Wellington bubble, we have families who are working very hard every day, despite the worst efforts of this Government, and they are the communities that leader Simon Bridges has been connected with over the last 3 months. I have been in one of those meetings, and Simon was right when he spoke before of the issues that were raised. There is huge concern over the way that this Government has taken an economy that was seen as one of the best performers in the OECD and is already putting the handbrake on it through a deliberate effort to target those who create wealth and put impediments in front of them. How many of this lot have actually gone out and talked to a small-business owner? How many of you have actually fronted and said, “Here’s our plan for 90-day repeal. Here’s our plan to lift the minimum wage. Here’s our plan to make your business harder.”? None of them have; they are caught in the bubble of Wellington. They are too scared to get out and front the people who create the wealth and opportunities in this country. That was an absolute key feedback.

And on law and order—they cannot help it. They are predominantly motivated by looking after the interests of those who commit the crimes as opposed to the victims. It is in their DNA. And that is why, over there, the New Zealand First Party look down at the floor. They know this is true—that their marriage of convenience means they have to swallow rat after rat after rat every week, and they’re starting to get a bit belchy, aren’t they Mr Jones? It’s quite a challenge for New Zealanders, as you see when you get out amongst our communities and listen to them.

I will give you a specific example of an area where this Government is letting communities down and there is a lack of focus on infrastructure.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

TODD MULLER: They laugh; of course they do. Let me tell you a story about a community in Ōmokoroa—6,000 people, grown from 3,000. A huge number of that growth in affordable homes is because the previous Government said that it is critical that we get housing at the right price point. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council said, “Yes, we’ll facilitate fast-track consents.” The New Zealand Transport Agency said, “Because the Government had provided us with the funding in the Budget, we will build the road that goes from Ōmokoroa to Tauranga and we will start with the tender process.” It has started. The Budget has committed. The tender process is already out there and this lot come along and cancel it because they want trams in Auckland. It’s outrageous. It’s the fastest-growing city in the country, it absolutely demands infrastructure, and Phil Twyford wouldn’t know Tauranga if he tripped over on a map. It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous for a community that is growing, that is part of the future of this country—and infrastructure is critical for our communities of Ōmokoroa and Te Puna—[Interruption] And they all laugh. So I can tell everyone who is back at home in this community and is watching, that the response from the Government, when I look across the House, is laughter and sneering and saying, “Your interests aren’t important. We prioritise Auckland. We do not prioritise Ōmokoroa. We do not prioritise Te Puna. We do not prioritise Tauranga. In fact, we do not prioritise small businesses, families, and people who are making a living in this country on behalf of this wider community.” The performance of this Government thus far, 10 months in, is a disgrace.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Well, that was certainly a better contribution from Todd Muller than we got from the so-called Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges. Simon Bridges came to the House and said, “Give me a fair go, please.” It was a plea to his caucus colleagues: “Please give me a fair go, just one more week, one more month as leader. I promise I can turn it around, guys.” Then you get Mr Todd Muller stand up and give an excellent dissertation like that. I say to Mr Muller, “Pace yourself, sunshine, pace yourself, because I don’t think you want to take over the leadership of the National Party right now.” And honestly, as good as it was—well, it was better than Simon Bridges—it was just more relentless negativity from the fogies in the National Party. I get it—it’s tough.

Simon Bridges has been—what’s was his name? Simon Bridges. Simon Bridges has been up and down the country and the people have seen him and his popularity has gone down. It’s getting tough for Simon out there. He’s been all across the country. People have seen and they don’t like it. They don’t like what they see. What he is up against is a positive, stable Government—one Government, three parties, and considerably more stable than that one party with five factions over there. We are one Government, three parties, stable, focused on the things that matter: running surpluses, paying off the debt that was accumulated under the previous Government, and getting down to focusing on the critical issues that people want Governments to work on, and those issues are health, education, housing, and police. We are making sure that those things are fit for purpose now and that they are here for future generations.

People know that we’ve got a big mess to fix up. Nine years of neglect does take time to fix, but this is a Government of action. We have been relentlessly and positively focused on making sure that we deal with the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders are facing. We increased the minimum wage to $16.50 an hour, and there will be further increases in the future so that people on the minimum wage have enough money to make ends meet. We’ve got an employment relations bill before the House right now that is designed to put working people into a stronger bargaining position so that people can get a fair share of a prosperous economy. We are focusing on the things that will make our economy more productive, because, goodness knows, we have inherited a huge mess from the previous Government.

The Global Innovation Index says that New Zealand has gone from, in 2012, the 13th most innovative economy in the world to, in 2017, the 22nd most innovative economy in the world. The innovation and productivity in New Zealand are plummeting, and that is what drives wages. That is how we will get people’s incomes up, that is how we will deal with the cost of living, and that is why this Government needs to fix up the mistakes of the previous lot. We are going to reintroduce R & D tax credits so that our innovative businesses have a chance to get ahead. We need to turn around some of these issues that the National Government created. The number of locally generated patents per billion dollars of GDP fell to 6.1—it was 13.1 when National took over, and it fell to 6.1 under their watch. Productivity and innovation have gone backwards—that is why this Government is focused on productivity and driving wages up.

Of course, we also need to make sure that those who are in greatest need get support from the Government as well. The Families Package will see 384,000 families with children better off by an average of $75 per week when it is fully implemented. The Best Start payments have begun: people with new babies are getting $60 a week in the first year, and people on low and moderate incomes will be getting that money for years two and three as well. The winter energy payment has arrived. It’s freezing out there. We all know how cold it is in New Zealand right now. It’s fantastic that people on benefits and superannuitants are getting more money in their pockets so that they can keep their homes warm and dry. We’ve expanded Working for Families. We’ve extended paid parental leave so that people—working families—have the money in their pockets, the money in their bank accounts, to meet the cost of living.

And, of course, we need to focus on driving down the cost of living. That’s why we are focused on building 100,000 affordable homes over the next 10 years. And congratulations to Phil Twyford for the amazing progress that he’s making on that front. We’re removing pressure on the rental market. We’re increasing the number of State houses. In my electorate of Palmerston North, we had the first new purpose-built State house in 25 years so that people on low incomes can have a warm, dry home to live in.

This is a Government of action. This is a Government of positivity, and it’s no wonder the National Party is flailing.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): New Zealanders who were watching that performance may be surprised to hear that that was the Minister for ACC, and I mention that because I think he said more about the National Party than he did about his portfolio in the last eight months. He has never mentioned any of the significant challenges. Today he’s got medical specialists out on strike—he said nothing. They were out on strike last week. They’re going to be again next week—and two more to come after that.

It’s part of a pattern of strike action that we are seeing under this particular Government, whether it’s the nurses—the teachers are rearing to go—Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) staff, or IRD. We’ve got strikes all over the country because they are fed up with a Government that promised so much at the polls and is now consistently failing to deliver.

Last night, I spoke in the Estimates debate in the House and I focused on the inept and abusive performance that we were treated to at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee by the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. It truly was an appalling performance—an embarrassing insult to New Zealanders, and particularly to those of our partners overseas who rely on us to be good partners in important strategic matters.

Today, we have seen more of the same from that man, now masquerading as the Prime Minister of this country. And wasn’t his performance at question time appalling? The Leader of the Opposition today put serious questions to him over a very important initiative that the National Party has worked on for a long time, done all the detailed work, and had today been proud to deliver. I was at that press conference today and so proud to see the Leader of the Opposition and, in particular, Dr Shane Reti, who has done such a great job, and Michael Woodhouse, Chris Bishop, and others—I salute them all, because this is an important issue. It was interesting to hear Chlöe Swarbrick. I presume she was indicating that the Green Party will support that bill.

Back home in my fine city, which you know well, I had the privilege of being the patron of the Epilepsy Waikato Charitable Trust, and I know that members of that fine organisation will be delighted to hear the announcement that Dr Reti and the Leader of the Opposition made today.

The Leader of the Opposition has, as he’s just mentioned, completed approximately 70 public meetings right from the Far North down to Invercargill, and I want to commend him not only on his stamina but also on the great crowds that he drew and the tremendous connection that he made with those who attended. It was approximately 10,000 people who turned out, and one of the best attended meetings was in Hamilton. I have to say that just about everybody from Hamilton was there that day, apart, sadly, from the two electorate members, because unfortunately the MP for Hamilton East and I flew up, flew over, this very extraordinary phenomenon of fog, which we hardly ever see in Hamilton, which was unfortunately present that day. We could see the airport, but as the pilot attempted to land, he couldn’t. He had to take off, and we were taken back to Wellington. So we missed it, but, fortunately, everybody else in Hamilton was there, and he did incredibly well.

What people were telling him was that they are not happy with this Government. They do not like the way that it was put together. They do not like the way that it is irresponsibly splashing the cash in unstructured and at times totally inappropriate ways. They particularly dislike the slush fund that the Minister for Regional Economic Development is going around the country—well, actually, he’s not; he’s really just going around Northland and making the odd visit outside Northland thinking, “Oh well, I suppose if I’ve given $100 million here, I’d better give $5 somewhere else outside Northland.”

They do not like the fact that this particular Government has far more to say about what they think should be happening than actual policies to deliver. And what you see is a group of parties in Government who are fundamentally underprepared to come into Government. They didn’t expect to be there—it’s only because Winston Peters decided that he would put them there that they are—and now they’ve got “review-itis”, as they’ve got more committees than I’ve had hot dinners going around on every potential conceivable topic, trying to figure out what they should be doing. They’re spending a fortune on reviews, but they’re not spending it on the really important areas that they promised that they would deliver on, and that’s why they’ve got the nurses out on strike. That’s why MBIE and IRD and the teachers are all planning to strike as well—because they are, fundamentally, letting down the people who put them there.

And today, from the Minister for Social Development, we’ve seen a classic example of their muddled thinking, as she refused to answer legitimate questions, important questions, about a sanction regime that should apply when people who could work refuse to meet their obligations. In the National Party we will always support a compassionate welfare system, but we will not support those who ignore their obligations.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku, e te pāpā e Shane Jones, e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e mau nei i te kākahu taratara mō te rirotanga atu o tō pāpā, tōku tupuna, ki tua o te ārai. Nō reira, nau hoki mai koe ki roto i te ao mārama. E mihi atu ana au ki a koe e te toa o ngā rohe puta noa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge my senior Shane Jones; you who wear a cloak of mourning at the passing of your father, my elder. Let me welcome you back to the world of light. Champion of the regions, I offer you my compliments.]

First of all, I just wanted to acknowledge my colleague and uncle, the Hon Shane Jones, and welcome him back into the House after the farewelling of his beloved father and leader of the community and family. I welcome him back not only as the provincial champion, but I think I’ve also heard the phrase “the lion of the regions”.

I think they’re quite apt descriptions because, as the other side of the House talked about the Leader of the Opposition going around the country, I heard from Kerikeri: “Well, I didn’t hear of any Simon Bridges’ shows in Moerewa or Kaikohe or Kaitāia or Te Kao.”, or any of the other regions that actually need the attention from this Government. I’m proud to say that on this side of the House, this Government—led strongly not only by our Prime Minister but, of course, by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones—are actually representing the views of those regions and finally delivering for them.

Hon Shane Jones: Modestly—modestly.

SPEAKER: Stop misleading the House!

Hon PEENI HENARE: Can I thank Tim Macindoe, the previous speaker, too, for pointing out that the seat in Hamilton is a marginal seat. Now that’s given a focal point for this side of the House, and I say to that member to be careful. Mr Jamie Strange—while he can perform on stage, I’m sure he will also perform on the biggest stage of all, at election time, when it comes around.

Because that side is so gloomy, I want to bring a bit of sunshine into the House and say happy birthday, New Zealand First. I think it’s absolutely fantastic that we have a Government that is representing the views of our country. We know how MMP works. We work together. We bring multiple views to the leadership of this country, not this single-minded view of an Opposition who can’t count and who don’t know how MMP works. So I want to say to New Zealand First and my colleagues on this side of the House: happy birthday.

In another piece of goodwill and sunshine in this House, that’s often brought clouds by the Opposition, I want to say to our Prime Minister, who is currently on leave—can I say happy birthday for tomorrow. She is doing a fantastic job leading this country and leading this Government into the land of optimism and positivity, and we are delivering on that.

We are delivering in Māngere, where we are building homes for the people who need it the most—homes that are affordable; a mixture of homes that will allow people into good State homes. We are allowing young families to purchase their first home and allowing multiple sectors within Tāmaki Makaurau to actually live there and to work there. How often over the past nine years did we hear of the failure of the last Government to allow teachers to work in Tāmaki Makaurau? They were priced out. They were priced out of my electorate, and I’m glad that on this side of the House, we have an answer. Build homes. Simple—build homes. Let them come into Tāmaki Makaurau and serve the children and the schoolkids of Tāmaki Makaurau by giving them the opportunity to be here. I think that’s a fantastic, fantastic move by this Government, and I’m proud.

I’m proud to stand here to say that not only are we delivering homes; we are also delivering a social security system that doesn’t beat beneficiaries with a stick, but actually gives them a carrot of optimism and incentive. It doesn’t have the punitive view that the country was given a glimpse of during question time, but it actually says, “No. Let’s encourage, help, and support these people into opportunities.” So we marry the opportunities that are being created by the Hon Shane Jones in our regions to the kind of optimism and incentives that we are providing in the social security system, and voila! You’ve got prosperity—something that that side of the House has been missing for far too long.

In the final closing seconds of my contribution, I do want to acknowledge all of my colleagues. They are working tirelessly across the country, and while that side of the House might say that Simon Bridges has toured the country, I can say to that side that we’ve been doing that for many, many years. My colleagues, right across this country, are working hard to deliver not just in the regions but, of course, in the cities, and I’m proud to be on this side of the House with this Government, providing prosperity for this country.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For 150 years, Coasters have been working the land on the West Coast. They’ve been farming, they’ve been mining, and they’ve been involved in forestry, and we’ve managed the land and we’ve protected 85 percent of it. But in 1987, that Government over there—that Labour Government—realised that there were more votes to be won in Auckland than there were on the West Coast. So they rode in on that white steed of theirs to save us Coasters from ourselves and, in a stroke of a pen, a significant and highly regarded sustainable native timber forestry industry was lost, the livelihoods of many people were decimated, and communities were gutted.

The Coast feels like it’s experiencing déjà vu at the moment because this new Labour-led Government has come back in to save us from ourselves again and wants to close down our mining industry. This is the birthplace of the Labour Party, but what do they care? It’s not their grassroots miners that they’re representing now; it is their latte-drinking greenie friends in the cities, and the person the electorate should be looking to for support, who’s occupied his role for 25 years and delivered absolutely nothing to the Coast—nothing to protect the existing industries or to diversify—has been completely absent and we feel extremely let down by him. Thank God for National.

Now, there’s a popular misconception that Coasters rape and pillage the land, and that misconception is fed by the garbage and fearmongering that we hear from the green spin doctors. I can tell you, there is no greater conservationist than a person who lives on the land and who is surrounded by their native forest and their clean-running rivers. That’s a West Coaster. So what to do? Well, that was the question.

So a celebration last weekend saw the official opening of the Taramakau Bridge to replace an old road-rail bridge. It was a grand achievement and one of many investments made on the Coast—

Hon Member: By National.

MAUREEN PUGH: —by the National Government, and paid for by hard-working Kiwis—thank you. Now, communities up and down the West Coast used the bridge opening to demonstrate to this Government, and in a very dignified way, that we will not give up another industry. So 5,000 people—one-sixth of the population of the West Coast—turned out to the protest. And one of the most funny things I saw was this: a Labour Party electorate MP post on Facebook—“Opening the Taramakau Bridge, supported by thousands of Coasters.” Well, I can tell you, Mr O’Connor: they were not there to support you. And then some of the feed on that Facebook post, I can quote: “We were not there to support you. We were there to show our disgust towards you and your Government on proposed policies attempting to shut down the Coast.” Or this one: “Someone has been at the pub one hour too many.” Or how about: “The high-vis jackets are certainly not supporting you, Damien O’Connor MP.” So we’ll do our best to educate this Government over here on how important it is to maintain the mining on the West Coast. But the minds have to be open to common sense, and that’s my challenge. So let’s hope that we are not let down again by idealism.

Now, I just want the gallery and the Government here to think about a life where all you have available to you are grown products—so things like timber and plants and hand-spun products like flax and wool, or edibles. Everything else in our modern lives is a product of mining, is a product of the extractive industries—every single electrical device; every bit of plastic, metal, concrete, tarseal, fuel; everything we take for granted a life’s essentials these days. These are components that we get from mining. Now, the bridge that was opened on mining took 860 tonnes of coal to make the steel in that bridge, and we are blessed with some of the highest-value coking coal in the world, but we also have the strictest environmental controls. So a message very quickly to New Zealand First and their slush fund manager: we don’t need more feasibility studies, and we don’t need you to tell us, a couple of days out, how sympathetic you are. Get you head out of the clouds and support what is already working.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a Chinese-born member of Parliament, I am very proud to be part of this coalition Government, delivering for our people—no matter what they are, no matter what colour they are, no matter where they are from. As a new New Zealander myself—not that new now—I’m very grateful to the tangata whenua for, as other migrants say, our “home away from home”. Once here in New Zealand, we ask ourselves what we should do for our country, and what kind of a role we should play in this collective nation-building process.

From observing the activities the National Opposition engaged in in the ethnic communities, Kiwis should worry. They are full of misleading messages, scaremongering, and alienation. During the last election, for example, National activists launched a Chinese social media appeal for Chinese voters to give their party vote to National and, among other things, they released the so-called five-point statements, and they likened, among other things, refugees to terrorists. They asked, “Do we need New Zealand to become the sort of country like Europe and have constant bomb explosions?”

Concerned community leaders have told us that these comments do not reflect Kiwi values, and some are calling them a kind of cultural revolution in Auckland, with the Red Guards—or, in the National case, the “Blue Guards”, should I say—chanting abusive slogans. I feel saddened because that type of activity was not competition but an abuse of democratic process. That type of attack has since continued. They have attacked the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. They have attacked the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. And they’re all personal attacks. Some community leaders told me that they wondered whether National, as a party, ever knew what was going on in the Chinese community. Many community members would rely on translated material to understand what is going on in the community, and the community could risk being alienated further should the members be fed up with that type of negative rhetoric.

What has incrementally emerged is also a significant level of misunderstanding between concepts such as investment and speculation. But the good news is that this Government is building the foundation for our future. This Government is building the foundation for our business and for our people. In fact, the policy initiatives introduced by this coalition Government in terms of, for instance, the foreign ownership of residential properties, are not that different from the laws or regulations in Beijing, Shanghai, or Hong Kong. In Beijing, for example, the local authorities do not allow non-local residents to purchase their residential properties unless they are going to stay there for five or more years to qualify as a local tax resident. In Hong Kong, the local authorities have implemented harsh laws to ease tension within the housing market, with stamp duty and double stamp duty.

There is a great deal of difference between speculation and investment. As someone close to the business sector, I am very proud that it was the previous Labour Government that negotiated the signing of the free-trade agreement with China, making China our largest trading partner, largest source of international students, and the second-largest source of overseas tourists. This year marks the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the free-trade agreement, without which our exporters wouldn’t be able to get that direct and more effective access to those important markets.

Also, I’m very pleased to report that more and more Chinese developers and business people are getting involved in KiwiBuild projects. KiwiBuild projects will become a very powerful brand, not only to help ease the tension—

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

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call in this debate, in support of our fantastic leader. Let’s face it, it would be career limiting not to, but I know that my colleague sitting beside me here, my colleague and friend Mr Matt Doocey, who is our whip, will certainly pass on the message that I am a supporter.

No matter where you sit, you can certainly not deny the fact that Simon Bridges has got a mammoth work ethic. The fact that he completed over 70 meetings, from Kaitāia through to Bluff, over the period of a couple of months certainly goes directly to the heart of that. I watched him in action in Invercargill and in Bluff, back in May, and all I can say—and I hope that he doesn’t mind, but he certainly is very John Key - esque. He’s approachable, he’s down to earth, and he’s inspiring. The fact that he could speak to the business people of Invercargill and then go to the Bluff Oyster and Food Festival and talk to tourists and to “Bluffees” and enjoy himself certainly goes towards the man’s appealability to a range of different New Zealanders, and he will lead us forward and in good stead. Certainly, when you look at the polls, we are in very good heart.

I want to detail a little bit more about those meetings, and certainly I would start with the business sector in Invercargill, where we had a packed out crowd to the Kelvin Hotel. About 150 business people came to lunch to hear from our leader, to talk about the economy, and to talk about the so-called Government that calls itself one of the most open and transparent of all time but is certainly failing in this respect. And when you look at its failure, it’s because of—well, it’s because of a number of things, but it’s also because the decision-making process is made on a whim. There’s no consideration as to the ramifications or the unforeseen consequences of policy that is made on the hoof, and this is purely because it was a lazy Opposition of nine years that did no work back in that time and found itself in Government because of, again, another whim, of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who signed up to this three-headed monster. Now they find themselves in Government having to make policy on the hoof.

Uncertainty in the business community is right at the forefront for New Zealanders. If you look at our business confidence surveys, while in Australia they’re at a 20-year high, we’re at one of our lowest with respect to business confidence, and it’s because of all these mooted changes and industrial reforms—the abandonment of the 90-day trial, this forced unionism, and all of these changes that are taking us back to the 1970s. Employers simply don’t know where they’re at. I can tell you, in Invercargill with a very low unemployment rate, when we are scraping the bottom of the barrel to get good workers, that 90-day trial goes a long way to testing out somebody that may have come off benefit and wants a hand up but also those second-chance people that have entered into a career and no longer want to be in that career; they want to try something new. The 90-day trial gives employers the opportunity to test that person out and give them a fresh start in a new area in which, perhaps, they don’t necessarily have specific skills but transferable skills to work in that industry. So what you see is that employers now, because of that uncertainty, are not taking on that extra person. They’re not taking the chance, and, therefore, business confidence is plummeting.

Simon then went on to a public meeting that had about 300-odd people—350—in the Windsor Community Church. It was a fantastic meeting. He got asked about many different things, from the economy to law and order, there was some shark cage diving in there, and, obviously, welfare. He was able to answer the breadth of those questions very easily and articulate our vision for New Zealand in the 2020s—and it certainly isn’t one of deficit. It certainly is one of thinking about policy and the ramifications of that, because we want all New Zealanders to succeed. We want people that are beneficiaries, if they are able, to get off benefit and into work, and we want all people to succeed in education and in environment.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): The speaker who has just resumed her seat, Sarah Dowie, comes from the Roaring Forties. It is hard to believe a more irrelevant, timid, ill-prepared speaker could come from such an area that boasts gales of wind, gusts of power.

I must not be distracted, because she has endeavoured to make a believer of herself in terms of their leader. In order for me to demonstrate how she has failed: [Holds up article] “Simon Bridges’ national roadshow a fail”. Now, why am I saying that Simon Bridges has failed and will not lead that party to the next election? Well, let me start. If you eat a Mars bar and smoke a Moro—apparently this is national news—you do not go to jail. Simon Bridges, you need to bear in mind that the Moro and the Mars sits next to the Kit Kat, and the Kit Kat is something that is covered in caramel and wafer-thin—reflective, I think, of the man’s political personage, but he’s worth a go.

I think it was sad today that he dragged into a debate—a very emotional debate about what we’re going to do with marijuana—the case of a family that’s obviously suffering. You know a politician is in the straits of desperation when they reach out into private information and weave it into their speech or questions in the House. That is a no-no. Now, he may or may not know those people, but we’ve learnt the hard way, those of us who have been around for a while, that under no circumstances whatsoever, Mr Simon Bridges, should you seek to politically benefit from the suffering of a family and what they may or may not feel about such an emotional and moral issue.

Let me continue on why he will not lead the party going into the next election. I have gone, with characteristic bashfulness, around the four winds of Aotearoa. Now, I have been under instruction from my rangatira: “Shane, look into your spirit and find humility and modesty.” I have said to him, “A spirit is hard to grasp.” But I think the important thing that that side of the House are seeking to do every time they attack us is—we did rise to the challenge. I share with Kiwis that it is a big challenge and there are risks associated when you allocate up to $3 billion, but we are picking up the unfinished business of the last Government. They did not want to fund the infrastructure.

I hear Todd Muller, who has completely and utterly confused his colleagues as to whether or not they like climate change or they don’t like climate change. Initially, they did like the reform of marijuana law; now they’ve changed their mind. See, when you play desperate politics so far out from an election, what it tells you is those desperate politics are driven by the leader of the party. He’s trying to appeal to his own caucus, but the caucus have already made their mind up. Now, Judith Collins doesn’t need to either touch marijuana or talk about marijuana to have a crazy impact on her leader, and I make a prediction that he will not lead that party into the next election.

Anyhow, let me continue about our provincial efforts. They are not disconnected from what my colleagues are doing. My colleagues are working on State sector reform. Largely, my contribution has been from the sidelines, about improving the balance between conservation and the mineral extractive sector, and, from time to time, it behoves me to clear my throat. That shouldn’t be misconstrued by the other side of the House as being somehow an act of disunity; it shows how willing we are to champion all of the issues in the regions. But the sad fact of the matter is, for that side of the House—never mind how many stories and scaremongering tactics they engage in—he did not capture the hearts and minds of ordinary Kiwis up and down the regions. At a time when the most popular politician in recent history is actually out taking personal leave, he should have been in the cities. He should not have been talking to the diminishing number of local electorate committee members and those who have been unwilling to accept that MMP has thrust forward a new Government—a Government that is going to be a very robust advocate on all interests, including provincial wealth.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party in this general debate, infrequent as these calls are. I want to reflect on a couple of themes during the debate that we’ve already heard, from various members—one of them being the National Party’s proposed medical marijuana bill.

I want to say that ACT supports that bill, with one condition: that it be made an omnibus bill to also amend the Constitution Act, so that members of Parliament cannot speak, vote, or make laws unless they have a clear test showing that they are not affected by any kind of drug. It’s been a critical condition for 800 years, since Magna Carta, that if we make laws in a Parliament or if a Government is to rule, then it too must be subject to the laws that it makes for everybody else. When we debate, in this general debate today, the idea that people should be liable to have a drug test to receive a benefit or not, when we talk about health and safety in the workplace and the very real dangers that people face from drug consumption in the workplace—sawmills, all sorts of places where you can get very nasty injuries from people abusing drugs—it seems to me only fair that people in charge of an organisation with as much potential to do damage as a Government should have the same impositions put on them to check that they are up to it.

If anybody doubts the necessity of this drug testing for politicians, let me give some recent examples of questionable decisions, which I’m not saying are a result of drug impairment, but one has to wonder. Take Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education, and his management of charter schools. He got on TV this morning and he said that he’d spent the last year trying to reform charter schools, in order that they teach the New Zealand curriculum and have registered teachers. Well, guess what, Chris Hipkins? They already had them. A whole year of back and forth, messing with the futures of 1,500 kids, to deliver exactly what he already had, perhaps with less accountability.

Or what about Stuart Nash, who presides over a police force that is spending its time running around looking for drunk old people in bowling clubs and challenging their licensing decisions. That is the kind of decision making and presiding over a Government I’m talking about that may benefit from tests.

What about James Shaw, the Minister of Statistics, who introduced a new electronic census and then went overseas while we had the lowest turnout for a census in decades. He introduced a new electronic census without doing the very obvious thing: keep the old paper system while you introduce the electronic one so you have a cross-reference. We now have no idea how accurate this year’s census was, and that is as a result of James Shaw.

What about Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, who is actually reforming the electoral laws. He wants to ensure that the leader of a party can, effectively, expel a member of Parliament from this House. Well, there are three other countries that have that feature in their electoral law and they are Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, and Pakistan. Now, I think a Minister of Justice who is trying to bring New Zealand into line with Sierra Leone, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe possibly needs to be tested.

But then there’s Winston Peters, who says that ending benefit sanctions, no longer requiring people to be looking for work and showing up with a clean drug test, prepared to actually go and do what every other New Zealander does paying tax to fund them—Winston Peters thinks that reducing benefit sanctions has no effect whatsoever on the fact that we’ve had the first increase in jobseeker support numbers in a decade, or at least since 2010. That is a fail. We could go on. There are a number of other Ministers from whom I’ve heard nothing at all. It’s possible that they are suffering from a lack of motivation and have not done anything. They perhaps should be tested too.

So I put it to you, Mr Speaker, the ACT Party is quite happy to support the Government’s medicinal marijuana bill; we’re quite happy to support the National Party’s bill. But we humbly submit that a minor improvement could be made by ensuring that the bill also amends the Constitution Act and perhaps the Electoral Act so that members of Parliament before they make dopey decisions have to pass a clean bill of drug-testing health before they do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired, and I will advise members that we are having trouble with the clocks. We have to go back to the old-fashioned system of getting a one-minute signal and getting interrupted.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I thank the member from the ACT Party for his contribution to this debate. I found it one of the more uplifting from the Opposition’s side, and I appreciate the fact that he actually put some ideas on the table rather than the tirade of relentless negativity that we have heard from the other Opposition members. I now understand better why ACT and National have fallen out so much: because David Seymour continues to promote challenging and different ideas while the National Party does not.

What I found really interesting about the National Party contribution this afternoon, what I heard with every National Party speaker, and, I’ve got to be honest, what I recognised from every National Party speech was that every single member got up and supported their current leader. Every single one of those members got up and said, “I support the Hon Simon Bridges as leader.” How many were there, four? Four? Four members.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Five. Five.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Five. Well, some of them did it with a little less sincerity and a little less credibility and didn’t use very expansive adjectives to describe how strongly they felt of him, but the script was really clear: back up the leader, say something nice and positive about the leader, and then continue the rest of the four minutes and 30 seconds of a five-minute speech with the relentless negativity that has become the brand of the National Party.

I think it’s time for the National Party to cheer up. I think it’s time for the National Party to get over the grievance that they feel about being dislodged from their natural place of being the Government and look at the contribution that is being made to improve New Zealand society. That once-proud party has now descended into a depressed and depressing group of people who are interested in their own future, in their own promotion. They’re sharpening their elbows, nudging each other out of the way to get promoted up the ranks of the National Party. What they have been elected to this Parliament to do is make a contribution to making New Zealand a better place.

In the meantime, on this side of the House, we have three parties who are working together. We have different perspectives, different priorities. We are working together to build strong foundations for a better future for New Zealand and New Zealanders. That’s important. That’s what I think we were elected to do. We’re fixing the long-term problems. Nine years of neglect we’ve been left with—nine years of underfunding in health and housing, in education, in investment in infrastructure, and in supporting families. The National Party has the audacity to say, “You’ve had one Budget; why haven’t you fixed it already?” We have nine years of neglect to fix, but this Budget this year laid a very strong foundation for our future. We are running surpluses. We are paying off debt, and alongside that we are investing in health, we’re investing in housing, we’re investing in education, and we’re investing in police.

We want to leave our country better for future generations not worse. We don’t want the neglect that we’ve seen from the National-led Government in the past transferred to our children and grandchildren. It’s our responsibility to improve the lives of future generations. We have a clear plan. The 100-day plan of action was put into force. I actually thought it was too ambitious. I was really nervous that that 100-day plan was not going to be delivered, but every single policy in that 100-day plan was delivered within that 100 days. That’s fantastic, and every day we see more policies for improving the lives of ordinary New Zealanders, working families, being delivered by this Government.

We know there’s been huge pressure on families with the cost of living. This Government won’t stand by while ordinary New Zealanders struggle to get by day after day, struggle to pay the rent or struggle to pay the mortgage, turn off the heaters because they can’t afford a power bill, and work hard every day and get a pittance in their wage packet. This Government won’t accept that as being good enough for New Zealanders, so we are improving the foundations for New Zealand. We will leave New Zealand and New Zealanders better off in the future.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

Third Reading

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

I would like to dedicate my speech today to every victim of domestic violence who ever felt trapped, and to every person who had an employee or workmate who was being abused and didn’t know how to help.

It’s a great honour for me to be able to stand here today and welcome in this new era in our response to domestic violence. I want to thank Labour and New Zealand First for their support. The debate on this bill has made me more grateful than ever to New Zealand First for their decision to change the Government. It’s really exciting to be part of a Government that wants to really get to the heart of the things that are holding us back as a country.

In this beautiful, gutsy, vibrant country of ours, police are called out to a family violence incident every four minutes, and that’s only about 20 to 25 percent of incidents. Around 230,000 adults and many more children currently live in fear of their partner or parent. We have a problem, and we will not solve this problem by continuing to focus all of our resources and efforts on what happens after the police have been called. The previous Government’s stocktake on Government spending found that only 1.5 percent of our efforts and budgets go to prevention. Only 6.6 percent go to early intervention. We wait until things get really bad or someone is killed, and then we wring our hands, squeeze in another hospital bed, and build another prison. No wonder gender-based violence has become entrenched. This bill is a commitment to early intervention and prevention.

The impact of every workplace in Aotearoa saying, “The safety and well-being of our staff experiencing domestic violence is our business”—this challenges the fundamental social dynamic that has allowed this violence to flourish. Tonight, we are changing social norms and making a commitment to a better future for all of us. Domestic violence isn’t restricted to the home; it reaches into workplaces all over our country. Stalking, constant emails, attacks or threats in and outside of the workplace, making her late or making her miss work altogether, punishing her for being late—these are common tactics of abuse. They can be directed at the victim or the victims’ workmates. They undermine the safety and productivity of our workplaces.

All too often, victims have to leave their jobs because of this, and it makes them more reliant on their abusive partner and means their employer has to recruit and train up new staff. It’s a lose-lose situation. Workmates or employers are often the only people who know about the violence, but too many don’t know how to help. It’s pretty hard to flee the violence when your abuser knows when and where you work and can easily find you. That is a real risk and means some victims return to their abusers because at least they know where they are and feel they can manage the violence there. Not knowing how to manage this risk in our workplaces puts lives at risk.

Then there’s the situation of a victim who does manage to leave. We’ve heard from victims, court staff, and survivors themselves that existing leave provisions are sometimes not enough to be able to deal with the courts, find a new house, go to counselling, or support their children dealing with trauma. It doesn’t make sense to tell victims that we want them to leave and then force them into poverty when they do. Again, employers lose great staff.

Women’s Refuge research showed that 60 percent of New Zealand women who’d been in a violent relationship were in full-time work before the relationship started, but fewer than half managed to stay in work. Those who stayed faced numerous hardships affecting their future employment prospects, and those who left found it difficult to re-enter the workforce. Respondents frequently spoke about being forced to quit or having their employment situations made untenable by the abuser.

The need for improved flexible working arrangements, additional leave, and protection from discrimination is well-established. So the problem definition is clear, and the appropriateness of this response has been tested in an ever-increasing number of businesses here and overseas. Yet we’ve been hearing from the Opposition that despite their commitment to tackling family violence, they couldn’t possibly support this bill because, they say, we’re ignoring children, it’s too much to extend leave to support people, businesses will fall over, every victim will take 10 days’ leave a year, and it’s a cost to business. It’s become clear to me through this debate that many of the National Party members speaking on this bill have not even bothered to read it, let alone the research that supports it.

For any employers out there who are watching this debate, I want you to know that the leave only applies to victims and people caring for children who are victims. It entitles victims to up to 10 days’ leave a year, and yet experience shows that most victims don’t take that full 10 days. On this side of the House, our debate has been founded on rigorous economic and social research from New Zealand and overseas, grounded in the experiences of workplaces who are doing this already. What this research has found is that the initial cost of implementing these policies right across the country would be less than an annual wage increase in a bad year. That is rapidly offset from returns from lower staff turnover and increased productivity. So don’t buy the lie that this will be a cost. This is a benefit. In Australia, one of the largest advocates of these policies is the Retailers Association who represents many small and medium sized businesses.

So we have a massive social problem, measured in lives lost, profound harm done, and significant lost productivity to business. This bill is a win for victims, a win for business, and, ultimately, a win for all of us.

It’s been seven years to get here to today, so I want to thank some of the individuals who have played a really important role in drafting, advising, and organising, who may not have been visible: Lisa Close, Eva Hartshorn-Sanders, Ludo McFerran, Jeff Sissons, Marie Retimanu-Pule, Jessie Dennis, Tara Ford, Whetū Kura-Bennett, Heather McDonald, Claire Lyons, and Stephanie Rodgers. Thank you for your work. And, of course, to acknowledge the New Zealand Public Service Association, who started championing this cause back in 2011, and all the other unions—FIRST Union, E tū, Post Primary Teachers’ Association, and New Zealand Nurses Organisation—who have been putting these policies on the bargaining table for years now.

It’s been wonderful to see Countdown, The Warehouse, Vodafone New Zealand Ltd, ANZ, and so many other businesses following that lead and doing this of their own will, and, of course, Shine and Women’s Refuge, who have been supporting these businesses to do this work. Suzanne Snively’s done the New Zealand economic modelling to show the benefits, National Council of Women of New Zealand, Zonta International, BPW, and of course our amazing champion the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Jackie Blue, for bringing businesses together to develop resources to make this easy for other businesses.

All of these groups, businesses, and people get that we are in this together, that domestic violence is something that we all have a stake in reducing. That is the context of this bill. That is the tide of history. Today, we will become the first country in the world to provide these protections as universal entitlements. Today, we stand for a future free of domestic violence.

Mā whero, mā pango, mā kākariki, ka oti ai te mahi.

[With red, black, and green, the work will be completed.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the Hon Judith Collins.

Waiata

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I trust, Mr Assistant Speaker, that’s not coming off my time. Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): We’ll start the clock again—I call the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s been interesting to listen to Ms Jan Logie’s speech to the House; a very impassioned speech, and I congratulate her on it. I’d also like to say—as I understand that she is a member of the executive—that I’m surprised that this hasn’t been advanced as a Government bill paid for by the taxpayer through the Budget process when it comes to this entitlement to leave. I would have thought that a Government who wanted to support this bill would want to say that this is something that employers should not be meeting the cost of but, rather, the whole of New Zealand should because it would be in the best interests of all of New Zealand, plus those who are clearly the victims of family violence.

The National Party has a very proud record in Government when it comes to tackling the issue of family violence. In 2016, we introduced a $132 million package of reforms which overhauled the whole family violence law and the way in which the system prevents and responds to family violence. In the 2017 Budget, we invested $37.2 million into targeted family violence services, including the Integrated Safety Response (ISR) pilot and the Gang Action Plan pilot. That ISR pilot has helped over 24,000 people, through the development of more than 8,000 family safety plans. I don’t believe that the current Government supports any of that.

The 2017 investment fund for mental health saw $4 million to pilot a culturally responsive therapy service for children aged five to 12 years that have experienced or been exposed to family and/or sexual violence. Budget 2016 provided $46 million of operating funding over four years, including $6.4 million of reprioritised funding to design and implement new sexual violence services and to develop and support existing services. We took an across-the-board approach to better protect victims of family violence. We brought in a new 24/7 national sexual violence helpline to provide nationally accessible information and to support people affected in any way by sexual harm. We established a ministerial group on family violence and sexual violence across 16 portfolios to oversee a work programme aiming to improve the current system and to deliver better results for all those affected by sexual violence.

We improved our investment in crisis support services for victims of sexual violence. The Ministry of Social Development and ACC worked together to ensure better coverage across prevention, crisis response, and long-term care and recovery. We increased the penalty for breaching protection orders. We kept up to 1,000 victims of family violence safe each year in their own homes by funding and promoting the National Home Safety Service. We provided judges access to information in family violence cases by improving information-sharing regulations. Alongside, police and judiciary programmes have been running in Porirua, Christchurch, Wellington, and Northland to give judges who are making bail decisions a family violence summary report on the defendant’s family violence history, and we brought in a new disclosure scheme, the police Family Violence Information Disclosure Scheme, which was created to make it easier for police to release a person’s violent criminal past to a concerned partner or friend. We did these things in Government, and we did not ask employers to pay for that. We asked the taxpayers to pay for it for the betterment of New Zealand.

What this bill lacks is something which shows that it wants to put all of the costs of this on to small employers in particular. I am very pleased that some very large employers can, in fact, and do offer a 10-day working leave for people who are the victims of family violence. That is a good thing, but most people in New Zealand are not employed in big business. Most people in New Zealand are employed by small businesses, many of whom have one, two, or three staff members, and it is simply not possible for many of these smaller businesses to take up this obligation when, if it is important—which we all agree—it should be met out of the general funds of the consolidated account of the Government.

The member whose bill this is, Jan Logie, is a Government member. We have heard today her espousing of what this Government wants to do. She is a member of the executive. If it is so important to her, and her parties that she is today speaking for, she needs to have it as a Government bill, funded out of the Budget—that is, the Budget of the New Zealand Government, not the budget of mum and dad who happen to have a dairy. That is not fair to them. That might, in fact, mean that they might make some hiring decisions that they would not make otherwise.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s right—do nothing. Do nothing.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: So we voted for this—and it’s interesting to hear very rude and irresponsible interjections from the current Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, a man who wants to let free half these family violence perpetrators because they happen at the moment to be held on remand, after this party along with the Labour Party and New Zealand First voted to keep them in jail. He doesn’t want to have that; he wants them out on the streets, and instead of paying the cost of that, he wants mum and dad dairy owners to pay the cost of that, and that’s not fair. Small-business owners should not be meeting that cost unless they feel able to do so. It is something which is important for the Government.

Mr Little might think it’s a fun thing to do to shout out all the way through another member’s serious and considered contribution, but he is the man who wants to let these perpetrators of family violence out on bail where they will be free to continue their recidivist violent offending against their spouses and their family generally. He is the Minister of Justice who wants to do that, and we in the National Party will not support him in that, as we will not support a further burden on small business when the Government books clearly show that they have enough money to help fund Ms Logie’s idea, and they don’t want to do it.

I think, too, if we come back to our own Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, which is currently in the House right at the moment—and it’s been put on hold by this Government. They took it over from the Hon Amy Adams as the Minister of Justice, and it has now languished there for this last year. Instead we have this bill, which has been around for nine months. There is no funding attached to it—not a scrap of Government funding attached to it—and instead they are taking the cheap way out by asking mum and dad business owners to pay for it. That is not the responsibility of people in small business. It is great if big employers can help fund that, but actually it is the responsibility of the Government before it is the responsibility of small-business owners. It is simply not fair to add this burden yet again to them. And there may well be many who are already bearing this burden, but that is their choice. That is their choice as employers—it is their choice to be able to do that.

A Government that wants to use a member’s bill to take on and to put on to small employers the responsibilities of the Government—that is not fair to anybody, and this Government should not think that that is a responsible way in which to act. There is no doubt about it: this will add costs and responsibilities to small-business owners, the people who are already asked by us to collect wages, to collect student loan payments, and to collect all of the costs that we in Government expect them to collect. It’s not fair to them. It’s not fair to the victims. It is actually a cop-out by a Government that has the money and can’t be bothered using it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to take a call in this, the third reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, and to congratulate the sponsor of the bill, Jan Logie, for the incredible work that she’s done, not only on this bill, and indeed on the Government bill on domestic violence, but in the work she does as Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice on domestic violence. It’s not only, I think, a feather in the cap of this Government but actually a real testament to her, to her drive and energy and dedication and commitment to the cause of this issue that is one of the worst kind of black marks against this great country, that we have the level of advocacy that she provides and the determination to see these issues through.

You see, the real pity about the speaker who’s just resumed her seat, Judith Collins, is that she was a Minister of Justice once—a pretty hopeless one, sadly, and I don’t say that lightly. She’s probably the laziest Minister of Justice we’ve ever had. She didn’t achieve a great deal, apart from completely mucking up the Family Court—failed reforms of the Family Court that are now seeing victims of domestic violence required to enter mediation processes with the perpetrators of the violence against them. That is the depth of thinking of the member who has just spoken, and, indeed, the party from which she comes. Absolutely hopeless—don’t get the issue; never have.

Chris Bishop: Why don’t you pass our family violence reforms? Why don’t you actually do something?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As for their spokesperson on police, he’s a complete disaster—never understood it, doesn’t understand it.

Actually, what this is is a civilising bill—a bill that does nothing other than require employers to do the basic civil thing of understanding when an employee they have is a victim of domestic violence, support them to get the very basic assistance that they need, and provide the flexibility to allow that to happen.

Look, it actually sets up a number of hoops for that to happen, which I think—it’s unfortunate that in this day and age we have to have legislation that assumes the employment relationship starts from a position of distrust. But I hold the National Party responsible for that because that’s the way they’ve allowed employment law and workplace relations law to go for the last 30-odd years. You see, they don’t trust workers. Here’s the bottom line: we have an Opposition—both when they are in Opposition and when they were in Government—whose starting point is that workers cannot be trusted, workers are a difficulty, workers are a barrier, and you’ve got to create all these hoops and constrain them and rein them in because workers can’t be trusted.

I’ve got news for members opposite, having spent 20 years of my life working with workers and their employers, to say that’s actually not how employers in New Zealand see their workers. That’s not how employers in New Zealand view their workforce. Employers value their workforce, value their workers, and I’ve seen some employers doing some amazing stuff, bending over backwards to deal with the specific needs of some employees because they know that’s the right thing to do. And there are so many employers for whom you negotiate the employment agreement and the first thing they do when the negotiations are done is they shove the agreement into the bottom drawer because they don’t ever expect to look at it again, because they know that the reality about good employment relationships and good workplace culture is actually building the relationship. You take your individual employees, their particular needs, and good quality management that is respectful and courteous of their workforce builds them together, builds a workplace culture, but respects the individual.

That’s actually the reality of most New Zealand workplaces. That is the aspiration of most New Zealand employers. There are rogues big and small, and we can pretty much name them but we’re not going to, because today’s a day of celebration and of courtesy and of respect—at least on this side of the House—because this is a measure that will afford support and, ultimately, protection for some of the most vulnerable in our workplaces: that is, those who are victims of domestic violence, those who are just looking for that break at work to go and get their affairs sorted out. It gives some flexible working arrangements to go and assist them through what is a difficult and traumatic time in their lives, not just for them but often for children who are involved, as well. It’s an opportunity, or chance, for time mandated by the employer to go and get the help that they need, and sometimes that help might be having to deal with the person who is the source of the violence against them, and to provide some additional leave.

And how miserable it is that the previous speaker from the Opposition, Judith Collins, should say that, no, this is all about the dairy owners having to take more cost. Look, I know dairy owners in my neighbourhood—fantastic people—and they look after the vulnerable. They are good people. They’re good and they believe in family—the dairy owners I know—and the strength of family, and they’d be the first to reach out and say, “You need a bit of time. Of course we’re going to let you have that time, because our small business is built on the strength of the relationships of the small number of us who are in it.” They don’t take that miserable, niggardly view that the members opposite take. And isn’t it a shame, because that is a party, as we know, stuck in the 1950s.

They can’t get their head around criminal justice reform. Their idea is “Look, we just bang more and more people into prisons and we’ll spend billions and billions more dollars on building prisons”, because that’s all they know. They don’t want to know the causes and they are definitely not interested in real solutions. They are the party of the past, they are the party of old, they have no idea, and they still don’t understand that that’s why it is they’re sitting on that side of the House. But, look, good luck to them. Good luck to them and long may their miserliness and miserableness last, because that’s not what New Zealanders want of a Government.

New Zealanders now are very clear. They expect compassion and caring from a Government, and they want some guidance and some rules and some protections for people. One thing is very clear, as well: for New Zealanders now, their expectation of what the Government will do to address the insidious problem of domestic violence is greater than it ever was before. More victims of domestic violence are coming forward, more reporting to the police. New Zealanders’ expectations about what this House will do and what this House will mandate be done are never higher than now. That is why it is right for this House to take every opportunity in fulfilling its mandate and its charter to the people to actually take some responsibility and provide for those means and those mechanisms that mean that the victims of this nasty, insidious type of offending can get the help that they need. And why would that not also include the help in the workplace?

It’s good that we have a police force that is increasingly more responsive and sensitive to the needs of the right interventions for domestic violence. It is good that we have other public institutions that have an increasing and improved—although Jan Logie would say, and I agree with her, still not there yet, still got a long way to go in terms of the understanding about the extent and depth and nature of the problem and how we respond to it. But, when we even get the public institutions sorted out and on board, why would it not extend to the workplaces and to the private workplaces, as well, to say, “Look, we’re all in this together.” Our small, little country at this end of the world with this dreadful problem that we’ve hidden and concealed for so long and never really been prepared to step up to, why wouldn’t we say, “We’re all in this. We’re all in this together.”?

We’ve got to fix domestic violence, because in my role as Minister of Justice and dealing with criminal justice issues, I know the impact that it’s having. I know the impact on young people and on children of repeated and recurring domestic violence—what it does to them, what it does to their little brains, and what it does to their life chances as well. And unless we get on top of domestic violence and do this stuff and do everything we can, we are just going to keep filling up our criminal justice facilities—whether the youth justice facilities or the big prisons—with more and more people. We’ve got to deal with domestic violence, and it is the responsibility of all of us, here in public institutions, here in this Parliament, and in every workplace across the land.

That’s what we must do. I congratulate Jan Logie for her terrific stewardship of this piece of legislation. This will have an amazing impact for so many victims of domestic violence, and I will stand with pride next to Jan Logie and say, “We’ve done our bit.” We’ve done our bit to support her leadership and her stewardship. This is going to make a big difference, and it’s going to make a big difference to me in my role as Minister of Justice, and future Ministers of Justice, whichever side of the House they come from; as long as they’re not as lazy as the last one. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): It’s a pity that the speaker before me, Andrew Little, really kind of diminished the serious issue that we are speaking about today. I think it, sort of, brought the House to a level that was rather unfortunate, in terms of politicising an issue that I’m sure each and every one of us in this House can share a story about of a family member or themselves or a friend.

I do want to start by acknowledging Jan Logie in drafting a member’s bill and bringing it to this House, and, given that the speaker before me didn’t really acknowledge it, I want to make clear for the House that National supports the intent of this legislation. It, of course, builds on the significant record that the National Government had, both in terms of supporting victims of crime but, more importantly, around tackling the very real challenges of family violence, and the substantial work and attention that were brought to this issue with the cross-ministerial group, of which I was a member, with 16 different portfolios involved.

One of the challenges with a complex issue such as family violence is really unpicking it and making sure that the efforts of all of the agencies involved do have the maximum gain for the very people that the agencies are intending to support. One example that my colleague the Hon Judith Collins raised was the Integrated Safety Response—

Chris Bishop: Which they cut—they’ve cut it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and I do hope—yes. My colleague Chris Bishop refers to the fact that it’s only funded for one more year, and I do hope that members opposite realise the value of the Integrated Safety Response and listen to the very people that are working in the Integrated Safety Response team in Hamilton and in Christchurch. I’m sure Jan Logie has gone and visited them and met them and heard about the stories of the impact that that is having on the victims.

One of the examples that was given on my own very recent visit to the Integrated Safety Response was the ability for such a greater impact on the victims, on the perpetrators, and actually on the family members and wider community that they are involved with. One of those groups is the employers. One of the things that I think that we’ve seen a significant shift in recent years on is the number of employers who have come out with family violence policies. Countdown is a fantastic example of how they support people that work in their environment, and there are many, many others.

One of the points that I want to make is—it was made by my colleague the Hon Judith Collins—that when there is such a critical issue, such as family violence and ensuring greater access to support that victims need, where should that responsibility lie? I think if we were honest with one another, we would say the responsibility lies in many different areas—within families, within communities, and within government and government organisations. It’s important that that balance is struck in the right place. So, yes, in terms of public good, in our time we funded a number of initiatives—the Integrated Safety Response that I talked about, which included $46 million of operating funding that was very much around a new approach to the services but also front-line delivery.

One of the other things that hasn’t been raised today that I think has had a significant impact on the ability for victims of family violence to deal with the many and multiple challenges they have to face is the change to the Employment Relations Act that we passed, around flexible work. It meant that anyone and everyone could request flexible work, and it wasn’t just restricted to caring responsibilities. The number of conversations that flexible work has really transformed the relationship between employers and employees—Andrew Little was a bit, kind of, contradictory in his contribution. On the one hand, he was saying that the employers he knew, whether they were the small dairy owners or larger employers, had very trusted relationships in their workplaces, and that was fantastic. Well, if there were such trusted relationships in their workplaces, why don’t they trust the employers and the employees to navigate these and to use the existing legislative frameworks to be able to do that? So it was somewhat contradictory.

On that note of flexibility, I do hope that the Government, and Jan Logie in particular, is seriously examining any proposed changes to employment relations law to make sure that the unintended consequences don’t affect women, don’t affect the victims that Jan Logie has intended in this legislation. I say: we support the intent of it, but one of the key differences with our side of the House—and I know Mark Mitchell has worked hard to try and make improvements to this legislation with significantly thought-through Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). It’s about being practical, it’s about being sensible, and it’s about looking at how you deliver a solution on the ground. That’s really the only reason that National’s not supporting this bill.

We support the intent, absolutely. As I said, I am concerned about potential other changes to employment relations law. I’m saddened that the SOP around a nationwide campaign so that employers understood what their choices and options were—so they understood how they could support victims of family violence. I recall an example where a workmate was a victim of family violence, and every time their work phone rang, they just went into a state of paralysis because the perpetrator of family violence would harass them at work. You’d just never know what time of day they would phone, and I know the very real impact it had on this person and the challenge of the employer in terms of understanding how to provide support.

So, coming back to Andrew Little’s comment, it is about that trusted relationship. It is about the ability of an employer and an employee to navigate a very challenging issue together. So we do support the intent but, unfortunately, don’t support the way that this bill has finally been drafted. I hope that the Government picks up our earlier work in legislation that’s currently before the House, and picks up our strong record of support, in a number of different practical and sensible ways, to support and reduce family violence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Angie Warren-Clark.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, this will be better.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. On this momentous day, I am honoured to take a call on this very important member’s bill, the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill. I’ve spoken at both the second reading and the committee stage of the bill, and I’m humbled again to rise and add my voice to this kaupapa. This bill provides a fundamental shift to the domestic violence landscape, and it’s long overdue. I’d like to thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, for her successful shepherding of this bill through the House and for her ongoing commitment to the families affected by violence.

Today, I’m truly blessed to participate in this debate and to celebrate the hard work of many years of lobbying, conversations, harrowing stories, and determination to see a real significant change to the plight of victims of violence. So I thank you, Jan Logie, for the voiceless, for the hurt, for the courageous, for the wild and wilful who stand up and say “No more.” to family violence, but who needed a champion in this House to take action. Thank you for being our champion. I thank the good members across this House who have stood shoulder to shoulder with Jan Logie to support this bill. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little, Minister of Justice, for his solid support of this bill, because violence is not just an issue for us women or the sisterhood. Domestic violence is a problem, and it’s all of our problem, and men need to walk in partnership to support the change we need in this country. We cannot make change without good men standing up and saying violence is not OK.

Gee, I feel sorry for the Opposition today—all you good women who I know, in your hearts, want to support this bill. I can feel it. I can see it, and it must be really hard to toe the line—the party line. It must be heart-breaking for those of you who stood in this House a year ago and supported this bill. I feel for you. We’re still sisters in arms, and I feel for you.

I’d like to thank the members of the Justice Committee in both the 51st and 52nd Parliaments, the 167 submitters, the oral evidence of 35 submitters, and the officials across many areas of the Government who addressed matters asked of them. Very quickly, I acknowledge the gallery today, filled with colleagues here to see the passing of this bill. Tēnā koutou.

I now turn to the bill, the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, which amends the Employment Relations Act, the Holidays Act, and the Human Rights Act. This bill, fundamentally, addresses the needs of victims of violence who are working in paid employment to have domestic violence leave of up to 10 days. This is the amendment to the Holidays Act, and this entitlement becomes available after six months, but it doesn’t accumulate or carry over annually. So it is quite limited in its entitlement. This leave is similar to bereavement leave provisions in that it’s an additional entitlement to be used if needed. However, just like bereavement leave, we hope we never have to use this leave, because in order to get this entitlement a person needs to be a victim of domestic violence, and who wants that?

One in three women in this country is a victim of domestic violence—who wants the entitlement to this leave? Approximately 41 percent of domestic violence victims are in paid employment, and the Snively/Public Service Association report noted that domestic violence costs us millions in lost productivity per year. The cost of replacement of staff is prohibitive. The loss of productivity to a small or medium sized business is actually more expensive than paying leave to help an employee seek help.

I quote from that report: “Employment is a key pathway out of domestic violence. The body of research about domestic violence over the past 30 years finds conclusively that staying in employment is critical to reducing the effects of violence. Security of employment enables those affected by domestic violence to maintain domestic and economic stability, in this way assisting them to find a pathway out of violence and to successfully re-build their lives. Employers have the potential of productivity gains from implementing workplace protections … There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that as well as the potential for breaking the cycle of domestic violence, the introduction of workplace protections for people affected by domestic violence both saves employers costs (recruitment, retention, re-training, health and safety) and increases productivity.”

So when I hear the Opposition say that this bill will adversely affect small and medium businesses, I say, “Read the research, read the submissions.” Having a staff member who is a victim of violence already affects the business’s bottom line. This bill actually supports employers to keep good staff, to help those staff live without violence, and to come back to work able to focus on work and not the constant terror, shame, and the walking on eggshells that victims of violence feel. This bill enables business to help support their valuable employees, and thus help the bottom line.

This bill also addresses the option of flexible work arrangements, which means that a victim is able to negotiate—or someone on their behalf can negotiate—flexibility in the workplace. This is important because sometimes it’s dangerous to be in the workplace. It’s important because, as the member Jan Logie has said, the perpetrator is likely to know the routine of that person, and he is likely to use that opportunity to further abuse the victim. So it’s incredibly useful to have some flexibility available for victims.

We in the House and across all of Aotearoa know what massive numbers of victims and perpetrators of violence we have in this community. We know that New Zealand has the highest rate of violence in the OECD. We know that people, mainly women and children, die every year from that violence. Actually, they don’t die; they are murdered. We know 50 percent of the workload of New Zealand police is spent responding to family harm. I personally know what it is like to live with the effects of domestic violence. All of us here in this House of Representatives acknowledge the damage done to our population. We need to act and support change within our society. We need to support these women to get to a place of safety. We need to support the victims of domestic violence. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Mr Assistant Speaker, it is Cook Islands Language Week, so if I may indulge in a brief introduction in Te Reo Kuki Airani [the Cook Islands language].

Kia Orana tatou katoatoa i te aroa maata o te Atua no tei uru mai ia tatou i teia po nei. Tangi ke tangi ke. Kia Ora tatou katoatoa.

[Greetings to all of us in the almighty name of God, who has guided us here tonight. Greetings, greetings, greetings to all of us.]

Those were brief greetings. It is Cook Islands Language Week, so I just wanted to acknowledge that in my first speech in the House this week.

I want to acknowledge the intent of this bill. Jan Logie and I came into Parliament at the same time, in 2011, and we were both on the Social Services Committee, and we actually went together to maraes and community places. We travelled to hear the responses of those who were victims and those who were NGOs, providers of services, much-needed counsellors, and social workers at the forefront. We heard their concerns. The concerns were not only that there was a need for more resources to support them in the work they were doing but also that there was a need for better provision in legislation and also, too, in some of the policies that allowed all Government departments to acknowledge the importance of holding to account the issues of domestic violence and family violence in our country.

I go back a long way in regards to the work around domestic violence. In the early 2000s, when Steve Maharey was the Minister for Social Development and Employment, there was some work done by Judge Mick Brown around the baseline review which looked at the whole of the social services, but, more importantly, family violence was included in that. I can remember when we came together to talk at Te Rito, which was the first effort to put together a policy platform to deal with family violence. So the Te Rito strategy was born out of that work. So I come from a place where I absolutely am a big supporter of both work that is done legislatively and work in policy development to address the issues of family violence in our country.

I am also, like a number of members across the House, a White Ribbon ambassador, and I’ve been on marches and bike rides and I have gone up and down the country and I’ve spoken and taken the pledge—

Angie Warren-Clark: Then vote for the bill.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: If Mrs Warren-Clark would just listen for a bit. We sat and listened to you, so just be respectful. I didn’t say anything; I just allowed you to have your voice, so I just ask for the same, that’s all. OK? That’s all. I’m just asking for the same respect that we afforded you.

The fact is that I’m a White Ribbon ambassador, along with a number of others right across the House who have stood side by side to ensure that domestic violence—and as you’ve said, Mrs Warren-Clark, in your speech, the fact is that we have one of highest rates. In fact, there are 110,000 incidents of domestic violence, of intimate partner violence, in this country, and in the developed world it’s the highest of its kind. It’s an issue that we’re not proud of as a country, and when I say “we”, it’s all of us who have to be held responsible and held to account.

I just want to say that the issues that have been championed have been championed by many. The work that has gone on has gone on over a long period of time, over successive Governments, in order to get to where we are here today. So while I applaud my colleague Jan Logie for this bill and her intent—and she has been consistent all the way through, so I will acknowledge the fact that, all the way through, Jan has stood up in this House and has constantly talked about the issues of family violence and sexual violence that we need to address, as well. So I want to acknowledge her work and her commitment and her pledge to that as well.

I suppose one of the interesting issues then is: where do we differ? Now, where we differ, in a sense, is not in intent. We don’t differ in the sense that, even under nine years of a National Government, what is it that we put in place? We’re not going to talk about that, because it looks like we’re defending what we’ve done, but, you know, we have played our part in regards to addressing that.

Mrs Warren-Clark, I just want to speak to one of the comments you made in regards to flexible working arrangements. That was actually put in place in 2014, which allowed for employees to then negotiate with employers in regards to flexible working arrangements if there was an issue that they needed to mitigate, if there was an issue on which they needed to seek some counselling and some support. So that was there. And I know that Jan, now, is actually then taking this through and wanting to include that in parts of the bill that she’s put in place as well.

But this issue then, I suppose, is, where do we have the concern, and, from our point of view here, where do we draw the line and say it’s just a step too far for us? There are a number of things that we have put in place: flexible working arrangements; the 24/7 family violence line that was initiated under the National Government to ensure they were there; the Integrated Safety Response, the integrated response services forum that we had actually initiated and a pilot was put in place. So it was a multi-systemic approach to ensure that the Government departments who had a role of responsibility, a duty of care, made sure that they were accountable. And so that was critically important.

I want to acknowledge that the fact is that those on the front line—our social workers, our counsellors, and our police force—are out there. I’ve been out, even on the front line, with police. In fact, I went out in West Auckland—went out in the graveyard shift; so started at 11, finished in the earliest hours of the morning. And in West Auckland, when we went out, over the period of about nine to 10 hours that I was on that shift, we stopped only once—to go to Lincoln Road McDonald’s to get a Filet-o-Fish—and that’s about it. Throughout that whole time, 40 percent of the incidents that we went to were all about domestic violence. So you’re absolutely right—I saw first-hand just the carelessness to which anger had allowed them to take away, I suppose, the loving care and aroha that should have been afforded to children and also to women in those particular incidents, as well.

The part on which we do differ, then—the part in which we say that we have come as much as we have to all the parts that we think are important, and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put together, as well. We have other businesses, like Countdown and The Warehouse and others, and it’s good for them because they can consume, I suppose, in a sense, the cost factor of what it means to be able to put in place the cover and the expense in regards to be able to mitigate the concerns, and also, too, for those women in this case—and I imagine there could be men as well, because there are men who are victims of violence as well—who can then apply for the 10 days that’s actually in this bill.

The concern I have is when I think about the people—even in my community of Te Atatū—who are in the local small businesses, who are running small cafes and running small restaurants and so forth, whom I spoke to just last week. I asked them how they’re going, and at the moment they’re struggling—they’re just making ends meet. Over 50 percent of what they generate in revenue goes on wages and salaries. So even when people take off annual leave, yes, they comply, but they did say to me that any extra burden will be really difficult for them. So what we were asking here, I believe, under SOP 41 under the Hon Mark Mitchell, was not unreasonable.

It was a rational response to say that if we could have the opportunity—number one—to be able to transition those in small to medium sized enterprises—which, by the way, are 80 percent of our growth of our economy. Why could we not work with them to transition, to see if this would work in a way, in a response with them as well? If we think, the fact is that if we accumulate them, with the opportunity that we have now, we’re now going to impose another 10 new days of annual domestic violence leave upon four weeks of annual leave, 11 days of holiday leave, five days of sick leave, and, on top of that, three days of bereavement leave. Now, those are entitlements—we understand that, because we were part of actually putting those through. What we were asking for was not unreasonable.

So I stand here today with those of this party, who are not saying that we don’t agree with the intent of dealing with issues of family violence but we cannot say that we’ll put another burden upon those in small to medium sized enterprises—small businesses. Many of us in our electorates will know them by name—the people who work there day in and day out to try and make ends meet. When you go to them and you sit down with them, as I have done, they have said to me first-hand that this will impose another burden upon them. We asked in the SOP for a transition to actually go and work through this—that wasn’t accepted either. We asked if they could use that—Mark Mitchell did in his SOP—if it could be included in the annual leave. That wasn’t accepted, as well.

I have to say that, while the intent is applauded and we agree on this side, what we can’t agree with in this bill is the imposition that it will have and, at the end of the day, the burden that that will have on small businesses, who are all genuinely trying to do the best that they can. But if we do this, then we’ll have those who will be victims of another sort, who then, in some cases, as they have said to me, may have to find themselves closing their doors because they’re no longer able to operate.

We, on this side, don’t support that part of the bill that we don’t believe works in a way that benefits our communities. We cannot support this bill to the House.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. First of all, can I acknowledge the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. This is a big moment, actually. Can I also acknowledge the members on the other side of the House, because I think the Hon Alfred Ngaro was quite correct that while we cannot agree at this moment in time, it cannot be forgotten that at the first reading we all did. At the first reading we all did agree that there needed to be a circuit-breaker to what is a terrible, unfortunate situation that happens in our country—that we lead the world in something that we should all be ashamed of.

As the Minister for Children, we know that when children are inside homes where domestic violence takes place, they themselves are then victims of domestic violence. We have tried, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Alfred Ngaro and how he said for years we have been grappling with this—and he himself on the front line, with others on the front lines, has been grappling with this. It hasn’t worked to date, so whatever we’ve been doing to date hasn’t been enough, and there needs to be a circuit-breaker.

I think to be that circuit-breaker we need to be brave enough to take this step, because in my view—in our view—this is not only about acknowledging and providing the space for victims of domestic violence to leave, to gain assistance, and to find themselves a way out, but it sends a message to them from this Parliament that we know you are there. We know it exists, we know it’s not sick leave, and we know it’s not annual leave; we know that this is violence against you, and we want to stand with you and allow you the time to get out and get your children out. Please, for the well-being of our nation, please hear us—that we know it exists, we know you are there, and we’re asking you through this message of leave that we have provided, to take it up.

I do want to acknowledge, again, the Hon Alfred Ngaro and the message that he sends around concerns they have around small and medium sized business. New Zealand First shares that concern. There were two Supplementary Order Papers that we were able to negotiate with our coalition partners and with the author of the bill. One of them was to shorten the period of time in which a sort of retrospective complaint, I suppose—or if an employee asks their employer for leave under this piece of legislation, there are many opportunities for the employer to decline because their business cannot manage the cost of it. That’s very real. We acknowledge that, and so does Ms Logie, because it’s inside this piece of legislation. New Zealand First doesn’t want to put employers in that spot—and I’ll talk about that in just a minute. But what we have said was that instead of having a period of 12 months whereby somebody who was declined for this leave could then take mediation or a complaint against the employer, we think that only six months is reasonable in that case. There shouldn’t be a year that that can carry over.

The other thing we did was we listened to the submission from Rural Women around the 10-day period when a request is made for a change to the working environment for the protection of the victim—that that actually should go from five days to 10 days. We appreciate the fact that Ms Logie was able to accommodate us with that.

But I think the biggest and the most pleasing conversation that we had was with the Minister of Finance. We share the Opposition’s concerns around a financial burden, to small and medium sized businesses particularly. So that is why we have a commitment from the Minister of Finance that the Tax Working Group will, as part of the work they are doing, be looking at the tax deductibility of any leave taken under this piece of legislation.

I will signal here that New Zealand First will be continuing to push, once that work is done. We will wait for the Tax Working Group to come back with their recommendations around that. But we do feel that not only is this a way to make sure that we understand as a country that we must all take responsibility for what is a curse on our nation, quite frankly, but a side effect of that will actually be the tracking of this leave, because we don’t have any data collection on this. One way to make sure we have data collection about the numbers of days that are applied for under this piece of legislation is to actually give the capacity for small and medium sized businesses, big businesses—whoever—to apply for tax relief for the number of days taken, so it can serve two purposes.

I want to give that assurance out to the businesses out there in New Zealand that New Zealand First also agrees with the Opposition. We just came to a more constructive outcome with our coalition partners, and we will continue to push for that constructive outcome to make sure that we balance what is the message we need to send to victims here, but the balance is that we need to also be able to support our businesses, who, I believe, and I articulated in my previous contribution on this piece of legislation—we believe they are not disconnected from their communities. They want to participate in this, but there are times when they are going to have to say no, and we want to minimise those times because we know that those businesses want to support their employees. They want to see domestic violence in this country lessened. We think this is a step in the right direction.

Before I complete my contribution, I want acknowledge Jackie Blue. So I’d just like to acknowledge Jackie Blue. I’m not supposed to do so, but I am because the presiding officers are not listening! But there have been strong women in this Parliament. Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie is one, Jackie Blue was another, and there’s going to be another bill that will go through this House that the spirit of Ms Blue actually comes into the place with it. So can I acknowledge her as another woman of such strong character and strong commitment who has made a change in the world that is a positive one. So kia ora to you.

Again, can I acknowledge Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie. Thank you for the constructive way you worked with New Zealand First. We’re pleased that we were able to come to a place to support this because there must be a circuit-breaker here, not just for the direct victims of domestic violence but for the children that are in the homes where this violence is perpetrated. We must make a change. Kia ora. Thank you.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on the third reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill in the name of Jan Logie, and I want to add my congratulations to you, Jan. It must be an amazing feeling to have a bill go down in the history of this Parliament, now and into the future, with your name on it. So congratulations.

What many of my colleagues have said in previous contributions—and even the Hon Tracey Martin has also said it—is that National does support the intent of this bill. A lot of the discussion of the impact around businesses has been and will be our concern—and I just want to reiterate the sentiments that my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro shared in this House. I think that domestic violence is one of those things that cannot just be wiped out through one bill. We need multiple approaches to actually reduce domestic violence in whānau, and I think that this particular bill, with its narrow focus, starts to do that.

I think the contribution from the member Angie Warren-Clark, who was saying that it will stop family violence, domestic violence—it won’t. It’s that narrow focus—it’s focused on businesses. It’s focused on employment and leave entitlements, and that’s what it does. I was really pleased to hear from the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, applauding the many businesses that already have the flexible entitlements for leave that they support in their workplaces, and I also say that there are a number of ratbag operators out there, which I think this bill is really targeted at. So my contribution will be very small because a lot of the sentiment that has actually been spoken on this side of the House—I share in that, and in the words of the Hon Tracey Martin as well.

So I just want to say that, yes, the National-led Government had a number of approaches to reducing family violence and that I was a little bit disappointed, and continue to be, because the Government has not picked up some of those policies that we have had and that I think have done well to protect victims of family violence. It would be great, and I’m pleased to hear that the sponsor of the bill, Jan Logie, has been and met with Integrated Safety Response in Christchurch, as well. So I think that a lot of the groundwork that you’ve done, Jan, has been really good, and I also share the sentiments as to why your bill wasn’t actually picked up by the Government and really taken forward.

So, without any further ado, I cannot support this bill. But I want to congratulate Jan again, so kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Golriz Ghahraman—you have five minutes.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is an honour to rise in support of this bill, and it is such an honour to do so with Jan Logie beside me. She has been a champion and a booming voice for victims and survivors of domestic violence for so many years in this House and out there, through this sector, on the grassroots, sitting on the shoulders of such great activists and lifting up others, bringing her lived experience. This is Jan’s life’s work.

So, as this House celebrates the passing of this bill, we must celebrate Jan, and as we celebrate Jan, it’s important to note that good lawmaking, the kind of lawmaking that really pinpoints the problems we’re here to solve and then really pinpoints the solutions that are going to make a difference to people’s lives out there, comes from people like Jan getting to sit in this House. It comes from representation.

This bill does two important things. It, first, gives due recognition to the physical and emotional cost of abuse, a cost that can only be truly recognised if we as a society are willing to share in it. So then it does just that. Today, we say that victims and survivors of abuse have a right to remain in the workforce and still get a little bit of time and space—time to leave, time to regroup. It’s actually a small gesture, but without it, so many have been stuck for so many years.

Generations ago, New Zealand recognised the necessity of financial emancipation for victims of domestic violence when we adopted the domestic purposes benefit. The DPB was meant to recognise that victims of abuse shouldn’t have to choose between their own physical safety and being able to take care of their kids—let’s remember that the next time we attack and sanction solo mums on the benefit.

Today, Jan’s bill recognises that for those in the workforce, leaving an abusive relationship often means losing their livelihood, losing their important connection with the outside world, and losing themselves, and becoming even more dependent on their abusers. Survivors need time off to get mental health care and to find a place to live, but one of the things that struck me as I listened to Jan’s speeches on this bill has been the recognition that, actually, the time immediately after leaving an abusive relationship is the most dangerous time. She needs to be able to change her routine, otherwise her abuser knows where to find her, and today, as a society, we’re going to support her to do that, because being violence-free is actually a fundamental human right.

Having to choose between being in employment and being violence-free is discrimination. It’s just one of the many, many ways that we blindly discriminate against victims of abuse. The solution does seem very simple, now that we see it. It seems like someone should have already thought of it, but they didn’t—not in here. Jan did, because she’s got those connections with the grassroots, with the activist movements, with the survivors. She’s not just another politician, and it shows in this bill.

This year is the 125th anniversary of women getting the vote in New Zealand, but we did have to wait 26 more years before we could sit in this House, and, as we’re learning at this moment in global history, the one-vote-per-person democracy model doesn’t actually guarantee all of our rights. It doesn’t guarantee our right to be heard, to have bodily integrity, or to be free from harassment. We need to be at the decision-making table—like Jan was—in order to highlight the real problems faced by women and by minorities because, actually, as women, our race, our religion, and our disabilities do also define our experiences out there. We are far from true representative democracy yet at the decision-making tables out there, but we need to celebrate lawmaking like this.

Today, we promise lawmaking by the affected communities for the affected communities, through this bill. We are saying to victims of domestic violence that that’s a problem we care enough about to solve because their lives matter. So it’s with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): It is my opinion, and the opinion of our side, on this side of the House, that this is well-intentioned but the scope is misplaced in this particular bill. I do join in wishing Jan Logie and the team well. I echo the words of my colleague Alfred Ngaro when he said that we don’t differ in intent; it’s about mechanisms, and this bill unfairly places a significant burden on small business when it comes to the scourge and the reality—the cold, stark, and awful reality—that is family violence. It’s not a sustainable way, though, to keep addressing and resolving the massive issue that we face.

If we want to make a real difference, what we’re contending here, on this side, is that we should be progressing the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. It’s waiting in the wings. It is huge in scope and intent—actually, more than intent; it is addressing root problems and root causes. And I would contend that for the Government, this is about Government priorities. I realise that this is a member’s bill, but the Government has a chance to figure out its priorities in this particular space. That Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for over nine months now.

I would really caution, incredibly strongly caution—and I said this when I spoke previously on this bill—anyone on that side of the House against reducing this to saying that our side, our team, are pro-business above pro-victims. That is absolutely not the case. If that was the case, then there wouldn’t be the Integrated Safety Response pilot that we came up with. There wouldn’t be social investment blood, sweat and tears that we’ve gone through. There wouldn’t be the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. Those are actions, not just—and, in fact, someone on the other side of the House was heckling and saying, “Words, words, words.” Well, no, those were actions, actions, actions. So that’s where we come from, and where we find ourselves here tonight. Just because this is a sensitive issue, it doesn’t mean that we should have misplaced targeted legislation going through this House. It’s about the right mechanisms for what will make a difference. There is a massive issue. Yes, it does need addressing, and we’ve had ideas that are ready to go.

I’d just point out two things in closing. I guess I’m kind of interested and curious as to why, if this is a member’s bill that members of the Government are hugely behind, they didn’t pick this up as a Government bill. That’s of interest to me. And the other is—and I guess this is a gripe. I wasn’t here as an MP at the time, but I’m told that when we consulted extensively on the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, there was no call from anyone for special paid leave for family violence victims then. That’s of interest to me. No one called for that then.

I’ll just finish by echoing what it was that we were calling for in terms of a moderate position on this bill, and that was that we extend the definition of existing leave entitlements to more explicitly include those affected by domestic violence. That wasn’t accepted, and we find ourselves here tonight and, with reluctance, we can’t support the bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I’m actually going to start with a waiata, and I think it will outline why I have chosen to sing this waiata.

Ko te taonga o taku ngākau, ko taku mokopuna e

He mokopuna korikori, hei aha, hei aha rā

Ko te mea nui ko te aroha

Kaua e patu taku mokopuna

Me awhiawhi mai taku mokopuna korikori e

Me awhiawhi mai taku mokopuna korikori e.

[My heart’s greatest treasure is my grandchild

He is a mischievous grandchild, but that really doesn’t matter

The most important thing is love

Please don’t smack my grandchild

Just cuddle him.]

This bill, for me, is about our children. We actually have 280 family violence incidents reported to the police every day. We, unfortunately, however, have 1,167 incidents, because 76 percent of family violence incidents in New Zealand are not reported. Children are present in 778 of those incidents.

So what happens to our children who grow up witnessing family violence? Actually, they’re three times more likely to commit suicide; 57 percent of them have no qualifications; they have physical and mental health, poorer education, and poorer employment outcomes; they become drug- and alcohol-dependent; they become homeless. They’re twice as likely to be victims of sexual violence, and they’re four times more likely to commit sexual violence against a partner. So what we know is that early intervention and prevention is essential if we are to break the patterns of behaviour and reduce harm.

And you might ask where this wonderful advice came from. It’s from Reform of Family Violence Law. Paper One: Context and supporting integrated responses, that I credit the previous Government for. That previous Government Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence estimated that the direct cost to Government of family violence every year was $1.4 billion, and it was women and children who paid the cost. The cost to business they estimated at $368 million per annum because of the lost productivity, the stress, and the staff turnover. So the reality of this situation is that our businesses are affected, and they’re affected to the tune of $368 million every year.

I want to highlight a point made by the Hon Amy Adams in the first reading of Jan Logie’s bill—and I quote—“The point I made when I made the commitment on behalf of the National Government to support the bill—certainly through the first reading and through to a select committee—was that [what] we do know, and what we must know, is that whatever the answer is, business has to be a part of it, and that is the absolute agreement I am in with the member.” So business is part of the solution; the Hon Amy Adams says so. We agree with her 100 percent.

I’ve found a piece of research called Factors Associated with Disclosure of Domestic Violence at the Workplace. The reality is 40 percent of people who are abused disclose to somebody that they work with. But the interesting thing that I’ve found out through this piece of research—and it’s from the University of Western Ontario, by a young woman called Laura Olszowy—was that the reason women also disclose in the workplace is because they suffer from workplace sexual harassment.

So there’s a correlation between people disclosing their family and domestic violence, which happens privately, and what happens to them in their workplace. I find that incredibly interesting, because there is a growing global movement around this concept called Me Too, where we’re starting to call out the sexual harassment that we all experience as women in the workplace, and what we know, through some recent research, is that a third of New Zealand’s female lawyers are sexually harassed in the workplace. So sexual harassment, violence, and issues to do with women are not just a private matter; in fact, they are also a public matter, and it is true that Parliament is incredibly interested when it is a public matter.

People may not know, but the Inter-Parliamentary Union did a survey and released a report. The Inter-Parliamentary Union—most of us, as parliamentarians, belong to the Inter-Parliamentary Union—released a report in October 2016: Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians, in parliaments. So for all of our knowledge, 44.4 percent of the women who were surveyed said that they had received threats of death, rape, beatings, or abduction as parliamentarians. So this whole concept of domestic violence being this private matter that happens somewhere over here and it’s got no relevance to the workplace is absolutely false. I know that the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway, with my colleague Jan Logie—who also happens to be the architect of this bill—is looking at the responsibility of workplaces to ensure that sexual harassment and violence does not happen.

So what does this piece of research also say about the responsibility of workplaces? It actually says that they have a responsibility to provide a responsive workplace and ensure that that workplace is safe, not only for the woman who suffers domestic and family violence but because we know that sometimes the perpetrators of family and domestic violence will follow the victims into the workplace—it actually is a workplace issue because of that person’s colleague. And this—guess what—happens in big businesses, medium-sized business, and small businesses, and I’m quite sure that health and safety legislation in New Zealand does not have an exemption because of the size of the business. We also know from research that, on average, if you do have an employee who suffers from family and domestic violence, it’s about a $3,500 cost per year with them not turning up for work or leaving, and you have retention issues and you have to retrain, and all that sort of thing.

So there’s this fallacy that businesses currently are not having to pay for the burden of family and domestic violence. So to say that 10 days’ domestic violence leave is too expensive is actually an incredibly—I was going to say naive thing to say, because businesses are already paying the price, but let’s help them pay the price in a positive way. And what is that positive way? By actually having a workplace that allows people to disclose. What happens when you disclose? You get help. You get help for yourself, you get help for your family, and, as I highlighted earlier, you get help for the children, who have no choice.

Too many of our babies are growing up thinking violence is normal. We have to do everything we can to change that culture, and we need to work with business, all business, because—guess what? Business people employ ordinary people, mums and dads with children. I talked to Kiri from Countdown the other day, and they’re incredibly committed. They have 19,000 employees—10,000 women. Why did they change? Because one of their employees was murdered—murdered—and they said, “What can we do? What could we have done to have helped that woman, her family and children, so that we could have prevented that death?”

So this is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and I want to thank Jan, a lot of the people here, and all the women who are speaking out and saying “Me too”. What happens to us in our workplaces, in our families, needs to be public, because the only way we will stop it is to name it and to shame it and to change it, which this bill is attempting to do, so I support it 100 percent. Kia ora.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s hard to add a lot more when you get to the point of giving the 11th speech on a bill like this, and it is a very highly charged and emotional topic. Right across this House, we all feel for those victims of domestic violence, whether they be male or female. It’s men and women equally. It’s often seen as something that is more directed towards women, but there are men who are exposed to this, as well.

I’ve got a question in my mind, really, because a few things have come out today—we’ve heard about naivety and we’ve heard about a few things like that. We did vote for this bill at the first reading, but as feedback came in through the public process, and with MPs conducting their outreach into their constituencies, coupled with Supplementary Order Papers, we are unable to support the bill, because we just feel that if Government was really intent on this, Government would be paying the cost.

I’m at a loss from everything I’ve heard from the other side today. We had Andrew Little actually standing up before, saying “Look, good businesses will want to do this stuff.”, and I’ve got no doubt that good businesses are out there doing some of this stuff already. So what was so wrong with Supplementary Order Paper 42, which was put up by Mark Mitchell and which was defeated, that said in the explanatory note that this Supplementary Order Paper requires the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment “to undertake a [national] educational campaign in order to assist small and medium businesses to comply with the changes … within the Act, including additional leave requirements … Small and medium businesses may find these changes hard to understand and … require guidance in how to implement them correctly …”. So if the intent was there—we don’t like to be looking like this is actually a business versus employers thing. Everybody wants to help on the domestic violence thing, and it is going to be hard for some businesses to be able to undertake this. So I just think that wouldn’t have been a very hard thing to put in place.

I do think that if the Government—like others have said—wants to make a real difference, it would progress the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill that we introduced last year, which would be the most significant reform to family violence laws in a generation. So while there are a lot of parts, I would like to commend Jan Logie on the intent of the bill—and none of us have disputed the intent of the bill; it’s just the working part that we are unable to support this bill on. We all need to work together on the domestic violence front, because there are a whole lot of things that need to be put together. There’s a lot of playing parts to this, and we need to work together on that, but we just don’t feel that it’s appropriate that the Government is actually putting an unfair burden of cost on small businesses.

So I just want to thank those groups in my community who I have worked with: the champions of family violence—those that are out there in the community to help people. We don’t disagree that all of us need to play a part, but, unfortunately, with the way this bill is constructed we are unable to support it today. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure, absolute privilege, and, indeed, goose bumps that I rise to speak to the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill at its third reading. I’ll do a quick summary as to what this bill does, because it’s so very important.

Many of us in this House—indeed, we come to this place to make changes like this one, changes that will protect lives. This bill supports victim/survivors through paid leave and flexible working arrangements, to have the stability and, indeed, the freedom to escape violence. This bill is one that benefits us all: victim/survivors, members of the community, our employers—it keeps us all safe. Why is this bill important? Why are we on this side of the House so adamant in our support of it? Firstly, we’ve heard members before me who have spoken about the horrific rates of domestic violence in New Zealand and the fact that it’s incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to eliminate it.

Domestic violence is a scourge. It takes many forms. It can be physical, sexual, emotional, or financial. It affects us across ethnicities and socio-economic status, regardless of education levels, where we are, who we might be, and where we might have come from. It’s not just isolated incidents of violence, as some members have said. It’s actually a pattern of power and control, and that’s an incredibly important point when we look at the context within which this bill sits. Typically, women, and definitely women I’ve worked with over the course of my working life—many don’t actually want to leave, necessarily. Many just want the violence to stop but are forced to leave because, in many cases, leaving is the only option available to them to keep themselves and their children safe.

This bill plays an incredibly important role in taking away one of the barriers that prevents women from leaving, and that’s the financial barrier. This bill enables them to stay in paid employment. It also does something else that’s incredibly important: it provides safeguards for them at work. It allows them to request flexible work arrangements and leave to deal with some of the consequences of the violence that women have to deal with—and I say “women”, because unlike the previous member who spoke, Barbara Kuriger, I absolutely believe the stats that tell us that this is a gendered issue; that, predominantly, women are victim/survivors of violence. It doesn’t mean that we don’t stand against all forms of violence, but that’s what the statistics tell us. If we don’t acknowledge that, we will never fully acknowledge the drivers of domestic violence in this country.

Now, women I’ve worked with over the course of many years, when it gets to that point that they’ve got to leave the abusive relationship and break the cycle of domestic violence, perhaps go to a refuge, and there are a number of concerns at that point. One, of course, is to deal with the fact that this is actually happening—that they’ve actually got to leave to keep themselves safe—and that’s massive. The other is some of the practical concerns—children’s schooling, getting the medical or the legal help that they need—and that takes time.

At this point, I want to bring in some of the voices of the women who have been victim/survivors of violence. I want to thank Ann Simmons, who was a nurse and who spoke about losing her job after being subjected to violence, including rape, at the hands of her partner. She spoke to members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it was then in the previous Parliament, on behalf of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation.

She recalled the experience of a woman with two young children who came home from an afternoon shift as a nurse an hour later than expected. The busy shift was not an excuse her partner would accept. He punched her in the face and in the stomach, threw her across the room, and raped her. Soon after, he passed out as he was extremely drunk, she told the committee. The woman’s partner was arrested and charged, but was released once he sobered up and he was still incredibly dangerous, she said.

She needed to tell her boss she couldn’t go to work. A white university graduate woman with two children needed to say, “I am the victim of domestic violence and I cannot come to work.” That is so hard to do. She had no annual leave. She had used most of her sick leave due to previous assaults and staying at home to protect her children.

Her work suggested she resign. If there had been any leave available to her, she may have been able to hold on to her job and not become yet another solo mum on the DPB. She says, “This story is me.”, and that is typical of the stories of women who need this bill to stay safe and, indeed, in many cases, not to be killed.

The time when a woman leaves the abusive relationship is often the most dangerous for her. I recall the faces of two women, specifically, who I worked with, both of whom had come to Shakti’s refuge, where I worked. Because of the horrific violence that they had gone through, they needed some time to deal with the consequences, and asked if I would speak to their employers on their behalf to get them that leave that they needed—some compassionate leave for them to have that space and that time. One worked with a rather large employer, a hotel chain, and another with a small business. Both employers understood the positions that they were in and said yes. They were lucky. But it shouldn’t be the luck of the draw. I acknowledge the many businesses in New Zealand like Countdown, The Warehouse, ANZ, and others who already make provisions to support victims of domestic violence, but it shouldn’t be the luck of the draw.

At this point I just want to counter some of the many myths that members opposite have raised or touched upon in their speeches tonight. The first is Alfred Ngaro, who talked about the fact that they on that side of the House support flexible working hours or arrangements. The member might have had a memory lapse, because back in 2009, when former Green MP Sue Kedgley had her flexible working arrangements bill, which helped to break down some of those rigid and inflexible working hours to allow employees to balance paid work and caring responsibilities, what did National MPs do? They voted against. What was their rationale for voting against? They opposed the bill, saying that legislation was unnecessary and working conditions were best sorted out in negotiations between the employer and the employee. National MPs argued that many workplaces and sectors were not suitable for flexible working arrangements and that employers would be placed in an impossible position. That seems to be the standard response from that side of the House any time we talk about flexible working arrangements. So if any National MP lauds the fact and claims the credit that they championed flexible working arrangements, I say maybe have a think about their memory loss.

Some of the more common concerns raised from members opposite were the fact that there are already leave provisions that women can avail themselves of. But there’s only sick leave, bereavement leave, and annual leave and none of those apply. Why should a woman who has been subjected to violence, and who has probably—in the case of Ann Simmons, for example—already used sick leave and annual leave—what is she supposed to do? What leave does she have left to use?

Before I end, there are many people to thank. But I want to thank many who are in the gallery today, and many who are not, for the work that they have done in championing this bill: the unions; the domestic violence prevention sector; the NGOs that have supported; businesses that support; all those who submitted to the select committee; Dr Jackie Blue for her work in pushing this bill through, as well; officials who’ve worked on this; the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, for his support; and, absolutely, last but not least, the member Jan Logie. For your bravery, for the courage that it takes to stand time and again and push for this, for the work that you’ve done tirelessly across both select committees, and for seeing this bill through to this day—I am incredibly proud to be a member of Parliament on this side of the House, to stand alongside you and all of those who have worked to get this bill to where we are today, to stand on the correct side of history, and to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Marriage Act 1955

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. I stand to take this brief call in relation to the matter before the committee now—the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. Again, I acknowledge my colleague Jo Hayes as the sponsor for this bill.

When I last addressed the House, I signalled that this is no minor matter, although the emphasis is on our minors—our young people, 16 and 17, who have been the subject of being forced into marriages. I acknowledge not only my colleague Jo Hayes but the fact that this bill, as a member’s bill, has cross-party support. It’s proposing changes to the Marriage Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004, seeking to ensure that all minors who are to marry do so with the Family Court’s independent sanction; in other words, rather than parental consent previously, the consent of a Family Court judge after testing and hearing evidence, and also with the mutual and voluntary consent of the young persons—those young persons who may have been predisposed to forcible or forced marriage. So it’s about ensuring the young persons entering into what will be a legally recognised marital status or marital relationship—but also one of a de facto relationship, as with the amendment that was proposed by the Justice Committee—are free of duress, coercion, manipulation, and influence of others.

In my address to the House previously, I talked about the importance of the protections and the safeguards that are outlined under this bill and that it aligns very much with other procedural Family Court safeguards, ensuring that those who have been the most vulnerable become the least vulnerable under this legislation. So the bill aims to reduce the risk of minors being forced into marriage, by requiring that Family Court judge consent.

Moving along, the bill is also about preventing the possibility of forced marriage. I talked about replacing the parental consent with that independent judicial scrutiny and determination by a Family Court judge. I talked about putting in place protections for those vulnerable 16- to 17-year-olds, and also, just speaking from experience previously as a court-appointed lawyer for children and, also, representing those who are vulnerable, I referred to the Care of Children Act. But, also, it aligns very much with the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act as well, in terms of that independent scrutiny and assessment determination by a Family Court judge.

When this matter came before the Justice Committee, there were some amendments that were proposed. In summary, those amendments, first of all, were around the title of the bill, and that’s been accepted and endorsed, I understand. So a further amendment that is proposed is addressing this status of civil unions and de facto relationships. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! We are on Part 1.

HARETE HIPANGO: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Part 1 of the bill.

HARETE HIPANGO: Part 1 of the bill, right. So in referring to Part 1 of the bill—I’ve got ahead of myself—the amendments to that are around, as I said, the title to the bill. Then looking through that, it talks about—I’ve addressed the age and that the court may appoint lawyers and proceedings. So, in referencing that, the court will seek the independent consent of the young person, but to ensure that there is no duress or coercion, there is the ability for the independent appointment of counsel to assist the court and to also represent the young persons affected—be that the male or the female or both. Also, the judge may obtain a cultural report in terms of determining and assessing the necessity of those cultural aspects and aspirations in relation to entering this relationship.

So, noting the time on the clock, I have addressed that aspect of the bill in terms of Part 1 before we proceed to Part 2. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that all parts of the debate be taken as one question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Seek leave.

BARBARA KURIGER: I seek leave, sorry, that all parts of the debate be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I put the leave, I just want to remind members that that leave should be sought at the beginning of the debate, and, given that condition, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any disagreement with that course of action? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules, clauses 1 and 2

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. In doing so, I again commend Jo Hayes for her work in bringing this legislation to the House, and, indeed, the work of the Justice Committee, who have worked collegially to come up with a bill that does what it’s intended to do and minimises any adverse consequences.

Looking at this bill, what, of course, it does is it provides safeguards to protect young people who could face physical, emotional, or financial pressure to marry. This bill, in essence, protects young people, especially women, from being forced into a marriage by their parents or others. When we look at how this bill achieves that, it gives discretion to a Family Court judge. I think it is a very useful provision in this bill that Part 1 specifies, very clearly, the guidance to a Family Court judge about what they must consider when they’re deciding whether or not to grant an application for marriage to anyone aged 16 or 17.

So those guidelines allow for the judge to make a considered decision. They don’t preclude a 16- or 17-year-old being able to marry, but they ensure that that person has made the application voluntarily, free of undue influence or coercion. They require the judge to assess that the party actually understands the consequences of the application and that they do in fact want the judge to consent to the intended marriage. It also gives the Family Court judge discretion to judge whether or not that marriage is in the party’s interests—is in the interests of the young person who is making that application for marriage. This is a very reasonable set of things for a Family Court judge to consider and, I think, gives the right and appropriate amount of latitude to seek out those cases where, in fact, there could be coercion there.

So the sorts of things that the Family Court judge is also determined to take into account in terms of whether or not a marriage is in someone’s interest are the age and maturity of the person, their views, and, actually, the views of the parents and the guardians and any other information relevant to the court.

I draw members’ particular attention to that, in replacement section 18(5)(d) in clause 8, because I think that that provides a degree of discretion that can give us assurance in this committee that were there something untoward that was on display during the Family Court process that didn’t precisely meet the clauses that I’ve previously outlined, then there is discretion, there is latitude, given to the judge to apply that judgment—to say, “There is information that I have received that makes me concerned about this application and gives me good grounds to decline it.” The bill is also well-thought-through in that it considers that, of course, here in 2018, we don’t just recognise relationships through the institution of marriage; we recognise relationships through the institution of civil union and through de facto relationships. It makes provision to allow those sorts of relationships to also be subject to this kind of scrutiny.

Importantly, what this bill does is bring New Zealand up to speed with a growing international view that there are instances of people being coerced into marriage, that there are instances where people will pick a country that has loose legislation because it will allow someone to be coerced into marriage. But appropriately, I think, this bill has been very carefully considered by the select committee and the provisions are very specific to our jurisdiction. They take on the existing institutions we have, in the form of the Family Court, and they recognise that of course there is a place in the country for people having marriages that families are very involved in, where courtships are supported by families, but that that in and of itself doesn’t mean that those marriages should be accepted. Where families are forcing someone to marry against their will, that is a fundamental breach of that person’s rights, and that is something that we should have a concern about as a community.

I do want to note the important replacement section 20 in clause 8 that requires that a judge may obtain a cultural report. I think that this provides an important balance, because what that means is that the judge can actually get information about matters that may lie outside their immediate cultural understanding and which they may be petitioned by applicants to understand, and I think being able to obtain that cultural report is very important in diverse, modern New Zealand in 2018, ensuring our judges have access to that kind of information when making these sorts of important judgments. This is a good bill and in these committee stages I continue to commend it to the committee.

Chris Bishop: Madam Chair.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Chris Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much. I’m sure my colleague on the Justice Committee, Ms Radhakrishnan, will get an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is a genuine pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I want, just at the outset, to acknowledge you, Madam Chair, because I know that you’ve been part of the cross-party—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You don’t mean to bring the Chair into the debate, do you?

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m sure the Chair won’t mind indulging me for a moment to acknowledge her contribution. I also want to acknowledge Joanne Hayes and her team, which includes many parliamentarians from across the House, who have worked hard on this bill. As someone who’s had two members’ bills now pass into law, I know it’s a good feeling, and it looks like this piece of legislation is going to work its way through its committee stage this evening, and its third reading, I’m sure, in a few short weeks. So I do want to acknowledge the member, who’s worked very hard on this.

Look, we had a good debate around this at the select committee. It’s one of those bills which sound pretty simple when you first hear them, at first blush, and then when you get into the details, they can get quite tricky, and that is something we did find at select committee. We did consider the issue of civil unions, and, of course, de facto relationships, which is made mention of in the select committee report.

In my short contribution, I want to make just a mention of, firstly, the name change, which is given effect to because of the omnibus nature of the bill. It was recommended by the select committee, and I think that’s a sensible one—changing it to the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, which recognises, really, the fact that this is not just about marriage. The original name of the bill focused on court consent to the marriage of minors, but, of course, we are also dealing with de facto and civil union relationships; so that name change is very important.

The other thing I want to make mention of in this committee stage is replacement section 19, in clause 8 of the bill, which allows the court to appoint lawyers in proceedings under replacement section 18, and that’s very important. This is a good bill, and I’m looking forward to it proceeding through the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, excellent choice.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Chair. It is actually pretty amazing to be able to rise twice in one evening in this Chamber and take calls on bills that I am incredibly passionate about. So it is a privilege to stand and speak at the committee stage of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I read that with some care and deliberation, because indeed the title has changed over the course of the life of this bill. Actually, there is quite a large, substantial reason that sits behind that title change, and I’m going to go into that a little bit.

This bill was previously known as the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, and it’s taken, I’d probably say, close to a decade for it to get to where it is this evening. There’s been a lot of lobbying from the domestic partner violence prevention sector, particularly Shakti, which is the organisation that I used to work for; Dr Jackie Blue, who initiated its process in this House; and, of course, the member Joanne Hayes, in whose name it is today, and, of course, I acknowledge the member for all the work that she’s put into this bill, as well. The way this bill came about—and the reason for its previous title, of course—is because, definitely at Shakti and at other refuges as well, I understand, many of us worked with young people who’d been put into this position, which is of young people being forced into a marriage, largely by their parents. I guess the genesis of this bill was because those of us who worked with these young people wanted to put an end to it, quite understandably.

Now, at this point I just want to make mention of the fact that there is a huge difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages, and the difference therein is the element of choice. In an arranged marriage, typically your parents will introduce you to somebody. They look at the other person’s educational background, likes and dislikes—things like that, from the viewpoint that marriage is difficult, and so let’s try to level the playing field, let’s try to match two people as best as possible. But then we give them the choice to make that final decision. In a forced marriage, there is no element of choice. There’s often a different motivating factor at play.

Under the current Marriage Act—and I have to confess that I used my own wedding as a bit of a test case for this, because I did do my Master’s thesis on the issue of forced marriage in New Zealand, and I happened to get married at about the same time. I found out that under the current Act only one party that’s entering into a marriage needs to provide a written statutory declaration, which is basically the only formal way of determining consent before you’re actually at the ceremony. What happens today if a 16- or 17-year-old wants to get married? Well, they need to get parental consent before they can do so legally, and therein lies the issue. That’s the loophole, because in many cases it is the parents who are forcing them into this relationship, into this legal union, and so of course they will give consent. That is what this bill addresses. It closes that loophole. It takes away the requirement for parental consent, and instead it puts in place a requirement for Family Court consent. So the Family Court judge has to be satisfied that both parties consent to this marriage, and then it will proceed.

Now, the title change came about because of quite an involved discussion that we had at the Justice Committee stage—and it was indeed a privilege to be part of that conversation, as well, having worked on this issue from the other side for many, many years. We had quite an in-depth discussion about the fact that closing this one loophole in the Marriage Act inadvertently then left a couple of other loopholes open, because there are other legally recognised relationships, namely, civil unions and de facto relationships. Actually, officials, who did a very fine job at that select committee, brought that to our attention, and I realised at that point that I had also worked with many who had undergone customary or cultural marriages that were typically conducted at places of worship, and for many within the communities that I worked with that was seen as a legitimate marriage. If we didn’t then close the other two loopholes—namely, civil unions and de facto relationships—what could eventuate is that 16- and 17-year-olds wouldn’t be able to get parental consent to get married, but their parents, if they wanted them—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member; the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This committee stage will resume at 7:30 p.m.

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

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege to stand and speak on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. First of all, I just want congratulate all New Zealanders who currently enjoy being in a relationship, whether it is de facto or marriage—and you’ve lasted the distance on your first go. I want to acknowledge you and say thank you on that. As a person who’s had to have a couple of goes at it, I really admire your longevity.

I want to acknowledge the member Jo Hayes for her due diligence in this very important bill about our children, but not only that—her leadership in the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians that she co-chairs with the member Louisa Wall. It has been an honour for me to attend the select committee hearing to support, tautoko, the voices of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians at the select committee. I also want to acknowledge the due diligence of the Justice Committee: the chair, Raymond Huo, and all the members for their due diligence in providing us with this report that we now refer to.

I want to refer to the amendments to the Marriage Act 1955. That Act is 63 years old now—it’s two years before it gets the super—so it is about time that we relook at it. I want to acknowledge that the whole of Parliament supports this and that we can as a group come together, because this is all about our children. This is all about our children and protecting them—making sure that they are provided with the support to make the right decision. So in my next sentence I might jest or make fun or laugh about it, but I think it’s important to know that in a relationship there are the tough times and there are the happy times.

I refer to replacement section 20, in clause 8, where the judge may obtain a cultural report. I refer to it as the many eyes of the test of love. When a minor under 18—aged 16 or 17—decides they are going to make this commitment, there are many eyes. One is they apply to the registrar for a licence. The registrar then looks at it and goes, “I’m going to put this before the judge.” The judge then looks at it and says, “OK, I’m going to make sure that I am provided with all the relevant information, because this is an important decision for this young person.” Note that when the person is then married, they are no longer considered a young person. They’re considered an adult then. Physically, we still call other 16-year-olds young people, but they take on the adult status. Not just that, the judge then wants to consider any cultural implications, and for the cultural implications the judge may seek to obtain a cultural report. In that cultural report, the judge may also require the minor, the young person, to have legal advice and have legal representation. So that’s where I refer to the many eyes of love.

But I just want to ask the honourable member my question in this debate. In my experience in the Family Court system as a clerk, it does take a long time to get things through. So I just want to ask the question: how long is this process? Perhaps I missed it in the reading of the bill, but how long is this process going to take? Definitely, as a mother of five children and a grandmother of six children, I would like this robust care to be provided to my 16- and 17-year-olds to ensure that they’ve made the right decision. But I also want the decision to be made within the 18 years—so if you could answer that: how long is the process going to take and at the end how we will add value to the life of these young people?

I want to end my contribution in commending this country and echoing our Prime Minister that this is definitely the best place to bring up children.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I congratulate the member Jo Hayes for shepherding the bill through this far. I know there were a few hiccups this morning when we thought maybe the House might have to wait another couple of weeks. I can reassure her that every effort was made to assuage the anxiety of certain genuinely concerned officials, but it didn’t take much more than that.

I want to say, too, given the bill we passed in its third reading earlier today, the Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, how important this bill is as another kind of plank in that platform that is there to prevent abuse in a situation where you’ve got vulnerable young people, and particularly where there is an element of compulsion by elders and others to force them into an arrangement that they may not be willing—genuinely willing—to participate in. I think this House has been aware that this does happen, that this practice does happen, and I think it is a bold initiative that the member Jo Hayes has taken on this legislation and got it through this House, and what a good reflection on this House that it has so far had unanimous support across the House. This ought to give us hope for the future that on these sorts of issues there is a new understanding, a new maturity across the House, about the need to protect the vulnerable in these sorts of arrangements. So that is good.

Look, I don’t think when we go through the specific provisions of this bill, the requirement for an intended party to a marriage to go before the court—that will be a big step for some young people, given the family pressure on them, the community pressure that will be on them. That will take a big step, and if this legislation does anything else apart from affording that protection—the opportunity for protection—let us hope that it is also a spur to the rest of the community to reach out and be part of that protection to vulnerable young people.

There will be others who will willingly wish to enter into relationships in the nature of marriage who will not want, not wish, and not need to avail themselves of this legislation. Perhaps if I had one question for the member who is sponsoring this bill, it would be: what does she understand the extent of the application of this bill will be? What sort of numbers are we talking about? And, conversely, given the age bracket that we’re talking about here, does she have a sense of the numbers who will not need to or will not wish to avail themselves of this bill?

I raise that because that actually was the issue that was of concern to some officials in some departments. It wasn’t one department; it was a number of departments of Government this morning who suddenly, kind of, woke up to the idea that this might have implications, whether it was for the Ministry of Social Development, whether it was for IRD, whether it was for other departments. I think we were able to satisfy ourselves that actually this was a small group, this was about protection, and to the extent there is an additional cost—and if there is, it will be minuscule. But, actually, if there is, then that is the price of affording protection to vulnerable people.

The House should not shy away from taking the step that this legislation encompasses, because it is the right thing to do, even if there is some small additional cost. I put it to officials that actually there may not be any cost at all. Perhaps what they were concerned about is that there might have been the possibility of some savings that may not be realised, but that is not a reason to stand in the way of a piece of legislation that is about affording protection—and that’s what this bill does.

So I think it is important that at this stage the committee note—and I cannot see anything in the legislation as it has come back from the Justice Committee that looks like it needs changing, tidying up, or amending. I congratulate the members of the select committee who considered the bill for bringing it back in a good and tidy form—very clearly directed, very clearly focused. That is what we need in legislation and for this sort of legislation that is about safety and cultural safety and personal safety in a difficult situation. This is a good piece of legislation, and I would certainly hope that the House will continue to support it unanimously.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am really pleased to take a call this evening on this particular bill, which I spoke on in the second reading. I am not a member of this particular select committee, the Justice Committee, but I want to acknowledge Jo Hayes and the work that she’s put into steering this bill through the House. I also want to acknowledge the committee and the work that they have done in getting this bill to the House. I really enjoy speaking on bills that have cross-party support across the House. I think that it’s really great, particularly also for the public to see how well we can work together on issues such as these that are really important issues, particularly because they affect our young people here in New Zealand.

There is no place here for forced marriage in Aotearoa. This bill is about protecting our young people—our 16- and 17-year-olds. They are quite vulnerable, particularly at that age. They face so many pressures, so many outward social pressures—pressures to achieve at school, if they’re at school, work, etc.—so I think that this bill goes a long way to afford them some protection. It gives them a voice; a voice when they may not necessarily feel that they have a voice of their own accord, particularly if they are in a situation where they may be being forced into a marriage—and that type of situation. That could be a really scary step for them to try and say no, when they don’t feel that they can. So this enables them to be able to do that. It gives them a voice to be able to do that.

I particularly like, in the bill, where it talks about the judge being able to request a cultural report. I think it’s really important, particularly in this day and age, that they have those made available to them so they can have a really good picture of this particular young person and the culture that they come from and the cultural values that their family hold dear. My question around that would be, though, as far as the cultural report, after they’ve taken into account that report, what is the purpose from there on in of that report? I know that they can go to parents and get their opinions and advice, but it doesn’t affect the overall determination necessarily, or can’t sway the overall determination of the judge and their decision. So I’m quite interested to know where that cultural report fits in to that perspective.

I also think it’s really important that this bill also takes into account de facto relationships, because at this stage a de facto relationship is not a legally recognised relationship unless there is a signed consent from the parents of the young person. I think that by enabling de facto relationships to be a part of this bill it works really well, in so far as we have people that could still be coerced into a de facto relationship if it wasn’t part of this legislation—therefore it could have been used in a way to go against what this legislation is trying to prevent and put in place. So I think that’s a really important part to have in this particular piece of legislation.

I also think that it’s a really important point in this legislation that a judge will take into account whether these young people are making this decision of their own free will—that they’re not being coerced into it—and that they do take into account a person’s age, a person’s maturity, whether this marriage will be in the best interests of this young person, and that they’re not going to be taken advantage of in any way.

As a parent, I think about my daughter at the age of 16—I’m not saying this all happens just particularly to young women, but predominantly, I think, it is likely to happen to young women. I would hate to think of my daughter or her friends being in a situation where they are forced into a marriage where they may be subject to violence, where they don’t feel that they can speak up and have a voice and air their concerns or their fears about being in this particular marriage—a forced marriage of sorts.

I really, again, commend Jo Hayes on the work that she’s put into this, and I commend this bill to the committee.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure to speak in this committee stage debate on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. That’s probably a good place to start, given that that’s a change in title. When our colleague Jo Hayes actually submitted this bill to the Parliament, it was called the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. So it’s really important, I guess, to focus on this concept of formal relationships, and also legally recognise relationships, which is in fact what this piece of legislation now does.

I know that when we started on this journey, actually it was about joining an international call to end child brides. In most jurisdictions, we had marriage, and so the original intention was to make sure that young girls—that is, anyone under the age of 18 but over the age of 16—who could get married actually did so in a manner that reassured us that they had given informed consent and that no harm was being done to that young woman.

Internationally, we know that much harm is done to young women who marry early. A lot of the times, young women marry early and have not good lives, actually—lives full of abuse and family violence. And I’m speaking “internationally” now, from a global context, which is why the UN and a whole lot of other organisations want to end child brides—there are a few others; I’ll have to google and find them. But the reality of what the amendments have done within the context of New Zealand is actually to make it applicable to our country. So, because we have more than marriage available to people who want to formalise their relationships, obviously an extension to include civil unions is absolutely merited. And, in some ways, it made absolute sense and it was just something we hadn’t thought about, because we had only just thought about marriage. So everybody, I think, universally, could understand why this bill then became applicable not only to marriages but to civil unions.

I think a lot of people, initially, were not quite sure about the de facto aspect of it all, because actually you don’t need the law’s permission to have a de facto relationship. But, actually, the relevance is in how we as a country view de facto relationships. And how we view de facto relationships, which is a real quirk of our culture, is that, actually, you can be in a formal, committed relationship and not have been married. So the reason that we have chosen to include those in a de facto relationship in New Zealand is because they are legally recognised relationships. The State, therefore, has responsibilities to people who are in de facto relationships, and what we wanted to ensure—and I should read directly from the Justice Committee report: “Excluding one legally recognised relationship could also be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1993, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status.” So I wanted to emphasise the rationale of the select committee, and also the fact that we use human rights legislation and human rights principles when we’re making these types of amendments. It was great to see the discussion and debate among the select committee. I know that my colleague Jo Hayes and I had a few conversations about this because, when it was initially proposed, we were a little bit unsure about where it had come from. But, having read the report from the select committee and now understanding the rationale, it makes absolute sense; so, well done, select committee, for those particular amendments.

I want to focus on the issue about requiring court consent for 16- and 17-year-olds wanting to enter these legally recognised relationships. Others have focused on replacement section 18 and the requirement now to go through the courts, and, I guess, the jurisdiction of the Family Court and the Family Court judge in determining, from my perspective, whether or not the young person has the ability to give informed consent and to ascertain whether or not a young person does have the ability to give informed consent. There is a level of engagement between that judge and that young person, and it has been outlined and highlighted within the select committee report—the age and maturity, their views, any views of the parties’ parents and guardians that can be reasonably ascertained, because, at the heart of this piece of legislation, is, as my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki highlighted, our duty of care to our children, and we have to make sure that our children are not being abused, they’re not being coerced, and they’re not being, I guess, led down a pathway where, potentially, really negative consequences would follow them for the rest of their lives.

Those ethical principles of informed consent and do no harm are fundamental to changing who the consenting entity should be in a situation where a young person aged 16 or 17 wants to formalise their relationship. So I wanted to acknowledge those ethical principles, because, I think, when you implement principles and philosophies like that, what they’re intended to do is to keep people safe—keep the young person safe, keep us safe as a society, because we wouldn’t want to have situations where, actually, our young people have been abused.

We know that this issue is an interesting one because it has made us also look at arranged marriages or cultural marriages, marriages where people are marrying overseas, coming back to New Zealand, and there are immigration issues. We know, through our work with Shakti, that some of those issues are actually quite complex in some ways, but we are aware, and need to be aware, within that whole area, what our obligations are, I guess, when we allow people to come into New Zealand under relationship visas—what the implications are, particularly for those young women who then come, because I have seen evidence recently of young women being dumped. They are brought in after arrangements in other jurisdictions. I think that there is more to do in this area, to be quite honest. What this bill also does is provide a focus about what we think is important as a country.

I, too, want to make a comment about the specific requirement of a cultural report. We should go back to the origins of this piece of legislation, in 2012. It was presented, initially, to this House by Dr Jackie Blue, who was then a National list MP based in Mt Roskill. Her whole motivation for bringing this bill to the House was her engagement with the Indian community—an ethnic community within a community that she served—and their highlighting to her the issues that that community have, and her desire to do something about the situation that was currently happening. So the fact that we will require, or the judge may obtain, a cultural report is incredibly relevant to this area because we know that there are some communities within our New Zealand communities that are disproportionately affected by the current state. So we should acknowledge that, and we should also acknowledge, I guess, the advocacy that we’ve seen from groups like Shakti—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Priyanca’s here.

LOUISA WALL: And Priyanca’s here. I can acknowledge my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who’s worked for Shakti. I know she can speak more eloquently about some of the stories she knows from our community.

But, again, I just want to highlight that explicitly putting in legislation the value, the importance of culture, the relevance of culture, again just highlights, I believe, how progressive we are as a country, how inclusive we are as a country, and I want to commend the select committee for the work that they’ve done to make sure that the relevance of these changes actually reflects the needs within our own society. Thank you.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the first time I’ve spoken on this bill. Listening to the speeches this evening has raised a number of questions in my mind. Partly it raises questions because I have 17-year-old daughters myself, twins. They’re very precious to me. One of the things I know about them is that they do take notice of what I say, they do take notice of what I want, and I know that as their mother I am in a position to influence them deeply. Again, of course, partly too because as the adults in the household, my husband—their father—and I, the two of us, we have—and there’s no other way to put this—enormous power over them, as most parents do over their children. We can influence them deeply. I really understand the need for this particular bill. I congratulate Jo Hayes on the work she has done in getting this bill to this stage. I’m delighted to see that members of this committee are supporting this unanimously.

What I’m interested in is the cultural report. The New Zealand I grew up in was pretty homogenous. We, I guess, didn’t even really see the difference with respect to Māori, to the tangata whenua. We’ve learned a lot better, thank goodness. But the New Zealand we live in now has many different cultures and ethnicities. Of course those different cultures bring different understandings of what families are and the obligations of families. I’m finding this is worrying me, in a sense, in this particular bill. We come from—I do—a very individualistic culture where we do expect people to make decisions for themselves. But I do know that in some other cultures, in actual fact, family ties are very important—that what the family wants really does override what the individual wants. I suppose I’m faintly worried that in obtaining this cultural report we might be imposing western individualist values on cultures which do hold family values more dear.

That’s not to say that I think that those adults in those cultures should override the rights of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. I certainly don’t think that. But I am worried about the understandings which will be brought to the cultural report. In particular if I look at, I think it’s replacement section 20 of the Marriage Act, which is inserted by clause 8 in the bill, where subsection (1) says the “Judge may obtain a written cultural report by … requesting a person whom the Judge considers qualified for [that] purpose …”. That’s the question that’s being raised in my mind.

Look, I know our judges work hard. I know they are people of great probity. I know that judges who work in the Family Court necessarily consider a whole range of difficult issues. But I also know that for the most part those judges in the Family Court do come from the same westernised, individualist culture that I come from. So when we’re talking about how the judge considers the person to be appropriately qualified, I guess I’m interested in how we will ensure that judges are in a good position to make a good decision about that. It’s one of those things you could keep on going back and back and back, but I’m interested in hearing how a judge might go about assessing whether or not a person is qualified—assessing, I guess, their own competence to make that judgment, and what sort of resources a judge might think of calling on with respect to finding someone who is in a position to write that cultural report. And, I guess, in terms of that cultural report, I wonder if—I suppose a judge could request this, but maybe other advice if needed.

So I think there’s a whole set of issues to be explored there, none of which should stop this going through. I support the whole concept of this bill and the concept of a cultural report, but I am interested in some of the issues around that report and what could be done to address them. I would hope that the honourable member whose bill this is, who’s worked so hard on it, will perhaps be able to enlighten me and to give me a little bit of reassurance around some of those areas to make sure that all the cultures, all the ethnicities, in what I hope is our increasingly tolerant society will continue to coexist peacefully together in this country.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you very much. I just want to extend my thanks to everybody who has contributed to this part of the process of the bill going through to its third reading.

I’m standing just to answer some of the questions that have been asked of me tonight, and I hope that the responses that I give—although there will be some responses that I won’t be able to give in full detail because I don’t know, and that’s around the work of the Family Court and how a judge actually works out who is going to do the cultural report. For me to get up and say—that would be usurping the role of the courts, and it’s not the role, I believe, of members of Parliament to be able to tell judges how to do their job. So I trust the Family Court judges will carry through with their due diligence, because it will be their due diligence in being able to assess the applications from young people.

We must understand that this bill has a very narrow focus and where it actually came from, and how the narrow focus was brought about—as the member Louisa Wall outlined in her contribution—was from a meeting in which Jackie Blue was approached by Shakti over the issues that were facing young migrant women. So that’s where this bill stemmed from.

The first question that Anahila asked—how long the decision from the Family Court would take to get, from the time the application is received to when whatever the decision of the Family Court judge will be. As I said in the start of my speech, I don’t know, because there are the processes of the Family Court and it will be up to them as to how long the process will take. And it will be the information that is collected or given to the judge at the time and the discussions that they have.

The Hon Andrew Little asked what the numbers were that we were talking about, and, over time, there are around about 60 cases that we know of. There could be more, but those are the ones that have come. The reason that we brought this bill to the House is because we wanted to prevent something that has the potential to blow out of proportion. This is Aotearoa New Zealand. We have rules and our own culture here, and this is the way that globally the world is going as well. It is about the protection of the child, and, specifically, the female child.

Jo Luxton, the MP, asked what would happen after the cultural report. As I said, this is at the discretion of the Family Court judge, and that person will make that decision on the next process of the application.

So I’m hoping that I have been able to answer all your questions. A lot of it is with the Family Court judge, with the Family Courts, and, as I’ve said before in my opening contribution, in answering your questions I’m not here to usurp any of the processes of the Family Court or a Family Court judge. So kia ora, and thank you all again for your contributions.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the member, I just want to just advise the committee that we’ve had a lot of contribution around the cultural report, replacement section 20 of the Marriage Act in clause 8. I’m looking for some other arguments, bearing in mind that the member has given some answers to questions asked.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, before we broke earlier, I spoke a fair bit about the title and the need for the change, which came about, really, through some pretty involved discussions that we had at the Justice Committee around the three different types of legal relationships that this bill will address or make changes to. I spoke a little bit, or briefly, about the history, the journey that this bill has undertaken to get to the committee today, so I won’t reiterate any of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Good. That’s encouraging.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: But what I will say—I wanted to touch a little bit on the intent of this bill in its three different forms. I think I had just started to talk about the fact that marriages and civil unions are more straightforward examples of legally recognised relationships, but it was really that third area that we talked about and we discussed at select committee, which I’ve got to say didn’t really enter our consciousness, in a sense. And I’m speaking on behalf of those I’ve worked with, the women I’ve worked with who have been in this position prior to when I entered Parliament. De facto relationships are less clear. Legal recognition of de facto doesn’t usually include the State, and that’s the discussion that we had at select committee that led to the change in what this bill is called today, basically.

I started talking about why that’s important, and I thought I’d just like to finish that bit, as it were. The reason that it’s important to include de facto relationships in this bill, as it does now, is because there were and there are cultural or customary marriages that still take place within a number of the different ethnic communities in which this practice is predominant. And I guess the danger of leaving de facto relationships out of the ambit of the bill is that if we close two loopholes—namely, marriages and civil unions—such that a Family Court judge has to be satisfied that there is consent on both parts but we don’t touch de facto, which is where, initially, we were going at the select committee level, that means that there is another loophole wherein parents who want to force their children into marriage could then ensure that there’s a cultural, religious, or customary marriage that takes place—generally, in a place of worship—and a de facto relationship ensues, and the two 16- to 17-year-olds live together. That would actually allow for some of the motivations that sit behind forced marriage at the start.

There’s often a sense that parents who force their children into marriage are doing so for some sort of monetary gain. In some cases that is true, but I just wanted to outline some of the reasons or some of the rationales that sit behind this—not condoning the practice at all, because forced marriages are a form of violence against women, a form of gender-based violence.

I just want to make clear at this point that it’s not a cultural issue and it’s not a religious issue. No major religion in the world condones this; neither does any culture per se. There are women’s rights groups from all the countries where ethnic communities hail from in New Zealand. There are women’s rights groups within those countries and within those communities here in New Zealand that fight against this issue. So it’s not a cultural or a religious thing, and we need to make sure that we don’t tar entire communities with the same brush when we’re talking about this. As in any form of domestic violence or gender-based violence, it’s a small group of people from those ethnicities that promulgate this, and there are a few different reasons that sit behind it.

I’ve worked with a number of young people who might have come to New Zealand at a young age. As they grow up here, in a culture, in a society, that may be quite different and might have very different norms to what they’re used to or what their parents were used to back home, they fall into a space where, in a sense, they’re caught between these two worlds. I’ve worked with young girls who’ve gone to school here, have gone to work here—different ways of dressing, maybe going out with boys that may be frowned upon by sort of more strict, more rigid gender norms that are practised back in the family or in the society that they come from. Therein lies issues—not always; it doesn’t always result in violence, but sometimes it does, and it’s used as a means to control. [Time expired]

Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Priyanca Radhakrishnan—and can we confine that a little bit more.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yeah, yeah; sure. This also does go a little bit to the cultural report aspect of things, because it’s often used to control women and girls.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have stated I don’t need any more argument on cultural report. We’ve had sufficient. If you could find some other arguments, that would be great.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yeah—no, that’s fine. I will move on. So anyway, that’s part of what sits behind the intent of this bill. The other thing, of course, is there are immigration ramifications and there are monetary ramifications as well, and I’ve worked with young women who have been in that situation, as well.

There is one point that I wanted to seek clarification on, or to make. So Part 1 of this bill amends the Marriage Act, and that was to close the loophole that I mentioned earlier where parental consent will no longer be required, but it would be a Family Court judge who would provide that. Now it says in replacement section 18(4) in clause 8 that “A Family Court judge may, on receipt of an application made under subsection (3), consent to the intended marriage only if the Judge is satisfied that, for each party to the intended marriage aged 16 or 17 years,—”, and it goes on to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), which basically say that both parties are free of coercion, that both parties understand the consequence of the application and want the judge to consent to the marriage, and that it’s in the interests of both parties.

I wanted to bring to the attention of this committee the fact that submitters at the select committee stage had made the point that this bill should potentially look at outlining what the Family Court judge should look into and what constitutes being satisfied in the Family Court. At the select committee, I think we felt that that was probably not within the ambit of this bill particularly, but it is an important point. I say this because there is very limited understanding generally about the definition, the nature, and the context of forced marriage.

I know that because that’s actually what led to the Master’s thesis that I wrote, because with every young woman I worked with, when I worked with Government agencies or non-governmental agencies, we always started from ground zero because no one quite understood how it was different from an arranged marriage or the context in which it happened, which then meant that these agencies couldn’t undertake a robust risk analysis. This means that young women’s lives are in danger, so we do need to make sure that Family Court judges do understand the context of forced marriage, what it means, and how much of a risk these young people’s lives are often in when they’re in that situation, and this bill doesn’t lay out how the judge will do this. So I am interested in getting a little bit of clarification around how that will happen.

I know that we have already talked about cultural reports quite a bit, but I just want to make one quick point, if I may, which is that, usually, Family Court judges will ask for a cultural report from someone from that culture, whether it’s the ethnicity or the religion that the applicant is from. But whose version do we listen to, because even within, for example, the Indian community, there have been numerous media reports over the years where people from some of the cultural organisations are unaware that this is happening because it’s so under the radar. So if there’s a cultural report from someone who’s not aware that this is an issue, that report will look quite different from the report of the women’s rights activists, for example, who are dealing with this issue day in, day out.

So that’s the second point that I wanted to make, and both are incredibly important because they deal with the safety of young women and, at the end of the day, women’s lives. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Parts 1 to 4, schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 June.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on the second reading of the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill.

It appears that two patterns are emerging out of this Government in its approach to legislation. One is an aversion to targets, albeit this aversion is somewhat equivocal. We’ve had examples of where there has been dispensing with targets—

Hon Kris Faafoi: I know where there’s one target—the chair to your right.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that may be true, but the radar is well off, Mr Faafoi, I think—well off. We’ve had Better Public Services targets where the previous Government had worked really hard to set an ambitious target for what it saw were really, really important measures of improving the lot of New Zealanders. Of course, we’ve had the national health targets, which were introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2007, and which have somehow been swept under the carpet for the foreseeable future. But it is equivocal, and I mention that in the context of child poverty reduction because, whereas health targets were not necessary or appropriate in the mind of Dr Clark, apparently, according to the Prime Minister, a child poverty reduction target is absolutely vital, to the point where the Government is introducing legislation to give effect to that.

Now, this bill is, in itself, a target. The target is to have 100 percent—all—of our newborn babies enrolled with general practice after their birth, and I think that’s a really, really important target, particularly when we’ve heard, as a select committee, that up to a third of our newborn babies are not being enrolled in general practice. That’s important, because the Health Committee heard from a number of submitters on this, not the least of which was the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, and Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith was quoted in research that she did, when she talked about a study that found that non-enrolment of infants at birth with a general practice is a significant factor in delayed or missed immunisations—notably, “infants with no nominated general practice significantly reduced the overall coverage rate for the region, making”—interestingly—“the general practices look as though they were performing less well than they were.”

Indeed, the report from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service went on to talk about not only supporting this bill and its goal of ensuring that 100 percent of our newborns are enrolled with general practice; they went on to recommend that the scope of the bill be widened to include provisions requiring the lead maternity carer to notify the nominated general practice that a woman has booked with them to receive pregnancy care—that’s not presently a requirement; it’s certainly best practice—and they went on to say why that was important.

Now, the Ministry of Health gave us data on the number of newborns that were enrolled, which surprised me, I have to say, in how low they were. Then they also explained why this could be difficult for general practice. One of the reasons was a lack of familiarity with the family—which is quite right—but surely it is a reason to require this, not to not require it, because if one enrols the newborn, by connection other siblings and the newborn’s parents are almost certainly going to be enrolled as well. When we think about the sorts of preventable illnesses that occur when families are not connected with family practices, that strikes me as an extremely important and necessary step.

The ministry also told us that this bill, in their view—and this was kind of parroting the Labour position—was not necessary because they were going to set targets for district health boards (DHBs) to achieve themselves, only the targets that they mentioned were incredibly flaccid. As I said, we’re already at somewhere in the region of 67 or 68 percent—not nearly good enough. They wanted to set a target for DHBs of 55 percent for this year.

Dan Bidois: That’s too low.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s far too low—so a six-week target that’s fully 12 percent less than what we’re doing without setting targets. Well, that hardly strikes me as something that would be aspirational, and it leaves nearly half of newborns not in the target for enrolment.

So this was a good idea. It needn’t have cost much. The sanctions for non-compliance were reasonably light, but it set a really clear expectation that this Parliament supported and wanted to lift the health of our youngest—our, arguably, most vulnerable—at a time when they needed the care of family practices the most. It’s really disappointing that after supporting it at first reading, when they had the chance in Government to continue to collaborate with the Opposition and with Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who came up with a really good idea, the Government has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that this is not important to them. It is not a priority that our newest New Zealanders—our youngest; those needing healthcare the most, with immunisations and health checks in their early weeks of life—would not be supported by setting a clear expectation that their enrolment with general practice was necessary and appropriate. It is, indeed, extremely disappointing.

We have a few speeches to go. I hope the Government parties can find it in their hearts to support a sensible bill that will improve the health of these babies, and I hope we can still do that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just before I call the member, I just apologise that the time clocks have gone out in the Chamber, but you can rest assured that I will let you know when your time is getting close.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak on the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill as the chair of the Health Committee and to acknowledge, in the first instance, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. She engaged with the select committee in a very robust manner. She attended as many select committee meetings as she could. She heard from submitters. I think we engaged in a genuine process of trying to understand what her intention was but also what was already happening within the health system, within the health sector, to address the purpose of her bill, and I will read out some of the Health Committee’s report. The bill’s purpose actually was “to increase immunisation rates and to promote the early detection of any health or social problems” via being enrolled before immunisations are due at six weeks of age.

So the intention of the legislation, as my colleague Michael Woodhouse has already highlighted, is very good, and in fact I do want to acknowledge that we did support it at the first reading. Currently, the Ministry of Health has a target which is that 95 percent of newborns will have had, by the age of eight months, the primary course of immunisations: the six-week immunisations, the three-month immunisations, and the five-month immunisations. So already built into our immunisation system and the immunisation targets is actually a three-month lag, and so what we acknowledge is an issue within the system about the timeliness of immunisations, and I do want to acknowledge that the best way to ensure that our babies are being immunised on time is for them to be captured within a system. So I acknowledge that. The select committee acknowledged that. The ministry acknowledged that. Everyone did. But I think it then becomes incumbent on us to look at what the system’s actually currently doing.

The two performance measures that the Ministry of Health committed to through the select committee process, to fulfil some of the obligations we have to make sure our children are registered with a GP and do receive their immunisations in a timely fashion, were related to the performance measures that the ministry currently oversees through the district health board (DHB) annual plans. Through those DHB annual plans there is engagement through primary health organisation (PHO) service agreements, and they would ensure the reporting and monitoring via the National Enrolment Service for the system to actually work.

So the commitment we got from the ministry was that we needed a more joined-up system where the ministry was clearer about what the objectives we’re seeking were and they then directed the DHBs. The DHBs would then direct the PHOs, and then the PHOs would actually have some of those conversations—which my colleague Michael Woodhouse just highlighted—about who the families are. We were aware, through the National Enrolment Service and the coordination of the system, who was in the system, who wasn’t in the system, and what we could do about it.

So the ministry did propose targets of 55 percent enrolment by six weeks, and I just want to note that in 2010, the enrolment rate for six-week-olds was less than 1 percent, and, at that time, the enrolment rate for three-month-olds was 50 percent. So that was the other part of the commitment from the ministry—that they would set a target of 80 percent enrolment by three months. I say this to highlight those systemic solutions, because, in fact, the ministry has been working on this issue since 2012, under the previous Government. They actually implemented a preliminary enrolment policy, and that policy actually enabled the pre-enrolment of babies after notification from the National Immunisation Register. So the issue of enrolling our babies early with a primary provider, making sure they were in the system so that they could receive immunisations and actually enjoy being in a system where we’re going to detect any health and social problems, has been a focus of the ministry for a long time now.

So, I guess, then, we considered the proposition of this bill and actually legislating for health targets. We do have to wonder whether or not this is the best mechanism. Imagine if we have to do that for every health target: have a piece of legislation, go through the process, and actually find out what the ministry is already doing, as opposed to working with the ministry and, I guess, holding them accountable—and we have committed through the Health Committee to actually hold the Ministry of Health accountable for the implementation of these objectives and this regime of PHO service agreements and DHB annual plans. We have committed as a select committee to asking for regular reports from the Ministry of Health, so I think we’re fully justified in not supporting the bill. But now that I can actually acknowledge Dr Parmar, I would like to say that I commend her for her focus on children, and for wanting to enhance the beginnings of life for our children.

We know, and I know, actually, through previous work on the Health Committee, that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are incredibly important. So what this bill was aiming to do, which was to make sure that every single New Zealand child was enrolled and was receiving the care that they need, was valuable and it’s something that we’re committed to, but I think the mechanism of doing that—and particularly within an interesting context. We did have some discussions about the fact that at the end of the day, parents can choose not to enrol their child. This bill in no way wanted to address that, because if we really wanted to, we could have made it a legal requirement for a parent to enrol their child at six weeks of age. It was discussed, and it was something that the committee—and particularly the member in charge of the bill—didn’t want to do, because we didn’t want to then have to enforce that and create a regime where, potentially, parents were going to be breaking the law because they didn’t enrol their child.

So we had some very interesting discussions at the select committee. We also had discussions about capacity and the fact that sometimes a notice had been sent to a particular provider about taking the child but, because of capacity issues, those providers couldn’t take the child—and then whose responsibility was it to follow up? So I think we’re reassured, as a Government, because of the commitment that the ministry has had in this area since 2012, and because of the commitments that they gave the select committee. I want to credit those to the member in charge of the bill, because we wouldn’t have got those commitments out of the ministry if this bill wasn’t presented to the House.

So I would like to say that the member in charge of this bill has created good change, and that good change will see more children enrolled with a provider so that they can receive the care that they need. Fundamentally, we disagree with health targets being legislated for, but we 100 percent support the purpose, the intention, and the rationale of why our children need to be enrolled and cared for by our public health system. Kia ora.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe. It’s my pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and speak on the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill. It is my pleasure, on behalf of my party, to do so.

I would just like to begin my contribution on this and acknowledge my colleague from Labour Louisa Wall for her work inside the Health Committee. Not being on that committee, it was interesting to hear your kōrero this evening about the processes you went through on the select committee, and just noting the amount of work you did on this bill and also the fact that the ministry has already been working on the enrolment of babies and getting that into a timely manner and also to help in that process of detecting any health issues that may come by having children and newborn babies enrolled in an early time frame. I also, too, note that the committee has asked for regular reports to come back from the ministry as we proceed into the future, ensuring that we get as many babies enrolled as we can.

Babies—they are amazing. All of those in the House who are parents know that when you have a brand new baby, it’s like the beginning of all things. It’s the wonder and the hope and all those emotions and all that untapped potential, all wrapped up inside that bundle of joy. That’s a really beautiful space to be in—inside that baby bubble—and we know that the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, in fact, in the last few weeks has experienced that and shared that with all of us here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Just looking at this bill, the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill—what actually will the bill do? It will ensure that the newborns are enrolled with their general practice and a primary health organisation (PHO) before six weeks of age. Now, that is, coincidentally, a very critical time in a baby’s life. It also coincides with that first immunisation, for those parents that do choose, in fact, to immunise their children. It kind of streamlines all of that process. That lead maternity caregiver—maybe it’s the midwife—will consult with the family and have a discussion about what kind of GP they think their family should be part of and where their newborn baby should go, and then they will send off that pre-enrolment form to connect with that general practice or primary health organisation. That GP organisation then has two weeks to ensure the enrolment takes place, and if for some reason they aren’t able to have that baby be part of their practice, then they’ll be required to assist that family in finding another general practice in which to enrol, and that should really be somewhere close to the residence of where that newborn baby is.

So that is, literally, the bill in a nutshell. New Zealand First supported the bill to select committee. However, unfortunately, now we will oppose the bill, based on the findings from the select committee. This really is a credit to the democratic process and the input that we’ve had in the select committee through the key industry stakeholders.

I’d just like to look at some of those submissions that came in, and I note that, yes, there were a number of submissions in support of this bill. As someone—and I’ll just read out a couple here now—who has been a new mum three times, this person wanted to say that “this is a really nice idea. However, getting out of a house with a newborn [baby] can be very difficult and even harder if there are older siblings to take.” That puts a lot of strain on the mother, finding it a little bit of hard work to get out, and particularly for some mums who end up being in hospital for an extended period of time if there are some complications with the birth of their baby or with the baby itself.

Another submission said it was very sensible and very practical “When GPs first make contact with the parents that they make them aware that visits for children are free of charge,”. Now, that’s really important. Some people aren’t aware that they can have free medical care for their babies, and, if there is a charge, what that cost is. So those facts are before the family right from the get-go, and that can allay a lot of fear for some of those people.

There were other submissions which were not in support of this bill—they were against the bill. One here says that “This bill concerns me as there needs to be an option to make the informed decision not to [enrol with] a GP at all as one of our human rights is to make our own decisions around our health and the health of our children free of coercion. If we’re forced to [enrol] our children with a General Practice our rights are in jeopardy.” So we have a range of varying opinions. “According to the New Zealand Bill of Rights”, this other submission says, “point 11 states that Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment [and] enforcing enrolment to a PHO before 6 weeks of age infringes on the right of parents to choose how they care for their newborn’s health. Especially when they are still vulnerable from just having given birth not long ago.” They went on to say that this “stinks of nanny state”.

Also, some submissions are against the fact that vaccinations are tied into the enrolment of newborns, particularly around the six-week time frame, when the first immunisations are due. So those that are against vaccination didn’t like to have that put upon them. Another submission, which I thought was interesting, came from a rural GP obstetrician, which went on to say that “Further imposition of poorly drafted legislation will just add to GP frustration and the on-going exodus [of GPs from rural areas].”

So those are some of the submissions for and against on the bill. I’d just like to refer back to what the previous speaker had to say, regarding measures that have already been put in place to improve newborn enrolment and the fact that more changes are under way. In 2012, the ministry implemented a preliminary enrolment policy to improve newborn enrolments. Now, prior to this policy change, fewer than half of the newborns were enrolled with a general practice by the time they were three months old, and the NES data—that’s the national enrolment system—from October to December in 2017 shows that 75 percent of babies were enrolled by that time. I’d also like to reiterate the point that we heard just previously that the select committee has resolved to monitor to the ministry’s progress towards implementing these actions and achieving better newborn enrolment and the committee is also asking the ministry for updates on its actions with the rates of newborn enrolment in around 12 months’ time.

So, really, it’s just a short contribution from me this evening, as not being part of the Health Committee. I would like to actually make comment that the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill is well-intentioned, and that I would like to extend my sympathy to Dr Parmjeet Parmar for having her member’s bill to this stage. That is something to be proud of, but, really, because she wasn’t able—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Will the member take his seat, please.

JENNY MARCROFT: —in the last Parliament—to get the previous Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman, to show any kind of leadership in the health sector, it was unfortunate that she wasn’t able to gather his support at that time. So, just in conclusion, this coalition Government has been clear that we will restore the shortfall that the previous Government left in health. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, you know when a Government is in trouble when it has to filibuster a committee stage of a member’s bill that had full support of the House. It even got worse when one member got up and told us her experience of completing an essay at university. I remember the day when the Labour Party was people who had work. They were working people; not pontificating academics telling us how to live. What’s happened to the Labour Party? If a Labour Party doesn’t look out for the vulnerable, who does? That is exactly what the Canterbury District Health Board said. When they put in their submission for this bill, they said legislating this process with shorter time frames will increase the relationship and improve it between the parents and the primary health organisations, particularly for vulnerable population groups.

If the Labour Party and a Labour Government are not going to stick up for vulnerable people, what are they doing? What are they doing in Government? Here we have a bill that they’re voting down purely for political reasons.

Look at the editorial in the Sunday Star-Times by Stacey Kirk on the weekend: “Stealth in health undermining Government—politics the overriding protocol”, and that’s exactly what we had: filibustering a member’s bill that had support across the House. Why? It’s because they don’t want any bills being pulled out of the ballot. Imagine if it was Dr Shane Reti’s medicinal cannabis bill. How embarrassed were they today? It says volumes of a Government that would be embarrassed by members’ bills getting pulled out of the ballot.

Out of every speech we’ve had tonight, not one of those members has provided any evidence why this legislation would not work—not one bit of evidence. What they try and do is recant. Yes, the Ministry of Health said, “We’ve already got a policy in place.” Well, that’s actually proof of why we need this legislation. The policy is only having an enrolment of 75 percent, and sometimes less than 66 percent. On top of that, the Canterbury District Health Board did the work the Government should have done and drilled down on the data, and, in fact, there’s a discrepancy even within the data, because some young people who are presenting as enrolled—2,589 were actually not enrolled. They were nominated for a general practitioner, but had not been enrolled.

All we’re asking for here is that the lead maternity carer sends an enrolment request to a GP and they enrol a young person. How tough is that? And, oh, if they’ve got full workloads, they can re-refer that young person to another GP. That’s all we’re asking for.

I think Stacey Kirk was right: stealth in health undermining Government—politics overriding protocol. That’s exactly what this Government’s doing in voting down this bill and preventing vulnerable young people being enrolled, and why do we know they need to be enrolled? All the evidence shows that if you are enrolled with a GP, immunisation rates go up and health and social outcomes are improved. Tell me one party that doesn’t want that, because I can see three.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to talk on this bill, which has been a really interesting one for a first-time MP, because it’s the first bill that the Health Committee has actually taken right through the submission stage. It’s been also really interesting because both sides within the Health Committee completely agree on what we want it to achieve. What we want to achieve is all newborn babies enrolled with a general practice by six weeks of age, and also we want to make it as smooth as possible. As you can see by the debate, though, where we diverged is at what we needed to do to do that, because we believe that a lot of the stuff that this bill proposes is actually already happening.

But, first, let’s talk about why we need to enrol babies early. I think the most important thing is getting those first vaccinations in on time, particularly in the case of pertussis, or whooping cough. When I used to work on the children’s wards, we’d often see little babies coming in with pertussis. The problem you’ve got is in the community: a lot of people’s vaccinations sort of wear off and so we don’t have a herd immunity, and these little babies can get really, really sick and they end up in hospital requiring oxygen and they can stay there for weeks at a time. So getting those vaccinations in early is really important.

But the other thing that we want to make sure is that it’s as easy for parents as possible, because the problems you’ve got those first six weeks, even for experienced parents, are particularly challenging. The issue is even for people that have had several kids, getting over a long, difficult birth can take quite a while, establishing that breastfeeding, getting up in the middle of the night, those nightly two-hourly, three-hourly feeds, and also if you’ve got other kids—trying to juggle all of that.

I think the other thing is, if it’s your first time, there are a whole lot of those questions—how do I stop my baby crying; is all that vomiting too much or is that just like normal—and I think, when you’re juggling with all of that in those first six weeks, the last thing you want to do is go through a whole lot of complex paperwork. I think the second thing you’re actually wanting to worry about is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop bringing me in.

Dr LIZ CRAIG: —OK, if indeed—sorry. What parents are worrying about is if indeed that vomiting is actually too much, then who do you go and talk to about it, and you need a primary care practitioner or a GP identified so you can go along.

So we agreed on what we wanted to achieve, but where we diverged is what we want to do about that situation. What we think is that a lot of this is actually happening already, because what the bill is proposing actually duplicates a lot of the processes that already happen when a baby is born and they start to do a pre-enrolment with a GP. So it was interesting listening to some of the submissions.

Thinking through, the two submissions I took most credence from were from the practitioner groups that actually have the most to do with newborn enrolment, and they were the College of Midwives—because they’re there, day in, day out, looking after those mums—and the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. What I want to do is just read you some of the quotes from their submissions.

So what the college of GPs said is, “the College is of the view that the Bill is not necessary. … The Bill is not accompanied by any financial support or incentives.” Further, “there [are] no enforcement mechanisms [or] sanctions, which raise questions about its value. It appears the Bill is primarily a guide, rather than a compulsory measure. Guidance on timeliness of newborn enrolment already exists.”

Similarly, the College of Midwives—because these are the ones that are looking after those mums before baby is born and once baby is born—“the College does is not fully understand what this proposed bill is intending to introduce that is different [from] what already occurs. It appears that the proposed bill is not based on a clear understanding of current processes and structures that are already in place.”

So if new legislation isn’t necessary, then what should we be doing? I think the problem is that much of what the bill proposes actually is already happening. In 2012, they introduced a pre-enrolment system and what that meant is that all newborn babies needed to have their information, including their parents’ preferred GP, entered into the National Immunisation Register (NIR). Then what the NIR does is it automatically pings that GP’s practice and says, “Would you accept this baby?” Then GPs are encouraged to get back within two weeks and accept the baby into their practice, or, if they don’t, then they decline. Before the system was set up, less than half of newborn babies were enrolled with a GP by three months of age, but once the system was in place—by 2017, the latest data we’ve got—75 percent of newborns are now enrolled with a GP by three months of age. So we’ve seen huge improvements over that time just with putting these processes in place.

But there are reasons why we are getting some delays, and that’s probably why not all babies are enrolled by six weeks. Some of them are because the GPs are just a little bit slow in getting back and accepting their patients, but, in other cases, the GP doesn’t actually know the mother, and so they may not wish to take on the patient. We’ve also got a lot of practices where you’ve got a lot of heavy workload, and if the practice is full, then the patients get declined.

The College of Midwives, in their submission, also talked about the fact that you’ve got a lot of families that are moving around a lot, and so it becomes a bit of an issue to get them enrolled with one GP. Also, they were saying that there was a subgroup of families who actually don’t want to engage with health services, and that is their choice.

So the problem we’ve got is that adding a whole layer of legislation on top of this is not likely to fix it because some of the problems are stemming from the fact that we’ve got a shortage of some GPs in some areas, and that’s what’s underpinning the decline rate. In other cases, the question is: can we ethically introduce legislation that forces parents to enrol their babies? We, on this side of the House, don’t think that we want to be doing that.

So what do we actually want to do? Well, our preferred option is for the Ministry of Health to work with district health boards (DHBs), primary health organisations (PHOs) and general practices to continue to improve that timeliness of enrolment. We’ve done that before with things like immunisation rates, where we have concerted efforts and we’re looking at streamlining our processes. At the Health Committee, the ministry had told us that they were already working with PHOs and asking them to get GPs to improve the timeliness of their responses back about whether they can accept a patient. I’ve also said that they want to work—and are working—with DHBs and PHOs so that if the patient gets declined, there are processes in place so that they can find another alternative doctor.

What we think, though, is that in addition just to those measures, we do need to do some other stuff. So there are three other things that we’re recommending that the ministry does. The first of them is introducing some performance measures by the DHBs’ annual plans. What we’re suggesting is that 55 percent of newborns be enrolled with a GP by six weeks and 85 percent by three months. Having worked for many years in the area of monitoring, it’s really interesting to watch how, if things get included in annual plans and they’re actively monitored by the ministry, DHBs do pay attention. This is what happened with the immunisation targets and the immunisation rates. They start to pay attention and say, “Well, how do we work with those practices to improve their performance?” So immunisation saw steady increases, and that’s what I think can happen here.

The other thing we want to look at is the ministry working with DHBs to negotiate clauses in the PHO service agreement that relate to timely newborn enrolment. Finally, what we’re recommending is the ministry implement a whole monitoring and reporting system based on that national enrolment service and makes sure that DHBs can access that so we’ve got up-to-date information on what the proportion of enrolments are across the regions. We think that, as I’ve said, experience with immunisation suggests that we can do this. We just need to work together further.

So just quickly summing up, we think—and we agree across the House—that we need to get babies enrolled with a general practice in those first six weeks of life, and that that process needs to be as simple as possible for parents. But we, on this side of the House, don’t think that putting in place legislation that duplicates what’s already happening but creates no new policy levers is the way to go. We think that we need to continue with the Ministry of Health working with PHOs, DHBs, and GPs to improve timely newborn enrolment. So, unfortunately, we can’t recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to confirm that the Green Party supports the intentions that have been put forward in this member’s bill, but not the pathway that this piece of legislation is taking. So after the submissions have been made and the work of the Health Committee has been done, we will not be supporting this member’s bill.

Again, we absolutely support the intentions, and, indeed, better social and health outcomes for all tamariki and all babies. We are very clear, after hearing the ministry’s intentions at the select committee hearings and after hearing the submissions, that there is already work and planning in place that’s going to ensure that we are working towards improving social and health outcomes.

So there were a couple of issues that I wanted to pick up in this second reading, given the submissions that have been made. However, in addition to those intentions, I will just quickly put on record for the Green Party that we acknowledge the signalling from the Ministry of Health about their intentions and why, therefore, we have confidence that we are working through a far more efficient and effective way to ensure that we get families, babies, and communities properly connected to healthcare. So I wanted to put on record that with the National Enrolment Service, the Ministry of Health is moving from the current retrospective reporting of enrolments each quarter to using information from the National Enrolment Service.

I acknowledge that the preliminary newborn enrolment with general practice is going to ensure that the ministry is asking primary health organisations (PHOs) to focus on getting general practices to action National Immunisation Register requests—that is, to accept or decline them. I acknowledge that with the DHB accountability framework, the ministry has advised us that it intends to introduce performance measures also as part of the DHB annual plan process in 2018-19. It is important that we note here, tonight, that those performance measures include that 55 percent of newborns will be enrolled with a general practice by six weeks of age and 85 percent of newborns will be enrolled with a general practice by three months of age.

I acknowledged the many signals and steps in the first reading, and when this bill appeared in the previous Government, we signalled that we would support this to select committee. With the current Government, we went through the select committee processes, we went through the submissions, we heard from the submitters and from the responsible ministry, and we are satisfied that there is a better way of upholding the intentions that are evident in this bill.

My contribution tonight is a short call, but I did actually want to pick up on a couple of issues. There were some references made by some of the submitters in terms of the sanctions that might be involved if parents simply did not follow this law and enrol newborns with a practice—with working with lead practitioners. That led me to want to mention tonight, with this bill, that while I understand this bill is not supposed to pick up on a whole lot of other issues that are aligned with improving social and health outcomes for tamariki, I think it’s important that if we are talking about any sort of mandatory enrolment and data collection, we cannot do that without acknowledging what that can also mean in terms of sanctions for those families who, for so many different reasons, may not enrol their children, and we have to acknowledge the issues of why some families may not. A big, glaring one—there should be absolutely no member in this House here tonight, no representative of this House at all, ever, who should not be aware of the glaring cultural inequities that currently exist in our health system, particularly for babies.

So if we are going to talk about mandatory enrolments, then we’d better be very clear about the incredible health inequities that need to be sorted out as well, alongside mandatory enrolments. Pushing ahead immediately with a legislative and a sanction approach to enrolments cannot ignore the lack of culturally appropriate service that is currently a situation that we really have had to do some work on for a long, long time, or ignore asking why it is that some families will be finding it difficult to align and enrol with a PHO or with a healthcare provider. So, you know, I did want to focus on that in my contribution tonight as one of the things that the Greens are certainly wanting to keep in consideration when taking a legislative approach to collecting data—when taking a legislative approach to trying to address social issues in terms of enrolment and data collection without mention or acknowledgment of all of the other access barriers and challenges that sit alongside poor social and health outcomes.

So that was the main point that I wanted to add to the many valid points that have been covered by our Government partners in the House tonight and that I wanted to have a particular voice alongside social and health issues that also need to be considered. We again—to sum up—do acknowledge the positive intentions of this legislation. We look forward to ensuring that the ministry is working through a far more efficient way of making sure that tamariki are getting the healthcare and whānau are getting the healthcare that is appropriate and effective. We will absolutely play our part in holding the ministry to account on those outcomes, as well, and look forward to an update from the ministry on how those intentions are rolling out. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not being on the Health Committee, this has been a day—when I found out I was going to be speaking on this bill—of really looking into it and finding out exactly what this bill stood for, and I have to say that I do actually congratulate the member Parmjeet Parmar on the intent of this bill. You cannot argue with the intent of this bill, and we as Government understand that. We know that this bill seeks to improve the health and social outcomes of our young children—of some of our most vulnerable. But the way to deal with our most vulnerable—and here is a fundamental difference between Government and Opposition—is not just to legislate. Just to legislate is not the first option that you go to.

I would actually like to commend the work of the select committee in really digging into this, and this is a perfect example of how powerful select committees are in this Parliament. Select committees are able to go in and really work out what are some of the best approaches to working with our most vulnerable in our country, listening to the experts, listening to the people who know. One of the things that I’ve been doing today is going through those submissions that the select committee had the privilege to listen to, and there are a couple of the submissions that I actually want to highlight here tonight which have pointed out that that legislative approach is not always the best way of actually dealing with our most vulnerable people. It is not the first port of call.

The first submission that I want to point to is from the New Zealand Medical Association, who really agreed—again, like we do—with the intent of the bill. It thought that the intent was good—it’s what we need to look at towards how we’re going to be dealing with our young children, our babies, and getting them enrolled with a GP. But “Rather than pursue”—I’m just quoting from their submission—“a legislative approach to improve newborn enrolment rates, we suggest that it would be useful to gain a better understanding of … reasons why some regions and populations have lower newborn enrolment rates.” Automatically going to—this is me saying that now, not them—the legislative way of dealing with it straight away is not actually going to find out the fundamental root causes of why some demographics and some regions have low enrolment rates of their newborns. That information has to be found out first. You can’t automatically go to putting legislation in place, because that’s not going to change those fundamental root causes.

They go on to say in their submission, “We believe that a quality improvement approach incorporating education and improved communication between all parties is preferable to a legislative approach to this issue.”, and, certainly, as we’ve heard from all of the speakers here on this side of the House tonight, that is already happening. That work is happening with the district health boards and their approach to newborn enrolments, and is the reason why we are seeing such an increase in that particular area.

Another submission that I want to highlight—which follows on from that and follows on from the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, as well—is that from Hāpai te Hauora. They talk about whether the legislative approach is always appropriate for Māori. First of all, what we have to do is actually make sure that we understand why there are lower rates of enrolment within the Māori population. They talk about how going straight away to that legislative approach may actually be, fundamentally, a bad approach for our Māori population, and they have huge concerns. Again, though, they do talk about, in their submission, how the intent of this legislation is good but actually could be more harmful in the end.

I think that those submissions need to be listened to. That’s exactly what we have done on this side of the House. Also, my colleague Dr Liz Craig talked about the submission from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners—people who deal with this on a daily basis are telling the select committee that the bill is not necessary.

We believe in a quality improvement approach. It is happening. We want to see that work continue, but this bill does not do that, so therefore we do not commend it to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a very brief call on this, and I speak not only in the capacity as a member of Parliament but also as a mother, and also as a lawyer who’s worked with our most vulnerable, highest-deprivation members in the community for the last 30 years. That is not only as counsel for child and advocate for mothers in the court but also as a member of the local district health board that I served on. The concern is that so many of our young mothers and their babies cannot access general practitioner services, and that’s during antenatal care and at the time their babies are born.

I commend Dr Parmjeet Parmar—everyone’s talked about this legislation being well-intentioned. This is practical. This is pragmatic. This is what Whānau Ora is all about. It is about our newborns, our pēpi. It is about our mothers being able to access, through their babies, that necessary health support.

I’ve heard talk in this House this evening about the compliance and the imposition that is there for Māori, or the expectation that Māori would have to do this by way of legislation. This is about extending a helping hand and reaching for those who most need it in our vulnerable communities, requiring the maternity carer to link our most vulnerable, our most needy, those requiring the services of health support practitioners—requiring that that service be provided them. In taking this brief call, it’s disappointing that the importance, need, and recognition of our most needy in the community are being denied by this Government. This is about Whānau Ora, our babies, our mothers, and the wider network within our communities.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It’s truly a privilege to take a short call on this bill, an excellent bill from my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who I congratulate for getting through to this point.

The goal of this bill has been well enunciated—to increase newborn enrolment with general practitioners before the age of six months—and when you just stand back a bit and look at it for a moment, you’ve got to say, “Why is the Government voting this down?” Just take it on its statement for what it is: why is the Government voting this down? Why is this not a good thing? The benefits have been clear. Again, they were well described, and they were well described through select committee as well: early access to social services, housing, vaccination rates, and early collaboration with other professionals. Again, why is the Government voting this down? Why is this not a good thing?

Now, at first reading, David Clark called the bill toothless because—and the quote’s important here—“there are no penalties for patients who do not do their part in this process on time.” There are no penalties for patients who do not do their part in this process on time—that’s an extraordinary statement. The Minister wants punitive actions for patients who don’t do as they are told.

Surely this is a harbinger for other primary care initiatives this Government is looking to deploy, and remember this mantra when they do. This will be the hook: there are no penalties for patients who do not do their part in this process on time. I think the imposition of penalties is especially ironic when the Government’s removing sanctions from other social service areas, and yet the health Minister is on record saying there should be penalties for patients who do not do their part in this process on time.

Darroch Ball: Oh rubbish! Don’t put words in his mouth. He didn’t say that.

Dr SHANE RETI: Read it from the first reading. It’s on record. That’s what he’s saying.

Darroch Ball: That’s not what he said.

Dr SHANE RETI: It’s exactly what he said.

Darroch Ball: No, no, he did not.

Dr SHANE RETI: Yes, it is. I can show it to you here now. I’m not going to argue. Go and read it, if you can read.

The next point is we’ve just heard from my colleagues and others espousing “Everything’s OK. All is well. We’ve set health targets: 55 percent enrolment at six weeks, 85 percent at three months.”, and we’re told that the ministry will be accountable for that through the district health board (DHB) accountability frameworks and primary health organisations services agreements. Well, several points: am I just hearing “health targets”? Could that possibly be a health target: 55 percent at six weeks and 85 percent at three months? That sounds like a health target to me. But hang on, we’re abolishing health targets. Could this be why we need it to be legislative? If we actually believe in health targets and we don’t want this Government to waive them away like they’re doing in other areas, could this be why it needs to be legislative?

We’ve also been told that the actions can also be done for newborn enrolment—and I’ll read here clause 39 of the departmental report: “Newborn enrolment is chosen by some DHBs as a contributory measure to support system level measure outcomes (SLMs).” Now hang on a minute, hasn’t there been a recent report saying no one understands SLMs and they don’t work? But that’s your answer to the bill? Using something that no one understands and that doesn’t work just does not make sense.

I think a consistent theme was the burden on general practice, and I get that. I guess of everyone in the House I should get that, and I do get it. I can see parts of that. But there was a provision in this bill to cover that. That provision was clause 6(3), which said, “If the nominated general practice is unable to assist the family in finding another primary health care provider, it must refer the pre-enrolment request to the relevant DHB and primary health organisation.” There’s a solution. She’d already come up with a solution to what had been touted by a number of submissions as almost a fall-over issue. Parmjeet Parmar had thought through the answer and it was in her bill.

Look, in conclusion, the Government’s position is “Do nothing; it’s working fine.” Well, I would suggest no, it’s not working fine, and this Government has truly sucked all the imagination out of the room and is actually offering nothing. I’m very sad for newborns, and I think this bill should proceed.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai; otirā ki a koutou katoa kua huihui nei i tēnei pō, o tēnei tū tuatahi o tēnei wā, o tēnei session, nō reira tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; indeed to you all who are gathered here this evening for this first speech of this period, this session, greetings one and all.]

It’s an honour to stand here tonight. Well, it’s actually been a little perplexing, if I’m brutally honest. While I’ve been listening over the past hour or so to my colleagues across the aisle, in particular, as we discuss the well-being of our kids—starting with the most precious, our babies—I am sitting here slightly frustrated with members opposite, because when we are talking about our taonga, our pēpē, it must be the well-being of those tamariki that is at the forefront of any legislation, any policy amendments that we make in this House.

I sat there and I had some pleasant remarks to make about how members’ bills are an opportunity for us, on both sides of the House, to engage on issues that are specific and pertinent to individual members—in this case, the member Parmjeet Parmar—but then I had to listen to my colleague Mr Doocey, who lambasted this side of the House for the lack of care that we show for our kids. He went on some kind of diatribe about the way in which we use the time that we have to make decent laws for our kids, and then he put a couple of questions to us: why would we oppose the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill, which seeks to look after our tamariki in the most vulnerable stages of their lives? “Where is the evidence?”—he implores—“I haven’t heard one member on that side of the House talk about any evidence as to why they’re opposed.” But for every single submission that came in from the medical practitioners—whether they be midwives, or whether they be general practitioners, every single medical association agreed with the intention of the bill, as we all have done tonight, and disagreed implicitly with your approach.

I detest the way the Opposition is playing politics with our tamariki. I absolutely detest the way that you can feel free to kick political balls with our kids. The reality is that if this had been such an important piece of legislation for National—when was this bill introduced? It was May 2017. If this bill was so important to the Opposition that they want to waste our time by making our kids political footballs, you could have done it when you were in blimmin Government, and we all knew that—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop bringing me into the debate.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: I apologise to the Deputy Speaker. The Opposition could have done that when they were in Government. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just remind everyone this is members’ day and members are entitled both to have their say and to bring bills to the House.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: I absolutely respect the role of this House to debate the nuances of legislation, and I absolutely agree with the fundamental proposition that we are going to agree and disagree on matters of legislation, but can we please not make our kids the football for political points. I ask that we please not do that.

Now, let me turn to some of my own personal problems with this piece of legislation. What we always were taught—and I commend my colleague from across the House Harete Hipango. She expressed her experience with the law. We all know as lawyers that the only way that you make decent law is if there is a way of enforcing a piece of legislation. In absence of the ability to enforce a piece of legislation, it is but a guideline.

Now, in 2012, the Ministry of Health, under the previous Government, introduced some pretty decent guidelines, and I commend both sides of the House for, I guess, agreeing to and supporting those guidelines. Now, guidelines, we say, with the support of the medical profession—we say—are the most appropriate way for dealing with the way in which we enrol our kids.

In 2012—I better refer to my notes, before I lose my place; I wouldn’t want to do that—the Ministry of Health—

Hon Member: Well, you think you’re funny.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Actually no, to the member that just spoke—and I won’t name her because she’s had her fair share of time for making comments on that side of the House that have gone into the media—these aren’t funny comments. They are actually not funny comments. These comments that I make actually are on the basis of the fact that I’ve just come from a tangi over the last six days for a kid that passed away, because all too often both sides of this House—and for the last nine years, it has been the most vulnerable that have paid the price for arrogance in their attitudes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you come back to the bill, please?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Absolutely. I turn back to the bill, the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill. I do want to applaud the member opposite for the introduction. I think that the intent was absolutely good, and I think that remark’s been echoed across both sides of the House tonight. I do know, from the remarks that I’ve heard from colleagues that do sit on the Health Committee, that the member who introduced this bill has devoted a lot of time and energy to getting this bill to the particular place it is at. We appreciate the passion that she brings to this legislation.

I also want to acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall, the chair of the Health Committee, and the member opposite, Shane Reti, the deputy chair. I know that there have been many robust conversations to get this bill to this point. It’s been on the books for just over a year—a year and a half, I think. That brings us to this point.

This side of the House, having considered the medical profession’s perspective and having considered our midwifery profession, have come to the position tonight that we agree with those submissions—the evidence that they’ve put forward. They say that the guidelines that are in place have been appropriate. Labour also has urged the Ministry of Health to proceed with the following actions to improve timely newborn enrolment without the need for legislation: to introduce two performance measures through district health boards (DHBs) in annual plans—that 55 percent of newborns are enrolled with a general practice by six weeks of age, and that 85 percent of newborns are enrolled with a general practice by the age of three months—to continue to work with DHBs to negotiate an appropriate clause in the primary health organisation services agreement requiring timely newborn enrolment, and to implement reporting and monitoring via the National Enrolment Service (NES) and ensure NES enrolment information is accessible to authorised providers such as DHBs.

So, from our side of the House, we do, again, applaud the intent of this bill. We thank the members from across the House for their diligence and for turning their minds to the way in which we most support our children. If I can, please, applaud all of us—let’s look after our kids, and let’s not make them the focus for political footballs, because there’s far too many—

Hon Jacqui Dean: Ha, ha! Ironic.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Ha! There’s far too many of our kids that are falling through the cracks because we choose to make them political footballs, so we will not be supporting this bill through to the third reading. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Let me make this very clear: this bill is about protecting our most vulnerable New Zealanders—our newborns—and making sure that they don’t fall through the cracks. It seems to me that the Government members are protesting too much. They should walk the talk. They should actually deliver and take action on the things that they say that they believe in. This bill is about making sure that families are connected into the New Zealand health system quickly so that babies and their families get the best-possible start in life. It’s all about breaking down that inequality of health access for our communities.

My colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar developed this bill because she was concerned about the low numbers of newborns being enrolled with a general practitioner or a primary health organisation before their six-week immunisation was due. That was something every member of the Health Committee agreed with. Dr Parmar wanted to make sure that families were supported when they had a new baby, and that the health and social support was available from day one, and to make sure that babies didn’t miss out on the protection of that first round of immunisation.

Prevention is the name of the game here. The earlier that GPs can work with newborns and their families, and the earlier we can detect any problems—health or social issues—the better the support we can give to our tamariki. I agree with her—actually, this is just common sense. The birth of a baby is challenging for any family, and by working with new parents early we can protect, we can nurture, and we can look after that baby and its family.

In National, we believe that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. That’s why we wanted to see a target in legislation, so that it was clear to everybody—clear to members of the medical profession, clear to families—just how important this early enrolment is. Research tells us that the post-natal period is one of the most important opportunities for influencing health and well-being, and, actually, the long-term health of babies and their families. Immunisations are the key, important way to protect babies, going forward. New Zealand is known for the high quality of our health services and targets that have been instrumental in driving these improvements in the last few years, since they were established back in 2007, and that’s why we’re so concerned that this Government is dumping them.

It’s interesting what’s happened to immunisation because of the immunisation targets. They’ve driven up the number of babies getting protected. Back in 2008, the target was only 85 percent of babies being immunised by eight months. That was a significant challenge because, at that time, we were only actually immunising about 70 percent. It’s important that we continue to raise that. One of the key reasons why I bring this up is because it’s immunisation and getting communities behind immunisation that has raised the quality of what’s happening for our babies in the long term.

All district health boards have been reporting against these stats, so we’ve been able to identify where we are doing well in the country. One of the things that have been the most exciting about this is that communities have taken these targets to their hearts, and some of the communities that had low levels of immunisation have actually become the stars—and the Pasifika community is one of those. So it’s hugely disappointing that this Government doesn’t support this bill, although most submitters felt that it was important and the ministry itself was keen to increase the numbers of babies getting enrolled in those first six weeks. It seems that politics has got in the way of a good health practice.

So, finally, I would like to thank Dr Parmar for her work. It’s really unfortunate that the Government members of the committee weren’t prepared to walk the talk. They weren’t prepared to support this common-sense, practical way of looking after our most vulnerable newborns—hugely disappointing.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on this Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill at its first reading. I’ve got to say that it’s a very good bill, I believe—a very good bill, proposed by a hard-working spokesperson, someone who has thought about this issue deeply. In compiling this bill, I know that she’s carefully looked at international precedence for such a scheme to be introduced. I’m ably informed that there are many such schemes in place around the world. I did understand Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, the previous speaker, and he referred to the issue of why we should be doing this when it looks like Australia’s repealing it. Of course, he gave his speech some time ago. What we now know is that Australia’s doing a U-turn on that. It is doing a U-turn, and they’re going to retain this scheme that the good Dr Parmar has proposed in this bill.

Hon Member: What are you talking about?

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, it is. I’m just looking across to my opposition. They need to do a bit more research. They’re dealing with old information. They need to get more current. Of course, what this bill does—she has picked up the best parts of some of the international precedence and brought it forward into this bill. I think that’s a really good thing, because creating a dynamic economy—which New Zealand has to some extent, and it has the potential to be even more so—is a really important facet if we’re going to grow the productivity of New Zealand over time.

For those who have been through the traditional patent system—and I have been involved too to some extent—the time and cost of getting intellectual property properly registered and the process for authenticating the design or the copyright or the intellectual property (IP) is a significant cost. So this results in a very expensive cost and, in many instances, the—Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m just looking at the time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s all right. I’ve got it here.

ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, you have? I don’t know how long I’ve spoken for. OK. So the cost of the traditional system is very significant not only in time but actually the financial cost.

Of course, we want New Zealand companies to create IP. We want our universities to be creating IP and be doing this. What this does is create a good second level for the advancement of what can be termed as sort of the next level of IP. It relates only to New Zealand. It means that IP can be captured, can be used by the inventor, and can mean that we can protect that IP in New Zealand. It’s a different case if you want to take it overseas.

I’ve got to say that I think this is an excellent bill. I’ve got to say that I highly recommend it. I believe it is worthy of the support of the Government. I’m looking across to the Minister over there. I hope she’s well informed. I hope she takes the position of supporting this excellent member’s bill.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Can I just acknowledge, first of all, as we do on members’ day, the member for having the bill pulled from the ballot. This is obviously the second of her bills that is on the Order Paper today. Unfortunately, she was unlucky with the result of the first one, and I’m sorry to say she’s going to be unlucky with the result of this one too.

Can I just spend some time giving a little bit of context to this debate in the five minutes allotted to me. The last time the patent legislation was amended in this House was 2013. If my memory serves me correctly, that was when the Opposition was the Government. If they thought it was such a great idea to introduce second-tier patents into the New Zealand realm of intellectual property (IP), then maybe they should’ve done it then. I think there was probably a reason for them not doing it at that stage: because of the fact that, across the Tasman and in other like nations, second-tier patent systems have proved to be completely and utterly ineffective. So while giving the member credit for the ambition of trying to get this to the point of it becoming law, first of all, it won’t, and it won’t probably because of the same reasons that her Government back in 2013 saw fit not to introduce a second-tier patent system.

What we do know about the previous Government in terms of its ambition for innovation was that it was quite happy for the levels of R & D spending here in New Zealand to languish at about 1.3 percent of GDP, while the average for other like nations in the OECD sat at 2.4 percent. But what I can say to that point in terms of what question I would expect to hear from the Opposition—“What are you going to do about it?”—is that I’m very happy to say that my colleague sitting to my left, the Hon Megan Woods, has taken action to increase that amount and saw fit to have this Government introduce $1 billion worth of R & D tax credits to take the level of investment higher than the previous Government, to help grow this economy to ensure that the businesses that we do want to make sure are internationally competitive will get the support to do that. I actually think that’s a concrete measure to make sure that our businesses that want to be innovative and more internationally competitive do get the assistance that they deserve.

There have been a number of companies who have spoken out, actually, against this bill since it was pulled from the ballot. One I think of most note is one of our rather large exporters, Fisher & Paykel, who said not only should we not do this; if it is introduced, it will make things harder for them as one of our large exporters, make them less competitive, and hand competitive advantage to their overseas-based competitors. So if the Opposition wants to hand an advantage to our overseas-based competitors against one of our largest exporters in New Zealand, Fisher & Paykel, then, by all means, put pieces of legislation like this in the biscuit tin, because it is going to prove that in a very short amount of time since they’ve been removed from office, they’ve become out of touch from the real needs of those companies that want to help grow the economy. And this piece of legislation will not help do that.

So I just want to reiterate the good work that this Government is doing, taking a paltry level of R & D spending from 1.3 percent to closer to the average in the OECD of 2.4 percent. If you look at the figures, I think it was—and I want to get this right, and I’m going to make sure I check my notes. In 2012, New Zealand ranked as the 13th most innovative country in the world. Now, in 2017—based on the 2017 figures—we slipped to 22nd. So the previous Government, who are now the Opposition, really need to start putting their money where their mouth is if they’re going to start introducing pieces of legislation that want to increase the levels of innovation in New Zealand, because their track record and the evidence of their track record and their ranking in the innovation stakes speak to a different story than the one they spouted for nine very long years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, I just will confirm that the times have gone out. However, I have them here—5 minute speech; I’ll give you a bell at one minute.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Oh, thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to take this first opportunity to congratulate the member Parmjeet Parmar. It’s an unusual circumstance to have two member’s bills under one member’s name being debated on the same evening. So congratulations on that, although if I’d spoken after some of the previous speakers in the last debate, I would not have had anything nice to say about their contributions or the legislation—and that was just the interjections.

On this, unfortunately, Ms Parmar, you have drawn from National’s box of redundant pieces of legislation to take up the House’s time a piece of legislation that is past its use-by date and that, unfortunately, does speak—as previously noted—to an Opposition that is absolutely out of touch. I think the best way to summarise it is to put it in these words: this is an apparent solution looking for a problem.

Now, let me be very clear, and let me use the words of New Zealand business, and let there be no doubt in the House tonight that New Zealand business did not ask for this, and they most certainly do not want this legislation to be passed in the House this evening. I am so glad that we have a Government with a bit of common sense—that might be a nice way to put it.

What we see here is the introduction of a two-tier system. Across the world, we have seen the two-tier system fail almost like a stack of dominoes. Two bigger modern economies come to mind: the Netherlands and—despite the words of Mr Bayly, which don’t make any sense whatsoever—Australia. What we have seen is the introduction of these two-tier systems, and what that has meant—and I’ll quote here—is “The low [innovation] threshold has proven more harmful than helpful, including (perversely) for [small to medium enterprise]. It has encouraged a multitude of low value patents … and created uncertainty for other innovators who are unsure whether they are infringing on another party’s patent.” The issue then is that our small to medium sized enterprises are wondering—and Fisher & Paykel was a great example used by the Minister Kris Faafoi—about their legal position when it comes to innovative development of their businesses.

What we are seeing around the world, and, funnily enough, here in New Zealand, you’ll be surprised to know, and in Australia according to the numbers I’m quoting—in Australia, the predominance of these tier-two patents, funnily enough, belong to large multinational corporates, who are using that low threshold to rig the system, as it were. And what’s the language here? In my words—I can’t quite find a quote—they’re perversely loading the system—

Hon Kris Faafoi: They’re gaming it.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: They’re gaming it so that small to medium sized enterprises are unable to innovate—

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Read my bill.

Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s why we voted against it.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —and develop good business, which is supposedly the claim of the Opposition.

Ha, ha! It is quite distracting.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Read my bill.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I have read your bill several times and taken advice on it from New Zealand businesses, who don’t like it.

Actually, it’s probably a good opportunity to end there. I think I heard the bell ring over the furore from the other side. Unfortunately, this is a bill out of time and out of place. New Zealand First absolutely cannot and will not support it, and I thank the Deputy Speaker for the time this evening. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, where to begin after that! Actually, it’s a pleasure to rise in support of my colleague Ms Parmar’s bill. We hear from the Government side—they always think they’ve got the answer. They’ve got a lot of talk, but they don’t often have the actual answer. Every time they think they’re going to do something, it’s the big thing that’s going to change the world. They talk about tax credits—and I’m going to come back to that—as if it’s going to change the world and suddenly make New Zealand the average or above in the OECD.

But, in actual fact, what it takes is what we, when we were in Government, showed over nine years—you make small pragmatic and practical changes that help businesses become more competitive, particularly smaller businesses, which are the predominant businesses in New Zealand. You help them become more competitive, you protect their intellectual property, and you make them more successful, and you make New Zealand more successful. Ms Parmar’s bill does not save the world. It is not intended to do that. It is intended to provide a measure so that the majority of businesses—the small businesses in New Zealand—can invest in their own development and can protect the intellectual property they create. Instead, the members on the Government side start talking about R & D tax credits. I’m mindful of the words that were attributed—perhaps erroneously—to Albert Einstein. He said, or he purportedly said, that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result”.

Well, the last Labour Government instituted R & D tax credits with such a weak definition of what research and development was that businesses the length and breadth of New Zealand were able to game that system. The Minister there introduced it, and businesses were able to game that system. I know this because I was selling in the IT industry at the time, and my customers told me how they were gaming the system to claim their credits. The Government now reintroduces the same system and tries to tell New Zealand it’s suddenly going to work. Well, that is absolute codswallop. It’s absolute tripe. What we have, instead, is a member of the Opposition introducing a member’s bill that is intended not to save the world in one fell swoop but to provide a pragmatic and practical step that smaller businesses in New Zealand will be in a position where, using a second-tier patent system, they will, one, be able to afford to seek protection of their intellectual property (IP) and, two, they will have the means to do so.

When I was first given the privilege by Simon Bridges, as the new Leader of the Opposition, to have the shadow portfolio of commerce and consumer affairs, the very first people I sought to engage with were intellectual property lawyers, and one of the first firms I met with was the largest genuinely New Zealand - owned and controlled intellectual property law firm in New Zealand, headquartered in Auckland. I met with him. He had much to say about what we had done when we were in Government, and he took the time to educate me on how we could have done more and better. But one point he absolutely made clear: he was aware of Ms Parmar’s bill.

He was aware of the bill going into the ballot, and his comments to me were, “It won’t solve all of our problems, but it is a good step.” One thing he said New Zealand businesses don’t do well is that they do not protect the intellectual property they create. They don’t do it, because, one, it’s enormously expensive to seek international patents under the system as it stands and, two, they’ve just not been used to an environment where that is part of what a business does.

So the case studies he was speaking to me about were things that he had witnessed. He said to me, “Brett, if you go to Fieldays and you see all those people walking around with cameras, they are not tourists looking at your Fieldays in Hamilton and thinking, ‘Isn’t this great?’. They’re agents on behalf of overseas companies taking photographs of the stuff New Zealanders have created, because they’re really certain that those New Zealanders won’t have protected the IP. They can copy it and just get away with it.”

Well, here we go. We’ve got a member with a member’s bill, who’s giving a pragmatic step to get those small Kiwi businesses a chance to protect the stuff they create. They are more likely to use this. Those guys think it’s wrong. Well, 59 countries around the world think it’s right. You might think that 20-odd academics are wrong on the waka-jumping bill. Are you really saying that 59 countries around the world have got this wrong? Maybe you should rethink, Mr Faafoi, and get your hands out of your pockets.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Look, if you needed a reason to vote against the legislation using simple common sense and logic, you would just simply listen to that member—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I wouldn’t do that. Don’t bring me into the debate.

GARETH HUGHES: —to the member Brett Hudson—because he raised this conspiracy theory that people are going around Fieldays taking photographs. It absolutely undermines his argument, because the whole point of this legislation is doing something which, back in the 1970s, used to be called petty patents. It’s the idea of a lower-level patent to make it easier.

Essentially, what this member’s bill does is reduce it from the current “inventive” level down to the “advancement” level. So those people supposedly out there taking photographs, trying to steal people’s intellectual property—it’s exponentially easier to steal that intellectual property under this member’s bill, because, previously, there used to be an “inventive” step; now there’s simply an “advancement” step. All you have to do is take a photograph, copy it, and do a little tiny change to it, so it fundamentally erodes their argument.

I heard the previous National speaker, Andrew Bayly, say the problem with patents is the cost and the problem with patents is the time it takes. That is the whole point of patents. You’ve got to do something novel. You’ve got to do something inventive. And you’ve got to be able to put your money where your mouth is to protect it. What that party wants to do is weaken it so far that you’d make an absolute mockery of the patent system, because the Opposition—I keep saying “the Government”; the Opposition—say they want to support small business, but, in fact, this legislation is bad for New Zealand business, because what we know, and what we’ve heard from New Zealand businesses, is that this is simply going to encourage patent trolls. It’s simply going to encourage people going to court instead of going to the lab and inventing new products.

We’ve heard from New Zealand businesses that the biggest problem they face is from patent trolls, and this proposal opens up the door to patent trolls to come and mess around with our intellectual property regime in New Zealand. Their arguments are further eroded by the simple fact that they had the chance to fundamentally review our 1950s patent legislation and they didn’t do it. It was amended only five years ago, and they didn’t do it.

So, look, I’d like to acknowledge the member Parmjeet Parmar. I believe her intentions are good. I think everyone in this House wants to see New Zealand become a more innovative economy. It’s been called the “New Zealand Paradox” in the economic literature: why, ostensibly, despite our economic settings, we’ve got such low productivity and earnings. And the problem, of course, is that we’re in the bottom half of the developed world for our spending as a percentage of GDP on R & D. We patent four times less than equivalent overseas countries.

And, I guess, the last reason that I want to say is that the Opposition’s arguments are the reasons why we’re voting against it. They said, “Oh, there’s dozens of countries voting for this.” They didn’t name them, though, did they? The countries doing it are all mostly developing economies, in a fundamentally different innovation and intellectual property regime from us. The US doesn’t do it. The UK doesn’t do it. The European Union doesn’t do it. I mean, Belgium and the Netherlands are moving away from it. Australia is moving away from it. I mean, if I can quote the Australian Productivity Commission, they said categorically that the second-tier patent experiment has failed. The low innovative threshold has proven more harmful than helpful, including, perversely, for small and medium enterprises. It’s encouraged a multitude of low-value patents and has created uncertainty for other innovators, who, I’m sure, would be infringing for another party’s patent.

So what we’ve heard is that it didn’t work, it was a failure, it was bad for businesses, and it provided uncertainty. Those aren’t the things we’re going to do to provide a more innovative, smarter New Zealand. So, look, I’m proud to be opposing this legislation. [Interruption] I support having a review—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come on, guys.

GARETH HUGHES: —of our intellectual property regime. Look, the Government’s got a fundamental review of our copyright legislation. This is how we can really promote those creative industries going forward. I know the member’s got the right intentions with this legislation. I think we should review the 2013 patent review to make sure it is working, but, look, let’s not do, as one commentator said, “an absolutely horror show of legislation.” That’s why we’re voting against it tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just say to the member who has been interjecting quite often: she does get the last say of this debate.

Hon Kris Faafoi: No, we do!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That’s not particularly helpful.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to present my views, particularly on this member’s bill. Labour is opposing the bill because we believe the current patent law is adequate and already offers simple and accessible protection for intellectual property. And I wonder if this is really a priority for National. I’m unsure why they didn’t include the two-tier system when they introduced the Patents Act 2013. Perhaps it’s because a system like the one that was proposed was contrary to the advice of the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment at the time: that such a system would “potentially impose significant costs on New Zealand for little compensating benefit.” So it appears that the current law is working well, and, on that basis, we’re reluctant to make changes when the demand for the two-tier system seems to be non-existent.

We believe that the patent law must continue to promote innovation and economic growth while providing an appropriate balance between the interests of inventors and patent owners, and the interests of society as a whole. We also don’t believe that the bill achieves that, and in fact, it is likely to do the exact opposite. So I applaud the sentiment, but the mechanism is not well considered and actually has a range of unintended consequences which, therefore, make it fundamentally flawed.

It’s not hard to agree with making protection of intellectual property more accessible, quicker, and more cost-effective, but it’s even harder to ignore the disaster of the Australian model, which, I believe, the member’s bill is based on. Funnily enough, the Australians are now in the process of abolishing their version, because it appears to have had no benefit, particularly for the intended target group, and that was small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs. Instead, it’s not only added costs but created confusion.

So the member’s promotion of her bill is, I’m sure, sincere and well meaning, but I’m persuaded, really, by the Australian Productivity Commission inquiry that found that the second-tier system experiment has failed. It found that the easier-to-get second-tier patent system was more harmful than helpful, including, perversely, for SMEs. In fact, in Australia the system has encouraged a multitude of low-value patents, causing uncertainty for other innovators, who are unsure whether they are infringing on another party’s patent. That’s hardly an endorsement.

I’m also nervous that if the proposed advancement patent were to come into effect, overseas competitors of New Zealand - based manufacturers could easily attain these low-threshold patents and then apply for an injunction to prevent New Zealand - based manufacture for all markets. An example is that a multinational company could use an advancement patent in New Zealand, which it could not obtain in the US or Europe, to prevent a New Zealand manufacturer from making products in New Zealand and selling those products anywhere in the world. I think this is a real threat to New Zealand - based manufacturers that are selling their products on the world stage. And I thought, really, that the Opposition cared for New Zealand - based manufacturers. I thought there was a real, authentic, and genuine care for those last remaining manufacturers, who do a great job on the world market, but it’s not so.

If you took an icon company like Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd, that company is currently being forced to take legal action against a competitor’s patent filed under the old New Zealand patent system, which had, like this member’s bill, a lower threshold. That’s really the guts of it. It’s a time-consuming and expensive and unnecessary process they have been through to defend their New Zealand - based manufacturing operations. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of the Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill. Ironically, we see that the purpose of the bill is for providing intellectual property protection rights to advancements that are “novel, useful, and non-obvious”, and I thought that might be an interesting way to analyse some of the arguments against. Some of them have been novel, others not so, and certainly not useful. But, indeed, non-obvious is, perhaps, a kind interpretation of some of the objections we’ve heard so far.

In my remaining time, it seems, really, a very beneficial aim of this bill to enhance New Zealand’s innovative performance. Indeed, it’s not only the individual person seeking this step on to the ladder of intellectual property but, indeed, the whole of our country, our economy, and our society that will benefit thus.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.