Thursday, 16 August 2018

THURSDAY, 16 AUGUST 2018

THURSDAY, 16 AUGUST 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House adjourns until Tuesday, 4 September. When the House resumes, priority will be given to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill, the Building Amendment Bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, and the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. On Thursday, 6 September, the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill will receive its third reading. Wednesday, 5 September will be a members’ day.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thanks to the Leader of the House for giving us that fairly comprehensive indication of what’s coming in that first week when the House resumes. I wonder if he’s able to give us any indication of when there will be a Resource Management Act reform bill introduced to the House, as promised by New Zealand First.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In the fullness of time and at the appropriate moment, the Government will bring forth further legislation for the House to consider.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inquiry into the Appointment Process

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, and when correctly stated in their context, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why did the Deputy Prime Minister say yesterday in relation to Wally Haumaha, “The fact is the person is not a witness. The person may be a complainant,” when the New Zealand Herald report was very clear that the person was a witness?

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m happy to answer the question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member might want to seek leave to answer the out-of-order question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave to answer that abhorrent, out-of-order question.

SPEAKER: If the member wants to seek leave in a straight manner—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sorry, I seek leave to answer that question.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is none.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is that the New Zealand Herald does not clearly, in the form of those two writers, understand the fundamentals of the law. They were wanting to make out a case of witness tampering, and to be able to do that they constructed a potential complainant, or three potential complainants, as witnesses. My challenge to them is—witness where, in what inquiry, and saying what? Complainants they may be, but you can’t call them witnesses.

SPEAKER: Is there a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister?

Hon Paula Bennett: If her deputy is not involved in the process around Wally Haumaha, why does she think he thinks he has so much other information that others don’t?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because it’s not the habit of her deputy to go out and shoot off his mouth without the facts.

SPEAKER: I’m going to remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the tradition in this House when one is answering even a supplementary for another Minister, to acknowledge that at the beginning of the answer, and that might just have an influence on the tone of the reply.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she know if her Deputy Prime Minister knows the identity of the witness or any of the complainants, and, if so, how he might have found this information out?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the answer is: the deputy does not know the identity of the three potential complainants, but what the deputy does know is that on the two former promotions of Mr Haumaha in 2012 and in 2016 the National Party was in Government, the Commissioner of Police was their appointment—first Marshall and then Bush, so there are two occasions on which the kind of information which is being sought to be elicited now in an inquiry would have been covered at that point in time if the National Party was doing its job properly.

Hon Paula Bennett: Were previous promotions of Wally Haumaha statutory appointments that went through an honours committee and made by Ministers or the Prime Minister, then to the Governor-General?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just ask the questioner—

Hon Members: On behalf of.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, can I ask the questioner, slowly and without interruption, what honours promotion is she talking about?

Hon Paula Bennett: In reference to the answer that the Prime Minister gave two questions ago, where she clearly stated that there’d been two promotions of Wally Haumaha previous to her being in Government, can she verify whether or not those were statutory appointments appointed by the Governor-General at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, or were they internal police promotions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that on the general manager Māori, Pacific and ethnic affairs 2012 to 2014 appointment, that was handled by the department. With respect to the deputy chief executive Māori, now a significantly larger promotion—happening under the National Party—2014 to 2018, that was handled by commissioner Mike Bush, also chosen by the National Party at the point in time. So you might say the National Party’s DNA is all over this.

Hon Paula Bennett: In the context of the appointment of Wally Haumaha in recent months to the role of deputy police commissioner, which is a role made by her and her Cabinet, shouldn’t she finally take some responsibility for what a fiasco it’s turned out to be?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the moment the Prime Minister knew about the allegations that were being made, the Prime Minister had two very singular thoughts—one at a time, of course. The first one is surely this information came out in 2014 and 2012 when the previous Government was handling the promotions, and second, we must have a full-scale inquiry and get to the truth of this matter as to process. That’s what the Prime Minister did and thought.

Hon Paula Bennett: Would she support the State Services Commission doing an inquiry into the three totally different accounts of how the three women were treated by the State sector, as asked for by Chris Bishop via a letter to the commissioner today?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, the Bishop letter did not cover off—on behalf of the Prime Minister—the time of these alleged offences, rather conveniently, because it happened, as I understand, during the National Party’s time in Government. The second thing is the State Services Commissioner has replied to Mr Bishop and said that they are considering his request. That’s where things are precisely as we speak.

Hon Shane Jones: Is she confident that the terms of reference will be wide enough to identify those members of the police force importuned by Opposition members for private information?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that is a matter which, having been alluded to by the Minister, the consideration with respect to the inquiry must have. But it’s being conducted by a QC, the wife of a former National Party Minister, and any allegation of bias is malice aforethought.

Hon Stuart Nash: Did the last Government provide Mr Haumaha with any sort of honour, and if so, would that have gone through a Cabinet committee and been approved by Cabinet?

SPEAKER: Order! That is not a matter for the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Paula Bennett: So in light of police being part of the inquiry, can she please still verify that police will be able to make submissions to the QC in light of it being anonymous and them not going through threats; of actually them being able to speak the truth?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, she has a burning desire to repeat her statement of yesterday, which was exactly that. It hasn’t changed in 24 hours. The new information we have got, of course, is that there was an honours committee nomination from the National Party; it went through their full honours committee, subcommittee, and Cabinet.

Economy—Business Confidence and Growth

2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements and actions of the Government in respect of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Minister for Small Business that it is concerning that business confidence is as low as it is, and that this is a challenge to his Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve already said that we’re working with the business community, and we’d like to see those numbers turn around. But I would note, on the matter of small business, that Craig Hudson from Xero yesterday said that Xero’s Small Business Insights data challenges the notion that the economy is in a downturn.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that if he’d taken notice at the beginning of the year, when Infometrics warned him that economic growth was going to fall below forecasts because of this Government’s policies, he could’ve acted then to do something to prevent the significant falls in business confidence that we’ve seen since then?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said a number of times in this House, business confidence ratings do tend to track who’s in Government at any particular moment. Perhaps the member might want to reflect on whether or not, when GDP started to decline, or the trend started to decline at the beginning of 2017, her Government might’ve done something about it. This Government is doing something about it; we’re actually transitioning away from her economy that she preferred, based on population growth and housing speculation.

Hon Amy Adams: So is he saying to this House, essentially, that he’s not concerned if Government policies mean that growth is now clearly below what was forecast at the beginning of this year, even though that means New Zealand is missing out on prosperity that it could’ve and should’ve had?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I reject the latter part of that question. What we’re talking about at the moment are forecasts, and those forecasts show that, on average, the economy will grow around about 3 percent over the three-year period. That is exactly what Treasury forecast, and we’re working to make that happen.

Hon Amy Adams: So am I correct in understanding the Minister is saying that he doesn’t understand that the proper way to measure the effectiveness of a Government’s policies on the economy is not whether the economy is still growing but whether it’s growing as strongly as it could’ve been if it wasn’t for those policies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is no connection between the matters that the member is trying to draw. We are in a transition phase, away from an economy that was based on population growth and housing speculation. There will be bumps in the road there, but, on average, we’re seeing forecast growth of 3 percent. If the member thinks everything was absolutely perfect in the economy, maybe she would like to justify having economic growth and the OECD saying, at the same time, that we’ve got the world’s worst homelessness. That isn’t success in the economy. We’re doing something different.

Infrastructure—Actions and Reports

3. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on how infrastructure will improve productivity and living standards in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A report this week by Chapman Tripp outlined how the infrastructure deficit that has built up in New Zealand in recent years is significant, and that it will be difficult to unwind. The infrastructure deficit has contributed to housing becoming less affordable, has held back our ability to become a more productive economy, and it has had an impact on Kiwis’ standards of living. The report says there is now increased demand on all forms of infrastructure, from electricity to water, and social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, and says that the search for solutions to New Zealand’s infrastructure problems is now urgent. Movement on this will help improve productivity and New Zealanders’ living standards.

Dr Deborah Russell: What does the report say about the action required to close the infrastructure deficit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The report makes a number of suggestions to address New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit. These include a new look at how infrastructure is funded, including the use of private sector financing to break the funding deadlock, and the use of new financing tools. The recommendations include the creation of a national urban development authority and better coordination of the infrastructure pipeline to provide long-term support for the construction sector.

Dr Deborah Russell: What actions is the Government taking to close the infrastructure deficit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Very similar to what’s been recommended. Our plan is looking at how infrastructure is funded, including the use of private sector financing to break the funding deadlock and the use of new financing tools. We are creating a national urban development authority, and we will soon be announcing how we will better coordinate the infrastructure pipeline to provide long-term support for the construction sector. [Interruption] It’s pleasing to see how popular this is with the Opposition, and that it aligns with the infrastructure sector. I and other Ministers look forward—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member—I think we’ve had enough.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements and Political Parties’ Constitutions

4. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his Government’s policies and statements on electoral law, particularly those affecting the free speech of members of Parliament?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement contained in many constitutions in Western democracies that members of Parliament shall be representative of the whole people, they shall not be bound by any orders, instructions, or contracts, and they shall only be responsible to their conscience?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member would have to specify the countries, the constitutions, and the specific wording in each. But I do draw the House’s attention to the sentiments that I think the member is trying to support in that question, and I’m left wondering why it is that he and members on his side of the House have proposed amendments to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that require party general secretaries and governing boards of parties to direct members of Parliament.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does his Government support MPs being subject to legally binding contracts where they have to personally pay their party $300,000 in the event that they fall out—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It will become very obvious to you if that member’s allowed to continue on that he’s covering a subject which is not the responsibility of the Minister, and he should be brought back inside the Standing Orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not familiar with any such arrangement, and it looks hypothetical to me. I have no further response on it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—is this a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raised a point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —as to the appropriateness—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It wasn’t a point of order, actually. It wasn’t a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Excuse me, can I just—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was in order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, can I just point out to you that for the Minister to be asked and be responsible for answering the question, he has to be responsible for the base of it, which in this case was a party’s constitution—not the coalition Government’s constitution but a party’s constitution—for which he is not responsible, with respect.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And, in fairness, I think the Minister answered it quite correctly. It was a—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because you didn’t do your job—that’s why.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think that that is appropriate. Point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it was speaking to the point of order. It is the Standing Orders—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, that’s right. I suppose—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The one that isn’t a point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, that’s right. So I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, in that case. I call the House’s attention to the Standing Orders, which make it clear that Ministers can be asked to give an opinion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s correct.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was the Minister aware, when he introduced new section 5D in his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill requiring that party rules must be followed, that the New Zealand First Party, in its constitution under rule 57D, requires that members of Parliament sign a contract imposing a personal liability of $300,000 in the event that they fall out with their party?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There are two points I would make in relation to that. No, I wasn’t aware of that, and in any event any arrangement that purports to substitute the judgment of an individual member with that of somebody from outside this House is a breach of parliamentary privilege, and so cannot hold; and, secondly, I would point out that the Supreme Court, when it considered the case of Donna Awatere Huata in relation to the ACT Party, found that it was a matter of party business whether or not a member of Parliament representing a party complied with the party rules in that case in relation to paying their fees.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would it be acceptable under our electoral laws for members of Parliament to be subject to a contract including a $300,000 personal liability in the event that they fall out with their party, when such provisions would be illegal in any employment contract and amount to indentured labour?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That’s the traditional and expected flowery and flamboyant approach that that member takes to characterising issues, but I simply draw that member’s attention yet again to the Supreme Court decision—

Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s the medication.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —in Awatere Huata v Prebble, where that court, the highest court in the land, said that members of Parliament with party obligations are required to meet those party obligations, and that is not an interference in the functioning of Parliament.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?

SPEAKER: No, before either member goes, Darroch Ball will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Was he the member who made that interjection? [Member shakes his head] Was it the member in front of him?

Hon Member: No.

SPEAKER: No? Well, one of those members.

Kris Faafoi: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: Right, there will be five additional supplementary questions for the National Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as opinion has been put into the mix here—in his opinion, what is the democratic principle when two times the prior questioner has led the charge to expel two National MPs from the caucus?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings are very clear that where a member has given a personal explanation and said that a claim is false, the member must be taken at his word.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Thursday two weeks ago, that member asked for time to make a personal explanation. It was granted by the House, whereupon he just got up and said the statement was false. The reality is that I did not allege that he moved the motion. I said he led the charge to get rid of two former MPs, and I know that one personally, and Maurice Williamson was the other one.

SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] No, I think, before we go any further, I’m now going to ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because I can’t remember the details of this personal explanation—

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

SPEAKER: No, no, no. Sorry.

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

SPEAKER: Well, no. I want to get to a point where the member might have one.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I think I’ve got one now—a point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll be tolerant.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, the question itself asks the Minister to reflect on a member. That is contrary to the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: I think the question was actually asking to reflect on a circumstance, rather than a member. But let’s go back to Dr Smith and seek an assurance from him that, in his opinion, the assertion in the question was contrary to the personal explanation that he made.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Correct. That is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has twice claimed in this House that I led the charge or had some leading role in the decision of the National caucus to suspend the then member of Parliament Maurice Williamson. In my personal explanation, I said then and I say now: that is incorrect.

SPEAKER: OK, and there was a further case which he referenced. Let’s get both of them out of the way.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was the other reference, I’m sorry?

SPEAKER: His own. Just to make it clear, the Rt Hon Winston Peters indicated that he was part of the caucus when the member led the charge to get rid of him.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, Mr Speaker, it is obvious I was a member of the caucus. I’ve been a member of the National Party caucus very proudly for 28 years. The claim that is incorrect by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that I in any way led the decisions at that time—that is false. It was false then; it’s false now.

SPEAKER: The member’s word is accepted. Further supplementary questions?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware of any other political party in New Zealand or in any other parliamentary democracy where members of Parliament must sign a contract before taking up their seats in Parliament that imposes a personal financial liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the event that they have a falling out with their party?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Even accepting that member’s word in previous questions about this matter, I think he is drawing a very long bow in the way he has characterised what he describes as these provisions in party constitution rules, individual contracts with members. The rules of parliamentary privilege are very clear: members cannot be instructed, obliged to, or somehow led by those outside this House; they must act in accordance with the rules of this House and make their own judgments with their own colleagues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table clause 57H of the New Zealand First Party constitution, that does as I say.

SPEAKER: Is that document publicly available?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is not available on the New Zealand First website. I was able to obtain a paper copy from the New Zealand Electoral Commission.

SPEAKER: My view is that it is publicly available. And can I say for Ms Martin that her assistance to me has resulted in the Opposition having a further three supplementaries.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of Justice Fisher’s ruling of 1993, which, in summation, said that political parties have the right to determine their own rules?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am not familiar with the detail of that judgment but I am well aware of that judge, and I go back to the principle that, I think, was very clear from the Supreme Court decision in the Awatere Huata case, which is that there is a basis on which MPs as members of their party and with obligations to their party, as with any incorporated or unincorporated society—as opposed to members with obligations to this Parliament and the rules of parliamentary privilege. It is possible to draw that distinction.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it his intention, when he introduced new section 5D in his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill requiring that party rules must be complied with, to give greater legal weight to enable $300,000 good-behaviour bonds required by New Zealand First to be more easily able to be enforced?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The objective of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is to ensure that the fundamental principle of MMP, that proportionality of party representation, is maintained. And to the extent that that member is concerned about threats to freedom of speech, he should have been conscious of that when he and his party brought in the abolition of the members of the Environment Canterbury Regional Council and, indeed, his actions towards shutting down Bronwyn Pullar over her complaint about privacy in ACC.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister, having expressed concern about the privileges of this House and members not being subject to any outside legal threat or instruction, support my complaint to the Privileges Committee against these obnoxious contracts that New Zealand First MPs are required to sign?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once again, I hear this new word “abnoxious” being used, and I am still unfamiliar with it. It might not be “abnoxious”, but it may—

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the member. Often in this House, members mispronounce words—

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: But not repeatedly, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Mr Little, you will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: The member knows that, on occasions, some members, including members on his own side of the House, repeatedly mispronounce words. I think that focusing on that in a reply lowers the tone of the House, and I’m asking the Minister to stop doing it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That, unfortunately, has distracted me from recalling what the question was. I’d appreciate hearing the question again.

SPEAKER: The question, I remind the member, goes to the contracts and whether they were obnoxious or not, and whether the member had them in mind when he was legislating.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, that was not the question—

SPEAKER: All right. Ask it again.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you. Will the Minister—having expressed concern in this House about its privileges and members of Parliament not being subject to any outside instruction or contract—support a complaint to the Privileges Committee in respect of the contracts that New Zealand First MPs are required to sign involving a civil liability of $300,000 if they fall out with their party?

SPEAKER: Well, that wasn’t quite what the member said earlier, but away you go.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am not familiar with the claimed underlying premise of any such parliamentary privileges complaint, and therefore I do not see myself supporting a complaint if I don’t know the detail of it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree, in respect of the Government electoral law changes, with a quote from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I quote, “members of Parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents, not to swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party.”; if so, does he believe MPs can follow their conscience when they face a personal liability of $300,000 if they fall out with the New Zealand First party?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes and yes.

Housing—Behaviour of State Housing Tenants and Housing Supply

5. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand’s tenancy management and the way it manages the State housing stock?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes.

Simon O’Connor: Is it acceptable to him that State housing tenants are currently renting out their State houses on Airbnb?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m not aware that they are, and if the member has information about that, I would be happy to look into it.

Simon O’Connor: How can he not be aware if his officials advised the Social Services Committee yesterday that this is definitively the case?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was aware that the Ministry of Social Development officials at select committee talked about the effect of Airbnb in regional housing markets and the effect it’s having on housing demand. But I have to say I wasn’t aware that there was any suggestion that Housing New Zealand tenants were leasing out their properties on Airbnb.

Simon O’Connor: Will he be taking any steps to stop this happening, and if so how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I will certainly look into it.

Jo Luxton: What progress has Housing New Zealand made in increasing the State housing stock?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are making very good progress building more public housing. Housing New Zealand built 598 new properties in the June quarter, and there are 1,643 new Housing New Zealand properties currently under construction. This Government is committed to rebuilding State housing in New Zealand after nine years of neglect and selling off of State housing.

Simon O’Connor: How can it be that a State house tenant can rent out their surplus rooms on Airbnb, and yet his tenancy managers cannot find rooms for the people who need them?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, if State house tenants are leasing out their homes on Airbnb, then I’ll be looking into that.

Simon O’Connor: Is it acceptable, Minister, for existing State house tenants to rent out houses and homes when we have the largest waiting list in history, under this Government.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we have the largest waiting list in history because the former Government allowed the housing crisis to spin out of control. We have seen the worst homelessness in living memory for the last three winters, and that Government sold off State housing for nine years, reducing the total stock of public housing by 1,500 in the middle of a housing crisis.

Health Services—Southern District Health Board, Maternity Care

6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he support the decisions made by the Southern District Health Board contained in the primary maternity decision document released last Friday?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Given the strength of public feeling on this matter, I asked Ministry of Health experts to review the Southern District Health Board’s (DHB’s) decision, to provide me with assurance that mothers and babies will continue to receive the high-quality care they deserve. I have received that assurance. I’m advised that the new configuration will cost approximately the same as the current primary system but will be better integrated into other healthcare services. This will result in an overall higher level of services for women in the district. Given these assurances, my answer to the member’s question is yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can he support the decision to downgrade Lumsden Maternity Centre from a birthing unit to a non-birthing unit, when it was made on the basis of flawed data and the reviewers did not even visit the Lumsden Maternity Centre to verify that data?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Ministry reviewed Southern DHB’s decision and raised no concerns about the quality of data used in reaching that decision.

Hamish Walker: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Supplementary, Tim van de Molen.

Hamish Walker: Can he guarantee—

SPEAKER: Oh, Hamish Walker. I apologise.

Hamish Walker: Thanks. I knew you’d get there. No worries.

SPEAKER: I apologise to both members.

Hamish Walker: Can the Minister guarantee that mothers and babies in northern Southland won’t die or suffer permanent injury because they are too far away from a specialist maternity unit in their greatest time of need?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Due to the intense community interest and the impact of travel distances, I’m advised the Southern DHB sought external advice from midwifery consultants to help them understand this risk. The external advisers provided their opinion that there is no additional clinical risk in moving Lumsden to a maternal and child hub, as opposed to a birthing facility, if Southern DBH implements the required mitigation. These mitigations include the provision of equipment and processes to support urgent births and greater support to ensure the sustainability of community midwifes, who can help women plan to manage the travel required.

Hamish Walker: What is that guarantee worth when the data used is wrong, when the birthing unit at the Lumsden Maternity Centre is closing, and the Te Ānau air ambulance service that takes urgent cases to the right facilities is also at risk?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the first premise in the member’s question.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How can he support the decision not to establish a birthing unit in Wānaka, one of the fastest-growing areas in the South Island, before the results of census 2018 are known?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: For the first time, there is likely to be a new maternal and child hub in Wānaka. The previous Government didn’t put one there.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specific to the Minister and asked why the decision was not to establish a birthing unit in Wānaka. I didn’t mention a birthing hub.

SPEAKER: Does the member really want him to have another go?

Hon Jacqui Dean: I’d be delighted to.

SPEAKER: The Minister will answer the question again.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member. The changes the DHB is proposing to make are to increase the services available to women across the district. They will improve the quality of services. The previous Government didn’t put any services there for the women who wanted to give birth; we are.

Teachers—Industrial Action

7. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) on behalf of Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: What advice has he received on the likelihood of a two-day primary teacher strike and the potential impact that would have on students’ learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government’s committed to going back to the negotiating table with teachers and principals next week. We are listening to their concerns and are committed to good faith bargaining. Discussion of further strike action is premature, and I’ve yet to receive any advice on it.

Simeon Brown: What advice can he give to frustrated parents who are now facing the prospect of another longer two-day strike?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The same advice that I gave them this morning and yesterday: that talk of any further strike action is premature. Negotiations will resume next week.

Jamie Strange: What advice has he received on the concerns of primary school teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve received a wide range of advice on the concerns of primary school teachers. I won’t go through all of it today. I understand that primary school teachers are concerned that there aren’t enough of them, and the Government’s taken action, putting a $30 million package in place to attract new people to the profession. I’ve received feedback that national standards led to a significant increase in the workload without any corresponding increase in student achievement, and the Government has abolished them. And I’ve received advice that there is significant unmet demand—or significant extra demand, I should say—for learning support in our school system for kids with additional learning needs, and the Government provided the biggest increase in learning support funding in a decade in this year’s Budget.

Simeon Brown: Does he think that teachers were too quick in launching strike action, and does he have any plans to meet with union representatives himself to try and support a quick resolution to negotiations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The decision to take strike action was one taken by the teachers. I do know that they would not have taken that decision lightly. Of course, from a Government perspective, we would prefer to be sitting around the bargaining table with them rather than have them on strike.

Simeon Brown: Does he stand by the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday “We gave a 45 percent increase for operational funding.” when his Budget statement said the operational funding had increased by 1.6 percent, and does he think it is helpful for the Prime Minister to exaggerate by more than 25-fold?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that the percentage figures the Prime Minister was referring to were the percentage increases over and above the increases that were given in the last Budget by the previous National Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that the spokesperson for the protest yesterday on the forecourt of Parliament said that the reason they were protesting was nine years of National neglect?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He has no responsibility for the—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He does it all the time, poor old chap.

SPEAKER: And the member comments all the time.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, but mine are good.

SPEAKER: Well, how can I deal with it if the members advise me constantly?

Simeon Brown: When he said that the offer was “fair”, is he saying, as David Clark did for nurses, that that “there is no more money”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When I say that the offer is fair, I’ve been pointing out that the offer is more than double anything that the teachers were offered and settled for under the previous National Government. I’m also saying that the offer is fair because the Government has made a clear commitment to address many of the non-pay issues that teachers have raised during their settlement. I say that the offer is fair because it is significantly ahead—significantly ahead—of what the previous Government were willing to even contemplate offering teachers.

KiwiBuild—Pre-qualification Process

8. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress, if any, has been made in implementing the Government’s KiwiBuild programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): On Monday, pre-qualification opened, and the first families have now fully completed the KiwiBuild application process ahead of the first ballots next month. So far, more than 1,800 applicants have started their applications and have taken the first step to owning their own KiwiBuild home. This comes on top of the now over 40,000 Kiwis who have expressed an interest in owning their own home through KiwiBuild.

Tamati Coffey: What does the pre-qualification process entail?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The pre-qualification process is where potential KiwiBuild buyers show that they meet the eligibility criteria, declare that they will live in their home, and organise finance. There is no rush, and families should take their time to organise their finance and documentation. There will always be plenty of notice, and the KiwiBuild unit will let them know as new homes come on to the market in the coming months.

Tamati Coffey: Are banks supporting the pre-qualification process?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, they are. The major banks have been very supportive of KiwiBuild and have been willing and open to help make the dream of homeownership come true for more New Zealanders. On Monday, Kiwibank also announced it is putting itself out there as the first choice for KiwiBuild participants. They will pre-approve customers for up to 90 percent of the value of a KiwiBuild home, meaning that Kiwi families will only need a 10 percent deposit on these new builds. Kiwibank has also announced that it will contribute $2,000 to moving or legal expenses.

Freshwater Management—Establishment of Kāhui Wai Māori

9. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What success, if any, has he had in establishing Kahui Wai Māori - the Māori Freshwater Forum?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Nominations for Kāhui Wai Māori were opened a week ago. The Government has already received a substantial number of nominations and expressions of interest from Māori groups and individuals.

Hon Scott Simpson: What consultation, if any, did the Government undertake with Iwi Chairs Forum on the establishment of Kāhui Wai Māori?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister for Crown/Māori Relations has met on a number of occasions with iwi chairs and iwi leaders and had made clear the interest of the Government to have a broader conversation with Māoridom that is inclusive of that group but not limited to it.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does his failure to consult fully with the Iwi Chairs Forum on the establishment of Kāhui Wai Māori meet the level of partnership referred to by the Prime Minister at Waitangi earlier this year, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Iwi Chairs Forum is one of a number of Māori leadership bodies. Others include the New Zealand Māori Council, which has a statutory role and, of course, is one of the claimants to the Waitangi Tribunal claim in respect to water and was one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court decision relating to Mighty River Power and the sell-off by the last Government of shares in State-owned enterprises. We believe that they and the Federation of Māori Authorities and others ought to be also consulted.

Nuk Korako: What does real partnership with Māori entail in relation to freshwater rights?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We believe that it’s already apparent that Māori are involved in decision-making processes in respect of water at all levels of Government. The three parties of the coalition all have Māori in leadership roles. The Labour Party holds all of the Māori electorates and has the highest number of MPs of Māori descent that any party has ever had in New Zealand. We also respect the different views of Māoridom outside of Parliament, and, working together, we will do our best to resolve these complex issues.

Hon Shane Jones: In the context of Māori freshwater issues, what obstacles now lie in front of him as a consequence of the words of appeasement offered by the last Government to buy off the iwi leaders at the Supreme Court to the detriment of the “Indians and cowboys”?

SPEAKER: No, no. No responsibility.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does the Minister consider it consistent with the principles of the Treaty partnership for the Government to insist that it will choose who represent Māori on Kāhui Wai Māori?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The point that we’ve made is that we actually don’t want to start another journey to bring up to speed people that don’t already have a deep understanding of the complexity around water issues. New Zealand has been grappling with these issues for over a decade. The last Government, with the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group, was unable to resolve the curly issues that lie at the bottom of this. We wanted to engage with all viewpoints within Māoridom. We do have a role in appointing those positions through Cabinet, which, as I said, has representatives of Māori embedded within it, because we want to be able to move forward in a way that meets the proper interests of our country.

Hon Scott Simpson: What discussions has he had with iwi on the Government’s proposal to introduce a levy on bottled water, given previous statements that it was “so easy it could be done by lunchtime” and that 300 lunchtimes have passed without progress?

SPEAKER: Order! No, no—the member will resume his seat. That is not a question which relates to the primary question or to any of the previous supplementaries.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Māori Council and the Federation of Māori Authorities played a key and critical role in advancing litigation pertaining to other natural resources, including fisheries and forestry?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Those are not matters which the Minister has responsibility for.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, there’s not a point of order.

Hon Shane Jones: No, no, there is.

SPEAKER: I’ve ruled, Mr Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: Well, that’s disappointing.

Census 2018—Data Collection, Access, and Participation

10. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he have confidence in Statistics New Zealand?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): Yes, I do, and so should he.

Dr Jian Yang: What is his response to reports that some houses in the Coromandel area were deliberately missed, with census fieldworkers “advised not to bother with some hard-to-reach properties”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Statistics New Zealand has assured me that field teams were instructed to visit all the households on their lists and to record any challenges, including any safety concerns, with visiting a property so that a decision could be made by their team leader about further follow-up. For this year’s census, field officers had new processes to follow to support the collection of data from every household. Field officers completed nearly one million visits over seven weeks of follow-up across the country.

Dr Jian Yang: What is his response to Northland District Health Board’s chief executive who said access to the census for Northland has been a big issue and that, “Lots of people never received their access code, which means the whole campaign could have been a waste of time.”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I do understand how important census data is for calculating the distribution of health funds. However, as I’ve said in answers to previous questions, Statistics New Zealand is still working through the census reconciliation process and will not be in a position to make an announcement about census response and coverage rates until after they have completed this work. The initial release of data is likely to be in March of next year. I want to stress that I do have full confidence in our national statistics agency and in the work that they are doing on the census. While the response rate in this census appears to be lower than was planned for, Statistics New Zealand will make use of reliable Government data to fill in any gaps. The use of administrative data was a core part of the future census strategy that the previous National Government signed off on in 2014.

Dr Jian Yang: What is his response to census fieldworkers who said, “There was a complete sense of panic towards the end that it hadn’t worked out like the Government hoped.”?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said in response to the previous supplementary question, fieldworkers who had worked on the census in previous censuses who also worked on this census did have to change their methodology, and that involved for some of them some discomfort because they had been used to previous processes.

Dr Jian Yang: Is he concerned that the problems and historic low participation rate of Census 2018 will result in an inaccurate picture of New Zealand’s population, particularly for rural, Māori, and ethnic communities?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I have said in answers to previous supplementaries on this and in response to previous questions in the House by Dr Nick Smith, while the response rate in the census appears to be lower than planned for, Statistics New Zealand will make use of reliable Government data to fill in any gaps. The use of administrative data was a core part of the future census strategy that the previous Government signed off on in 2014.

Electric Vehicles—Uptake and Government Initiatives, Announcements

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has she made to help facilitate greater uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last week, I travelled to Porirua Motors with the local member Kris Faafoi, where I announced funding of $3.87 million for 19 new projects across New Zealand as part of the latest round in the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund. The fund is administered by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and encourages innovation and investment to accelerate the uptake of electric and other low-emission—

SPEAKER: That’s enough, thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —vehicles in New Zealand, which might not otherwise happen.

Angie Warren-Clark: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, we’re not going to have any more supplementaries on this question. The Minister was instructed to sit down and she didn’t. She continued. We’ll move on to question No. 12.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it does set somewhat of a dangerous precedent for the House, and for you as Speaker, where you prevent members from asking questions based on the conduct of Ministers. I think it’s fair to sanction a Minister. I don’t think it’s fair to take away the right—I think the Opposition would have a huge concern if an answer that I gave therefore meant that they weren’t allowed to ask a question.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I clearly didn’t do that. What I’ve done is stop the further promotion by way of Dorothy Dix or donkey-drop type questions, which are, overall, undesirable, where everything that the Minister had said was in the paper last week. I asked her to sit down and she did not. There is no question of a reduction in the accountability of the Government through the decision that I have just made.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last Standing Orders’ review, a recommendation was considered to remove the right of Government backbench members to ask questions of Ministers, and that was clearly rejected. It is the decision of the whole House to continue to allow Government backbench members to question Ministers.

SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A backbench member of the Government was seeking to ask a supplementary question.

SPEAKER: And I have indicated to the House, because of the behaviour of the Minister and the nature of the question, that the questioning on that question was curtailed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not wishing to contest your ruling, but can I suggest that your ruling be taken as a warning on this occasion rather than absolute and final, and give the backbench member a chance to ask her question.

SPEAKER: I think it can be taken as a warning to Ministers for the future to sit down when I tell them to.

Research and Development—Tax Credit

12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What advice, if any, has she received on the effect of the Government’s proposed R & D tax incentive on businesses that are yet to record a positive cash-flow?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): As was clearly stated in the tax incentive discussion document published in April this year, the Government recognises that it is important to support R & D businesses in tax loss or which have insufficient taxable income to use their tax credit. The Government is committed to providing a better policy option to support these businesses. We understand the challenges of pre-profit businesses and recognise the need for additional encouragement into research and development. We’re committed to finding solutions. I’ve received many pieces of advice on this topic, including the feedback we received through the consultation period on the R & D tax incentive, which is helping officials to develop the best policy for pre-profit businesses. The individual feedback has been crucial in the discussions we’re now having about the final design of the tax incentive. I look forward to making an announcement on how this Government will be investing $1 billion of new money on the R & D tax incentive in due course.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What proportion of businesses that undertake R & D in New Zealand are in a pre-profit stage?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can tell the member, of the 300 businesses that currently receive a growth grant through Callaghan Innovation, around 200 of those 300 are in a pre-profit situation. What I can tell that member is under the R & D tax credit, rather than the 300 that will be helped through a growth grant, around 3,000 businesses will be assisted through that incentive. I fully expect a large proportion of them will be pre-profit, but—

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the proportion—

SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The Minister’s answering the question. You can’t complain about an answer that hasn’t finished.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you. I’ll continue my answer—thank you, Mr Speaker. Since the previous Government’s support only stretched to 300, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is currently doing the numbers on the vastly expanded number of businesses that will receive support from this Government to increase their R & D.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was “What proportion of businesses that undertake R & D in New Zealand are in a pre-profit stage?”, not about the number of businesses that receive growth grants versus the number of businesses that will receive R & D tax credit.

SPEAKER: And I heard the Minister say, in summary, that they don’t yet have the information, but she gave an indicator of what the proportion was under a previous fund.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Has she seen official advice from MBIE, provided to her in November 2017, that the proposed tax credit rate is a reduction to the subsidy rate and is likely to reduce the growth in business R & D by existing performers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The issue the member is alluding to is, of course, the difference between a net and a gross figure. A growth grant is currently set at 20 percent, but when netted out, that is roughly around 14.5 percent for the business. We went out to consultation on a 12.5 percent tax incentive, but, as I reminded that member at the end of my last answer, we are currently working through the final design options on the final outcome of the R & D tax incentive, and we will have announcements to make in due course.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I seek leave to table this briefing document obtained under the Official Information Act after going through the ombudsman’s office. It’s dated 2 November 2017. The title of the document is “Initial advice about introducing an R & D tax credit”.

SPEAKER: Has that document been placed on the website?

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: No, as far as I know.

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

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

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Did she not take the MBIE advice seriously because, like the Hon Phil Twyford’s view about Treasury advisers, she also thinks that MBIE advisers are kids?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I completely reject the premise of that question.

Question No. 5 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave to a question earlier in question time.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? You’d better tell us which question it was.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It was question No. 5, I believe.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In answer to the member’s first supplementary, I stated that I wasn’t aware of a reported case of a Housing New Zealand tenant renting out their home on Airbnb. For the member’s information, I have subsequently been advised there is only one known case of this happening. It happened more than a year ago—

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just check with the Minister—is this information that he has received since he made his answer? Well, the member cannot correct an answer when he said he wasn’t aware of something then, for the fact that he’s aware of it now. The answer was accurate at the time.

Bills

National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 15 August.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is a case where the Government is using M. bovis to really push through an agenda which will mean that farmers and other agricultural producers are now subject to search and surveillance rules that no other industry or group of people are, and that is what this Government is doing in this bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): In the interests of our regions, it is my pleasure to absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill deserves some full calls this afternoon. It’s a very important bill, and I believe it needs further scrutiny. In the ideal world this bill would have gone to a select committee and it wouldn’t have been debated over the last 24 hours in urgency. That is hugely disappointing to the National Party.

We know the importance of making sure that National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) works as it was designed, but we have fundamental concerns about the due process of this particular bill, and we’re disappointed that Damien O’Connor didn’t choose to take up our offer of sending it to a truncated select committee process in the recess. We could have turned this bill around and been having this debate in the next session. But, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture was a bit hoodwinked by his officials, and sensed that this is a technical bill, it’s not new policy—well, we don’t believe that for one minute.

We do have grave concerns about the further expansion of these warrantless powers, and we feel that that’s a significant encroachment on privacy and into farmers’ livelihoods. We haven’t been given clear examples as to why this suddenly needs to be passed through in urgency—that indeed would have helped the debate, I’m sure, over the last 24 hours. Because of the concern that we had, we proposed five amendments. I think it’s worthwhile me taking a wee while now to traverse those amendments, because they were well thought through and we thought that some of them should have been passed.

The first one was that a NAIT officer should have reasonable cause to go on to a property, and I can see Ron Mark nodding. So why on earth New Zealand First didn’t support that one, I’m not quite sure. Then it came to one I thought was really well designed and thought through by Amy Adams, who has—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The purpose of the third reading is to debate the bill as accepted by the committee of the whole House, not to relitigate individual parts of that debate that were not accepted by the committee.

Hon NATHAN GUY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve been in this House 13 years. First readings, second readings, and, in particular, third readings are very wide ranging. The Speaker shouldn’t be constraining speeches in the Parliament this afternoon, in my view, when we haven’t had due process. I think it’s very worthy for people that have been listening to the debate over the last 24 hours, that may be in their cowsheds now listening to this debate—that they should understand the importance of it. I think it’s on my responsibility to fully canvass the areas that have been debated right through this process. This is a bill that is being debated in urgency in all stages.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for his contribution to my ruling. The member can mention in passing those issues that were raised during the committee stage, but the third reading is a debate on the bill as accepted by the committee. So he can mention it in passing, but going through every single part of the committee stage is not in order.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Just mentioning the second part in passing, the amendment that was proposed by Amy Adams talked about the need for a warrant for the ability to seize any property. That will now be a warrantless provision. Talking just in passing about the third amendment that was proposed by the Hon David Bennett, that was discussing an amendment to do with natural disasters and, indeed, incursions, where the Minister would have to come into the House. In passing, the other one which I thought was really important was proposed by the Rt Hon David Carter, which, basically, said “This bill should lapse when the next bill”—because we know there’s another NAIT bill coming into the House. This bill could be picked up and go to select committee to follow due process.

The fifth amendment—just in passing—was proposed by myself and accepted, and the reason that that’s worth mentioning is because the whole House supported a review of this amendment, particularly around my new clause 8A. So that is an important point because it means that the Minister has to report back to the House after 12 months. When this bill is passed through and has got its Royal assent, he will be given three months when he has to report back to the House. We want to understand how wide ranging these warrantless powers will be.

I also want to mention to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to the House this afternoon that we know how important M. bovis is. We know of, and we back, the phased eradication plan. We all know that the NAIT system needs to be turbocharged. What we heard this morning from NAIT and the Operational Solutions for Primary Industries officials in our select committee was that the overall software and the overall system is going to need some investment in the future, and that will be in the near future because some of these regulations that have been passed this afternoon will mean they will be enacted in the next couple of weeks.

What we also heard in the debate over the last 24 hours—and I’ve alluded to it—is that there’s going to be another piece of legislation, and that’s likely to be before the end of the year. We on this side of the House think that it would have made logical sense to have combined both of these bills and sent them off to a select committee to have allowed Federated Farmers, Dairy New Zealand, Beef and Lamb, Fonterra—and the list goes on—potentially trucking operators, stock and station agents, and farmers, importantly, to come along and submit. We were denied that.

It also would have meant that we would have had officials in front of the select committee. We could have then interrogated them, to understand why they think that this is just a technical, inconsequential bill. We don’t believe that, but we were denied that opportunity.

I can’t understand why both the bill that we are discussing today and the one that’s in the pipeline didn’t go to a select committee. We have got a live example where the president of Federated Farmers was so concerned that she picked up the phone or sent the Minister a text message and said, “I need to meet with your officials.” We were so concerned that I went to the Minister and said, “We need to meet with your officials.” We couldn’t get all of the answers. We haven’t been able to get all of the answers through this all-stage process in the House. That’s why it would have made logical sense to have sent it to a select committee so that everyone could have had their say, and we could have had our concerns allayed.

Also, I want to put on record—and I want to look at Minister Damien O’Connor now—that he implied in the committee of the whole House a couple of hours ago that, as Minister, I had sat on the NAIT review report for 12 months. I say to him that that is a complete crock. That is not factual at all. If he wants to take that comment out of this House, he should go and stand on the steps of Parliament and say it. Why doesn’t he ring up Sir Henry van der Heyden—who has a lot of credibility across the House—who oversaw the whole of the review and ask him if it was delayed, and he will tell that Minister that, indeed, it wasn’t.

What is also important to realise is that the review concluded with 38 recommendations. Fifteen of them are going to be done by the Ministry for Primary Industries, and we are debating some of them now, but what’s really interesting is these search and surveillance powers and the warrantless powers to do with photographing evidence, videoing, and copying documents—they are nowhere in the review recommendations.

The Minister has had 10 months in the job. Admittedly, he got the review in about March or April, from memory, so from that period of time—May, June, July, August—he’s had, potentially, 4½ months to get a bill into the House without it needing to go through all stages, and it could have gone to a select committee to have due process and scrutiny. I can’t understand why the Minister hasn’t followed that process. We have now had some sureties from the Minister that the next NAIT bill is going to go through due process—hallelujah! That means there’ll be a first reading and then off it will go to a select committee. We welcome that. That’s the way you get good legislation. That’s the way that people can submit.

What’s been really interesting in this debate—and it covers the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012—is that all of the coalition parties in 2012 voted against it. Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens were all against that Act, and now—

Hon Member: Infringement of civil liberties, they argued.

Hon NATHAN GUY: That’s right—I remember the speeches. Yep, there’s a real intrusion, civil liberties, people’s privacy—all that stuff. Now, they’re, effectively, wanting to insert those provisions so that a NAIT officer can turn up unannounced and without cause and can seize property. We have real concerns about it, but, ultimately, we think, because of the response that we’re in, we need to support it. But we do that with some concern and caution.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It falls on me to summarise the New Zealand First support for this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (NAIT). These are, essentially, technical amendments to the NAIT Act, and they are designed to assist in our response to the M. bovis biosecurity incursion, and what a significant event that has been for our primary sector.

This does bring the NAIT Act into line with the Search and Surveillance Act. This is the irony of what we hear from the other side of the House: it was their bill—the bill that they are now railing against—the provisions in that were brought in by the previous National Government. It was clear through the select committee reports from the time of the NAIT legislation of 2012 that it was always envisaged that the intent of that was that the Search and Surveillance Act and the NAIT Act should be aligned. So there are no surprises in this. This is a tidy-up to make sure that those provisions are actually fit for purpose as they were intended. Unfortunately, we’ve had to test these out in real time in the real world.

Now, I would just pull back a little bit from this, because I do take the speech, from the earlier reading, from Barbara Kuriger, who did mention that we have gone to some lengths to take the politics out of this particular event because it is so serious, not only for the country but particularly for the farmers involved. We recognised, I think, across the House that squabbling in this Parliament was doing no favours to our farmers on the ground. They wanted to see united government behind a serious eradication campaign, and this is what we have had up to this point. I think it’s done us some credit in recent times, but we have seen a retreat from that position through some of this debate, and I think that’s a little bit unfortunate.

As the previous speaker, the Hon Nathan Guy, has mentioned and the Hon Damien O’Connor alluded to, there will be a further root-and-branch review of this Act over time. This is the time that we can go back through a select committee process. Also, the Biosecurity Act is up for review and improvement. There will be quite a lot of opportunity for us to go through that process, but we do not have time at the moment. I think the reason for that is because we’re at the stage of the spring milk testing. Now, for those of you who may be at home listening or watching or in the House that may not be aware of the significance of that, this is the period of time when this particular disease is going to be at its most identifiable. It’s when stock are under pressure—they’re either heavily pregnant or have just calved. This is a very difficult disease to detect. The testing mechanisms that we have are only up to about 60 percent effective. So we have to take this period, the spring milk test period, to take that opportunity when it is going to be at its most visible. There is a nationwide testing programme. So we need the NAIT officials to have every tool in the toolbox that they require and we can provide for them at this point.

So this is a matter of urgency, and this is why we’re in this position today. There are the checks and balances to go back and have a look at this a bit later on. I do actually respect the Opposition. It is their role to hold the Government to account in this, and I do respect that they have done that, but certainly from a New Zealand First perspective, we are totally confident in the Minister of Agriculture and the provisions that he has put up. And why is this? I mean, this is an incredibly important issue for New Zealand. We’ve got the teachers out there yesterday striking, looking for more pay, and with good reason. The sector that we’re trying to protect here is—and it’s not only the dairy cattle; it’s beef cattle and deer through these NAIT provisions—circa $20 billion worth of revenue for this country. This is a big deal. We must get this right. We must have all the tools at our disposal to respond.

I will commend the Minister for his leadership, because even though we have sought to take the politics out of this, if we did peel that back a little bit just for a second, it has been a pretty shambolic set-up that he has inherited. We saw this morning before the select committee the Operational Solutions for Primary Industries and NAIT Ltd representatives, particularly CEO Michelle Edge, give us an exercise in denial. That select committee did attempt to hold her to account and did ask some hard questions, but the question I would ask as a new member is: this is now a six-year-old piece of legislation; why have those questions not been asked earlier? There has been a review started. It took for ever to come out, as the Minister alluded to, so why have those questions not been asked earlier?

The other thing that I do need to put on record, and I’ve done so before, but the response from the Government—even though we know that our on-the-ground response hasn’t been where it’s needed to be, and this has caused some distress for many farmers involved, at no point—at no point—have we been lacking in resources from the Government. The $886 million pulled together both by Government funding and by industry aligned with that funding as well, and contributing as it should—we have not hesitated. We have not pulled back from resourcing this to the absolute maximum that we have been asked. The reason we have done this was because the option of doing nothing was not there. The option of doing nothing was going to cost us far more than doing something. So we have had firm leadership from the Minister, and I think he has been commended from across the House in that, and New Zealand First certainly are totally behind his leadership in this.

The other side of that is—and we heard this morning in the select committee—Michelle Edge tried to tell us that, you know, maybe it wasn’t so bad; other countries had brought similar sorts of programmes in and it had taken them a while to bed down. Well, that is not good enough for us. We pride ourselves in leading the world in agriculture and pastoral agriculture and horticulture, and we do not accept that on this side of the House, that that is a good enough answer. That is why we have to take measures like we are doing today. So it is restoring our leadership position, restoring the confidence, actually, of our farmers.

I know, as a farmer, I am more confident as a result of these changes. I think there has been some scaremongering going on that there’s going to be Storm Troopers driving about and coming on to farms willy-nilly. Well, that is just not going to be the case, and I think, as a farmer who—touch wood—has not been affected directly by this particular outbreak to this point, I’m pleased that we’re getting our response lined up so that we can protect those of us that have not yet had the misfortune, and hopefully never have the misfortune, of being in contact with this disease.

So this is a measure that we’ve needed to take and we have taken. I once again commend the Minister. I hope that the National Party will come on board and support this, because they have come in behind the phased eradication, and I don’t think we want to see too much more scaremongering from that side of the House in this particular issue. So, with that, I will confirm New Zealand First’s support for this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): First of all, I want to thank Stuart Smith. He was due to take the next call, and I asked whether I could go first because I wanted to respond to the speech that’s just been given by the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. In my mind, he summed up the issue very well. He gave the best speech that’s been given by any Government member, proving to me that he understands the situation. The point he made was that he feels a bit sorry for the situation that the Hon Damien O’Connor has inherited with National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT). I agree with Mark Patterson. It is a bit of a mess.

We did have the opportunity of having NAIT before the select committee for 30 minutes this morning, and the answers given, by the chief executive particularly, left me with no more assurance that NAIT was working correctly. The real issue for me, and why I wanted to be at that select committee presentation this morning, was that New Zealand is about to make history with, potentially, eradicating bovine TB from this country. Who is in charge of that process but Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI)—the same organisation who’s actually in charge of NAIT. And I think what we’ve learnt as we’ve gone through this debate over the last, effectively, 24 hours, is that NAIT hasn’t been run well by an organisation called OSPRI. And I think there’s a lot more work for this Parliament, and particularly members of the Primary Production Committee, to do to satisfy itself that the NAIT system within OSPRI is working well.

So I commend the words of Mark Patterson, and I can assure him, though I’m not a member of the Primary Production Committee, that I have spoken to my colleagues who are members of the Primary Production Committee. They share my concern about the potential breakdown of the progress we’re making around TBfree New Zealand, and I think that select committee has a significant amount to do, and to do quickly, particularly in light of the fact that we’ve now got a new chair of OSPRI. The previous one ran away as soon as the challenges appeared. We’ve got a chief executive of OSPRI who’s about to run away as the challenges have appeared, and I implore that select committee to take the opportunity and accept the invitation that was accepted by Barry Harris, the new acting chair, to get them back before that select committee before Michelle Edge leaves and, apparently, departs to go to Australia. I implore the select committee to do it.

But that’s not the only shambles we’re dealing with. It’s the shambles of the way this legislation has been handled. What a shambolic position for the Leader of the House to be in, to come begging to the National Opposition at about 12.45 this afternoon, asking it to do a deal so that urgency could be concluded by 1 o’clock. No deal. We’re here to test the Government. We were doing our job—and then, the way that urgency was broken.

The Government has every right to break urgency if it decides it’s got another legislative agenda to get through—every right to do so—and I’ve seen many Ministers and Leaders of the House come in and do so. Never have I seen a cowardly way—the way it was done today—where a piece of paper was given to the presiding officer at the time, who, at 30 seconds to 1, rose before the House to inform the House that urgency was broken. What a shambles. What a shambles, Mr Hipkins. It’s not the only time that he’s lost control. I wasn’t here for the vote for the Speaker, but they tell me that was the most exciting vote of all time. Mr Hipkins has got to learn to run the House properly. I know he’s a relatively inexperienced member, but the shambles of the last 24 hours in this House will be noted by upstairs as the right honourable Prime Minister considers her reshuffle. It will be noticed, Mr Hipkins.

I want to move now to the issue of the NAIT legislation itself. And, as I said in the House, it will be with a heavy heart that I finally vote for the third reading. And I say that genuinely, because I am worried—the way this bill has been rushed through without due process—about the powers that have been given to our Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) NAIT officers. I accept, particularly the way it was put by Mark Patterson, that this legislation needs amending. It’s not about fixing drafting errors. And I know that that’s the reason the Greens said they were supporting it. Eugenie Sage took a call, and I see Gareth Hughes nodding his head. They had been led to believe the only thing we were doing with this legislation was fixing drafting errors. Well, that’s what the officials tried to tell us, as well. But we have a bit more experience.

We delved into the issue. The big issue here is aligning the NAIT legislation of 2012 with the search and surveillance legislation of 2012, giving extraordinary powers—they can’t be described as anything else—to a NAIT officer. So now, when this legislation is passed, MPI can come on to my farm unannounced and they can then seize whatever they like—all my vehicles, all my records, all my computers, all my bank statements. They can seize that without giving any reason. The police don’t have that power. When the search and surveillance legislation was debated in the House, the Greens talked about a complete breach of human rights, a breach of civil liberties, and yet they’ve supported this today, giving an MPI officer more power than the police.

What that means is that if the police suspect they are investigating, perhaps, a drug importation—a drug dealership—they have to go to the courts and they’ve got to get a warrant. That’s the way it should be. So what the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government is doing is saying a drug dealer gets more rights than I get because I’m a farmer. How right is that?

Look at the body language on the other side of the House. We used to care about civil liberties. The only one who’s lifted his head is William Sio, who’s laughing about it. He thinks it’s fun that an MPI officer should have the right on Monday morning to come up my drive, on to my farm, with his new powers, and, without even engaging in conversation, take my computers, take my vehicles, take whatever he or she wants—

Hon AUPITO William Sio: It’s an exaggeration.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —because that’s the power—sorry?

Hon AUPITO William Sio: That’s an exaggeration.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It’s not an exaggeration; that’s the point we’ve been making. For the last 24 hours, we’ve been saying it’s not an exaggeration. The police have to go and get a warrant. This is about search powers being given to MPI officers without them having to get a warrant. So Mr Sio, I say to you, it’s not an exaggeration. I heard Mark Patterson say, “Oh, well, I accept they’ll have those powers; they’ll never use them.” Mark my words: before too long there’ll be a case of a crying farmer on TV ONE or TV3 claiming that the jackboots have arrived on their farm and they’ve been treated unreasonably.

Can I conclude by making comments around the politics of Mycoplasma bovis. We on this side pledged our support to the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis. We on this side of the House offered to take the politics out of the situation. I’m aware that our leader, Simon Bridges, personally phoned the Prime Minister and said, “We don’t want politics in this. We want a whole-of-Government approach to the opportunity of ridding this country of Mycoplasma bovis.” And what this debate over the last 24 hours has done is actually brought politics back into that response. It didn’t have to be like that.

If the Leader of the House could only have organised the agenda of this House, he could have introduced this last Tuesday. We could have had 24 hours at the select committee, being Wednesday, and we could be back in the House at this stage, meeting exactly the same timetable. That’s proper process. And it’s that sort of arrogance from this Government that has brought, unfortunately, politics back into the response. I now pledge that we’ll do our best to work with the Government, but don’t spring this sort of process on us again.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Well, National can choose to take the low farm road, but we’ll choose to take the high farm road. We won’t get bogged down by petty politics, exaggeration, scaremongering, and grandstanding. Most of that last contribution was about politics and parliamentary procedure, not the issues. The issue is we are caught unprepared for biosecurity incursions. The best thing you can say about National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) is that it didn’t happen in a time of foot-and-mouth, because, had foot-and-mouth hit, it would have been catastrophic for New Zealand and we would have been unprepared. So let’s not focus on the low road; let’s focus on what we are doing to fix it.

Now, this legislation fixes the mess that National created. It’s a technical amendment to make sure that our Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials have the exact same powers and functions as they have for fisheries, as they have for wine, as they have under the Waste Minimisation Act, and it’s the grandstanding and the scaremongering that’s going to send our farming communities the wrong message, because they should actually be working with MPI to protect New Zealand, to protect our economy.

Now, I want to make a quick comment. The use of urgency is entirely justified. We’re fixing a mess that means the people that protect our country don’t have the skills, the powers, and the functions to be able to do it. We are talking about slaughtering tens of thousands of cattle—hundreds of millions of dollars. If this isn’t a use for urgency, I don’t know what is.

So I’m going to take a very short call, because I want to see this legislation pass. I want to see our MPI officials have the powers they have under the Search and Surveillance Act. We weren’t fans of this legislation passing at the time, but we don’t think that our MPI officials should be hamstrung and not be able to use it. Currently, under National’s own NAIT legislation, MPI officials have the ability to have an unwarranted search of a property—it’s called doing their job. It’s about their regular compliance work. But National left them unprepared. They hamstrung them, because they could go do that regular compliance and then if they saw offending they couldn’t then take a photograph of it, and this is why we have the mess.

So look, all I can say is thank gosh it didn’t happen in a time of foot-and-mouth. Hopefully we can learn the lessons. Now, let’s get out of the gutter and actually focus on fixing stuff.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I have to actually address what Gareth has just talked about. It’s ironic that he thinks it’s quite OK for National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officers to go into a farmhouse and to take photos and search and seize without a warrant. Yet the GCSB or the New Zealand SIS going into his home, doing the same thing, would be required to go to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and put a report in place to show it was justified. That is not the case here. The irony is just unbelievable that the Greens, who have the so-called moral high ground, heading into their own conference this weekend—they’ll be embarrassed. They’ll be totally embarrassed by this performance on this particular bill.

Look, this whole bill has been brought in under the veil of Mycoplasma bovis so that it won’t be examined too closely. Look, we all have great feelings of sympathy and empathy for those people that are affected with Mycoplasma bovis, those people who are losing their herds that they’ve long struggled over, some of them they know them by name, and seeing them go off to the freezing works must be terribly distressing. The stress it’s caused in families we’ve heard about through the debate.

That is not the issue here. We’re talking about a law; a bill that’s going to have a long consequence in New Zealand. What I’m concerned about is how is history going to judge us, the people who put this bill through? Because we know one thing for certain: when we make laws, mistakes get made. One way to try and minimise that is to go through good processes. One of those is a select committee process, where you call in those people—call for submissions. You usually get interested people, people that are involved in that particular sector, and they’ll come in and say, “Look, this won’t work for this reason. This is an overreach.”

What we know is that Government officials will overreach. They’ll push this to the limit. How far this goes, we don’t know, and I’m just very concerned about this, and I’m making this point in this speech because I don’t want to be judged harshly on this in the future without getting on the record that I warned you. I warned—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I’m warning the House and the public that care to read this speech in the future. This has far-reaching consequences and we better be very damn careful about it.

I also take umbrage with this as a technical error that we’re fixing. It’s not a technical error. This isn’t a technical bill. I’ve seen a technical bill; this doesn’t come anywhere near it. I can’t believe that the Government would come up with something like this: with all the resources that they have at their disposal—that the Minister has with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—that they could come with this flimsy document. I’ve seen far more technical member’s bills. In fact, we only have to look back a week or so when Dr Shane Reti got off on his own and came up with a quite complicated and complex bill on medicinal cannabis, and he didn’t have the resources of MPI to do that; he did it all himself. He travelled to the United States, did all the investigation, and yet we have this.

Now, we don’t dispute that changes need to be made—they absolutely do—but the far-reaching warrantless powers of search and seizure are something that we should all be very, very concerned about. I did raise this in speeches in the committee of the whole House stage, about the instance where animals are grazed on properties that aren’t farmers’. So, for example, an orchard or a vineyard, and those animals being moved from one place to another place, to a different vineyard—from one vineyard to another, one orchard to another.

You could argue, if you chose to, that cattle aren’t really grazed on vineyards at this stage, but at some stage I’m sure sheep will in fact be included under NAIT. So we have to look out to the future. This bill isn’t just for today; it’s for the future, and I’m concerned about that because we could end up having the consequence from this bill that vineyards, orchards, and lifestyle blocks may no longer want to have animals grazing on their property because they don’t want to be exposed to the risk of having a warrantless entry and search and seizure of their property. So this isn’t pie-in-the-sky stuff; this is very real.

I can’t believe that the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson was sort of taking exception to the fact that we’re opposing this. We’re the Opposition. That’s our job to point out where we see flaws in things, rather than to just take the debate notes that come from the Minister’s office and just follow that line. We’re here to ask the hard questions and that’s what we’ll do. When we see something we like, we’ll agree with it. But going into urgency over this is just unbelievable and I can’t understand the Greens for a moment. I think that we always thought that they were joined at the hip to Labour; now we can actually see that. Now that’s fine. That may be what they want, but that’s not how they’ve advertised. What they’re delivering is not what it says on the tin at all. I just wonder if that will come up over the weekend at their conference. I’m wondering if I could register and go along. It might be quite interesting.

Brett Hudson: I’m sure it will—that, and the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment bill. There’ll be a lot of talk about that.

STUART SMITH: Well, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is another thing altogether, of course.

We did have Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) in this morning in the Primary Production Committee. OSPRI are very important in relation to this bill, because they actually administer the NAIT legislation. We weren’t satisfied, I have to say, with what came out in that select committee—we were quite concerned. I’ve certainly taken on board what the Rt Hon David Carter—who was an excellent Minister of Agriculture in his time, and who also asked some very searching and quite pertinent questions in that select committee, during the committee of the whole House stage, and through the stages of this bill.

He makes a very good point, and I think that the Primary Production Committee needs to reflect on that and look further into this, because we didn’t have a lot of time today. But it was very timely for us to actually have that, ahead of this urgency. We didn’t know that we would be having this when we invited them in, so it was unfortunate that it was a much shorter briefing that we could have perhaps hoped for.

But the system was set up. We’ve now got software in place to manage all the transactions that go through that system, but with the changes in the legislation, that’s going to ramp up the number of transactions that will have to be recorded through that system significantly. At the moment it is straining. It’s under strain. It’s struggling to keep up. So how we’re going to actually manage through this process when this legislation comes into force is unclear.

There’s several million dollars, we believe, to upgrade the system, and there will be a time delay, and often, as my colleague Mr Hudson will know, these things don’t always go to plan on time frames when you’re talking about expensive software. And it has to be done correctly, because this is really important—all these transactions that go through it.

Recording animal movements is not simple. People may be familiar with their pets, when they can put a little identity tag inside under the skin, and it’s there for life for the cat or the dog. We can’t do that with livestock animals, unfortunately, so they’re in a tag in the ear, and it’s just the nature of things that they come out. Having 100 percent accuracy with any kind of animal identification system is not going to be possible, with all the best will in the world. The best I believe we can hope for at this stage is in the very high 90 percent range for compliance with NAIT, but good efforts have to be made. The legislation is one thing; actual human behaviour is another, and managing the vagaries of animal behaviour as well goes into that.

I don’t want to actually conflate this issue with Mycoplasma bovis. We all have great sympathy and empathy for the people that are affected by that. We do need good tools to manage NAIT, and some of these adjustments are fair, but we are very concerned about the warrantless powers and the implications for those in the future. I have grave reservations about it. I’m very concerned that the consequences of this will not be known for many years in the future, and I think we should always move with great caution doing that. This is not a technical amendment; this is actually a complete change and an expansion of powers—ones that we should all be very careful about.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Kris Faafoi—five-minute call.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think I’ve got a meeting soon—sorry. I’m not going to take a long call, but for those members of the public who may have stumbled upon Parliament TV and are wondering what’s going on right now, let me explain the context of what is happening. We are amending the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act, which was introduced by the previous Government in 2012. That Act was brought in to introduce a system so that if farmers wanted to move livestock from one farm to another, or within their farms if they managed them in a certain way, we would know where that stock would be and where certain stock may have moved over a certain amount of time. That is important given the context of M. bovis, which the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, said we were introducing this piece of legislation under the veil of.

If that piece of legislation and the implementation of the 2012 Act had been effective, the crisis that we faced with M. bovis and the management of it would’ve been much easier for the Government to deal with—and, potentially, the previous Government—if it had been effective. Unfortunately, it has not been effective, because the previous Government didn’t do a good job of introducing the legislation that we are amending or the enforcement of it, therefore requiring this piece of legislation to be introduced. It would’ve been much easier if the Government had done a good job back in 2012, but we are here amending this legislation in order for the current Government to continue its strong leadership in biosecurity to take this issue seriously.

One more point I would like to make with the previous speaker: he said that history will judge us as we pass this piece of legislation. Unfortunately for the previous Government, now the Opposition, New Zealand is already judging it because of its poor performance on biosecurity, which was enacted via the 2012 Act, necessitating this change here. History has already judged the previous Government. The agriculture sector has already judged the previous Government because it knows this piece of legislation is necessary to deal with a crisis that it left us.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Five-minute call—Hamish Walker.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for getting my correct name. It’s always nice—nice start. I just want to talk briefly about the previous speaker Kris Faafoi’s comments and just want to know when he was actually last on a farm. I have been meeting farmers affected by this awful, awful beast most weeks, and it’s actually quite emotional to recall some of what they’ve said to me. Some have said they don’t know if they’ll get through the day. Some have said they’re going to lose their farm after it being in the family for 90 or 100 years.

I have some serious concerns about this. This morning in select committee when we had the chief executive of Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand come in, we asked her about this system, and she said it’s going to take six to 12 months to implement. So if that’s the case, what’s the point of rushing this through urgency? If we can get it to select committee, we can panel beat it a bit and actually make a much better bill. We also asked how much this is going to cost to implement—several million dollars. Again, this is an expensive piece of work—why would you rush it through urgency? It just makes no sense at all.

What else doesn’t help is this Government continuing to talk down the farming sector. If we want to attract people to the industry, the last thing we should be doing is talking down to it. The media reports this offshore, which affects our markets. If we want to get top dollar for our farmers, the last thing we want to be doing is talking down to them.

I just want to talk about the search and surveillance rules, which are not quite dawn raids material but, I mean, they are going to be over the top. My concern is that I meet with these farmers most weeks, they come to me—and an MP’s office is a bit like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff—and tell me their stories, and, more often than not, it’s their stories about the overzealous Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials who come on to their land, that they know—it’s their business, it’s their home—and tell them, basically, how to run things.

Some stories—I had one farmer come to me because he had an MPI official, and the farmer, being a very considerate bloke, got the MPI official in for a coffee and he said to this official, “My friend said X, Y, Z.”, and then the MPI official used that in evidence against him. I took it to the top of the organisation, and, luckily, that person, Geoff Gwyn, who has been doing a fantastic job—works long hours—got this case manager removed straight away. What’s concerning is that it takes an electorate MP to pass these concerns on.

Another concern—a comment made to a farmer. The first thing the MPI official said to this person: “Your 40-year farming history won’t count for anything.” How disrespectful is that—the first thing he hears from an MPI official? Another one—an MPI official said to this farmer’s kids: “I’m here because your parents have done something wrong.” I mean, what message is this sending? And then, all of a sudden, we’re giving these MPI officials more powers than the police.

If we actually just pause for a moment, and we send this to select committee, we can iron these things out, because it’s pretty sad that these people have to come to an electorate MP to get some sort of action. I had another farmer contact me on Tuesday this week from West Otago: “Hamish, I’ve had 17 different personnel from organisations like MPI on to my farm, and nearly every single one has told me something different.”

We all just need to take a breather, take our time, send this to select committee, get the best result possible, because I’m concerned that what’s actually happening on the ground is quite different to the—perception is reality at the end of the day. At the moment—there’s a good old saying, “A stitch in time saves nine”, or “The right hand needs to be talking to the left hand”. It’s just not happening at the moment.

Dr Duncan Webb: Any other metaphors?

HAMISH WALKER: You enjoyed that, though, didn’t you? Thank you, Dr Webb.

Lastly, I just want to pay tribute to all the amazing organisations out there that have been supporting our farmers. You are doing a tremendous job. This is too important for us not to get right for our farming sector and our country.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well done to the Opposition. You’re not doing a bad job—that sort of faux outrage when you know that we need this bill. Thank you for supporting this bill, because you know you must.

Farmers want this bill; the farmers need this bill—that’s what we’re hearing. I’m surprised, I know member Carter—he’s going to be very happy to have me on to his farm, and he knows that when something’s going wrong on his farm, we absolutely need people to be able to get in there, find out what’s going wrong, without having to go and get a warrant. Two or three days can be very important here, because it is a crisis. This is urgent. We need to fix up this legislation, and that’s what we’re doing. This is a short bill, but it is a technical bill. It’s fixing up some much-needed gaps so that we can address the crisis that is immediately before us.

So, look, well done to the Opposition. You’re doing your job, but this bill must pass, it will pass, and thank you for your support for it. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to round out the National Opposition’s contributions in this debate. My, what a debate it has been. For those that are listening, they might draw all sorts of conclusions about what this debate has been, but I want to start my contribution by saying what it’s not about.

This debate is not about any dissension about how vitally important it is to have a phased eradication of M. bovis. There is zero disagreement about that in this House. But make no mistake, this legislation that’s been changed under urgency with no public scrutiny—changes in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill; NAIT, as we fondly know it—the changes in this legislation are not just constrained to the current situation we have with M. bovis. The ramifications and the reach of this legislation go far wider.

I think it’s very important to make sure that is on the record. Similar to my colleague Hamish Walker, who spoke before me, as an electorate MP with the first—not the first one but first two cases in the Waikato, which is, of course, the heart of dairy excellence in New Zealand, the cost on individuals and their families is enormous. This debate is not disputing that. Unfortunately, what this debate does do for those that are dealing with this crisis day to day is it provides a huge level of uncertainty about what can happen on their property.

The other side have accused the National Opposition of scaremongering. Let’s just clarify, because I think, in the time of crisis, people deserve honesty. People deserve that the people who represent them and those that are the Ministers in charge of a crisis are honest. To call this a technical bill is outrageous. To call this a minor correction for mistakes in an existing piece of legislation is outrageous. That is not honest. That is not upfront with the very people that are dealing with a crisis right now, right here, and I think that’s appalling.

So in terms of this crisis—and this House, under urgency, generally we do debate legislation that is related to a civil defence emergency; we’ve had special legislation for Canterbury earthquakes. The difference is that even with legislation that is dealing with an emergency or a crisis in this country, we have had the ability to provide scrutiny through a shortened select committee process.

Now, the other thing that is worth noting on this piece of legislation, because it relates very much to the use of urgency, is that this is a phased eradication. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Minister for primary industries had a range of options available. The one selected wasn’t immediate eradication. If it’d been immediate eradication, our side could have understood the need for urgency for legislation with no scrutiny whatsoever, but it’s not. This is phased eradication. There was absolutely sufficient time—for people who are dealing with a crisis like this, it is absolutely their right and our responsibility as lawmakers to them to give them a voice.

We’ve had contributions from the urban MPs across the House, and while they might have some nice and interesting ideas, they have not faced this issue in their electorate. They have not faced the concerns of members of their electorates who are dealing with a crisis, who are now confronted with a piece of legislation they’ve had no opportunity to scrutinise. The other thing is this legislation is not just constrained to M. bovis. If it was, there could’ve been a sunset clause. There could’ve been constraints and restrictions around these particular changes in the legislation, but no, the Government didn’t want to listen at all to anyone.

What was absolutely staggering was watching the Green members’ faces when they realised—hello, hello, thanks to the Opposition’s work on this legislation under urgency, with very little notice—this was not just a technical bill. This is a substantial change and far-reaching in terms of the search and surveillance legislation. The Government members hate hearing it. It is absolutely unheard of for an MPI official to have greater powers than the New Zealand Police—absolutely outrageous. Again, the Green Party are always interesting, because every single piece of legislation that urgency was accorded for when they were in Opposition they opposed on principle—opposed. But they’ve gone—principles have walked out of the door as soon as the Greens could see that there was a sniff of power. But what they don’t do—what they don’t do—is look in the eyes of the very people that are affected by this.

It’s interesting, because one of the areas, although my colleagues asked detailed questions about it, was around the provision of moving animals from one property to another—one that was NAIT certified and the other one that wasn’t. I have dairy cows on my property right now, but they graze there; I don’t own them. The farmer who owns them is responsible for the NAIT records of the movement of those animals. So does that mean the MPI official can walk on to my property and carry out any kind of inspection they want? These were the sorts of questions that the Opposition was asking in detail in this House under urgency, because the Government would not give any member of the public the ability to contribute to make sure we made good law.

But did they answer? No. Were they interested? No. And, yes, it’s great to see that many of them are hanging their heads in shame as we debate this final third reading, when we debated the rest of it under urgency. Yes, look around. Tamati Coffey, you have a large rural constituency. I shall wait to hear what they want to say to that member when they realise exactly what their Government have done to the rural community. It doesn’t seem like that member’s interested, which is quite a pity, because at the end of the day, last time I checked, the rural communities were still the most significant contributor to our economy that then provides all of the things that New Zealanders want to see in terms of health and education. But no, no, that side of the House is quite willing to remove their rights, to ensure that a MPI official will have more rights on a rural property than the police do—more rights than the police do.

That side of the House would be absolutely in uproar if this was an urban issue. If it was something about officials being able to go on to urban properties—

Hon Scott Simpson: In South Auckland.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —in South Auckland, in west Auckland, in Northland—you name it—in Porirua, there would be an outrage, but, unfortunately, the Government hasn’t considered the wide-ranging impacts of this legislation. They had the opportunity to constrain it, to focus it so that it was just limited. They had the opportunity. This side of the House was willing to give them the opportunity for public submissions, even truncated—half a day. Half a day would’ve been better than nothing, because this House often then has to deal with legislation because the implications haven’t been thought through, and I join my colleagues on this side of the House to say this legislation will be back. This legislation will be back because that side of the House sold farmers a lemon, saying it was a technical bill, and we all know it’s not. This is not just a technical bill. It’s an outrage and it’s dishonest to suggest it is. This has far-reaching implications for farmers, and I’m disappointed in the Government.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I’m just so confused by the faux outrage that is coming from the other side of the House, because you’d think that that speech by Louise Upston was a speech from somebody that was going to absolutely vote against this particular bill. But I hear that, actually, they’re going to be voting in favour of this particular bill. So while she stands there and talks about how disinterested I am and makes accusations at me, that particular member is on our side because we’re all going across the line together on this particular bill.

So for all those people that are listening, and if they’re watching out there, know that this is a good bill, and for that reason the Opposition, despite being the Opposition, are actually backing us on this one, so I would like to thank the Minister for the great job that he’s gone and done on it, and the officials. This particular bill has been talked about at every angle that you could possibly think of today, so I’ve got nothing left to say. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Education Act of 1989 by changing the name of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to better reflect the purpose of the council, but, far more importantly, changes the composition of the council so that seven members are elected by the teaching profession themselves, with the remaining six members appointed by the Minister of Education.

This is about restoring democratic representation to the governing body of teachers. It is about lifting the status of the teaching profession, which is the stated aim of the body whose composition we are changing. This is just one part of a wider work programme this Government has in place to lift the status of the teaching profession, to address the concerns that teachers have been raising, and to ensure that they are the trusted, respected, and valued profession that they deserve to be. I could talk through many other things we’re doing around National Standards, learning support, teacher supply, and so on, but I’m not going to do that because there won’t be time in a 10-minute speech, and I do want to focus on this particular bill.

I’d like to thank the chair and the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their careful consideration of the bill, and I do want to thank the people and organisations who made submissions on this bill and took the opportunity to have their voices heard on this important issue for the teaching profession. I understand that the teaching profession submitted overwhelmingly in favour of the provisions of this bill.

I am disappointed—I am disappointed—to read, however, the minority view on the bill. I note that the Opposition members think that having elected teachers on the teaching body that regulates their profession could—and this is a direct quote—“have a detrimental impact on the organisation’s ability to fulfil its core functions.” They then go on to argue that it could impose unnecessary cost to the taxpayers of New Zealand. I’m not sure that they’ve actually been paying attention over the last four or five years, because up until the Teachers Council was turned into the Education Council, it was 100 percent funded by the teaching profession. At the moment, it gets a taxpayer subsidy, because under the previous Government they botched the process up so badly they had to put more money in to bail out the council.

The Government’s intention here is to ensure that the Teaching Council belongs to teachers. That is fundamentally what this bill is all about. So, ultimately, teachers are the ones who pay for the Teaching Council, and they support the bill. They have overwhelmingly submitted in favour of this bill. They have asked for that, and I’m very, very proud to be the Minister of Education that’s listening to that concern. But, actually, the Opposition go on further in their minority view: “The proposed shift to an election-based membership approach will undermine the sustainability” of the leadership that the council provides. They think that elections undermine leadership—well, I think that says everything about where the National Party are.

It is of utmost importance that professional organisations such as the Education Council are seen to be independent from both industry advocacy organisations and Government. So, ultimately, who are they accountable to? If they’re not accountable to the Government and they’re not accountable to the industry that they regulate and represent, should they just be there to be accountable only to themselves? I don’t believe that to be the case. I think that the Education Council—the Teaching Council, as it will now be known—should be accountable to teachers, and I think the appropriate way to achieve that is to have teachers elect the majority of representatives to that council.

The committee has recommended a number of technical changes to the bill in response to submissions that they have heard. They have, first, added the name “New Zealand” to the proposed title of the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”, and I think this is a good idea. They’ve also made a number of technical changes to the composition of the council. The first is the removal of the requirement that the teacher educator, who’ll be elected by teacher educators, holds a current practising certificate. This is a very reasonable change. They’ll still have to be a registered teacher, they will still have to have five or more years of experience in initial or ongoing teacher education, and they’ll have to be working in one of the two teaching fields, but they won’t have to have a current practising certificate. That’s important because those working in initial teacher education often won’t satisfy the requirements to get a current practising certificate, but they can still be registered teachers. So by requiring them to be registered teachers, we’re ensuring that they understand the job in and out and back to front, but that they can also contribute the perspectives of initial teacher educators.

The second change to the composition of the council has been to recommend the adoption of the term “early childhood education service leader” for the head of an early childhood education service representative position. I think that that’s a very useful change, because it ensures that someone who would otherwise be eligible for election to that position isn’t excluded because the centre that they work in and that they lead adopts a different job title to the one that was previously proposed in the bill. So I think that that’s also a very reasonable change.

The committee has also recommended that the early childhood education member be elected by early childhood education service leaders who are registered teachers—or that the service leader representative be elected by service leaders who are registered teachers and hold a current practising certificate. We do have some in the system. There is potential there. Basically, the committee wants to ensure that it’s registered teachers who are electing their representatives to this body, because that’s the job of the body—it’s to regulate the teaching profession. They proposed a term of office of three years and a maximum of three terms, and the committee has recommended aligning the term of election with the term of appointment of the ministerial appointee. So, where there is a change, there will be one single change every three years. I think that also does make some sense. I know that they considered a sequenced approach but have chosen instead to have a single transition point, and I understand their reasons for doing that.

They’ve also put forward several recommendations around the transition from the Education Council to the Teaching Council, which I think are sensible. One of those transition measures is that they’re ensuring that those who are successfully elected take office three months after they are successfully elected, to allow the Minister of the day the opportunity to then appoint the balance of the council, to ensure that the council does have the right mix of skills and experience and ability. So the teachers will still be electing the majority, but there is often a need there to ensure that the right mix of representation is achieved—the right gender balance, the right ethnic balance, the right skills balance. The Minister of the day will be able to do that by having that three months between the election and the new members taking office in which they’ll be able to do that.

I’m very proud of this bill. This bill fulfils a commitment that this Government made to the teaching profession to give them back their professional voice, to send them a clear message that we trust teachers to regulate their own profession, as we do with lawyers, as we do with accountants, as we do with real estate agents. The question that everybody, I think, in the profession will want to know is: why is it that the members opposite, having taken this right away from the teaching profession, who now claim that they value teachers so highly—why are they continuing to oppose it?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take this call in the second reading of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. We heard from the Minister of Education that this is a very important bill and that there were an overwhelming number of submissions on this bill, but when we look at the number of submissions, there were just 36 submissions on this bill.

If there is something that is of huge significance to the education sector, as far as my experience goes, the number of submitters we see are a lot more than the number of submitters we saw for this bill. There were 36 submissions and one supplementary submission received on the bill, so we can see the kind of interest that the education sector has in this bill, because the education sector widely knows that this bill is not going to do much for lifting the status, which the Minister has been talking about, of the education sector.

As we heard from the Minister, the bill amends the Education Act 1989, and, yes, there are two main components in this bill. The first one is to change the name of the Education Council to Teaching Council. Yes, we had submitters speak to that. In our view, as the Minister focused the first half of his speech on the minority report that came in the report-back to the House—he felt that was so important for him to justify his position, looking at what the minority report says. So it’s important to note that we believe that this bill is actually going to revert back to the situation that was there before we implemented the current structure of the Education Council.

We, on this side, oppose this bill. We do not support this bill, because we believe that this is just a rebranding exercise, changing the Education Council name to Teaching Council. We also heard about the cost, about who is paying. Yes, someone, at the end of the day, is paying, and if it’s taxpayers, this rebranding is going to cost—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are teachers not taxpayers?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: —around $220,000. Teachers are taxpayers too, so they are part of the taxpayers group. So $220,000 is going to be the cost of a rebranding, and how is that going to help teachers, how is that going to help parents, and how is that going to help students? We didn’t get any justification from anyone during the select committee process or from the Minister in his speech here.

This is not the only cost, because what the Minister wants to do is have an election every three years to elect some members on to the council. Yes, we had a response from submitters. There were 13 submitters that supported the bill, others supported the intent of the bill, but, as I said, there were only 36 submissions on this bill.

The second part of this bill is to change how the members are appointed or elected on to the Education Council, or the new-named Teaching Council of Aotearoa. Currently, the system is that the Minister appoints nine members on the council. This bill is to increase that membership from nine to 13, and that is to bring a mixed kind of membership that is appointed and elected members. So the current system, actually, is based on extensive work that was done by a review committee, which was set to look at how we make a teaching profession that is fit for the 21st century. That was, as I said, an extensive work—very good work done by the review committee—and this is the document that shows the kind of work that went into this from 2010 to 2012.

It was in 2012 when this report was presented to the Minister, and, yes, I would like to address what the Minister has said—to respond to that, to pick a lot of points from this report, but I want to pick just the vision statement of this report, which is in chapter six. It talks about next steps, and the lead-in statement to the vision statement is “After giving careful consideration to each feasible option, the Review Committee concluded that the best solution would be to establish a new professional teaching body, possibly called the Education Council of New Zealand or some such.” The vision statement is “An independent professional body, with strong leadership, vision and energy, that is the voice and face of the teaching profession.

I completely refute what the Minister said, that the current composition of the Education Council does not represent the teaching profession—and he gave several examples in his speech of other professions—because in the current structure, six members should have some teaching experience. They could be current teachers or past teachers. So when the Minister is making those appointments, the Minister has to take into account their teaching experience for six members on the council. And, yes, the three remaining members can come from other sectors, but that is to provide that high level of leadership and governance. That is important, in my view, because when people come from other sectors, they bring a fresh perspective, and that is always needed in the education sector as well, because the education sector is evolving. We need to keep that in mind: how do we support this evolving sector that keeps supporting our children so that they are ready for the future? Saying that, that this is not representing the teaching profession, is not substantiated from what we know happens currently, because six members clearly should have teaching experience.

We heard from the Minister that, yes, there will be 13 members and, out of this, six are going to be appointed and seven elected. The way the Minister delivered his speech, it appeared that he thinks that elected members are better than appointed members. That is the wrong impression to be giving to people—those who are appointed on various such entities, because appointed members bring their capability to these positions, and they have their code of ethics and responsibility, and they are given their tasks to do. Also, when members are appointed by the Minister, they know what they have to deliver, whether it’s policy development or providing stable governance to the sector.

Having seven elected members—and, as we heard, they should be registered teachers—does not mean that the performance of that council is going to improve. There is nothing that is provided by anyone that substantiates that the performance of the Education Council—or the new-named Teaching Council of New Zealand—will improve just because we will have mixed members, appointed and elected members. What we want is a system that works, that actually, in a real sense, strengthens the education system and enhances the status of the education system.

So this is just about providing an appeal factor. This is just to keep unions happy. This is another tick to the wish list of unions. As we know, this Government is just big on unions, big on spending. They don’t care about the taxpayers’ money that goes into it. So every three years, there will be an election and there will be this additional expense of $150,000—every three years—and then there will be around $105,000 per annum for the cost that will come with the increased membership, from nine to 13. That is their travel, their accommodation costs, and other costs.

So we are looking at, from the start, around $700,000 going into this bill—

Nicola Willis: How much?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: —$700,000—and teachers are striking. Yesterday, yes, we saw primary school teachers striking. We know that there could be another strike affecting our students and there are other needs that need to be addressed, but the Minister is not focused on the needs that the teachers want this Government to address because this Government is so busy pleasing union members. Exactly—that is what it is.

I understand that rebranding exercise is going to be a one-off cost, but then there is going to be this expense, which is going to happen every three years, and someone has to pay for that expense. Who is going to pay for that expense? Teachers are taxpayers, too. Taxpayers will pay for that expense, and what kind of value do they get for that money? What kind of value do they get for that money? We didn’t hear a line from the Minister on the kind of value they get for that kind of money. So we are talking about around $260,000 every three years for this process, which is just about big spending and looking big, making all the structures big, and all the associated costs go up, as we know—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I don’t want members interjecting to each other across the Chamber, please. Thank you. Let’s settle down. It’s the last day of the sitting session. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. As we know, under the past Labour Government the spending also went up. Actually, their spending actually went up by more than 50 percent, even when we knew the global financial crisis was coming our way. We have seen that business confidence is low. Teachers don’t have confidence in this Government. They are going on strike day after day, and now they have said that, again, they are going to go on strike, affecting our students.

So no, this Government doesn’t understand what needs to be done and what needs to be addressed, and this is an example. This is an example, which is just a rebranding exercise, again. They are just coming out and trying to prove that what they think is going to work is better, without going out and consulting with the wider sector—that is, not just teachers but the public, parents, and students. We need to make sure that the education sector is not just about union members, not just about teachers, not just about parents, and not just about students, but about everybody—especially teachers, parents, and students.

There is huge public interest in our education sector, and that needs to be taken care of. So we oppose this bill. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a positive call on this bill. That last speech from Dr Parmjeet Parmar was very negative, but we have a Government who are making positive changes within the education sector, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to ask the Opposition members: what is so bad about democracy? What is so bad about having elections where people—[Interruption] Look, I appreciate that for the Opposition, things didn’t go well last year, but democracy is what we have in our country, and this is an example of teachers being able to democratically elect their council.

I am particularly excited about the fact that we will have teachers from the early childhood education sector, and this is the first time in history that we will have representation on the Teaching Council, or the Education Council—it’s had different names over the years—from that sector. It’s a very important sector, because the first five years of a child’s life absolutely set that child up for the future, and I’m particularly proud of that aspect.

I’m not going to take too much time because the Minister of Education clearly outlined all of the aspects in the bill, but I’d just like to highlight the fact that this is about teachers having a voice on their council. This is a Government who, for nine years, listened to teachers, and teachers told us “We want to have representatives on our council. We don’t want National Standards. We need more support for special needs.” There is a lot of work to do, but I’m proud that this Government has started undoing some of the very disappointing things that the previous Government did around education.

So this coalition Government is getting on with the job. We’re listening to this sector, we’re working with this sector, and we’re bringing about positive change. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Well, that was a short and interesting contribution from Jamie Strange—interesting but, sadly, seldom of any relevance to the actual content of this bill. I have to say that, sadly, this bill represents the triumph of dogma over evidence. That’s the reality of what we are dealing with here.

This is not a bill that is in the best interests of our education system as a whole, it’s not one that’s in the best interests of our teachers, and it’s not one that is in the best interests of our learners, and that, surely—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are you speaking on behalf of all teachers?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m saying that this not a bill that is in the best interests of teachers, because we have to review the history. I’d like to do that, and I thank Ms Swarbrick for giving me the opportunity to do that. It is deeply interesting that there’s a—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can I just ask the member, please do not—interjections to other members across the House are not permitted. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do appreciate that. I felt for a moment that I may have stumbled into a Labour and Green Party dispute, such was the cacophony of noise around the House.

I want to point out to this Government that there is a deep irony in what is happening here, because this is a Government that has the most acute case of “review-itis” that we have seen in many, many years, and yet here we have an example of a Government that is ignoring the outcome of a very thorough review. You might have suspected from the previous contributions that this is something that arose from a previous whim of the last National Government and that it wasn’t based on thorough consultation or evidence. Well, that is quite wrong.

Let me remind the House that it was back in 2010 that a workforce advisory group report highlighted some significant problems that existed with the then structure of what I guess was known as the Teachers Council. That led to a review being established that very much focused on the concerns of that workforce advisory group and it came up with something that was much better. The previous Government then legislated for those improvements and, in the intervening period, those changes have been shown to be improvements. Those changes have shown to be successful. The evidence is that the system that we have at the moment works and is in the best interests of everybody involved in the education system.

Now, when the Minister moved the second reading of this bill a short time ago, he tried to argue that the National Party’s approach is anti-teachers. Well that is nonsense. It’s a common catch cry that we hear from members of the Labour and Green parties, but no matter how many times they say it, that will not make it so. I’m a proud former teacher. I worked with some outstanding people in that profession. I know that not all teachers think the same way on political and ideological issues, and yet members opposite would try to have us suggest that a predominant union view is the only one that teachers hold and is the only one that should prevail. Well, I reject that utterly. We should be teaching our young people how to think critically, and we will never do that if we have an attitude in education that says the union is right; all other views are inconsequential. The current Education Council is designed to assist teachers to be the very best they can be, and it is working.

I ask you, which teacher wouldn’t want to be the best teacher he or she could be? Who wouldn’t want to be the most effective communicator in the classroom, to get around young people and our secondary pupils, and inspire, nurture, and encourage their talents? That’s what teaching is all about. That’s what makes teaching such a rewarding profession. That was what I loved about the job when I was in it a few years ago.

So what can we agree on? We should be able to agree in this House that we need a system and a council that is focused on having the very best possible standards in education. We should be able to agree in this House on having a system that lifts educational achievement across the board. I’m very proud, having been a member of the last National Government, having been there for all nine years, that that was the unrelenting focus first of the Hon Anne Tolley and latterly of the Hon Hekia Parata as they were in that role and, of course, in the last nine months or so the Hon Nikki Kaye. All of those Ministers—and I was very proud to be the Associate Minister of Education in the final part of that Government—were absolutely committed to lifting the standard of educational achievement.

This is a Back to the Future bill, which will do none of the things that I’ve just mentioned, and the sad thing is it actually casts us only halfway through that movie; in other words, back in the past. It is deeply disappointing to think that because dogma prevails in the Government at the moment, they will turn their back on the evidence.

Since it was implemented, the current Education Council has worked incredibly well, and I commend those who have been members of it. They have been adhering to their code of ethics and responsibility. They’re actively involved in policy development. They have provided stable governance to the education sector, and they have encouraged leadership and professional development within the education profession. Those things are all important and they are in stark contrast with the performance of the former Teachers Council.

Where is the evidence of the Education Council not fulfilling their obligations to warrant the changes proposed by this bill? How will these changes improve the performance of this already well performing organisation? I do hope that members of the Government who follow will answer some of those questions, because, as Dr Parmar, the chair of the committee, mentioned there are significant costs associated with this legislative change and those unnecessary costs will have a detrimental impact on the organisation’s ability to fulfil its core functions.

There is not sufficient evidence to support the changes that the Government is making today. As I’ve mentioned, those changes came about because of the very thorough review process which implemented best evidence and best practice. Those who want to go back to the way things were are determined to revert to a previous dysfunctional model. Changing the title of the Education Council to the Teaching Council and increasing its membership from nine to 13 individuals will impose unnecessary costs on taxpayers, and those are costs that could be much better spent on other areas, important areas, of our education system—whether it’s in teacher-aides, meeting the needs of children with special needs, and so many other things of that type.

Over three years those changes were estimated to be in the region of just under $700,000. We’re not talking about a trivial cost. And $220,000 of those costs will just be associated with rebranding. Well, we’ve already seen the determination of the Government to change other Government departments—I see that Mrs Martin is here. She spent a lot of money earlier in the year changing the name of Oranga Tamariki. I have to say, we’re not seeing really significant and well-targeted expenditure from this Government. We are seeing dogma-driven things that are at great cost to the taxpayer for no tangible benefit.

I do want to just acknowledge in the short time that I have available that while we don’t support the bill, in the National Party we do acknowledge the submission that came from the New Zealand Catholic Education Office, who proposed to ensure that there is greater representation from integrated schools. I simply put that on the record because theirs was a very sincere submission, and I think, at this stage in a second reading debate, it is right that we write that into the record.

But the Minister of Education, in suggesting that National doesn’t support having teachers on the Education Council, was flying in the face of the evidence. So let me conclude by just pointing out that that is complete nonsense. Six members of the current nine-member Education Council are current or previously practising teachers. This highlights the fact that teachers under the current system do have a significant—indeed, the dominant—level of representation and input into high-level council decision-making. But the Education Council is also about bringing in the wider skills and capabilities that are absolutely essential and are typical of so many professional bodies. It’s not something that is just confined to teaching. This is typical of so many professional bodies, where the really important thing is to have the best skills and capabilities available, and that does not come through this current Government’s proposed system of going back to the way things were.

The current system is working well. So I am very, very disappointed to hear that the current Government is determined to put dogma before the evidence. I really urge them to think again and not to proceed with this bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Well, I for one am absolutely stoked to be standing up here and taking a call on this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, and I ask the members opposite: what is so wrong with democracy? Are you suddenly allergic to democracy? Because this is about giving people the right to vote for the people they want to represent them on their council. Teachers pay registration fees to this council. They don’t have a choice to do that, so they should be able to elect those that they want to represent them in their sector. I’m absolutely stoked, also, to see that early childhood education is really going to be represented, especially by having an early childhood education service leader on this committee.

We hear that there are already teachers within those that are on the council currently, but those people were appointed. They were not elected by their peers, just as those who are lawyers, nurses, etc. get to elect their representatives. I think that it is shocking that in the past that has been taken away from teachers—absolutely shocking. It is no wonder that when I talk to teachers, they feel so downtrodden because of the way they were treated by the previous Government. They felt that they couldn’t be trusted, because all that was taken away from them. But now they’ve got a Government who is absolutely willing and ready to listen to their concerns and put motions in place to make positive changes for teachers.

The other thing that I really like about this particular bill is that the Minister of Education, when he is appointing people, will go out and consult with parents, with communities, and hear their opinions on who they think will be appropriate to be elected to this council.

I also just want to finish off by saying—

Simeon Brown: Finish? Finish?

JO LUXTON: —that I absolutely endorse this bill—absolutely endorse this bill. Yes, look, I don’t need to say anything more, because the Minister said it. Speakers on this side of the House have said it, because we are so pleased to commend this bill to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill at the second reading. I’d like to thank my fellow Education and Workforce Committee members on both sides of the House for the process to date, and of course we’re dealing with a bill that renames the Education Council to the Teachers Council, and it increases the membership from nine to 13—

Jan Tinetti: No, “Teaching”!

DENISE LEE: —Teaching Council—amongst a few other things.

I do absolutely concur with my colleagues who previously saw fit to recount a little bit of the background to this bill. I’ll do a little bit on the same before I then—it was touched on in the select committee process. It’s really important that we understand some people might think that this is déjà vu. It’s not; the circumstances are very different. And if we understand what the circumstances were back when there was a major review—not just a succinct select committee process that we’re having right now, but there was an actual major review that pre-dated the decision to change the name to the Education Council back in 2012 and 2013. So the three-year process between 2010 and 2013 was addressing what was a very—and acknowledged by everyone—underperforming and struggling council. That’s exactly what it did back then, and that’s what the review said, and it involved some really prominent and well-respected people in the review process—John Morris and Pauline Winter, for two.

Back then, the council was asked by the Government of the day—our Government—to be reviewed to ensure that the council would set and enforce clear standards for entry, progression, and professional accountability. That’s straightforward. That’s fantastic. And also the review was kicked off to make sure that it was clearly differentiated from a Government and industrial advocacy organisation.

Hon Tracey Martin: Ah, there you go!

DENISE LEE: That’s right. That is “There we go!” because we acknowledged back then that that was the problem and that it was a very big reason why it was underperforming.

That review committee found that the council back then could not effectively set and enforce clear standards for entry, progression, and professional accountability as it was currently structured, governed, and positioned, and also that the council’s role and purpose were insufficiently differentiated from those of Government and industrial advocacy organisations. Now, if we fast forward to today, this is where we are heading back again. It’s incredibly clear.

They also decided—amongst those preeminent education individuals on that review committee—that the council’s status and capacity to lead the profession was affected by how much agencies, unions, teacher education providers, the research community, and teachers themselves acknowledge, respect, and support its leadership role. So they were wanting that respect for the council but the council did not have the qualities of leadership, public reputation, positional confidence, quality assurance systems, or organisational capacity to build that strong professional community of teachers. So the submitters were saying back then that there was an issue. What are the submitters saying now? Nothing—that there isn’t an issue right now with reputation. Did we hear, hand on heart, any submitters that said that there is a problem right now with the council’s reputation? Not one—not one.

Instead, the bill cuts in at different angles and for very different reasons, and I think that Dr Parmjeet Parmar very much touched on a sore sport with my colleagues across the other side of the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: There were 36!

Simeon Brown: 36?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes.

Simeon Brown: Wow!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I have asked the members not to have conversations with each other across the Chamber while your members are speaking. Denise Lee, please carry on.

DENISE LEE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So I say again: is there a problem right now with what those review changes brought about? Is there a problem right now with that strong respect for the council and the work that they do? The answer is “No, there’s not a problem.” So what is it that we’re trying to do here today?

I want to touch on what everyone is going to go to straight away, because it’s obvious, and that’s the name change. So you lead from something so obvious as the name change, and we have heard very clearly from the Education Council, as it stands today, themselves of the cost around changing the name.

So we know that the total cost associated with implementing this bill is $700,000 over the next three years. That’s a massive amount. In fact, if we break that down a little bit, we will see—this is provided from the Education Council—$220,000 for the costs associated with rebranding; $150,000 every time there’s an election held for the council; $105,000 per annum for costs associated with the increased membership, from nine to 13, so that’s costs such as remuneration, travel, and accommodation; and then $10,000 for training of that extra council membership. Seven hundred thousand dollars. This is something that the public and those in the wider education sector deserve to know. We have to be very mindful of these costs.

I would like to read out—and I think this is very fitting too—from one particular submission. He was a principal from the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association, representing several principals from the Waitakere area. Here it is in plain black and white: “As an association, comprising both primary and secondary school principals, we are extremely appreciative of the thought behind the proposed name change.” So, a good start there, right? Here we go: “This said however, we are opposed to a formal name change due to the financial costs that will be incurred during the rebranding process. At a recent meeting Tracey Martin, the Associate Minister of Education, noted her concern about the amount of money that filtered out of the education system without providing any tangible benefits for students. This is a concern every school principal shares. As principals we are often told that there is no money to support students with special educational needs. There is however enough money, it would appear, to reprint business cards every time a job title changes or to colour code the Ministry letterhead for purposes that to this day elude us.” Now, I’ll just repeat again, this is the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association. “Frankly we find this an extravagance that cannot be justified when students are not receiving the support they need to succeed.” [Interruption]

I can hear that the Hon Tracey Martin’s having a little bit of a problem with this quote. How’s this for a close-off? “It is our clear belief”, said the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association, “that if there is excess money in the system to pay for yet another rebranding exercise then there is money in the system to provide additional … support for the thousands of students that are currently missing out.”

That’s where the rubber hits the road—that is, absolutely. Now, here’s something else that that really helpful principal told us. Let’s break it down. The $220,000 cost for that rebranding, if that was to be used another way—and that’s all that they’re asking for, to ditch the rebrand and use it in another way—it would be 12,000 teacher-aide hours. I repeat, 12—

Hon Members: Oh!

DENISE LEE: Is there a problem with that from the other side of the House? It appears that there is. It would be 12,000 teacher-aide hours. If you put it over the cost of the three-year cycle, there would be 37,000 teacher-aide hours. The Government is choosing a rebranding over 37,000 teacher-aide hours. How is anyone supposed to swallow that pill? You couldn’t and you shouldn’t.

I’m going to finish on just one quick principle that I find really interesting: the principle of—we’re being so-called “allergic to democracy” and the term of being elected. If that’s so, why are only seven of the new 13 spots elected? Why not all 13? Furthermore, why does the Minister still have the power to appoint the chair? If the other side of the House is so gung-ho on democracy, why not let them elect their own chairperson? Why not have every single one of the 13 spots elected? That seems to me to be a little bit on the “interesting read” side of things. I’d like to thank, again, in my closing seconds, the Education Council for the amazing work that they do. I’d like to specifically thank Barbara Ala’alatoa, who is actually a principal in my area in Maungakiekie. We oppose this bill. It is not necessary.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): It is a pleasure to rise after the fearmongering speeches of the Opposition. I want to address a few of the points that have been raised, which I think build off the back of moral panic, but also off the back of a lack of facts and a lack of evidence. So, as has been well traversed, this bill does two things. The first is restoring elected members to the council so that teachers can elect their own. As noted by Denise Lee, that will be seven of the 13 members, and it renames the Education Council to the Teaching Council.

Something that I wish to quote to ground this debate in, given that we are all going through the history books, is the Hansard of the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), which actually first removed elected members, progressed by the then Minister of Education Hekia Parata. This is from Catherine Delahunty, and I quote, “teachers are not necessarily going to be on EDUCANZ unless the Minister thinks it is a good idea. It is pretty odd thinking to make a professional body chosen by non-professionals—i.e. by politicians. It is going to be appointed by the Minister and then he or she will let some teachers be on it but will decide who they are. That is a low-trust model. It is a continuation of a low-trust model. Really, in the context of the educational debates that have taken place over the last 6 years, we do not need any more low-trust models. We need a bit of mutual respect and we need a professional body like a teachers council—if you must call it EDUCANZ—to be elected by the teachers for the teachers.”

This bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, is ultimately about trusting the teaching profession. It’s about lifting the status of teachers by ensuring that they are able to elect their representatives in the same way that other professionals are—whether they be doctors or lawyers. It is indeed, actually, also about independence, which, I note, the Opposition cited in their minority view out of the select committee stating, and I quote, “It is of ultimate importance that the professional organisation such as the Education Council are to be seen as independent from both government and industry advocacy organisations.” On that point, how are they independent from government if they are appointed by the Minister wholesale? If they are not accountable to the industry, whom are they accountable to?

I want to address also the point made by Parmjeet Parmar, the chair of my Education and Workforce Committee, stating that the Minister is saying that elected members are better than appointed members. I’d say that nobody is actually saying that, because indeed, as was noted by the previous speaker, Denise Lee, this is a mixed council. There will be both appointed and elected members. So if I can flip that on its head, I want to ask the members of the Opposition: are they saying that appointed members are better than elected members? Are they saying that they know better than the profession?

Then Tim Macindoe spoke to how this bill was coming off the back of a lack of thorough consultation or evidence. And on that point, I just wanted to cite the stats around the consultation—that being the submissions to select committee on the original 2015 bill, which removed elected members, where 1,032 submitters submitted regarding the Education Council point. In particular, 995 were opposed and 92 percent of them were in full opposition to the changes, that being removing those elected representatives.

Then Mr Macindoe went on to speak about how this was about dogma, or about ideology, stating that not all teachers have the same ideological slant. And I guess he absolutely proves that point. But this is the thing, right? What we’re saying on this side of the House is that we don’t presume that all teachers think the same. Actually, we don’t presume what teachers think. That’s why we want them to elect their own representatives—to tell us exactly that.

I turn to the point about expenses, which has been bandied around quite a lot throughout this debate, because I think it’s really actually the only point that the Opposition has that is of any substance with regard to this debate—the cost; the incredible cost. Well, democracy doesn’t come cheap. And on the point about the $150,000 every three years to hold elections for the council, $35 million every three years is spent on general elections, and if it’s good enough for us, why is it not good enough for the teachers?

As to the other points of cost, I just think the Opposition should perhaps go through the history books perhaps a little deeper, because they will find that prior to the changes made by their former education Minister Hekia Parata, all of these costs would have been funded by the teachers’ levy. But it was indeed that previous Minister, Hekia Parata, who introduced Government subsidies for the operation of the council.

So what I want to leave on, the kind of question that I’d like to put to the Opposition, is that if they are so concerned about the state of the teaching profession, if they were so concerned about the strike that occurred yesterday, if they really want to improve the outcomes for our children, if they really want to improve the state of the profession, where were they yesterday? Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you.

SIMEON BROWN: It’s a pleasure to follow Chlöe Swarbrick on this bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill, which is the first thing that this Government’s actually got through Parliament—or is trying to get through Parliament—in regards to education. They’ve talked a big game, they’ve promised the world, and the first thing they’ve ever been able to get through this House is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. Well, this is going to make a big difference! And yesterday we saw outside, teachers and principals protesting about this Government’s failure to try to adequately deal with some of the issues. And this is the answer?

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

SIMEON BROWN: Is this the answer to the problems and the real issues which they were raising outside?

I heard the Minister Chris Hipkins. He was speaking outside, and he said, “We’re doing so many great things to help teachers. We’re going to make the Education Council the Teaching Council. We’re going to change the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council.” Well, I have lots of people constantly at my door, saying, “We’ve got to change that. We’ve got to change the Education Council to the Teaching Council. That’s the biggest issue facing teachers in New Zealand—is the name of that council. I just can’t wait, because that’s going to solve all the problems—once we change the council name and make sure that we can do a rebranding exercise.”

But, there’s more to it than that. This bill has come about simply because of ideology—simply because—

Hon David Bennett: They’re paying back the unions.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s right, Mr Bennett. They’re paying back the unions. There was a review back in 2012 of the Education Council. It was a comprehensive three-year process that found significant flaws in the Teachers Council’s ability—in its previous form—to enforce standards, to improve teaching performance and to provide sustainable leadership and governance of the sector. This bill will reverse these changes and revert back to this dysfunctional provision.

And we heard Chlöe Swarbrick go on about how there were 1,036 submissions made when we changed it back in 2012-2013. A thousand-something—well, where were they when they came to the Education and Workforce Committee? There were 36 submissions. I think that just shows that they realised that it had been fixed. The problem was sorted. A review was done and there aren’t any problems in existence. If there were thousands of submissions and there were thousands of people lining up and making submissions to the select committee on this, it might suggest that there was a problem, but not one of them raised one. All they said was, “Oh, we need to change the name and we need to change the appointment process.” And why? Because the unions want payback. Because it’s the unions which put the Government into power and it’s the unions which want payback.

Hon David Bennett: They’re paying them too. Corruption.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order, Mr Bennett.

SIMEON BROWN: And look, now we’re getting these lectures on democracy from the other side of the House. They’ve got lots to tell us about democracy. Well, I just want them to take a moment to reflect on the fact that they’re trying to push through the electoral integrity bill, and to squash freedom of expression in this House and squash freedom of expression—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can we come back to this bill please, Mr Brown.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s a very pertinent point, because Mr Little is sitting there, and we all know how much the unions play a role in electing leaders—and bad leaders of the Labour Party, as well.

So let’s get back to the bill and some of the problems. So what does this bill do? It changes the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council. It changes the composition from all appointed members to seven elected members and a few appointed members, and it creates an election process and some technical changes.

How many pages is the bill? It’s about five pages long. It’s a small, technical Government bill which is one of their biggest priorities and which is going to, apparently, change the world for teachers. But the problems in this bill are deep and they’re costly—they’re deep and they’re costly. Firstly, the cost: $700,000 over three years. We’ve heard what else that could go towards: 12,000 additional teacher-aide hours per year. That’s what teachers came and told the select committee. It’s not us making this up; that’s what teachers came and told the select committee. They said 12,000 additional teacher-aide hours could be used per year from the money which is going to be spent on this very costly rebranding exercise.

So what’s this $700,000 cost? It is $220,000 for costs associated with rebranding; $150,000 every three years to hold the elections; $105,000 per annum for costs associated with increased membership, such as remuneration, travel, and accommodation; and $10,000 every three years for training and council membership—so another $700,000 of taxpayer money for a rebranding exercise. You’ve got to wonder where the priorities of this Government are. This is taxpayers’ money—hard-working New Zealanders—and they don’t care. They just think, “Let’s just spend, spend, spend.”—tax and spend. That’s all that they can do. Tax and spend—that’s what this Government’s priorities are. Tax and spend—that’s what this Government does.

What else does it do? It takes away the focus of the Education Council, which will now be called the Teaching Council, from skills and competencies. The 2012 review found that there was a need for the body to be more skill-based and capable of self-regulation and self-review. Well, who’s going to be in control of this place now? Who’s going to be in control of the Teaching Council now? It’ll be the unions, because how many places are there on the Teaching Council? Let’s see: there’s one—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thirteen.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, how many elected members? Six members appointed and seven elected members. There’s one teacher representing the early childhood education sector. Is there a union for that? Is there a union for the—

Hon Member: Bound to be.

SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, there is; there’s NZEI. There’s a teacher representing the primary education sector—there’s a union for that. There’s one teacher representing the secondary education sector—there’s a union for that. One teacher is elected by registered—there’s a union for practically every single one of these appointments. They’ve pretty much put enough positions in there to ensure that their union mates have enough positions to ensure that there’s adequate payback for their support going into the election.

And what do we see in the departmental report? The departmental report—and I’ll refer the members to page 21. It says, “In relation to the points raised by the PPTA and NZEI about creating additional appointed positions for union representatives, the bill does not prevent a union member who is a teacher from standing for election”—that’s OK—“or the unions from suggesting a person for appointment.” That’s what the heart of this is. It’s about creating positions for their union mates so that they can have people sitting around there and so they can revert back to the dysfunction that this was back before it was changed. What we’re seeing is the union mates being rewarded and the Government taking a reckless spend.

So let’s go back to this. There was a review. This Government’s got 135 reviews going, costing $200 million. The fact is, yes, there was a review that we did of the Teachers Council back in 2012, and we took on board the recommendations and we changed the law. We made a body which has now been effective, which has made a real difference, and which they could only get 36 people to submit to when they wanted to change it—and now they want to change it back. That really raises the question of what this Government is going to do with the 135 reviews that they’re doing—a whole 20, or something like that, into education.

Chlöe Swarbrick: You literally just referred to your own review.

SIMEON BROWN: Are they going to be listening? Are they going to be listening—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

SIMEON BROWN: —or are they going to be wasting more taxpayers’ money?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe) Order! Sorry to interrupt the member momentarily. I say to the member Chlöe Swarbrick that it’s not acceptable to change seats in the House and then interject on another member. If she wants to interject, she should return to her seat or sit quietly.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I was going to raise that very point myself at the conclusion of Mr Brown’s speech, because he was doing a sterling job of actually continuing through that. But prior to that, actually, we’ve seen a constant barrage of interjections that aren’t adding anything to this debate, from that side, both Miss Swarbrick and, previously, Miss Martin. I know the Government’s had a tough day and they’re looking forward to recess, but it’s difficult when we’re trying to progress through this and our speakers are facing those constant barrages without any value from those interjections.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member, and I will monitor that situation very closely.

SIMEON BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for your very wise intervention just then. Thank you so much. So where was I? I was talking about the 135 reviews that this Government’s got on, the 20-something reviews that they’ve got on education, and they’re wasting more and more taxpayers’ money so that they can find jobs for their union mates so that they can support what their unions put them into power to do. They’re wasting taxpayers’ money, and we have to ask the question: will they actually listen to any of these reviews?

Hon David Bennett: No.

SIMEON BROWN: No, they won’t. We know the answer. Will they listen to these reviews? Will they actually do anything with them? Will they actually know where they’re going? They’re reviewing literally everything. We go out there and we talk to teachers, we talk to principals, and they all ask the same question. They’re reviewing everything, because they came into Government, they didn’t know what they wanted to do. This is something where they thought, “Well, it’s a quick win. We’ll pick this one out of our back pocket. We’ll change it back to what it was. We’ll just do something quickly. Who cares about the money that it’s going to cost? Who cares about taxpayers? That’s not really who we represent. We just represent our union mates.”

We oppose the bill. We oppose changing the Education Council to the Teaching Council. What a shame of a piece of legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call the Hon Tracey Martin.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I thought I would rise and enter a logical, reasonable, responsible, practical debate, and then I came down and listened to the National Opposition talk.

First of all, what’s really unfortunate is the ignorance that has been shown about how the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is actually funded. It was one of the over 1,000 submissions that was put in when the National Government—having commissioned a review that said there are supports that need to be put in place for the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. The National Government decided to throw it all out completely and take that opportunity to know better than the sector and 100 percent appoint—so to remove all democracy whatsoever from the teaching fraternity. When they asked for support, they were removed 100 percent by that National Government, because that National Government wanted to shoulder-tap and hand-pick individuals by which to start and continue the privatisation of the education system of New Zealand. That’s what this was about. It was one piece of legislation in a suite of pieces of legislation that not only decided that they were going to privatise the education system—so, first of all, let’s be clear: teachers fund this organisation. Teachers pay—through their levies, through their registration fees—for this organisation. We mentioned—it was drawn again and again and again to our attention—no taxation without representation, and that’s exactly what this Government is doing.

This is not an indictment on the people who are currently on the Education Council. They have done the best job they could, working under the previous administration that actually didn’t believe in public education. They did the best job they could inside the parameters they had. What this Minister of Education is doing is returning democracy so we return some of the status that was taken away by that organisation, by the National Party, over the last nine years. That is why there were crowds of teachers out on the streets in the last few days. That is why, yesterday, they left the classroom: nine years of being abused and disabused by that party; nine years of trying to get some recognition.

I sat on the Education and Science Committee. I listened to Mr Macindoe have a go about how everybody can teach. I listened to Mr Colin King, who was a member of the National Party at that time, saying that, actually, “It’s not the education you have; it’s the school tie that will make a difference to your future.” That is what I listened to when we were talking about education bills in this House. So that’s the first thing. First of all, this is not taxpayers’ money; this is actually the teachers’ money. The teachers—900-and-something of them—asked for this to happen.

I noticed that Mr Macindoe brought up the fact that we decided to listen to the children of New Zealand, as well, and remove the word “vulnerable”. That is what the children asked for, and that is what we have given the children. The fact that he made some statement about spending—again, it was incorrect, because the signs hadn’t gone up, because the CEO of Oranga Tamariki knew that it was better to spend that money on children in the first instance until we got the name that the children asked for.

What we have got here is, finally, recognition of the teaching profession—a profession that should be trusted to be able to elect their own representatives on to the board that they fund. That is what this is about.

I’m actually going to now put out a challenge to anybody on Facebook. Count up the number of times Mr Simeon Brown mentioned the word “union” and I will post you a chocolate fish. The first person to Facebook message me with the number of times that Mr Simeon Brown mentioned the word “union” as the greatest evil on the planet, and I will send you a chocolate fish. I thank you, Mr Brown. I thank you, Mr Brown, for clearly articulating the roots of the National Opposition, how they dislike it when workers come together collectively and when workers actually stand up for each other and ask for democratic representation. Thank you, Mr Brown, for your speech. Thank you for putting it on the record. I put that challenge out: there’s a chocolate fish on the way to the first person who can tell me how many times Mr Brown mentioned the word “union”.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to take a little bit of concern at the fact that she might put a chocolate fish in the mail.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate at the second reading for the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. I am not a member of the select committee that deliberated over this bill, the Education and Workforce Committee. I did make a contribution at the first reading. I have carefully read the departmental report, many of the submissions, I have read the select committee report, spoken to many of the members of that committee, and read the National Party minority report.

It is that minority report that I’d like to draw most of my debate from today, because it precisely lays out the very good reasons for this bill to be opposed. But before I do that, I would like to just pick up on a couple of points from previous members’ speeches, firstly from the member from the Labour Party, Jamie Strange, where he was so very concerned in his very brief two-minute contribution where, basically, the only thing that he said was about how the Education Council is so devoid of teachers. It’s been mentioned many times by speakers preceding me that, in fact, six of the nine are currently or have been teachers.

Denise Lee: Sixty-six percent.

ERICA STANFORD: I know. I’ve got them in front of me. I’ve been looking. There are actually extremely capable, well-respected individuals. We’ve got the principal of Sylvia Park School in South Auckland. From my electorate, from the mighty East Coast Bays, Ms Amos, who’s a principal at Albany Senior High School. We’ve got Mr Simon Heath, a principal of Renwick School. We’ve got Nicola, who is principal of Patea Area School. Many of the others have been principals or teachers in the past—a group of highly respected, capable individuals who are doing a fantastic job.

Secondly, I would like to just respond to Ms Chlöe Swarbrick, who got very emotional and was stamping her little green feet behind her desk, talking about democracy and how it’s being lost and how terrible that is, and how it’s so very important that teachers be able to represent their own people. But it’s interesting to note the data for the last election—the last teachers’ council election. How many of those eligible voters actually voted in that election? That would be an interesting thing to have a look at. Maybe we should have a look at that. How many do you think would’ve voted, potentially?

Simeon Brown: Sixty percent.

ERICA STANFORD: Not 60.

Nicola Willis: Ninety-five per cent.

ERICA STANFORD: Not 95—try again.

Denise Lee: Seventy.

ERICA STANFORD: Seventy, no—no. How about—

Simeon Brown: Thirty.

ERICA STANFORD: Not 30—try again.

Simeon Brown: Up or down?

ERICA STANFORD: Down.

Simeon Brown: Twenty.

ERICA STANFORD: No, not 20. Down, down!

Simeon Brown: Fifteen.

ERICA STANFORD: Not 15—not even 15.

Simeon Brown: Ten? Down—down? Twelve?

ERICA STANFORD: A little bit more than 10—up, up! It was 13.7 percent. So for this great democracy that Chlöe Swarbrick is so stamping her feet over, under 14 percent voted.

Simeon Brown: An unlucky number.

ERICA STANFORD: It is an unlucky number—13 is very unlucky. I’ve previously noted that this bill is a case of out with the old and in with the older, and, unfortunately, the older in this case is a model that was found wanting.

Now, Mr Hipkins got up today and gave a contribution. He’s the Minister of Education, but I tell this House what: he doesn’t like history. He doesn’t like thinking about why these changes were made. He doesn’t like the fact that we can stand up here today and tell him that there were reviews done, there were advisory groups that gave evidence, and they quite clearly stated that there was a lack of capability, a lack of capacity for this old body to carry out its functions. It was not best placed to carry out its functions. It did not have the ability to self-regulate or self-review. It was not the best body to serve teachers. Not only that, but there were serious difficulties with the Teachers Council around serious financial irregularities. So a review was carried out, and we instigated the findings of that review. Now what we have is a body of capable, competent people—some of which I mentioned before, and many others—who are doing a fantastic job.

It’s worth noting that after discussions with members of the select committee, none of them could point to a single submitter who could point to any of the work done by the council that could have been improved if there was a different governance model. This goes to the heart of the debate of this bill. We had a body that was lacking, found itself in trouble. There was a comprehensive review, changes were made. I’d just like to finish with something that my colleague Denise Lee left me with: if it ain’t broke, why fix it; and if it’s already been fixed, why break it? That is why we oppose this bill. Thank you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): The fact that we get a speaker that says, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” when we’ve got teachers that have had nine years of absolute frustration—and I know what that frustration is—and are actually probably one of the most broken professions that we have out here in our country at the moment, goes to the lack of understanding from that side of the House. Everything that this bill, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, does goes some way to fix that broken profession—and they are broken.

What I am really upset about is the mistruths that have been told here today. Thirty-six submissions—we’ve heard that over and over—pooh-poohed, laughed at; 36 submissions, so there’s nothing in those 36 submissions. I’ve just taken four of those groups who submitted. They equate four groups, four large groups: New Zealand Principal’s Federation.

Simeon Brown: Unions?

JAN TINETTI: No, not a union. New Zealand School Trustees Association on behalf of all of the parents on the boards of trustees. All of those people equate to 61,432 people—that’s a bit more than 36. Maybe the other side should have done their homework and read those submissions a bit more closely. Not all of them actually presented to the Education and Workforce Committee. I wonder how many they actually read of those other submissions.

Then we heard about the 12,000 teacher-aide hours. Now I think teacher-aides are incredible, but let’s break that down. How many teacher-aides is that in reality? The average full-time teacher-aide works 27½ hours a week. That is eight teacher-aides. Which schools are we going to put those into?

Hon Member: Crocodile tears.

JAN TINETTI: “Crocodile tears” is exactly right—eight teacher-aides.

Now we wouldn’t actually have to be spending that money if the former National Government hadn’t changed it in the first place. They went and put a whole lot of money into changing this and actually spent more money on rebranding than what we’re looking at in taking it back to the Teaching Council.

The other point that I want to make is that they carry on about the name of the council: “Oh, it doesn’t matter. We’ve heard all this about teaching isn’t important. The word ‘teaching’ isn’t important.” Well, actually, I wonder if they read those submissions on behalf of those 61,000 people. Every single one of them said that the word “teaching” is incredibly important to them. This is about identifying our teachers and helping them raise the status of this profession. We want to raise the status of the teaching profession and we will raise the status of the teaching profession. Whether that side thinks that this is a small bill or not, it is absolutely not to teachers, and I feel quite offended by the fact that they believe that this does not matter to teachers. It absolutely does matter to teachers and, for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Government’s first education legislation in this House. I want members opposite to ponder this, because this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill is certainly the first piece of legislation I had the privilege of considering as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee. I want to thank my colleagues on that committee for their consideration of this bill and for the process which we went through in listening to submitters about it.

What was utterly clear in that process was that this bill wasn’t actually about the students that are at the heart of the education system, because amongst those 36 submissions there wasn’t a lot of talk about what a real difference this would make in the classroom for New Zealand’s children. Really, this is a piece of legislation that’s quite symbolic of the approach of this Government, because what it does is it takes us back to the future. It doesn’t construct something new; it says, “Let’s make it like it was before.”, because there is really an absence of new ideas opposite, but a desire and a nostalgia for the past. Not only does it symbolically change the name, which I’ll dwell on further later, it also stands for things that the Government is against rather than what it is necessarily for.

So let’s talk about the name. Renaming the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand as the Teaching Council of Aotearoa is absolutely symbolic of the Government who say that changing the name will somehow change things for teachers on the ground. As previous speakers have detailed, this is simply not the case.

The bill then goes on to increase the numbers on the council from nine to 13 to make it a bigger group, and as the NZEI Te Riu Roa, who have been much quoted from members opposite and much referred to in this debate, said in their submission, “it does make the Council larger and potentially a little unwieldy”—hmm, that was an interesting contribution from the NZEI Te Riu Roa on that matter—and upping the numbers retains a balance in which six ministerial appointees are there and seven elected members are there.

Now what members opposite have disingenuously tried to argue today is that somehow National Party members are opposed to teachers having their voice for their profession. We have taken serious issue with that, because, of course, right now in New Zealand we have an Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand with six members, who are either currently practising teachers or previously practising teachers. I think it’s regrettable that members opposite have implied that those teachers and those previous teachers do not provide a voice for teachers in their roles. It is regrettable that members opposite have declined to acknowledge that they are currently practising teachers working in our education system to make a difference for students. But, no, no—the members opposite would deny their contribution because they weren’t elected by, as Erica Stanford pointed out, 13 percent of those eligible to vote.

So we then look at what the appointment process is and how these elections will be carried out, because there is a real question about the nature of the representation that will result from those elections. Again, I refer members to the NZEI, who said in their submission, “it is artificial to say that this person”—the elected representative—“will be cognisant of all the views of all the people in a particular sector.” They then went on to ask “what actions will be undertaken to assist the successful candidates with their roles as a ‘representative’ of [the] sector [because] … Ways for the elected members to be the voice of their sector, and to report to their sector … need consideration and development.”

So I’d urge the members opposite, who’ve been very happy to lecture this side of the House on how they are the high-water mark for representation, to consider that actually the very union body that represents teachers shares the questions about what improvements these elected members will be able to make in terms of their representation. There are still questions to be answered there.

We then turn to a matter that is very necessary to consider in this House, and that is the cost. What we’ve had members opposite say is that this is just the cost of democracy. What we would say to that is, that would be true if what was happening right now was that there was a group of people doing something that was totally out of line with what the teaching profession wanted, that was causing havoc in our schools, and that showed that actually it was not representative. But, in fact, what we have is an Education Council that is functioning well, that has produced more than 2,000 submissions on matters of educational importance, that is successfully registering, approving, and developing teacher practices. So what we don’t have is a situation that is crying out for change.

But, on the flip side, we have a significant cost to that change. Members in the House tonight have covered those costs, but I want to remind you of them because it is $220,000 for the name change alone. So let’s break down what we’re going to spend that $220,000 on. It includes $30,000 on logo and brand elements, website and social media platforms. It includes a further $30,000 on letterhead, business cards, signage, and an update of the building directory. These are the matters for which money is being prioritised for under this Government.

As the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association made clear in their submission—they referred to a recent meeting where the Associate Minister of Education noted a concern about “the amount of money that filtered out of the education system without providing any tangible benefits for students.” Mark my words, Mr Assistant Speaker, that concern is a concern that every school principal shares and that every schoolteacher shares, and, actually, that parents share as well. People are concerned to see that the best use is made of education dollars, so it is right and proper that members opposite question the cost that this change implies when there is no obvious problem to be solved.

The costs of course mount up. Denise Lee did a wonderful job in her contribution of taking us through them. Let me remind you of the number: $700,000 over three years for this change. I’d ask the Minister David Clark, opposite, how many cochlear implants that would fund; I imagine quite a few. So it’s easy for the Government to on the one hand say, “Costs are tight. We can’t afford the cochlear implants. Rural health’s a bit expensive.”, but on the other hand say, “But, look, $700,000 to make an unnecessary change to the name of an institution to get some teachers elected by 13 percent of teachers—now that’s a priority.”

Let’s think about what we actually have in place now and how it came to be. Actually, the Education Council that New Zealand has today wasn’t the result of an election manifesto of a few bullet points; it was the result of a major review—a major review that when I went to print it out I realised was more than 200 pages. It was well thought through, and that was the result of having significant flaws being found in the previous Teachers Council, the “back to the future” model that we’re now imitating with this new version by Labour.

It found significant flaws in its ability to enforce standards, to improve teaching performance, to provide sustainable leadership and governance. So that report found clear evidence that this kind of a model wasn’t effective. What that report said—I have it here; members opposite probably should have read it before they prioritised this legislation—was that what was needed was more skills-based, more capable, more self-regulation, more self-review, and that it needed to be independent from both Government and industry advocacy organisations.

Hon Member: I.e., the unions.

NICOLA WILLIS: I.e., organisations that would seek to dominate this new council with one set of views that, in the end, won’t be representative of the 87 percent of teachers who don’t vote in the elections for those people. Those 87 percent of teachers won’t be represented or have a voice in this new body, but that 87 percent aren’t spoken for by members opposite today.

It’s also worth remembering that this Education Council that we had under the previous Government and that we have today was actually going to be the vehicle for furthering reform. The National Government had a proposal that $200 million, which is currently used for development programmes administered by the Ministry of Education—that funding would be transferred to the Education Council to use as it saw fit over a period of three years. It is a valid question to ask whether, in all the hubbub about changing the name and introducing elections, members opposite have thought about those substantive issues.

So, in closing, let me say that when we change things in this House, we need to realise that our resources are finite. There is not endless money. There is not endless time. There is not endless ability to introduce legislation. So what we must do is prioritise the things that will make the biggest difference to the people we are here to serve. The people that we are here to serve in the education system are the students in our classrooms, and we have every right to focus on them and to say that these sorts of changes, with a case for change that’s not stacked up, are not a good use of our resources. The members opposite should hang their heads in shame that this is their priority in education.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill. I would, first of all, like to thank the chair as well as the members of our select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, and all of our submitters who submitted on this legislation. The legislation proposed gives us an opportunity, as a Government, to address the issue of democratic election for our teachers to their own body. We must give teachers back their voice, their power to choose who should represent them in their own governing body.

The previous Government replaced democracy for this teachers council with dictatorship, and this legislation addresses it. This is not a bill that is just about changing a name. When we look at other professional bodies—let’s say, for instance, the Medical Council of New Zealand—do our doctors have a say? Do they have a voice in choosing who should represent them? Yes, absolutely. When we look at the Nursing Council of New Zealand, do they choose who should represent them on their professional board? Yes, they do.

One of the main things that this legislation proposes is that we increase the membership on this council from nine to 13, and for seven of those members to be elected. We are proposing in this legislation that one teacher represents the early childhood sector as elected by members of that sector, one teacher represents the primary sector as elected by their members, one teacher represents the secondary sector as elected by their members, and so forth, in terms of seven of their members to elect and choose who should represent them, who should be their voice on their governing board. It is disappointing that the National Party opposes this bill, but our Government strongly supports this bill. I commend it to this House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. I seek leave for the House to rise early. It’s been a long week. We’ve had extended debate throughout this sitting block, and I think everyone’s a bit weary, so I would like to put that motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.

Hon Member: Yes. Yes, there is objection.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There is objection? Sorry, I didn’t hear that.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

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

Parts 1 to 28 and clauses 1 and 2

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): Statutes amendment bills enable Parliament to make technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. The current bill amends about 27 Acts, administered by 10 different Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has been consulted on, with all parties of Parliament, and has received unanimous cross-party support.

I’ve tabled, for the House, two Supplementary Order Papers that make urgently required amendments to this bill. The first amendment is Supplementary Order Paper 55, which was tabled on 8 August. The second amendment was Supplementary Order Paper 53, which was tabled on 7 August. These amendments are suitable for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). All parties have been consulted on these Supplementary Order Papers, and they support their inclusion in the bill at this stage. I’m going to briefly just go over those two Supplementary Order Papers.

Supplementary Order Paper 55 on the Customs and Excise Act—this part repeals clauses 30(1) and 31(1) of schedule 3 of the Customs and Excise Act 2018. Essentially, as the Act currently stands, it would result in champagne being exempted from excise-equivalent duty. This Supplementary Order Paper corrects that drafting error and will ensure that imported champagne continues to be subject to excise-equivalent duty under the Customs and Excise Act when it comes into force on 1 October this year.

The second Supplementary Order Paper, 53, on the Food Act, inserts new Part 15A into the bill to make a minor amendment to the Food Act 2014. Following the Kaikōura earthquake, the Ministry for Primary Industries identified a need for the director-general to be able to delegate their power to issue privileged statements. These privileged statements are for the purpose of protecting human life, public health, and informing the public in the event of a food safety or suitability incident. The inability to delegate this power meant that there could be delays in providing certainty to consumers and the market during a food safety incident, in the event of the director-general travelling or otherwise being unavailable.

The Food Safety Law Reform Act was intended to enable the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries to delegate the ability to make privileged statements relating to food safety and suitability. However, a drafting error has resulted in the inconsistency in the Food Act 2014, with the effect that the director-general cannot delegate that power. This Supplementary Order Paper corrects this error.

I just say that I want to acknowledge and thank all the parties for the respectful and efficient manner that you’ve engaged in with officials and the department, as well as with officials from my office, and I welcome the deliberation on this bill. The changes do not change policy whatsoever. They are routine, administrative, minor, and technical changes, simply to improve the bill’s clarity. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, we might be taking the debate on this bill in one part, but there is a lot of material to canvass, I would suggest, inside of that. I’d like to begin with what was, in fact, in the bill as Part 1, which is the Animal Welfare Act 1999. I actually think this is a really good example of a case where we’re looking to make—unlike in an earlier bill today—something that is actually a minor and technical, yet meaningful, change to that legislation to bring it into the context of the way the world is today. Particularly, there is the ability to use technology to help manage both the activities that are taken in trapping and capturing animals but also to the degree—because, ultimately, the animal trapped may well have only one final outcome coming, but at least through that process it makes that journey, if you will, somewhat more humane.

So this change here will allow that if a trap is remotely monitored such as through a remote sensor, or perhaps through something connected wirelessly or through cellular to a remote monitoring station, the ability to know that an animal has been trapped in a trap means that the trap therefore doesn’t need to be manually inspected within the same time frame that currently exists under the Animal Welfare Act, which is within 12 hours after sunrise on each day that the trap remains set. This provision actually allows that to be extended out to 24 hours, and I think it’s a very sensible change, because the status of the trap can be known, the status of an animal being live-captured can be known, and it is a better reflection of the technology that people will use in trapping operations today.

In fact, it also supports the Predator Free 2050 goal that the previous Government put in place, and which I think we can acknowledge that this new Government is also continuing with. So the last thing I think we would want to have is a situation where old world legislation was failing to keep up with new world technology, and potentially, if we didn’t make this change, we could at least make the Predator Free 2050 goal more difficult to obtain, if not impossible.

So I think it’s a good change. It’s one of those changes that has meaning, even though in itself it’s not terribly complicated, and it certainly isn’t controversial. So I’m certainly pleased that we did that.

Now, when this bill was in the Governance and Administration Committee, there wasn’t a great deal of discussion, as it happened, because of the nature of the suggested changes, but there were a couple. One of those, for instance, was around the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. An odd situation is where in a partnership which doesn’t have employees, it could be difficult to have one of those partners as a compliance officer, because the compliance officer, under the Act as it exists today, is written in such a way that they are an employee—and, of course, a partner of a partnership that has no employees is not an employee. It’s a very sensible consideration to say that we’re committed to making sure that we comply and have enacted that legislation for good reason, so the change that is in this Statutes Amendment Bill will expressly allow that a partner in a partnership which doesn’t have employees—one of those partners is able to have the role of that compliance officer.

So that is another example, as I say, of a sensible shift. It is acknowledging that sometimes in this House, even when legislation does go through the full legislative process—which didn’t happen today with a bill, but it generally does—and even when that bill might have gone through a number of weeks or longer in a select committee process, it is still possible that legislation can exit the House that has a couple of anomalies in it or things that perhaps just weren’t traversed sufficiently to capture them on the way through. So statutes amendment bills are a very good vehicle to round those strays up, if you will, and to make those small changes to correct them, and in the case of that compliance role, that’s another example of that.

There are many others in here, and in a subsequent call I will talk about others. For instance, I’d like to talk about the interim protection orders and consequences that we also discussed at select committee. But at this stage, I’m going to offer one of my colleagues—and maybe even a member across the Chamber might like to take a call. Seeing as they didn’t want to leave early today, maybe they might actually have something to say about this bill. It’s a meaningful bill, so, hopefully, they do.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to talk to Supplementary Order Paper 53 on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of the Minister in the chair, Aupito William Sio. That’s in regard to the insertion of new Part 15A of the Food Act 2014.

Now, we all realise in this House the importance of food security to our country, as we are an exporting country of food products and a primary product - producing nation. So part of the role of our legislative requirements around food safety is to maintain the level of strength of those rules and regulations. It is an area which constantly has new challenges come upon it, and often the legislation isn’t quite as good as it should be or has room for improvement.

This amendment here that the Minister has put forward is one of those situations where there is a challenge to the system that hasn’t been reflected in the legislation that was set out in the first place and needs some reflection and a bit of a change to make it more effective. So I congratulate the Minister for bringing it forward, and I know that it will pass through this House with unanimous approval, because it’s something that’s actually very much needed to tidy up, you could say, the original Food Act of 2014.

It really looks at the powers of the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to “publish privileged statements for the purpose of protecting human life or public health or informing the public.” When that was passed in the original Food Act, that intention was only partially achieved, and there was a need in this Supplementary Order Paper to give that intention “full effect by removing a restriction on the chief executive’s ability to delegate the power to publish those statements.” Now, some may think that that’s a long-winded explanation, but there is actually a very important public interest case that relates to this, and this was in regard to what happened with Fonterra and the whey protein case, where one of the aspects of that, when it actually happened, was that the MPI officials and the CEO realised that they didn’t have quite the powers that they thought they did and were quite constrained in their immediate ability to deliver a solution to a problem like that.

When you come to a food security issue, a food integrity issue, a food safety issue, New Zealanders need to act thoroughly and quickly and in a timely manner, and anything that would restrict the timeliness of that reaction is a restriction that would hurt New Zealand processors and New Zealand producers and, ultimately, the consumers. In an international market where, basically, any failure of a product will be online within a matter of minutes and around the world within a matter of minutes, it’s important that we have a system that is very flexible and can adjust and react quickly to those situations. We were found wanting in that case; the situation wasn’t as reactive as it should be. MPI felt that if it had had this power, it would’ve actually given them more opportunity to react and to undertake activities a lot quicker.

So that’s really one of the big drivers behind what’s happening here today. It’s a fundamental reform that was done in the Food Act but didn’t take into account quite the situation that might arise where the chain of command that was anticipated would be there might not be quite in that space at that time, and we needed to react and make judgments and decisions on behalf of New Zealand producers and the New Zealand brand, and this is something that does need to be sorted out.

So I think the Minister’s done a great job in getting that sorted out today, and I look forward to this bill passing through. He’s a pretty good Minister, actually. He’s not a bad guy. He’s one of the better ones, you know. I know it is the last day and it is late, so, you know, you’ve got to give the dog a bone before you go—ha, ha!

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Statutes amendment bills are annual bills, basically. These bills will give us an opportunity to make minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. This bill originally made changes to 29 Acts, but then the Governance and Administration Committee recommended removing two changes to two Acts—so, basically, to 27 Acts. There are various reasons why we need to make these changes. Some of the amendments intend to increase efficiency, such as Parts 3, 4, 5, and 13. All these amendments are related to legislation supporting children and families.

The amendments will, basically, facilitate the development of a central unit for the processing and payment of service provider invoices. Basically, it will make it easier for the lawyers or representatives of a particular client to submit their invoices, because, at the moment, it seems to be very difficult; they have to go to specific courts. Now, with this bill, they could go to any court to submit their invoices, because there will be a central unit to handle these invoices. Improving the efficiencies and effectiveness of governance is particularly important to any Government, so it is important for us to commit to delivering better public services, and so these changes will serve that purpose.

Also some amendments are for clarification, such as Parts 7, 8, 12, and 24, and some amendments simply correct errors or improve expressions, such as Parts 10 and 14. I think the Minister mentioned some of these previous errors or oversights. So these are simply minor changes, and there are other amendments that will enable us to better use modern technology. For instance, Part 1 of the bill will allow live-capture animal traps to be remotely monitored, and the use of modern technology will certainly be cost-effective.

Of course, it’s not just for cost or convenience, right? We do need to make sure that modern technology is used properly so that while we make it cost-effective, at the same time we protect animal welfare properly. And that is why this bill will also require people to make sure these traps, or modern technology, are used in the proper way. For that reason, this bill will, basically, amend section 36 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, which provides that any live animal found in the trap must be removed or cared for or must be killed without delay. A person who commits an offence against section 36(2) is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 for an individual, or $25,000 for a body corporate. So, basically, you do have obligations to make sure that while you’re using modern technology, you’re able to protect animal welfare. So that is a bill which, really, is trying to improve efficiency and make people’s lives easier, but, at the same time, we do have our responsibilities to protect animal welfare.

Some amendments are small but could mean a lot to some people. For instance, amendments in Part 19 will enable justices of the peace with fewer than 10 years of service to use the designation “JP (retired)”. At the moment, you can’t, because this designation can be assigned to and used by only those JPs with service of more than 10 years. This is, basically, to make it possible for those JPs who have served for fewer than 10 years but have to retire because of illness or because of disability or for some particular reasons. So the secretary would be able to judge whether this person could use “JP (retired)” or not even though this person has not served for more than 10 years.

Now, JPs are particularly important in our society, and they are important particularly to new immigrants, because I myself have used JPs on quite a few occasions. Now, for new immigrants, they come to New Zealand. They need JPs’ assistance to certify certain documents in their settlement process, so we do need to recognise—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.