Thursday, 13 September 2018

THURSDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2018

THURSDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the third readings of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, and the bills divided from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. The Maritime Powers Extension Bill and the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill will also progress. The Education Amendment Bill (No 2) will receive its first reading. Wednesday, 19 September will be a members’ day.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder if the Leader of the House could be so kind as to assure the House that appropriate Ministers will be here for each of those bills’ readings?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): To the best of my ability, I will certainly endeavour to ensure that Ministers who can answer relevant questions regarding those bills are in the chair, where there is a committee stage, or Ministers who can speak knowledgably to the bill are there for first, second, or third readings.

Points of Order

Tabling of Documents—Privileges Complaint

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table my complaint to yourself, dated 16 August, with respect to the privileges issues over the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and your response that came through to me late last evening, so that it can be a matter of public record.

SPEAKER: Well, it can be a matter of public record if the member gives it to anyone, but I will put the leave to the House. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is objection. [Interruption] No, I have visitors and I’m going to deal with them now, thank you.

Visitors

Morocco—Speaker of the House of Representatives

SPEAKER: I welcome the Rt Hon Habib El Malki, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Kingdom of Morocco, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery, and accord the Speaker a seat to my left.

[Applause]

Points of Order

Privilege—Referral to Privileges Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Is this a matter to do with questions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It’s a matter to do with the privileges complaint that I raised earlier as a point of order.

SPEAKER: And we will deal with that at the end of question time.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Employment Relations Amendment Bill—Government Support

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in their context.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Labour-led Government support the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that was approved by Cabinet as it is currently written?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, after 25 years of MMP, we expect members of Parliament to come here understanding the lexicon and language of MMP. That’s number one—it’s a coalition between the Labour Party and New Zealand First with support agreement from the Green Party. Having got that out of the way, can I just say that the bill is progressing successfully and it will pass in the fullness of time.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can he confirm the Employment Relations Amendment Bill has already been approved by Cabinet?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The bill was approved by Cabinet for introduction, of course, but it has a parliamentary process to go through, and I would have thought members over there understood roughly what the process is. There will be a second reading, there will be a committee of the full House looking at it, and it will go into a third reading. Only then will it become legislation.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it’s her expectation that the Government listen and Ministers listen to the select committee process and the feedback that members of the public give in a select committee process; and is that a change from what New Zealanders might be used to through the select committee process?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can answer on behalf of the Prime Minister that listening and paying attention to the public is something that the Government parties do to a fault, and we want to go on encouraging them to do that—listening to what the public have got to say, rather than having the arrogant view that they service a little elite out there of about 2 percent of the population.

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the question or the answer given just then, but I found it extremely difficult to actually hear that question being answered, and I wonder if the people back home actually had the same issue because there was so much noise coming from the Opposition benches.

SPEAKER: I note the member’s comment. I think it’s fair to say that some of the noise came at a point where I should probably have stopped the Leader of House in his questioning, because it was a question which invited an attack on the Opposition, which in itself is out of order.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wondered whether that applied to the Education Amendment Bill, where the member denied members—

SPEAKER: Order! No—hiding down there doesn’t mean that the member gets away. I think the member does know that that point of order was disorderly and she will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of the previous question and answer from the Prime Minister, can she confirm that the Labour-led Government unanimously voted for the bill at select committee and the bill has now been prepared for a second reading, and do they know how they will vote for it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that member will not conform to the proper language of an MMP environment. We do not intend to answer her mindless questions. She knows full well the construction. We can handle it. That’s why we’re here and that’s why they’re over there, because they just don’t grasp what the new environment looks like.

Hon Paula Bennett: In light of the previous question and in light of the previous answer, will the Winston Peters - led Government, unanimously vote—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That was deliberately disorderly, and the National Party will lose two supplementaries as a result of it.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does the Government support the Employment Relations Amendment Bill as it is currently written and has been reported back to the House?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say on behalf of the Prime Minister that the governing parties always supported that legislation, but they were always mindful of the fact that there was a select committee process to go through and that we have a—

Hon Paula Bennett: It’s been reported back and your party voted for it.

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, we’re not going to have a drive to the bottom of the moronic abyss that that member wants us to go to. We are talking about the process of a full committee of the House, and then on to the third reading. That’s what’s being targeted. That’s what we’ll do.

KiwiBuild—Targets and Impact

2. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. And acknowledging Hindi Language Week: namaste shrimaan sabha pati ji. Mera sawal Housing and Urban Development mantra ke liye hain. My question is to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, and reads: what progress has he made towards the Government’s target for building KiwiBuild homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Namaste shrimaan sabha pati ji. This morning, I announced that the ballot for 25 stylish apartments in Onehunga will open next week in the first KiwiBuild development under the buying off the plans initiative. The architecturally designed apartments will be built to high specifications to minimise ongoing maintenance costs and maximise living space. They are available to eligible KiwiBuild buyers—six studio apartments priced from $380,000, 12 one-bedroom apartments priced from $490,000, and seven two-bedroom apartments priced at $600,000.

SPEAKER: Before I take the supplementary, I just want to tell Mr King that probably the fact that he interjected loudly drew my attention to the fact that he appears to be eating his lunch. You’re not allowed to eat in the House.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: When will these homes be completed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Construction on these homes started today. The ballot opens next week, and they’re due to be completed in August 2019.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What did the developer say about how KiwiBuild accelerates the construction of affordable homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, Shane Brealey from NZ Living said this morning that KiwiBuild enabled him to get under way faster and with reduced costs. KiwiBuild has allowed this development to go from land purchase to construction in just two months, when it would normally take at least six months.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has KiwiBuild reduced the costs of the developments and the purchase price of homes by first-home buyers?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the developer said today that KiwiBuild is reducing the cost of affordable housing by reducing the risk that developers face, the time it takes to get developments off the ground, and the time that capital is tied up. He said that this is reflected in a lower purchase price for KiwiBuild homes, making them affordable for first-home buyers. To quote Mr Brealey directly, “If it was a non-KiwiBuild project, it may be that we couldn’t start for six, maybe 12, months.” The efficiencies of being able to get going fast fall to the benefit of KiwiBuild buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: How does a studio apartment the size of a double garage meet his statement in June this year that KiwiBuild homes will be for Kiwi families who want “a decent place to raise kids and enjoy life.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re building, through the KiwiBuild programme, one-bedroom apartments, two-bedroom apartments, three-bedroom stand-alone homes, flats, townhouses, apartments, and all manner of new houses—the kind of affordable housing that communities need in this country, that that party never delivered in nine years in office.

Business Confidence—Impact of Employment Law and Tax Reforms

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the comments of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive regarding business confidence that “It’s the impact of a number of things adding to a climate of uncertainty, and that’s what’s at the heart of the lack of confidence”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I agree that there are a number of things that impact business confidence readings, including staffing challenges, the international situation, and an historical lack of investment in the nation’s infrastructure, and I note that the quote contained in the question was more than eight weeks ago. The coalition Government is working in partnership with business on policies to transition the economy away from growth dependent upon property speculation and population growth, and toward more productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth that benefits all New Zealanders.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that uncertainty over issues like employment law reforms, potential new taxes, immigration changes, and more than 150 working groups have a real impact on Kiwi families because it means businesses are less likely to invest and hire new workers?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject several premises in the member’s question.

Hon Member: Which ones?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Heh, indeed.

SPEAKER: Is that a Muldoon impression, is it?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can a business have the confidence to lift wages and employ new staff when his own Government isn’t clear about the status of its employment reforms?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government is clear. I note, of course, that the legislation the former Minister appears to be referring to is the responsibility of another Minister. But a return to the conditions found under the previous Labour-led Government, when economic growth averaged above 3 percent over the whole nine years, might not be a bad thing. The bill that’s out there on employment relations is achieving the right balance again.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think people are more, or less, likely to invest in new businesses and create new jobs or opportunities for Kiwi workers if they’re uncertain whether or not they have to pay a capital gains tax on that investment?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member refers, of course, to the interim report from the Tax Working Group, which will be released shortly, and so I’m not going to discuss an interim report or comment on it before then. I remind the member that the group was set up to review the fairness, balance, and structure of the tax system. I note that when there is fairness, balance, and the right structure, we will have a more productive economy, and when the parameters around that are clear, business will have confidence.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it true that a deal is being done—changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill in return for New Zealand First’s support for more refugees—and, if so, do those sorts of deals not compound the sense of unpredictability—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is outside of the Standing Orders. We don’t do those sorts of nasty, self-serving deals.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t need any support from anyone. It was a question with a questionable premise in it, but it’s not unusual for members on both sides to have questionable premises in their supplementary questions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shall I finish that? I didn’t call it a filthy deal; I just called it a deal.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, at that point, the member just lost a supplementary.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Just that one, or—

SPEAKER: No, you’ve lost—you’ve had one crack, and you’ve just lost another one. It was deliberately disorderly. [Interruption] Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’re waiting on an answer to that one, still.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh yes, I’ll have an answer to the first one, if that’s all right.

SPEAKER: Well, the member—if he can remember what was said, roughly.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Firstly, any deal is not my responsibility, and I’d note that on this side of the House, we don’t do things like they do it in Epsom.

Building and Construction Industry—Impact of Employment Law Changes

4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What actions, if any, will she take to ensure the cost of house construction is able to support affordable housing?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Namaste, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. I thank the Hon Judith Collins for her question. This Government is taking action on a number of fronts to reduce the cost of construction and improve housing affordability. In my building and construction portfolio, I have worked with Ministers across several portfolios—for instance, to develop a construction skills action plan. This plan puts in place new initiatives in partnership with the industry itself to develop the capacity of the construction workforce to deliver housing that our New Zealand people need. That effort will contribute to addressing the overall cost of construction.

Hon Judith Collins: Has she expressed any concerns to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that proposed employment legislation changes will allow union reps to appear on building sites without first warning site management?

Hon JENNY SALESA: We will be discussing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill when it comes through the Cabinet process, and it is in all of our interests that we ensure the safety of our workers. That is what we are committed to doing.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Is the member aware that under current employment legislation and changes contained in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, a union official must identify themselves when entering a workplace—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! This Minister doesn’t have responsibility for that. The previous supplementary was worded in a way that involved the action. Mere awareness of another member’s portfolio does not go to ministerial responsibility.

Hon Judith Collins: Would she support a building site manager refusing access to a site if a union rep turns up and there is no health and safety officer present to offer a health and safety induction?

Hon JENNY SALESA: It is in all of our interests to ensure that the safety and health of all of our workers, especially on building and construction sites, is actually taken care of. This is one of the reasons that we are looking at this legislation. It will come to Cabinet, it will go through the Cabinet process, and Cabinet, in total—all of us—will agree and decide how to move forward in this area.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure that the Minister really addressed the question around whether or not she—

SPEAKER: I’m absolutely convinced that she did.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, you are? OK.

SPEAKER: Yes. Everything that she was responsible for was addressed.

Jamie Strange: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Members: Jamie Strange.

SPEAKER: Oh, Jamie Strange—I apologise.

Jamie Strange: A slightly better-looking version of the member, but—

SPEAKER: Yes. I thought the member had had a shave. Carry on.

Jamie Strange: Yes, indeed. What is this Government doing to reduce the costs of building products?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Completing an analysis and review of building products in Aotearoa New Zealand is an area of priority for me. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has led a review of building products since June of this year. I will take options to Cabinet for consideration by the end of this year. This review of New Zealand’s building products regulatory and assurance system will support innovation and ensure a vibrant and effective market for building products in our country. It will contribute effectively to building affordable homes for New Zealanders.

Hon Judith Collins: Will building contractors be exempt from proposed provisions that require new contractors to take on employees from previous contractors?

SPEAKER: Order! That is a direct question and another member’s responsibility.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe that confidence and investment in the construction industry will be increased if businesses are forced to take on employees they know nothing about?

Hon JENNY SALESA: One of the things that our Government has done is we’ve come through and we’ve committed to building a lot of houses, because we are addressing the issue that we do not have enough houses. In the building and construction area, I’m reviewing products, I’m looking at risk and liability reallocation—I’m doing a whole lot of work because we need to address this issue. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can that possibly be an answer?

SPEAKER: Yes, I’m going to ask the member to ask the question again.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she believe that confidence and investment in the construction industry will be increased if businesses are forced to take on employees they know nothing about?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I believe that the confidence of our businesses in the building and construction sector will be increased once we implement all of the work that we’re doing in building and construction.

Benefits—Report on Outcomes

5. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What report about benefit outcomes has she released, and what is the Government doing to meet the challenges it identifies?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I released a report prepared by the Ministry of Social Development on what happened to people leaving the benefit system following the 2012 to 2013 welfare reforms. It showed that almost half of the people leaving the benefit system returned within 18 months. Along with this, this report also highlighted the need for investment in the regions, higher education at level 7 or above, and apprenticeships or in-work training if we are going to keep people in meaningful and sustainable work. Work is well under way in all these areas under this Government.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What specific initiatives has the Government introduced to respond to the challenges raised in the report?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Within our first 100 days, we introduced a tertiary package that boosted the amount that can be borrowed for living costs and weekly student allowances by $50. We also introduced our fees-free policy, we launched the He Poutama Rangatahi employment scheme—thank you to our Minister of Employment—we’ve invested millions in the regions through the Provincial Growth Fund, we launched the Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work initiative, and we continue to grow industry partnerships. This Government knows that building meaningful and sustainable employment means taking action now. This report shows that our priorities to grow sustainable work opportunities for New Zealand are on track.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is research like this so important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The research is important because as Minister for Social Development, alongside many of my ministerial colleagues, I need to be able to make evidence-based policy decisions about how best to support people into sustainable work. Beneficiaries have been a political football for too long, and the messages coming from the previous Government were that—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —kicking them around—

SPEAKER: Order! The member doesn’t have responsibility for that.

Employment Relations Amendment Bill—Consideration of Changes

6. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is he confident that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that has been through Cabinet and the select committee process has the support of all Government parties as it is currently written?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the Labour-led Government consider changes to its Employment Relations Amendment Bill that allow more businesses to use the 90-day trial period when taking on new staff?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member has been here long enough to know how the parliamentary process works. If the Government sees an opportunity to improve the bill at the committee of the whole House, it will take it.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the Labour-led Government consider changes to its Employment Relations Amendment Bill that would allow businesses to opt out of collective agreements and multi-employer collective agreements?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member has been in this House for long enough to know the parliamentary process. If the Government sees an opportunity to improve the bill at the committee of the whole House, it will take it.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the Labour-led Government consider changes to its Employment Relations Amendment Bill that prevent union representatives from accessing the workplace of a business without the permission of the business?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No such change is required. Under the current law and under the changes proposed by the bill, there are strict requirements on access, such as a union official has to make the employer aware that they are on site, they have to adhere to any reasonable health and safety conditions, and they must not in any way disrupt the reasonable activities of the business.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the Labour-led Government consider changes to its Employment Relations Amendment Bill that prevent union delegates from being able to try and recruit new members to the union whilst on paid time of the employer?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member has been in this House for long enough to know the parliamentary process. If the Government sees an opportunity to improve the bill at the committee of the whole House, it will take it.

Hon Scott Simpson: Why can the Minister not give a definitive answer about the Labour-led Government’s position on industrial relations changes when they are the main reason behind plummeting business confidence, and the bill went through the Cabinet process almost a year ago and has been through a select committee that has a majority of Government MPs?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, this bill is one that all parties of the Government support, because it is a bill that restores balance to the industrial relations framework of New Zealand. It restores rights that were stripped away from workers by the previous Government, and it will ensure that a good day’s work means a decent day’s pay. That is why this Government supports it, and if there is an opportunity to make the bill even better during the process that it goes through in this Parliament, we will take it.

Marja Lubeck: What is the intent of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The intent of this bill is to restore balance to the employment relations framework and make things better for working New Zealanders.

Early Childhood Education—Impact of Employment Law Changes

7. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Education: Has he consulted with the ECE services about the impact of the Government’s legislative changes on them; if so, what concerns, if any, have they raised?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I meet regularly with the early childhood education sector and their representatives to discuss pressing issues with the sector, as well as any concerns that they may wish to raise. I attended the Early Childhood Council’s annual conference in May. I met with the early childhood advisory committee in December, June, and just over a week ago. I met with the Early Childhood Council on 27 August. These were all opportunities for the sector to raise any issues with me with regard to legislative changes or any other matter relating to Government policy.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill of 2018 gives union representatives the right to enter early childhood services without prior consent or warning, and does he have any concerns about the impact this could have on the children in those services?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I am familiar with the contents of the bill.

Nicola Willis: Is it appropriate for union representatives, without warning, to walk into childcare centres unannounced without background checks?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Any union representative entering such a workplace will still have to comply with any other regulatory or legislative requirements on that workplace.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that proposed employment law changes could require a childcare worker to be reinstated after dismissal, even if a centre has remaining concerns about their conduct with children?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the centre has concerns about their conduct with children, there are a range of options for them, including—if they’re a registered teacher—pursuing that through the Teaching Council. I completely reject the premise of the member’s question.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware of a letter from a number of early childhood services stating their concern that proposed changes to employment legislation will “dramatically impact on the viability and quality of those services”, and will he investigate their concerns further?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve already indicated in my answer to the primary question, I’ve discussed a range of matters with the early childhood education sector regarding Government policy changes and Government legislative changes, and I’ll continue to do so.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Is the Minister concerned about the impact on the early childhood sector of members of Parliament grossly misleading the public on matters before this House?

SPEAKER: No, we’re not going to—I mean, I’ll leave it there. We’re not going to have an answer to that.

Nicola Willis: I seek leave to table a letter received by my office and signed by a number of early childhood care services regarding the impacts of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2018 on early childhood services.

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

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

Māori Language / Te Reo—Support for Targets

8. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha ngā pūrongo kua kitea ai e ia hei tautoko i te whāinga a Te Kāwanatanga kia kōrero Māori te kotahi miriona tāngata o Aotearoa hei te tau 2040?

[What reports has she seen to support the Government’s ambition of one million New Zealanders speaking basic Te Reo Māori by 2040?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Kātahi noa nei au ka whiwhi tautoko mō te oranga o Te Reo Māori i ngā kura e whakaahua ana i ngā raruraru e pā ana ki te oranga o Te Reo Māori. Inā koa, e whā rawa ngā āhuatanga matua i whakamiramiratia. Ko ēnei ērā, anā, ko te rahi me te momo o ngā taiao me tētahi horopaki a mō te tangata ki te kōrero Māori; kua aronuitia Te Reo hei reo noa o ia rā; kua piki te nui o te hunga matatau; ka mutu, e whāngaitia ana mai i tētehi reanga ki tētehi. Ko te mea nui ki a au kia ngākaunui Te Reo Māori kia rere.

[I have just received support for the well-being of the Māori language in schools illustrating the issues relating to the well-being of the Māori language. In particular, there are four certain key aspects highlighted. These are they: the size and type of the environments with a context for one to speak Māori; the language is acknowledged as one for daily use; the number that are fluent have increased, and, furthermore, it is fed from one generation to another. The most important thing to me is that it is embraced and allowed to fly.]

Rino Tirikatene: Ko te kaupapa here a Te Kāwanatanga, ko te whakaako i ngā kura katoa i Te Reo Māori?

[Is the Government’s policy for all schools to teach the Māori language?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Tēnā koe mō tēnā pātai. He nui ngā wawata o Te Kāwanatanga. Hei tīmatangā, e rapu ana mātou kia reorua a Aotearoa ā, e whai whakaaro ana kia Reo Māori te katoa mua mai o te tau 2025, ā, e ai ki Te Rautaki Maihi Karauna, kia tino tokomaha rawa atu ngā tamariki e ako ana i Te Reo Māori. I tērā tau, e 185,000 ngā tauira i kuraina ana i roto i te pūnaha kura ōkawa e ako ana i Te Reo Māori, ā e 615,000 he iti noa Te Reo Māori e akohia ana, ā, kāore rānei. Ko tētehi hiahia o te rautaki, ki te whakatinana i te whakaurunga haere o Te Reo Māori puta noa i te whānuitanga o te ara mātauranga; arā, ki roto i ia kura kōhungahunga, ia kura tuatahi, ā, ia kura tuarua mua o te tau 2025. Tēnei rā tā Te Pirimia i kōrerotia.

[Thank you for that question. The Government has great aspirations. As a starter, we are seeking a bilingual New Zealand and considering the Māori language for all throughout the country before the year 2025, and, according to the Maihi Karauna strategy, for a very large number of children learning the Māori language. Last year, 185,000 students schooled in the formal school system were learning the Māori language, and 615,000 are learning a little Māori language, or not. One of the aspirations for the strategy is to progressively implement the Māori language throughout the breadth of the educational path; in other words, at every pre-school, at every primary school, and at every intermediate school before the year 2025. This is as the Prime Minister articulated.]

Rino Tirikatene: Ka pēhea Te Kāwanatanga e whakapiki ai i te tokoiti o ngā kaiako Reo Māori?

[How will the Government increase the small number of Māori language teachers?]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I te mōhio mātou he āputa kei te rāngai mō te nama o ngā kaiako Reo Māori i ngā kura tuatahi me ngā kura tuarua, ā, kua roa kē e pēnei ana. Hēoi anō, e mōhio ana tātou arā noa atu ka hiahiatia. Koia rā te take i Te Pūtea Tahua o te tau kua hipa, ka tohaina e mātou e $9.5 miriona ki te takiwā whakatupu kaiako, ā, e $20 miriona ki roto o Te Pūtea Tahua mō te tau e heke mai ana, hei whakapiki i te tautoko, i ngā pūtea o ngā kaiako kaupapa Māori me ngā kaiako o Te Reo Māori, ki te hei whakarahi atu i te whānuitanga o te kaupapa here kia uru mai ai ngā kaiako Reo Māori me ngā kaiako kaupapa Māori, ā, ki te hoatu wāhi e 35 i tua atu mō te kaupapa Teach First NZ, e 80 te katoa o ngā tūranga i tua atu mō te tau 2019-2010. He maha noa atu ngā kaiako Māori me ngā tāngata Pasifika. Ko ngā karahipi e 400 ērā mō ia tau mā ngā kaiako Māori me ngā kaiako Reo Māori hoki.

[We knew there were sector gaps for the number of Māori language teachers at primary and secondary schools, and it has been this way for a long time. However, we know there needs to be more. That’s the reason why in last year’s Budget we allocated $9.5 million to the area of producing teachers and $20 million in the Budget for next year to increase the support, to increase the grants of Māori-medium teachers and teachers of the Māori language, to increase the breadth of the policy to include Māori language teachers and Māori-medium teachers, and to provide 35 additional places for the Teach First NZ initiative, totalling 80 positions for the year 2019-2020. There are many Māori teachers and Pasifika people. There will be 400 scholarships every year for Māori teachers and Māori language teachers as well.]

Rino Tirikatene: He aha atu ētahi kaupapa e mōhiotia ana e Te Minita hei tautoko i tā Te Kāwanatanga whāinga, kia kōrero Māori te kotahi miriona tāngata o Aotearoa hei te tau 2040?

[What other initiatives does the Minister know about to support the Government’s goal of one million New Zealanders speaking Māori in the year 2040?]

SPEAKER: Order! Before the Minister replies, the Minister knows that my grasp of the Māori language is not good, but there’s one word that I do know, and it’s “iti”.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Ka whāiti tēnei whakahoki. Ka whakamanahia, ka tuhia pea ētehi o ngā mea ka taea te mahi. Ko ētahi o ērā, ko te whai wāhi wāhitanga mai o te whānau, ko te whakatinanatanga o ngā mahere Reo Māori kia mārō tonu ai te whakareri i te huarahi me tētahi rautaki, ā, me tētahi māramatanga me pēhea te whakatinana, ā, me te whakapiki a ngā kura me ngā wāhi mahi i te hia kē o ngā kaiako. Hēoi anō, ki tōku ake tirohanga, me rere pai noa iho tō tātau nei Reo Māori i ngā wāhi katoa.

[This response will be short. Some of the things that are possible to do are being enacted and reported on. Some of those are the participation of the family, the implementation of the Māori language plans to solidly prepare the way with a strategy and with understanding of how to implement it, and schools and workplaces increasing the number of teachers. However, in my own view, our Māori language should flow freely in all places.]

No. 12 to Minister, 12 September

Question

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitated to raise this yesterday because of the particular week that we’ve got, but you’ve just pulled up a Minister for what you considered to be less than appropriate language in Parliament. I wonder if you might look at the—

SPEAKER: No. No—“too much language”; “too long.”

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, too long.

SPEAKER: Too long. The answer was too long.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh well, there you are. OK.

SPEAKER: The answers were too long.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well that’s good. Right, well, there was a short answer yesterday that I’d like you to have a look at. It came from the Hon Kelvin Davis in answer to the question that was asked to him, and had that been delivered, I suspect, in English, then it would have brought some ire from you. And, no big deal, but I think if we are going to have more use of Te Reo—and I don’t object to that—I think there should be—[Interruption] Well, I’m just making it very clear that that’s not what my point is about—

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, can the member resume his seat. Can I just say that members know that it is a right of any member to raise a point of order, that points of order are heard in silence, and the fact that members might disagree with a point and call out when they’re not meant to is an indication of a lack of tolerance, which I find unacceptable. Now, Mr Brownlee, go back to the second part of your point.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it was simply that if the Parliament is to see more use of Te Reo, then I think it is important that when people are using it, they’re not using it to deliver insults or other comment that might not ordinarily be acceptable. I hope too that there is—while I’m on my feet—a greater level of tolerance for people that, as it relates to the question yesterday, do sometimes get the vowel sounds a little inappropriately pronounced. I’ve got to say, I haven’t used the language in 20 years because of a tirade that was dumped on me by the Māori Language Commission and its chief executive back then, but the real point is, have a look at that question yesterday. No big deal, but I think reinforcing with people who are using the language that it must be respected, firstly, and its use in this House—it should respect the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member begins with a false premise, for a start—he didn’t understand the word he was talking about, and then he uses yesterday’s example, and he’s out of time. He had every opportunity yesterday to raise it, but he didn’t; he raises it the day later. And that’s why, sir, it should be overruled.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): There is an issue, though, when someone speaks Māori—there’s a difference between the translation and the interpretation. So there are some words that can be translated in more than one way, and so there is the issue around the interpretation of what I said. I think I know the answer that he was referring to, which was one that Minister Jones put to me, and there was a word I used that can be interpreted as “ignorant”. I’m not sure what the translation said, but the translation could well have been a word that was a lot more harsh. But I’m not responsible for the translation of what I say. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m on my feet. This has highlighted an area where there is a potential for some problems. We all know that as translations or interpretation is occurring, both into New Zealand Sign Language and into Māori, or from Māori to English, there is often a speed of discussion which people who are doing the interpretation are struggling to keep up with because, obviously, the members who are talking know what they’re going to say, but it’s slightly unpredictable to people who are doing simultaneous translation. Anyone who has even a modicum of understanding of Māori language and is listening to the interpretation will understand that occasionally there are interpretations which are not quite what one would expect to occur, and I think we do go with that. I’ll certainly accept the word of Mr Davis that he thought it was possible that a harsher interpretation was given to a particular word that he used—harsher than what he would’ve given if he had been doing the interpretation—and while the interpretation might have been out of order, the actual original comments were not. I say to Mr Brownlee that while I’m trying very hard, one thing that is impossible for me to do with my level of language skills is to second-guess the interpretations, even a day later.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just make the point that Hansard do provide transcripts to members to correct if they’ve been inappropriately quoted, and it would be very interesting—given that the word that the Minister has suggested may have been used in the translation was not that word—to see how the word that has been used could be altered to give any context other than the insult it was meant to deliver.

SPEAKER: While a lot of us don’t look at the Hansard greens and don’t adjust them, I am going to ask the Minister in this particular case to look at that interpretation, and if he is not satisfied with it, to adjust it to something that he thinks is appropriate.

Energy Market—Electricity Pricing

9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: Yes.

Jonathan Young: Will the Labour-led Government commit to electricity prices being lower in the next three years than they have been in the last three years?

SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have some authentication that that is a statement that has been made by the Minister—a statement or an action that’s been made by the Minister? The supplementary must flow from something that the Minister has said or done.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you’ll find that when the inquiry report was released yesterday by Miriam Dean QC, the corresponding Minister’s comments about it spoke about reducing the cost of power to New Zealand households.

SPEAKER: But that’s not what the question was.

Jonathan Young: I can restate it. I’ll restate the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, restate the question.

Jonathan Young: As she said that New Zealanders deserve affordable electricity, will the Labour-led Government commit to electricity price rises being lower in the next three years than they have been in the last three years?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, I cannot guarantee how much it’s going to rain or how much the wind is going to blow, but the Government’s expectation certainly is that for some consumers lower electricity prices may well be possible.

Jonathan Young: Will the Labour-led Government commit to those electricity prices being lower in the next three years, when under a National Government the cost of electricity for households decreased between March 2015 and March 2018?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think, if the member looks back over the entire totality of the report, he will see that electricity prices for domestic consumers increased by 79 percent since 1990, whilst commercial power price increases were a fraction of the increase. Max Bradford promised consumers lower power prices when he implemented his power reforms, and power prices went up steeply after they were introduced. There is a reality here that the Government cannot control power prices, and we don’t intend to control power prices.

Jonathan Young: Considering that under what’s called the Brownlee reforms, the rise in power prices significantly decreased from 2010 onwards, why can’t the Labour-led Government commit—well, if they can’t lower the prices, at least keep them the same?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure even Gerry Brownlee can claim credit for the global financial crisis and an excessive amount of rain.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How on earth can the global financial crisis affect the price of electricity in New Zealand? It’s not possible.

SPEAKER: Well, I mean, if you’re asking me the question: quite easily, because it reduces demand.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Speaker, I’m sorry to engage you in the questioning, because—

SPEAKER: Well, it did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —what I did, and it was—obviously you don’t know enough to answer it, because during the global financial crisis, New Zealand did not suffer a retracting economy. It’s one of the hallmarks of the Key-English regime. The question is—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I didn’t spend quite as long as the member did as Minister of Energy, but I did, I think, fulfil the role on three separate occasions, as well as being the State-owned enterprises Minister, and I certainly understand growth paths for electricity supply and demand and the effect that that has on price. We’re not going to continue this debate now. If we want to continue with the question, Jonathan Young will ask another supplementary.

Jonathan Young: When she said yesterday that the Labour-led Government is committed to seeing households in energy hardship offered some relief, does that mean more costs will be allocated to businesses?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member should read the report carefully. One of the things that the report found, for example, is that prompt payment discounts are a tax on the poor, and that is something that I’m sure electricity generators and retailers will be looking very closely at.

Todd Muller: Does the Minister agree with the power generators that prices will need to rise for them to invest in more generation to support New Zealand’s climate change target?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Digital Services—Ministerial Correspondence on Appointment of Chief Technology Officer

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: How many undisclosed emails through former Minister Clare Curran’s private Gmail account are there that relate to the appointment of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer, and what is the content of those emails?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I’m advised that Clare Curran has already publicly released those emails that relate to the meeting that she had with Derek Handley. As part of the process of retrieving all relevant emails and transferring them to the appropriate agency, any other emails that relate to the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer will be identified. That work has not yet been completed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that the Prime Minister’s office has looked into the issue of the other emails, and has he been briefed on that Prime Minister’s office work?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I’m aware that the Prime Minister’s office has had discussions with both the former Minister and the staff who worked in her office about the process that will be used to ensure that all relevant information has been captured. I have not been briefed in detail on that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What, specifically, has he been briefed on by the Prime Minister’s office on those secret emails?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My office has been in discussions with the Prime Minister’s office to ensure that I am aware of relevant information, particularly to answer the questions the member is putting to me today.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have, to date, used eight supplementary questions, including a question on notice, to simply establish the content around these important issues in respect of the Government appointment of the Chief Technology Officer. I think there comes a point when it’s appropriate for the Speaker to stop the obfuscation by the Government.

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s asked a series of questions. My view is that he’s had very succinct and accurate answers—well, I’m not going to judge the accuracy, but sufficiently detailed answers, which are very clear, to all of them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My primary question asked how many undisclosed emails—

SPEAKER: No, no. Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Does the member have further supplementaries?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question was on what has he been briefed, and he then said his office had briefed him. Now, that doesn’t answer what he was being briefed on.

SPEAKER: Well, actually, he said he was receiving the briefing necessary to answer the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What specific information has the Minister received on the private, undisclosed emails from the former Minister on the appointment of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In preparation for the question, yesterday and today, I was advised around the process that will be used to extract those emails and to ensure that they are appropriately archived.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister fulfil his responsibilities for the appointment of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer without knowing exactly what communications had occurred between the former Minister and the preferred candidate?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do not believe that I am in that position.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister aware of any communications on this matter between the Hon Clare Curran and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have responsibility for the communications between Clare Curran and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to accept that answer. The Minister does have responsibility for the communications of his predecessor.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Defence Force—Reports

11. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received regarding the New Zealand Defence Force delivering value to the community, nation, or world?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Recently I’ve received reports from the New Zealand Defence Force delivering excellent value for the New Zealand community, including by conducting search and rescue operations near Great Barrier Island, P3 Orion fisheries patrols of the Chatham Islands and the Chatham Rise area, conducting hydrographic surveys in the vicinity of the Cavalli Islands in Northland to allow Land Information New Zealand to update its sea charts, and recently completing their planning support to the Ministry for Primary Industries for the response to Mycoplasma bovis.

Clayton Mitchell: Is the Minister aware of any recent examples where the New Zealand Defence Force has delivered value to our nation and region?

Hon RON MARK: Yes, I have. Over the last month, the combined efforts of the offshore patrol vessel HMNZS Otago and a P3 Orion aircraft, together with the Ministry for Primary Industries and our regional partners, inspected 23 foreign-flag fishing vessels on the high seas surrounding New Zealand’s northern exclusive economic zone boundary. Also, just last week, on HMNZS Wellington, 19 scientists, including from GNS, MetService, and the Department of Conservation, and support personnel on board left on a 1,000 kilometre trip to Raoul Island in the Kermadecs with 8 tonnes of supplies to sustain scientific work in those remote islands, which will occur over the next six months.

Clayton Mitchell: Is the Minister aware of any recent examples where the New Zealand Defence Force has delivered value on the world stage?

Hon RON MARK: Yes, I have, again. Alongside of all their missions around the world, the Defence Force has recently completed specialist deployments to two uniquely difficult and dangerous environments, with three additional military firefighters joining the Fire and Emergency New Zealand team fighting wildfires in Chester County, California, and six additional firefighters provided to the team tackling the wildfires in British Columbia, Canada. The coalition Government is extremely proud of our Defence Force personnel here at home and wherever they are deployed around the world as they continue to deliver real value to the community, our nation, and the world.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Appointments to Overseas Posts

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he stand by his statement made on Radio New Zealand on 6 August: “I am full of support for career diplomats so they can be at the cutting edge of change into the future and not be passed over for politicians who have had a fair go in other theatres.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I stand by those statements—in particular, that we believed in promoting career diplomats, but there would be, in some circumstances, a way—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s all laid out, when I made the speech. In rare exceptions we would see—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ve had just about enough of that. Does the member want to go on?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In rare exceptions, we would promote someone with a political background, but I can’t see any opposite me at the moment.

Hon Todd McClay: Will he therefore confirm that he is not going to be appointing any current or former politician or political party member as High Commissioner in Australia or Ambassador to Spain?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is of the nature of foreign affairs—that member should remember, with his passing knowledge of it—that those announcements are made in due course by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its Minister, and until that time he’ll have to wait in suspense. What I can say, of course, though—oh no.

Hon Todd McClay: Can he therefore confirm media speculation that he is considering appointing a member of the Labour-led Government as a head of mission to a New Zealand post overseas?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say to that member that while he and his colleagues deliberately seek to get the lexicon of MMP Government wrong, they’re not going to get an answer out of me. Behave and you’ll get it.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Minister has twice not answered questions because he believes that we are misinterpreting the Government. A Minister today used “Labour-led Government” in his answer, and so, actually, I just can’t see how he can use it as an excuse not to answer a question.

SPEAKER: Well, I can’t help the member with that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You accepted the supplementary from my colleague Mr McClay. Is it then acceptable for the Minister to simply say “You’re not going to get an answer out of me.”?

SPEAKER: Well, if the member deliberately baits the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the way that he did, he’ll get the reaction that’s expected.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: With all due respect—guidance for us, if you wouldn’t mind, Mr Speaker. How is asking a direct question about a proposed appointment baiting the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

SPEAKER: I think the member knows very well that the phrase that has been used at least half a dozen times today and probably a dozen times by his colleague is designed to bait the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I can see that, everyone in the House can see that, and if the member needs further explanation, then I’m sure Mr McClay will explain it to him.

Hon Ron Mark: Has the Minister got any concerns about Russian involvement in air disasters that might have been expressed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes. I can say that on Tuesday, two days ago, a member of this House argued—from the National Party, that is—that Russia was involved in the disappearance of flight MH370 in 2014. There has been no one in the whole wide world that has made that allegation—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No one from the National Party made any such assertion. There was most certainly a question that related to that. It was for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to answer, but, as we’ve heard today, there’s no answer coming from him.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’m going to—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ve got the Hansard here.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m going to ask the Minister to start his answer again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, well, my answer is that I have had people raise concerns about Russian involvement with air disasters, to the extent that on Tuesday, a member of the National Party argued that Russia was involved in the disappearance of flight MH370. Here’s the Hansard here—he said that. Now, there is no one in this whole wide world, save the National Party, who has ever made that allegation.

SPEAKER: Right, that concludes oral questions.

Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m going to warn the member that it had better be a proper point of order, because he’s got that look on his face and I’m not quite sure that it will be.

Hon Todd McClay: At the end of a Thursday, I’m wondering what the consequences are if it isn’t—I—

SPEAKER: Well, the member can lose questions from next week if he wants to.

Hon Todd McClay: I’ll save it for next week. Thank you.

Voting

Correction—Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill

SPEAKER: Before we move forward, we have a correction to a vote. On 5 September, when the House was considering the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill, the result of the vote on the first reading was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 57, Noes 63. The correct result is Ayes 56, Noes 64. The record will be corrected accordingly. I call on Government order of the No. 1.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Point of order, Mr Speaker—point of order, Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise to the member. I should’ve—you know, wind back one step. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has a point of order.

Points of Order

Privilege—Referral to Privileges Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You suggested at the beginning of question time that this was the more appropriate time.

SPEAKER: Yes, sure. I know, and I apologise that I’d forgotten.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point of order is with respect to Speaker’s ruling 206/2 and relates to the privileges complaint that last evening you ruled on. Now, I wish to get clarification as to whether that Speaker’s ruling stands. What that Speaker’s ruling by Speaker Harrison said was that it was for the Speaker to determine whether there was a matter of privilege, but it was a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine on the evidence. Now, the substantive issue is that there is contradictory evidence as to whether New Zealand First MPs have signed a bonding contract for $300,000 or not. A number of New Zealand First MPs said they had; some said they had not. Mr Peters, at the time, said they all had.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Speaker’s ruling stands. It is my role, effectively, on the evidence before me, to establish whether there’s a prima facie case to be referred to the Privileges Committee. On considering the evidence before me, it became clear that there was not—on, I think, at least three grounds.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

SPEAKER: We’re not going to continue to litigate a referral to the Privileges Committee here. This is not the place to do it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the matter in respect of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the issue of privilege in respect of the financial interest raised in my letter to be referred to the Privileges Committee, to establish the truth as to whether New Zealand First MPs had signed or not.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 September.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): When I was interrupted last night, I was talking about the great shame it is that this Government is prepared to close down partnership schools. They do so on the premise, I suppose, that all State schools are delivering great results for students, when everybody in this House knows that that is not the case. There are still far too many children being failed in our mainstream system, and it is incumbent on all of us to embrace those innovations which make a difference for children and are proven to be getting results.

Let us take the example of Vanguard Military School, which has a 96 percent pass rate for NCEA level 3. This compares with the national pass rate at NCEA level 3 of 76 percent. So Vanguard is achieving better NCEA results in level 3 than other schools, and it is doing so even though it is required to deal with the children that are most at risk of failure—the priority learners who are most likely to be failed by the mainstream school system. So we can understand the comments from the leader of Vanguard Military School when he says, “As a school, Vanguard has delivered. It’s a bitter pill to swallow that a school like this will be forced to close while others happily go on, year to year, failing more students than they pass.”

We have had the ridiculous argument from members opposite that partnership schools aren’t closing; they’re just becoming special character schools. This is an embarrassing argument by members opposite, because, of course, as special character schools, these schools will lose the very things that have allowed them to innovate, that have allowed them to be different: the fact that they are allowed to pay teachers a slightly bigger salary, the fact that they’re bulk funded, the fact that they have more flexibility over their governance arrangements, and, yes, the fact that Vanguard Military School employs someone with an army background, with great skill with children, who is not a qualified teacher.

So this is a bill—the Education Amendment Bill—that tells us a lot about that Government’s priorities. What the Labour-led Government is focused on is how it can ensure ideological purity, and what we on this side of the House are focused on is how we can get results for children and young people that have been, historically, failed by the education system.

It is not just Vanguard Military School; we are talking about a group of schools that have been set up by amazing New Zealanders who believe that their community has within it the solutions to help those children who have previously been failed, whether it’s South Auckland Middle School, Pacific Advance Secondary School, or any of the other partnership schools. They should not be closed. This is what that bill does, and the Government should hang its head in shame.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I am delighted to have the last say in the second reading of this particular bill. I am delighted that this bill is coming back to the House for the second reading, because this is a great day for public education. This makes right the attacks that were made to break the public education system by privatising a system by the corporation of our schooling system. This makes right what that side of the House tried to break.

Last night, during this debate, we heard about some children—or some young people, I should say. One of them—her name was Paris—was doing well in charter schools. Well, Paris was a young mum, and we heard that last night in this debate.

I want to talk about Mauria. Mauria was a young mum. Mauria is now a top chef in Sydney. I want to talk about the two “Shyans”: Cheyne and Cheyenne. Both are young mums under the age of 16. Both are passing level 3 with excellence in NCEA, both through the teen parent unit. All three of those students are ex-students of mine.

The teen parent unit is a State-funded education provider. The State education system is where we can make a difference for our children. An alternative education system—let’s talk about the alternative education system and the lack of funding that that side put into that education system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, let’s not talk about it, because it’s not in the bill.

JAN TINETTI: Well, can I talk to it being an alternative to charter schools, because that is the bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. What you can talk about is that there may be alternatives—

JAN TINETTI: OK, I will talk about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s right.

JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We’ve talked about those young people that they talked about last night, and here we’ve got people in the State-funded system that are doing really, really well. We do not need an alternative. We can do this through the State-funded system.

Repealing National Standards is seen as a move back to creativity and a child-centred focus—this is what this bill does. The voice of the professionals in this system matters. The voice of the professionals, when National Standards were put in, was taken away. My voice, as a professional, at the time mattered, and I felt that my voice had been taken away. We are a Government that is listening to our professionals, and we are proud of that.

I want the final say in my contribution to go to Diane Ravitch, a former US Secretary of Education in the 1990s, who was once one of the strongest proponents of charter schools. On 12 February this year, in her blog, she said, “Hurrah for New Zealand!” When she heard about this bill, she said “Hurrah for New Zealand! … My hunch is that New Zealand has a strong tradition of good public schools and [very strong] common sense.” I am proud, I am excited, I am happy, and I am any other superlative that I can think of to commend this bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63, Noes 56.

Bills

State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I move, That the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill be now read a third time.

This bill makes changes to the State Sector Act of 1988 and the Crown Entities Act of 2004. The Government recognises the need for greater consistency in the standards and expectations across the State sector. New Zealand’s State services are a wide and diverse group of entities. Crown entities, for example, are separate legal entities that operate at arm’s length from Ministers and come under varying levels of ministerial control or influence, depending on the type of entity they may be, but they are still part of our broader Public Service and they still exist to serve the public interest.

Crown entities operate with public money for the public good, and they’re often the face of Government, providing the majority of public services that New Zealanders use every day. They are responsible for running public hospitals and schools and a range of other service delivery and regulatory activities. It’s important that these entities remain connected to the core values of public service and the unifying spirit of service to the community. That is what this bill is all about.

The bill brings parts of the State sector into better alignments that exist in other parts of the State sector. That allows for stronger oversight and regulation of Crown entity chief executive pay—which we’ve been debating extensively last night—and the conduct of board members, and it provides the investigation powers for the State Services Commissioner to investigate any impropriety in the sector. These are all necessary changes. They promote the integrity and the transparency and accountability required in the Crown entities, and, in doing so, I hope that they will bolster the trust and confidence New Zealanders can have in the Public Service and, in particular, those public services delivered by Crown entities.

To recap very briefly, Part 1 of the bill makes two key changes to the Crown Entities Act. First, it requires the State Services Commissioner to give express consent to the terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration, of any Crown entity chief executive. This is a change from the current arrangement for a number of Crown entities, although that provision does exist for some Crown entities already. There is a high level of public concern about the growing salaries of Crown entity chief executives. There is a risk that the growth in chief executive pay is starting to erode public confidence in the broader Public Service and in Crown entities in particular. This bill creates a much more robust system and one that I am confident the New Zealand public can have confidence in.

Part 2 of the bill makes key changes to the State Sector Act to strengthen integrity as well as accountability across our public services, our State services. It provides a clear and mandated mechanism for the State Services Commissioner to oversee the integrity of State sector boards and board members, including setting high standards of integrity and conduct. It provides the commissioner with the ability to issue a code of conduct, but it is important to note that that code will not override members’ existing statutory duties or functions, and the bill has been amended by the Governance and Administration Committee to make that very clear. The bill also introduces a consistent approach in the way inquiries are carried out by the State Services Commissioner that brings them into line with changes that the Parliament made around the Inquiries Act in 2013.

So, once again, I believe that this bill will help to strengthen the accountability arrangements within the wider Public Service. I want to thank members on the select committee once again for the constructive way they approached this legislation. I want to welcome the support for the bill across the House. I want to welcome the very robust scrutiny and critique that the bill was given yesterday afternoon as it went through the committee stage, and I look forward to this bill being passed through its remaining stage through the House this afternoon.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to continue National’s support for this bill, but not entirely without reservations. We certainly do agree that there is a role for the Government, through the State Services Commissioner, to ensure that the salaries of public sector CEOs are not disproportionate to the value of the role and, indeed, in the minds, particularly, of the public. Everything we do and say here is scrutinised by the public, should they choose, and the nature of the services the Government provides and the people that provide them, including their employment terms of conditions and salaries, are also able to be judged by the public, and the public will do so. So we do acknowledge and accept that there is a role.

We also, fundamentally, view it as important that the Government has the right person in the role of chief executive (CE) for any Crown entity—and, in fact, any Government agency. There could be some concern, then, that with the measures that will be enacted when this bill does pass—and it certainly appears that it has to, now—we could end up with a certain situation where a preference or weighting is given to certain criteria that could result in something other than the very best or the best person for the job being prepared to take it. We don’t prejudge that the best person for a Crown entity CE role is someone currently from outside of the public sector, and we certainly don’t wish to prevent someone inside the public sector who is the right person for the job, from getting that job.

So we don’t want to create a race for the top, in the sense that the public sector would be competing with the very highest-paid private sector CEs to somehow claim that only they can be the source of the right skills for that Crown entity, therefore ratcheting up salaries unnecessarily or needlessly. But we do think that it should be worked in a way and operated in a way that we do get the right person for the job, and if the right person for the job happens to be someone from outside the public sector currently, then we should make sure that the terms and conditions of the employment don’t present a barrier to that right person seeking or taking the role.

Similarly, if the person is within the public sector, we shouldn’t use these mechanisms as some sort of an artificial ceiling on the recognition of their value in taking up the role. So, likewise, if the right person is someone in the public sector and the role has a value in contrast to the private sector, we shouldn’t use this as a mechanism to suppress the potential remuneration for that current public sector individual. The way the bill has exited the committee stage, it still has certain elements in it that could lead to that.

We made points that, for instance, the criteria that are set out—such as Government expectations, such as public expectations, but also the commercial realities or the market realities and market similarities—are each elements that the commissioner will weigh up or can give regard to as they assess giving their consent or not to the terms and conditions of the deal put in front of them. But there is no sense of a weighting, there is no sense of quantifying or qualifying how each of them will be measured against the other, because they are corresponding views, in many ways—two sides of an argument. So, at the moment, if the bill passes, the State Services Commissioner can give regard to all these factors, but not only do we not know what factors will get greater weighting in any set of circumstances; neither do the boards for those entities. To that degree, we’re all sort of shooting in the dark, and I think that’s unnecessary.

The outcome could be unfortunate, but it’s actually not necessary. The House could have taken the opportunity to have made amendments to that. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to voice this consideration yesterday, but when we consider the actual process, it has even greater relevance, because the process we set out in this legislation is that, first, the board will negotiate with the current CE or prospective CE. They will reach agreement. They will have a deal in principle, and it is only then that the board goes off to the State Services Commissioner and says, “Will you agree to this?” That has very real prospects that if the State Services Commissioner then says no—because the legislation doesn’t require them to say, “I’ll agree to X, Y, and Z.”; they simply say yes or no. If the State Services Commissioner says no, then we can potentially see what was an acceptable deal suddenly being removed from the table and that candidate exited.

I think the processes in the legislation could have been improved further. The absence of that weighting element of each of the criteria means the issue is exacerbated—because of the way the process works. It’s too late to amend the legislation, but what the Minister responsible could do—and I ask him to consider doing just this—is set very clear expectations on the State Services Commissioner; how he anticipates that the commissioner will exercise his responsibilities and authority under this revised legislation. He could, for instance, ask that the State Services Commissioner communicate with the board, at least in advance of them entering into employment discussions, how the State Services Commissioner will weight each of those criteria. That would be very helpful for the board, and I think it would help to ensure that the deal that is put on the table is one that not only is acceptable, obviously, to the board and the candidate but will be more readily understood and accepted by the State Services Commissioner.

Equally importantly, I think—particularly when we look at the process of making a deal and then presenting it to the commissioner—the Minister should make it clear that it is his expectation that the State Services Commissioner will make themselves available during the employment negotiation process, such that the board can tell the State Services Commissioner where the negotiations are heading and where potential points of contention may be, and while the State Services Commissioner would certainly not be obliged to give a definitive ruling at that point in time, the commissioner could give some additional guidance during the negotiation, which would mean that once that agreement between the prospective CE and the board is reached, it is far more likely that then the State Services Commissioner would be able to endorse it, give their consent, and we won’t have a situation where a refusal leads to a very good candidate just throwing their arms up, in a sense, and walking away because the deal that it been agreed has been renegotiated at what would then be, for them, the eleventh hour.

I actually think the Minister can do that and I ask him to do that very thing. It doesn’t undermine the bill in anyway. It doesn’t undermine the legislation, but it provides a very good working arrangement in practice, which would see the intent of legislation bearing out in reality the way we would all like to see.

I just also make a point, which I did raise with the Minister yesterday, which is still a little concerning, at least to me. It is around the code of conduct—not that the State Services Commissioner can create one for boards, but given that the code of conduct is around integrity and behaviour as board members, I still have this concern that the legislation is saying that the State Services Commissioner can create codes. So we still have the situation where the commissioner could create multiple codes—many, many different codes. If a person is a member of more than one of the boards of Crown entities, they could end up having to operate under multiple codes of conduct.

I think, again, the Minister could very clearly set out an expectation to the State Services Commission that wherever possible there should be one code of conduct that accounts for integrity and the behaviour of those board members and only in situations where it is absolutely necessary—possibly because of some interaction, as the Minister pointed out yesterday, with a particular professional code of conduct that related to the business or the work of the Crown entity. But unless it is absolutely necessary, the goal should be one code of conduct that applies across boards and across, obviously, board members.

So the legislation is achieving a good purpose and we will, and do, support it. We have some regrets that it wasn’t quite panel beaten into the sort of shape that we think would have added a bit of extra value, but all is not lost—all is not lost. Through expectation setting, the Minister can ensure New Zealand gets exactly what it deserves. We commend the bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): E turi ana tēnei taringa ōku [This ear of mine is deaf], Madam Deputy Speaker—meaning that—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: My pronunciation was bad.

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t always accurately hear female voices.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I find that hard to believe. Ha, ha!

Hon SHANE JONES: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think I’ll start again if you don’t mind.

I rise to take a call. I follow the list member from “Hōhāriu” or properly known as Ōhāriu. I enjoy the minimalist approach, which is in inverse proportions to Mr Hudson’s contribution, where, as the words multiplied, the meaning shrunk. We were treated to a speech by the party who wants to back the bill, and the majority of the speech, unfortunately, was condemning the bill. I’ll be a lot more focused and pithy.

The first thing I’d like to say is that our civil service leaders are handsomely remunerated. We have the evidence that in terms of the OECD they rank second. Our parliamentary emoluments and packages are fully disclosed and cruelly debated, and we are made to feel from time to time that we are unworthy of what we receive. I long for the day when similar feelings and similar transparency is visited upon the upper level of the civil service, and, for those reasons, I’m an enthusiast when I stand and support the passage of this bill.

I don’t think that reflecting those views is anti - Civil Service. I’m just reflecting, along with my colleagues, strongly held views that we encounter in the public. So for those reasons, we enjoy the prospect of the State Services Commissioner enjoying these wider powers, to ensure that those, as I said earlier, entities that are at the periphery actually are caught in a net of restraint and driven by a willingness to serve, and that quality and that ethic of service can never be fully monetised.

And for those reasons, as philosophical as it might sound—which is something, from time to time, I’ve been known to offer—I think that it’s a great day when that side of the House and this side of the House support legislation, because we are the ultimate public figures. We are held to a high standard, we are regularly called out in the media, and, from time to time, some of us—mostly sitting on that side of the House—have been subject to ridicule. So we know what it’s like. Those standards and those expectations will now be visited by the State service sector on all of our civic leaders, and they will know that the response when you’re called to serve cannot be measured purely in monetary terms—that’s why we call it the Public Service. I back this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I get incredibly nervous when Shane Jones makes a contribution on a bill that is about improving the standards and the conduct of the public sector. I just remind Mr Jones that when he became a Minister, his first policy proposition was that we change the New Zealand Public Service to be more similar to the US, where there are far more political appointees, and that, secondly, he used the phrase—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I’m not going to belittle the House and lower its standards, but he said that we need “s”-kickers into the Public Service. That is not at all consistent with the values that we hold on this side of the Parliament about a politically neutral—

Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and effective Public Service. The member interjects and says I’m making it up. He is absolutely on the public record as saying that the Public Service needed to be supplanted by political appointees and by—seeing as he’s challenged me—“shit-kickers”. That’s his language not mine. I apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker for using the language, only used because of the challenge from Mr Jones.

What we’ve seen from this Government is in gross contradiction to what’s intended by this bill and the codes of conduct: whether it’s been the secretive behaviour, whether it’s been the claims of Ministers assaulting staff—something I’ve not heard in 20 years—or whether it has been the gaping hole between the aspirations that this Government has claimed and what is actually delivered.

There are three important reforms in this bill. The first of those extend the tentacles of the State Services Commissioner into the contracts for chief executives in respect of our major Crown entities. National’s position has been quite clear: when you are dealing with organisations of this size and scale, whether it be the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—with near on $30 billion—or whether it be the Accident Compensation Corporation, for members on this side of the House, getting the best person for the job, that can manage those multibillion-dollar assets, is more important than some puerile argument around the exact terms and conditions. It’s in the taxpayers’ interests that we have the very best skill set running those organisations.

I did recite the example of our own experience in Government when we sought a new chief executive for one of New Zealand’s largest public agencies, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. In seeking a good private sector organisation—entirely appropriate for that agency, that has such a crucial role in regulating so many parts of the private economy. And, actually, the lack of salary was one of the reasons we were not able to attract the best quality for that agency. While we do support the provisions in the bill, we, at the Governance and Administration Committee—and I compliment my colleague Brett Hudson—ensured that there are some robust criteria, so those values that National holds of overall performance of the public sector be upheld.

The second part of this bill deals with changes to the State Services Commission in respect of the Inquiries Act 2013, and particularly in respect of the Privacy Act. It enables the State Services Commissioner to be able to exempt themselves from particular provisions of the Privacy Act. We heard good evidence that there is a case, for the State Services Commissioner to be able to properly do their job when things go wrong in the public sector—standards are breached, public money’s not used properly—for those privacy principles to be waived.

But we do express a concern, and we’ll say so again. That is, it’s all very well for this Parliament to pass special laws for the State Services Commissioner to be able to properly inquire into matters of wrongdoing when it comes to elements of the Public Service, but Parliament needs to be cautious of creating laws such as the Privacy Act that prevent equivalent large-sector organisations in the private sector from being able to properly inquire. As this Parliament reviews the Privacy Act, we would much prefer that we have a Privacy Act that is working for all New Zealanders, public sector and private sector. Members on this side of the House are always cautious of provisions that say “These are rules that should apply to all New Zealanders but not to public servants.”

The third part of this bill deals with the issue of the codes of conduct and ethics and standards in the public sector. We do find it ironic—with so much messiness, so many shambles around the issues of ethics and standards—that the Government is wanting to advance in this area. We’ve been pursuing questions about the Chief Technology Officer and the appointment. I do find it tough to be getting lectures on this bill about the neutrality of the Public Service, when it is as plain as day that members opposite have been wrongly interfering in the process around the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer. I say to members opposite, you can put all you like into the law around State services, but, actually, one of the most important things a Government will do is in terms of setting standards by example. When we see the sort of dodginess from the Deputy Prime Minister, when we sort of see the behaviour of the Minister—

Hon Kris Faafoi: You can’t be the one to give this lecture.

Brett Hudson: He’s seen the emails.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Kris Faafoi probably has seen those emails. I just make the point: isn’t it interesting that we have a Government lecturing us about being the most open and transparent Government ever, and we are none the wiser about the appointment process and the secret emails over the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer, which paints such a negative picture and, again, reinforces both the shambles and the gap between the promise and the performance of this Government.

I, finally, want to make some broader concerns around the direction of the performance of our State sector. One of the decisions related to this bill is in terms of removing any sort of performance measure on our public servants. If there’s any responsibility that’s important for this Parliament, it’s ensuring that for the $30 billion - plus that we spend each year of taxpayers’ money on public servants, we’re getting the very best of services and outcomes for New Zealanders.

When we remove the key targets that our Government had, whether in respect of performance of police—ensuring that burglaries are responded to in a timely way—whether it be in the presence of 24/7 police stations around New Zealand, or whether it’s something as important as one of the most busy areas of my own constituency work as the MP for Nelson, in getting access to elective surgeries, again, we’ve seen the Government remove any sort of performance measures on the Public Service, and we think that is a backwards step.

We note that every chief executive under our Government had a portion of their salary that was at risk—that if they didn’t meet the basic performance standards, they would not get that salary component. That’s gone. The message that’s been sent to the public sector is, regardless of whether your agency for which you are responsible performs or not, your pay is the same. And that is part of the broader approach by this Government where they do not understand the requirement for the public sector to reward performance and not to take this dumbing-down approach of just averaging everybody across the public sector.

And here’s the other irony: at the same time as the Government got rid of the at-risk component within chief executive’s pay scales, it also gave every one of our chief executives another week’s public holiday. The question I’d love a member opposite to answer: why is it that the chief executive of any of our public agencies, whether it be health or any other, should get another week’s holiday than the person that’s doing the hard graft in our schools, in our hospitals, or in our police, or any of our other public servants? And what was even more dodgy was that it was not in the initial Minister’s press release but was hidden and not released until the Cabinet papers came out some days later.

So while this bill has some small changes that affect the State sector, we on this side of the House want to reinforce our values and a concern about the overall direction of State services in New Zealand. What we’re seeing, from our side of the House, is a bloating of the bureaucracy and a constraining of those people on the front line that are doing the hard yards. I take one of my favourite departments, the Department of Conservation: they’ve got an extra 30 staff in Wellington—policy wonks. But if you go out and talk to those people doing the hard graft out in our national parks and out in the area, there has been no increase in resources for those people doing the work, and that is reflected in the increase of the number of public servants in Wellington rather than in the focus we have on this side of the House on improving the front-line services that are so important for New Zealanders.

On this side of the House, we believe in performance. On this side of the House, we believe in a neutral Public Service. On this side of the House, we want high standards, and there’ll be a damn good start if Ministers started by setting a damn good example.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I address some of the substance of the bill, I just want to spend a minimal amount of time responding to some of the claims made by the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It’s very rich for that member to offer this side of the House lectures on ethics, on things that may or may not be shambolic—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just warn the member that all the members of this Parliament are honourable, so be careful.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Oh yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just be careful.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m not questioning the member’s integrity at all, Madam Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, that’s good.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Ha, ha! But I do find that ever so slightly rich that that member can, given their track record—and I’ll come to the specifics about that—question our track record with the Public Service, and our track record in terms of integrity.

First of all, to the claim that Mr Smith made towards the end of his speech around the current state of the Public Service compared with that under the previous administration: under the previous administration we saw the Public Service stripped to some degree and then—I think the word that the previous member used was “bloated”—bloated by an extremely large expenditure on contractors in order to have the allure of trimming down the Public Service. But, in the end, the cost of running the Public Service had ballooned—or “bloated”, in the previous speaker’s language—to a point where it had got out of control. We are being much more transparent about that by making sure that we invest in our Public Service in a transparent way, and not hiding the fact that we’ve got these people working behind the scenes as contractors. We’re doing that in a transparent way, as opposed to the way that the previous administration had done things.

Also, there was another pot, kettle, black moment for the member in and around giving us a lecture about integrity, and I’m not going to go into that any further or I’ll face the wrath of your ire, Madam Deputy Speaker. But, having said that, I do think it’s a little rich for that member to stand in this Parliament with a straight face—I think you’ve got to give some respect for that—but to try to give us a lecture on that.

To the substance of this piece of legislation, I want to say congratulations to the Hon Chris Hipkins for following through on a concern that I think the public has had for some time. I remember in a previous iteration when I was the Opposition spokesperson for State services, a prominent radio broadcaster was interviewing me about a particular instance where a chief executive had had quite a sizable pay increase. I remember it very vividly, because I was standing in a schoolyard at 3 o’clock and there was plenty of noise. I was trying to listen to what the questions were and he was giving me a hard time saying, “What are you guys going to do about it if you get into Government?”

Well, this is exactly what we are doing about it. There needed to be a check and balance on the levels of pay of chief executives in the Public Service, because there has been concern—and that interview was back in 2015—for some time. One of the key objectives of this Government is to make sure that we can look after low- and middle-income New Zealanders. The juxtaposition of New Zealanders at the lowest end of the salary and wage scale, struggling to make ends meet, with a Government that had little or no control on chief executive’s pay wasn’t a good look for the public, and, seriously, something needed to be done. I think this piece of legislation puts in place the mechanisms where the Government and the State Services Commission have a lot more oversight and control over levels of salary for the chief executives of our public services.

I want to congratulate Minister Hipkins for getting this piece of legislation through this House within 12 months of this coalition Government getting into office, because I think it sends a very clear message that we will put our money where our mouth is when we say we’re going to look after low- and middle-income New Zealanders. We do have some levers that we can control in terms of what chief executives are paid. They should be paid properly but not excessively. The Government today, by passing this piece of legislation in its third reading—and I acknowledge the support that it has got around the House—is showing leadership that something has had to change for those who are at the lowest end of the scale in terms of their pay and those at the very highest. That is one of the fundamental objectives of this coalition Government, and I want to congratulate Minister Hipkins and this Government in making sure that could be done within 12 months.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is a little rich to be subjected to the complete lack of values displayed by this Government. On the one hand, they are talking about transparency—as if—and putting in another piece of legislation to support a neutral Public Service in the context of the ministerial sacking of the Hon Clare Curran, whose actions not only caused Carol Hirschfeld to resign, or lose her job—

Hon Kris Faafoi: You’ve still got nine minutes to go.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —but also affected the employment of the Chief Technology Officer. Yes, I have got nine minutes to go and I’ll be fully using those, thank you, Kris Faafoi. I certainly will. I will be using those to remind that Government that their words may be lofty, that Minister’s words may be lofty, but the actions of a former Minister a little bit further down the House were anything but. So to stand with the lofty words around a neutral Public Service while public servants were losing their jobs and appointment processes were being knowingly subverted rather gives the lie to that contention by that Minister.

So, so much for transparency—so much for neutrality. What this bill does do is it extends the reach of the State Services Commissioner—it’s what it does. It extends the reach of the State Services Commissioner on signing off on chief executives’ pay and conditions. The member who’s just resumed his seat said it all. He said that they want to put a cap on chief executives’ pay. Why? Don’t we want the best people in New Zealand?

Stuart Smith: We do.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: My colleague says, “Yes, we do.” Well, we do. But in the interests of New Zealand, don’t we want the best people to lead our public entities? Let’s not forget that those chief executives often have a multimillion-dollar budget to manage, a large organisation spreading the length and breadth of New Zealand to manage, plus sometimes an overseas posting—that’s not unusual—a very high level of public visibility and scrutiny, and also a very high level often of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Don’t we want the best people for that job?

I am really pleased that a new clause was inserted into the bill at the select committee, and I do have to credit Brett Hudson for the work that he did at the select committee in making sure that protections were put in so that any candidate putting their name forward for a public entity at least had the protections of some criteria. Otherwise, who would put their name forward to be the chief executive? So the committee recommended inserting a new clause. It was clause 4, which would require the commissioner, before they signed off on the appointment of a chief executive, to have regard to a number of things.

Obviously, not every Crown entity is the same. There are five categories of Crown entity, running from a large State-owned enterprise through to a board of trustees. One of the criteria was the legal commercial and operational context of the entity, and that does recognise that not all entities are the same. It requires feedback from the board, so the board would provide any information they considered would be useful in supporting their recommendation that the commissioner sign off on that nomination. So that information of course would include things like the suitability of the candidate, the knowledge they have, their skill base, and how much experience they bring to the role. That is all good sense, and we support that.

The public nature of the nature of the entity of the role is also a consideration for the chief executive, and that I think is a very important factor to be brought in when one considers members like Shane Jones, who is very prone to opening his mouth and just letting words fall out and condemning willy-nilly, scattergun, anyone who he thinks will give him a better public profile. Public CEOs—their public visibility can be absolutely compromised by some loose-lipped MP looking for a headline. And, as we know, increasingly that is happening in New Zealand. That public nature of that role and the public nature of the scrutiny and criticism, whether it’s deserved or not, of that role, can be because of this clause inserted into legislation, and should be, acknowledged in the level of remuneration. Of course, the market needs to be considered—what the remuneration market is at the time. It might be different in five years’ time from what it is now; I’m sure it will be.

What the Minister expects from that CEO in their letters of expectation, and, again, here we have a Government on the one hand saying they want a robust Public Service and they want clarity and they want visibility—that was the word du jour from the Minister who’s resumed his seat—but Megan Woods has got two public entities who have not yet received a letter of expectations. This is 11 months after—[Interruption]—yes, and Ōtākaro is one of them.

So what they are doing is they are endeavouring to meet the current Minister’s expectations, but without a clear steer from the new Minister, what do they do? They fall back on the previous Minister’s letter of expectations and they have failed in their statutory role. And yet the Government seem quite complacent about that. So what does that say about visibility and a neutral Public Service and a Government which strives towards integrity? So that’s Clare Curran and Megan Woods who subverted that process knowingly. I do hope that with the passage of this bill, those matters will be nailed down ever more firmly—not for the Public Service, not for this side of the House, but for the Government itself, who has Ministers who seem only too willing to chart their own course through the requirements of their legislation.

So yes, we will support this, but this is this Government’s legislation, and we would expect that their Ministers would adhere to those requirements—because who loses out of this? They seem to be sailing through these transgressions—well, one of them hasn’t; one of them has lost her job. But on the way through, there has been damage to public servants, and surely, surely, their needs should be considered.

There is one other outstanding matter—I did ask the question in the committee stage but I did not get an answer from the Minister—and that is that the State Services Commissioner will be required to sign off not only on the appointment of a chief executive but the reappointment of a chief executive. Now, the longest term a chief executive can have for their appointment is five years. So in five years’ time—it is not clear in the bill—should a chief executive wish to be reappointed, and should the board wish to reappoint that chief executive because they have done an outstanding job, the bill does not make it clear, and the Minister would not, could not, answer what the process would be for reappointment in terms of the State Services Commissioner having to sign off on this matter. I do think that an answer from the Minister on that very point would have been very useful.

I just want to just finish my contribution by noting that a code of conduct has also been inserted into the bill, and I would contend that that code of conduct should apply not only to chief executives but also to the behaviour of current Government Ministers.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. The Green Party is pleased to support this piece of legislation, the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill, and we’ve covered this ground quite a bit over the last few days, so I’m not going to have the longest speech in the world.

One of the points that is critical to this legislation, which we are very supportive of, is the requirement for boards when they are setting the terms and conditions of chief executives’ (CEs’) salaries and conditions of employment—that needs to be signed off, in effect, by the State Services Commission. We’re really supportive of this as a signal that it sends to the country around the importance of equality and addressing the unsustainable levels of inequality in our country at the moment.

Contrary to the views of the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, for the Green Party we don’t necessarily see pay as an indication that the person who is paid the most is the best. I think the global financial crisis actually was pretty unequivocal in proving that the highest salaries are not necessarily for the most ethical or effective people; that, actually, there is an importance in centring values in our State sector, and that there are really, really great people doing fantastic work with a huge number of skills, who choose to do work that is less well paid, because they care about the work. It’s not as if we are talking about people paying people the minimum wage here—ha, ha! These are quite decent salaries up at this scale. We’re just talking about mediating it a bit to make sure that it’s not out of control, and there’s nothing I see in that that’s going to prevent the best people wanting to come and work in our Crown entities.

Another aspect of this is putting in a five-year term for those CEs, and that is to ensure a balance of power between the boards and the CEs. If you’ve got a CE who’s been there for ever, knows the organisation inside and out, knows all of the technical details, and you’ve got a new board who’s come in with a fresh direction, there’s quite an ability for that CE to be able to undermine the shift of direction of the board if they’re invested in a status quo. So putting a five-year time limit on their appointment helps even that up and ensures that the board and CEs are working in partnership on an even playing field. We’re supportive of that for our Crown entities.

We are also supportive of building more consistency across the inquiries legislation and the strengthening in there around inquiry capacities within the State sector. It is really important that we meet international best practice, and that we reconnect the system around a unifying spirit of service across our State sector. With that are also the codes that will be put in place around codes of conduct. We think that that is appropriate. Really, it is about getting that ethos right throughout our Public Service, Crown entities, and core State sector alike of values of service and responsibility, and it’s hard to see how anyone could oppose that. Indeed, it’s good to see—despite some of the speeches where people might think there might actually be people voting against this; that, actually, there’s not. It’s quite sensible. It’s not earth-shattering, but it is a subtle shift in direction to take us to a more equal and joined-up approach as a country. So, on that note, I again offer the Green Party’s support.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak on the third reading of the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. Obviously, we support the bill. On the other hand, we do have some reservations because, we often say, the devil is in the detail.

Now, this bill does help strengthen the integrity, accountability, and openness in the management of the public sector. Although many provisions already apply to much of the Public Service, this bill expands the scope and covers a wider range of public service—particularly the Crown entities. So, in that sense, this bill would put more public service sectors, particularly the Crown entities, into the scope. For instance, this bill requires boards of statutory Crown entities to obtain the State Services Commissioner’s written consent to the terms and conditions of the employment of a chief executive.

Now, some Crown entities are already in the regime, but this bill will expand and cover more Crown entities. On the other hand, the Governance and Administration Committee made some contributions by making sure that the State Services Commissioner would be able to give reasons if he or she does not agree to the terms and conditions. This bill also specifies a term of employment for a specific executive. Now, of course, this mainly applies to Crown entities, because a large number of Public Service chief executives have a term of five years. So this is, again, mainly related to the Crown entities.

Now, there are also two key changes to the State Sector Act. The number one is this bill enables the State Services Commissioner to apply codes of conduct to the board members of entities that are subject to a code of conduct—that is, that are within the mandate of the State Services Commissioner. So this is number one. In that area, the committee also made some contributions: basically, to make sure that the State Services Commissioner is aware of some of the unique conditions of certain entities and, therefore, takes into consideration these various situations.

Secondly, of course, is to update the commissioner’s investigation powers by aligning them with the Inquiries Act 2013. This, in a sense, basically, modernises the commissioner’s power, or you may also say it will further strengthen the commissioner’s power. But, on the other hand, at the committee stage, the committee made some suggestions to make sure that the commissioner’s power is also somehow constrained. For example, the commissioner would require a written submission or make it a formal inquiry instead of an informal inquiry—only under formal inquiries would this particular provision apply.

So all this means is that this bill attempts to strengthen public trust and, of course, confidence, particularly in the Crown entities. While the intention of the bill is good and we support the bill, we do see some particular issues here. The issue of balance is a concern. So while we support the provisions in the bill, at the same time we want to make sure that we maintain a good balance. There are three aspects of the balance issue which I might elaborate on. Now, the first one, of course, is remuneration and the capability to attract top chief executives.

So while some members have said that these chief executives take up the job not because of salary—well, not solely because of salary—which might be true, on the other hand, we do need to face the reality. The reality is that we are competing with the private sector. So in the private sector we may see that these companies are able to pay top salaries to attract top executives, while, in the public sector, some entities look after billions of dollars—and how do we attract top executives to manage the huge funds, for example, but, at the same time, be able to make sure that the remuneration is reasonable? So this is a kind of balance issue, right?

So, as I said, we do need to make sure we have a reasonable remuneration and we enhance the public trust and confidence in the Public Service; but, on the other hand, we need to make sure we are able to attract top executives.

A good example is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which is one of the entities which was singled out by Minister Chris Hipkins. The Superannuation Fund is a huge fund, very successful in the past 15 years. Now, I can see here that in the 15 years since it was set up, the fund has made an annual return of 10 percent, the fund has paid more than $6 billion in tax over the same period, and it has grown to be over $38 billion in size. So this is a huge fund. How do we attract top people as guardians and as chief executives? That is a particularly important issue for the fund. By the way, when we are talking about the bill, we need to make sure that we are not doing a witch-hunt, because we do not want single out one or two particular entities—although this bill actually does address some of the most important entities here.

The second balance issue is between the five-year term and the necessity for long-term plans, because for some funds it is important to have a long-term investment. How do we have the balance? On the one hand, we want to limit the term to five years; on the other hand, we want to make sure we have continuity so that we do maximise the profit or return. For instance, under KiwiSaver you have different options: you have a growth fund, you have a balanced fund, you have a conservative fund, and you have a cash fund—different categories.

Normally, the adviser will tell you that if you have many years to go, they will suggest a growth fund, a growth option, which would generate more return in the long term. If you do need the money in the short term, you will be advised to have a short-term cash or conservative option. So this is important. So we do need to make sure we are able to somehow make our CEOs more accountable by limiting their terms to five years. On the other hand, we give them the freedom of continuity to invest long term. So this is another balance issue we need to consider. This is, basically, an issue which has been pointed out by many experts in this area.

Another balance issue which I want to mention is the balance between independence and political interference. So how do we make sure we have independence of the boards? On the other hand, we do have this control over the boards. So sometimes we are concerned that the Government might be able to interfere with the management of some particular entities by having political interference. So this is not what we want to see. We do not want to see interference from political parties; we want to see the independence of the boards. But, on the other hand, we do want to have some kind of control over the management. So how do we maintain this kind of balance: control over the board—over the entities—and, on the other hand, the entities’ independence from political interference?

So, finally, there is irony here. This bill is about openness, transparency, and integrity—this bill is really about this. But, on the other hand, we can see this Government itself is not really transparent, open, or with integrity. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Dr Liz Craig.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So, as New Zealanders, we rely on our Crown entities to carry out a huge number of essential functions. Just thinking about the Crown entities in health, I mean, we’ve got district health boards, we’ve got the New Zealand Blood Service, and we’ve got Pharmac—all of them absolutely essential for all of us as New Zealanders. I think it’s really important that the public maintains its trust in our Crown entities.

This is not a bill that I saw through select committee, because I actually sit on the Health Committee rather than the select committee that heard this bill—the Governance and Administration Committee—so I haven’t heard all the detail of all the submissions. So, in my brief call, what I want to do is just outline some of those key features of the bill for those of you like me, who haven’t gone through that detailed process.

Some of those key things that this bill does: firstly, what it does is it requires the boards of statutory entities to get written consent from the State Services Commissioner before they set the terms and conditions of their chief executives’ employment. The other thing it does in that respect is it also says that you can’t set a term of employment of more than five years, although there’s a right for renewal. I think it’s really important because everybody in our State sector works really, really hard, and I think it’s important that the pay and conditions of our chief executives aren’t completely out of whack with others working in this sector.

The five-year term—what that means is that we’ve got a much closer alignment between the terms of the boards that are overseeing that chief executive, and the chief executive themselves, which makes it a lot easier to monitor their performance in terms of thinking about what the board’s directions are and where the chief executive wants to go.

The bill also makes sure and allows the State Services Commissioner to apply codes of conduct to board members in those entities that are subject to such codes. I think that’s just really essential because these board members are providing leadership within our State sector, and we need to have them accountable to very high standards of integrity and conduct.

The bill also modernises the State Services Commissioner’s investigation powers. So what that means is they’re in line with the Inquiries Act 2013, which came in more recently than some of the original legislation that was tied up with the earlier Act. It ensures that we get the same approaches to investigation irrespective of whether it’s a Prime Minister, a Minister, or anybody else in the State services asking the commissioner to act.

So I think, taken together, what this does is it provides a much more modernised, integrated approach to our State services, and it helps preserve the public trust in our State sector, so I therefore commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Five minutes—I call Stuart Smith.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, it is a pleasure to speak on the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. I guess a couple of the things that have been highlighted as being reasonably controversial in this particular area is the fact that the 10 percent of the CEOs’ salaries that was at risk has gone. I think that, certainly as someone who has worked in this area—not in the State sector but certainly as a chair of a board hiring a CEO—nothing motivates people like a financial incentive. You often hear the claim that “Well, that will just lead to perverse behaviour to chase that particular reward.”, but all that means is that they don’t have confidence in the criteria you put in there for those people to achieve that bonus. I think it’s really important. It drives good behaviour and it drives good performance, and I don’t know why the other side, in particular, are afraid of performance. It’s something I think we should all strive for.

Under the bill, one of the points, of course, is about the hiring of the chief executives. So the Government appoints the boards, and the board then appoints the chief executive but then has to go through the State Services Commissioner before getting that approval. That’s where, for the employment conditions, things could break down and go slowly, because there’s a back and forth in between the board and the commissioner and then back to the prospective employee. I think that does create some uncertainty.

I know we’ve got it to this point, so we’re not against it completely, but I think the criteria that’s been put in replacement section 117(2AA) in clause 4 sets out in paragraphs (a) through (e) various criteria that must be considered in the terms and conditions of the chief executive—guidance, if you like, for the board. But it is having regard to Government’s expectations. Where the fear comes is that we might have an Americanisation of the Public Service, where chief executives come and go with various Governments of different colour and are appointed based on their political point of view and their political standing. That’s something that we’re very much against on this side of the House. I think that would be a very inappropriate place to go for the Public Service. So it behoves the Minister and the current Government to ensure that those criteria are very carefully applied, and we will be keeping a very close eye on that.

I note that the Institute of Directors submitted to the Governance and Administration Committee, and I view this particular entity as a huge contributor to New Zealand’s governance—and, certainly, not just because of having been a member myself. The appointment of a CEO—they talked at length about that to the select committee—is a vital role. It’s the most important role for a board. In fact, in some boards I know, prior to the board meeting starting, they have time without the chief executive, and they ask themselves one question—a most important question: “Do we still have confidence in our chief executive?” If they don’t, then they’ll have to deal with it, either by getting an improvement in the performance of the chief executive or by getting rid of the chief executive and moving on. That is their most important role. The board can have all the policies it likes, but, if the chief executive is unable to carry out those policy directions from the board, then they shouldn’t be there. That is why it is such a vital role for a board.

I want to turn now to a claim that was made earlier by the Hon Kris Faafoi about the increase in use of contractors by the previous Government. I would like to point out to the Minister and to the House that, actually, if they would care to look at the contractors that were hired, a large amount of that is entities like Beca Group and Opus International Consultants, with skills that are not held within the Public Service, all around the earthquake issues that occurred from Christchurch. I think that it’s a very silly and spurious argument to put up about the use of contractors. The one advantage with using contractors aside from that, of course, is that if they’re not performing, it’s a very simple process to get rid of them and get another one. I think that drives performance. Fear of failure is, certainly, something that people should have in front of their mind.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. It’s a pleasure to speak on the third reading of this bill. There’s been robust debate. There’s been a little anger, but there’s been lots of love. That’s why I reckon the reservations from that side of the House lack real authenticity. They love this. They want it to pass, but we’re just seeing out the week.

When you look at it, it looks pretty good. How could it not look good when what we want to do is ensure that we send the signal of transparency and accountability to taxpayers that the public money that is being spent through these agencies is fully transparent and accountable? It’s as simple as that. This is public money. These are the Crown agents, independent Crown entities and the like, and all we are doing is putting a level of consistency to the processes in place for those senior leadership roles—be it the chief executive officers. How could you not want that? I said yesterday that this was all about putting the “public” and “service” back into the Public Service, and that’s what we’re doing. It’s as simple as that.

I want to thank the Minister of State Services. He did raise an important note around the level of public confidence being eroded in chief executive salaries, and that links to performance. It’s a bit of a myth, I think, that paying more gets you more in terms of the quality of person. What we’ve said is that there are other ways, in terms of remuneration, to reward those high-performing entities, and those who want the roles will respond. If you don’t want it, if you want to sell cars and tyres, then so be it; join the private sector and get yourself a flash job on that side of the fence. We’re looking for high-quality public servants, who will spend public money with full transparency and accountability—ultimately, giving that trust and confidence to taxpayers and giving the people of New Zealand what they want to see, which is good value for money from the Public Service. It’s as simple as that, I think.

I don’t want to get into the little faux fights from the Opposition around little bits and pieces of this and that. This bill is a great bill. We’ll look back and say, “Why didn’t we do this years ago?”, and that’s probably because—

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s because we had nine long years of National.

PAUL EAGLE: —we had a National Government. Exactly—dare I say it—chief Labour Party whip for the Government, thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe. Ngā mihi ki a koutou i roto i Te Whare i te ata nei.

[Thank you. Greetings to all of you inside the House this morning.]

My acknowledgment to all members in the House this afternoon as I stand to speak in the position of last speaker for the National Party. In so doing, may I just first acknowledge all those who have worked conscientiously on this bill—the members of the Governance and Administration Committee. I haven’t had the opportunity, nor the advantage, of sitting on the select committee during the discussions that have occurred as a result. However, I have conscientiously read the bill, although not with a thorough, scrutinised, legal lens, and I have glanced over the debates that have been recorded in Hansard.

I’ve also listened intently to the discussion and the debate in the House this afternoon, and may I, first and foremost, say that National supports this bill. My colleagues have addressed the detail around what their concerns are, and although the proposals for amendments to this bill have not been heeded, it is noted on the record.

In the committee stage of this debate—as we are now in the third reading—there was considerable discussion around those concerns, and I will come back to that. However, from what was canvassed or discussed in opening the debate this afternoon, Minister Jones mentioned to the previous Speaker in the Chair that he doesn’t always hear accurately the female voice. Although that may have been said in jest, he unconsciously also said in the next breath, made reference to, that this bill is about Civil Service leaders who are “handsomely remunerated”. So, as a woman MP in the House, I just detected the unconscious bias that sometimes pervades the kōrero that comes through. As a member of the fairer sex, this bill is about ensuring that there is a level of parity, so I just thought I’d mention that. Some of those subconscious biases may be there, and some of that subconscious bias may also prevail in this legislation.

My colleague across the House Paul Eagle made reference to the fact that this Government is about sending the signal of integrity and accountability, and full transparency and accountability. I invite the Government to do more than signal. I invite the Government to exemplify this. This is a bill that is attempting to exemplify ensuring that there is greater integrity and accountability in the management of State services by providing a strengthened and more consistent regulation of conduct and remuneration of employees at the most senior level. So I just gave those two examples where we have members of the Government who subconsciously are expressing messages that are not consistent with what the broad policy statement of this bill is about: integrity and accountability.

Let me now turn to the details in the provisions of this bill. As all previous speakers in the House before me have given an overview, the overview that I share with the House is that this bill is an omnibus bill, and at the committee stage, before the select committee, and also in the House, amendments have been proposed and they have been factored into this.

Part 1 of the bill seeks to make amendments to the Crown Entities Act in relation to the appointment of chief executives for statutory Crown entities, so the select committee is requiring that the boards of statutory Crown entities obtain the State Services Commissioner’s written consent to the terms and conditions of employment. The committee of the whole House at the committee stage recommended an insertion into clause 4 of this bill—which amends section 117 of the Crown Entities Act—not only requiring the commissioner’s written consent but requiring that the commissioner have regard to the legal, commercial, and operational context of that entity, any information that’s been provided by the board of that entity, such as advice about the candidate’s knowledge, skills, and experience, the public nature of that entity and its role, and, importantly, the related public interest in prudent stewardship of public resources. It also requires the commissioner to have regard to relevant market information, Government expectations, and other relevant factors.

I’ll come back to the concern that was expressed by my senior colleague the Hon David Carter when this House was in the committee stage yesterday, and that was in relation to a concern about the neutrality of an appointment of a chief executive to such a State entity. My colleague referenced his concern around clause 4, which is seeking an amendment to section 117 relating to the employment of a chief executive, and that the commissioner, in having regard to Government expectations, question political neutrality in that appointment. My colleague’s concerns have been detailed on the record around that and, notably, that concern, in having been noted, was one of the reasons why this party was somewhat hesitant about that amendment not being factored in.

Another amendment that the select committee had requested be taken into consideration was around Part 2, relating to improving the commissioner’s investigatory powers and setting provisions to apply codes of conduct. The committee recommended that the bill would be improved by including additional sections of the Inquiries Act. That is outlined within the Act, without me having to go into the detail around that. However, by inclusion of that, the select committee’s recommendations have been factored in and taken into account in the amendments accordingly to be made.

As indicated to the House, I did not sit on the select committee, but I can speak from experience as a board member when one of those members turned somewhat rogue in relation to the conduct. The board has been at a loss in terms of holding to account, around the integrity of the board and what is required in terms of the duty there, the conduct. So this bill sets out very clearly what the terms of that will be.

In taking this call, the National Party supports this bill with reservations, as has been noted at the committee stage of the debate yesterday. It has been recorded in Hansard, and, importantly, should there be any concerns around the application and the interpretation of this Act, the National Party’s integrity will stand without question and without reservation, having that noted on the record. Accordingly, the National Party commends this bill to the House, and, as a member of that party, I support that decision.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, tēnā koe e Te Whare nei. Thank you for the opportunity for speaking as the last speaker in this third and final reading of the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. Crown entities, as we’ve heard, form a vital part of the Public Service as part of the State sector, as they are the public face. It’s very important that we have consistency and transparency across the whole of the State sector, and, in that, it’s very important that we make sure that there is alignment and that they are connected. Those core values are the things that connect the parts of the State sector, and an integral part of that is the service to community.

There’s been a bit of drift, I would like to note, in the past that’s disconnected parts of the State sector from each other, and in the past there’s been drift particularly with regard to remuneration of chief executives. In the past, we’ve seen increases in salaries from $20,000 to $50,000 per annum. In particular, the one that is of memory was the 36 percent increase to the chief executive of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and I do rightly remember that even Bill English himself thought that that was a bit too much. So changes in this bill strengthen the role of the State Services Commissioner and will bring increased public trust and confidence that there is a good level of transparency within the Public Service.

The main area that was really discussed through the select committee process revolved around this issue around the role of the chief executive and the remuneration. While the bill also includes the appointment of five-year terms instead of those terms being unlimited, it also looks at the standards and the integrity on conduct for Crown entity board members, which is important, and it also looks at the State Services Commissioner’s powers to investigate. All those areas are strengthened.

But the part of the debate that I would like to spend the remainder on, really, is looking at that discussion around getting that balance right between having the right person to lead a key organisation within the Government but also that those pay levels are not excessive, as they have been in the past. This Government has been very clear on the fact that we want to see a narrowing of the gap between those who are paid the minimum wage and those that are paid the highest rates, and so if this Government is going to walk the talk in terms of delivering that, it’s important that we not only raise the minimum wage but we also look at those top-level pay levels. A core value, again, is that service to the community.

We are proud of our Public Service for the excellent job they do, and, as a former public servant, it’s been interesting to see, under the previous Government, the role of contractors. That’s actually quite a good example to look at how you get that balance right. At a time when we saw the sinking lid on public servants and an increase in contractors being brought in to deliver Government services and provide advice, the cost per hour shot through the roof so that the cost per hour to employ a contractor is far in excess of what you would pay a salaried person. That has an impact upon a team. Bringing that in has an impact on the way that the Public Service operates. It also has a detrimental effect in terms of the institutional knowledge that is retained within a Government department or a Crown entity for that reason that if people are brought in quickly for specialised knowledge and then leave again, it stops that entity from being able to develop a strong understanding and an institutional knowledge that is retained.

Finally, I would like to say that one of those negative factors that I’ve seen of those short-term contracts is that it doesn’t enable the Public Service to work as a team. If someone comes in at a much higher rate for a short period of time and then leaves, it prevents the best advice been delivered in a team environment.

So I think it’s important for this bill to be acknowledged for the good work that it does in being able to draw together our Public Service and strengthen it by ensuring there’s increased transparency and by ensuring that we have a stronger connection in those core values—and that is to serve the community; that is to be always there to provide the best quality advice for this Government to do its work and for select committees to continue to do the good work they do.

So I would like to acknowledge that we have an excellent Public Service in New Zealand, and I am proud to commend this bill to the House, for the fact that it will strengthen that excellent job that already goes on. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 11 September.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other enactments (continued)

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): It’s an absolute privilege to be here debating another piece of legislation on education. Can I acknowledge where we’re at. Obviously, the National Party does not support this piece of legislation. We have talked extensively in this committee about the history of the Education Council. There were several reviews, in part derived out of serious issues of processes of the previous body, particularly around the sex offender situation, but also there were some financial issues in terms of the council.

We are dealing with the consequential amendments section in this part of the bill. As I’ve already mentioned, I’d asked a range of questions that I would have liked the Minister of Education to respond on. A number of people made submissions about using the word “Teaching” versus “Teachers”, and I would really ask the Minister to give us his view on that. I’ve also raised the issues around the word “Aotearoa” and what is in the title versus what may be in those rules. I also just want to, in the next 3½ minutes, deal with the schedule—so I am shifting on to the schedule—and talk about transition.

Can I take a moment to acknowledge the chair of the Education Council. What a fantastic person she is. Barbara, if you’re listening, thank you for the work that you and the council have done so far. You’ve done a huge amount of work, over the last period, to really take the profession forward.

What a number of people submitted—and it was interesting around the transition, because of course we oppose this body; we believe in a skills- and competency-based entity. But they did argue not only for continuity of membership—and I’m looking at the departmental report and advice—but also for potential staggered turnover of appointed members. Now, again, the Education Council themselves actually argued for that continuity of membership—they argued and submitted, and, again, I quote, that existing members could support incoming members through that process—but also this discussion about staggered turnover. It was actually both the Education Council and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) who submitted on the staggered turnover of appointed members. The ministry’s response to that was that staggered turnovers are one option for managing the transition to a new council. It’s particularly useful where all of the appointments do not need to commence on the same day. In the case of the new council, officials do not consider this approach to be appropriate, because the appointed members are intended to address any gaps in skills.

I’m sure that we may hear that from the Minister, but the reason that this is particularly relevant, and I just would ask him to potentially comment on it, is because when we get to the title and commencement—don’t worry, I don’t know that we’re going to be here for hours, but just when we do have that discussion—this issue is how you manage the transition. Even if we don’t support the policy, how do you ensure that the skills and the love and aroha that have been given by people into this body is transferred to the next entity but also that there really is, effectively, a legitimate birth and that there might be an opportunity to pass on those skills in a staggered way?

I think what the Minister has instead really proposed is to get rid of it. Obviously, there’ll be elections, and then, obviously, there will be appointed members. I am just, sort of, pleading with him and asking him whether, at this stage, he could reconsider some other process that supports the existing members but also just acknowledge the PPTA and the Education Council and their submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee on this issue.

Again, the other point that I would ask—and I raised it in my last call on this bill—is that we really don’t know the exact cost. We’ve had estimates of the costs of this. This matters when we’re talking about transition. It does matter how much we think this election process is going to actually cost. I just would love him to comment more on whether he’s had some additional advice that maybe the select committee hasn’t seen. Is it about $700,000? Is it $1 million? We know that $700,000, for instance, could pay for 30,000 teacher-aide hours. But if you could just give us a little bit more advice on that, I would really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’m very happy to comment very briefly on the transition provisions, because, of course, they were contained in Part 1 of the bill, rather than Part 2. The only schedule that’s contained in Part 2 is schedule 4. Schedules 1 to 3 were contained in Part 1. But I will comment briefly, because I take the member at face value on that.

I am mindful of the transition from the Education Council to the Teaching Council. Of course, there’s lengthy debate about whether “Teaching” or “Teacher” is the right word. Ultimately, the profession just wants to have the word “Teaching” or “Teacher” in the name somewhere, and I think that’s something that this Government recognises.

On the transition costs, I can assure the member it’ll be a lot cheaper than the transition from the old Teachers Council to the Education Council. It will not cost even a fraction of the amount of money that that cost.

Just finally, on the transitions, in terms of ensuring a smooth transition of membership, the way the provisions have been put together to have the elections first and then the ministerial appointments, will allow, for example, for there to be some continuity of membership. I think the previous Government should give the members that they appointed a little bit more credit, in that some of those people may well be elected to those positions on the council.

I do want to acknowledge the current chair, Barbara Ala’alatoa, who is someone who I have enormous respect for and who I think has done a very good job. I want to make a plea on her behalf, because I think she’s done a great job. Every time she’s endorsed by the previous National Government her credibility with the teaching profession goes down, and I think you should set her free, stop complimenting her, and allow her to rebuild her credibility with the teaching profession. She is, in fact, I think, a very good school principal, someone who has a very credible education background, and someone who I have a lot of confidence in.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): What a low blow by the Minister of Education there. I feel like this Government’s popularity is just diving to new depths, which is fantastic for us on this side of the Chamber. But I just want to take a call on Part 2 of the “Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill”. Members across the other side of the Chamber might complain about my interpretation of the title, calling it the “Teachers Council”, but I now have licence to do so from the Minister, who said “teachers or teaching—no big deal”. So I just want to put that on the record before I get a further barrage of interjections.

But let me bring this back to Part 2, because there’s a very important point, actually, here in Part 2 of the bill, which is dealing with “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. This consequential amendments part is actually inconsistent. I’m not sure if the Minister has noticed, but the committee stage of the Parliament is the opportunity to fix up, whether it’s minor or major, things. I think in this bill it’s probably minor; in employment law, possibly, it’s going to be major. We’ll wait and see whether that’s the case or not. But here we have some inconsistencies.

As we read through it, clause 8 says, “From the commencement of this section,—(a) the Education Council Rules 2016 are called the Teaching Council Rules”—that’s carried through in paragraph (b) of that clause. Then what we have here in clause 9(2), paragraphs (a) and (b), there is basically an inconsistency. It says in paragraph (a), “the Education Council must be read as a reference to the Teaching Council:”; in paragraph (b) it says, “the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand must be read as a reference to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand.” I’m not sure whether he’s willing to include the Teaching Council of Aotearoa and just have the full name in paragraph (a), as the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”—is he trying to save ink in consequential amendments?

I would like to bring back to the Minister’s attention that the purpose of the renaming is to “better reflect the bicultural nature of this country.” I’d like to ask the Minister if he is willing to take into account some changes—I’m happy to draft amendments, or whether his officials would be willing to support him in that—to make sure that this actually does reflect the bicultural nature of New Zealand, which he argues is required to improve this piece of legislation or to improve the Education Council, by changing the name. I’d like him to answer that question, because consistency is an important point. We are talking about consequential amendments. It does have an impact on other pieces of legislation, and the reference which is made to other pieces of legislation—and a debate which will be further and ongoing in this area. I’d like him to answer that question, as to whether he is prepared to make some changes to that.

Back to clause 8, where it refers to the “Teaching Council Rules”—I’d like him to also answer the question of why he is keeping it as the “Teaching Council Rules” rather than changing that also to the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa Rules”, to better reflect the bicultural nature of New Zealand, which is what is argued in the Education and Workforce Committee’s report as the purpose of renaming the Education Council. I think those are important points that I’d like him to answer. It’s about the cohesiveness of this piece of legislation, the consequential nature, and the consistency—the “three Cs”, not the “three Rs”, of this legislation. It’s something that I think he needs to reflect on as Minister of Education, as to how he would like this Teaching Council to be known and to be talked about in other pieces of legislation. So those are, I guess, some more technical matters.

I also note that this does also make changes to the Ombudsmen Act, the Privacy Act, and the State Sector Act. When I read those parts under schedule 4, I am pleased to see that it is referring to the full name of the “Teaching Council of Aotearoa”. I’m pleased to see that the consistency has flowed through. It says here, in schedule 4, Part 2, under the amendment to the Ombudsmen Act, “insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order: Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand”; then under the amendment to the Privacy Act, “replace … with ‘Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand”; and, again, with the State Sector Act, “replace … with ‘Teaching Council of Aotearoa”. So will he be requiring some consistency, and will he support my amendments for that? Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 8 be agreed to:

delete clause 8.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 9 be agreed to:

delete clause 9.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 94 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Nikki Kaye’s tabled amendment to delete schedule 1 is out of order as the proper course of action is to vote against the schedule.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to schedule 2 be agreed to:

delete new clause 1(4) of schedule 21.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of Denise Lee to schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 101 in the name of Nicola Willis to schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar to schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the tabled amendment in the name of Dan Bidois to schedule 2 be agreed to:

insert new clause 1(5) of schedule 21.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to schedule 3 be agreed to:

delete Part 1 of schedule 3.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to schedule 4 be agreed to:

delete Part 1 of schedule 4.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Kei te whakamana au i Te Reo Māori mō te kaupapa i tēnei wā.

[I wish to honour our current focus on Māori language.]

I would like to refer to an amendment in the name of Nikki Kaye, and it is in regard to the commencement date. The commencement clause of the bill in its current form states that this bill comes into force the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. However, I’m supporting this particular amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye, that changes the commencement date to 1 January 2020.

The reason for my support is that this amendment is based on the fact that the Minister of Education is clearly trying to make some changes happen overnight. The self-imposed time line of this bill states that elections must be held at least four months before members take office. So if you’re going off that, it means that the earliest possible—I’ve done the calculations—time that the new Teaching Council would be able to be formed, and this would be as it is drafted, would be late January to early February next year. Now, that’s only four months to get things up and running, but at least it’s a little bit of time for the current organisation to plan and prepare for this major transition—something’s better than nothing. But what the Minister’s done is introduce Supplementary Order Paper 94 that would exempt the first election from this four-month requirement. So why would that be? The only reason to do that, possibly—this is my calculation—is that he wants the newly elected Teaching Council up and running before Christmas, before the New Year. Now, that is simply not enough time.

The bill proposes a huge change to the structure of the Education Council, and it is a structure that is so far-reaching in its implications for the profession, stakeholders, day-to-day operations, and the governance of the organisation that it deserves a really good look, and that’s what the amendment is doing. Changes can’t be made overnight. It’s not possible. So we should look at that commencement date really closely to make sure that all those impacted by these changes can adequately prepare. They’ve got to do the grunt work, after all, and make sure that the changes—despite our opposition to change in the first place—can be carried out, and that there be no unnecessary cost and also complications around the scale and the size of the change. I’ve got three reasons that I would like to outline as to why the commencement date should be, as the Hon Nikki Kaye has suggested, 1 January 2020.

The first is that the Teaching Council itself has to make rules around the nomination and the election process. They’re tasked with doing it. They have to plan—really important—how to increase participation in those voting and getting involved in the election, because we know historically that participation has been incredibly low. I think someone has used the figure of 13 percent, and that’s going to take some time for the council to figure out how to get that participation up.

The second reason is that we know that the changes proposed will cost $700,000 over three years. That is a massive, massive bill. If we delay the commencement, it might lessen the financial burden of that particular change. I’m not sure it will, but, hey, we could give it some time to see whether in fact the financial cost could come down. Proper planning time might result in a cheaper outcome, and I don’t mean cheap in a figurative sense; I mean it in a literal sense. It is perhaps time for where alternatives can be found. Just on my point two, before I get to point three, it’s also going to spread out potentially—if we go to the commencement date of 2020—the cost over time, meaning, of course, less of a financial burden for the organisation.

My reason three, and then I would like to, with your indulgence, Madam Chair, head on to one comment around the title—I’m on commencement now. So my third reason around commencement is that there is such a lack of clarity. There is a real distinct lack of clarity and direction in the education sector at the moment. The reason why we need adequate time to head into that—if this passes—change and what that change would look like for the Education Council is around that lack of clarity and direction. The Government currently has, by my calculation, 14 different reviews going on in the education sector.

Hon Nikki Kaye: 19

DENISE LEE: 19, sorry—19. I’m being corrected. There are 19 reviews currently taking place in the education sector. The bill has not taken into account, in the commencement date, the significant changes that may result from these 19 reviews. Commencement should not occur until we know the result of these reviews, until we have some certainty about what the education sector is going to look like, and then we might have a better idea of the proper place of the Teaching Council, which is a fundamental factor in when the Teaching Council—should this pass—should get into gear and be action ready. Do they even know what the education sector, in a broad sense, is going to look like? I would argue they certainly don’t, because there are 19 reviews going on at the moment.

Now, Madam Chair, with your indulgence, I would like to switch to the title. I find it really interesting—so I’m not speaking to a Supplementary Order Paper in this regard, but I’m making a general comment about the title. I find it fascinating that, back in the first reading, Tracey Martin from New Zealand First made some very definitive comments about the title. With your indulgence, I’d like to read from Hansard, from the first reading, but it relates to the title here for the purposes of this afternoon. She said, “New Zealand First has an issue with this bill. The bill was originally drawn as a member’s bill from the ballot. It perfectly matches what New Zealand First campaigned on, what the Green Party campaigned on, and what the Labour Party campaigned on, except for the name [the title]. The Minister of Education understands that and it’s a conversation, a topic, that has been discussed. At the moment it is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill 2017.” Here’s where she gets strong, and you can just sense the intonation in her voice: “We will lobby, and we understand we can work constructively with the Minister of Education, to amend the title to this bill to ‘Education (Teachers Council of Aotearoa’”—wait for it—“‘New Zealand)’”.

This is the sum total of New Zealand First’s contribution to the education sector of New Zealand. They want to insert the term “New Zealand” in the title. She made a very specific point in the first reading that she was lobbying the Minister, that there were discussions going on inside and outside the office—who knows where?—that they lobbied strong and hard to contribute to the education sector. And their contribution is what? “New Zealand”. Thank you very much, New Zealand First. You are engaging in the deep and meaningful as we speak. Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Madam Chair, I can briefly comment on the issue of the changes to the name of this bill and of the organisation, and I can confirm that Tracey Martin didn’t have to lobby that hard in order to get that change. It’s a sensible change, quite frankly, and so the Labour Party part of the Government had no hesitation in agreeing to it.

With regard to the commencement date, there are a number of amendments that have been moved by members opposite. One of them, in the name of Erica Stanford, is an amendment that I’m well familiar with myself, having moved it several times in the House before, only to have it struck out under Speakers’ ruling 115/2, and that is that it suggests that the commencement should be at the close of polling day for the first general election held. The reason that I know it’s been struck out is I tried to do it under the previous Government and the chairs ruled that that didn’t satisfy the requirements of due particularity around the date, because the date of the election was not certain enough.

But there are some other clauses which I’m sure will withstand scrutiny, including the ones that suggest particular dates. The question has been raised by the member about why we’ve chosen the date we have, i.e., the date after it receives the Royal assent, and whether there’s any ambition to have this new system in place before Christmas. The reason that we’ve chosen the date after which it receives the Royal assent is because the Education Council, which will become the Teaching Council, want to get on with the process of organising the elections, and they therefore want these rules in place.

They have indicated that they would like to have the new council in place, certainly in the first half of next year, that they believe they can conduct the elections during that time, and that getting the commencement as soon as possible gives them certainty as to what the rules are that they’ll be operating under. Therefore, the Government will continue to support the status quo when it comes to the commencement, which is the day after it receives the Royal assent.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Tēnā koutou katoa i tēnei wiki, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Greetings to you all in this week, Māori Language Week.]

I rise to speak on the title and commencement clauses of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. What a pleasure it is. This is the first time that I’ve had the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement clauses of a bill, and how exciting that is. I note that the Minister is anxious to remind us that when New Zealand First asks for changes to bills, it can get them. It seems to be weighing on the Minister’s mind that New Zealand First was able to achieve that with the title of this bill, and we wonder, on this side of the Chamber, on what other matters they may achieve that—

Hon Phil Twyford: It’s called MMP.

NICOLA WILLIS: —in the coming months, particularly in relation to the Employment Relations Act, Mr Twyford. Thank you for your contribution, Mr Twyford.

It’s clearly on the Minister’s mind—this question of commencement. The reason he seems to be thinking about commencement is he’s thinking about election dates. And I wonder why it might be that the Minister’s thinking about election dates today as he thinks about the unwieldy situation that he and his fellow Ministers are trying to manage on the other side of the Chamber. They’re trying their best to ensure that the election doesn’t come early, and that when it does, they aren’t voted out of office.

I turn to the title, because, clearly, there are some alternative titles that I would ask the Minister if he has considered. Did he consider calling this bill the “Back to the Future Amendment Bill”—because, of course, all this bill does is rehash the failed policies which Labour had in previous years and brings them back. There is no fresh thinking happening on that other side; this is just an old idea.

Did the Minister consider calling this bill the “Unnecessary but Very Expensive Amendment Bill”? Of course, what we know about this is that changing the name of the Education Council to the Teaching Council will come at a cost to taxpayers of around $700,000. Yet not one of the speakers on the opposite side of the Chamber has managed to put forward an argument to suggest that the current council is failing in any way. So we would suggest that naming this bill, perhaps, the “Expensive and Unwarranted Amendment Bill” could be appropriate.

Finally, we come to this issue of “Teachers Council” versus “Teaching Council.” I’d just ask the Minister: could he comment on why the previous form that Labour loved, which was the “Teachers Council” is now changed to the “Teaching Council”, and what could the semantic reasons for this evolution be?

Finally, before I sit down, after this short call, I’d ask this question: given how urgent this clearly is in terms of the commencement—it is to commence the very day that it gets the Royal assent—how does the Minister see this sitting versus the priorities that teachers have right now, which would be around settling their collective agreement so that they don’t need to strike in the coming weeks? Is this more of a priority than ensuring that settlement? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am pleased that this is the final time that I’m actually going to speak in the committee stage of the debate—[Interruption]—and I can hear the sadness in the voices from the other side. But I did want to acknowledge and respond to the Minister, who said that every time I commented on the chair of the Education Council, it would somehow be harmful to her political career. So, instead, I’m going to make sure I compliment all of the other members of the Education Council so that there’s safety in numbers. From Anthony, to Claire, to Simon, to Ripeka, to Nicola, to Helen, and I just again want to acknowledge Barbara. Thank you very much for the contribution that you’ve made.

Secondly, I do want to just pick up on a couple of final points. As I have said previously, we don’t support this bill, because we believe in a competency-based model. We understand the history of the Education Council and we support that entity. But I also want to make this point to the Minister: part of the whole reason that we’ve spent months on this has been about this argument from the other side about giving the independence to the profession. That’s why we’ve had all of this debate about the representation.

I do think it is a bit rich to have that debate but, at the same time, have the Minister considering, basically, the ability to direct the council on a range of issues, and we’re going to continue to discuss that openly and publicly, because we think that the tens of thousands of teachers out there deserve to have real clarity about what the Government’s plans may be in terms of directions of the council, and that does diminish the independence. So if we were going to name this council something different, we certainly wouldn’t be able to name it the “Independent Education Teaching Council of Aotearoa”, because we know that the Minister has some other plans in the works.

The second thing I do want to just pick up on is what my colleagues have mentioned. Look, again, we accept that this bill is going through the House. We accept that the Minister has a different view around the entity, as do other members of the Education and Workforce Committee, but we have just pleaded, given the whole conversation—there’s 19 other reviews happening in education—as to why it is that we need to push so hard and fast now, when there’s a range of other discussions that are occurring in the education area. We don’t think this is the right time for this bill. We’ve actually argued on other bills to delay them, in part because of the education conversation that’s occurring. And I think there is a real case for having some steady hands and taking this process through in a slow and easy manner. That would mean supporting our amendment—at this last point of call, at 5.19 on a Thursday afternoon—to show some goodwill to the Opposition and that you’re very serious about this appointments process, and considering the delay in the commencement of this bill.

I will just finish by acknowledging Māori Language Week, and acknowledging “Aotearoa” in the title, and I say to all members of this House on this Thursday afternoon that we just acknowledge the important role of Te Reo Māori in New Zealand, and, hopefully we have members opposite supporting my Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill in Parliament. That would be a wonderful thing. So I just reiterate that the members over on this side do oppose this bill, and we really plead with the Minister to consider delaying the commencement.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Look, I don’t want to prolong the debate. I fear that despite the Opposition’s opposition to the bill, there is a degree of goodwill in this debate that I don’t want to spoil. But they have raised a legitimate question about whether this bill should proceed before or after some of the reviews that are being undertaken by the Government are complete and the recommendations of those are known.

I do want to give the Opposition a cast-iron guarantee that one of the outcomes of that review process is that we will still have teachers, and they will still be a regulated profession. And I cannot envisage any circumstances through the review process where we would no longer have teachers.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Denise Lee’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Act 2018 is out of order as inconsistent with the previous decision of the House.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denise Lee to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act 2017” with “Education (Teaching Council Membership Structure) Amendment Act 2018”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” with “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2020.”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” with “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2019.”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” with “This Act comes into force 12 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” with “This Act comes into force 18 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Erica Stanford to clause 2 be agreed to:

replace the words “on the day” with “at the close of polling day for the first general election held”.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Voting

Correction—Education Amendment Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, earlier today the vote on the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63, Noes 56. The correct result is Ayes 63, Noes 57.

Bills

Maritime Powers Extension Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Acting Minister of Customs): I move, That the Maritime Powers Extension Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to provide a clear domestic legislative framework for responding to drug smuggling activity in international waters beyond New Zealand’s territorial sea. I would like to thank the chair and all members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for carefully considering this bill over a relatively short period of time, and I am pleased that the committee has submitted a unanimous report that recommends only minor changes to the bill. Therefore, rather than focusing on the content of the bill, I want to take some time to speak to the broader context that it sits within, and I understand that these issues were considered by the committee and by submitters.

All parties in this House can agree that it is critical that our law enforcement agencies have a full set of options available to prevent criminals smuggling illicit drugs that are causing harm in New Zealand’s communities. These are serious powers, and they will not be exercised lightly by the Customs Service. This bill reflects New Zealand’s rights and obligations under international conventions to suppress maritime drug smuggling. The bill balances the protection of New Zealand with the rights affirmed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This bill is part of the coalition Government’s wider strategy for combatting organised crime. Through Budget 2018, this coalition Government has increased funding for both customs and police, to build capacity and capability, and, in partnership with law enforcement agencies offshore, to disrupt organised crime groups in New Zealand.

The security of our maritime environment is fundamental to our national security. We are all aware of the challenge we face in monitoring and responding in the vast ocean that surrounds us. I recognise here the critical role that the New Zealand Defence Force plays in supporting civilian agencies like customs, police, the Department of Conservation, Fisheries New Zealand, and others in managing their areas of responsibility. While the powers proposed under this bill will not materially change the level of support required by customs, we need to continue to ensure agencies, including the Defence Force, are equipped to protect New Zealand’s interests in this dynamic and changing environment.

Given the transnational nature of drug smuggling, Aotearoa New Zealand cannot respond to these challenges alone. We work closely with our overseas partners to prevent the smuggling at the earliest point in the supply chain, and customs is increasingly stopping exports to New Zealand from within source countries, rather than responding when they reach our border. Passing this bill means that New Zealand has another option available to respond when drug smuggling activities are detected in international waters. Regional partners such as Australia already have similar powers, and this bill ensures New Zealand can more effectively contribute to joint operations. We also work closely with Pacific Island countries to build the capability of customs and border security agencies. These are long-term initiatives, but the Government’s Pacific reset is adding a new level of priority to building strong, mature partnerships with our neighbours in the Pacific.

Ultimately, this will protect New Zealanders, but it also directly strengthens the ability of these countries to protect their own people. Members may be aware, for example, of an Ecuadorian fishing boat suspected of smuggling drugs in the Cook Islands in February this year, where the New Zealand Customs Service was there on the ground, supporting local agencies. It also provided intelligence, evidence, information sharing, and coordination support from New Zealand. The Cook Islands’ Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Hon Mark Brown, has written to convey his appreciation of the support that the New Zealand Customs Service provided. This is an excellent partnership model, that I expect will be the basis for future operations.

In conclusion, passing this bill is a necessary step in ensuring that customs and other law enforcement agencies can fully respond to suspected drug smuggling activities. It is, however, just one part of a broader strategy for combatting organised crime, which encompasses stronger relationships with partners in the Pacific, and more widely strengthening our capability to respond both onshore and at sea. I commend the Maritime Powers Extension Bill to the House. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I acknowledge the Acting Minister of Customs who has just taken his chair, Kris Faafoi, obviously, in taking over the role, but, importantly, acknowledge the former Minister Meka Whaitiri too, who had shepherded this to the House so far.

I’m very pleased to speak on this Maritime Powers Extension Bill in its second reading debate. In many ways, we’ll be echoing—as is the nature of this House—what the Minister has said. By and large, there is concord, there is agreement across the parties for the necessity of this bill, and I’ll touch on some of that.

I wear two hats. I only mention that because I’ll recuse myself from one of them. They are, obviously, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but I’m also the National Party spokesperson for customs—but it’s not my role to put that hat on while addressing the topic today, other than to say we’re very supportive of the intentions of the bill. That’s been part of the reason why not only as a committee but this side of the House was happy to expedite the bill as quickly as possible through the select committee process, and I’ll talk to that in a moment, too.

So the committee did thoroughly consider the bill, but, as I was saying, we did move relatively swiftly, and that was for several reasons. One was we had three submissions in total, and I’d like to put on the record my thanks to those three submitters—organisations and individuals—for their time. That, of course, reduces, if you will, the workload of the committee in terms of consideration.

The second is that, as we have noted, there was great cooperation and agreement on the committee around not only the need for this bill but, actually, how it was drafted. The committee worked very quickly to bring it back to the House. It’s no surprise that one of the reasons is that we want this set of powers to be made available to our customs people as quickly as possible.

The third reason I think we were able to expedite the process quickly—again, without cutting any corners—was our excellent advisers. Can I acknowledge those from the Customs Service and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) for their work and advice. It was very much appreciated, not only the clarity of their thinking but, in fact, the good humour, at times, that was illustrated and, I think, probably their patience—perhaps only with the chair, but maybe with the entire committee—as various questions were asked. But my thanks on my behalf and that of the committee goes to them, and not to forget the Parliamentary Counsel Office, as well, for, obviously, the drafting of the bill. It has only seen, as the commentary indicates, very minor changes.

Look, the bill is relatively simple. I’ve spoken in the first reading around what the whole purpose is. Fundamentally, it’s about New Zealand’s good citizenry—how to be a good citizen in the world. We have signed up to several agreements. One is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, as it’s often referred to. As a signatory of that, we cooperate to stop the illicit smuggling of drugs. I won’t get into the different types of drugs, obviously, but, you know, it’s pretty connotative, what we’re suggesting there.

We’ve also signed up to a convention that’s known as the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. So it’s very much like UNCLOS in a way because it’s directed at stopping the illicit movement of drugs around the world.

So we’ve signed up for that, but like so many international treaties that we sign or engage with, we need domestic legislation to make those active in New Zealand, and it’s been a little bit of a gap in our customs framework to date that we have not been able, it has been felt, to fully execute those treaties. So, to put it very simply, until this bill passes—and this is not an encouragement to those considering smuggling drugs in New Zealand. I’m wondering whether I’m perjuring the good nature of the House—

Gareth Hughes: They’re all watching Parliament TV.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah, I’ve caught myself in a trap, Mr Hughes. Oh well. But, basically, at the moment there’s some ambiguity over whether or not we’d be able to prosecute people who are internationally smuggling drugs. So I’m not talking about people bringing drugs into New Zealand. Our customs people do a remarkable job in that space, along with stopping other inappropriate publications and so forth. But if at the moment—

Tim van de Molen: I suspect the drug dealers aren’t watching Parliament TV.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That’s a good point. One of my colleagues has pointed out that he doesn’t think that the drug smugglers are watching television, or I hope they’re not—maybe a smuggled television, who knows?

Hon Andrew Little: You’d be surprised.

SIMON O’CONNOR: And the justice Minister says—we’ll have to have a talk after this.

Hon Andrew Little: Especially when they know you’re talking, Simon.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That’s right, that’s right. They must be very interested in Greek and Latin as well, I suspect.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s what they’re waiting for.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, fundamentally—fundamentally—

Jamie Strange: The commonality.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Now, he’s thrown me—there we go. Fundamentally, at the moment—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: This is almost one of the first times in seven years, on one of the simplest—yeah, anyway.

At the moment, if we interdict, or stop, a ship on the high seas, which we are empowered to do, there is some question over whether or not we’d be able to bring a prosecution within the New Zealand environment. So I think it’s a really important element for the House to understand that we do have the powers to do that at the moment. Under UNCLOS and other agreements, we can stop ships which we are suspicious of, both those flagged to other sovereign nations and those which are not flagged. There are protocols in place to do that, but there is, again, ambiguity that if we have stopped a vessel off, let’s say, Fiji and it is found to contain a large number of drugs, we’d, obviously, interdict that ship, take the crew into custody, and do all the requirements that you would imagine, with foreign affairs and our other partners. But there’s, again, a question whether, without this law, we’d be able to actually make the necessary prosecutions. So this is what the bill seeks to tighten up.

New Zealand is well advanced in its customs work and engaging with customs—and I thank the customs people for the opportunity to have come and visited their sites to get a slightly deeper understanding of what they do. Their work there is very thorough.

They’re doing an excellent job, but, as is probably no surprise, New Zealand continues to come under pressure, particularly as more and more people look to bring drugs in. It’s a lucrative market in New Zealand. It’s not, obviously, a large one, but people, for whatever reason, are quite prepared to pay a high amount of money—I’m not sure if that’s a pun—

Hon Members: Oh!

SIMON O’CONNOR: —yeah, I’m very sorry; it’s a Thursday evening—that, obviously, helps generate the trade. We know that a lot of it is coming through the Pacific. It’s coming through the Pacific Islands, so, fundamentally, that’s the area that we need more work in, and I’m pleased to see that customs is focusing on that.

It was mentioned by the Minister—and quite importantly—that that work by customs is not done alone. They cooperate very closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and, as I have noted, they are one of our advisers on this bill. Obviously, customs is not going to operate in international waters or in the protected areas of other countries, such as the Cook Islands, without engaging with that nation.

They work very closely with the Ministry for Primary Industries as well—they have a hand to play—and, importantly too, with our Ministry of Defence. I just look to the Minister of Defence in the House to acknowledge through him the great work that defence does in supporting customs. Obviously, customs itself does not have vessels to send to the Pacific. They tap, effectively, defence and cooperate very closely together—along with, I believe, our allies such as Australia—to do these missions to interdict the various vessels.

I think that’s important because not only is that a service to New Zealand but it’s a service to—well, the wider realms within New Zealand, or wider countries within the Realm, but also to our partners in the Pacific. I mentioned Australia—we’ve obviously got the likes of Fiji and Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands, to name but a few. So we have a very large area to police, and I think now, when this bill, obviously, moves through second reading and through into its third, after the committee of the whole House, it will just strengthen even further the good work that is being done there.

So I’m very pleased that we had the opportunity on the select committee to consider this bill. As I’ve been keen to stress, we were thorough in our work. We didn’t want to cut any corners, but we also wanted to move this through as a process as quickly as possible, and that was aided by some excellent—albeit three—submissions advisers, who gave us very clear thoughts and advice, as you might expect. The work, too, of the committee—I found, myself, as chair, that the questions were useful and insightful. I think it did help members bring their ideas together, and, ultimately, we’ve been able to report back the bill very simply, really—I could almost name the changes; I won’t, but I count them on one hand.

But I do want just want to finish, in some ways, where I should’ve started, and that’s acknowledging the men and women who do work for our Customs Service, and those who work through defence and the Ministry for Primary Industries and MFAT, who continue to keep our borders safe. It’s a service that is greatly appreciated, and, hopefully, this is just one more, well, bit in the arsenal to help.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I’d like to acknowledge the previous two speakers, who have very adequately outlined the purpose of the bill. It’s certainly a very important bill for our country. We do have a challenge around drugs, particularly methamphetamine, commonly called P, and the passing of this bill will give the Customs Service powers to stop, board, and search ships suspected to be involved in drug smuggling in international waters beyond New Zealand’s 24 nautical mile contiguous zone. So it’s basically giving Customs more power in order to stop the drugs coming in. Look, it’s certainly only part of a puzzle, and it’s important as well to increase the police force, which we are working on. I’m proud to say that both parties prior to the election talked about that. So, look, it’s all part of a puzzle around keeping New Zealanders safe.

Just a key point I’d like to focus on in my brief contribution is around New Zealand’s role in the Pacific. We have a strong relationship with our Pacific neighbours, with Australia and the Pacific Islands, and it’s important that we play our part—good “citizen-ship” would be one way to say that. [Interruption] Ha!

Just for those listening at home, the Kiribati islands, for example, have an exclusive economic zone the size of the mainland United States but only one ship to patrol it. The Pacific is a huge area, and if we’re going to patrol the Pacific well, adequately, we need to work together as countries. We need collaboration. So that’s why I’m very excited to see this bill being brought to the House. That’s what this bill is about: it’s about collaboration.

In terms of the select committee, I’m honoured to be on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I’d like to acknowledge Simon O’Connor, the previous speaker, who does an excellent job chairing the committee. We have a positive working relationship across the committee, and there was unanimous support for this, because, like I said, it’s about keeping New Zealanders safe. It’s about stopping the drugs coming in. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, sir. I’d like to start by acknowledging the “citizen-ship” pun by my colleague Jamie Strange, thereby proving he is not an empty vessel. In relation to the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, the first thing that I might note is that it is indeed an extension of the existing maritime powers, and previous speakers—the Minister himself and other colleagues—have noted the ways in which those powers have been extended. A couple of ways, broadly speaking—the first is out there in the field, or on the water, whereby the powers are increased to intercept or interdict ships that are or might be carrying out such operations, and, second, to deal with such instances appropriately on New Zealand shores.

I’ll return to that if time allows. But I’ll note briefly, in passing, as others have already done, that while it is a Government bill, it’s also supported on this side of the House. So, again, I acknowledge the work of Ministers various who have been involved to date and also those others in Government who are concerned with agencies that do the necessary work to carry this out. Others have already mentioned the fact that others other than customs itself are involved in the work that is needed. Minister Faafoi also did make mention of the fact that interoperability also exists on the international plane, such that we are by definition and by the nature of the bill, anticipating working closely with other countries and their respective customs and navies and so forth to be able to meet its aims.

The commentary of the bill as reported back from the House refers to amendments that have been marked up, of course, in that version of the bill, and I’ll touch on those again briefly if time allows. To provide context to that, it’s necessary to understand that this is a legislative instrument that gives effect to an international instrument such that New Zealand has already signed up to a couple of international treaties—if you’ll excuse the tautology at this time of the parliamentary week—that we live in a global world and therefore must abide by. I don’t intend to go on any further on the subjects of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances—to the relief of all, I’m sure.

Talking about the mechanics of how the bill actually operates, I mentioned earlier the fact that it is an extension of powers. The powers already do exist to some extent but do need to be broadened such that at sea our people operating in those waters are able to be able to interdict ships that are in a particular environment beyond the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand. That is defined in the bill, but referring to the definition in another Act already, so that much is straightforward. I think it’s worth noting in particular that “high seas” is defined to mean all parts of the sea not included in the following: “(a) the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of New Zealand or another State;”—which is an important point in itself—“or (b) the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State”. One might think of, for example, a near neighbour of Indonesia.

I was grappling with understanding how all the different zones and statuses of various ships might affect how this law will be intended to operate, and I would like to take this particular opportunity to acknowledge the work of the officials in advising me and telling members of the committee and understanding exactly how that all fits together.

Because I am a bear of little brain, I felt it necessary to make a diagram that set out how it all operates. The particular forum that we have now does not allow for me to show that, but I’ll step through as clearly as I can, if I may, how I see and now understand the different statuses of vessels work.

The first thing to note is that this law applies to ships and they, in turn, can be broken down into three categories: those which are registered to New Zealand—so far so good and pretty straightforward. The next category is foreign ships, and then, third, are what we might call Stateless vessels, which are, as the name suggests, not registered or associated with either New Zealand or any other nation. Returning to the category of foreign ships, that in turn can be broken down into registered and unregistered vessels, and that distinction is a key one in understanding how the bill will operate once it passes into law, as seems inevitable, particularly in relation to the definition of what a flag State and registered or unregistered ship might be.

Having established, I think reasonably clearly, how the bill will operate—by colleagues before me, I should say, as well as those brief remarks that I’ve added. I think and I hope to fill a bit of a gap there. I will note, as a couple of others have done, that there were a few submissions, as is normal. I’d like to acknowledge those who took the time and trouble to make submissions. The report that I have in front of me reminds me that two out of the three submissions were in support, so the Meatloaf threshold has been met—“Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad”, of course. One of those that was in support made the point that funding will be required to ensure that customs and the New Zealand Defence Force have the resources to exercise these powers effectively. I don’t doubt that that’s the case—whether that’s already the case, I presume and expect that would be the situation, but no doubt the Government would be able to continue to ensure that is the case so that the important work that’s already being done and the further work that will now be able to be done will indeed be easily carried out.

The one submitter—the 33 percent of the submissions that was opposed to the bill—was merely making the point that customs should, in this person’s view, focus more on the more dangerous, as this person saw them, drugs. There was a concern that the result of this bill would be to focus on “low-risk” drugs. It’s not a view that I necessarily share myself, but for the sake of completeness in this, the second reading, I think it fair to all concerned to report back some of the feedback that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee had received in considering the bill.

Perhaps it’s worth, in my final couple of minutes, just taking a moment to acknowledge the context of needing such legislation, which is summarised for us well by the Customs Service as really mentioning the fact that illicit drugs—and they mention methamphetamine particularly, by way of example—do cause substantial harms to individual New Zealanders, their family and whānau, and the wider community. They point that out, really, to then go on and say that it’s critical to ensure that the law enforcement agencies that we expect and indeed require to take care of such problems on our behalf actually have the full suite of options, so that they’re not only equipped in the physical hardware sense of the phrase but also equipped in the legal sense of the word to be able to deal with these things on our behalf. So it is that we want them to not only have the ability to physically apprehend but also the legal powers to be able to do so lawfully. Then, once such vessels and their masters and so forth are brought back to New Zealand, they can face justice in New Zealand courts, as we would expect to be the natural consequence of such activity or alleged activity.

Customs also noted, in providing some background for us, the risk of organised criminal groups evading border controls. My colleague Simon O’Connor has already given some helpful advice to those who might be contemplating doing so, at least for the next few days, with the bill due to pass into law, we expect and hope, and come into force as early as 1 October. I will just note that while normally a short turn-around between the passage of legislation and its effect is somewhat to be frowned upon if it means that people need time to arrange their affairs in order to be able to comply with it, we’re talking about the enforcement of that which is already illegal, and I don’t feel as though we should necessarily give criminals any more occasion to arrange their affairs to evade capture from law enforcement agencies. So, with that, I wish all those involved all the best in its passage through the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): As it is 5.59 and the Serjeant-at-Arms is likely to come and grab the Mace any time soon, I thought that I would just quietly rise and make a point of order to prevent any of our colleagues starting a speech only for the sake of a couple of minutes. Thank you very much for your presiding over the House for the last week, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So are you seeking leave?

KIERAN McANULTY: I seek leave for the House to rise early.

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.