Wednesday, 5 September 2018

WEDNESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a point of order with you regarding oral question No. 2, as set down on the Order Paper today. Originally, when this question was set down, there were no quotation marks in the question. When the Minister’s office queried that, additional quotation marks were inserted by the Office of the Clerk from “will miss” all the way through to “$2 billion”. When that was further queried, it turned out that there was no such quotation in existence. The quotation marks now exist around the words “self-imposed”, and only the words “self-imposed”, and I have been advised quite clearly that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s report and forecast does not use those words at all. Therefore, how can this question stand when the quotation marks, or the quotation that is in there, does not relate to the report that is the subject of the question?

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): The question was submitted by our officers. It was authenticated to the satisfaction of your office. The changes that were made were made by your office, and then, subsequently, changes that relate to quotation marks. The question, none the less, has been properly authenticated and properly accepted, and it should stand.

SPEAKER: I understand that the authentication was a media report on the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean that in a primary question, a quotation unattributed from any media commentary about the report in question can be inserted in a question with no context or no attribution?

SPEAKER: No, that does not mean that. I know that there was quite a lot of back and forth around the authentication on this particular question. The point that I will make to the member is that I am the final authority on this, and, if at any stage after I have received it—at midday, or 11.30, when I see the questions, right up until the time of this House—someone had come to my office and had a discussion and made a good case, we would have changed the question yet again. But, from my perspective, actually, to get to the essence of the question, no quotation is necessary.

Prime Minister—Confidence in Coalition and Ministers

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is she still committed to doubling the refugee quota to 1,500, as she has said as recently as Monday?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Government hasn’t finalised commitments around increasing refugee numbers yet. Nothing has gone to Cabinet.

SPEAKER: I will remind the Minister to say “on behalf of” at the—oh no, actually, he’s the Acting Prime Minister; he doesn’t. He is the Prime Minister. I apologise. [Interruption] Order! Order! I don’t expect that level of interjection when I apologise for making a mistake.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she expect her coalition partner, New Zealand First, to support her promise to double the number of refugees?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I said, all these decisions are made through Cabinet. New Zealand First has their position; we have our position. The best interests of New Zealand are at heart, and the decisions will be finalised at Cabinet.

Hon Paula Bennett: If she backs down on this commitment, then what certainty can the country have on anything that she promises?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The country can have certainty that we will raise income levels, that we will increase housing, that we’ll invest in the regions. The country can be assured that this Government will implement all of our promises.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will all three Government parties be voting in favour of the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, these are decisions that haven’t yet gone to Cabinet. We do have different perspectives, but we do—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m surprised you didn’t rule the question out of order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for how parties vote on a member’s bill.

SPEAKER: I’m going to get the member to repeat the question. I thought she did refer to parties which consist of the Government, which leaves open the question that it could have been discussed with the parties in her role as Prime Minister as opposed to as the leader of the Labour Party. Ask the question again, please.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will all three Government parties be voting in favour of the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That’s a decision for each of the parties to make.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the coalition Government support the retention or the entrenchment or the removal of the Māori seats?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry, I didn’t hear the first part of the question. Can she repeat it?

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the coalition Government support the retention or the entrenchment or the removal of the Māori seats?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, each party in the coalition Government will make up their own decision.

Hon Paula Bennett: As Prime Minister, does she understand that the relationship of trust and integrity with her Ministers is vital and one that she controls; and, if so, why does she need an inquiry into Meka Whaitiri? Doesn’t she trust her word?

Hon Chris Hipkins: What about the National Party’s inquiry? How many months of—

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not going to prejudge the outcome—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just ask the Leader of the House to show a bit of good example?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation. Natural justice must apply. The investigation must be allowed to run, to be fair to both parties.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister decide who holds a ministerial warrant; and, if so, then shouldn’t she just be asking Meka Whaitiri exactly what happened with her staff member and judging whether she is worthy of that warrant based on her word?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: To answer the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does bringing in Ministerial Services mean that she doesn’t trust Meka Whaitiri’s account of what happened?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. As I’ve said, there is an investigation going on, and to comment further may prejudice that investigation.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she understand that it’s not an employment issue; it is an issue of her as Prime Minister having trust in her Ministers as to whether or not they are worthy to hold a warrant?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Prime Minister expects high standards of her Ministers, and if those standards aren’t met, well, then there will be consequences.

Economy—Crown Debt and Forecasts

2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen NZIER’s forecast indicating the Government will miss its “self-imposed” 2021-22 debt target by $2 billion, and how does that reconcile with the Prime Minister’s statement last week that these rules will not be relaxed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I have seen a report of that forecast, and I respectfully disagree with it.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s unequivocal statement that the debt rules would not be relaxed with his own comments on Q+A over the weekend that even if the debt target was missed, he would still consider he’d done “a good job”.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s absolutely no contradiction between those two positions. We will meet our debt targets. If we missed it to the extent that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) believes, it would be 20.6 percent instead of 20 percent. That would still be a very low debt target, and, I might say, lower than what the National Party reached in the last six years they were in office.

Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that the 0.6 percent of GDP that NZIER are forecasting the Government to miss the debt target by equates to $2 billion too much debt, and, if so, does he really think that being out by $2 billion is him doing a good job?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As with the last Government, this Government measures our debt targets as a percentage of GDP. When we look at that percentage of GDP, 20 percent will be very low by international terms. If we were to be talking in dollar terms, then the last Government might want to explain the $40 billion or $50 billion extra debt they racked up.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did he ignore Treasury advice that substantial borrowing by Crown entities would be seen as an attempt to circumvent his net debt target, and could, in fact, undermine his own Budget responsibility rules?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: For the same reasons that the National Government ignored the same advice from Treasury when they established the facility for Housing New Zealand to borrow, at the time of which a Minister in that Government said, “we believe that external financing will deliver additional commercial discipline for Housing New Zealand.” Once again, I agree with Amy Adams about that.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, given that he’s so keen to draw parallels with the last Government, is he aware that he actually inherited Crown entity debt of just half a percent of GDP, but Budget 2018 blew this out more than four times to 2.2 percent, or $6 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we have done is provide the facility for Housing New Zealand and the New Zealand Transport Agency to be able to get on with making up for the under-investment from the previous Government, because the actual reason we need the money is to build some houses.

Hon Amy Adams: So why did he ignore Treasury advice, again, that borrowing through Crown entities would have the same effect on fiscal resilience, the same effect on credit ratings, as borrowing through core Crown mechanisms, but would cost the taxpayer tens of millions of dollars more in interest costs than borrowing through core Crown facilities?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I do wonder whether the member asking the question could reflect on the following statement: “Given Housing New Zealand’s strong credit rating, a domestic wholesale bond programme is expected to cater for the full … financing requirement and represents the lowest cost option in terms of facility set up costs and interest costs.”

Hon Member: Who said that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Amy Adams—former finance Minister.

SPEAKER: I’m contemplating whether that actually addressed the question, but we’ll go on to the next one.

Animal Welfare—Feedlots

3. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement about the current use of feedlots, “Clearly it is not the mainstream type of production for New Zealand. But we are open to innovative ways to produce good quality beef. This is one of them”; if so, does he see any brand risk to New Zealand agriculture?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I stand by my statement. The feedlot in question has been run well over the 27 years of its operation and is recognised for the quality of product it sells to the market. That feedlot’s pens consist of straw bedding on a stabilised base. It is situated close to the coast because it provides more of a temperate climate for the animals. I’m unaware of there being any animal welfare issues at that site; however, I’m acutely aware that whatever there is in terms of poor environmental stewardship across our country or poor animal welfare or bad working conditions, that could result in risk to our agricultural brand.

Gareth Hughes: Does he agree with the New Zealand Animal Law Association, that say that feedlots are a breach of section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act, as the cows are not provided with adequate shelter and cannot display normal patterns of behaviour such as grazing?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s sort of a legal opinion, but we’ll say it’s a policy matter.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No. For the most part, the primary sector and farmers are working hard alongside the Government to improve sustainability and find new ways of doing things that get them more value from what they produce. The Government’s commitment to a new way of working was highlighted a couple of weeks ago when I launched a $40 million a year Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures fund, which will help the sector invest in projects that get more value for their exports and produce them in a more sustainable way.

Gareth Hughes: Does he agree with Fish & Game New Zealand, who call the continued existence of feedlots an indictment on New Zealand?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No.

Gareth Hughes: Is the Ministry for Primary Industries investigating concerns raised about the ANZCO feedlot farm in Ashburton, which intensively farms 14,000 cattle?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware of accusations but no investigations at all.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister ask his ministry to review the animal welfare code on the use of feedlots to ensure high-quality animal welfare standards, environmental protection, and the safeguarding of our agricultural export brand?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No, I don’t believe so. I think the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has been through all the codes of animal welfare. They have a very good independent oversight of animal welfare standards in this country, and I’ll make sure that they do everything necessary to uphold them.

Refugees—Quota

4. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) Yes, in their context.

Hon Todd McClay: Why did he say this week that it was not Government policy to increase the refugee quota to 1,500 per year, when the Prime Minister confirmed the same day that it remained Government policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are both correct. The Prime Minister is saying that it is Labour Party policy to double the quota to 1,500. It is the New Zealand First policy that they are not yet across the line on that, and both agree it’s a Cabinet decision.

Hon Todd McClay: Has he informed the Prime Minister that she is wrong when she said on Monday that the Government remained committed to increasing the refugee quota to 1,500; and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both agree it’s a decision for Cabinet.

Hon Todd McClay: What message does it send to the public when the Prime Minister and her foreign affairs Minister are at odds on the Government’s policies to increase the refugee quota to 1,500 per year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The message it sends this week, as last week, and as at the time of the last election, is that this was a policy of the Labour Party, that this is a coalition Government, and that these decisions are for Cabinet.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, what message does it send to our international partners when the Prime Minister and her foreign affairs Minister are at odds on fundamental foreign policy issues, like refugees?

Hon DAVID PARKER: They’re not.

Hon Todd McClay: Is it any surprise that business confidence levels are at record lows when the Prime Minister and her deputy and foreign affairs Minister are at odds with each other on so many important issues and the Government is a shambles?

Hon DAVID PARKER: They’re not; you’re making it up. Sorry, not you, Mr Speaker. The member is making it up.

Budget 2019—Well-being Approach

5. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What progress, if any, is being made on the coalition Government’s well-being approach to Budget 2019?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This Government wants a well-being focus to drive the decisions we make about Government policies and Budget priorities. This means adding to traditional measures, such as GDP, a wider set of indicators of success: the health of our environment, our people, and our communities. Our approach includes Treasury’s Living Standards Framework and its four capitals, human, financial, natural, and social; Statistics New Zealand’s Indicators Aotearoa New Zealand project, which will have indicators across all dimensions of well-being for New Zealanders; and the programme of State sector reform announced by Minister Hipkins yesterday, which will also include reform of the Public Finance Act. Together, these tools and processes will help us put together Budget 2019 and future Budgets on the basis of a rigorous framework that will include a wide range of issues and measures of success.

Dr Deborah Russell: How is this approach different to previous Government Budgets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Budget 2019 will be focused on initiatives that support long-term intergenerational well-being. It requires Ministers and agencies to work together on funding bids aimed at those long-term outcomes rather than their individual needs. We will always have a careful and close eye on our fiscal performance, but New Zealanders have told us that that is not sufficient. A Budget needs to reflect the importance of the health of our people, our environment, and our communities, and that is what will begin in Budget 2019.

Dr Deborah Russell: Why is this approach necessary?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I told the international well-being conference this morning, it is necessary because New Zealanders are rightly concerned that despite enviable GDP growth, we’ve found ourselves being reported as having the worst homelessness in the world. A narrow approach to value and purpose will not allow us to meet the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly changing world of work, mitigate climate change, or address inequality. This Government wants a country that’s prosperous but cares about who shares in that prosperity, where we will look after our land and water, and where we make our communities stronger. We need to use the Budget process to make that happen, and that is what we are committed to.

SPEAKER: I just advise the member that he’s getting the Bill English approach to his collar. It’s not a Minister of Finance thing; I think it should cease.

Refugees—Quota

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

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Speaker? [Minister sitting in wheelchair]

SPEAKER: Oh—the member was going to put his hand up. The Hon Iain Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): On any other day, I would happily stand by all my statements and actions. For today, the member will have to accept that I sit by them in the context in which they were made and taken.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it the Government’s policy to increase the refugee quota to 1,500 in this term of Parliament; if not, why not?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I personally remain committed to increasing the refugee quota during this term of Parliament, but there has been no Cabinet decision made at this time.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, the member Mr Iain Lees-Galloway was not asked for his personal opinion. The Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, Minister of Immigration, was asked a question about Government policy. Shouldn’t he give an answer about Government policy rather than expressing his own view?

SPEAKER: Well, did the member listen to the answer?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did. The answer was—

SPEAKER: Well, I distinctly heard the Minister say no Cabinet decision has been made.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If increasing the quota—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He should have elucidated whether or not, as a Minister, he supports that proposal—if he’s taking it to Cabinet or not. He could talk about whatever he likes.

SPEAKER: That’s not the question that he was asked.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, with all due respect, I think you’re ruling far too narrowly on how a question should be answered.

SPEAKER: I can accept that the member thinks that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If increasing the refugee quota is not presently Government policy, why did Budget 2018 provide $7.7 million of new capital to expand the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre to “help us meet future commitments”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because that expansion is required whether or not there is an increase to the refugee quota. That expansion is required to support good maintenance of that facility.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not true. Does he agree with—

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a member to suggest that I have misled the House, in that fashion?

SPEAKER: I think he—it’s not polite, but it doesn’t breach the Standing Orders unless the member indicates that it was a deliberate misleading, and I don’t think he went that far.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with Acting Prime Minister Kevin Davis’ comments that “It is our policy that we wanted to double the quota to 1,500, but it hasn’t gone through Cabinet yet, so it’s not Government policy.”, and, if so, what reliance can be placed on ministerial commitments made prior to matters being considered by Cabinet?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he said “We are very firm in our commitment to increase that quota and our commitment before the election was to do that during the first term in Government, and that is still my plan.”, was he speaking in his ministerial capacity?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, and I have made it very clear on a number of occasions that it is a policy that I am pursuing as Minister, but that there is a Cabinet process that has to be gone through, and that I am yet to take that Cabinet paper to Cabinet, and there is yet to be a Cabinet decision.

Hon James Shaw: Given that the Opposition has asked three questions about this today, if legislation was introduced into the House to increase the refugee quota, would he anticipate that the Opposition would put their money where their mouth is and vote for it?

SPEAKER: I think everyone knows that the Minister has no responsibility for that, including the member who asked the question and who’s getting pretty close to being disorderly.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What confidence can this House or the wider public have that any commitment that he makes as immigration Minister can be relied on before Winston Peters says it can?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I committed to introduce KiwiBuild settings; we’ve done that. I committed to make changes to post-study work rights; we have done that. And I have committed to making a number of other changes, and the member can be absolutely certain that this Government is committed to introducing an immigration system that actually works for New Zealand, that works for migrants, that works for employers, unlike what we inherited from the previous Minister.

Greg O’Connor: What benefits do former refugees bring to New Zealand?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Refugees are often highly skilled, have a strong work ethic, and are very happy to be here. They contribute to New Zealand’s growth and prosperity. I’m aware of research that shows a $2 return for every dollar invested in former refugees.

School Buildings—Upgrades

7. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has he made about upgrading the condition of classrooms in New Zealand?

SPEAKER: I call Chris Hipkins and wish him happy birthday.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): On Monday, the Prime Minister and I announced a major upgrade to the redevelopment of Wainuiomata High School. The Government will be doubling the $12 million committed by the previous Government to the redevelopment, increasing that fund to $24 million, so that the school can have a full redevelopment rather than a partial one. This is a sign of the Government’s commitment to providing its over 600 students with safe, modern classrooms to learn in.

Virginia Andersen: What other recent announcements have been made on the rebuild of new classrooms around the country?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced $47 million to repair Otumoetai College’s buildings in Tauranga, which suffered from leaks and deteriorating classrooms. This will provide them with 57 new classrooms and a new library for the up to 1,950 students that attend that school.

Hon Member: Where did the money come from, Chris? Where did the money come from?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We also provided $6 million to redevelop the classroom block at Tauranga Girls’ College which is also leaking. In answer to the questions from the members opposite—they’re welcome to ask one if they want to—the funding all came from this year’s Budget.

Virginia Andersen: How many expansion, rebuild, redevelopment, and roll-growth announcements have been made since Budget 2018?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Heaps. I won’t go through all of them, but we have committed to a rebuild of Onepoto primary school—

SPEAKER: Order! The question asked for a number, not a list.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, I’m happy to count them up. Heaps—I did answer “heaps”.

SPEAKER: All right, well, the member’s finished, then.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t got a numerical count for those—

SPEAKER: The member’s finished.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Mr Speaker, I do. There are 111 roll-growth classrooms. There are five redevelopments, two expansions, one relocation and rebuild, one rebuild, one new State build, and one new school and site for a wharekura.

Crown/Māori Relations—Priorities

8. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister for Crown/Māori Relations: What are his priorities for the Crown/Māori Relations portfolio?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): As the Minister, my priority is to strengthen and grow the relationship and partnership between the Crown and Māori, now and into the future. An announcement on the final scope of the portfolio will be made soon.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: What is his understanding of the term “Crown” in the phrase “Crown/Māori Relations”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Government.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Sorry, what was that?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Government.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I couldn’t hear it.

SPEAKER: The Government.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The Government.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Well, has it been a priority since he became the Minister to ensure that State-owned enterprises, Crown research institutes, and Crown entities are aware of their obligation to contribute to a positive Crown/Māori relationship, and, if so, what precisely has he done?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: What precisely we have done is go around the country holding engagement huis with Māori, and anybody who is involved in those organisations that he spoke about was welcome to attend.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Has it been a priority since he became Minister to work out what his role in Government is, and, if so, what does he do?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: An announcement will be made very shortly about the scope of the portfolio, and, let me say, I spent some two months engaging with Māori all across the country. They’re very happy with the approach of the Government. One of the big things that the previous Government did wrong was that they thought consultation with Māori involved meeting with 73 iwi leaders three or four times a year, when the feedback we’ve received from across the country is that we need to actually—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to interrupt the member. The rest of this answer is going to be heard in silence. I think that there are some interesting aspects to that reaction.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, one of the mistakes that the previous Government made was thinking that consultation with Māori was restricted to about 73 iwi leaders, when what we were told—the feedback we received from Māori across the country—was that we should be engaging with all Māori. It’s consistent with article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which says, “Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu—ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga”. The words there that were most important were “nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”—all of the people of New Zealand, of whom, in 1840, 99 percent were Māori.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: What particular policies and programmes has he initiated in his portfolio in the 10 months since he became the Minister?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There’s been quite a lot of work. Let me start to rattle a few off: working with kōhanga reo to sort out their claim, working with wānanga to sort out issues that they’ve had, and working with various iwi on matters that the previous Government stuffed up—just as an example.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Was his role as chair of the Labour Māori caucus good preparation for his work in the portfolio, and, if so, does he think his experience in “organising the feeds while we had a yarn” is being put to good use now that he’s the Minister?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, because in our engagement huis there are officials who organise the feeds, and they were actually very nice, thank you very much.

New Zealand Navy—Dive and Hydrographic Vessel Procurement

9. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What progress, if any, has been made regarding the procurement of a dive and hydrographic vessel for the Navy?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): During the recess period, I announced the procurement of a Norwegian dive and hydrographic vessel MV Edda Fonn, at a total cost of $103 million, including military modifications. The ship replaces two vessels decommissioned—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Look, Mr Robertson, can I say that indicating with any number of fingers in that way is disorderly. But what I am going to say to both yourself and the Hon Gerry Brownlee is that if you want to have a private conversation about previous Governments, have one, but some people are interested in this answer.

Hon RON MARK: As I was saying, at a total cost of $103 million, including military modifications, this ship seen here replaces two vessels decommissioned in 2012 and 2018 and will provide the navy with the ability to conduct a range of specialist diving and hydrographic tasks in support of our community, our nation, and the world—and there you go. [Minister shows pictures of vessel]

SPEAKER: Right. Put that away, thank you.

Mark Patterson: What type of task will this vessel undertake?

Hon RON MARK: The types of tasks this vessel is likely to undertake include humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR); underwater search and rescue such as, unfortunately, often is the case, jointly with police; surveying the seabed following natural disasters such as was done with the Manawanui in Kaikōura and Lyttelton post the two big earthquakes; supporting larger ships to disembark equipment and personnel—again very useful in HADR operations—and removing unexploded historical ordnance such as we’ve done in the Solomon Islands. It will also be there and available to assist with scientific research.

Mark Patterson: How is this vessel superior to the two ships it replaced?

Hon RON MARK: This vessel is far superior; in fact, in one of the graphics that I didn’t bring along we can show that with the size and scale at 85 metres long, nearly 3,000 tonnes, total load of 5,700 tonnes, you could actually fit the old Manawanui on the back of the deck of this one. This ship replaces the Manawanui and the Resolution. Some of the enhanced capabilities include a 100-tonne salvage crane; remotely operated vehicles; a contemporary dynamic positioning system, which enables them under severe sea states to maintain total stability—very important when putting divers down and when doing scientific research. It is an extremely effective vessel and the lily pad on the front will enable us to land all of our helicopters: the A109, the NH90, and Seasprites in sea states up to 3, which is very good.

Mark Patterson: When will the vessel enter service and what will it be named?

Hon RON MARK: This vessel, which has been warmly welcomed by the navy in Devonport, will enter service—we anticipate it will be here in New Zealand in May next year for its second fit, once we take possession, and it will go into dock. The owners will conduct the first tranche of modifications. It’ll come into New Zealand in May, and the second tranche of modifications will be done with the assistance of local defence industry. We’re hoping to have it actually totally completely in service in November next year, but it will be available on a phased basis for operations prior to that.

Farming—Cost Increases

10. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes.

Hon Nathan Guy: Did the Prime Minister tell him that she wants to receive advice from the Farming Leaders Group for free and not his Primary Sector Council, which costs taxpayers $500,000 a year?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will rephrase the question so it relates to the primary question.

Hon Nathan Guy: Did the Prime Minister tell him that she wants to receive advice from the Farming Leaders Group and not his Primary Sector Council?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member’s going to have one more try to ask a question which relates to the primary question.

Hon Nathan Guy: Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Prime Minister has said to him that she would prefer to receive advice from the Farming Leaders Group rather than his Primary Sector Council?

SPEAKER: I’m going to let the Minister answer it, but I will say to the member that even then, strictly, I shouldn’t have.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No.

Hon Nathan Guy: When he was referring to cost increases on farmers, reported in Rural News on 21 August as saying “get used to it”, what specific advice has he received on these Government-increased costs?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have been upfront with farmers all the way through. We have said that we will require higher standards in water around the rural properties, and I’m sure that farmers, just as they have been committed to this for some time, appreciate that they have to reach a higher standard. The swimmable-level standard offered by the last Government was, quite frankly, pathetic, and they knew that and they understand that they’ve got to spend more money to reach swimmable standards that are truly credible.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of that answer, what specific advice has he had from officials that is going to confirm to farmers that there are going to be increased costs from this Government?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: What I can say is that we are rolling out a programme moving from volume to value, and, indeed, focusing on the values of New Zealand production. We’re being honest with the farming sector, saying that we do have to have higher standards of animal welfare, we do have to have higher standards of environmental management, and we do have to pay our workers more so we can attract more people to the primary sectors. That will be an additional cost, but this Government’s focused on farmers getting more value for what they do now—more returns, not just asking them to do more.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of that answer, why can’t he be more specific on what these increased costs are likely to be? He has already indicated that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Nathan Guy: The Minister—

SPEAKER: The question, all right?

Hon Nathan Guy: Yes. Why can’t the Minister be more specific about these increased costs, like he has already alluded to the fact that bringing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme (ETS) will cost on average $5,000 per farm; what further advice has he had about these increased costs? He must have had advice—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Happy to, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, it is—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, please.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. We had three cracks at the first supplementary, and that one was just wandering all over the paddock.

Hon Nathan Guy: What specific advice has he had from his officials, in terms of numbers—dollars—that farmers can expect his Government to see increased costs on their business?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m trying to be absolutely honest with them, and I can’t predict the cost that the meat companies or the dairy companies may impose upon farmers to meet new standards of assurance. What I can say in regard to climate change is that there are no set figures, but I am using figures off the basis of Lincoln University predictions. There are no decisions on whether to bring agriculture into the ETS. But off the figures developed by Lincoln University, they estimated that it could be around $5,000. That’s the figure that I’ve quoted publicly. I’m happy to explain. It’s a guesstimate at best, and we’re working through the process to be absolutely upfront and honest with all the farmers across New Zealand.

Employment and Skills Training—Fast Track Partnership Programme

11. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent initiatives has she announced that provide opportunities for people looking for work?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Speaker? [Minister sitting in wheelchair]

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has to indicate that she wants the call.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Speaker? [Minister raises hand]

SPEAKER: The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Last week, Accor Hotels, Tourism Industry Aotearoa, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) announced that they would be extending their Fast Track Partnership Programme to Christchurch this month. The programme currently operates in Rotorua and provides unemployed people with hospitality and industry training, and employment opportunities. The five weeks of pre-employment training offers a mix of classroom-based and hands-on training, as well as the opportunity to earn New Zealand Qualifications Authority level 3 qualifications. This is yet another example of how this Government is working with business to create better job opportunities for New Zealanders.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What feedback has she had on the success of the programme?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Fast Track Partnership Programme was established in 2017 when Tourism Industry Aotearoa came on board. Whilst the programme is still new, it is already showing promising results. Of those who took part in the first training, 90 percent got employment contracts as a result. Of the most recent cohort, 89 percent will start work this week in new careers in hotels across Rotorua. I’m looking forward to the programme’s continuing success as it is rolled out in Christchurch.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why are these programmes and partnerships so important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Strong partnerships with industry leaders and employers are essential for developing training valued by employers, which leads to sustainable and meaningful work for MSD clients. Through MSD’s broader partnerships with Accor Hotels, the Ministry of Social Development have placed more than 800 clients into employment across the country. Every day, we are working with business to grow these opportunities, and I’m looking forward to seeing these expand in the future.

Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, Minister—Email Accounts

12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Yes, in their context.

Melissa Lee: Does she use a personal email account or accounts to conduct any official business?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: From time to time, I have used my Gmail account. When using it, I adhere to my obligations as a Minister.

Melissa Lee: What Government business has she conducted via her Gmail account?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I just answered that: from time to time, I’ve used my Gmail account. And I’ve—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry. Can members on my left be quiet, and I want the Minister to start her answer—

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Can the member repeat her question?

Melissa Lee: What Government business has she conducted via her Gmail account?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: To the best of my recollection, I haven’t used my—I’ve answered Official Information Act (OIA) responses and personal and parliamentary questions correctly, and, to the best of my recollection, you know, that’s what I’ve done.

Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question specifically asked what Government business the Minister has actually conducted using her Gmail.

SPEAKER: And I’m going to rule that the member, between the primary and the supplementary answer, certainly answered that to my satisfaction. I mean, I think all of us know that there’s no restriction on members or Ministers using Gmail accounts. I think all of us know that a large amount of the foreign affairs business of the previous Government was carried out by Gmail.

Melissa Lee: What steps has she or her office undertaken to ensure any correspondence she receives in her Gmail in-box relating to her portfolio is recorded in accordance with official record-keeping practices?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I worked with my office to ensure that I am responding appropriately to OIA requests and parliamentary questions.

SPEAKER: That’s—I think the member will have another crack at that, because that didn’t cover the entire question. The member might want to repeat the question, so the Minister understands it.

Melissa Lee: I will repeat the question, sir. What steps has she or her office undertaken to ensure any correspondence she receives in her Gmail in-box relating to her portfolio is recorded in accordance with official record-keeping practices?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I have reviewed my processes with my office. I reassure that member that I’ve released information in accordance with the OIA.

Melissa Lee: Why did she state “My staff have access to my email accounts and assess whether the correspondence falls under my ministerial portfolios.” in the Minister’s reply to written question No. 19442?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Well, because they do.

Melissa Lee: How many email accounts has she used for ministerial business other than those listed on the Parliament, ministerial, Beehive, or Labour Party websites?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: As I said in answer to the first supplementary, from time to time I’ve used my Gmail account. When using it, I adhere to my obligations as a Minister

Melissa Lee: What discussions has she had with the coalition Government’s former Minister for Government Digital Services about record-keeping practices?

Hon CLARE CURRAN: As I’ve said, I have reviewed processes in my office, including with the former Government digital services.

Melissa Lee: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, the National Party has run out of supplementary questions.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I don’t know about the rest of the House, but I’m actually almost embarrassed for Clare Curran. I’m actually not kidding. I’m almost embarrassed for her, because that was actually a generally shambolic display of how a Minister should actually be able to control herself and answer questions in this House. The fact that she stands there and repeatedly says that her Gmail was available for her staff is simply, I find, further from the truth. When she answered questions that said she had not had meetings, and she has then had to come out to the Prime Minister and say that she did and that her staff knew nothing about it—did not have access to that information—one has to ask the question: why was she doing Government business through her Gmail instead of through the normal channels that would be expected?

I didn’t plan on standing up here and starting my general debate speech like this, but, actually, the fact that that was so poorly answered and with such obvious discomfort, one has to simply call it out for what it is. It is someone with something else to hide. I’m sorry, but it is someone with something else to hide, and it will be the Prime Minister who rues the day that she didn’t stand up with the courage of the high standards that she should be setting for her Cabinet Ministers and actually cut her loose right then and there.

We also notice the Prime Minister will not answer questions on Meka Whaitiri. We saw it yesterday. When was she advised that there was an issue, when did Meka Whaitiri tell her that there was an issue, has she asked her what actually happened, and can she trust her at her word as to what happened? If she can’t, that woman should not be in her job.

What the Prime Minister doesn’t understand is that this is not an employment issue. This is an issue of a Prime Minister trusting someone enough to give them a warrant to hold one of the highest positions of trust in this country, and any of the previous three Prime Ministers that I’ve known would have sat her down, looked her in the eye and said “Tell me exactly what happened.”, made a judgment as to whether or not that is a standard that she will accept in her Cabinet, and made a call on it. To kick it to touch for two to three to four weeks and then hide behind employment issues because she hasn’t got the courage to stand up as an actual boss—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ve let the member go once. She is going to withdraw and apologise for the words she used.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise. To stand up and not have the conviction of the high standards that she should have with her Ministers is absolutely disgraceful—to hide behind employment issues, to hide behind yet another investigation or yet another one of these working groups that’ll work out what actually happened. I challenge the Prime Minister to stand up and have standards for both Clare Curran and for Meka Whaitiri.

The best one has to be Mike Williams going out there—the great bastion, Mike Williams of the Labour Party—and saying, “It’s not Meka Whaitiri’s fault; it’s Ministerial Services’, because Ministerial Services did not give training to Ministers in how to manage staff.” So we want them to have, what, $280,000 salaries, we want them to be responsible for millions of dollars and potentially millions of people’s lives as they go about their business, but they need training to not physically assault staff—yeah? They need to actually be told it is not appropriate to speak to staff disrespectfully or to allegedly assault them, because they haven’t got the means to do that, so they need training—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! There have been a series of interjections which I think are unhelpful from the Government benches. I think that sort of accusation against a former member who is not here to protect herself is something which is not appropriate.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Feeling a bit uncomfortable, I think we can see, quite clearly, about the truth finally coming out and the gloves coming off and the big shade of fairy dust actually starting to settle and not look quite as glossy as it did a little while ago. And then, of course, we have that wonderful gift that keeps on giving, which is a coalition Government where the left doesn’t know what the centre, what the middle, might actually be doing. Where are we at, by the way, on refugee numbers? So are we at 1,000—are we at 6,000? I hear 6,000 from the Green Party, and then counted—

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. We’ve had a clock problem. She has about 30 seconds to go.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is a lot going on, as far as we can see, on exactly where they stand. Who’s going to blink first? Come on, let’s put some money on it. I mean, let’s be honest: the Greens are out. No one’s listening to them; they haven’t got any real stance on this. So here we’ve got—[Interruption] Will Labour fold? Amy Adams calling, “Labour will fold and it will be 1,000.” Someone said, “Maybe 1,250—they’ll compromise.” I reckon Winston, as he constantly reminds them—[Time expired]

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Phil Twyford. [Applause] Order! No, the member will resume his seat. When I call “Order”, I expect order, not ongoing defiance. If it happens again, there’ll be some serious consequences for the members involved.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good to see a leadership bid come forth from the National front bench. They never clap like that for Simon Bridges, do they? They never do. Well, that was a pious lecture from the member who leaked the personal details of two beneficiaries while she was the social development Minister. It was her office who leaked the details on Hurimoana Denis to try and smear the personal reputation of someone who was embarrassing that Government over its record on homelessness.

Last week, we learnt about the home of Ms Dawn Robbie, her partner Cameron, and her two daughters—a three-year-old and a 10-month-old. They pay $520 a week in rent for a home that has beneath it an ankle-deep swamp underneath the house, an unusable flooded yard when it rains. When water from the swamp evaporates, moisture rises crumbling the home’s polystyrene underfloor insulation. It makes the house damp, cold, and mouldy, and Dawn told National Radio “It’s mosquito, rat infested. We’re living in shit, no offence, but that’s literally how it feels.” It’s been like that for the last 21 months since Ms Dawn Robbie moved in. Her daughter is getting bronchitis at 10 months old. Dawn herself has strep throat. This house is a symbol of the past, and it epitomises the need for this Government’s positive plan to build a better New Zealand, and it’s a perfect example of why we need to overhaul the laws on renting and implement the healthy homes standards.

Now, speaking of unhealthy homes, you only need to look across the aisle to see the perfect example of a swamp house. National’s caucus would not pass the healthy homes standards. It’s leaking, it’s cold, it’s not a nice place to be, at the moment, quite clearly, and no one living there has the power to do anything about it. National are stuck in a quagmire. It’s their very own swamp house—the perfect symbol for their management of the housing market over the last decade.

Four weeks on from the National caucus leak of Simon Bridges’ $114,000 travel expenses, National is still talking about a saboteur in their own ranks. Well, they need to drain the swamp. For a party that’s so against inquiries, they’re very keen to spend taxpayer money on an inquiry into who in the National caucus leaked Simon Bridges’ travel expenses. Apparently that’s focusing on the issues that matter. It’s very disappointing for them, because you can see it by the way they slump deeper and deeper in their chairs every time this is discussed in question time.

Meanwhile, the Government is getting on with the job and doing what matters, because we’re building houses. At the moment we’re building 6,400 additional public houses. We’re investing $4 billion in building thousands of extra State houses, because that side of the House reduced the number of State houses by 5,000 while they were in office—reduced the number of State houses by 5,000.

We’ve just embarked on the biggest building programme that New Zealand has ever seen—a hundred thousand affordable homes for young Kiwi families; something that they refused to do the entire time they were in office. They refused to build houses that young Kiwi families could afford to buy and to live in. We are on the way to building a thousand houses in the first 12 months of the KiwiBuild program—18 houses unveiled last weekend, another 12 to come by Christmas. Those 30 families will be the first KiwiBuild homeowners. They will wake up on Christmas morning in their own house—an affordable house delivered to them by this coalition Government. We’re also reforming the tenancy laws to make 600,000 rental properties in this country warm and dry.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Well, not even Phil Twyford’s colleagues believe that you can live under a press release or one of his announcements, because when he says with great pride that they’ve just announced a few houses, that’s not the 10,000 every year that they promised. It’s not going to be the 100,000 over 10 years that they promised. He’s become the “Minister for Kiwi Announcements”, certainly not KiwiBuild. That’s symbolic of a Government that after 11 months is looking like they’re tired and they are a shambles.

It’s one thing for him to be talking in most of his speech about the Opposition, but we didn’t hear a lot about the challenges they have holding three parties together in Government. It’s a Government in shambles. The Greens have their heads down on most of these issues. They’re swallowing rats as fast as they’re chucked from one side of the Chamber over towards them, and it is a Government that is lacking cohesion. It’s certainly not seeing the strong leadership that the country is used to over an 18-year period, and they have a crisis of ideas. But, by golly, they know how to spend taxpayers’ money. They know how to spend the money.

You see, the biggest problem they have is we have a Prime Minister that can’t say no to one of the parties in Government—just can’t say no to one of those parties in Government. We’ve a Prime Minister who made a speech last week to deal with business confidence. Two days later, the record low levels of business confidence came out and she has a Minister in her Government from a coalition party that actually rained on her parade. Not even one of Phil Twyford’s press releases could stop what a member of the coalition Government did to detract from the Prime Minister’s speech that very few, if any, of the business community have taken any solace from.

She said in that speech, jokingly, that she is New Zealand’s biggest employer. Well, Mr Speaker, let’s have a little look through at the people, I suppose, she directly employs, because she appointed them and gave them ministerial warrants. It’s a very long list. You’ve got Clare Curran. You’ve got Meka Whaitiri. You’ve got Shane Jones, Winston Peters, and I tell you after the answers in the House today, Acting Prime Minister Kelvin Jones—we’ll add him to the list. They’re all—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Kelvin Davis.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Kelvin Davis. We’ll add them to the list. Yes, that’s a point. Nobody knows his name when he’s standing there acting on her behalf.

Well, let’s go through them one by one. Clare Curran just stood in this House and answered questions. When asked about her Gmail account, she said “to the best of my recollection”. Well, to Minister Curran, that’s what got her into trouble to start with. Her recollection either isn’t there—it’s not befitting of a Minister, or it’s just not convenient for her to come to this House and answer questions and tell people what’s in her diary.

I think there’s a long way to go in this, but there shouldn’t be. The Prime Minister should hold her Ministers to account, as Helen Clark did and John Key did, and when a Minister has misled her not on one occasion but on a number of occasions, as New Zealand’s largest employer she shouldn’t say “Just move offices; it’s proportionate.” She should say to New Zealanders “That’s not good enough for me to have confidence in you. As New Zealand’s largest employer, I no longer have confidence in that Minister.” Anybody who watched Clare Curran in the House today certainly can’t have confidence in her.

Meka Whaitiri—this isn’t an employment issue. This is an issue of a Prime Minister that has appointed Minister Whaitiri to one of the highest positions that you can hold in this country, and to say that it’s an employment issue and that the Minister has gone home for a few weeks to her electorate is frankly not good enough. The Prime Minister has to have asked her what happened, and she either accepts her position or she doesn’t. She either believes that Minister or she doesn’t. She can’t say in this House, “I won’t give an answer, because it’s an employment issue.” Certainly, for the poor employee that needs all the support they should get in the very short time in working in this Minister’s office, they need to look at it from an employment point of view, but the Prime Minister needs to hold that Minister to account.

Then this week we have Winston Peters saying that actually the Government’s policy is not 1,500 refugees. The Prime Minister is saying that it is. Winston’s saying she is wrong. The Prime Minister says, “Well, it hasn’t gone through Cabinet.” Nobody knows what’s happening over there. Nobody can believe that Winston Peters and the Prime Minister talk to each other over these things. It is a shambles, and it’s not going anywhere quickly.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thanks, Mr Speaker. Indeed, it is an honour to take a short call here today and to be part of a Government that is unashamedly focused on one goal, and that is a better New Zealand for every New Zealander. The coalition Government has come together, a diverse range of views and backgrounds, to form a Government that is going to focus on that goal for the 12 years that we will be in Government. We are out there listening, learning, and we are leading.

In my areas of responsibility across the primary industries, I have to say it’s a great honour to shift the focus for the primary sector. What I am trying to do is give them honest leadership. I’m not trying to pull the wool over their eyes. I’m not trying to promise them things that can’t be delivered through market forces. What I am saying to them is that this Government will give them clear guidelines and will help them to get more value for everything that they do. The previous Government simply said “Do more and you’ll be better off.”, without any consideration for the environmental impacts, without any consideration for the animal welfare impacts, or, indeed, the workload, or the inability to attract people into the sector. They simply said, “The market will deliver.” That idiocy can no longer continue.

We are a Government that will lead for New Zealanders to deliver us a better New Zealand. It came to a head two weeks ago in this House when this Government decided to intervene and make legislative changes to the NAIT system. Now—NAIT—you may say, what is NAIT? Well, National Animal Identification and Tracing. It’s kind of “NAT” with an “I” in it—“impotency” is what the “I” stands for, I have to say. The system simply didn’t work. When we got delivered Mycoplasma bovis from the previous Government, we had to go about trying to make some desperate improvements. The changes in the legislation last week that the Opposition jumped up and down about, filibustered on, and misled the farming sector out there about, saying that all sorts of dastardly things would happen, wasn’t really helpful. We’d decided to make some changes that were necessary. That is what we will do all through our term in Government. I want to work through some of the things that we have done.

I’d like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues and ministerial colleagues. The Hon Chris Hipkins is getting out and making the changes in education that are absolutely crucial, all the way from early childhood through to tertiary education. The Hon Phil Twyford is building houses for people who need homes. That’s what we will do; we will intervene, and we’ll take necessary action, not sit back on our hands and expect our mates in the markets to deliver, because that’s what a National Government does.

Can I acknowledge my coalition partners, New Zealand First and the Greens, who support the initiatives, the many of them that we are making in this area. We have set up, in the area of primary industries, Biosecurity New Zealand as a separate business unit in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), because it’s so important. We’ve set up the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, because food safety is so important. Forestry, under Minister Jones, is going to get out and start planting trees and be the industry that it always had the potential to be but languished under the previous National Government.

Can I say that we are going to consider the issues of climate change. The Prime Minister has said it is the single biggest issue of our generation. As we travel around the world as Ministers, I think each and every one of us gets that message, whether it is in Europe or Asia or anywhere. Climate change is driving fear among many people throughout this world, mostly the poor, the people living in low-lying areas, the people who have no options. It is our responsibility to commit to reducing the impacts of climate change and to reducing emissions, and the agricultural sector is being considered for our part.

I know the farmers that are out there just want clear signals. No, they don’t want extra costs, but they see the value of investment for the greater good. They are prepared to commit to their communities. They are prepared to commit to the wider world and the welfare of the wider world. They just need to know what to do. We’re going to get on with that and give them a clear steer on that. We’re going to give them a clear steer on water quality and the tools to assist them. We launched, two weeks ago, in fact, the Extension Service Model Initiative from MPI. That is, MPI will no longer sit back on their hands and expect farmers to change. We will proactively go out there and share the information available that has been gathered from Crown research institutes and universities to share that with the farmers, to assist them to change their ways, and to get more value for everything that they do, not just “do more”.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am pleased to speak in this general debate. I want to start with the quote from the honourable member, Damien O’Connor, that this is a Government that will be there for 12 years. Well, what about the last 12 months? That, for me, sums up the height of complete arrogance and incompetence. This is a Government—if you wanted to mess things up—that inherited a good economy, strong business confidence, and billions of dollars for public services. How would you stuff that up? Well, point number one: the first thing you would do is build a Government on false promises. We saw the Treasury papers in the last week. The reality is that Treasury are confirming what we have known, which is that this Government cannot deliver on its manifesto promises because they were never costed properly. There is a massive hole. We see it in education. The Treasury papers confirmed this week what Chris Hipkins has not said to New Zealand, which is that they are billions and billions of dollars out in education alone.

The second thing that you would do is you would have huge indecision and uncertainty. This Government is now at 150 reviews. There is a culture of arrogance and incompetence, but also of indecision and uncertainty. We see it with businesses. We see it with small businesses—are they going to get the workforce that they need in immigration? We see it around foreign investment—people don’t know what the rules are. We see it in export education. We see it in the education area because they’ve got more than 18 broken promises.

The next thing that you would do to create a culture of arrogance and incompetence, and a bad culture generally, is you would have a coalition partner that undermines you at every single step of the way. Well, let’s work through that. New Zealand First—three strikes—as Tracy Watkins said, pulls the rug out from underneath the Prime Minister. When it comes to the refugee quota, Labour is out there saying there’ll be 1,500 refugees; now nobody has a clue what the number is because New Zealand First continue to undermine the Government. Those are not the only issues, but it’s another brick out of this Government in terms of their incompetence and their arrogance.

The next thing that you would do is you would create complete incompetence around Ministers, and we have seen an extraordinary set in a few weeks. Low standards by the Prime Minister—Clare Curran already in the gun in terms of having secret meetings and not recording those meetings. She does it once, gets a slap on the hand; does it a second time—you would think that she would lose her warrant and that she wouldn’t be driving around in the VIP BMWs, but, no, she still holds that warrant and is outside Cabinet.

We obviously have that serious incident regarding another Minister, but then today I confirmed complete incompetence around other Ministers like Chris Hipkins. We know—he’s warned, in December of last year, about the legal risks in terms of the Waitangi Tribunal. There are Cabinet papers confirming that there are legal risks around the partnership schools policy, and he proceeds to ram through that legislation, puts his head in the sand, and pretends he doesn’t know what’s going on. Now we have major questions to answer about Crown Law confirming they did have legal papers served on them, but, still, he and his coalition partners ensure that we have to meet in recess and deliberate on a bill and not properly consider these legal considerations because of errors by Ministers and agencies.

This is a Government that, after not even 12 months in the role, has created a complete culture of incompetence, of arrogance, and of not taking responsibility. We see that in the way that their coalition partners undermine them, we see that in the 150 reviews that they have, we see that in the many broken promises because their fiscal costings didn’t add up, and we see that in the lack of responsibility and leadership from this Government.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): What we have just seen from the contribution by the member who just resumed her seat, Nikki Kaye, is the reality of the National Party. They talk about the Government as if it is a single entity, a single party. This has been the challenge for National, and, unfortunately, even the 2017 election did not get them to understand an MMP environment—the way that coalition and supply and confidence actually works—and that is why they sit on those benches. That is why they have crushed—every partner they had in this House has been destroyed because that party cannot get themselves out of a first-past-the-post mentality. How unfortunate. They are looking at 2020 in the face and they still cannot get up to speed, but there you go—that is how it works.

On 29 August, this Government did something and announced something that is world leading: we announced the new Safety of Children in Care Unit by Oranga Tamariki. We did it because a previous review had shown us that we needed to make sure, as a nation, that we tracked harm to our children that we had taken out of the care of their families, had removed from trauma, and made sure that we were looking after them in the role of their parent for the time that they were in our care. So Oranga Tamariki did something that has never been done across the world up to this point: we have widened and recorded every piece of harm that may happen to a child in our care. That goes from falling over at school, falling off the jungle gym—in one of the incidents, a young person was out on a horse-riding event and fell off the horse—all the way through to: is there harm being done to that child by a carer; is there harm being done to that child by somebody else at their school?

The purpose of it is not only to record it, but within five to seven days action will be taken—if action is needed to be taken—to make sure that we have real-time reporting and that action will be taken, action will be recorded, and action will be made transparent and reported to New Zealand. We will hold ourselves accountable as a Government for the children in our care—world leading. We will hold ourselves accountable for the children in our care, in real time, and report to the New Zealand public, with the first report coming out around 31 December 2018.

This is a turning point for New Zealand Governments and how they make sure that they step up; that they don’t hide or work in secrecy, trying to deny the risk that there is when we make sure that the New Zealand public is aware of the work that we do. This is about making sure that we stand with each other, whether we be an NGO, whether we be a Government department, whether we be Ministers—that we stand up for our children and make sure, regardless of the risks of putting that information out there, regardless of what the risk is of telling the truth and the possibility that some people may actually take issue with that, may decide to take political mileage from it, that we will still stand up for these children; we will still face our responsibilities and hold ourselves to account. That is something that has never been done in this country before. It is this Government that has decided to do so now.

This is the first step and a long step, with the care standards coming; with the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill coming; with transition services coming; with raising the age and the care of mentoring for children that are coming out of our youth justice system up to the age of 25, for them to be able to remain closely connected to carers up to the age of 21; to making sure that we put strong educational facilities into our youth justice facilities—

Hon Mark Mitchell: What about our kids with special ed, Mahurangi College, Ōrewa College, Whangaparaoa College?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It’s very interesting. Mr Mitchell is shouting out about things to do with education, when I am talking as the Minister for Children about the most vulnerable children we have in this country, but Mr Mitchell choses to try and divert to something that is important only to him.

This is a large moment for this nation. We’re proud of the way we’re going to stand up and protect our children. We’re proud of the way that this Government has decided to be open and transparent and upfront with New Zealanders, and we’re going to put our children first.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Nothing is more depressing and humbling than having to follow Tracey Martin in the general debate, because there is a person whose greatest claim to fame was that she was a member of the board of trustees of Mahurangi College before she came into Parliament. As we all know, she is utterly incompetent as a Minister.

I was trying to work out, the other day, the dynamics of this coalition Government, and then I worked out the answer, because it reminds me very much of that excellent play by Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus. Doctor Faustus is the person who sold his soul to Lucifer in exchange for a few baubles, but at the end of the day Lucifer demands his price. He wants the soul of Doctor Faustus. You, Mr Speaker, from your outstanding academic days at Onslow College, would remember Faustus’ last speech: “Ah, Faustus, now thou hast but one bare hour to live, then thou must be damned perpetually. O lente, lente currite, noctis equi!” because Satan has come to claim his soul.

That is the dynamic in this coalition Government. [Interruption] Well, I don’t what they learnt at Petone Tech, but that’s what Greg O’Connor and I did at St Patricks College. I don’t know that Greg O’Connor actually went to class very much because he was too busy down the front grounds smoking. But I digress.

This is what happened in the negotiation with New Zealand First. They sold their soul to “Old Nick”, to Lucifer, whom we shall describe as the Rt Hon Winston Peters—the vanquished member of Parliament for Tauranga and Hunua and Northland—so that they could have the baubles of office. When they got there, they said to themselves, “Great, we’re here. What are we going to do?” And they had no idea, because they weren’t prepared for Government, but, slowly but surely, “Old Nick” has called in the favours. [Interruption] I’m not talking about Dr Smith; he’s “Young Nick”.

So we have the refugee debate. We have the debate about whether or not a building should be built behind Parliament. Everyone was in favour of it. Mr Peters was opposed to it, but what Winston Peters says goes. That’s the dynamic of this Government, and it’s a tragedy. I said to Russell Marshall the other day that the Labour Party has so much to be proud of in its history. Probably the best economic Government, other than John Key’s Government, was the tremendous Government that you, Mr Speaker, were a member of between 1984 and 1987, which did some wonderful work to make the New Zealand economy actually grow, and the Labour Party can be very proud of it.

But what they have today is a party that has sold its soul to New Zealand First, so they have to sit around the same table as the Tracey Martins of this world—she is demonstrably not up to holding the portfolios that she holds—who make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to inquiries, and so on. And Fletcher Tabuteau is poncing around the world on behalf of Mr Peters, attending inaugurations—for example, of the President of Chile. These are people who, in most circumstances, wouldn’t even qualify as chairs of the rabbit board at home, but instead they’re holding ministerial portfolios—simply not up to it.

That is why I feel so sorry for the Andrew Littles of this world—because people who can make a contribution are shackled with these dreadful people, and, indeed, we have people like Clare Curran and others who have got into ministerial office, who simply haven’t got a clue about what they are to do—and the Meka Whaitiris of this world. It’s a tragedy for the Labour Party. It’s a tragedy for New Zealand. This is a Government that took office when it wasn’t ready for Government—people who weren’t ready for the great responsibilities that ministerial office demands of them. They haven’t got a clue about what they want to achieve in terms of policies. They’re reliant on old codgers like Michael Cullen to come up with ideas in the tax area and so on. All these reviews—it’s hopeless.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo ‘aupito, ‘Eiki Sea. Malo e lelei. This week it’s Tongan Language Week, and I greet the House in the language of my ancestors. The theme for Tongan Language Week in 2018 is “Fakakoloa ‘o Aotearoa ‘aki ‘a e ‘Ofa Fonua—enrich Aotearoa with the love of duty and service to country, community and people.” This, indeed, is the approach that underpins my life and my service as a member of Parliament, and as a Minister of the Crown.

When we came in to Government, we inherited a whole lot of issues. You heard from the Hon Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Phil Twyford, about the plans and what we’re implementing to address housing issues. We also inherited a lot of issues in terms of health and education. After nine years of not building enough houses, not investing enough in hospital infrastructure, not investing enough in the maintenance of our schools, there is, indeed, a lot of work for our Government to do.

We have a clear plan, though, to address these, and we are getting on with the job. We are a Government of action. We are addressing these issues and—just to go back to the housing issues—one of the things that we were confronted with when we came in was the fact that we were short 71,000 residential houses across Aotearoa. We also, as a country, are number one in the OECD for the rate of homelessness.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.

Hon JENNY SALESA: We see homelessness, Hon Nick Smith, when we go to every single city, including out in the regions. You only have to walk through the shopping centre and you’ll see people who are homeless, right there, Hon Nick Smith. We are a Government that has come in to address those issues. It will take us a few years to build the houses that we need to house all of our people.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s getting worse.

Hon JENNY SALESA: About 50,000 people, we estimate now, Hon Nick Smith, are homeless, and it will take years to build houses to house all of our vulnerable people.

But I’d like to get back to education. The previous Government left us a billion-dollar shortfall to meet the demand for school property over the next four years. I’d like to acknowledge the honourable Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, for the work that he is doing. He’s doing a whole lot of work, and he is leading a whole lot of work in the area of education—and today is also his birthday. Happy birthday, Mr Hipkins. One of the things that both the right honourable Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and Minister Hipkins did in the last couple of weeks is they went across Aotearoa and announced a whole lot of new school buildings—for instance, $24 million to modernise Wainuiomata High School, an additional $13.7 million to rebuild Redcliffs School in Christchurch, and $47 million to modernise Otumoetai College in Tauranga. There is a whole lot more. Mr Speaker, you heard the honourable Minister earlier on speak of the fact that there are about 100 other classrooms across Aotearoa. This Government is indeed getting on with the job.

This Government has also in the Budget of 2018 invested new funding, over $200 million, to support a further 1,000 of our Kiwi kids with high or complex needs, an additional 2,900 who are deaf or hard of hearing, and 1,500 low-vision students. This Government has also provided the first universal cost adjustment for centre-based early learning services, including for our kōhanga reo, since 2008, and this will benefit over 200,000 of our children and over 4,100 of our providers.

When we speak about hospital infrastructure, one of the previous speakers spoke about how we should listen to advice that comes through from Treasury. One of the pieces of advice that we’ve been given from Treasury is the fact that it would cost up to $14 billion over the next 10 years just to get our hospital infrastructure in all of the district health boards across Aotearoa up to the level where it should be. So it’s not actually a matter of whether this Government is actually investing in hospital infrastructure; we are. In the Budget of 2018, we put aside $850 million for infrastructure. You compare that to the previous Government: they put aside $150 million. So we are focused on what matters to our people in Aotearoa, and we are doing our best to ensure that we serve all of our people. Thank you so much, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This afternoon, I want to draw the House’s attention to the report tabled at 2 o’clock. Far from what the last Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, said in the House—that the priorities are housing, health, or education—what this report recommends is the biggest increase in the funding of Parliament in over 25 years: a 20 percent increase, an extra $13 million a year. It’s an insult to taxpayers. It’s a recipe for the parties in this coalition Government to rort the taxpayer for their political positioning.

The first thing this report proposes is deeply ironic, because in the controversial electoral law changes, members opposite have lectured us about the importance of the party vote; that the number of MPs must absolutely reflect the party vote—except when it comes to funding of political parties. What this report recommends is a guaranteed level of funding regardless of how many votes you get at the election. It is a rort for the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party, whose support is falling in the polls, and this report says that they will get 8 percent of the funding, even if their public support is a fraction of that. I say that is nothing short of a rort by Government parties to secure taxpayer funding.

And then we come to this next proposition, and that is that list MPs will get the same funding as democratically elected constituency MPs. Now, just by coincidence—just a coincidence—we have the first Government, after eight elections, dominated by list MPs. And guess what? They want to help themselves to another $5 million—

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The report the member refers to is not a Government report. It is a report that has been prepared by an independent panel. It does have a former Labour MP and a former National MP on it, but it is not a Government report, so to attribute it to the Government is misleading and inaccurate.

SPEAKER: It is misleading and inaccurate, but I think for me to stop a member because another member disagrees is inappropriate. If the member thinks that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is deliberately misleading the House, as opposed to accidentally misleading the House, then he knows his remedies.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At the beginning I made absolutely plain that this is a report tabled in Parliament today, of which the dominant influence is Annette King. It is a stitch-up job by this Government to get extra funding.

Now let’s come to the next point, and that is with respect to ministerial offices. What this report proposes is an extra 31 staff in parliamentary offices. They say that when they switch to being Ministers, their staff expands. I’ve done it twice as a Minister. Your staff goes up considerably, and they want to grab that extra funding.

There are also two very subtle changes. This report proposes that Parliament should not have to face the normal budget scrutiny for additional expenditure. It says that there should just be automatic increases for Parliament’s own purposes. That’s wrong. Parliament should have to face the same budgetary scrutiny for public money as every other Government agency. And I have to express concern that rather than the rules and the policy of funding being determined by neutral public servants, they are being politicised under this report. Now, it’s justified on this basis: that somehow we have to increase the funding for ourselves—that somehow the ratio of MPs to the population has radically changed. It has not changed. From the time of first past the post there was an MP for 30,000 people; it is about the same. The level of funding as a proportion of GDP has not changed.

Only a fortnight ago the Prime Minister announced that MPs would be giving up their pay increase. There was a saving of less than $1 million a year. This report proposes increasing Parliament’s rations by $13 million a year, and I challenge members opposite to say they will not support this report, that is nothing less than a rort of public money for party political purposes. During the time of the Clark Government, the expenses, in real terms, of Parliament went up by 25 percent. Under the nine years of the National Government, they went up by 5 percent. There is no justification for this big increase. Far from being concerned about the issues of New Zealanders, what is being proposed is the biggest increase not for education, not for health, not for infrastructure, not for security, but for Parliamentary spin doctors and political propaganda, and that is a very—

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek the leave of the House to table analysis that I have received from the Parliamentary Library on the real expenditure for Parliament since MMP was introduced.

SPEAKER: The question is that leave be granted. Is there any objection? There appears to be none; it may be tabled.

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Malo e laumalie, ‘Eiki Sea. For too long Aotearoa has been putting up with substandard rental properties for our citizens to live in, not the least the neglect that the previous National-led Government showed towards tenants in this country. I think we have to be very up front here that this House alone is actually not representative of people who need to rent to be able to live in a home, and especially not the previous Government. So we’re going to fix that mess up, and it is a heck of a mess. It is a heck of a mess that has harmed people’s lives and has interrupted people’s well-being—not least of all the children of this nation.

We heard the Minister previously speak about the “swamp house” in Papakura. We know that parents and families send their children to bed wrapped up with beanies and thermals. We know that people are sitting in homes where in the winter when they breathe they can see their own breath because of how cold it is. We know that over 56 percent of rental properties are mouldy or hard to heat. So we’re going to fix that mess up. Now, a lot of that could have been fixed in the previous nine years of a Government that had power and resources but not the political will and certainly not a connection to people who need to rent a home to live.

So we’re going to do that. We are doing that and I’m really proud to be working right alongside Minister Phil Twyford and his initiatives to make sure rental homes are more secure, that we have families who are actually able to put down roots whether they rent or own, and to also make sure our homes are warm and dry. These are two particular points that the Green Party has been strong on for nearly 20 years—for nearly 20 years—not the least going back to the 2004 Parliament where Jeanette Fitzsimons championed home insulation. Also, a shout out to my colleague Gareth Hughes, who has long been talking about energy efficiency—making sure that we have homes that are reasonable to heat without putting people into further hardship—and of course Metiria Turei’s member’s bills and campaigns for renters’ rights and secure tenancies.

So I am incredibly pleased that we are showing that we will actually do something about one of the most pressing issues for our people, to the point where we know that the previous Government has to sit there uncomfortably and try and find other things to nit-pick about—and I get that. [Interruption] All our Ministers do need to be up to standard—gosh, we would need extended urgent House sittings if we were going to talk about all of their Ministers falling foul of how we should behave in this House.

So, anyway, we’re getting on with the work of fixing up our rental issues in this country, because more and more people are renting: over half of our country—over a third, but over half are Māori, over two-thirds are Pacific. Renters are more likely to have children, to be women, to be disabled, to be on lower incomes. And so renting’s going to have to be a dignified way of life, not a second-class option. Rental laws that the Minister, with the support of myself and this Government, will be pushing through are going to enable us to have a warmth standard. Hello—something that that Government previously had nine years to do something about, we passed a law on within a year of coming into Government.

Chris Bishop: We did it. We passed minimum rental standards. We passed minimum insulation standards.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: There was no warmth standard. There was no warmth standard. For a long time, it has been recommended that we need to have something between 18 and 20 degrees as a minimum standard in these cold New Zealand homes, so we’re going to do all of that.

What we’re really doing here is making sure that homes are homes, that if you’re going to use houses as a business then you better be up to standard in running that well, and actually most of our landlords have been doing well. But for those who are exploiting tenants, are running a rort, and they’re causing harm to our families, well we are going to fix that up. It makes me incredibly proud to be able to stand here and be a part of that work, which is about turning our values to where they need to be. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa te whare nei, he mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Ā, tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o Te Moananui-a-Kiwa, e te whānau o Tonga, malo e lelei.

[Greetings Mr Speaker, and all in the House, greetings to you all. I greet you as a relative of the Pacific Islands; to those of you from Tonga, malo e lele.]

It’s really hard, trying to understand where this Labour-led coalition is going with their Māori strategy, taking into account that the Māori voters returned to Labour in droves at the last election. Now, if we look at it out in “Flax-rootsville”, what we actually see there is that they are bitterly disappointed in what has been served up to date. Even when we look at respected leaders in Māoridom like Sir Toby Curtis, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, Dame Tariana Turia, they are all becoming very, very despondent with this Labour-led coalition, and that is more about—when we look at the history, they have more Māori in Cabinet on that side of the House than ever in the history of this particular Parliament.

I think one thing that really scares them is when they hear things like “We have to legislate for the majority of people. We don’t live, in our world, around a measly, targeted Budget.” So when we look at that, what that actually refers to is that it was that Government that actually slashed the Māori budgets, and that is why it was such a measly Māori budget itself. And why did Labour slash that particular budget? One of the things that’s really important here is that it was very much around this policy of assimilation, because what they’ve done is they’ve taken a lot of the targeted Māori funding and put it into the general budget. And they’ve changed the narrative also. The narrative when we were in Government was “What’s good for Māori is good for New Zealand.” Here, they’ve turned it completely around and they’ve got, now, “What’s good for New Zealand is good for Māori.”

The reason why this particular coalition Government—Labour, particularly—do not want to see successful Māori is because they want to make them dependent on the State. They want to make them dependent on the State. So why would Labour want to reduce their voters by working for Māori success? Why would they want to do that? Well, they don’t want to do that, because successful Māori means less Labour voters. That’s how it is. I’m sure that when we look at this targeted funding, it’s both reduced and assimilated, and that’s part of the grand plan to keep Māori dependent on the welfare State.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Say hello to Don Brash.

NUK KORAKO: Listen to them. Now they bring up Don Brash, absolutely. But look at you. Have a good look at yourself. National was always the party of tino rangatiratanga, and the situation there is that—what is tino rangatiratanga? It’s an expression of enterprise. It’s an expression of self-responsibility and hard work, and to do that, to get out of that and to have tino rangatiratanga, these people cross to the other side. These parties of the coalition don’t want to see that, whereas on this side we want to see independence from welfare and State handouts. We want to see independence from broken families, lack of housing; independence so that they can utilise their own land. And what have they done? They’ve taken away—they’ve thrown away Te Ture Whenua Māori Act reform. They called it the dirty, rotten, filthy Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, and saying that just sums up the disdain for Māori financial and economic independence. In their own words, they believe if you’re actually economically independent as Māori, well that’s dirty, rotten, and filthy, just like they said around Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.

At the end of the day, this particular tino rangatiratanga—that’s what we built on when you look at Whānau Ora, when you look at those education numbers, and when you look at the fact that we put more money into Te Reo Māori.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Malo e laumalie, ‘Eiki Sea. We have just seen from Nuk Koroko an example of why employers should invest in their staff and why personnel development is so important. After six years in the job, that member’s gone backwards in his ability to communicate effectively in this House. What a shocking example to our youngsters out there—that they might aspire to come to this House, and they look across the benches to the Opposition and they see that example of how to express and articulate someone’s views and vision. What a woeful excuse.

But it wasn’t an isolated incident. We have an opportunity for the Opposition to put their best foot forward now. They have had a pretty poor four weeks. After it was requested from their leader—rather poor judgment, in my view—to have an inquiry into which one of his MPs leaked the expenses two days before it was due to come out anyway, you’d think that they would take an opportunity today, on members’ day, here in the general debate, to show the country that they are a party that is forward-focused.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Did they do it?

KIERAN McANULTY: No, they did not. No, they did not. What we saw was an example of a party that is backwards-looking. One cannot tell me that rolling out Chris Finlayson as an example of the future, that rolling out the likes of Todd McClay—

Darroch Ball: Nick Smith.

KIERAN McANULTY: —sends a message to the populace that this is a party that our young party should aspire to. What about Dr Nick Smith? In 28 years I’m still struggling to understand what the member has contributed to his party and to this Parliament. They are a party that is focused entirely on internal issues, watching over their back, and trying to stop the knives going in, and today’s a prime example of just that.

They are not talking about the things that matter. They’re not talking about housing. What did the National Party have to say when our Minister—this Government’s Minister, this coalition Government’s Minister—the Hon Phil Twyford announced the largest investment in a long, long time in 6,400 more public houses across this country, up to 2022? It is a huge investment. It’s a recognition that there is a housing crisis facing this country that the previous Government, over the last nine years, totally ignored.

What does it say to their representatives of certain regions, like, I don’t know, their MP from Wairarapa, Alastair Scott? What does it say about his advocacy for his region, when over the last nine years there has been no investment in public housing? Yet as soon as there is a new Government, there are 80 new public houses in the Wairarapa electorate within the first year—just like that. That’s what happens when you get a Government that actually advocates and delivers for the things that matter to people here.

Let’s look at transport, another portfolio for the Hon Phil Twyford—a record $16 billion investment in transport across the country. In my patch, that is something that we’ve been screaming out for for years. We are a food-producing region with one particular difference to any other region of a similar ilk: we are in close proximity, with a commuter rail link, to the capital city. That rail link has been screaming out for investment over generations—successive Governments. All we heard from the previous Government was lip-service—promises of something, but never anything guaranteed or delivered. Within 12 months, this Government has invested—guaranteed the money to double-track up to Upper Hutt and invest in the Wairarapa rail line up to Masterton. It is exactly what the region wanted, what the three mayors have been screaming out for, what the regional council has been screaming out for, and what the previous Government completely ignored. They failed to give anything that’s going to give Wairarapa a chance.

Now, as a result of this coalition Government—one that invests in infrastructure, invests in housing, and invests in education—the people of Wairarapa have something to look forward to: economic growth, businesses and families moving to the region; actually giving people a chance. That’s what happens when you vote for a coalition Government and you ignore the neglect that National placed on this country over the last nine long years.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 8 August.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill. The author is Hamish Walker. First of all, can we acknowledge Mr Walker and congratulate him on having his member’s bill drawn from the ballot. He’s a relatively new member to the Parliament so it’s pretty good luck. I myself have had two in my time, so congratulations, Mr Walker—only one more to go to meet my record.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through first reading and to the select committee. We do so because we do have some concerns, and I have articulated these in one-on-one conversations with Mr Walker. The concerns are actually those that Oranga Tamariki has raised. I know that Mr Walker went into some detail in his opening address around his member’s bill to acknowledge the foster families that are caring for these children, and, absolutely, we take nothing away from them. But, ultimately, this is a piece of legislation that is supposed to be for the benefit of the children in our care—the care of Oranga Tamariki—that are then being placed with foster families.

I note that, again, Mr Walker talked about VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, which is the new and independent advocacy body that has been formed since the development of Oranga Tamariki. I myself have spoken on at least one occasion with the young people’s panel from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai. Currently, it is within the capacity of Oranga Tamariki to open bank accounts on behalf of the young people in our care, and that is appropriate because of the guardianship that the chief executive has, and Mr Walker acknowledged that quite rightly. There are some difficulties. We do have concerns about people who have no legal status as guardians to open something of what could be this magnitude for these children. So, therefore, it will be how the law interacts with what is I think a fairly realistic desire of Mr Walker to provide some support for these young people, and we applaud him for that.

The young people that I spoke to were actually more fixated on how they can have a bank account and, say, an EFTPOS card, on how they could have the pocket money that is already provided for them by the State given to them directly, and on whether they could possibly have the clothing allowance which is provided for them by the State given to them directly so that they at least had some money to be able to buy themselves a little something should they go out, so they didn’t have to ask somebody else for it. So I’ll be interested to see how the conversation goes.

I very much encourage care-experienced young people to come forward, because at the end of the day we should hear the voice of those young people. It should be the care-experienced young people who we listen to, not the adults that are involved in this—not a business, not a member of Parliament, not a foster parent, but the care-experienced young people themselves. It is somewhat ironic, I would have to admit, that I’ve spoken with employees from Westpac, where KiwiSaver accounts were opened previously under the guardianship rules around the chief executive—at that time it was Child, Youth and Family. There was a purpose to that, because there was instantly a $1,000 kick-start put in by the Government of the day. However, the previous Government—the National Government—removed the $1,000 kick-start, so, therefore, it just became not really relevant to open a KiwiSaver account at that time, due to the fact that there was no lump-sum kick-start and there were fees and management and administrative costs that took place there.

I acknowledge that Mr Walker has actually had conversations with one particular provider. He will know, as I know, and as this Parliament knows, that you can’t write legislation for one particular provider. So it’s those sorts of things, those nuances, that we are going to actually have to talk about in select committee, but we’re prepared to talk about them. We think that it’s worthy of actually having that wider conversation.

We acknowledge Mr Walker’s work to this date. We look forward to the conversation inside the select committee and, as I say, we look forward to hearing from the care-experienced young people as to whether this is a priority for them, does this work for them, or is there something else perhaps that may flesh out once we actually take this to select committee. Kia ora.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure and privilege to speak on the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague Hamish Walker, who sits beside me. It’s a real pleasure for many of us in the class of “class of 2017” new MPs to have members’ bills drawn. I was one, and now Hamish—congratulations, Hamish.

As parents—and I’m one of them—you can barely get your kids to think about school let alone their future. We could sit here and imagine kids owning their own home, having retirement savings, and imagine that also for kids in State care. That’s quite a picture, and that’s quite something that we should aspire to and can aspire to. So what this bill does is project into the future aspiration and future thinking for kids who truly and very much understandably need some support.

I had a quick refresh of Hansard, because this is a debate that was interrupted, and I read Hansard from when Minister Stuart Nash first spoke. He was the first speaker from the Government side on this bill, and I really was confused on where he stood on this bill, because he said, in all sorts of places, “We support the bill, but”—there were many “buts”. And he said that that Labour may be able to support KiwiSavers being open with a zero balance, but then asked why kids can’t just wait until they’re 18 and working. That’s a confusing statement. He said that it shouldn’t just be about these vulnerable kids; it should be about all vulnerable children. Well, actually, we’re just talking about foster kids, kids in State care. It’s OK for us to just talk about this particular cohort of children. He also said that over nine years as an MP, not enough foster parents have approached him on the topic. That’s also a very confusing statement. Who cares how many people have approached him on the topic? This is the right thing to do, and we should pursue this.

When you talk to those that are in the sector, they’ll tell you the same patterns and the same themes for the children who are in State care. One is that they are deprived of options. The other is that they wanted to be treated the same—understandably—as other children. The other is that they would love more self-empowerment—for us to empower them to have the options that other kids have and that, through a various range of circumstances, they don’t have. If they don’t have a KiwiSaver, this is something that we can do on their behalf—we can set up the legislation to get this on the road—and they can take it and build on it themselves.

Speaking of building, it is Hamish Walker’s intention to ask the select committee—should this go through to select committee—for those who are approved foster parents to also have access to getting birth certificates and IRD numbers for foster children. Now, if that should happen and if a select committee process should absorb that, then that will, of course, mean that this is not just a move in and of itself. It can then open up an entire wider package of citizenship rights—a package of rights—and we know that VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, the advocacy group for this particular sector, is asking for this. So let’s see where we go with that.

I’d like to, in relation to VOYCE, acknowledge someone who is very near and special and dear to my heart. Her name is Tracie Shipton. I started, in my charitable trust a few years ago, a few projects with Dingwall Trust. She’s been the director there and has just very recently stood down and is pursuing a full-time position with VOYCE. Tracie Shipton was presented with a korowai and a pounamu the other day, and just a few days later, her husband of 40 years died. Tracie, what you’ve done for the foster care community is nothing short of incredible. I’d also like to acknowledge Chris Kelly, the first person I met at Dingwall Trust, which is an incredible bunch of foster parents doing amazing work for kids in State care.

Kids in State care don’t have, often, visible identity. They’re deprived of options. The principle of this bill is fantastic, and we should be supporting this—all of us—wholeheartedly through to its next stage. Every foster child in New Zealand—it could be up to 6,000 of these particular children—deserves the same rights to access KiwiSaver as any other. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and offer support to select committee for this bill, the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill. As usual, I would like to offer my congratulations to the member, National MP Hamish Walker, for getting this bill drawn and for leading off in this conversation.

This bill will make it possible for any foster parent or kin carer to approach a KiwiSaver provider to open an account for a foster child in their care. Now the Green Party has long been a fan of supporting low-income families, and children in particular, to be able to contribute to KiwiSaver. We’ve had a policy of actually starting accounts for every child in this country to have $1,000 in KiwiSaver, and for families below the poverty line to be able to have a contribution by the State of $200 a week up until the child turned 18. The intent of that—which would’ve resulted in every child, when they were 18, having an average of $12,000 in their account—is to provide a mechanism to address that wealth inequality that we see in our country, where some children are very lucky to have family money behind them, which gives them opportunities when they come to that next stage of their life, of considering study or employment or just buying a car, to be able to have more options.

This was our policy, so we are quite interested in the discussions around how we can use KiwiSaver to support young people in our society who have fewer resources. So we’re happy to support this to select committee.

I would say, though, that we do have some concerns around the detail of the bill that we will be looking to properly discuss and hear from submitters on. One of the issues that we are concerned about is that while there is a provider, Simplicity, who has said that they won’t charge fees, is it actually appropriate for Government to be setting up a mechanism or a system that privileges one provider that would, over the long term, have a financial return from that? Is that appropriate? If it’s not, and this is actually just set up neutrally right across, then do we want to be in the situation of young people who are not able to contribute but who have the account opened in their name and fees accruing actually ending up with a deficit in their account—so, actually, us contributing to them being further behind than they were in the starting point? That is—clearly, with our goals around improving equity and reducing inequality—something that we could not support.

Also, just to be looking at how this sits with the other arrangements through Oranga Tamariki and the financial delegations which currently for foster carers sit with the agency rather than the foster parents—what are the implications of shifting that for the children? I heard the ideas that were presented from the previous speaker about providing more opportunities for foster parents to be able to support the children in their care, and I do think there’s a question we need to ask about whether this is in the best interests of us as a country when sometimes the foster arrangements may be quite short term. Do we want to be enabling all foster parents to be able to do this, when the child may only be in their care for a few weeks and the implications are lifelong?

I think those are questions we will need to properly interrogate through the select committee process. But we do welcome the conversation, and it is in some ways a nice reversal from the last Government’s erosion of KiwiSaver, so we’re happy to support this.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Malo e laumalie—that there is my contribution to Tongan Language Week. It doesn’t get much better than that, so, with respect, I’ll leave it there.

Let me make my contribution to this, the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill. KiwiSaver is something that we are big fans of over on this side of the House. We want to ensure that the financial health of New Zealanders is good, is safe, and is strong, and that we’re setting future New Zealanders up for the best possible financial foundation that they can have. Based on that, over on this side of the House, we’re actually going to support this through to select committee because we see it as being vital for consideration. It pains me, the thought that we have to actually stand here and talk about this—that it hasn’t already been included—but for good reason, we’re standing here and we’re talking about it now.

When it comes to KiwiSaver, around 31 percent of New Zealanders aged 17 years old and under are enrolled in KiwiSaver, but there’s a little stipulation there that, actually, if you’re a foster parent, that’s not quite applicable to you just yet, so that’s why we’re having this conversation here. The purpose of this bill is to make it possible for any foster parent or kin carer to approach a KiwiSaver provider and to open an account for a foster child in their care.

We believe that it’s important that children have the ability to be able to set themselves up for a good future—or, in terms of foster children, that the foster parents have the ability to set them up for a good future—so that’s why we’re going to support the bill through to the select committee, although we do it with a few caveats. There are a few stipulations that we want to suggest that the select committee look into as it moves forward through the process. First of all, we would like the select committee to take on board the serious issue around whether there are reasonable benefits of early enrolment to KiwiSaver when those that are under 18 don’t receive the compulsory employer contributions or the member tax credit.

The member tax credit—let’s talk about the last Government and what they did around that. What they did, in fact, was they decreased it. They took it from $1,042 down to $521, they removed the $1,000 kick-start payment, and they also introduced an employer superannuation contribution tax. So not the best record from their point of view, but from our side, we’re just wanting to know about that particular reason.

Also, what happens to accounts with little or no money in them—as my colleague Jan Logie said—when they accrue fees? Unfortunately, fees can be kind of horrendous when it comes to KiwiSaver accounts. When you’ve got a young person that has one of these accounts and they’re accruing fees and maybe not much money is going into it, are we, in fact, setting them up for a future of failure or, potentially, a big bill at the end of it? So that’s something that the select committee needs to look into moving forward. Is this bill in line with other financial delegations over children in care that rest with Oranga Tamariki and not with foster parents?

We also noted in the general policy statement that KiwiSaver provider Simplicity has offered not to charge fees for children in care. So that sounds great, but we ask the question: how do you compel foster parents to actually choose that particular KiwiSaver provider, and what happens when the child in care turns 18 and is no longer a child in care?

These are some of the issues that need addressing. Also, I guess, at a more technical level, we’ve also identified a couple of things as well. For instance, KiwiSaver scheme providers have processes to confirm guardianship of a child but not the position of a foster parent of a child. The bill itself, in the general policy statement, offers at least two options for how enrolment would practically work, but it might need to be investigated just a wee bit more.

We’re very passionate about KiwiSaver on this side, and we look forward to tracking progress through the select committee. We are happy to support it at this stage. I hope that when this bill comes back before the House, we will have answers to some of those issues that were raised by the select committee process. I look forward to seeing how it tracks. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I commend it to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the first reading, the introduction, of the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill that Hamish Walker, who’s the MP for Clutha-Southland, has introduced and had the luck of the members’ bill ballot. A bill like this comes as a result of an electorate MP listening to members in their community who arrive in their office with some particular challenges, and also with some suggestions.

We need to be clear in this House that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand and ensuring that they have a better future. I’m very proud of the work that we did in our time in office to improve the lives of children in State care, and this is another opportunity.

It’s a very practical, sensible piece of legislation that means that if a foster parent wishes to have a KiwiSaver account opened in the name of their foster child, they’re able to do so. It’s quite incredible, the process that’s currently in place: the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki is the only person who can currently do this. Now the chief executive has an incredibly important role in Oranga Tamariki, a relatively new organisation, so it is somewhat surprising that this would be the current process. It is absolutely sensible that foster parents or kin carers should be able to open a KiwiSaver account in the name of the foster child in their care.

It also relieves some of the burden of the many social workers that are involved in the care of our children who are in State care, and I think that anything that we can do to relieve that burden is, of course, sensible and to be applauded. They do incredible work in our communities—often very hidden, but some very, very challenging work that they do—so to be able to alleviate a small function like this, I think, allows them to focus on what really counts with those children.

The other thing that I think is important—because the member Tamati Coffey, who spoke before me, referred to what happens when the child reaches the age of 18. Well, I think one of the critical things that this bill makes possible is actually starting a firm financial future for that young person. One of the things that we did in our time was to recognise that when someone reaches the age of 18, it doesn’t mean that they should be expected to be fully independent of the parents—in this case, the foster parents or kin carers—that have helped guide them through their childhood up to the age of 18. So being able to provide additional support for many young people up to the age of 21, and, in some cases, up to the age of 25, actually enables this to occur.

A child reaches the age of 18 and they have a KiwiSaver account in their name. Our side of the House has an expectation that those foster parents remain in the lives of the children that they have raised, to be able to provide guidance and provide advice as they walk through those next critical parts. It might be leaving home, going into employment, or getting a job, and having a KiwiSaver account is, of course, one of the building blocks of their financial independence.

So I think this is a really fantastic bill. It’s very simple but also very practical, and, more importantly, it provides a fantastic opportunity for 6,000 of our most vulnerable children. I want to again thank Hamish Walker for the incredible work he’s done to put a bill into the ballot that we are now debating.

I understand some of the comments that the member before me spoke about, but I actually don’t think he understands the scope of this bill. This is simply about setting up a KiwiSaver account for the opportunity for those foster children across New Zealand, and it’s great to see that there is at least one KiwiSaver provider that has recognised the special nature of these children in their agreement to waive all fees up to the age of five. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thanks for the opportunity to rise to take a short call on this member’s bill, the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill, under the name of Hamish Walker. I too want to congratulate Hamish Walker on having his bill drawn out of the ballot.

I’d like to begin by quoting where the Opposition benches last ended their contribution when this bill first came to the House on 8 August. The member Dan Bidois said to the foster parents in New Zealand—and I quote—“You are doing a great service to our community and to this Government, and, for the National Party, you are a priority to us.” Well, where was the priority during their nine years in Government? This bill is a good idea, despite a few reservations, but is this their definition of priority? I mean, don’t get me wrong—this bill is a good idea, and it does deserve to go through the legislative process and be consulted on in good faith. But I question the demand for this bill in light of what I have heard from foster parents and carers themselves, which I will touch base on a little bit further towards the end of my contribution.

In essence, this bill will make it possible for any foster parent or kin carer who has the proof of their foster responsibility to approach a KiwiSaver provider to open an account for a foster child in their care. On that basis, and in principle, this side of the House will support it through to the select committee, albeit with some reservations.

There’s no denying the importance of KiwiSaver, not only as being vital to the financial health of New Zealanders but also to society, and it’s equally important to ensure as many Kiwis as possible have access to it, regardless of what one has had to go through. I absolutely take my hat off to families and carers that open their arms and their homes to a foster child or children. I believe they’ve done so with the intention of providing love, care, stability, support, and an opportunity to set them up for life going forward.

In relation to this bill, we on this side of the House do have a couple of reservations. One: what happens to accounts with little or no money in them when they accrue fees? Long term, do we want our young people with KiwiSaver accounts in deficit? And then what happens when the child in care turns 18 and is no longer a child in care? Let’s not forget that when a person starts working from the age of 18, they’re automatically signed up to an account and enrolled in KiwiSaver, so I kind of question the sense in opening one so young and having a zero balance.

It’s questions and reservations such as these that I’m hoping the select committee process will be able to provide some answers for. What I’m also relying on from the select committee process is that foster carers and parents come in and make it absolutely known that there is a demand for this bill. I say that because, actually—and as I know a few of my other colleagues on this side of the House have already said at first reading—I’m yet to come across someone who has said that as a foster carer or a parent, this is a priority. But what I do know is a priority for those raising foster children is the associated costs, and this should be no burden to those families who choose to take in a child.

Three years ago, Minister Martin put forward a member’s bill on the issue, the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Act 2015. Again, this year, the Government provided $104.9 million of new funding over the next four years to provide a clothing allowance for those on an orphan’s benefit or unsupported child’s benefit.

I worry that the member and the Opposition have perhaps somewhat missed the boat with their focus on children in State care. We currently have 6,000 children in State care and 60 percent of those children are in fact Māori, and that’s really, really alarming. I acknowledge and appreciate that this bill is well-intentioned, but we do have some reservations on this side of the House—but I do commend this bill to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I want to start by thanking members of this House for this debate. I’ve appreciated the genuine desire to help the most vulnerable young people in our communities. When I embarked on this process at the urging of foster parents who want the best for their children, I hoped that every member of this House would be supportive of such a logical move. This afternoon, Parliament has shown the best of its credentials as a Parliament of and a Parliament for the people by supporting this initiative. For that reason, I’d like to thank all members of this House for putting aside politics in the interests of New Zealand’s most vulnerable children: those who have to live separate from or without their parents, and who depend on the love and the support of whānau and, in some cases, total strangers to be parental substitutes.

I also want to thank a few people for bringing this to my attention: first, foster parent Megan Barclay, who met with me to explain the struggles she had experienced trying to open a KiwiSaver account and provide some financial security for her child. This afternoon, I hope you’re listening, Megan, as it’s great to see that every member of this House has listened to your advocacy and is supporting this bill.

Secondly, I want us to thank Sam Stubbs and his team at not-for-profit provider Simplicity KiwiSaver, who have spent almost a year trying to crack the bureaucratic barriers to allowing any foster child to have a KiwiSaver account opened for them. I also saw in the news that he donated $72,000 yesterday to Youthline. This issue is solely about KiwiSaver, and anyone who thinks it is about opening a bank account simply does not understand.

During the many discussions I have had with those in the industry, I’ve had some suggest that our money-laundering legislation is the problem. This is a red herring. Those who think that there is no need for this legislation have not spent the years that Megan Barclay has spent trying to open a KiwiSaver account for her foster child. This bill simply gives New Zealand foster children the same rights to set up a KiwiSaver account as any other New Zealand child.

I personally know of at least five families who have tried through their social worker to get a KiwiSaver account for their foster child and who have been frustrated by the barriers and the processes involved. Of course, not all foster children will be in a position where their foster parents want to, or are able to, apply for a KiwiSaver account, but if this legislation gives just one child a more secure future, it is worth it. If this legislation gives five children a more secure future, it is worth it.

No child should be prevented from having the opportunity to have a KiwiSaver account to help them build towards a more secure future. That’s all I’m trying to do here today. Every one of my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House supports this initiative. I want to again thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their support of this bill to give every foster child in New Zealand the same rights to open a KiwiSaver account as any other New Zealand child. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill

First Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Mr Speaker, he mihi. Tēnā koutou ngā mātāwaka, tēnā hoki koutou ngā mema o tēnei Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te whaikōrero mō taku pire kua tae mai ki mua ki te aroaro o te Pāremata. Kua tae tēnei ki te wā ki te whakature i ngā tūru Māori, he tūru motuhake.

[Mr Speaker, greetings. Greetings to those of all descent lines, and to the members of this House. I am standing to speak about my bill, which has come before Parliament. The time has come to entrench the Māori seats in legislation, as separate seats.]

I’m very privileged and very proud to speak in support of this member’s bill. We have a saying “Although small, it is a treasure”—“Ahakoa he iti, he pounamu”. This is a very small bill, but it is very significant, and it cuts to the heart of the representation and the status of the Māori seats in this House.

The general seats, under the Electoral Act of this Parliament, can be overturned or abolished only by a special majority of this House—that’s a 75 percent or more majority of this House—but the Māori seats can be abolished by a simple majority. So there is a discrepancy. There is an imbalance there, and my bill seeks to raise us to an equal standard with the general seats. That’s what this bill is all about. It’s a constitutional issue. We want to ensure that Māori seats are given the same protection as general seats.

We have a very proud history of contributions to this Parliament. Our Māori seats were created 150 years ago this year, in 1867, and if one is to walk in the halls of the ground floor of Parliament around by our historic room, Matangireia, one will see all of the many Māori electorate members of Parliament that have been through this House and have left an imprint on this House over those 150 years. We have a colourful history, but one discrepancy remains. The disparity is that the Māori seats are not afforded the same protection as the general seats, so I’m reaching out to the House today to correct that imbalance. Let’s put things right. Let’s put us on an even footing. This is about equality and being treated the same.

I’m very, very proud to be speaking to this bill. We have a long history, as I’ve said, and this is not a new kaupapa. I do want to acknowledge the many modern members in the MMP environment who have put forward similar bills of this nature, but they were unlucky not to get plucked from the ballot. Bills in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Hon Mita Ririnui, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell—all had bills of this nature, seeking the equal status and equal protection of our Māori seats with our general seats, so this is not a new, novel idea. This discrepancy has long been noted and criticised by many Māori academics of note. It was even identified by Electoral Commission reports.

This discrepancy can be easily fixed, and that’s what I’m proposing through this bill. I’ve said that the Māori seats have a proud 150-year history. Why we’re here is because we embody the Treaty partnership. This is a Treaty issue. The Māori seats in Parliament—and there is a colourful history. Whether it was blood quantums, separate polling booths, separate polling days, or inability to participate in referenda, there has been a whole history in terms of Māori trying to seek recognition and equal rights in this House. Here we are, in 2018, and there is one disparity that remains, and that is this entrenchment gap, as it is called. So I’m calling on this House today to stand for the constitution, to stand for equal rights, and to ensure that we can raise the status of the Māori seats to the same as the general seats.

Now, I know we’ve heard a lot about MMP and that it has brought lots of Māori into Parliament, and that should be applauded and it is applauded—likewise, the diversity across our New Zealand society—but the Māori electorates guarantee that we have a Māori voice in Parliament, and those voices are accountable to Māori. So there is a difference. There is a difference between Māori MPs—I don’t mean that in a disrespectful manner, but Māori electorate MPs are accountable to Māori, and that is the key difference. We are here to fight for Māori kaupapa, and that has long been the case over the 150 years, as we go and look at all of those illustrious photos that adorn Matangireia and through the halls of this House. So each of us, as members of Parliament, leave our impact and our imprint on this place in many different ways, and I’m seeking to leave my imprint through this bill to ensure that the Māori electorate seats are treated the same.

Under this bill, we are putting in the provisions that create and divide up the Māori seats into an entrenched provision. Now, by doing that, we want to ensure that we can not only get that protection in place but futureproof Māori in this House of Parliament. That’s what this is all about. It’s about guaranteeing our equal place, it is about the Treaty rights, and it is ensuring that our Māori seats have a future. There is also an option in that entrenched provision for there to be a referendum, and that’s nothing new. Governments can initiate referendums at any time, on any matter that they deem fit. So that is part of the entrenched provision, and that is perfectly understandable.

However, the future of the Māori seats—there is a de facto referendum already carried out. We do it every five years, and that is by way of the Māori option. Māori have responded positively. By being on the Māori roll, over a quarter of a million Māori have responded that they want the Māori seats. By having the Māori option, Māori have a say—and must be the only ones that have a say—in terms of the future of the Māori seats. We have gone through that process. Māori have spoken, and they support the seats. They want them to continue, and all that we’re doing here with this bill is ensuring that we are treated the same. We want the same legal status and the same legal protection. We shouldn’t have a double standard when it comes to the electorate members of this House.

So I want to implore this House and all the parties that make up this current Parliament to put aside political differences and think of the constitution, think of giving the proud history of Māori rights equal protection and equal rights. We just want to be treated just the same as the general seats. So I just want to conclude by saying he taonga ngā tūru Māori—Māori seats are a treasure—neke atu i te kotahi rau tau te tawhito—they’ve been around for well over 100 years—he mana tō ngā tūru Māori—the Māori seats still have mana—he taonga whakahirahira—they are a treasured taonga of our people and of this country—me whakamana ki te ture—let’s entrench them in the law, through this bill.

Nō reira, mihi atu ki a koutou te Whare—I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I first compliment the mover of this bill. Rino Tirikatene, the member for Te Tai Tonga, shares with me the wonderful community of Nelson, or Whakatū, and there is much of his passion for representing Māori that I respect.

In contributing to this bill, I firstly want to make some corrections so that we are clear about the factual basis for this bill. I want to talk a little bit about the contradictions within the Government in their policy around this bill, and I want to reflect on the history.

The first point that the mover of this bill made in making the case for the entrenchment of the Māori seats was an incorrect claim that the general seats are entrenched. That is not correct. There are 400 clauses in our 1993 Electoral Act, and there are only five provisions that are entrenched. The first of those is the three-year parliamentary term. The second part that is entrenched is the 5 percent tolerance between electorates. The provision of the Representation Commission is entrenched. The qualification age for electors at age 18 is entrenched, and also the fact that we have two votes in the election is also entrenched. So, factually, the mover of this bill is incorrect when he says that the general seats are entrenched—they are not. It would be quite permissible to make changes in those.

The second point the member makes is that, somehow, if we pass this bill, Parliament could not by simple majority remove the Māori seats. That’s not true. Standing Order 268 of this Parliament says that any Standing Order at any time can be suspended by simple majority. While I acknowledge the passion the member has for representing Māori, his representing this bill as meaning that by simple majority, the Māori seats could not be removed if that was the will of the majority of this Parliament is factually incorrect.

But here’s the part that I do find extraordinary: we have a coalition Government with one party wanting to advance this bill and entrench the Māori seats, and then we have the New Zealand First Party, that wants to pass a bill to get rid of the Māori seats. Now, I have been in this Parliament for 27 years. I’ve seen some differences within Government. This must be the daddy of them all when we have, on such a fundamental point as to whether the seven Māori seats will exist at all, the two parties in Government at diametrically opposite positions. That is just so symptomatic of the mess, the confusion, over the current Government.

Then I have some further bad news for the mover of the bill. Standing Order 266 says that any entrenchment provision cannot pass without the 75 percent majority. That means that the National Party, with its highest number of seats—56—effectively, makes the decision on this bill, and we are not prepared to support this very selective entrenchment provision of the Electoral Act.

I do find it extraordinary that at the very time this Government is undoing 170 years of electoral law by giving the power to party leaders to sack MPs—a measure that’s been described by the Green Party as Draconian and undemocratic—we have the Māori MPs somehow pretending that this bill will improve the representation that is provided in those Māori electorates. Let’s reflect on the fact that it’s actually been Māori MPs more than any others that have clashed with their main political party. If you reflect back on the history of Mat Rata falling out with the Labour Party, should Mat Rata have been able to be sacked from Parliament by Bill Rowling in the 1970s when he fell out with the Labour Party? If we were really keen to be able to lock in the representation of Māori, why, for goodness’ sake, are the Māori electorate MPs voting for that obnoxious law that more than any other—more than any other—withdraws the influence that they might have, as we also saw with Tariana Turia and as we also saw with Hone when he decided to leave the Māori Party?

What an irony that it is Māori MPs more than any others that have fallen out with mainstream parties. Why are Māori electorate MPs voting for a bill that will allow them to be dismissed out the doors of this Parliament simply because they may have—like Tariana Turia—decided to stand on a matter of principle for their political party? So I say to those Māori electorate MPs: find some backbone. If you really want to be champions for Māori issues in this Parliament, then don’t bring sloppy bills of this sort that are more about presentation and substance. Show some backbone and vote against that Draconian bill.

Now, it is true that the National Party has huge respect for the history of those Māori seats. It is our view that all New Zealanders should take pride that in 1867, this Parliament saw fit to ensure that Māori had a voice within this House. I think if we reflect on, whether it was the Civil War was occurring in the same time in the United States, or the sorts of atrocities that were occurring with Aboriginal people in Australia, I have huge pride in the fact that this Parliament had the wisdom—actually, interestingly, even before there was general franchise for men. You had to own property at the time, in 1867, to be able to vote. It was not till 1882 that all men, regardless of whether they were able to own property or not, were allowed to vote and become members of Parliament, and in 1893, of course, we celebrated the leadership that this Parliament provided in extending the franchise to women.

Now, we note today that the level of Māori representation in this Parliament is at such a strong level—29 MPs in this Parliament right now, including the leader of the New Zealand National Party, are of Māori descent—and that is part of the journey that we all should be proud of. I have to say, it’s not everything in the 19th century of which we should be proud. There is much that went wrong in that period, and I compliment my colleague sitting right next to me, Chris Finlayson, who has spent more of his political career putting some of those wrongs that were done to Māori right.

The existing electoral law provides for a choice for Māori electors through the Māori option that’s been available since 1975, with, in my view, a very good electoral law put together by National in 1993. It adjusts the number of Māori seats at each time of those five-yearly options that enables Māori themselves to be able to make a choice about the future of those Māori seats. It is National’s view that long term, we do not see a place for the Māori seats. But we are equally of the view that that is a decision that needs to be taken in partnership with Māori, of which the existing provisions of the Electoral Act enable that voice to be regularly heard when Māori are able to exercise the option.

So I say again, this bill does not do what it purports to do. It does not provide the reassurance of the existence of those seats. It is limited in what it can do. It’s a complete contradiction in this Government, showing that all the power rests with Winston Peters—that despite this bill, he is, effectively, handcuffing those electorate Māori MPs with that awful waka-hopping bill. It is also not true that this bill provides the security for the Māori seats that the presenter puts forward.

National is interested in a conversation about how we can improve our electoral laws, how we can improve our democracy, and how we can improve our constitutional framework for both Māori and others. But this bill is not the vehicle to do so, and this bill will not have the support of the National Party.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Well, what a shocking speech. What a shocking speech. If the Māori Party didn’t realise it when they were in, they should realise it now—that it’s all double-talk from this National Party, who purport to support Māori, and then betray Māori at the first opportunity that they have. What a shocking speech. Poor old Te Ururoa Flavell brought the same bill forward. They were all told, “We love you Māoris. We love you.”, and then they betrayed them—the old forked tongue over there, you know. One of the reasons why we need Māori seats is because of that very speaker.

Could you imagine Nick Smith representing Ngāi Tahu? Oh, God! Could you imagine Nick Smith representing Ngāi Tahu? That’s the point, Mr Smith. We need Māori to represent our own interests. Otherwise, we’re dependent on you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Don’t bring me into it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker—my apologies. So this is the National Party line: “We can advocate for you, we can represent you.”, just like the Hon Chris Finlayson did with the dirty, rotten Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. And who represented our interests there? Tamati Coffey—Tamati Coffey. If it wasn’t for Tamati Coffey, who would we have had to rely on in National? What’s his name—Todd McClay. What does Todd McClay know about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill?

That’s the problem, National Party—that’s the problem. We need our MPs to represent our interests. Otherwise, it’s Nick, Todd, and, if we go to the North, it might be Mark Mitchell. Oh, God! It gets worse—it gets worse.

We’ve got problems in the North with, you know, the Ngāpuhis. They’re always in deliberations and negotiations—taupatupatu, we say in Te Reo Māori. So you need cool heads, you need calm heads. You need someone like Kelvin Davis to walk us through. You send Mark there, they’ll say, “Who—Mark? Who are you—who are you?” You see, that’s the problem.

Māori representatives advocate Māori aspirations. Why does the National Party not get that? Why don’t they get that? They don’t get that because they’re too stupid—that’s why. They have spent years and years conning Māori about how much they love them, so much so, and then they promote the odd one, like our dear friend Nuk, who’s on the wrong side—he knows it. He knows he’s on the wrong side. He should be with the Māori Labour caucus. Poor old Nuk, he tries and does his bit there with the National Party, but they shut him down and they go, “You’ll get your opportunity.” But, Nuk, you should be advocating for this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I remind the member to use members’ full names.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, yes—apologies to the member Nuk Korako. But I do say today that this is such an important part for us, so I implore my friends in New Zealand First to support us. The great Shane Jones, I know, is very proud of his taha Māori side—

Tamati Coffey: Jenny Marcroft.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —and Jenny Marcroft, and, of course, the wonderful Winston Peters, who played for the Auckland Māori rugby side and was the former Minister of Māori Affairs. So I implore my New Zealand First friends and whanaunga to support this bill that celebrates mana; that celebrates the partnership between Māori and Pākehā. We have the odd disagreement, but on most things we agree, and this bill should go forward so we can have the debate: the debate about why National has been so traitorous to Māori, and the debate about the substance of the Māori seats and the MPs who do a great job.

I celebrate them here today: Tamati Coffey and Rino Tirikatene over there, who are doing a fantastic job; Nanaia Mahuta—who else could advocate Tainui interests other than Nanaia Mahuta? You ask yourself—with respect to the Pākehā MPs there, only Nanaia could advocate those interests. I celebrate Rino Tirikatene and others who have advocated for this before, and I ask the House to support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): What a scrambled speech from a hopeless Minister—a litany of mistakes. In fact, just to take one example, he said that Dr Smith, who gave an excellent speech, would represent Ngāi Tahu, whereas anyone who knows anything about Te Tai Tonga knows that the boundaries of Ngāi Tahu go from Te Parinui o Whiti to Kahurangi Point and that Dr Smith, in Nelson, represents Te Tau Ihu iwi—but never let facts get in the way of an incoherent rave from Willie Jackson.

I have a great amount of respect for Mr Tirikatene, who’s an excellent chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and who is well regarded around this place as a decent and affable and thoughtful member of Parliament. I have said to him that I cannot support this legislation, and the reason for it is, basically, this: I think the time is coming when we could have a useful constitutional discussion in New Zealand, and that day may be sooner than we think, but I think we need to do it in a reasonably coherent way rather than a muddled way, and, with respect to Mr Tirikatene, I do think this bill is muddled.

For example, in the previous Government, the then Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, followed by Amy Adams, took the first step to update our constitutional legislation with the courts reforms, and so the Senior Courts Act is fit for purpose, it’s up to date, and that is major constitutional legislation. I was very much in favour—and I’m not sure whether the Government is doing it—of bringing together the various pieces of legislation that deal with this place and having a Parliament Act. I think that many of the issues that we’ve talked about in an episodic way relating to Parliament could all be brought together in one simple piece of legislation. So, for example, it would cover the Parliamentary Service Commission, it would cover parliamentary privilege, the Clerk of the House legislation, and other legislation to deal with Parliament.

The next stage would be to take a good look at the Constitution Act 1986, which is a very important piece of legislation passed when Geoffrey Palmer was the Minister of Justice. I think, after 30 or so years, it’s probably ripe for a review.

The fourth piece of legislation we come on to is the Electoral Act, itself a major piece of legislation. I have a feeling that somewhere in the pipeline there’s a proposal that the Electoral Act be reviewed, and I think that’s a very good thing. As Dr Smith said—and picking up the mistaken assertions of Mr Tirikatene—there are a number of provisions in the Electoral Act that deal with entrenchment. When we look at the Electoral Act, that would be a very good time to consider entrenchment as an issue, and what should be covered by entrenchment and what should not. That would be the time that we would discuss things like the 5 percent threshold, when we would discuss matters like the Māori seats, but to do it in this piecemeal fashion I think is inappropriate. It’s the kind of way in which this country has looked at our constitution over the years, and I think the better approach is that systematic, careful, methodical approach of looking at our various constitutional pieces of legislation, making sure they’re up to date, and then making change in a sensible manner.

So I certainly commend the member for having his bill pulled out of the ballot and for advancing the best case he could in support of the legislation. But I do think that the points that were made by Dr Smith were very telling as to what is currently entrenched and what is not, and the fundamental difference of view between the various parties in the coalition on whether indeed the Māori seats should be retained—these are big issues, big contradictions, that are not easily resolved. So, for those reasons, with respect to Mr Tirikatene, I cannot support the legislation, and I do say to the House that a much better way of dealing with big constitutional subjects is in the careful and methodical approach that I have outlined.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf New Zealand First to speak on the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill, and, firstly, congratulations to Rino Tirikatene for having it pulled. I would hazard a guess that it’s no secret—New Zealand First’s stance on the Māori seats. Most importantly, what we campaigned on was a referendum for this issue. This was a matter for the people of New Zealand to decide—a binding referendum for the people to decide. New Zealand First does believe in a single franchise, but we also, most importantly, believe that temporarily empowered politicians shouldn’t stand up in this House and vote on such an important matter.

That campaign was 12 months ago, and our stance and our policy has not changed. Therefore, it is quite timely and a unique opportunity for New Zealand First to see this bill through the first reading and to make it clear that the only reason we will be doing that is so that there is a provision, an amendment, for a binding referendum to be held for the people of New Zealand—for the people of New Zealand. We will not be supporting it any further past that point if that referendum—that amendment; that clause—is not put forward.

I must make it clear on behalf of the party that New Zealand First does not support the outright entrenchment of the Māori seats, especially when it’s being voted on in this House. We believe that we need the people of New Zealand to decide, with a thorough, robust, and informed debate. The fact is that the constitution of Parliament affects everybody, and, therefore, everybody should get the ability to decide, just like we did with MMP—just like we did with MMP.

Usually, members’ bills give the opportunity for backbenchers to put forward a bill that they are passionate about, and they put forward their ideas on how things should change in this country. Usually, we do get to vote in two ways in this House: either individually through conscience votes or via the party, but in most ways through the party vote. But this bill includes a topic that is different, it is unique, and it is vitally important that we don’t leave the decision to temporarily empowered politicians in this House but that we put that question forward to the people of this country.

I think an important question that both Labour and the Green Party need to think about is that if this issue around the Māori seats is being put forward to this House to be voted on by the MPs in this House, no matter whether they’re seat-holders in Māori electorates, seat-holders in general electorates, or list MPs, and no matter what their constitution is, what their constituency is, who they represent, or what authority they have, then surely that vote must be put to the people whom they represent in this House. There is no argument about that—there is no argument about that.

New Zealand First will be seeking an agreement for a Supplementary Order Paper to be tabled that will give that vote to the people, through the next stage. We would not be supporting the bill further past that stage if that agreement is not made. This shouldn’t be taken lightly, and New Zealand First will support this if, and only if, that referendum and that question is put to the people of this country.

Mr Tirikatene can still fulfil the intent of his bill if the people of this country decide. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation through this first stage, but only if that referendum occurs. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Well, I wonder whether or not the member will be taking that speech and posting it on the New Zealand First website, because, fundamentally, he’s just stood in the House and gone against everything that the New Zealand First Party campaigned on in relation to the Māori seats. The leader of the party, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, said unequivocally during the campaign that if they’re elected and if they come into Government, “The Māori seats are gone.” There was no doubt left in that. It was black and white. I tell you what, a lot of people that probably voted for New Zealand First voted for a policy that they actually liked—a policy that we don’t agree with, but a policy that they liked.

Now we’ve got the poor member—I feel sorry for Darroch Ball, because he, obviously, drew the short straw last night. Here’s a junior member who had to stand in the House today, with no conviction at all, and had to tell the country, “Now we’re going to support this bill. Now we’re going to support this bill through to select committee, with a little caveat being if they don’t give us a referendum, then we’re going to withdraw our support.” So let’s see. Let’s test that and let’s see.

I think that we’ve been very clear about the fact that we talk about entrenchment of the Māori seats. I want to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene and the comments that the Hon Chris Finlayson made, because in my time in Parliament with Rino, I’ve found him—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Refer to the member by his full name, please.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. So in my time in Parliament working with Rino Tirikatene, I’ve found him to be an extremely good member, an affable member to work with, who has always got a good contribution to make, and I know that he’s highly respected as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

I was very disappointed—I just have to say. I know I don’t have much time, but the speech that Willie Jackson made said everything that’s wrong with this country in terms of the relationship between Māori and Pākehā and what’s a deeply diverse cultural—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You still saying “Mahree” is what’s wrong with this country.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: There we are. More criticism’s coming now, because my pronunciation might not be quite up to speed to what Carmel Sepuloni wants. This is the whole issue—we had Willie Jackson stand in the House and question Simon Bridges’ whakapapa because he may not look or speak or act like Willie Jackson. Actually, a lot of Māori these days are urban Māori, right? This is exactly the issue and the problem—

Tamati Coffey: You don’t need to tell Willie that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Here we go. Tamati Coffey sat there and supported Willie Jackson in his attack on me and his attack on Chris Finlayson. I can tell you, I take great pride in my electorate of Rodney, and I work with my local iwi. Let me give you an example of a very good project that we just delivered with the local iwi, the Rotary club, the Lions club, and myself all working together. We took the Warkworth courthouse and turned it into a centre that runs a food security programme. It takes food from local supermarkets that’s not going to be used, and it goes out to the local schools.

That’s a partnership between local iwi, Rotary, Lions, the local MP, and, actually, the local board as well. So don’t, Mr Willie Jackson, stand in this House and somehow cast the aspersion that because I’m not Māori and because Chris Finlayson or Nick Smith are not Māori, we don’t work with, support, and achieve things with our local iwi. We do.

I was in Northland a couple of months ago, visiting the grandfather of my nephews and my niece. I am very proud of the fact that he is about to be knighted under this Government, and that’s Hec Busby. My sister is married to his son. So please don’t—

Tamati Coffey: Are you supporting the bill?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, we’re not supporting the bill, but I’m addressing what I think was a very—and, actually, Kiri Allan’s in the House. Let me tell you something. My grandfather—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —who owned Bel’Ive Orchard—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker—in Gisborne 50 years ago, traded with the local Māori: fish and fruit. He had an orchard. He was one of the first Pākehā in Gisborne to be taken and taught how to carve. He was proud of that and the carvings that he produced.

So don’t support Willie Jackson when he stands in this House and starts race-baiting and starts to turn the debate into something that it shouldn’t be. We’re talking about the entrenchment of the Māori seats and we’re talking about passing legislation, and, actually, Nick Smith has made a very good point: if you want to get up and make an argument, argue against the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, because the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is going to remove any independence that you might feel you have as Māori representatives—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Members may be aware that New Zealand First policy from the last election is not up on their website, so I specifically seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand First policy that is not on their website, titled The Time is up for the Māori Seats. That document—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Excuse me. Just a moment—points of order are taken in silence. The member has put leave to the House. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to table a document dated 8 May 2018 where Mr Jones says, “I don’t know of anyone in our caucus who is going to vote for the entrenchment”—a statement from the New Zealand First Party of that date.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there objection? There is, sorry.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to table the report stating “Winston Peters delivers bottom-line binding referendum on abolishing Maori seats”, dated 16 July 2017.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Do you have any more documents that you want—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Two further. Well, actually, there’s such—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Would you care to put them together, and we will put the leave.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is part of the rule when tabling documents that you actually have to say where the source is. He’s just referring to reports and not telling us where they’re from, so I would ask that he do that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you—I thank the member. The matter is easily resolved. If leave is put to the House, the House can decide. Continue, if you would, to describe the further two documents.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m happy to clarify for the member’s intent. The 16 July statement of 2017 is a statement from the New Zealand First website at the launch of their conference, in which Winston—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Website.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right, but it’s been removed, and that’s why it’s not accessible. It’s not surprising it’s been removed, given New Zealand First’s position. It states, “Winston Peters’ bottom line on abolishing Māori seats”, and I seek leave to table that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Are you confident that these documents are not available?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. If you go on the New Zealand First website, they’ve been removed after their initial—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): And how were you able to come by them, then?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): How were you able to come by them, if they’re not publicly available?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The National Party took a copy last year to enable us to be able to have access to documents. New Zealand First is not very proud of their policy, but we think it’s important to remind—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK, thank you—thank you. I thank the member. It’s easily resolved. I will put leave to the House. Is there objection? There is. Thank you.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table a report dated 5 July 2018, in which the Rt Hon Winston Peters is quoted: “If they put up an SOP in for referendum, then it will be all on.”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is this a publicly available document?

DARROCH BALL: —“That’s when we put all our cards on the table”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is this a publicly available—

DARROCH BALL: —“as to whether there should be Māori seats and, if so, should they be entrenched.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me, is this a publicly available document, Mr Ball? It is. Leave will not be put to the House.

Darroch Ball: Get it right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Darroch Ball: Get it right. You’re a bunch of idiots; that’s why you’re sitting over there.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr Ball. Order! Mr Ball.

Darroch Ball: What?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Darroch Ball, you will stand and you will withdraw and apologise, and if your behaviour continues in that way, I will be asking you to leave the Chamber.

Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Malo e laumalie, ‘Eiki Sea. If I could take a few seconds to address some of the Opposition’s tone in terms of not supporting this fantastic member’s bill from my colleague Rino Tirikatene. For example, there’s little bit of—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member; would you just resume your seat. Could I ask the members that are having the conversation across the Chamber to cease and desist. Marama Davidson, please continue.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: There’s a bit of cushioning, if I might say, when the Opposition are then talking about opposing this member’s bill, which will uphold the Crown’s partnership relationship to Te Tiriti, where they will say “Oh, we respect him. He’s a nice dude. He’s a good representative, but—but—but—”, or there’s a bit of the old dropping of “One of my best friends is Māori.” That is not the issue here, and we really just have to call out the fact that their opposition is really about not truly wanting to uphold our obligations as Crown to Te Tiriti. So they can leave aside whether they think Rino Tirikatene is a nice dude or not, or whether they have a Māori friend.

The issue is actually about upholding Te Tiriti and the fact that this political member has brought forward a fantastic solution to something that has long been wrong—long been wrong. There is a discrepancy between Māori central government seats and general electoral provisions, where the general electoral provisions are protected. The only way that they can be abolished is with more than 75 percent of the House voting, or a 50 percent threshold in a referendum. Now, that is a discrepancy and an injustice that needs to be corrected, and it would be corrected for the good of the country, because Te Ao Māori communities, hapū and iwi, have a specific world view, specific mātauranga Māori, and specific provisions, policies, and solutions that will enrich the representation here in this House, with direct accountability to Māori electorates.

I stand here, not as a Māori in a Māori electorate, but as one who full-heartedly supports Māori electorates. In the Green Party—the only party now in this Parliament that upholds Te Tiriti as our founding document in our charter and that upholds Māori as tangata whenua and as having unique status—we are very proud to have had entrenching Māori seats as our longstanding policy. It is our longstanding policy in the Green Party, where our membership has demanded that we have a policy to entrench Māori seats. So I am very proud to stand here and support my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who isn’t just a nice dude and who isn’t just a good representative but who is a good politician, bringing to the fore political solutions for injustice and discrepancy. That’s what he is.

The Greens would actually, in light of entrenching Māori seats, want to go further, and allow for Māori voters to be able to switch between the Māori and/or general rolls, and vice versa, whenever they feel like it, not just every five years. This would further empower those Māori electorates to be directly accountable. If there is to be a referendum on this issue of Māori electorates, I feel that that should be left to Māori voters. That’s something else that I wanted to throw onto the floor tonight. In a democracy, minorities never win out. Māori are not just a minority that will always be outnumbered in full voting; Māori have unique status as tangata whenua. Māori are not just a minority but have unique status. So I want to be very, very clear.

Now, Mr Finlayson also put up about “Let’s do this through proper constitutional change.” Well, then, I would invite all of the Opposition members to take full note of Matike Mai Aotearoa, which is the independent working group on constitutional transformation led by Dr Margaret Mutu and Moana Jackson. They have put up not just about representation—because Māori electorate seats are representation, and I put up a member’s bill last year for Māori wards—but that, actually, whatever the outcome is for constitutional reform, it needs to properly entrench our responsibility as Crown to uphold Te Tiriti, which is rangatiratanga for Māori, and that may include proper representation and entrenchment of Māori seats. So I’m very proud to stand and support this member’s bill.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I first of all just acknowledge Rino Tirikatene-Sullivan when he was talking about the importance of the role and responsibility that he has in putting this bill forward. I want to commend him for that. He talked about Matangireia, which is the old Māori Affairs Committee chamber, which, when I started in 2011, was right opposite my office. Every morning when I used to come through Parliament and I walked past it in the hallways, I too used to look up at the photos, and I would simply say, “Mōrena e tūpuna.” [“Good morning, ancestor.”]

People would sometimes say “Gee, who are you talking to?”, and I’d say, “I’m actually talking to the ancestors that have been here, tūpuna who have gone through this place who represented Māori, and also New Zealanders, in the House of Representatives.” They said to me “So why did you do that?”, and I said “I suppose it’s a cultural construct that we have that we acknowledge those who’ve gone before us.” As I did that, it was acknowledging the fact that I’d even say something simple like—and I felt that they would say to me, “When you’re here, do the best that you can. Bring your A-game to this place, and know that you represent not only those of your electorate and those of your constituents, but also, too, the country, as well.” So, Rino, I want to acknowledge you—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Please refer to him in the proper way.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —sorry, I acknowledge Rino, the member—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Can you use the member’s full, proper name, please.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I’m just about to say—sorry—Rino Tirikatene, and I was getting confused with, but I want to acknowledge, his auntie Whētu Tirikātene-Sullivan, who is on the wall as well. So I acknowledge the fact of what you are trying to do in this bill.

However, as has been said by the members on this side, we cannot support it because actually in doing your best, I feel that there is more that could be done. The member believes that there is more that could be done. In regards to this piece of legislation, if it was not only able to be put as a member’s bill but if it had the full support of the coalition Government of today, then it would be a constitutional piece of legislation that would be part of a Government bill. So here’s the issue of concern that I have. It is the fact that if the members in the coalition agree with this, then it would be a constitutional piece of legislation that would be a Government bill.

I have to say to the member from New Zealand First, Darroch Ball, who sounded like a wet fish as he got up to somehow deliver his little speech there to say what their position was, that it was very difficult because when his own leader of the party in 2017 campaigned, here’s the words that he used. He used the word “separatism”. He used the words: “We will only have a referendum for the abolition”—for the abolishment; that means, the doing away with—“of all Māori seats.” So how can that member stand in this House and say that their support is dependent on one thing—that they have a referendum? To do what? To see the abolition of the very intent of this bill. So how does this member stand in this House and how will he tell his supporters up and down the country that they support this bill only if they have this referendum to abolish the very intent of this bill? I think this member will know the insanity of the bill that he’s trying to put through with this.

We cannot support this bill, and as I was looking through—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I’ve asked these two members just a few minutes ago to please stop having a conversation across the Chamber.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In the Hansards of 1867, where the bill was initiated for native representation, which is what it was called at that time—and I agree with the intent of the bill in the Hansards that we should have Māori representation. But, you see, the history of the Labour Party is that in October 2008 at Ōtamatea Marae on the shores of Kaipara, the then member who was the Prime Minister of the country, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, clearly stated this—and this is what she said—“I’ve given an absolute commitment that a Labour Government isn’t going to touch those seats. But that doesn’t mean that we will support the extent to entrenchment.” “We will not support … to entrenchment.”—this is what the Rt Hon Helen Clark actually said at that time: that she did not believe that was the best intention for Māori.

So we have to say, quite simply, that we do not support this, but not because we don’t support the intent of Māori representation, when in New Zealand in our Parliament today we have 30 representatives of Māori descent represented here. We believe there are other ways to be able to do that. We don’t believe that this bill will achieve that, so we cannot support this bill to the House.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): It’s been a fascinating afternoon, I’ve got to say. I stand here to give a contribution to this particular bill, Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill, not just as a member of Parliament but, actually, as the only other Māori electorate MP that has stood and contributed to this debate today. So I look at this with a unique perspective that while it’s so easy for others to stand around the outside and share their thoughts on what they think it’s like to be a Māori electorate representative, they have absolutely no idea about the pressures that fall on to Māori electorate MPs.

I want to start my contribution by giving absolute props to my colleague over here, Rino Tirikatene, because that’s what we do—being a Māori voice in this very esteemed Parliament. We are actually charged with the job every day, every hui, every select committee meeting to actually raise the flag up and fight for the rights of Māori. It is people like Rino, people like myself, people like my colleagues that have that responsibility to constantly be putting our hand up and saying, “Where do Māori fit into this? What about tikanga Māori? What about Reo Māori? How do we make sure that we address that balance that was done so wrongly back in 1840 when the agreement was signed, when Te Tiriti was signed?”

Ever since then, we’ve been just trying to right the wrongs. That’s what we’ve been trying to do, and even today as we debate our Treaty settlement bills here in Parliament, all we’re still trying to do is right those wrongs, and we continue to do it with this particular piece of legislation. This is an attempt for us to address the balance. This is an attempt for us to actually make sure that we don’t constantly have the knife swinging over our heads, as Māori, saying, “This bill—we might take away Māori seats, we might not, we might, we might not.” That’s the constant kōrero that has come up time and time again. Every election it gets bandied around by the other side, and sometimes by people a little bit closer to us, but this is the constant pressure that we have to deal with: should we have the Māori seats? The most galling part of it is that it is often being talked about by people that aren’t even Māori—nothing about us without us.

Whilst the Māori seats started off on a very different pathway, actually, over time, Māori have fallen in love with our seats. We had the Māori electoral option just recently, where Māori were given the opportunity around the country to be able to jump off. You know, we got given the opportunity: if you didn’t want to be on it, you could take yourself off it really quickly. But, actually, Māori chose to stay on the Māori roll. Why? It was because they feel represented by the people that are in those seats but also by the actual structure itself. It’s taken us a while, but Māori have got confidence in this system.

So the Māori seats are integral to the way that Māori see themselves represented here in Parliament, and how many more elections do we have to go through where we have the knife waving over us again, saying, “We’re going to take them away, we’re not going to take them away.”? Who knows? But I commend absolutely my colleague Rino Tirikatene over here, who, despite the fact that it might not be a plain sail through, has actually brought this up, because that’s what we do as Māori electorate MPs. We stand here. We say, “We don’t know how this is going to go, but, actually, it’s kaupapa Māori.” It’s what our people want us to do. It’s what they would expect us to do. It’s why they show up every three years and vote for us—so that we can actually push kaupapa Māori in this House.

Over the House, one of my Opposition colleagues, Nick Smith, talked about how the general seats weren’t entrenched. I had a word with a very learned colleague over here, Kiritapu Allan, who told me that, actually, under section 268—in fact, the general seats—the mechanisms are there so that the seats are actually entrenched. But that doesn’t actually apply to Māori seats.

So what we’re looking for—what we’ve always been looking for as Māori—is equity. What we’re looking for is our share. What we’re looking for is our part in the debating chamber, our seat at the table, making sure that our voice is being heard, making sure that the New Zealand that we’re building is always going to be cognisant of Māori from a Māori point of view, not necessarily from a member for Rodney’s view, from up in the North, or wherever other well-intentioned people might want to have their opinion. Actually, it’s Māori voices that count the most in this, and that’s why we’ve been mandated to show up here to commend this bill to the House and to, hopefully, see it through.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is indeed an honour for me to stand and speak on the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill in the first reading.

First of all, I think it’s really important to put some context into this debate. I think the important thing is that if those speakers on the other side of the House decided to go and read the 1867 Hansard around the seats and the kōrero that took place before the seats were actually set up in 1867, they would actually see that there was a whakaaro there that actually was not about the seats being permanent. So that’s the first one. The other part of this is that that previous speaker, Tamati Coffey, I would think, just like myself and most Māori in this Parliament—we have more non-Māori blood in us than Māori blood. So, actually, we have a sense here that our non-Māori colleagues can stand up and talk about this. That is what this is about: kotahitaka.

But what I want to do is just to go back through and look at these seats as they were, as they were actually right at the beginning, because these seats have stood as a beacon of hope for Māori during the darkest days of our existence, particularly post-colonial days, when Pākehā first came here. I think the next part of it is that these seats were also a testament to the good people that were not Māori that were responsible for ensuring that these Māori seats were actually seat up. Sir Edward William Stafford—he was the one who was the third Premier of New Zealand. He was the one responsible for the set-up of these seats.

Our Māori people came to view the seats not just as a means of representation but as a symbol of hope that we’d eventually take our place as equal—as equal—members of Parliament. I can only look and wonder, particularly with Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Turi Carroll, Te Rangi Hīroa—they were there to ensure that Māori actually were going to be represented here, but on an equal basis. So when I look at Rino Tirikatene’s bill, I ask myself what is the problem this bill seeks to address, understanding that the Māori seats were meant to bridge the gap and provide a means for Māori to be represented until we sit equally with Pākehā, and be elected into Parliament as of right and as of merit. The Māori seats have performed this function very, very well.

Look around us—look around us today. There are 30 MPs of Māori descent in this 52nd Parliament, across the five parties. As a proportion of Parliament, one might argue that we’re actually overrepresented as Māori in this Parliament. Most of the Māori MPs in this 52nd Parliament are not here through the Māori seats, but they are here through the general electorate and the list seats because of the fact that their parties have actually put them there because of merit. That was the original whakaaro in this book here, in this Hansard—that the seats would be there until such time as there would be an equal footing of Māori and non-Māori in this House.

So if we actually look at this—keep in mind that our National Party policy is that we will not remove the Māori seats until Māori decide they are no longer needed. That’s an important basis here, because when I look at this particular bill, when I look at the reasons for this—particularly the original whakaaro. The other part of it is around how many Māori politicians or MPs of Māori descent are here: 30. So at the end of the day, it’s for these reasons that I do not support this entrenchment bill for the Māori seats. Why? Because it is simply not required. This bill is simply not required, because if you think of what is actually—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to have this right of reply in this debate.

I want to acknowledge all of the speakers for New Zealand First and the Green Party who will be supporting this bill, who have indicated their support. I thank them for that. The odds of this bill getting into this House were pretty tough. The odds of it making it to select committee were even tougher, so I do acknowledge the support that I’ve had around the House, as well as the contributions that have been made—the actual thoughtful contributions made on this side, as opposed to the snake oil, deceiving-type contributions that we’ve heard from the other side.

I want to pick up on the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Just because someone says “Oh, these provisions don’t apply.”—do not listen to that man. Do not listen to that man. He is a snake oil salesman. He’s trying to deceive people. What we are doing here is absolutely required. It’s absolutely required.

There is a discrepancy. There is a different standard that applies to the Māori seats. What we are doing—and Mr Smith knows this very well. The general seats are entrenched. The machinery that creates the general seats is entrenched. What this bill is does is that the machinery that creates the Māori seats—we’re wanting to entrench it, too.

So do not listen to the absolutely false statements that are coming out from that side of the House. He knows very well that he’s deceiving the public of New Zealand, but do you know that why he’s doing it is because he can’t argue against this bill on any other grounds, so he’s trying to make up some perceived technicalities around the bill.

This bill is well researched. We know very well that it has academic support. It has had Electoral Commission support. We know what we’re doing with this bill, but the other side do not want to address that. They do not want to address the discrepancy. They do not want to address the different standards. There is a double standard in the Electoral Act, and we are addressing it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes, there are hundreds of provisions of the Electoral Act, and not all of them are entrenched into section 268. But this bill is elevating the provisions that create the Māori seats and providing them with entrenchment, and that’s what we want to do. It’s all about equality and equal treatment, and I acknowledge the contributions made from this side.

I do want to just pay some remarks to my whanaunga Tutehounuku Korako. At the end of the day, your whakapapa is your whakapapa. We don’t say that, oh, you’re a little bit this, or a little bit Ngāti Wheke, or a little bit Ngāi Tūahuriri. Whakapapa is whakapapa. If you’re Māori, you’re Māori, and that’s why we’re here in this House. We are elected by Māori constituents. We are elected by those people to advance Māori kaupapa, and that is exactly what we are doing with this bill.

There is a double standard here, and we want to address this through the passage of this legislation. I am very, very humbled and grateful that we do have the support to send this to select committee, and then we can take it all the way around the motu. I want to encourage all Māori, all iwi, hapū, and organisations up and down the length of the country, to come out and present in their support for this bill, because this is what Parliament is all about.

So we’re going to take this to the motu. We are going to take this to the motu. Mr Nick Smith may want to try and quote procedural Standing Orders and the like. We can move around the Standing Orders as well, Mr Smith.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You can’t entrench without our support.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes, we can.

So, against all the odds, we have gotten the bill this far, and who knows where can go with it? We’re going to take it around the country. We’re going to listen to Māori up and down the country, and we’ll hear other views—I’m sure we will. We will be ready and we will listen, but at the end of the day, this is about doing something that’s right. This bill is about making sure we have an equal place with our general seats in this Parliament, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 56; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 8

Green Party 8.

Bill read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill

First Reading

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I move that the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be read a first time. I nominate the Primary—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! There is a word you missed out in that. Could you just go back and read that?

IAN McKELVIE: I move that the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): There’s a word that you just missed. It should be “be now read a first time.” Let’s try that again.

IAN McKELVIE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.

Thank you for that tolerance, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was going to say there will be no disruption during the course of this reading, but I’ve disrupted it myself!

The purpose of this bill is to reduce the time it takes for certain charges under the Dog Control Act 1996 to be heard. It proposes to allow category 1 offences under the Act, as defined in section 6(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, to be heard by justices of the peace and community magistrates rather than by District Court judges. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, justices of the peace and community magistrates are authorised to sit as judicial officers in the District Court criminal jurisdiction only where enactment creating the offence provides for it—in this case, the Dog Control Act 1996, which I propose we amend to allow this to take place.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this bill to the House—a simple bill but, none the less, one which will take a load off the court system. As an example of this, in 2016 there were 456 charges under the Act—427 of them were category 1 offences. This amendment will, effectively, speed up the resolution of these cases and allow judges to get on with more pressing and complex matters.

A category 1 offence is an offence defined in the Criminal Procedure Act as an offence not punishable by a term of imprisonment. A category 1 offence does not apply to the following three matters, which are defined in the latter stages of the said Act, and I think it’s worth reading those out because they are quite critical to the end result of this bill: section 32(2), which, effectively, deals with a dangerous dog and its potential or need to be destroyed; section 54(2), which deals with every person who commits an offence which amounts to an animal welfare issue, where animals are not fed, watered, exercised, or adequately provided for, and who is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or three months’ imprisonment—in other words, an animal welfare abuse case—and section 57(2), where a dog owner commits an offence where a fine of $3,000 is applied and any damage caused by the dog attack is able to be levied or the destruction of the dog ordered for that matter. I completely support these exceptions. I think they’re matters which rightly should be adjudicated on in a court by a judge.

It’s worth noting that the victims of many of these offences—and at times attacks—often suffer long-lasting impacts of them, some leaving a serious injury and long-lasting scars both to mind and body. Many of these offences also lead to death and serious injury to livestock—for those in the business, that’s called a “worrying dog”—devastating for the livestock and the people concerned. The successful introduction of this bill would save the justice system some money and time, it would save dog control authorities some money and time, and it would also save the dog owner some money and, often, the poor dog some time in the pound—all round a good conclusion.

I have two reasons for being interested in this matter. Firstly, my time in local government made me very aware of the frustration of dog owners—albeit errant at times—and council animal control officers at the length of time it sometimes takes to get a resolution to these cases. One of the reasons for this frustration is, of course, the cost to the dog owner of pound fees, vet fees, and other miscellaneous costs. Often, another reason for this frustration is the delay in getting a court hearing. The cost to dog owners is a subject of much debate in rural and urban communities alike, as are the difficulties posed by terminology and the terminology used in the Dog Control Act, such as a “preferred dog owner”, or “selected dog owner”, or a “dangerous dog”. And, on that topic, the iconic New Zealand bushman Barry Crump once said, “Anyone who keeps a savage dog is scared of something.” And, actually, when you think of the stuff that comes through our electorate offices, that’s often extremely true—and I often think that those dangerous dogs, frankly, should be banned myself, but that’s for another day.

A working dog—and the definition of a working dog is hugely complex—is defined very well in the Dog Control Act, but it covers a number of different areas. The costs of these things are often the subject of much contention in our communities and certainly of a lot of debate around the council offices of New Zealand. The councils on the whole, or district councils and territorial authorities, are, in fact, the dog control authorities in New Zealand. It’s interesting to look at dog registration fees, and they vary significantly right throughout New Zealand. Just for an example, a general registration in the Manawatū District Council costs $103 if you pay by the due date. For a neutered or spayed dog, it’s $66; for a working dog, it’s $33; for a dangerous dog, it’s $232, and for a menacing dog, it’s the same price. So you can see there’s a lot of contention around the costs of owning and registering a dog.

The other interesting factor in this whole dog-charging regime is the disability assist registration—so the ability to register a dog to assist with all sorts of things, but primarily with blindness, which, I guess, is the most common one. There is no charge for that, and I think it’s absolutely appropriate there should be no charge for that—not for a minute that those dogs don’t sometimes give as much grief as every other dog, interestingly, but that’s the way we live in our society, and I guess that’s the risk we take. So there are risks with all sorts of dogs.

Dog control laws are put in place to protect members of the public from the activities of dogs and the actions—or lack of them—of their owners. One of the tragedies here—and maybe that’s too strong a word—is that many dogs are punished, blamed, and even put down because of the incompetence of their owner and the negligence of that owner, and I actually think we should pay a whole lot more attention to the control of the owner of the dog rather than the dog. A lot of these laws, of course, are said to deal with the owner of the dog, but, unfortunately, it’s the dog that invariably becomes the victim of all of these things, and I think that often when people are attacked by dogs it is, frankly, not the dog’s fault. The dog gets put down, but it’s probably the owner that should be dealt with in a much more severe way. I wasn’t, like I say, going to suggest they should be put down, but certainly there should be some much stronger action taken against the owner.

So these dog control fees are calculated using what, I suppose, in local government parlance is called the public-private formula, which is a very, again, contentious issue which every council deals with differently. In that case, a particular percentage of the fee is applied to the dog owner, and a percentage of the fee is applied to the public, so that’s where you get the public-private bit from. So that’s how those dog fees are set.

Another reason for my interest in this bill is the number of complaints that I, and I’m sure many of you—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker, sorry—that many of us in the House get through our electorate offices about matters relating to dogs: to the delays in court proceedings and the costs that these delays impose on the owner. I should make the point here, though, that this bill is not so much about easing the life of the errant dog owner as it is about easing the life of the animal control authorities and the courts. As dogs and, indeed, all other pets become more prevalent in the lives of New Zealanders and we live longer and often alone, the increasing reliance on pets as companion animals will inevitably lead to more of these kinds of challenges around dog offences—dogs going missing and getting into trouble. This increase in dog numbers will, of course, lead to increases in the workload for animal control authorities and, subsequently, the court.

It’s worth documenting a couple of court cases just to demonstrate the complication of this. You can have a charge laid under the Dog Control Act 1996 where a dog is not controlled—so a person loses control of that dog. Currently, that could end up in court. So, just because you’ve lost control of your dog or it’s wandered or whatever, you could end up in court defending that. That’s a significant cost to the New Zealand community. Another case where it becomes very doubtful as to the degree of the penalty or severity of the case is where a dog attacks someone. So there are degrees of attack, which, again, I think is a bit of a variation that will need to be worked through in the course of a select committee discussion on this bill, should we get there.

It’s a privilege to be able to introduce legislation into this House, no matter how great or small the impact. This is the second time this year I’ve had the opportunity to do it. I look forward to listening to the discussion that takes place tonight, and I hope that my bill is successful in getting through to the second reading. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Malo e laumalie, ‘Eiki Sea. It’s just a marvellous privilege to stand here and speak in support of Ian McKelvie’s member’s bill. I want to acknowledge Ian McKelvie. He is one of the only gentlemen in this House, and I enjoyed—[Interruption] That’s right. I shared a dinner—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! All members are considered honourable.

KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, that’s right—that’s right. But he’s a special case, Madam Assistant Speaker. I enjoyed my dinner with him and his lovely wife at the Thoroughbred Horse of the Year Awards a couple of weeks ago. We both rejoiced in the absence of David Bennett, who sat at another table. So we enjoyed our company. It was a marvellous evening, and it is a great privilege to put forward the Government’s position—or the Labour Party’s position, I should say—on this particular bill.

It’s not a big bill. It’s pretty much consists of that and, despite that, I’m very disappointed that I only have 10 minutes to speak on this bill, because it is a big issue, as has been outlined by Mr McKelvie. These particular issues do come up from time to time in our respective offices. However, what is of more pressing issue is the demand on our District Court structure at the moment.

So there are three areas why the Labour Party will be supporting this bill. It improves court efficiencies and frees up the District Court judges to deal with other matters. It improves the welfare of dogs—

Angie Warren-Clark: Oh, that’s good.

KIERAN McANULTY: It is good, isn’t it? It is. We should always strive to improve the welfare of our animals—particularly our beloved dogs—by involving prosecutions under the Act, and it also reduces the burden of pound facilities.

A lot of pound facilities are run by local and district councils, and, of course, some of them are very small. There are a couple of very small district councils in the area where I live, in Wairarapa, and, of course, it puts them under tremendous strain when dogs are there for unnecessarily long periods.

So the bill allows the judicial officers who are justices of the peace or community magistrates to hear category 1 offences. For the benefit of the members in the House, those are offences not punishable by imprisonment under the Dog Control Act 1996—with which, I’m sure, we’re all familiar—essentially, as I mentioned, to reduce processing times. We believe it is likely to improve court efficiencies and free up District Court judges for a number of particular reasons, and the most prominent, I think, is for more complex cases.

It might interest members to know that in the past several years, District Court judges have found themselves under strain. The resources they have available to them are putting them under pressure, and so they’re responding to more category 3 offences, which take up a lot of time. What they do not want is for that precious time to be blocked up with category 1 offences, so I commend the member for identifying this as one particular way in which to relieve the stress that we are seeing in our District Court system.

I note that it says here that the active criminal cases in the District Courts have increased from 28,529 in 2013-14 to 33,038 in 2016-17. That’s an increase of over 4,000. So I ask members: do we want our District Court systems to be overburdened by this number of cases and this number of increases in category 1 dog offences? I suggest we do not. So that is why the Labour Party will be supporting this bill today.

The second point I mention is around improving the welfare of dogs. We believe that this will reduce this burden in three ways. Pound facilities, which I have mentioned, are typically held for the duration of proceedings. So if a category 1 dog offence is in the District Court system, which is overburdened—as I’ve mentioned—that not only holds up the court system but it also holds up the ability for a family to get their dog back. So the dog has to stay in the pound the whole time. We say that’s wrong—

Angie Warren-Clark: Like a remand system.

KIERAN McANULTY: Just like a remand system—you’re dead right. I acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark for that very helpful comment.

There are many dog owners here, I’m sure. I was a dog owner. I had to give up my precious dog, Max, when I was elected to this Parliament because I didn’t feel that I had enough time at home to look after him. So—

Hon David Bennett: What did you do with it?

KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, he’s now with a lovely family, David Bennett. He’s now with a lovely family in Gladstone. Gladstone’s just out of Masterton. It’s sort of just in between Masterton and Carterton. Two young girls—they love him to bits. They send me photos regularly. But I do miss my dog, Max.

But dog owners—when they are separated from their dog, this is a stressful time. I see the honourable member Priyanca Radhakrishnan nodding. I’ve met both her dogs—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Can you just come back to the bill, please.

KIERAN McANULTY: This bill is about dogs, and I think that it is great that Ian McKelvie has had the foresight for the second time this year to put forward a member’s bill that is of interest not only to regional New Zealand, as his first member’s bill was, but across the board.

I mentioned earlier the territorial authorities. They are required to manage and enforce provisions in the Dog Control Act, and this will reduce that burden to them, as well.

It might interest members to know that over 90 percent of dog control cases are category 1 offences. So you might think, on first reading the bill—it takes about 10 seconds to read it—that this is only a particular, small aspect of dog control cases, but, no, it’s not. It’s the vast majority. In the year 2015-16, there were 456 charges under that Act, and of these, 427 were category 1 offences. So that’s 427 cases that, by supporting this bill, if we get this through the select committee—and I note it’s coming to the Primary Production Committee, and what a marvellous select committee that is. The—

Hon David Bennett: Great chair—great chair.

KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, a pretty average chair, but a pretty decent deputy chair, I’ve got to say. By looking at the 427 cases, if we get it through the House, we have an opportunity to reduce that pretty decent chunk of work.

We do have some reservations, though. I think it’s fair to outline those now, and we’re hoping that these will get thrashed out at the Primary Production Committee. David Bennett—you know, I like to give him a bit of stick. I mean, it’s an easy target; that sort of stuff writes itself. But, in fairness, he does a pretty good job of chairing.

Labour does have some reservations around this member’s bill, and mainly it’s around—we’ve got a question here: do judicial officers have the capacity to deal with these new cases? We’re focusing on relieving the District Court system of the burden that they face by dealing with the cases, but do the judicial officers have the capacity to deal with it? That’s a fair question, we think. It wasn’t outlined, I don’t believe, in the opening speech, and hope that members opposite, when they rise in support of their colleague, might look to address that question, just so that we can head into the select committee stage with that particular piece of knowledge there.

Also, another question: should additional offences be considered, where judicial officers should be excluded? That’s a fair question too that I think we should put forward to the select committee.

I think we learnt something too with the livestock rustling bill, where the intent was clear and there was unanimous support in the House for that particular bill. What we learnt, however, when we got to select committee was that the scope was too narrow, and we hope that that is not the case now. We hope that it’s not likely to limit the possibility for other matters to be included. You know, we do acknowledge that this is an issue, but perhaps there are other issues as well. We hope that the scope is not too narrow and that the select committee won’t be restricted to include other things that are relevant to this for the purposes of reducing the burden on the District Court system.

You know, Madam Assistant Speaker, it’s hard to believe that over nine minutes has gone. I mean, it’s absolutely flown by, but it is a great pleasure to stand here and put forward the support of the Labour Party. I again acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie from Rangitīkei for having the foresight to put this bill forward. Two in one year—it’s almost some sort of record. The Labour Party stands in unison with you, comrade, in support of this particular issue.

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

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you so much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to be able to congratulate Ian McKelvie on having his member’s bill read for the first time, the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. It is a short bill—there is one clause—but it is a significant bill, and it is one step towards improving the Dog Control Act and dog control legislation in New Zealand, which, I must say, is ready for some work. In terms of the Dog Control Act and the work on it, this was a part of that work when we were in Government. Again, I want to congratulate Ian McKelvie for having the foresight to think to himself, what we could pick up from this piece of work that the National Government has done around raising the bar and protecting people and children from dog attacks, because that’s a really important thing to do for our community. So I want to congratulate him for doing that.

But, at the same time, I want to challenge the Government, to question them: where is this work? Where is this work on the Dog Control Act? It does sit with the Associate Minister of Local Government. Well there’s a problem there, isn’t there? So I do hope that this piece of work, which is designed to protect children in New Zealand, gets the same focus from this Government as it has from our member Ian McKelvie in Opposition.

So, yes, it is a simple bill. All it does is allow offences which are category 1 offences, which means offences which are not punishable by imprisonment, to be heard by a justice of the peace or a community magistrate rather than a District Court judge. Two really important things about that: first of all, yes, it frees up the District Court system to deal with more pertinent matters. That’s important, of course it is. But even more important is to be mindful of the welfare of the dog involved and to be mindful of the welfare of the owners. So this addition to the Dog Control Act will have a hugely beneficial impact on dogs—and it could be any of our pet dogs who are in the pound waiting for a process to take place inside a local authority. We all know what happens to dogs who are deprived of human attention and love and stimulation and security and all of those things: they go backwards in terms of behaviour, and then ultimately we have seen in New Zealand where some of those dogs have gone past the point where they could be rehabilitated before they get to have their day in court.

So the genesis behind this amendment to the Dog Control Act is really well considered, really well founded, and immensely doable. It’s not going to be hard to bring this new amendment into effect. I want to acknowledge and congratulate the Labour Party, who we’ve heard from so far, and who are supporting this bill. The member who spoke prior to the dinner break did raise reservations around the bill, and I didn’t really get the opportunity to really hear that member tease out just in fact what he meant. So it will be interesting to see how these concerns are dealt with through select committee.

But I want to come back to the main point, which is: where are the amendments to the Dog Control Act? It has been, what, 10 months, nearly 11 months now, since we’ve had an Associate Minister of Local Government whose job delegation it has been. So where are those amendments—where is the focus from this Government about keeping our young children safe on the streets and in their homes? We don’t want to have any other incidences of little children having severe bite marks on their faces, because I tell you what: if it happens and there isn’t any bill before this House from the Government, we have to look to them and ask them why they haven’t done the work necessary. [Interruption] They don’t like it, but it’s true.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I was going to say that I completely agreed with everything the honourable member Jacqui Dean said in contribution and support of the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, until she blamed us for her Government’s nine long years of doing absolutely nothing in dog control. So the audacity of a member coming to the House, supporting Ian McKelvie’s bill—and so it should be supported; it’s an excellent member’s bill—but then saying, “What’s the current Government done about it?” Not even a year we’ve been in, but we haven’t solved all the problems. I’m sorry that we haven’t managed to solve nine years of neglect in less than a year, but at least we’ve got a plan, and we’re well under way in so many areas that are critically important.

I want to congratulate Ian McKelvie for this member’s bill. Some members’ bills, you know, we get in the House and we just laugh at them because they’re so waste of time and waste of space. This is a small bill, but it’s not a waste of time, and it’s not a waste of space. It’s really sensible. It looks at the problem that we’ve got in the regime of dealing with people who have offended against the Dog Control Act.

I had to look up, I must be honest—I had no idea what a category 1 offence was in dog control legislation. It’s never been a particular passion or interest of mine, but the more I studied it—you never know, that may well become my number one passion in the future.

So what the member’s bill saw as a problem was the fact that currently we have a very high level of consideration for offences against the Dog Control Act, and it means there’s a huge delay in justice and a threat to animal welfare. So Ian McKelvie put his thinking cap on and said: what could be done about this, how could we speed up the process and make it fairer for the people involved, probably less costly as well, although I’m not sure that the member—I have listened to his speech on introduction; I’m not sure he mentioned the cost. He may well do that in his reply, but I’d be interested to know if it is anticipated to reduce costs, because I think it will.

But the point is to have people who have committed category 1 offences against the Dog Control Act—their offence heard by a justice of the peace or a community magistrate. Everyone in this Parliament will have dealt with justices of the peace, and most will have dealt with community magistrates. These are people who are community driven, who are passionate about giving back to their community through the justice system, and, probably, almost without exception, people in whom this Parliament could have a lot of faith. I know that earlier the question was raised: if this was suddenly imposed, would our justices of the peace and community magistrates be trained to deal with offences under the Act? I’m sure that that’s something that the select committee can give consideration to. Probably by the time that the bill would be enacted, there’d be a period that we’d require some training for people before they’d be allowed to sit in consideration of this. That’s my thought, anyway, and Mr McKelvie will have given it much further consideration than I would and might have better ideas.

It was also interesting to see just how many of these offences have taken place. In the year that’s noted in the explanatory note, the 2015-16 year, there were 456 charges under the Dog Control Act. That’s a lot. That’s more than one a week—one a day. That is a lot of offences, and, of those, 427 were for category 1 offences. Category 1 offences are the group that are proposed to be heard, under this bill, by a community magistrate or justice of the peace, and those are offences that are not punishable by imprisonment. So there’s only 29 that are really at the serious end, and they are the ones that would be left in the current regime of hearing. All the rest, the 427, if you take that year as an example, would then move to JPs and community magistrates.

I think it’s a really thoughtful bill. It identifies a real problem that we have. It identifies a solution that, by all accounts, on first reading and consideration of the contributions to date, would solve the problem. I think that the member should be commended and the bill should be supported.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a contribution on this Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. So New Zealand First has looked at this legislation and we believe that it is somewhat of a mixed bag. I apologise to the House in advance—something of a dog’s breakfast. The positives, as have been outlined by my colleague on this side of the House—Ms Dyson has alluded to the fact that there are some positives with this bill. The bill does have a good intent. It seeks to get better animal welfare outcomes, and I think that even though the number of prosecutions and the people that this bill would be applicable to isn’t that great, the number of New Zealanders that own dogs is significant. I know as a farmer, and Mr McKelvie mentioned in his opening address, that as farmers we’re totally reliant on our dogs. So we probably, as all dog owners, but particularly as farmers with working dogs, really have an affinity with our animals and want the best for them.

So I think that we can say that the pound time that this would save potentially is a positive thing. It would also be a cost saving that won’t come for free. There’ll be a cost that will lie somewhere. It does look to free up the courts, as has been said: 427 of those 557 of the 2015-16 cases were of category 1, and 64 of those dogs actually ended up being put down. But category 1 is actually quite—when you dig down into this—a broad category, if you look at the sort of offences that are included in that. The three months prison, which I think is the threshold for not being a category 1 offence is actually a really high threshold, and, we would argue, possibly too high to be handled by community magistrates or justices of the peace. Many of them would suit that: failure to register a dog, failure to advise change of dog ownership, failure to advise change of address, failure to carry a leash in public. Some of those things are reasonably misdemeanour-type offences, which you wouldn’t want to be dragging people through the courts and clogging up court time. So we respect the intent of the bill at that point.

But at the top end of that range there are a number of offences that would cause concern: wilful obstruction of a dog control officer or a ranger, failure to comply with the effects of classification of a dog as a dangerous dog, fraudulent sale or transfer of a dangerous dog. So the people that are getting convicted of this under this Act are actually people that primarily have got dangerous dogs. As the previous speaker alluded to, that is a real problem for our society. It’s a health and safety risk. Since 2008, we’ve seen the cost of ACC from dog-related injuries go from $3 million to $4.5 million. That’s over 14,000 claims. So that is a significant issue that we are dealing with, and we would like to see—I think, before we could support this bill further, beyond the select committee stage—a review of that category 1 to see if that’s fit for purpose for what we’re seeking to do.

We in New Zealand First will not go soft on crime, like it looks like the National Party want to do, over there on that side, with this bill. So we will be looking quite carefully to make sure that the categories are fit for what we’re trying to do here. But we do support the intent of the bill. So we will support it through to select committee, but we will be looking for those changes to be made, and because the select committee is a wise one, we expect those very sensible changes will come out of that. So we will support this bill to the House.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you for the chance now to speak on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to my colleague on my right, Ian McKelvie, for having this drawn out of the biscuit tin, the ballot, and for the next two bills that are by my fellow National Party colleagues as well. We’ve been particularly lucky in this latest round.

So the principles of the bill are to save a few frustrations of dog owners, many of them very valid; save them some time and money; save the justice system some money; and, of course, dog control authorities some time and money as well. It’s not belittling or bypassing serious offences when it comes to dog control offences, but it involves just category 1. So despite the fact that we’ve had previous speakers want to draw down a little bit deeper into what category 1 entails and what it involves, what we do know is that those are the offences not punishable by imprisonment, if you want to just have a quick line there.

The idea of including a justice of the peace and a community magistrate is derived from the Criminal Procedure Act of 2011, and this category 1 offence makes up 90 percent of recent dog control cases. So we are seeing where the volume of the work is coming from. It allows for a sped-up court process for offending relating to dog control and, of course, as I said before, the JP and the community magistrate taking the place, or able to hear a case, rather than the District Court judge.

It’s important to understand, I think, that situations can arise when even the best owners of the best dogs get into a little bit of trouble. It’s not just neglect or wrongful intention—those kinds of serious cases—it’s sometimes where there’s a strange set of circumstances or just a momentary lapse in judgment as a dog owner, and it can lead to a dog owner having to deal with fallout from an attack or criminal prosecution. Sometimes, these owners can be punished by a fine in addition to other costs and liability and damages caused, and sometimes it may result in a criminal record. Furthermore, sometimes the dog itself has to be destroyed, unless the owner can show exceptional circumstances. If you look at where the charges and offences are set out in sections 57 and 57A of the Dog Control Act, you’ll see that the only defence for a dog and a dog owner is that they have to have total absence of fault or exceptional circumstances. So you can see why cases back up, and back up quite fast. It’s a bar that they’ve got to argue, and no wonder we’re having the backlog that we have.

About 18 months ago, I went on a ride along with Auckland’s animal control, animal shelter team, and we went to not only just the shelter but we went out in the field and went to the different homes and the callouts that they had. On that particular day, it was all dog-related. The staff there did an incredible job, but they were short of staffers for their prosecution team. So big was the backlog and what they had to do to follow through and to appear in court that they were appealing to me—I was a city councillor at the time—for more resourcing to help their prosecutorial team. I also visited on the day two types of dog owners: one was where a neighbour had called out and we went to visit them and they were incredibly perplexed, didn’t know why the dog had behaved the way that it had; and then there were others that were outright violent at our presence. They knew exactly what had happened, and they would be, no doubt, offenders that would be outside category 1 and therefore not captured by this bill.

So I think, in summary, Ian McKelvie has done really well for a practical solution. As legislators, we should be very mindful of ways to make things a little less frustrating for people, and if that’s something that we can do by empowering JPs and community magistrates, it is something that we can do. I encourage Ian McKelvie to be encouraged that on the other side of the House it looks like everyone’s supportive, so we’ll look forward to a safe and easy passage. Thank you.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating the member Ian McKelvie, as well, for having his bill pulled. I’m sure it’s an exciting experience. I do want to acknowledge, as well, that this bill is attempting to address an issue that is real—a problem that’s a real problem—and that is the huge backlog that we have in every court and every tribunal in our system now.

We know our justice system is hugely overburdened, hugely underfunded, as it has been for some nine years. We know the Human Rights Commission had a backlog of about 2½ years. We know we are having to fix the Family Court system because of the delays there. The criminal justice system, I know from first-hand experience, is so overburdened as to have serious criminal cases waiting some 18 months to two years to go to trial, so getting some of the less serious cases out of that backlog, I can see, will be a real relief. The only problem, of course, is that we can’t address the backlog in our justice system by expediting cases and lowering the due process standards that we have come to enjoy and rely upon in New Zealand’s model—other than the backlog—justice system. This can’t be the answer, the lowering of that due process standard.

I can see why the types of offences that come under this bill are seen as being so minor as to be able to be dealt with in an expedited way and by non-legally trained judicial officers, but, in this case and if you do look closely, we can see that the breadth of the offences that come under the bill actually do touch on some serious repercussions. If guilt is found, and if guilt is found in a process that’s not fair—if the judicial officer involved isn’t trained in things like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and evidence standards, and in other procedures that we use to safeguard the presumption of innocence—then those repercussions become very unfair. So $3,000 fines—for some people, that’s not actually all that minor. And, of course, for the animals involved, we’re talking about a capital offence here, because the dogs involved are put down. To anyone who has had a pet, that is one of the most serious things that could potentially happen in your life, and to the dog, I mean, that’s death. We do consider that for offences like that, we do owe the highest standards of due process, and lowering them just to get rid of the backlog isn’t necessarily the answer.

Justices of the peace (JPs) are, of course, not necessarily legally trained, so they don’t have a higher understanding in terms of due process, as judges would, in the District Court where these offences are coming out. Community magistrates, who do have a high level of training—there’s only 14 of them nationwide, so it’s not really them that we are relying on; it is really JPs. In fact, as I know, in some of our busiest courts we are now relying on JPs—and we have been for a few years now—to deal with things like bail.

So this is a wider problem, and it’s one that needs to be fixed through better funding of our justice system, more judges, more courtrooms, and more resources to safeguard our high expectation of that process being safe and fair, while at the same time addressing the backlog. While we in the Green Party do respect that the problem this bill seeks to address is very real, we don’t support the mechanism by which it seeks to address that problem, which is a lowering of due process standards in circumstances where the repercussions are very serious both for the dogs involved—and that is an animal rights issue—and also for their owners. So the Green Party will not be voting for this bill.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It is a privilege to stand and speak on this member’s bill, and I want to congratulate the member, Ian McKelvie. I remember him from my first day on the members of Parliament training and induction programme.

Paul Eagle: The old fulla.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Ha! The wise member. To speak on the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, as a justice of the peace, I think I can speak with some insight into the level of expertise and training that justices of the peace go through to become a justice of the peace of the District Court. People here have spoken about many things, but I think it’s important to note that the people who become justices of the peace are people who have gone through a process of training to become a justice of the peace, and then after that they are further developed. I want to acknowledge the work of the Auckland Justices of the Peace Association—I think my membership is still current. I want to acknowledge their work, because they train the justices of the peace in what they do.

There are two steps. One: to become a justice of the peace, you follow on with training in terms of oaths and declarations and those duties that are required of the justices of the peace. Then, secondly, to be able to become a justice of the peace of the District Court, the justice of the peace actually has to go through further training to be able to perform in the District Court, and prior to that they had to go through swearing in in terms of being able to be called a justice of the peace of the District Court.

Some of the things that are required by a justice of the peace of the District Court are actually to preside over traffic offences and to preside over issues of remand or bail, so I think that they are quite capable of presiding over category 1 offences in terms of section 18 of the Dog Control Act, where it talks about “Wilful obstruction of [a] dog … officer or [a] … ranger”. I’ve heard people here talk about the fact that it’s a tiny, small piece of legislation, but, really, it’s important because what it does is—the end result—if the majority of the offences are under category 1, it then frees up the District Court. I have an insight in terms of being someone that had worked at court, which is that the judges are on a roster—the judges are on a roster.

Paul Eagle: Were you in prison?

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: As a court clerk at the Youth Court, Paul Eagle. So as a court clerk in the Youth Court in Manukau, I know, in that role, that the judges go through a roster. What this bill will do is it will support the work of the judges to free them up so they’re able to look at other matters, like being rostered in the Family Court or being rostered in the District Court. So I want to commend the member in terms of this piece of legislation, because it might look tiny for some people, but the end result actually contributes a lot to our District Court.

I want to maybe look at one of the categories in schedule 1 of the Act. The category looks at a possibility that a justice of the peace might look at—section 48(3), where one of the offences is “Failure to advise change of dog ownership”. I know that Priyanca Radhakrishnan has a bitch called Gypsy, and let’s just say that we have a change of ownership and she gives Gypsy to me and I end up owning her bitch, Gypsy. Then if she’s neglected to inform that there has been a change of ownership—

Chris Bishop: Righty-o. OK.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: —then I think a justice of the peace, as I have said previously—I’ve checked it with the Speaker, thank you very much—a person who has undergone training by the Auckland Justices of the Peace Association is capable of presiding over a small offence like failure to inform a dog ownership change. I want to just say that only 29 offences weren’t a category 1 offence—out of the 456, 29 were not a category 1. But it makes sense. It makes common sense to do that. I’ve spoken in support of this, and I want to again congratulate the member, Ian McKelvie, on the outcome that it adds to an important piece of legislation. I dedicate this to Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s bitch, Gypsy. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. That’s going to be a very hard act to follow, and I know I should probably start by paying tribute to my bitch called Chilli. This is, like most things—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think we can settle down now, don’t you?

MAUREEN PUGH: OK. As has been said often tonight, this is a very small bill, but ask any woman that’s been engaged and she will know that great things come in small packages. I acknowledge my friend Ian McKelvie for delivering this common-sense piece of legislation to this House. It just brings about a small change to the Dog Control Act of 1996. As a former mayor, I’m sure Mr McKelvie will agree with me that there are two things that raise the angst of the community, and they are library books and dogs. So I think this piece of legislation will assist in the process of dealing with some of those dogs that are highlighted here in category 1. This Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill is simply aiming to streamline and relieve the District Courts of the burden of hearing unnecessarily huge numbers of these category 1 offences under the Dog Control Act and, instead, allows them to be heard by community magistrates and two justices of the peace.

We’ve also heard tonight, very rightly so, that these will not be your justices of the peace who have not had the additional judicial training to allow them to appear in the court and hear these category 1 offences; they will be specially trained. I think tonight is an opportunity for me to pay tribute to the ongoing work that our justices of the peace do in this country. They’re an essential part of the judicial system, and I know that they give up a huge amount of their time voluntarily. So I pay tribute to them, to their trainers, and to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, who oversee the justices in New Zealand, and also the members in this House that we’ve heard of tonight who are still actively engaged as a JP.

The Dog Control Act has offences laid out in there, and they are considered serious enough that they will still be presided over by a judge in the District Court, but in some of the stats that we’ve already heard tonight, that leaves around about—my stats say 38, so 38 of these tougher cases that will be heard in the District Court. These are the ones that are probably a little bit more complex, the issues are quite serious, maybe where the animal may have to be put down, where there are fines that are up to $5,000, or three months’ imprisonment, or where there are serious animal welfare issues where the animal has not been fed, watered, or exercised adequately. The bulk of the offences that occur under the Dog Control Act—and of those, there are about 427—can be dealt with by two justices of the peace or a community magistrate. That means that that total number of cases is no longer clogging up the court system, and that sets the judges free to really deal with matters that have a much higher priority in our communities.

Normal justices’ powers are divided into two categories: we have the ministerial and the judicial. All justices of the peace can deal with ministerial matters, and they are simply witnessing documents—I’m sure we’ve all had our identities certified for our passports—or taking declarations, affidavits, or affirmations—

Chris Bishop: Are you a JP?

MAUREEN PUGH: Yes, I am a JP; thank you for asking, Mr Bishop. Some justices of the peace can also authorise various court documents as well. We’ve got about 400 of our judicially trained JPs in this country who actually do sit on the District Court. So I’m sure they’re well placed to take up the extra workload, but I have a great deal of faith in their ability to support the District Courts. I also know that this will free up court time. It will save costs to councils and dog owners, and I commend this bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Malo e laumalie, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s a privilege to be able to speak in this House on this member’s bill. Well done to Ian McKelvie for, I guess, finally getting it to the stage that it is: a practical, pragmatic, and simple bill to address a number of concerns that have really been raised here this evening.

It’s easy for me to reflect on my local government experiences with our dog people who work there, but before I just reflect on some experiences, I think some of the issues are around the efficiencies with the court—and it’s been talked about tonight. I’m a big fan of saying that where we can get efficiencies, let’s get them. We’ve heard from many that the judicial JPs can provide that service. They want to, they have been through a process—we’ve heard that outlined tonight by several of you—so, therefore, it’s an easy decision, an easy thing to speak on, in terms of saying that if we can free up the court time and utilise a resource, a community resource that’s been through a process of qualification, then let’s do that.

I find, also, that in terms of just looking at the court backlogs, I’m pleased that this coalition Government is looking at improving other efficiencies with it that go beyond the dog control regime. I know that the justice Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, is looking at a rewrite of Family Court reforms, for example, and a whole range of things that make the courts more effective, more modern, and proposals like this will help that.

The welfare of dogs—I was thinking about Denise Lee’s experiences in Auckland, and I too have had the pleasure of accompanying council staff. In the electorate, we have a small dog pound, out there at Moa Point. You won’t know it’s there, but it’s there. It’s a small area, and, lo and behold, when you go and have a look, it actually takes in quite a few animals, of which most are dogs, and a lot are there as part of that backlog of cases where they are simply waiting to be heard. So my vision or my memory, hopefully, next time I visit will be that those have gone back to their owners or wherever, as per the ruling that gets made by these judicial JPs. Just that cost—and Maureen Pugh has certainly articulated that for the local authority involved, the cost and the burden on that entity will certainly be reduced, and the result is, hopefully, a happy owner.

I look at some of the issues, too, for the bill in terms of what could be and will be, hopefully, addressed at the select committee level. One of them was around that capacity—I believe that that capacity’s there, but the select committee will work through that—and just the flow-on impact of the hearing where maybe there are other offences that could be considered by the judicial officers that maybe should be excluded, could be excluded, or the narrow scope of the bill allowing for other matters to be included. So I’m looking forward to—I think it’s the Primary Production Committee that will take this forward and have a good look through just some of the practical putting into practice of the enactment of this and making it happen. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I don’t think I can mess this one up. I just want to, first of all, start by thanking my colleagues on this side of the House, all of whom, interestingly, are ex-local government—and, of course, Paul Eagle is an ex-local government person as well. It’s interesting that those people with experience in dog control authorities have done most of the speaking on this bill.

I also want to just pay a small tribute to the Hon Jacqui Dean and the Hon Louise Upston, who did spend quite a bit of time angsting over dog control stuff in the course of the last Parliament—and probably the one before as well, because it is a pretty emotional topic, dog control. People get very heated up about their dogs. They spent a bit of time and, certainly, brought forth the idea for this Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill, so I want to congratulate them and thank them for that help.

In the course of the speeches made tonight, I want to comment on a couple of things that the Hon Ruth Dyson said. One of the things she raised was again raised by Paul Eagle and by Denise Lee, and that was the potential for training of JPs and training of people who take their place in this. I did make a point of asking the Minister about that, because I had some concerns about that myself, and I’m sure there will be efforts made to strengthen our JP situation not only in the event of this bill passing but in the event of a lot of other things going on in New Zealand at the moment. There was some criticism, I think, that came from the Greens about JPs not being trained. Well, JPs go through quite a significant training process. Certainly, they may well not be trained as lawyers, but they definitely are trained significantly in the judicial roles they take, so that’s a pretty strong point in their favour. I think they’ve done well.

Mark Patterson, in the course of his speech, really just summed up—he called it “a dog’s breakfast”. I couldn’t believe that. He did sum up, though, why we have select committees and why all bills should be sent to the select committees, because almost all the issues he raised will come up in the course of a discussion around the select committee table, and those issues will be resolved at that time, as well.

I can’t really say anything about the Greens’ contribution, except to offer them another one of the Barry Crump specials, and that’s “never kick another man’s dog.” There are a number of other issues raised in the course of those speeches which, I think, will be well and truly dealt with during the course of the select committee process, and I look forward to that select committee process.

Kieran McAnulty raised the issue of the scope of the bill. I think this bill is a simple bill. It deals with some pretty simple issues, but it also does have, I guess, some potential within those category 1 offences for some quite serious offences to be dealt with in this manner. I don’t agree with the Greens’ summation of that, because I think that in the event of this bill passing, the process that these category 1 offences will follow will be well and truly dealt with, and dealt with very adequately, by the people concerned. I don’t think you have to be a judge to make a decision on simple cases like this, because they mostly are simple cases.

So, really, I just want to sum up by thanking everyone for their participation in the debate tonight. I’ve got a very lucky tie on. I had to steal it back off Paul Goldsmith, because he stole it off me, but I did wear this tie the last time I had a bill in the House as well, so it must be a lucky tie. It’s got dogs on it, though, interestingly, not the—

Hon Ruth Dyson: What do you wear when the ballot’s being drawn?

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Yeah, exactly. So I don’t really have anything else to add, but I look forward to the discussion on this bill as it moves its way into the select committee, and, hopefully, it will come back here for further debate at a later stage. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I move, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This is a member’s bill in my name to amend the Arms Act 1983 to provide new powers for police to prevent the most dangerous gang members in our communities from possessing firearms, whilst recognising the need to not put unnecessary restrictions on legal gun owners. The bill provides strong new powers for our New Zealand Police to make sure that dangerous gang members in our communities do not have access to, or control of, firearms. The legislation does this by establishing firearms prohibition orders, which will apply to the toughest gang members who hold multiple criminal convictions and who have a history of serious offending.

Firearms prohibition orders and gang member restrictions on licences were recommendations of the Law and Order Committee report on the inquiry into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand in the last Parliament. They were also endorsed by the then Government in its response to the report. The police briefing for the incoming Minister, the Hon Stuart Nash, provides support for firearms prohibition orders and the briefing offers, on behalf of the police, to brief the Minister on the possibility of implementing firearms prohibition orders. These orders have been introduced in three states in Australia, and are used to proactively manage high-risk individuals and their possession of firearms. This bill that we’re debating tonight is modelled closely on the New South Wales version of firearms prohibition orders.

I’m sure all members in the House would find it concerning to read daily stories of the increasing firearms activity undertaken by those involved with gangs in New Zealand. Cases that immediately spring to mind are the multiple homicides across Whanganui, Hamilton, the wider Hamilton region, and the Bay of Plenty, which police have said are linked to gang activities.

Gangs exist to intimidate, and when armed with a firearm or weapon, that concern is magnified. Too many firearms are ending up in the hands of violent, criminal gang members—that has to change. Under this bill, if you are a gang member, you won’t be allowed to own or possess a firearm, end of story. The bill reflects the fact that the vast majority of Kiwi hunters, farmers, and recreational shooters are law-abiding and responsible. They should not be treated the same as gang members who illegally obtain firearms and stow them away to cause harm to our families.

I want to assure those who are responsible firearm owners that this bill means onerous, unnecessary restrictions will not be placed on them. The bill does not target legal firearm owners and won’t impinge on their freedoms. However, firearms prohibition orders, similar to what they have in New South Wales, will widen the powers available to police to search the homes and cars of serious violent gang members for firearms at any time. They will only apply to a very small group of the most dangerous gang offenders who have convictions of firearms offences and serious violence records.

The pool of eligible people is based on criteria set out in this legislation in a newly inserted section 59A. This specifies that if someone is a member of a gang and within the last 10 years has been convicted of an offence under the Arms Act, the Domestic Violence Act, or a serious violent offence in the Sentencing Act, the commissioner may put in place a firearms prohibition order. The offending history and the profile of these gang members make it reasonable for police to be able to check that they do not have access to guns, ammunition, or firearms parts.

It’s estimated that around 600 gang members will be eligible for a firearms prohibition order, but it will be up to the Police Commissioner to determine how to prioritise the most serious offenders within that group. These people may pay no attention to needing a firearms licence, so we need to be able to search them to ensure that they don’t have access to illegal firearms. The Commissioner of Police will have the power to make an order in respect of these offenders, and any decision to make an order will be reviewable by the District Court. That’s very important—there is the oversight of the District Court and the judicial system.

The Police Commissioner will have to personally sign off each order, and any person subject to an order will have the ability to challenge this in court. Currently, all warrantless searches require specialist internal reporting and police would be expected to continue reporting searches of persons, vehicles, and premises under this regime.

In the event of a breach of a firearms prohibition order, a person who contravenes section 59B(1) in clause 7, will be liable for a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or, in the case where the firearm is a pistol or restricted weapon, to a term not exceeding 14 years. In addition to the prohibition on possessing firearms, persons must not acquire or possess ammunition. Doing so will ensure they are liable upon conviction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. If a firearms prohibition order has been placed on an individual, they’re unable to reside at premises where firearms, parts, or ammunitions are present, and contravening this will also see them liable for conviction under the legislation.

The violence of gangs, illustrated in their intimidation tactics and heightened through their use and possession of firearms, is simply not acceptable in New Zealand. Gangs intimidate and incite fear. We want people to feel safe in their communities. Police have said these changes would enhance their ability to control illegal firearms, and they have requested stronger safeguards to protect New Zealanders from illegal firearm possession. This bill and the creation of a firearms prohibition order go some way to mitigating the harm caused to our communities by gangs.

I note that when this bill was pulled from the ballot earlier in the year the reception from many parts of the community was very warm. It was pleasing to have the support of the Police Association President Chris Cahill and many other people in our community, who acknowledged this is a good and sensible amendment to the Arms Act. This is a bill that was recommended by the police and supported by the Police Association. It was recommended by the cross-party select committee that did the extensive inquiry into illegal firearms in the last Parliament. So this is a bill that seeks to implement what the previous parliamentary select committee recommended, something that’s supported by the Police Association and also by the police. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): In New South Wales, where they implemented similar legislation, as we’ve just heard from the member Chris Bishop, an ombudsman’s review found multiple failings in this approach, including, in practice, where no firearms were located in over 600 searches. The bill itself sounds well-intentioned, but in fact it’s actually ill-advised and doesn’t address the issue—the key issue—of how police ensure only fit and proper people hold a firearms licence or have access to firearms. I’m sure everyone in this House is wondering why—why—if this is so important, the National Government, who’ve only been out of office for one year, didn’t do something to address this over their nine years here on this side of the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How long were they in Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They were here for nine years, and certainly the statistics I’ve seen suggest that gun violence has been pretty static over that most recent five-year period. It doesn’t seem to be a big issue, but suddenly it has become a big issue when the politics have changed. This is a knee-jerk reaction. It’s actually about enabling the extension of searches without warrants—plain and simple.

This is a bill that undermines human rights principles and enables the extension of searches without warrants. In fact, it puts the police in an invidious position. They’ve recommended the Government not support this bill. The bill, they say, has serious flaws and will not deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement. That’s from the police—the people the member purports to want to be supporting here. The fit and proper person test already, effectively, bans gang members and prospects from holding firearms licences. The way the law is drafted now has restrictions around who can hold a firearms licence, and this does nothing except promote searches without warrants. Concerns have been raised about police accountability, and, of course, human rights legislation where searches can be made on subjective reasoning rather than on sufficient facts.

Here’s the kicker—here’s the kicker: there’s a National Party member who said not so long ago that the National Party firmly believes, or this person firmly believes, that searches should not be enforced without warrants, apparently in complete contradiction to the bill’s intent. And who do we think it was who said out there, publicly, that searches should not be enforced without warrants? Well, it was none other than the National Party leader. The National Party leader doesn’t seem to support the intent of this bill. Here is a member trying to put through something that he popped in the biscuit tin because he thought it would be popular—actually, it undermines human rights. All it does is extend searches without warrants. I bet that member’s feeling a bit awkward right now, because what this bill does and doesn’t do will be laid completely bare in this debate that we’re having now.

What we actually need is a more solid piece of work, and I trust the honourable member Stuart Nash to do that piece of work. In fact, I know that he has work under way to make sure that we in this House receive a bill that actually addresses the wider issues in this area, that looks at the fit and proper person test, and looks at how we can make sure that we have a strategy to deal with gangs generally—a proper plan, rather than a piecemeal approach that looks simplistically at what can be done, and that looks across the Tasman at a piece of legislation that their ombudsman has pointed to multiple failings in. We recognise that the existence of gangs may be symptomatic of a deeper structural issue we have in society, and it needs to be dealt with in a more sophisticated manner. There need to be cohesive and sensible decisions made if we are to effectively take action against organised crime.

So what I’m saying and what I’m arguing is that this bill would not make New Zealand safer. Where it’s been implemented in similar cases overseas, we have seen that these weapons have not been found. Warrantless searches may also increase hostility toward police. Those who have been securing firearms illegally and don’t hold a firearms licence are the ones most likely to commit gun crime, and they are hardly going to change their behaviour in response to this threat. It is likely, also, to be costly for the taxpayer, as each of these firearms prohibition orders must be signed off individually and may be challenged in the courts. This bill would demand more administration resources from police and the courts, so not only is it likely to be ineffective and likely to undermine human rights principles, it is likely to be costly.

At this point, I should reveal my hand and say that we on this side of the House in the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill. We don’t support legislation that’s ineffective, that undermines human rights, and that costs the taxpayer money to be ineffective. It is a crazy piece of legislation. What we need is a more comprehensive response that actually gets to the nub of the issue and looks at how we can ensure that fit and proper people have access to firearms and that those that are not, do not.

As I say, currently an applicant must be able to be deemed fit and proper to possess or use firearms. Set criteria are used to determine that, so affiliation with a criminal group is already listed as making a person ineligible for a firearms licence. Some statistics here: in 2014, 3,969 patched members of gangs were analysed in relation to firearms offences. Of those, 44 percent had been charged for an offence involving a firearm, 9 percent had been charged five or more times over their lifetime, and less than 1 percent—less than 1 percent of those surveyed—held a firearms licence at the time of the survey. So it’s not like these are people trying to comply. It’s not like these are people who are going to be affected by searches and so on. In fact, if guns ever are found, as they were not in New South Wales, it’s likely that those who have criminal intent may, if weapons are seized, go and take more.

It’s not likely to be effective legislation. It leaves the police open to allegations of bias. It leaves legal action open, that’s likely to be costly. And the law already restricts firearms licence holders and says that firearms won’t be issued to someone known to have convictions for violent offences. So we already have protections in place. We already have restrictions in place.

One more point I wanted to make was that firearms offences are on the rise but the number of firearms stolen has actually remained relatively consistent over the last five years. If National feels it is an issue—and I did say this earlier—we would wonder why they didn’t do something about this earlier if it really was something they thought was consistent. But gun-related incidents per 100,000 people have been tracking down since the 1980s more broadly. This seems to be an issue motivated by politics and one that will not produce the solution that the member purports to do. When the police say this is something that isn’t going to work, we need to listen to them. When they say this is something that they’re worried about, they’ve got concerns about, we need to listen. On this side of the House we will and the Labour Party will.

I think the other thing that really is concerning is a general view that we’ve heard from that side of the House that some people have fewer human rights than others. One wonders whether that’s something that’s at play again here. That’s something that Paula Bennett has previously said. Well, the Labour Party doesn’t agree with that. We think human rights—fair ways of judging whether someone is fit to hold a firearms licence should apply; not subjective tests that put police at risk, put police in an awkward position, are unlikely to be effective, and are very likely to be costly to the taxpayer because they can be disputed and they involve creating a whole new bureaucracy.

What we need to do, of course, is enforce the current restrictions—they will be sufficient for ensuring that those who should not be issued with a firearms licence are not—and have a broader piece of work that looks at the broader societal issues and is more sophisticated in its response; not a political knee-jerk reaction.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister in his reply said that the Government had been advised by the police that they were opposed to this bill. He’s quoting from an official document, and under Standing Order 376 I ask him to table that official advice.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Will you seek leave for that purpose?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Speaking to the point of order, I don’t have the official document with me. I’ve got my own notes taken down, so I’m afraid the member’s a little misguided in that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. You were making a point—you were speaking to the point of order?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry, I’m just saying I don’t have an official document with me. I have my own speaking notes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You are quoting from an official document?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was quoting from some papers I read earlier.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. If the Minister is not quoting from an official document, he’s not required to table it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Speaking to the point of order, Standing Order 376 is quite clear: “[When] a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to table the document.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): It’s not an official document. That’s the point.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Speaking to the point of order, under that Standing Order there is no specification around an official document. It simply states “a document”. So if you are providing a new ruling, it would be fantastic to get that clarification, but under that Standing Order it does not require it to be an official document but simply a document relating to public affairs, which this document would clearly be.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for your contribution. I’ve just taken some advice. The Minister has been quoting from his speaking notes. Now, within that was contained some information that was provided to the House. He is not required to table his speaking notes.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In light of that, I would ask the Minister of Health to go away and to provide to the Opposition the briefing notes and the papers from the police that, he stated in the House tonight, say that they do not support this bill and say that this bill is going to be counterintuitive, because the Opposition does not have those briefing notes. We have not received that information. We will go back and check the Hansard, but I’m sure that Minister has taken a call tonight in the House and quoted from a report and official documents that were provided by the New Zealand Police. So I would ask the Minister or someone or another Labour member that’s going to take a call to go and get those documents and please table them for us so the Opposition are able to take that advice and look at the information, because we have not seen those briefings.

I just want to come back very quickly to the New Zealand Police Association, because they do always genuinely have a very good feel for what is happening, and especially in relation to legislation like this. Bearing in mind and addressing the issue about why this was not brought to the House when the National Party was in Government, this is a member’s bill. This is a bill that the member felt strongly about that was put in the ballot and was drawn from the ballot. It was actually a bill that was driven out of a select committee process that was under way. So that’s why the bill is in the House.

I just want to go back to some comments that Chris Cahill made—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I will not have the two of you debating across the Chamber.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, Chris Cahill is the President of the New Zealand Police Association. I was reading an editorial or a report that he wrote just yesterday, and one of the issues that he was raising—there is a real concern about in modern policing today—is the fact that there is a rise in organised gangs and crime and that the young police officers coming out the college now are, within two or three weeks, having firearms presented at them and having had to deal with the threat of firearms.

Matt King: It happened in Kaitāia.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Just recently it happened in Kaitāia, apparently. Normally, the firearms are in the hands of violent gang members, and this is a bill that’s been brought to this House to give the police the power—those young police officers that are going out on to the street and putting themselves at risk—to be able to actually level the playing field a bit and to mitigate that risk. And we’ve got the Government standing in opposition to this bill.

When you’ve got the police Minister, who seems to be missing tonight—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! You will not refer to a member that’s not in the Chamber.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker; you’re right. The police Minister has been a strong advocate, and at every given chance he has been very vocal about the fact that he’s taking strong steps against gangs and organised crime. What’s his position on this? What’s his feeling about this—about a bill that’s actually going to give the police service the ability to be able to go in there—

Hon Dr David Clark: He says it’s piecemeal.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Don’t give us part of the information, Minister. Don’t give us part of the information—600 searches; give us all the information. Give us the whole picture because you seem to be cherry-picking at the moment to be able to make an argument against a bill that we see as being very effective in allowing our police force, our police service, to actually take steps against organised crime and criminal gangs.

I find it ironic that we were in the House before the last recess debating the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, where it was OK for the Government to bring a bill to the House to say that you could have warrantless searches when it related to dairy cows. But now they’re saying it’s not OK to have a warrantless search when it relates to firearms in the hands of criminals and gang members. That to me is sending a very, very poor message to the people of New Zealand.

Just let me give you a very quick example: the police service in Kaitaia receives some information to say that there are some patched gang members that are getting organised to go down to the local BP station and commit an armed robbery using sawn-off shotguns—that information comes to the police. This bill here allows them to respond immediately. If they know they’re dealing with violent gang members that have got the prohibition attached to them around the ownership of firearms, it allows them to respond immediately. It allows them to go to that gang pad, it allows them to enter the property, and it allows them to search for weapons, similar to domestic violence orders.

So this is a very good bill. It’s a bill that is actually going to level the playing field a bit. It is going to allow our police officers to go into a violent gang member’s home and search and make sure that he’s not in possession of firearms. It’s going to help those young cops—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member, your time has expired.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I certainly want to congratulate the member Mr Chris Bishop on having his member’s bill drawn out from the ballot, and thank him for advancing the best case he possibly can.

I concur with Minister David Clark, who spoke earlier, and agree with the principle of the bill, because that is something we are working to achieve, but it’s a little bit simplistic because we will need to have a strategy on how we deal with gangs generally. As Minister Clark said in his contribution, this bill has serious flaws. I don’t need to table any documents because reading into this draft bill would draw a conclusion that this bill would not deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement.

In the general policy statement it says that under this bill, “Gang members won’t be able to hold firearms licences.” First of all, gang members are not able to hold firearms licences anyway because gang members, as defined under this bill, do not meet the criteria under the current licensing regime.

Secondly, all those legal and legitimate owners of firearms will agree with me that firearms licences, per se, are not the problem; it is the illegal firearm possession that is the problem, but this bill does little or nothing to address the problem. As the actual number of stolen guns in circulation is unknown, the Thorp report, commissioned by the National - New Zealand First coalition Government in 1996, continues to be quoted. It estimated that 10 to 14 percent of guns are held by unlicensed owners, and 25 percent of those are held by criminals. Between 2010 and 2014, about 2,200 firearms were reported stolen in burglaries. In the same period, 17,429 firearms offences were committed.

Thirdly, searches without warrants may themselves create New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, as Minister Clark just said in his earlier contribution. The National leader, the Hon Simon Bridges, was quoted as saying—as recently as May 2018—that searches should not be enforced without warrants. The intent of this bill and Mr Bridges’ statement seem to contradict each other.

Fourthly, this is a costly piece of legislation to the taxpayer, as each FPO, or firearms prohibition order, must be signed off individually, and is likely to get challenged. Therefore, this bill would demand more administration resources from police and the court—both already under-resourced by the previous National Government over the last nine years.

Lastly, the bill was structured on the New South Wales model, but gang dynamics in Australia are very different to New Zealand. We need to have solutions to gang problems that are specific to our own environment. The existence of gangs may be just a symptom of much deeper structural problems in our society that must be dealt with through comprehensive approaches.

To conclude, this bill would not make New Zealand safer. We cannot support this bill to the House.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate to the House that we will not be supporting this bill. To give some reasons and some rationale behind it, let me take a moment to traverse a little bit of firearms legislative history so that we have a better understanding of what this is about and why New Zealand First objects to it.

When I first came to this House in 1996, there was an Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) on the floor. That sought to impose, through various mechanisms—under the guise of keeping New Zealanders safer and protecting them from gangs—to actually restrict the rights of legitimate firearms owners who were fit and proper people, who had been investigated by the police and deemed by the police to be fit and proper people. Many of these people were international shooters who represented this nation honourably and with distinction. That bill was finally trashed by the select committee after a lot of hard work by New Zealand First, supported by—and I will give credit to—the then ACT MP Stephen Franks.

In 2005 or around that period, we had the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) brought up by the then Labour Government. Working with Simon Power from National, we managed—New Zealand First—to keep that bill off the floor of this House for three years. Why? Because the bill was rubbish.

After all the rhetoric over 2005 and 2008, when National Government came into Government what did they do? They passed it. Still, to this day, legitimate firearms owners are crying foul as to the impact that it had on them. Was National interested? No—totally disinterested. In 2008, National came into power and passed it. Between 2008 and 2017, police, under National, were allowed to exercise unprecedented judgment of their own right on regulations associated with all manner of things pertaining to firearms licensing, storage, and importation. Many of these changes, implemented carte blanche by police, were once again decried by the legitimate firearms community as afoul.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member please address the bill in front of the House. Interesting history—

Hon RON MARK: Yes. As I said—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: An interesting history, Mr Mark—

Hon RON MARK: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. I am actually speaking. Could you come to the topic of the bill.

Hon RON MARK: Yeah, I’m coming to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

Hon RON MARK: The point is that we have had successive pieces of legislation and this bill reflects the same misguided nonsense, where the speaker proposing the bill proclaims to be doing so to protect the public at large, but when one delves into the bill, one sees first that this has unintended consequences on legitimate firearms owners.

I’ll give you an example. So this bill makes it an offence by “Uncle Ron”, who takes into his charge a nephew who has been involved with a gang in a city—because the whānau decide that they’re going to send the nephew to live with “Uncle Ron”, who’s going to take him out deerstalking and pig hunting, teach him about firearms, get him into mountain climbing, get him into tramping to turn his life around. But because this bill makes it an offence for “Uncle Ron” to allow the young man to hold a .303 and shoot a deer, “Uncle Ron” won’t do it.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Don’t send him to “Uncle Ron”.

Hon RON MARK: We have many, many—ironically, Mr Mitchell—good programmes championed by the former Government in that space that actually sought to decriminalise and get young men out of that lifestyle of crime and into doing something productive and something constructive, and adjusting the way in which they see life and adjusting their respect for firearms and firearms law, and eventually getting them licensed as firearms owners. This bill seeks to make a criminal out of those instructors—many of whom are ex-police, Mr Mitchell; ex-police and ex-military—who have every reason and every qualification to be involved with these young people. But, oh no! These people are beyond redemption!

This bill, Mr Mitchell, does not attack the most dangerous; it attacks everybody. Worst of all, Mr Mitchell, when I hear the assurances that the police commissioner will sign off on a warrant or on a search of a house without a warrant, I only have to point to one thing. I was one of the MPs who stood up in this House and stood by the police decision in the Ureweras, because I trusted the police. I trusted the police to do their job properly. What did I see in the last term of the National Government? The National Government Ministers apologising to Māori for the raid on the Ureweras. So, Mr Mitchell, how do I, as a New Zealand First MP—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired—the time has expired.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What a ridiculous diatribe we just heard from that member who has just resumed his seat, Ron Mark. I apologise, from this side of the House, to the unfortunate people who were witnessing it—it’s bad enough to be in its presence. People with anger management issues—“Uncle Ron”—ought not to have a gun. The less said, the better. The Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill, however, there’s a lot to be said about.

I rise with pleasure to speak about this bill, which I think is a useful bill. I think that unlike some members opposite, on this side of the House we’re very well aware of people who have anger management issues—don’t look too far for those. But also, we have dangerous people in this country—600 of them alone would be eligible immediately for these firearms prohibition orders (FPOs)—because there are people who see themselves as beyond the law. They see themselves as not needing licences. These are people who have caused inestimable damage to homes, to families, to communities in New Zealand, and this bill is sensible. It’s a sensible amendment to the Arms Act. It involves provisions for scrutiny, including by the Commissioner of Police and also, beyond that, the courts. So the idea that it’s going to be misused somehow, or affect people who are innocent parties, I think, is an incorrect assessment, to put it mildly.

We were told by Minister Clark, who spoke earlier, that Minister Stuart Nash was working on a more holistic approach to organised crime. Now, what’s that? Labour-speak for another working group—another group of people who will sit back for several years and have a big talkfest and a big thinktank and then come up with absolutely nothing, and will have done nothing while bad people continue to roam the land with powerful firearms, terrorising communities. So we take a comprehensive approach with this bill, as a starting point—and I think it is a very good starting point—rather than looking at the never-never plans that the members opposite are involved with.

It’s very difficult to make any kind of sense of the angry individual that resumed his seat before. I guess one of the points that he was making was that the police didn’t want it, but we have heard from the sponsor of this bill that the Police Association are very much in favour of it. And, of course, Chris Bishop, who is the sponsor of this bill, was in the select committee inquiry into illegal firearms, and there were a number of issues, that he has been told about as a result of that inquiry, that have informed this bill. As the case has been made—and the point has been made by my other colleagues—the members opposite rail against the idea that there should be any diminution of the ability to get search warrants for these things, whereas they allowed it, happily, for National Animal Identification and Tracing tags not so long ago. So they’re prepared to make compromises, exceptions, contradictions completely—

Matt King: Tags but not guns!

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Tags but not guns, exactly, as my colleague Matt has said.

So when we look at the provisions of this bill and the changes that will have to occur, we have to have a Police Commissioner personally signing off on each order. These are the kinds of situations which are not going to be done on a whim and a fancy; they’re going to have to be very carefully thought through. And the ability to challenge it in the court, I think, gives us peace of mind that there will not be unintended consequences. I think that we’ve seen a lot of politics, really, emerge from the parties that have spoken so far about this in opposition to this bill—and it is politics. They haven’t got their own policies ready, they haven’t got their own legislation ready, and they are knocking a piece of legislation back in the hope that they can try and claim the whole ground on this, and they are letting opportunities pass them by.

This is a sensible measure. The 20 recommendations that were made by the select committee inquiry into illegal firearms have been carefully considered by Chris Bishop. The stand-down periods and so forth—implementing a 12-month stand-down period after a licence revocation rather than a blanket revocation—are a useful thing, and this is a recommendation that has been accepted and implemented. Reviewing the penalties of the Arms Act—it was as a result of that select committee inquiry and a result of reviewing the penalties that this bill has emerged. Determining appropriate security categories and standards for A licences is another important element that comes into play here.

So there is some very good, thoughtful reasoning that has gone in behind this bill. I think clarifying and publicising the extent of amnesty provisions in the Arms Act as well, and the police being able to improve the consultative processes with the firearms communities, are also measures that the select committee found that will be helped and enhanced by this bill. I think that the FPOs are long overdue. I think that they would be very useful, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise, and I will congratulate the member who’s had his bill pulled from the ballot. I’m sure it’s very exciting, but I do have to note that—

Chris Bishop: It is. It’s happened three times now—it’s great.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Well, congratulations, Mr Bishop. It’s been three times. Unfortunately, this particular time—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: We always thought you were a jammy prick!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ha, ha! Unfortunately, on this particular occasion, the bill does seem to be seeking to solve or address a problem that’s near non-existent based on the stats, and based on my 12 years working in the criminal justice system, at the front lines of the system that this bill will go on to be implemented in.

The police say that the instances of patched gang members being issued a firearms licence are “very rare”, and I do have to start with—and we should all come back to—the Arms Act 1983, which actually gives the power to any commissioned police officer to decline or revoke firearms licences if they are of the opinion that the person is not a fit and proper person to hold that licence. That includes looking at their previous convictions and other indications that they may be violent or erratic or improper, as the Act says, to hold a firearms licence.

So what are we adding here? What are we adding by talking about gangs? Could it be that we are just adding a little bit of what our justice system has been built on over the past nine years, which is knee-jerk reactions, oversimplifications, and drawing on a whole lot of prejudice? We’re not basing this justice policy on evidence. We’re not basing it on any actual need, even. We’re costing the taxpayer a whole lot more money in implementing this, whilst we should actually stop and admit that all this does is broaden the scope of instances where police can search someone without a warrant.

Warrantless searches—it’s a slippery slope, right? We already have a standard for assessing whether or not someone is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. What we’re doing now is we’re saying that police can stop people based on a mere suspicion, without having to get any judicial oversight, without having to meet the standards of our normal search warrants, which we have in our justice system because we believe in due process and we believe in people’s rights to be free from arbitrary search and seizure. We’re doing away with that, for what? Because in very rare instances, based on the police’s own report, there may be a patched gang member that holds a firearms licence.

Well, we all know that there are demographics attached to the kinds of people that get stopped and arbitrarily searched, the kinds of people who then get charged, the kinds of people who are sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment, and we have to look at who our criminal justice system targets disproportionately in that way—and it is young Māori men. So we’re making a marginalised group who’s already suffering—disproportionately imprisoned, disproportionately not accessing the kinds of things that they need to stay crime-free—more vulnerable to warrantless searches by the police, to arbitrarily being stopped and searched by association.

We don’t have guilt by association in New Zealand, for good reason, and it’s laws like this, it’s justice policies like this, that open up our communities to prejudice. Nothing in this bill will actually solve a problem that exists. Nothing in this bill will actually stop crime, committed by way of firearms or not. We’re just adding more knee-jerk reaction types of baseless justice policy to our system.

We on this side of the House are committed to bringing down the prison population, to actually addressing crime, to putting in funding not to stop people, not to constantly harass people on the street, not to make ourselves look tough on crime, but actually to address the causes of offending by putting that money into drug and alcohol addiction services, mental health services, and by investing in jobs, houses, and the stability of our communities. So the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill, because it really doesn’t address a live problem in our justice system; it creates more. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I’d like to start by congratulating the member Chris Bishop not only for drawing this bill but for actually bringing this bill in the first place, because I think it’s a very timely bill. While, obviously, I think the bill itself, in its make-up, may be lacking, the ideas and the issues that it brings to the fore are very timely.

What it does bring to the fore are two major issues, which not only affect law and order but affect New Zealand and, potentially, the future of many New Zealanders, and that’s the issue of firearms and the issue of organised crime. They come together, and this bill vaguely touches on both, but it actually highlights both.

I acknowledge my two fellow police officers over there, the Hon Mark Mitchell and, of course, Matt King, who is not yet “Hon”, but I’m sure it will happen one day. We all, as police officers, have seen the rise of gangs. We are all relatively the same age, and we saw those gangs start out as a group of thugs that were pretty disorganised and relatively unsophisticated and they terrorised. Their sphere of intimidation, as I like to call it, was relatively small. Their sphere of intimidation was in the area of if you wouldn’t report an offence they committed against you to the police, you were, essentially, within their sphere of intimidation. Unfortunately, that sphere of intimidation has increased considerably. It has increased considerably, mostly on the back of P.

So what we now have—and a piece of legislation like this may have been relevant when the two members opposite and myself were policing. It may have been useful when our gang members were the larrikins who were running around—although I do have to say that firearms in those days were quite tightly held because they were hard to get hold of. If you did have one, it was something of a prestige and you didn’t want to lose it, so you were unlikely to use it.

That situation has changed considerably, because as gangs grew in their sphere of intimidation to the sophistication we have today, where their sphere of intimidation is not only national but international—I could talk a lot longer about that, particularly with the rise of the Comanchero gang, which is mostly made up of deportees from Australia, who have added a whole ’nother dimension to gang offending in New Zealand.

But while that was happening, we also had something else that was happening. We had the Arms Act and the police who were supposed to be policing that Act, and, again, as both of those members will know, the police took their eye off the ball. They weren’t investing in policing that Act and, as a result, we have the proliferation of firearms we are seeing, where virtually every search warrant today results in a military-style semi-automatic (MSSA), and not just with gangs but with pretty much anyone connected with any sort of crime at all. So we’ve now got the clash of these two things coming together, and, again, that’s why I reflect on the fact that the bill does acknowledge that.

However, this bill is insufficient, and it won’t actually go anyway towards doing that, because that degree of sophistication has meant that the very people that it’s supposed to fix—I’ll just give you an example. I’m well aware that one of the major gangs in New Zealand, the Head Hunters, are seriously considering de-patching. They’re seriously considering making it so that they will not be known in the community. It will be very difficult to ascertain whether or not they are gang members, and that is a business decision. That is because, currently, it is actually bad for business to be seen to be intimidating, so the very bling that attracted, which actually was that intimidation factor—now, it is so inherent that they actually don’t need it. So whereas it may have been useful for those gangies, the gang-bangers that we used to chase around—it may have been effective in that day, but it will not be effective now.

So I will actually be opposing this, because the fear I have is that we’ll pass this piece of legislation and think we’ve actually done something that will make a difference. It won’t. It won’t make any difference at all, and, more importantly, what it will do is prevent us from doing what we must do. We’ve got to take some action. There are some ridiculously easy ways to get firearms.

Just today, in research for this, I found out that you get students who can go and join a pistol club in Auckland, who do the thing and go monthly, get a firearm, leave New Zealand after a year, and no one knows where the Glocks went. That’s the sort of thing that’s happening. That’s the sort of opportunity we missed a fix on. We had an inquiry into this in the last term—it will have to be fixed.

The other thing is there are people who come into New Zealand who buy a firearm and pay $25 for a licence with any documentation that proves they had some firearms licence in another country, which we can’t check. That person will actually then have a firearm. They leave the country a month later, and no one knows what’s happened to the firearm. This is the sort of thing we’ve got to fix.

So while, again, I congratulate the member for bringing this to the House, it is not enough and it is too late. We’re going to have to look at things much more deeply. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—I’m just going to make sure I get your full name correct—

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak and contribute on this very important bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate Chris Bishop for drawing his third bill within a very short period of time. There are members who have been waiting for a long, long time for their bill to be drawn, but he has got his third bill being debated.

This is a very important bill because the National Party always believes in law and order and is tough on law and order. We have done a lot in that area. I would like to touch, first of all—as the Minister speaking in reply, David Clark, mentioned—on the inquiry, and Chris Bishop also mentioned about the inquiry which was held in the last term of Parliament. I would like to read the recommendation which was made by the Law and Order Committee. It was: we recommend to the Government “that the Arms Act 1983 be amended to clearly state that a gang member or prospect must not be considered a fit and proper person to possess firearms and therefore must not hold a firearms licence.” So that was the recommendation. The majority of the recommendations made in that inquiry, the Government accepted.

The report back was done in April 2017, and the minority view by New Zealand First said, “Whilst the report recommends law changes to prohibit gangs from legally owning firearms, it does not provide information or recommendations on the adequacy of sentences given to a gang member and other criminals who commit offences involving illicit firearms.”

So that was a clear indication of what that inquiry did. I remember talking to the previous President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, and he was very concerned about this issue. Today, what we are hearing is that the Labour Party—and two of the members who were present in the inquiry were the Hon Stuart Nash and the Hon Ron Mark, who was speaking before a few other speakers, and who was angrily trying to narrate the history of what had happened. But they were part of this inquiry. They mentioned this, and this was the recommendation of the inquiry to the Government of the day—that they should consider this aspect.

Unfortunately, we were not the Government later on, but the Minister of Police at that time, the Hon Paula Bennett, accepted the majority of the recommendations, and they were to be implemented. But I congratulate, once again, Chris Bishop for picking up from that inquiry the one issue that was raised by the select committee and for bringing this bill to the House, and this bill was drawn. I can assure you that there was a lot of concern about the gangs having firearms, and that issue was raised not only by the Police Association but by some of the other people who were involved.

Here, I would also like to acknowledge the people who legally own the firearms. They are the law-abiding citizens, and the inquiry clearly mentioned that we are not trying to target the people who legally own the firearms or who are the licence holders. There are about 250,000 people who legally have got licences, and they are not the people to be targeted.

So I think this bill is very important. We should have this sent to the select committee, and I don’t know why there is opposition. We had another bill recently pass through this House, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, in which we gave the authority for a fisheries officer to do a search. Today, we are hearing from the Green Party and the Labour Party that we should not be giving any authority to the Commissioner of Police, who can authorise his officers to go and do a search. So how contrary it is that a fisheries officer can go and do any search, whereas, for a person who is holding firearms, we are not allowed to go and search their premises.

So I think this is totally hypocrisy of the Government, and they are not thinking it through seriously. I hope that they may consider supporting this bill.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the honourable member. I’ve just heard a statement. I seek leave to make a personal statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you need to give the House a bit of an indication of what that might be about.

Hon RON MARK: The personal statement is in relation to a comment to statements made by the former speaker Mr Bakshi about what I did on that select committee, which are totally inaccurate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to make a personal statement about his actions on a select committee inquiry. Any objection to that?

Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just for the record, the honourable member Mr Bakshi has just made a statement that I was on that select committee inquiry and, by dint, that I supported the recommendations. What the member did not say was that I voted against the findings of that inquiry and against the overwhelming majority of its recommendations because I and New Zealand First thought they were stupid.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can certainly take a point of order, but we’re not going to have an argument. The member’s sought leave to make a personal statement; he’s made that. That’s where the matter rests.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I said that there was a minority view of New Zealand First. A minority view is normally against the report, so that was my—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s right. That’s finished.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Congratulations to Mr Bishop for having this bill drawn. Unfortunately, it really is a low-calibre bill. If you want to see a report that has some merit to it, have a look at the Attorney-General’s report.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right—a law professor.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s exactly right. This report tells us why we should not support this bill. This Government is absolutely targeting crime—crime is in our sights—but we won’t be doing it by trammelling the rights of other people. Now, this makes it quite clear that there are two fundamental rights which this bill does not respect. And it’s not that they’re trammelled a little bit; they’re absolutely overridden. Firstly: freedom of association. Now, no one’s suggesting that we shouldn’t be hard on gangs, but this half-cocked response doesn’t work. What we have here is an approach which utterly undermines the freedom of association in an entirely disproportionate way by having a presumption, and an ability of the police to swoop in without notice. And—not me—the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the Crown, tells us that it’s an unjustified infringement of human rights.

So it’s time that we bite the bullet and we recognise that this is not an appropriate piece of legislation. And what’s more, much more concerning is the erosion of the presumption of innocence, because as we all know—or as Mr Bishop, at least, should know, straight-shooter that he is—that in the principal Act, there’s a presumption that a weapon on a premises is in the possession of any person on that premises. Along with this piece of legislation, this has an imprisonment term of up to 14 years, leads to a presumption of guilt, of a breach of a firearm prohibition order. That kind of reversal of onus is utterly, utterly wrong; especially when it’s got a serious penalty such as that. This is really just a shot in the dark. Mr Bishop should have kept his powder dry and waited for another day.

The fact of the matter is that there is already a rigorous screening application for any applicant for a firearms licence. We have here prohibition orders where people have been found guilty of domestic violence offences. Well, that is already part of the screening process. The fact of the matter is that this bill is not needed. It’s entirely disproportionate. It isn’t a silver bullet for a problem. It targets people and gives unwarranted powers. It really is just a shot in the dark, a hair-trigger response.

So what we should be doing is a careful review of the Arms Act, yes—but not just shooting from the hip with this short response, which really targets people quite inappropriately. If we look at the Act itself, we’ll see that it rests largely on the opinions of commissioned officers. And that’s not of commissioned officers of the police. We don’t want unfettered discretion, and the police don’t want unfettered discretion. What they want are clear rules.

So the fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation, whilst well intentioned, is poorly thought-out. Absolutely, we want to be hard on gangs. We want to make sure that in so far as they are a vehicle for criminal offending, we want to address that. We absolutely want to control where—as my friend Greg O’Connor identified, we want to identify where arms are, and we want to control their use. But this bill is not how we go about it. It’s disproportionate; it’s poorly thought-out; and there’s no rational connection between what is does and the effect it seeks to achieve. And that is why we should get rid of it, lock, stock, and barrel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I’m going to award you the prize for the greatest puns.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, they were very good puns, but that was a truly terrible speech by Dr Duncan Webb. In fact, the performance of the Government members in the House tonight so far has been lamentable, absolutely lamentable. We have a Government party or Government members who have a police Minister who talks up and down the country about smashing the gangs, and when the National Opposition puts up a sensible bill supported by the police, by a parliamentary select committee, and supported by the New Zealand Police Association, what do we have? Well, we hear nothing but opposition. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Let’s go through the grab-bag of reasons that the members opposite have offered up so far. First of all, we hear “Well, the police don’t support it.” Well, it was interesting, because I asked David Clark, who was standing in for Stuart Nash, to table that, and he refused. So we’ll just wait and see. We’ll send an Official Information Act request in. We’ll have a look at that as to whether or not the police really did advise him to vote against this bill, because we know the police actually recommended to the incoming Minister, Stuart Nash, that a firearms prohibition order regime be developed. They may have a few issues with the wording around this. That’s why you send bills to select committee—to tidy them up. So that deals with that.

Then we have this issue with warrantless searches, and I’ve got to say that we on this side of the House find this comical, because it was only a month ago that the Government turned up here and rammed a bill through all stages under urgency, to put in place warrantless searches on farms. So let’s get this straight: warrantless searches are OK to check cows on farms, but beyond the pale when it comes to going into gang members’ houses and checking whether or not they have illegal sawn-off shotguns. Let’s just say that again. Warrantless searches: all good for cows on farms in rural New Zealand. But for police going into houses occupied by violent gang members to check whether or not they’ve got illegal firearms: beyond the pale, a breach of the human rights, we couldn’t possibly countenance this. Good to know where Labour’s priorities are. Warrantless searches for cows, not for gang members.

Then we have this argument that we need a holistic approach. I love this holistic approach. Let me tell you how the holistic approach to the firearms review is going. Stuart Nash said, after he became the Minister, “There will be a review.” Then in March he said, “I’ve started a review.” We’re in September, and guess what? The scope of the review has not yet been clarified—six months later. This is a guy totally out of his depth in the portfolio. We’re a year in. They’re doing a review. Greg O’Connor talked about it. Duncan Webb said it’s the panacea—it’s the answer to everything. They haven’t even started the review yet. Well, we on this side of the House wait with bated breath to see how the review goes. But you can’t just say we need a holistic approach and deny good ideas on that basis.

Hon Judith Collins: Ginny Andersen wanted it.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s right; Ginny Andersen wanted it apparently, according to Judith. I want to talk about “Uncle Ron’s” speech, because I have never heard such a diatribe of rubbish in Parliament. It was literally like “Uncle Ron” turns up and, you know, “I’ve been in Parliament since 1996, and I’m ‘Mr Firearms-lover’, and, you know, I know everything there is to know about firearms, and I’m going to spend four minutes talking about all the various attempts to reform the Arms Act.” He could not mount an argument against the bill. He wanted to talk a lot about how he is the friend of the firearms lobby. Good for him. It was just a rant. It was embarrassing.

Then on the counter we have Golriz Ghahraman, who said, “There’s no problem here. Why are we even talking about this? There’s no issue with illegal firearms in New Zealand. There’s no problem with gang members having access to illegal firearms and using them to create terror out on the streets of New Zealand.” In Golriz Ghahraman’s world—you know, frankly, it’s a pretty strange world, but in her world there’s no issue, nothing to see here, move along, there’s no need for this bill. To be fair, we did not hear that from Greg O’Connor. He’s got his head screwed on slightly more straight than Golriz Ghahraman.

So, look, the reality is very simple. There is a problem with illegal firearms out there in society. In fact, there was a two-year select committee inquiry, which my friend Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi chaired, which found exactly that. So I suggest to the honourable member from the Greens that she go and read that report.

This is a good bill. It is not perfect. No bills at first reading are. It should go to a select committee. I never thought I would see the day that Mr Stuart “Smash the Gangs” Nash would vote against a bill to actually do just that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 64

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

Motion not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57, Noes 63.

Bills

Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move, That the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

It is a privilege to rise and introduce this significant and timely bill to the House. A study by the Automobile Association published in June of this year showed that drug-impaired drivers are now involved in more fatal crashes on our roads than drink-drivers. This bill introduces random roadside drug-testing, and will provide the police with the power to test any driver, any rider, or any supervised licence holder at any time, and it fits neatly into Minister Genter’s ambitious target of zero road fatalities. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that motorists who take drugs and drive can be easily detected at the roadside and penalised accordingly. The law currently stipulates that it is a driver’s responsibility and duty to be mentally and physically fit when they drive a motor vehicle on public roads, and this includes not being impaired by alcohol or drugs.

This bill is about saving lives, saving family and friends from the grief of losing a loved one, preventing serious injuries, and preventing destroyed lives, and it forms part of the solution in how our society tackles the complacency of some who use drugs and then drives. The random drug-testing of drivers will be similar to our already existing random breath-testing for alcohol.

In 1969, the first alcohol breathalyser—imagine what that looked like—was introduced in New Zealand. In its first year of operation, 2,928 drivers were tested with this new gadget. Only 214 were deemed sober enough to drive. New Zealand had a serious drink-driving culture and it was not uncommon for our drivers to engage in this dangerous and high-risk behaviour. In 1978, the legal blood-alcohol limit was lowered and evidential breath-testing was introduced. In 1979, there was a substantial drop in the New Zealand road fatality statistic. Now, not all the road safety success can be attributed to random breath-testing for alcohol. But this new testing and road safety education, coupled with compulsory seatbelts for children, changed the New Zealand road safety record significantly. In 1996, New Zealand ran a very successful advertising campaign featuring the slogan “If you drink and drive, you’re a bloody idiot.” New Zealand’s road fatality for 1996 was 515, which was the lowest number in 32 years. Education and awareness are key elements in changing culture.

Over time, I think we can all agree, the impact on society of random roadside alcohol-testing, combined with the targeted education campaigns, has had a profound effect on the safety of our roads. The aim of this drug-driving bill is to have a similar outcome: to save lives. My hope is that by engaging the community in a highly visible drug-driving campaign reinforced by this new deterrent of a random roadside drug-test, similar to our alcohol testing, people will think before getting behind the wheel. It is time for us to work together towards changing a culture of indifference by those that use drugs and then drive.

The incidence of drug-driving in New Zealand is startling. The recent study by the Automobile Association in June found 79 drivers who were involved in fatal crashes last year tested positive for drugs, compared to 70—70—who were above the legal alcohol limit. So this is the first time that drugs have overtaken alcohol in this statistic. In 2013, the number of drug-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes was just 14—14—compared with the 53 that were intoxicated with alcohol. The numbers of the drug-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes has steadily increased since 2013. In 2015, it was reported that 47 percent of people who are casual users of drugs drive. So almost half of casual users of drugs drive. A survey of the effect of drugs on driver behaviour undertaken by the New Zealand Drug Foundation in 2009 found that two-thirds of cannabis users, nearly half of methamphetamine users, and a quarter of Ecstasy users reported driving under the influence.

But these statistics are not a complete surprise. The issue has been bubbling away in our communities for years, and all sides of the House have previously acknowledged it as a problem. It is time now to take action and to instigate change. Our police need access to stronger and more visible drug-driving enforcement measures. We need to change the drug culture as we did with drink-driving all those years ago.

Currently, if police have reasonable cause—and they must have reasonable cause—to suspect a driver of being impaired by drugs, they can ask the person to complete a behavioural test such as walking heel to toe in a straight line and turning and standing on one leg. I’m not joking—that is the test. Finally, failing that test—that non-scientific, archaic test—the driver must then complete a blood test.

This bill will allow a trained police officer to stop and drug test any driver who’s driving a motor vehicle, motorbike, truck, or bus, without first needing to determine reasonable cause to suspect that the driver had used drugs. The bill allows for the testing of the presence of three types of drugs in oral fluid. The three drugs named in the bill are THC, methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine—Ecstasy—and methamphetamine. These drugs impact the skill and judgment required for safe driving.

In my discussions with others across the House and across community groups, I’ve been pleased to find that there is strong support for this bill. Positive and constructive suggestions or changes to the bill have already been made to me, and I welcome these discussions—get them into the select committee process. Questions like: should the testing include a wider range of drugs? Is there better technology currently available? For example, I’m made aware of technology that allows sweat to be tested from the palm of one’s hand. Then the question is, if the drug is detected, is there a tolerance level that is appropriate or acceptable—similar to our allowable limits for alcohol. Should there be an allowable limit for drugs for driving? I hope that these questions, challenges, and opportunities for improvement will be explored in the select committee stage.

In many of our workplaces nowadays we test for drugs due to safety concerns—for example, when operating heavy machinery, forklifts, chainsaws, and processing equipment. We all understand and accept that notion that we need to keep people safe at work, free from drug-affected colleagues. But we don’t yet have an effective drug-testing regime to ensure we are all safer on our roads.

Of course, the introduction of random roadside drug-testing alone will not stop drug-driving. However, this bill, alongside—you would have noticed—recent and very good anti - drug-driving advertising campaigns, will increase awareness and send a strong message to the public that it is not OK to take drugs and drive. It is time that drug-drivers think twice before getting behind the wheel.

The intention of this bill is not to be an anti - drug use piece of legislation; it’s about road safety, education, and compelling those who use drugs to stay off the road. I believe in the strength of our legislative development process, and I’m certain that the final Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill legislation that is passed will go a long way in combating drug-driving.

This bill will directly address the growing incidences of drug-driving - related accidents and fatalities. The current law and enforcement measures do not effectively deter drug users from driving while impaired. If drug users think twice and are deterred from driving by the fear of detection, we will save lives. Roadside drug-testing of drivers is justified in the interests of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. I thank all of those who have contributed and commented positively. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Alastair Scott has identified a serious problem, but in the view of Labour members—and we’ll be making the case through this debate—his solution falls well short of the level that we would need to see in order to support this bill to select committee. There is no question that drug impairment on our roads is a serious threat to the life and limb of New Zealanders as they travel to and from work and around this country. But the random roadside drug-testing regime that Alastair Scott proposes with this bill we believe has a number of flaws that make it implausible and impractical.

The bill amends the Land Transport Act by introducing a regime for detecting drug-driving in relation to just three drugs: THC, MDMA—that’s Ecstasy—and methamphetamine, by allowing for random oral fluid testing by police officers. There is no question, let me repeat, that drug-driving is a serious problem that requires action, but we want to see an effective measure in response to that. We would support a change to legislation if it was required and if the technology exists and was reliable enough and proven to allow roadside testing in a timely, efficient, and reliable way. That technology does not currently exist.

This bill attempts to solve a problem with measures that we believe are inadequate. The tests are slow. They are expensive, at $45 a test. They identify only three types of drugs, and this is the critical point: they only detect the presence of the drug; they have nothing to say about impairment. I want to come to the advice from the Attorney-General about that, because that is the major flaw in Alastair Scott’s bill, where it falls short.

I want to point out that the Hon Stuart Nash and the Hon Julie Anne Genter, the police Minister and associate transport Minister with responsibility for safety, are working on this issue. They have work under way. We are confident, on this side of the House, that they will come up with something that is comprehensive and effective, unlike this bill.

Alastair Scott reports in his comments that about a third of road deaths involve someone with drugs in their system, often mixed with alcohol. But he doesn’t elaborate on whether that person caused the incident or whether they were adversely affected by drugs at the time. This is a case of policy-based evidence-making. We prefer to do that in reverse and base our policy and our legislation on actual evidence. We do take drug harm very seriously in the Labour Party. We are committed to comprehensively responding to the Law Commission’s report on controlling and regulating drugs, a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and we are committed to replacing the current Misuse of Drugs Act. Support for this bill is not some kind of litmus test for serious commitment to drug reform.

So what are the problems with this bill? Well, the first is that the oral tests that are currently being marketed that would be used to administer the test under Alastair Scott’s bill are both expensive and unreliable. False positives are very likely to undermine the credibility of the regime and undermine the public confidence in the way that the police are required to—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Send it to select committee.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —administer this regime. I’ve already said, Dr Smith, we believe this bill falls well short of the quality that would be expected if we were going to send it off to select committee and spend a significant amount of taxpayer public resources in giving scrutiny to this bill. It just doesn’t get over the line.

The other critical thing is that the roadside saliva-testing devices can take between three and five minutes to produce a result. I ask the members in the House tonight to imagine a random testing regime—the equivalent of a booze bus—on some busy highway stopping people and subjecting them, with no prior reasonable cause to believe that they are impaired, to a test that takes three to five minutes, when members know that currently with alcohol testing it is a few seconds. The test literally takes a few seconds, and people are on their way again. I ask Alastair Scott to consider how New Zealanders will feel when they are randomly stopped on the highway—they’re going about their business, and they are made to stop for five minutes or when there’s no prior cause, no reason to believe that they are impaired in any way, and then they are stacked up on the side of the road—dozens and dozens of people—waiting for their results to come through. I don’t think he’s thought that through at all. Maybe the member, when he makes his return contribution, will tell us, on an average day on a highway New Zealand, how many people are likely to actually be under the influence of drugs on the highway.

Alastair Scott: That’s your reason not to do it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I’m saying, Mr Scott, is that you might say there are large numbers of people who are involved in accidents who turn out to be drug impaired, but the actual percentage of people who are on the highway who would be picked up by a random testing regime is actually likely to be very low. For all I know, it could easily be 1 percent or 2 percent. So that member is happy to subject those people to an expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable random testing regime—it’s completely impractical. I just don’t think the member has thought this through.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the comments made by the Attorney-General in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice. He points to clause 12 in the bill, which introduces a power for an enforcement officer to require a driver to undergo a compulsory oral fluid test. The Attorney-General, basically, subjects Alastair Scott’s bill to three tests. The first is consistency with section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act, “the right to be secure against unreasonable search [and] seizure”, and in the view of the Attorney-General, the bill’s policy statement “does not address how effective the current drug driving detection regime is, or whether random oral fluid testing will in fact introduce a more effective regime.” Well, that’s worrying, for a start.

He goes on to say, “there are inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure [that these] powers are exercised in a reasonable manner … Without statutory safeguards or any other guidelines, the oral fluid test provided for by the bill does not appear fit for this evidential purpose.” For those reasons, the Attorney-General considers that “the requirement to undergo one or more compulsory random oral fluid tests … is inconsistent with s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act.”, which provides for the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

He then goes on to look at the provision in the Bill of Rights Act which provides for the right to not be arbitrarily detained and, again, says that “an enforcement officer may use this power [under Alastair Scott’s bill] without … any cause to suspect that a person has consumed a specified drug. Once detained, I understand”—he says—“the test could take up to five minutes if undertaken at the roadside or significantly longer if the person is required to accompany the officer to another place to undergo the test.” The Attorney-General concludes that the bill is disproportionate and “may lead to a warrantless arrest if [the] person fails to comply.” So it fails on section 22 of the Bill of Rights Act.

It also fails on section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act, “the right to be presumed innocent until [proven] guilty”. So without adequate procedural safeguards and any requirement for due cause, the Attorney-General considers that “the process of conducting the oral fluid test constitutes both an unreasonable search and seizure and an arbitrary detention.” So the Attorney-General’s concerns, based on the Bill of Rights Act, perfectly mirror the practical concerns about this test. It’s a random testing regime based on a technology that is unreliable, expensive, and time-consuming, completely disproportionate to the possible gain to be achieved through the random testing regime.

In our view, this bill falls well short of the standard that we would expect for a bill that we would support to go to select committee. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I know it’s been a very challenging day for the Government, but that speech from the Minister of Transport was another example of a Government that has already lost its way. That’s the guy who’s been up and down the country for months trying to sell himself as the great saviour for road safety in New Zealand. He’s literally moved billions of dollars of funding within the transport sector and sold it all as a big road safety campaign on behalf of the Government, but when it comes to the opportunity for them to stand up in this House and actually vote for something to do with road safety—[Minister Twyford leaves Chamber] goodbye, Phil—they’re found wanting. They’re opposed to it. They don’t like the idea of people and the police having the ability to detect when people are taking drugs. They don’t like the idea of the police being able to enforce drug laws on the road. They should seriously be looking at themselves and how they’re voting here tonight.

I actually think Stuart Nash should be taking a call, because Stuart Nash was quite wise on this issue only a couple of years ago. In Opposition a couple of years ago, Stuart Nash was a champion for roadside oral testing. He was a champion for doing the right thing. He now has an opportunity to vote for it. Back in 2016, Stuart Nash was in the media—up in lights. He was called a huge supporter of random oral roadside testing. He even said that if technology exists to allow for this type of roadside testing in a timely, efficient, and reliable way, we should be looking at it. Well, here’s the opportunity, Labour Party. It’s time to look at it. It should be sent to a select committee so it can be looked at.

Now, Phil Twyford has some issues. He has some concerns. That’s fine; that happens with just about every piece of legislation. What’s the solution to it? Send it to a select committee to look at. If they were on this side of the House, and they had a member’s bill on an issue, they would be up on their hind legs whining and whinging, hoping that it would go to a select committee, pleading for it to go to a select committee so it could be looked at, but go over there into Government, they completely change their tune.

This isn’t unusual from this Government though. The very first piece of transport legislation that ended up in the House just after the election was a carryover of a maritime piece of legislation that we had. The Government picked up our law and they were progressing it, but they made one change to it: they removed from that Maritime Transport Amendment Bill—this was Julie Anne Genter as the Minister in charge of it—the ability for random drug tests to be undertaken. They sent a message back then that, in the maritime industry, in that part of transport, they didn’t care if people were in charge of ships and they were drugged up. They took that random testing out of the bill.

Now we get into an even more serious issue where, potentially, police would have the opportunity to detect people on the road who are drugged up and not able to drive a car safely. When the Parliament can give police the power to be able to test for that, they don’t want to support it.

This is a very simple bill. It’s not hard. It’s very clear. The bill, in the change in new section 11B, set out in clause 5, says, “A person must not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while that person’s oral fluid contains evidence of the use of a specified drug.” What are those specified drugs: MDMA—Ecstasy; methamphetamine—we know what that is; THC—cannabis. The Labour Party, in voting against this today, is, effectively, saying to New Zealanders that they are happy with people driving on our roads with those drugs in their system. They’re saying to the police too, they don’t trust them to be able to carry out properly roadside oral fluid testing.

In fact, the arguments the Minister made tonight were the very same arguments that people would have been making against breath-alcohol testing decades ago. If Phil Twyford was in charge of laws back in the time when breath-alcohol testing was coming in, he probably could have made those same arguments. I’m sure they were made in this Parliament. I’m sure people up and down the country said, “Oh, we don’t want this to happen. We don’t think it’s necessary.” Well, that change in legislation has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives in the decades since it was passed. Here’s an opportunity to do the same when it comes to drug testing.

In the last year, more fatal crashes involved people with drugs in their system than involved people with alcohol in their system. That tells us that this is an issue, and the police—if they go and talk to their local constabulary—will tell them that this is an issue police care about and New Zealanders care about. Here’s an opportunity for the Parliament to do the right thing. Alastair Scott’s put forward a proposal that even Stuart Nash supports. We support this. We support the police to do a good job, and I just wish the Labour Party would fulfil their rhetoric around transport safety and actually vote for this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Lees-Galloway.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Iain Lees-Galloway. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. Ha, ha!

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have a first name. Thank you. That was an interesting call from the member Jami-Lee Ross. When one picks up the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill off the Table, the member whose name this bill is in is interesting. I understand that the bill was actually drawn from the ballot in the name of the member Jami-Lee Ross and he subsequently transferred it to Alastair Scott, perhaps in an effort to give Mr Scott something to do—I don’t know. I predict that this bill will fail, in the same way I predict that Mr Scott is likely to fail at the next election, as well. Anyway, I thank Mr Ross for contributing to the debate, as he appears to be the author of this piece of legislation.

I would make a second observation, and that is that if this was a simple matter to address, I am quite certain that the previous Government would have addressed it in its nine long years in Government. Everybody knows that the National Party is more conservative on these issues, and had it the opportunity to legislate to introduce a comprehensive and effective form of roadside oral testing—or any other form of testing, for that matter—for people driving under the influence of the drugs listed in this legislation, it would have done so. It would have. I have that much faith. I don’t have a huge amount of faith in the National Party, but I have sufficient faith to believe that had there been a regime that could stand up to scrutiny, that could be introduced by this Parliament or by a Government, the National Party in Government would have done so. They didn’t.

Kieran McAnulty: Why?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because there is no such regime, and the technology has not sufficiently changed over the last 10 months for this Parliament to confidently introduce such a regime. And I know that the member in charge of this bill, whether it be Jami-Lee Ross or whether it be Alastair Scott, knows that, and that the National Party is simply attempting to play politics with this matter.

Now, members will know—members who have been in this House for as long as I have will know—that I am a progressive on drug law matters. I do not believe that prohibition works. It doesn’t work for alcohol, and it doesn’t work for a range of other drugs. But members will also know this: that I have no truck with anybody who drives under the influence of a mind-altering substance. I introduced a member’s bill to reduce the drink-driving limit. Shortly after that, the National Government introduced a bill to do the same thing; that’s a good thing. This Parliament legislated to reduce the alcohol limit for driving, and that was a good thing. Likewise, I have no time for anyone who knowingly drives under the influence of cannabis, MDMA, methamphetamine, or any other drug, for that matter. If we had a simple solution for testing for those things, I would support that, and this Government would support that. But at the moment there is no test which stands up to any scrutiny, and I know that the member in charge of this bill knows that.

This is not a matter that ought to be dealt with piecemeal through a member’s bill. This is a matter that this Government takes seriously. Now, let’s look at the situation that this Government inherited: a rising death toll on the road. For decades, the road toll was falling. Under the previous Government, the road toll began to rise again. That is a sad indictment of that Government’s approach to road safety, and it is something that this Government is absolutely committed to reversing. I know that Stuart Nash and Julie Anne Genter take the road death toll seriously, and they’re doing everything in their power to reverse the detrimental trend that developed under that previous Government. So we oppose this bill, but we oppose it because we believe in evidence-based policy, and we believe in reducing the road toll—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill. We will not be supporting this bill. There is a very good number of reasons for this, and I will use the next 4½ minutes to lecture the National Party on just how wrong they are and how self-righteous they are sitting there. I don’t want to repeat the entire speech of the previous member that just sat down, Iain Lees-Galloway, but they had nine years—nine years—to put any sort of legislation in to curb not only the drug-driving issues. We understand that it is an issue—it is an issue—but also the drink-driving fatality crashes in this country.

Now, that member who was the author of this bill, or who’s looking after this bill at this stage and presented it to the House, Alastair Scott, quoted some figures, and what he failed to mention was that those figures started from 2013, and they went up and up and up and up—both for drug-driving and drink-driving. So why now? Why has that member—and I’m sure that he’ll use his last five-minute call to explain exactly why the National Party didn’t do anything when they were in Government.

I’d just like to read the purpose of the bill first. The purpose of the bill is “to introduce a more effective regime for detecting drug driving in relation to THC, MDMA, … methamphetamine, by allowing for random oral fluid testing by enforcement officers.” It’s most important to understand that no member in this House or any party in this House disagrees with that purpose. Every single person in this House does not agree, I would suggest, with anyone driving with any sort of impairment. That member, when he stood up and read his first speech said that this bill was about saving lives. If any Parliament was going to vote on any piece of legislation that was going to save lives, of course we would—just like that member would have in the previous nine years if his Government actually had come up with the programme that he’s saying will actually save lives. If it did, then why didn’t National do it?

I think it’s vitally important also to have a look at the attitudes and the advances, or lack thereof, of National and some of the facts that National had to deal with over the last nine years and some of the statements that they made. The report from the Minister of Transport, and there was a report around drug-driving, was originally given to the previous National Government who repeatedly declined to include saliva testing—repeatedly declined.

Hon Maggie Barry: What’s this got to do with the bill?

DARROCH BALL: Would that member want to ask that question again? What has this got to do with the bill? You mean what I’m talking about—drug saliva testing. You see that member doesn’t like it when it’s turned around on the National Party and the facts are laid bare. The facts are laid bare that that member and National didn’t do anything about it when they were in Government. Lack of funding from the National Government contributed to a reduction of more than 40 percent in roadside alcohol testing—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but I do think the member has a point. Would you discuss the bill. Would the member discuss the bill.

DARROCH BALL: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m talking about the road toll. Now if that doesn’t have anything to do with this bill, I’m not sure what does.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, no—just talking about the road toll isn’t discussing the bill. If you relate it to the bill then that’s perfectly fine.

DARROCH BALL: In 2013, Simon Bridges told reporters that accurate testing methods needed to be identified before random roadside drug testing could be introduced—2013. It was included in the Safer Journeys Action Plan—the two-year one. That means that it was ready to do in 2015 and there were no changes whatsoever from National.

There has been a massive increase—like that member has spoken about—in the drug-driving fatality accidents since 2015 from 14 to 79 in 2017. Why wasn’t anything done? Why wasn’t anything done?

Alastair Scott: Let’s do it now.

DARROCH BALL: That member says, “Why don’t we do it now?” The reason why we are not voting for this piece of legislation is because, although we agree with the purpose, it will not fulfil its expectations. It will not, and this Government is working hard to come up with those solutions that we will be bringing to this House. We agree with the intent. We agree with the purpose, but this bill will not achieve what it sets out to achieve. We will not be supporting it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I do apologise. We haven’t got a motion on the floor, so the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill at its first reading and I congratulate the sponsoring member, Alastair Scott, for doing so much hard work in putting this bill together. I think it’s a very good piece of legislation and we unhesitatingly support it on this side of the House because we believe in getting things done. We don’t bellow and point and puff ourselves up like we’ve got something important to say—Mr Lees-Galloway and “Mr Whatever His Name Was” from New Zealand First who seemed to be perpetually angry tonight, but one can understand that. If one was in that party, you’d be perpetually angry. That’s their default position.

But this is a good piece of legislation. Why? Because it’s needed: 79 fatal crashes involved a driver with drugs in their system. These are issues that need to be addressed now, not in the never-never when Labour puts out its 150-something committee or extra group to examine it. Have some ideas of their own, get on with it.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Nine long years.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So get on with it, Lees-Galloway, instead of bellowing like a puffball from the other side.

Let’s have a look at what people who actually know what they’re doing say: the Automobile Association (AA); the Police Association; the Minister of Police, Stuart Nash on a good day, which happens every now and again; the Ministry of Transport; and the New Zealand Transport Agency all support this bill. Stuart Nash did say, “If technology exists to allow for this type of roadside testing in a timely, efficient, reliable way, we should be looking at it.” Maybe his colleagues should listen to him. The AA have called drug-driving a silent killer. This is an issue that’s been around for a long time. There have been a lot of logistical problems in getting it to the point where this legislation is taking it and it will take it to the point where it will prevent accidents. Ninety-five percent of AA members in the organisation surveys support introducing saliva-based drug-testing. It would seem that most people do, except Labour.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.