Wednesday, 19 September 2018

WEDNESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly my statement today that the coalition Government has agreed to lift the refugee quota from 1,000 to 1,500 this term.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she concerned that Westpac’s index of consumer confidence is at a six-year low?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is a Government working hard to lift economic indicators across all categories. I will note an expectation, as well, that as a result of the investment in the Families Package—$5.5 billion—our expectation is that we will see stimulus and an increase in consumer spending as a result of that. Given it came in in June, I expect it’s only a matter of time before we see that coming through.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can she say that when the survey itself says, and I quote, “Families package … has presumably been outweighed by other concerns, such as rising petrol prices and cooling housing markets.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is still early days. Obviously, it has only recently been implemented. It is also a package that ramps up over time, particularly the Best Start element of the payment. Relative to some of the increase in costs that families have been experiencing, of course, we’ve been working hard to also address issues like housing affordability. The member will know that as measured by our child poverty statistics, housing affordability has a considerable impact on the overall incomes and discretionary incomes of families.

Hon Simon Bridges: To what extent has her plan to increase petrol prices reduced consumer confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, we absolutely acknowledge that as the excise has increased—as with the last Government, who increased excise a number of times—that of course does have an impact at the pump. We acknowledge that, but we are utilising that increase in order to invest back in areas where consumers have asked us to invest, to make sure that their roads are safe—in the case of the East Coast, to make sure that they are properly sealed and serviced—that their very most basic of needs are met, and, of course, to also invest in public transport. We are losing productivity in Auckland because our roads are clogged. That’s why we are making such a huge investment in that city, as well.

Hon Simon Bridges: So to the question I asked: to what extent has her plan to increase petrol prices reduced consumer confidence?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I acknowledge the impact on consumers, but I also acknowledge the benefit.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the comment by Westpac that I’ve already quoted—that the Government’s Families Package appears to have been outweighed by other concerns in most consumers’ minds—is it fair to say her Government is giving with one hand but taking a bit more with the other?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I don’t think that’s fair. When you look, the fact is that well over 300,000 families will—by the time the package has been implemented—receive, on average, $75 a week. When I compare that, for instance, to the boost of, roughly, around the $20 mark that that last Government claimed was going to make the biggest impact you could imagine—for them to then belittle $75, on average, says to me that they do not understand how significant that boost is for families. I know it’s having a significant impact because I get letters about it every single week.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about petrol costs and their effect, who was on television on Sunday night in a protest about money not being spent on the road north of Tauranga for the last nine years?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for who appears on television.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can the Prime Minister say things are getting so much better when under her Government in the last quarter, the cost of living, according to Statistics New Zealand, is rising higher than wages, according to the quarterly employment survey?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is a Government who is so vested in demonstrating the impact that our policies will have that we have at least been willing to hold ourselves to account, for instance, on the outcome of the household income surveys by embedding in legislation child poverty indicators, and that Government was never ever—ever—willing to hold itself to account on the tangible difference that we make on a range of measures to household incomes, particularly with children in poverty. That is how committed we are.

Hon Simon Bridges: Won’t she face it that the cost of living in terms of the highest petrol prices ever in New Zealand, rent increases per week of $15 more, and many other costs besides are going up at the moment faster and higher than wages?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In the 11 months that we have been in office, we have already started building affordable homes. We have made sure that rentals are going to be warm and dry. We have put $5.5 billion back into low and middle income earners’ back pockets by saying that those top income earners did not need a tax cut. We have been redirecting the incomes to New Zealanders who needed it the most, and that is how we have been addressing the cost of living.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say it means when the confidence that New Zealanders have in the Government’s ability to manage the economy is at a six-year low and business confidence is at a decade low—particularly, given the incredibly strong economy that she inherited?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve actually spoken on this a number of times. We do have a situation where the confidence levels are exactly the inverse of what some of the economic indicators are demonstrating to us. We have an economic plan that moves away from simply trading on houses and relying on population growth and volatile commodities—as that last Government did—to, instead, investing in the productive economy, adding value to our exports, and expanding the number of export markets for our exporters. We have a plan for the future that will give us a sustainable, inclusive economy, and I am proud of it.

Question No. 2—Housing and Urban Development

2. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What reports has he seen on the New Zealand housing market?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): CoreLogic has reported that one in every four homes sold in New Zealand last month was sold to a first-home buyer. This is the highest rate for first-home buyers since 2006-07. This is a very good early result for our plan to increase homeownership in New Zealand.

Jo Luxton: How has the Government supported first-home buyers to purchase their first home?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government has extended the brightline test and passed amendments to the Overseas Investment Act to reduce speculation in the housing market. We’ve increased wages through the Families Package, and sound economic management has kept interest rates low. As KiwiBuild ramps up, we look forward to seeing more young families moving into their first homes.

Jo Luxton: What steps will the Government take to support first-home buyers to purchase their first home?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, on top of the demand side measures that I mentioned and KiwiBuild, we’re also working on new ways to finance the infrastructure that will allow our towns and cities to grow. That will increase the supply of housing. Our Government is committed to rebalancing the housing market in favour of homebuyers and away from speculators.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Will she release today all communications between herself, her staff, and her Ministers in respect of Derek Handley and his proposed appointment to the role of Government Chief Technology Officer?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): My office has received a number of Official Information Act (OIA) requests, including from the Opposition, and is working on a response to those. We will release that information in accordance with the provisions of the Act once it has been compiled and once it has been processed.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did Derek Handley’s text message to her say?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would have to go from my recollection. But—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —what I can off the back—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. This is a matter of some seriousness. It’s a matter which I’ve had a number of representations on and I’m told that the House takes it seriously. I want to be able to hear the answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would have to go from my recollection. But my recollection is that he mentioned that the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role had been mentioned to him. Again, as I said, I did not directly reply to that message, and it was received in April.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she flat out ignore his text—not even an emoji?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I did not even send an emoji.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was there more than one text from or to Derek Handley from the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The text that I received, again, as I said, was in April. I did not directly reply to that text message on that day or engage with him on the CTO role. On the CTO role, I did not engage with Mr Handley via text message.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, were there any other texts between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I acknowledged the very moment I was asked this question, I have known Mr Handley for a number of years and have had correspondence with him for a number of years.

Hon Simon Bridges: What other communications by any medium—Gmail, WhatsApp, and the like—were there between the Prime Minister and Derek Handley?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As a consequence of the member’s question, I have had my office check. Mr Handley sent me an unsolicited email to my private email on 7 June, which I did not open and which I did not reply to. I’m advised by my staff that it informed me that he’d submitted an application for the role. But, again, it was not something I opened, saw, or replied to.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will the text, and that Gmail she’s referred to, be released?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in my primary answer, my office is currently working through the OIA that was received, and we will reply in accordance with the Official Information Act.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I note today that the head of banking and finance at KPMG stated this morning that “The economy is going better and growing than the level of sentiment about it.”

Hon Amy Adams: Does he share the view of Westpac economists that the latest fall in consumer confidence to a six-year low gives genuine cause for concern about the health of the economy, and, if not, why has he repeatedly used it as a benchmark for the health of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve used many different benchmarks for the health of the economy. What I would say to the member is I also do share Westpac’s finding in today’s survey that showed a lift in the current financial conditions in households in the lower-income bracket—the very group of people neglected for the last nine years.

Hon Amy Adams: With the Tax Working Group’s first report coming out tomorrow, will he guarantee New Zealanders that any change to the tax system will be fiscally neutral, or is this just going to be a cash grab for the Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is the interim report of the Tax Working Group. They will make their recommendations. What we have said consistently is that any recommendations that the Government takes up will not come into force until the 2021 year—after the next election.

Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister know the difference between Crown financial statements and GDP?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was asked of me yesterday, and I continue to understand the difference between them.

Hon Amy Adams: So why then, in an answer to the question from the Deputy Prime Minister asking him exactly what the difference was, did he respond that the difference was that Crown financial statements look back one year and GDP only looks back a quarter?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I said that the difference was—

Hon Amy Adams: Check Hansard.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, OK, so there may have been a slip of the tongue in the Hansard. I haven’t looked at that. I haven’t looked at that, but what I know for sure is that the trend in GDP in New Zealand—[Interruption] Listen up—listen up, Simon. The trend in GDP in New Zealand—

SPEAKER: Order! What we’ll have now is we’ll have a bit of hush over here, and we will have people being addressed properly from this side.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I know is that the trend of GDP declining in New Zealand began at the beginning of 2017, under that Government. The time it will take to transition to a sustainable and productive economy will be some time, but it will be a whole lot less than nine years.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does anyone in the Government know the difference between GDP and the Crown accounts, or is no one running the show?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re very aware of who’s running the show; I’m not sure who is over there.

Question No. 5—Social Development

5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the significance of passing the bills divided from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill yesterday?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The passing of these bills was almost 80 years to the day since the first Labour Government introduced the Social Security Act in 1938. In his speech at the time, Michael Joseph Savage said, “the people’s well-being is the highest law, and so far as this Government is concerned we know no other.” By passing this legislation, we have laid the essential foundations we need to build a fairer and more accessible welfare system that upholds the dignity of all and ensures that in line with this Government’s priorities, the people’s well-being is once again the highest law.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is it significant for women that the bills divided from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill were passed yesterday?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It is fitting that we passed this legislation in the week of the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. We know that women still undertake the majority of parenting and caring duties in our society, which are often undervalued. Women are also overrepresented in the welfare system, making up 92 percent of those on sole parent support and 57 percent of all beneficiaries in New Zealand. These women and their children deserve fair, non-judgmental treatment that doesn’t stigmatise them because of their circumstances. Certainty in legislation is a step towards ensuring that they get the support they need.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does the passing of this legislation mean for the future of social security in New Zealand?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The legislation is now easier for people to use and understand. This will benefit New Zealanders in need of support now and in the future. It also provides a solid platform for the welfare overhaul that all of Government has committed to undertake to ensure that our welfare system is fair, accessible, respectful, and focused on maximising the potential of everyone who uses it. As my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has said to me, it’s about sweeping the floor before we put down the new furniture, and I can’t wait to put down the new furniture.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Did the New Zealand Transport Agency commence a process of procurement for the Tauranga Northern Link project; if so, what decisions, if any, have been taken to halt, suspend, or modify that procurement process since 26 October 2017?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) had asked for registrations of interest to build the Tauranga Northern Link, but no contracts had been entered into. In answer to the second part of the question, when the Government came into office, NZTA advised us that an 8.2c a litre excise increase would be needed to pay for the existing unfunded promises made by the former Government, let alone the $10 billion of expressways that National had campaigned on. This was not sustainable, especially as increased investment in safety, regional roads, and public transport is so badly needed. So the Transport Agency has decided to re-evaluate future expressway projects, including the Tauranga Northern Link, to ensure that they deliver value for money. At the same time, we have invested $4.3 billion in safety and boosted regional road funding by $600 million.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why did he make the funding decision to reduce the State highway improvement budget, which has resulted in this project being shelved—a project that would have saved lives on a stretch of road that has seen 86 serious and death crashes in the recent past years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I reject the member’s assertion that I made that decision, but let me say this: I agree with the people of Tauranga that we need to fix the bloody road. The number of crashes is unacceptable. New housing was allowed to be built along that highway while the road was neglected. We are investing $65 million right now on State Highway 2 between Waihī and Ōmokoroa to make this stretch of road safer. That includes putting a wider centre median strip in place to keep vehicles apart, widening the road shoulders to give drivers more room, installing roadside barriers, and making 26 intersections safer on that stretch of highway.

Jami-Lee Ross: Given he says he didn’t make the funding decisions, was he sitting next to Fergus Gammie when he was asked “Did the agency make any changes to the procurement processes for the Tauranga Northern Link in anticipation of the Government’s policy statement on land transport being issued?”, and Mr Gammie replied with, “The short answer’s yes.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, of course the short answer is yes. Our Government, just like the former Government, set the high-level goals for the transport policy, and set the spending bands within the National Land Transport Programme, but we leave—unlike the former Government, who love to practise pork-barrel politics and politicise the spending of billions of dollars of transport money—the road engineering decisions to the experts, so that they can do their job free of political interference.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When was the idea for the Tauranga Northern Link first proposed, given it’s apparently such an urgent priority for the Opposition now?

SPEAKER: The member is responsible for the first part of the question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In 1997, an options report on the route was completed, and the route was designated in 2001. In 2009, the Bay of Plenty District Council included it in their regional land transport plan.

Jami-Lee Ross: Did he play pork-barrel politics himself when he announced in May that Cabinet had agreed to launch a procurement process for the Auckland tramways?

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I think the member’s been here long enough to know that he can’t preface a question with a statement such as that one, and he should be asking the question quite directly. That’s Standing Order—

SPEAKER: No, no. I think when Ministers use those expressions, then they’re subject to questioning, even though it might prima facie be out of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No, no. We’ve got the question to be answered first.

Jami-Lee Ross: I should ask it again, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. The Minister should answer it.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Bay of Plenty District Council included that in the land transport plan in 2009, how much of the Tauranga Northern Link was built between 2009 and election day 2017?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Not a single metre.

Hon Simon Bridges: What of the following is incorrect: that the Transport Agency had fully funded a four-lane Tauranga Northern Link; that earlier this year it was out on a tender for the project, and that the Minister instructed them to stop that tender and stop the four-lane highway earlier this year?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The third part of that question.

Todd Muller: Will he commit here today to drive from Ōmokoroa to Tauranga to experience first-hand that road, like my constituents do every day?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I can’t commit to that because I am busy making sure that the Transport Agency, as an urgent priority, gets on with re-evaluating that project so that we can make the safety improvements on that highway that that Government failed to do over nine years and has spent the last nine months scaremongering about.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his decision to legislate to “do away” with communities of online learning; if so, why has he not proposed a replacement system?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Acting Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by the Government’s decision to repeal the extension of communities of online learning (COOLs). The coalition Government is maintaining the existing system.

Hon Nikki Kaye: How many parents in rural communities were consulted on his decision to legislate to do away with communities of online learning?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: There was a consultation group taking place, but it was by representative groups, which included NetNZ, the Ombudsman, and Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu, and a range of individual submitters expressed the concerns that the COOLs would not be required to teach the national curriculum or employ registered teachers. If the member would like a breakdown of the individual submitters, if she’d like to submit that in writing, I’ll have my office prepare that for her.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he guarantee—

SPEAKER: Order! It’s a “she” at the moment.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, because she’s answering on behalf of?

SPEAKER: No, she’s not. She’s the Acting Minister.

Hon Nikki Kaye: OK. Will she guarantee that the Minister of Education will pass a new law to provide greater access to funding and quality online learning opportunities in this term of Government?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: What I can guarantee for the member is that this Government will now go out and consult with the general public, with the education sector, with the Virtual Learning Network, with NetNZ, and with all others, as the previous Government should have done before they decided to override the current system that is delivering digital online learning for our students.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the Ministry of Education’s statement that the Virtual Learning Network may disband as a result of this decision, will the Government guarantee the parents of these children that additional funding will be provided to ensure this doesn’t happen?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: As I’ve already mentioned, the Government is using the existing system. Nothing has changed, because the system that the previous Government wanted to put in wasn’t going to take place until 31 December 2019. So we are currently working with the Virtual Learning Network, NetNZ, and all the other providers and the schooling sector to make sure that those students taking advantage of the online learning environment continue to do so and that we build a system that is useful and practical and realistic for New Zealand going into the future.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Just to repeat my question, in light of the Ministry of Education’s statement that the Virtual Learning Network may disband as a result of this decision, will the Government guarantee additional funding so that these children get access to this service?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m not aware of the comment that the member is quoting, so I will go and find out. But I guarantee that member that this Government will work with parents, students, schools, the Virtual Learning Network, NetNZ, and all other areas of the sector to make sure that we make the most of the digital learning environment for our students from now and into the future.

Question No. 8—Police

8. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made regarding the allocation of police?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Following the biggest single investment in policing as part of Budget 2018, last month the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I announced our support for the Commissioner of Police’s allocation of the 1,800 additional officers across all regions. This coalition Government is committed to expanding and resourcing a stronger police service and to giving them the support they need to prevent offending, enforce the law, and keep our communities safe. Thank you, New Zealand First.

Mark Patterson: What impact does the allocation of the 1,800 extra police officers have on our regions and our provinces?

Hon STUART NASH: Provincial communities across all regions will benefit from the roll-out of 1,800 extra police, 712 of whom will be allocated to the regions. Northland, for example, is getting a massive 25 percent increase in police numbers. Provincial towns in regions throughout Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Whanganui, and Manawatū will gain between 17 percent and 27 percent more officers. Two hundred and sixty-four officers will be stationed throughout the South Island, including 88 additional officers to that member’s southern district. This investment in policing is an investment in our provinces, our communities, and our neighbourhoods.

Mark Patterson: How are female recruits reflected in the allocation of 1,800 extra police officers?

Hon STUART NASH: Since 1938, when the Statutes Amendment Act provided the authority to introduce women police, the New Zealand Police has continually strived for greater diversity across the country. Currently, 38 percent of the applicants to Police College are women. Of the 784 new police officers who’ve graduated since this Government was formed, 298 are women. This includes the historic Wing 315 in June, where women made up 54 percent of those who graduated. Police also advise that Māori women have one of the highest application success rates of any demographic group that apply to enter the Royal New Zealand Police College.

Question No. 11 to Minister, 18 September

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, I’m sorry to interrupt proceedings, but we just need to be clear. Yesterday, you removed some supplementaries from us because of an inappropriate comment made by the Hon Chris Finlayson. That was reciprocated by a comment from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to which you said, “I’ll now be considering”—and then there was a Chris Penk intervention, and you said, “I’ll now be considering Mr Penk’s, but not Mr Finlayson’s, inappropriate comment. So I’ve cancelled that punishment,”. Mr Finlayson’s punishment was the loss of six questions; Mr Penk’s was the loss of three, so we’re just a little concerned that we appear not to have the credit of between three and six questions that we were expecting.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m surprised it was only six. I thought it was more than that that Mr Finlayson lost, but whatever Mr Finlayson lost—[Speaker seeks advice] I mean, the number doesn’t really matter because it was neutralised by the intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister, which was just about as outrageous. So all we were left with was the loss of Mr Penk’s questions, which was two, and that is the position which I understand—sorry? [Speaker receives advice] So, as a result of that, the National Party has 37 supplementaries today.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Sorry, we had carry-over questions—so do we lose the benefit of that? With all due respect, we should be six questions up on the 37—it should be 43.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s my advice, and that is that the National Party did get some extra supplementaries yesterday early in the piece. All of them were indicated to the whips, and they were used yesterday.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he believe that women in the health sector should be paid what they are worth?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government is committed to lifting wages and to pay equity. That is why we have extended the care and support pay equity settlement to mental health and addiction workers, that is why district health boards were able to reach an agreement with nurses that delivered the biggest pay increase in a decade and a commitment to implement pay equity negotiations by the end of next year, and that’s why Budget 2018 included a $103 million package to better support community midwives, including an 8.9 percent increase in their fees. That’s a significant boost for community midwives, who, if they handled what is generally considered a full-time caseload of 40 to 50 cases last year, received an average of $111,000. As I outlined at the start of my answer, we are making real progress on pay equity. The answer to the member’s question is yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the conclusion of the community midwifery co-design project in their November 2017 report on the worth of an independent community midwife?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Ministry of Health’s advice on the recommendations of the co-design team was clear: “We are concerned the proposed model would not uphold good practice.” and “The proposed model is unlikely to be affordable for Government in the short or long term.” I agreed with that advice. In particular, I was concerned that we needed to address what, in my view, are the unreasonable demands we’ve been routinely placing on our midwives that we don’t put on other workforces—for example, under the current model, 24/7, on-call expectation is not regarded as unusual. The Ministry of Health and the New Zealand College of Midwives are meeting regularly to discuss ongoing issues in the sector, and I welcome that sort of collaborative approach.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about the overall affordability of any changes to the funding model for midwives. My question was about whether the Minister agreed with the assessment of the value of an independent community midwife, and that wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: I think it was.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister telling the House, therefore, that while he does agree that an independent community midwife is valued according to the recommendation of that report, because it is, in his view, unaffordable, they’re not going to get that value?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did he stand before midwives and their supporters at their rally on 3 May saying he was listening carefully to their concerns when he had already ruled out the recommendations of the co-design group four months earlier?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Because I was.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What?

SPEAKER: Because he was.

Question No. 10—State Services

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and the contents of the work-related emails to and from former Minister Hon Clare Curran’s private Gmail account, in relation to the appointment of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer, that he referred to as having been handed over to the Chief Archivist in yesterday’s Oral Question No 11?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Minister of State Services): Mr Speaker, as I informed your office, this will be a slightly longer than normal answer. There are three email exchanges. The first: on 11 August, where Derek Handley emails Clare Curran about the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) position and questions about the role of the CTO, including resourcing for the role and potential conflicts of interest. On 14 August, Clare Curran replies to that email, confirming a call to discuss these matters. On 15 August, Derek Handley replies to that, confirming times for the call.

The second exchange: on 19 August, Clare Curran emails Derek Handley regarding logistics around the next step on the process of appointment, including the content of any public statements that might be made, and refers to contract discussions with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). On 20 August, Derek Handley responds to that email to Clare Curran about those issues, including the contact he has had with DIA and management of conflicts of interest.

The third exchange: on 21 August, Clare Curran emails Derek Handley regarding issues that would be on the work plan of the CTO and attaches some relevant background documents on those issues. On the same day, Derek Handley responds to Clare Curran, acknowledging the material and referring to the discussions that he is having with DIA.

I have sought and received an assurance from the former Minister that these email exchanges will be made available for release, subject to the normal Official Information Act (OIA) processes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he publicly release or table those emails today, given his responsibilities as the Minister of open Government and this Government’s commitment to be the most open and transparent ever?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe I have explained the dates and the contents of the emails today. As I said at the end of my primary answer, those emails will be released in accordance with the rules of the OIA.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was there any inappropriate content in any of those emails between Mr Handley and Clare Curran over the appointment that influenced the Government’s decision to not proceed with Mr Handley’s appointment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s decision not to proceed with the appointment does not relate to those emails.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement, “The only conclusion that can be drawn from Ministers using private Gmail addresses for Government business is that they have something to hide. ”—a statement made by Chris Hipkins in Opposition; if so, what were Minister Curran and the Prime Minister doing having Government business communicated through a private Gmail account?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One of the things we learn on becoming Ministers is that we receive a lot of correspondence from a lot of different sources to a lot of different places, and, as I quoted in the House yesterday, Sir John Key, the former Prime Minister, acknowledged his use of a private email address for ministerial business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As a precedent for the Minister’s judgment on these matters, has he seen inappropriate comment with respect to a Minister having to step down, such as an ACC case?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I’m—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that’s beyond the Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister as to whether he had a precedent he is using as a measurement to judge by. I think it’s a part of our recent history, and Ministers are entitled to have authoritative precedents to make their judgments on. That’s why I put it before him.

SPEAKER: Yes, and if that question was asked to the Prime Minister who had responsibility for the Minister stepping down, then I would have allowed it. This Minister does not have responsibility for his predecessor’s stepping down.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister reassure the House that there were no communications between the Prime Minister and former Minister Curran in respect of the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In fact, I believe yesterday it was acknowledged that there were communications between the Prime Minister and Ms Curran, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, as would be expected for any major role.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What announcements has he made about pay equity?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Earlier today, along with my colleague the Acting Minister for Women, I announced the introduction of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, which makes it easier for workers in female-dominated industries to make a pay equity claim. It is appropriate to mark the 125th anniversary of universal suffrage with another milestone for women. After all, Kate Sheppard and the suffragists did say that pay equity was their next goal.

Dr Deborah Russell: What does the Equal Pay Amendment Bill do?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It provides a clear and practical framework for parties to get around the table to settle pay equity claims. This is a better way to address pay equity. It’s a much better match with the recommendations of the joint working group and significantly improves on the previous Government’s attempt.

Dr Deborah Russell: How does the bill contribute to the well-being of New Zealanders and their families?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Many of New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers are women, and their skills, knowledge, and experience have not been adequately valued. The pay equity settlements right a wrong and provide a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. That’s more money in Kiwis’ pockets and more money for their families.

Question No. 12—Housing and Urban Development

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will Kiwi families be able to buy the new KiwiBuild houses and apartments coming on to the market?

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

Andrew Bayly: Why did he not know the bank lending requirements before announcing the 39-square-metre KiwiBuild apartments in Onehunga?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This is a minor matter that was resolved in less than a day. The developer, NZ Living, had included the balcony and patios of the studios in his floor space calculations; the bank that was approached by the first-home buyer did not, and it was immediately rectified.

Marja Lubeck: What interest has there been in those Onehunga apartments?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, in just 48 hours, the KiwiBuild unit has received 91 ballot entries, including 16 for the studio apartments, and just this last weekend, over 500 people went to the Onehunga showroom. First-home buyers are voting with their feet, and they’re backing KiwiBuild.

Andrew Bayly: Why are people now getting turned down for bank loans due to the small size of KiwiBuild homes when he insisted six months ago that he was hammering out details with mortgage lenders?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They’re not being turned down for bank loans.

Andrew Bayly: Will he be putting himself forward as the keynote speaker to talk about his KiwiBuild apartments at the New Zealand tiny house conference in Carterton?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I won’t, but I would say this: it is presumptuous and arrogant for the National Party to assume that all Kiwis want a 1950s, stand-alone bungalow on a quarter-acre section in the suburbs, because, quite frankly, no one’s doing that any more these days. So try and keep up.

Marja Lubeck: What reports has he seen on the popularity of apartments?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, more and more Kiwi families are choosing to live in apartments so that they can be close to work, shops, cafes, and great transport connections. In the last five years, the number of consents issued for apartments has more than tripled in Auckland. We need to build our way out of the national housing crisis by building apartments, townhouses, units, flats, and the occasional stand-alone home.

Andrew Bayly: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, the member has no questions left.

Before we conclude oral questions, I want to seek the leave of the House to table two letters: one to me from the Chief Archivist, which I received this afternoon, and my reply. They relate to the Hon Clare Curran’s Gmail records. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

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

Motions

Women’s Suffrage in New Zealand—125th Anniversary

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to recognise the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand.

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House mark the 125th anniversary of New Zealand women becoming the first in the world to win the right to vote, and celebrate the contribution of women to New Zealand’s democracy, past, present, and future.

Ki ngā wahine toa o tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[My compliments to the formidable women of this House.]

It is a privilege and an honour to be the first to speak in this special debate on this extraordinary day. My words today are intended primarily as a tribute—first and foremost as a tribute—to the women who led the change. To Kate Sheppard, to Margaret Sievwright, to the 25,000 women who signed the petition in 1893, to the women who were the first, 40 years later, to enter into Parliament, to the first Māori woman, the first woman in Cabinet, the first female Prime Minister, the first MP who gave birth, the first MP who breastfed in this House—I acknowledge every single trailblazer who has led the way for women in this place.

I also acknowledge the mothers of those women, because we stand on the shoulders of giants and they stood on the shoulders of mothers, and that’s a theme for me today. Amongst this seemingly ordinary set of people, the seemingly ordinary 25,000 women, has risen the extraordinary from that small act of signing a petition. They were bookkeepers, they were dressmakers, they were grocers, they were people who saw injustice and they rectified it. But we would be wrong if we assumed that their only quest was for access to this place or to even have a say in it and that had been achieved and we can all move on.

Take Margaret Sievwright, the woman who presented the suffrage petition alongside Kate Sheppard. Her fight was for equal pay, sexual education, and equal opportunities—and how far have we come? We still do not have equal pay in this country, and that it is why it is so fitting that on this day we have made it a priority to settle pay equity claims. And we continue to make progress. Thousands of women who do vital expert work with the mentally ill, with children with additional learning needs—we as a Government are doing what we can to right that longstanding wrong.

There is still too much domestic violence and violence perpetrated against women. Until women feel safe in their homes, safe in their workplaces, safe in their communities, on their streets, in their relationships, we will not have achieved equality in Aotearoa. That’s why, in the run up to this year’s Budget, we provided the first increase to baseline funding for front-line family and domestic services, like Women’s Refuge, in 10 years. That was the very least we could do. That’s why we supported and this House passed Jan Logie’s Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill, providing women with time off work to move home or recover from domestic violence, and I acknowledge you, Jan, in that work. The ultimate goal, of course, is to make sure it’s not perpetrated in the first place. Until women have financial security, until we lift them out of low-paid work, we will not have achieved the ultimate goal of the suffragette movement.

But we owe the suffrage movement more than that. As we celebrate 125 years, we have to ask ourselves: what has it got us? It’s got us all of these wāhine toa in this House, it’s got us three female Prime Ministers, but is that enough? Our young women may no longer question whether society will accept them in Parliament, but they may very well question whether Parliament is something they will accept, if it’s where they want to be. This is not an attractive place of work, and I would argue that for both men and women. Measures of success aren’t based on how many constituents you’ve helped but on how many scalps you’ve claimed. It’s not about the policies you’ve progressed but the amount of gotcha moments you’ve managed or dodged.

Now, there’s no one to blame. It’s a Westminster system, Mr Speaker, as you well know, and it’s robust, but how many find it an appealing career choice? But we need it to be, and not just for women but for people from all walks of life. Let me be clear, though: the suffragettes campaigned to have a stake in this place, to have a voice and a seat in it, not to be treated differently but the same. Hold us to account. Criticise us. Call us out for not doing enough, for going too slow, for not going fast enough, but call us out as politicians. Call us out as leaders. Call us out as humans. Call us out when we do wrong or make mistakes, but not when we do things differently. If we want Parliament to reach that milestone of 50 percent women or to be ethnically diverse, more diverse in its representation of age or career, then it needs to evolve.

This place should welcome diversity. It should welcome reaching 50 percent, and I hope that one day it will. Then we will finally be in a place where we say that we have respected the suffragette movement and have fully achieved what they set out to achieve. Kia ora koutou.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker, thank you. It is a great privilege, and it’s with great honour that I stand to speak on behalf of the Opposition on this motion to recognise and commemorate 125 years since New Zealand proudly became the very first nation in the world to give women the right to vote. There is nothing that creates more pride in Kiwis than when we are travelling around the world—and I was in the UK recently with yourself, in fact, Mr Speaker, and we visited the House of Commons, and we realised how far ahead we were of so many countries around the world, and how long it took the rest of the world to catch up with New Zealand.

I, like the Prime Minister, want to really use this time to express my admiration and my deep gratitude to all of the women who have come before me, all of the women who made it possible for us to be in this House, for us to participate fully in the life of New Zealand: of course, Kate Sheppard, the suffragette movement more fully, but also Sir John Hall—who I talked about in my maiden speech, who comes from my seat—who had the courage from within the system to say, “Actually, this isn’t right.” Kate, of course, is a national hero, as she should be, but I also want to acknowledge those male leaders at the time who stood with them and enabled New Zealand to make that change.

It seems to me that in 125 years we have come an awfully long way in respect of the role of women in this country, but I have to acknowledge that we’re not there yet, and when I give speeches to women around how I see the role of women in New Zealand, I always make that observation. As much as I would like to say the job is done, it is not. And I think the way that all of us repay the legacy of Kate Sheppard and her brave team of suffragettes is to ensure that we leave it a little easier for those who come after us.

I want to acknowledge the raft of strong women who have come through this Parliament, actually in all walks of New Zealand life, who have done exactly that—taken on a challenge, worked that bit harder, and been that bit better to get them there—and as a result of doing that, have not only made the path a little easier but inspired so many young women who look up to them.

It’s quite remarkable to me when I look at Canterbury—the area, of course, that I represent—and note how many of those strong leaders come from there: of course, Kate Sheppard; Sir John Hall; our first woman MP, Elizabeth McCombs; our first woman Cabinet Minister; our first woman Prime Minister; our first woman Minister of Finance—the list is quite long.

But Sir John Hall, who I mentioned before, made the point that he thought that women coming into politics would bring decorum and civilised behaviour, as we had “a far keener insight into character”, and, clearly, he was right. He also noted—and I’m sure Grant Robertson would be interested in this—that women are far less likely to countenance official extravagance, and I congratulate Sir John on his foresight.

This morning, we had a bit of a ceremony in the Grand Hall, where all of the women MPs in this House were recognised, and we were told our number in terms of which number we were in the hierarchy of women MPs. I was a little horrified to find out that I was No. 98. Now, I’ve been in this House 10 years, and that means in the 90 years that women have been able to be here, I’m only the 98th. What’s good news is that in the 10 years since, we’ve had another 50. So we’re off to a slow start, but we’re catching up fast.

There’s no question in my mind, though, that we still face challenges. I recall very vividly standing for selection and being told quite explicitly that they wouldn’t vote for me because what sort of mother would I be to my children if I was in Wellington doing this job—how could I be a good mother and do this job? My response, after picking my jaw up from the floor, was “Actually, I’m doing this for my kids.”, because we come here very definitely with an eye on how we make it better for the generations after us.

I want to leave this place knowing that my daughter’s generation and, one day, potentially, my grandchildren’s generation—although, if my kids are listening, no time soon, please—know that they can come here, and I would like to think that one day, they will be standing here, speaking in a debate like this, and being able to look back with astonishment at how long it took the Parliament of New Zealand and New Zealand to really utilise the full potential of half its population.

I remember flying up to Wellington one day and being asked by an air hostess on Air New Zealand, “You come up here a lot. Do you work in Wellington?” “Yes.”, I replied. By this point I was Minister of Justice, by the way, and she said to me, “Whose secretary are you?” She was a lovely woman and I don’t want her to feel bad, but it still astounded me that that’s the natural assumption that, unfortunately, is still so prevalent in New Zealand.

It is an honour to stand here to speak and to thank the women who have come before us. It is an honour to represent New Zealand in this House of Parliament, but I hope one day that women who come after us will be able to look back and be able to say, “The job is done.” It is not yet, but we will continue the fight.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Can I join with the colleague Amy Adams, who’s just resumed her seat, and thank the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group for the camellias that they have given us. They come from an artist on the East Coast, in the Hon Anne Tolley’s area. She’s worn stunning examples of this artist’s work before. They are each individually numbered. There are, currently, 149 of these in existence. So I thank them very much for something that I can pass on to my daughter and, hopefully, through to my grandchildren.

We do all walk in the footsteps of others, and I want to take this moment to acknowledge those women who have participated in politics who have never sought to be in this House. To those women who, over the years, have organised the cake stalls, the raffles, and the fund-raising dinners, and who are electorate committee chairs and secretaries and treasurers and committee members—they, sometimes even more than those of us who have been elected to this place, have been the backbone of New Zealand’s democracy for decades.

I want to acknowledge my maternal great-grandmother, who, when her grandchildren were abandoned, her granddaughter being two and her grandson being five, disobeyed the instructions from her husband to bring back only the boy because he could work—and, I confess, she was a great fan of Robert Muldoon. I want to acknowledge my paternal grandmother, who, when one of her granddaughters became a single teen parent, said, “It’s just a baby. We can manage.” I want to acknowledge my mother, who campaigned for Gary Knapp in East Coast Bays, and then helped to establish a new political party 25 years ago this year. I watched her commitment to her country and her belief that it needed something different than what had been offered before, even in those moments when it threatened her own marriage. I want to acknowledge my daughter, who even when she’s called a feminazi continues to challenge the unconscious bias she meets.

The first election I ran in was the 2011 election. The first phone call I got after I was, surprisingly, elected was from, I think it was, the New Zealand Herald. The reporter asked me, not unlike Ms Adams, “How are you going to balance your children with your housework and being an MP?” I asked the gentleman what Mark Mitchell had said, because I said, “Mark Mitchell’s got a bigger house than me and he’s got more children.” So that’s not a knock at Mark Mitchell; he is a fantastic father and a wonderful husband. But there was silence on the end of the phone, because I don’t believe Mr Mitchell had been asked the same question. Then Campbell Live showed up at my house and there were two lovely young men to interview me, but they just kept saying again and again and again how amazing it was that a stay-at-home mum was going to Parliament. “That’s amazing! Isn’t that amazing? That’s amazing that a stay-at-home mum is going to go to Parliament!”

One of the things that we need to be aware of in this House, and sometimes we forget it, is that we are watched. We are constantly watched by girls and by boys. So when we use and say certain things in this House, like, perhaps, when a female parliamentarian is being very passionate about a topic and the tone of her voice rises, perhaps we need to be a bit more careful when the next speaker stands to make sure we don’t use the words “shrill”, “squeaking”, or “screech”. Those are words that are used quite often to get girls to lower their voice, to get girls to be quiet. One of the pieces of advice I got when I first came into this House after I’d, obviously, got far too passionate about a couple of topics was “Lower your chin and lower your voice.” That person gave me that piece of advice to protect me from what was, at that time, members on the other side of the House who would use that to identify or to try and “calm” a woman down over a topic. We are watched in this House. We are watched.

Recently, a member of this House stood and belittled some of the voluntary and community work that stay-at-home mums do on boards of trustees. We are trying to get more women into this House. When we belittle the skills that they gain during the periods of time when they are out of the workforce, they see us. So, as my colleagues have said, we have somewhere to go. We must continue to be aware that we are watched. But I want to acknowledge the male colleagues in this House who stand up every day for us, who are part of the team, and who make sure that we’re all just getting on with the job for New Zealand. Kia ora. Thank you.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): It’s an absolute pleasure to stand in the House and speak on this very special day for New Zealand women and for the New Zealand Parliament, as the 74th woman elected to Parliament. I must say it was with some amazement to find when I became the Minister of Education that I was the first ever woman Minister of Education in New Zealand, in 2008. Can I also thank Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians for the breakfast this morning and for these wonderful camellias. I’m so privileged to have working in my office a fantastic artist in Robyn Watchorn and she is so proud. She’s home ill and she’s watching as all the women in Parliament are wearing these special camellias.

It is good to remember today, marking the passing of the legislation, and also remembering the amendment that was made to it at that time. There was only one amendment and it removed our right to stand for Parliament. That wasn’t reinserted until 1915, but it wasn’t until 1933 that we had the first woman elected.

In preparation for this debate today, I researched what had happened in my electorate for women in public office, and I have to say it’s a pretty dismal story. If you look at Whakatāne, where the first town council was established in 1900, it wasn’t until 1953—50 years later—that Mrs Winstone was elected to the council. If you look at Ōpōtiki, which was established in 1877 and had its own town council in 1899, it was 1974 before the first woman was elected to that council.

Kawerau was a lot better, I have to say. Kawerau’s town council—and then a board of commissioners, and then it became a borough—was established in 1954 and the first woman was elected in 1959. Since then they’ve had two or three women on every council since, and, of course, in 1986 they elected Lyn Hartley as mayor. I should say—poor old Whakatāne; sorry, I missed it out—that in 1989 Whakatāne elected a woman mayor, Mrs Lorraine Brill, and in 2006, in the whole of the electorate, the only woman chief executive of a council was Mrs Diane Turner.

The East Cape electorate has had many shapes over the years, and when it was the Bay of Plenty, it had no women representatives in this Parliament. When it became the East Cape electorate in 1978, Anne Fraser—now Anne Collins—was the first woman elected in 1984, and I’m the second from that part of the world.

So let’s turn to Gisborne. Did Gisborne do any better? Sort of. In 1925, Agnes Scott was elected to the hospital board, but it was 1962 before a woman was elected to the Gisborne District Council. It was 1960 when Esme Tombleson was elected as an MP for the Gisborne area.

There is an amazing story that epitomises the struggle and the prejudice that those early suffragettes faced from Gisborne. In 1915, Agnes Scott stood for the hospital board in Gisborne. There were 5,000 registered voters and she got 900 votes, but came fifth for four places. A couple of months later, one of the members of the board resigned. Now, if that were today, the next highest candidate would take their place on that board. But the mayor of the town invoked a very unknown bylaw, took it to the council for a vote, it was tied twice, and on his casting vote he elected himself to be the replacement member. So she missed out. So Gisborne could have been one of the very early places—1915.

One other story from Ōpōtiki that I just want to share is that the majority of the women who stood, signed the petition, and then voted were ordinary housewives. They described themselves as domestic workers. That’s what this is about—the ordinary women of New Zealand standing up and having a voice. Kia ora tātou.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Mr Speaker, thank you. Tēnā koe. It’s with very great pride that I stand here as Acting Minister for Women to acknowledge and celebrate 125 years of women’s suffrage. Having been out collecting signatures on petitions—again, for the asset sales referendum—I know personally just the slog that that takes. But this is in the modern era, when we’ve got telephones and we can easily mobilise. So I pay tribute to the women who, more than 125 years ago, collected petition signatures in the days when transport was a horse and cart, was walking through muddy streets, was having to push against the power of a controlling husband, or was having to organise late into the night and disobey those husbands. There were women who lost their jobs, and much worse, because they were fighting for women’s suffrage. But it was their collective power that ensured that petitions were brought to this House in 1891, in 1892, and, finally, in 1893, when it was successful, with 32,000 signatures that had been collected through a lot of hard slog.

The right to vote is a fundamental part of our democracy. It is what brings us all here. It is what gives us the mandate. It is what determines which party is in Government. It’s what gives us the strength in select committees to examine the legislation which the Government puts before the House. It is what gives us the mandate to pass law. It is a fundamental right to vote, and the fact that it was denied to women for so long and then, as a result of all of that advocacy and all of that fighting, it was provided in 1893 is something we should celebrate.

New Zealand Aotearoa as a country is enormously progressive when it comes to matters electoral. Our MMP Parliament has ensured that we represent New Zealanders much more fairly, and that we have more diversity in this place. I think that goes back to those campaigns in the 1890s to provide us with suffrage. As the Prime Minister noted, those early suffragists were also campaigning on the issue of equal pay and said that it was the most important issue after the franchise. It had a huge impact on national welfare. So the suffragists knew that getting the vote was only the start. Being fairly valued and being paid in the workplace was next on their agenda.

So it’s really fitting today, and I was very proud to stand alongside Minister Lees-Galloway on the forecourt of Parliament at the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions’ picnic and announce this Government has introduced changes to the Equal Pay Act to ensure that we have pay equity in New Zealand. For too long, women doing very similar work to men—or the same work—have not been paid the same. That will end with the changes to the Equal Pay Act and the ability to use our negotiation and bargaining system to implement pay equity.

I want to acknowledge not only the thousands of women who are involved in ensuring that we have the right to vote but all of the hundreds and thousands of women who are working today in female-dominated industries. One of my early jobs was working in a laundry in a rest home, and then cleaning toilets and working in the kitchen in that rest home. There were some lovely Pasifika women there, but the boss was a man. We followed his orders, and I think our pay was significantly less than his. But it’s doing that hard work, that mahi, that is so essential to the way families work, that is essential to providing incomes to families, and that is essential to how society works. But women doing that work haven’t been properly acknowledged, and that is why the changes to the legislation are so important in delivering more money to households and ensuring that we move towards a fairer society.

I’m here today as Acting Minister for Women because our Minister for Women has a new baby. It’s a great place to be a woman in New Zealand right now when our Prime Minister can be in Parliament and have a new baby. The photograph we have just had of all the women MPs in the library, with the Prime Minister holding a baby, with the Speaker having been in the Chair with a baby, reminds us that that is what we are here for. That is why we got the vote. That is why we’re changing the law to make it fairer for all families, for all tamariki, so that they have a better future. That right to vote is the fundamental starting place for that. Tēnā koutou, nō reira, tēnā koutou.

David Seymour: Thank you, Madam—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you seeking the call?

David Seymour: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I called just earlier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I join with other speakers in saying that it is an enormous honour and a great privilege to stand in this debate on the 125th anniversary of our country leading the world on a very important issue. I have to say, parts of me wish that ACT’s deputy leader, Beth Houlbrooke, was here to speak in this debate on my behalf. I think she would have been a fabulous member of Parliament, but last year the voters disagreed on that issue.

Indeed, I was stunned, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that you were only the 74th woman elected to this House. My first thought was, “Surely she hasn’t been here that long.” But, you know, I’d like to point out that the ACT Party has made a vastly disproportionate contribution to those first 70 or 80 women. Muriel Newman, Deborah Coddington, Donna Awatere, Heather Roy, Hilary Calvert, Patricia Schnauer, and Penny Webster were all women elected to this House for the ACT Party over the past 20 years. It’s a great point of pride to the party that we have elected a vastly disproportionate number of women to what other parties have done throughout the history of this House. I should add to that somebody who was not elected, but a wonderful leader in our party’s history: Catherine Isaac—most recently recognised for her dogged and determined efforts to have partnership schools, kura hourua, made a reality in this country.

I should also acknowledge that it is impossible to get elected in New Zealand—if the Epsom electorate is any indication of normalcy in this country, and it’s debatable—if you do not have a connection with the networks of powerful women who really run the place. I wouldn’t be here if it was not for the powerful support of people such as Dame Rosanne Meo, Dame Rosie Horton, Dame Lesley Max, Dame Jenny Gibbs, the Hon Chris Fletcher, and Jillian Friedlander, who were all incredibly important in my election because they are so powerfully connected through our community in the Epsom electorate.

I want to take this opportunity, also, to talk about somebody I haven’t previously spoken about in this House but who would be incredibly proud of our country today and of the example that Kate Sheppard set—prouder, I suspect, if she actually had a daughter in this House. My mum was one of those women who was at the vanguard of women who were the first to make it to the top of their careers. As one of the last people in the Western World to contract the polio virus, she was told that she would not drive, go to university, work, or have children. Well, you can make your own judgment on the children—I will say my brothers are quite accomplished. She did become the chief pharmacist for the Northland District Health Board after going through postgrad at Otago, although I maintain the critics were at least half right about her driving. I want to put on record in the Hansard that she is one of many women who had that spirit, that Kate Sheppard spirit, and would be so proud to be here today, if only she could be.

I think it’s a great source of pride for all of us that New Zealand led the world. It is one of the seminal characteristics of our country that we are the little country that can. And we should always remember that we as a country have the ability, and perhaps have the obligation, not to try to follow the world—as we heard from some submitters at the Finance and Expenditure Committee on monetary policy just this morning—but actually to be the best and to lead the world.

I’ll finish by reflecting what our Prime Minister said at the beginning of this debate: that we are not a static society. Parliament is just one institution that will be remade, no doubt, as people try to remake the institutions in their own image with each passing generation. And I suspect that this country is not done with gender politics, just quietly. I suspect that we will see the family remade, that we’ll see the role of men in the family being enhanced, just as the role of women in the workplace has been enhanced. I think, standing on the shoulders of Kate Sheppard, we have a wonderful future as a country, and I’m so proud to be honouring her today. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning it was a fantastic opportunity with the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians to celebrate 125 years of suffrage. We were honoured to hear from two of our fantastic former members of Parliament—and former Ministers—Dame Ann Hercus and, of course, Dame Jenny Shipley, as a former Prime Minister. They both had really important messages for us to reflect on, on the 125 years that have been and—more importantly, I think—the 125 years that are ahead of us. So I am proud to have been presented with this white camellia, Madam Deputy Speaker, made by Robyn Watchorn from your electorate. It recognises my place in this House as the 108th female MP—which doesn’t sound like a lot.

One of the things that we do today is we celebrate our female Prime Ministers, and I think as a country we are leading many other countries. But before we get too excited, it is the 52nd Parliament, and we are on our third female Prime Minister. So my comments have a bit of a, you know, positive and a negative, and I think we need to always make sure that we focus on, yes, what we’ve achieved, but the fact that there is still a lot of work to be done, and—[Bell rung]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—wrong button.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you. That was going to be very short! With Nicola Willis entering Parliament earlier this year, we’ve achieved 40 percent of our Parliament being women, which is a significant achievement. This is our highest, and one that many other countries around the world recognise. The last Cabinet in the 51st Parliament had a strong line-up of women, and this has flowed through to the front bench of the Opposition: Paula Bennett, Amy Adams, and Judith Collins—three of the Opposition’s top five and fantastic examples of women leaders, each powerful, competent, capable, and unique women leaders.

It’s a fact that in the National Party we have a number of very smart, formidable women who have carved out careers both before entering Parliament and while they’ve been here. Madam Deputy Speaker, you spoke in your contribution about the footsteps that you followed in. In my electorate, which covers a number of towns, I follow in the footsteps of Rona Stevenson, of Marilyn Waring, and of Katherine O’Regan, and also—in part of the electorate—Dame Tariana. I think it’s really important that each and every one of us in this House, particularly those women MPs, focus on the message that we leave for the women that will follow our footsteps and we make sure that we wedge the door wide open and make sure that their work in this place is made easier by our work in this place.

Kate Sheppard and pioneering women and men who have worked tirelessly and fought for the right of women to vote gave us a place as a world leader in gender equality, and I want to recognise the efforts of women across New Zealand and how far we have come. We’ve got to continue to blast through the barriers and take even more steps to equality.

I was fortunate to serve as the Minister for Women, and I want to acknowledge the current Minister for Women, who is on maternity leave, the Acting Minister for Women, and those that have formerly held the role.

I would often get asked the question of why do we still have a Ministry for Women, and the answer, of course, is simple. We still have a gender pay gap of 9.2 percent. We are well under-represented in senior management and leadership roles, and this is particularly sharp in the private sector. Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of family violence, and most of that abuse and assault occur in their very own homes. Until we can say we have equal rights, equal choice, equal opportunities, and that women are valued equally, we still need a ministry dedicated to working for all New Zealand women and we need every New Zealand woman and every New Zealand man from one end of this land to the other to stand up for equality. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Can I just acknowledge member No. 108, Louise Upston; I am No. 107. It is a privilege to be able to speak in this debate. I think it is a very rare occurrence when we all agree with the speeches that are being given across the House, but today is definitely one of those days, and I alongside everyone else here am privileged to be able to acknowledge the women leaders of 125 years ago who made it possible for us to vote and to be able to stand here today.

I’ve listened very closely to some of the speeches that have gone before mine, and I want to acknowledge that despite the fact that we come from different sides of the House, we share very similar experiences. I can’t say, however, like Minister Martin, that I was ever asked by anyone to lower my voice. And I also can’t say that the question of what would happen to the housework was ever put to me when I came in here, because I never did it before anyway. But I think it is important that we share our stories—the negative stories and the positive on our own journeys to getting here—because it means that others that have the same experiences realise that they are not alone, and it also embarrasses some of those who might tell, or set about creating, the narratives that they do about women.

I wanted to share two of mine. One was when I went to run as the Labour candidate for Waitakere, where someone had decided to create the narrative that perhaps I wasn’t the right person because I was too much like the National candidate I’d be running against. She just happened to be a woman, to be brown, and to be a solo mother. And my response to that was: have we ever questioned one white man going up against another? Of course not. My second experience was when I was looking, actually prior to that, to run for another seat in New Zealand, and the rhetoric that went around was “We just don’t think she’s the right person. This electorate is not ready for a Pacific Island lesbian.” Being a Pacific Islander wasn’t a surprise, but being a lesbian was a complete shock to me. Not that that should be a problem in this day and age, especially in the Labour Party.

Many of us have endured those narratives and have become more resilient because of it, and many of us who have experienced it are here in this House today or have been in this House before us here today. And I want to acknowledge that we share those stories. I am a Pacific woman, only the second Pacific woman to serve in this House, and for me that is a privilege, and I want to acknowledge Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban, who was the first Pacific woman who entered here, in 1999. It took us until 1999 to get a Pacific woman in this House, and I am so proud that here in 2018 out of eight Pacific members of Parliament, we now have four Pacific women members of Parliament, and in that I want to acknowledge Minister Jenny Salesa, my colleague Anahila, sitting next to me, and also the Assistant Speaker Poto Williams.

In saying that, we also have to acknowledge that some women are even further away than others from the realisation of gender equality. Māori and Pacific women are more likely to earn less, be in lower-skilled jobs, and are less represented at decision-making tables. And so, as we strive towards gender equality, we have to acknowledge that we need to take all women with us to be able to realise gender equality in its true form in this country.

Many of us have women who have supported us to this place, and in my last 30 seconds I will acknowledge one woman who did that for me. It was a school principal at secondary school who acknowledged that I had potential, saw that I was enduring some difficult times, and took me into her home, with her husband, to support me to get through that year in order for me to go to university. I want to acknowledge Jane Gordon and other wonderful women out there who support women to achieve and to get into leadership positions to make a difference, like we are able to in this House. Fa‘afetai lava.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Madam Deputy Speaker, it’s a privilege to be here and speak in this debate. Today is a celebration. It’s a celebration and a reflection. It is a privilege to give a bit of a roll-call to acknowledge that we are here, 149 female members of Parliament on, in the footsteps of Dame Jenny Shipley, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Marilyn Waring, Katherine Rich, Hekia Parata, Dame Annette King. Some extraordinary women have come before us, and they have fought so hard for our rights, but the only reason that we have been able to be in this House is because of a group of suffragettes. We need to take a moment to acknowledge their courage, their perseverance, but also the men who fought alongside them.

We also need to acknowledge that it is not just about us. It is not about this House, and I want to acknowledge all of the women in this debate who have said, “Yes, it is a time for celebration, to talk about what we’ve all done, but to acknowledge that we’re not there yet.” Today is the day that we reflect on that woman who doesn’t get the promotion because her male colleague is out there playing golf with the boss.

We reflect on the young woman who doesn’t go into engineering or doesn’t become a builder because she is discouraged by those males that say, “Don’t do that.” We reflect on the woman who is regularly beaten and broken because we have too high rates of domestic violence in this country. We reflect on the extraordinary public servants, and they are there, busy working away today, and there many women who have never become the heads of our agencies. We take a moment to reflect on them, and we see them—and for those of us that have been Ministers, they come into our offices and we know that they haven’t quite got those roles. We also reflect on those women who have been strong in business for many years, and we’ve got some incredible business leaders in New Zealand, from Dame Rosanne Meo to Joan Withers to many other women who never quite make those boards in New Zealand. We reflect on the women in many of our communities that never get paid quite as much, and they don’t know exactly why but they know that there’s a ceiling. We reflect on those other young women in our schools that are self-harming because they don’t have the confidence because maybe they have been bullied.

And it’s not just about men; there’s many other things that cause discrimination in our society and I want to acknowledge that—as someone, who, like the many people who are telling stories in this House, and I think stories are powerful—I remember when I was considering standing for Auckland Central for the National Party and a longstanding National Party delegate pulled me aside and said, “Look, you’re a young women. Really, maybe you should go off and have children. And, by the way, if you really are interested in this politics thing, maybe you should stand for local government.” I reflect on those stories because we have all had those stories. I reflect on being a young female Cabinet Minister, walking into a function, thinking I was going up to give a speech, when someone turned to me and said, “Could you just get me a drink, love?”

We have all had those moments, but our legacy in this House is not just about us, and we must—and I do want to reflect on the Prime Minister’s comments—fight for equality in this House. We are not there yet. We can treat each other better, and we can make this place much more female friendly for the people that come after us. But our true legacy in this House will be about those women that I have mentioned: those women who exist in our communities; those women who need equal pay; those women who should have the equal rights in terms of boards; reducing domestic violence; ensuring that more young women are not self-harming. That will be our true legacy.

So I want to leave this House with two quotes. I want to have a quote from Kate Sheppard, because I think it is powerful: “All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome.” She said that and we must acknowledge what a visionary and what a courageous person she was. But I also want to quote Helen Clark, and I want to acknowledge both Dame Jenny and Helen, because they have both been very kind to many members in this House, including myself. She said, “Someone’s got to break the glass ceiling, and once [it’s] broken, everybody else [clamours] up behind.”, and we need to smash through those ceilings. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēna koe, Te Māngai o Te Whare. I’m WP—woman parliamentarians, I’m calling us—No. 97 and one of 149, but actually one of 1,395, which represents 10.68 percent of the parliamentarians that have represented Aotearoa New Zealand. Today we’re 40 percent, so I absolutely agree with my colleague Amy Adams: we’re getting there and we’re going to get there sooner. But if we look back at our history, it took 40 years before one of us was able to stand in this House as a member of Parliament after we won the right to vote.

I want to acknowledge our suffragettes and also our activists, actually, because what they did was provide that opportunity for us to be here. It was through their activism: standing on street corners, getting people to sign petitions, actually engaging with our men. And I want to acknowledge that, actually, we’re progressive because of the actions of our men. I want to thank our men for giving us that opportunity, but it was kind of ironic, because we have Mr Seddon out the front. I don’t know if many people know, but actually he tried to sabotage the vote. You know, there were two independents who voted for the Electoral Act in 1893 that enabled us to win, in spite of the Prime Minister of the day. So history is really important and this is a day where we remember that history. We remember the Kate Sheppards and the Meri Te Tai Mangakahias.

But what I wanted to share today is that 125 years ago, that Electoral Act received Royal assent, but many of us might not know what it actually said. It declared, for the purposes of voting that the word “person” should include women. We were not considered to be a person. So it took 30 years for us, as women, to be considered “persons” and therefore citizens, and therefore available and eligible to vote. But Hon Anne Tolley is absolutely right: the other thing that they did in that Act, and I’m going to quote from section 9 because this was the only other section—there were 170 sections and 20 schedules: “No woman, although duly registered as an elector, shall be capable of being nominated as a candidate, or of being elected as a member of the House of Representatives, or of being appointed to the Legislative Council …”. Next year, on 29 October, it is actually the 100 year celebration of the fact that we got the right to stand.

So, it’s interesting when we think about us being the first in the world to vote, and that’s why I like reflecting on the legacy of someone like Meri Te Tai Mangakahia—an amazing Māori woman who spoke in the Kotahitanga Parliament. She said, “Not only should we vote, but we should be able to stand, and why? Because I’m a landowner, I know how to manage my land. I’ve got the capability, and, actually, our men have failed. They’ve gone to England to negotiate with the Queen, and we need to send women over because we will be able to engage with another woman and get things sorted.”

And so it is times like this where we acknowledge those people who have come before us, but we also need to acknowledge the suffragettes, the activists of today, which is why I’m wearing this really cool power jacket. Actually, Maggie, it’s from the Takapuna Lake House Art Centre, because what that particular organisation decided to do this year to celebrate suffrage was to provide an opportunity for artists to demonstrate the relevance of suffrage to them. So it has been about the legacy of Kate Sheppard, it has been about equal pay, but this jacket—and I’m just going to show you the back—was made by an activist called Rachel Rowlands. It’s called “My Mind” and it says, “Women can do anything”, and we have done everything, and imagine if riding a bike meant you were too independent—because, apparently, if you rode a bike in the 1890s you were way too independent. So that’s why this is a biker jacket, and it represents freedom, it represents independence, it represents daring, and it does pay tribute to Kate Sheppard and the $10 note.

But I think what it also says and speaks to is the fact that suffrage today is as relevant as it was 125 years ago, and until a time when this place, I believe, is 50:50 men and women, every single private board is 50:50 men and women, and same with our—I’m a proponent of quotas, because if we can’t get to these places organically, then actually we need to intervene, and if those mechanisms work, then that’s what we have to do. Kia ora.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today we began our celebrations of the 125th suffrage anniversary with a breakfast. Our two keynote speakers—fabulous women—were the Hon Ann Hercus and the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley. They both left us with some pearls of wisdom, and one I shall recite. As Dame Jenny noted—[Interruption] and it’s not the one you think it is—in her speech, “We should focus on fighting for something”—for something—“rather than fighting with each other.” And that’s what I have heard in the speeches that have been given here today: that we should focus on fighting for something rather than fighting with each other.

I stand in remembrance of a remarkable woman, Kate Sheppard, who, against all odds—both personal and public—fought and won the right for New Zealand women to vote. The date: 1893. The person who signed the new Electoral Act into law was a Governor of New Zealand called Lord Glasgow.

One would think that post-1893, the pathway for women would be a sweet, sweet ride, but it wasn’t and it hasn’t been. Being the first in the world to give women the vote is a proud position to be in, but, really, how far have we come over these last 125 years? From 1893 it took 26 years before women gained the right to stand for Parliament, and another 14 years before the first woman MP, by the name of Elizabeth McCombs, from Christchurch, would enter Parliament. Countries like Ireland and Finland beat New Zealand to these two facts, even though suffrage for them came some 25 years - plus later.

For Māori women, the journey would be longer. It wasn’t until 1935 that the first Māori woman stood as a candidate. In that year, Rehutai Maihi contested the Northern Maori seat. Older Māori who did not believe that she should do that went against her and she only garnered 162 votes.

In 1949, Iriaka Ratana become the first Māori woman to win a seat in the New Zealand Parliament when she successfully contested the Western Maori seat when her husband, who had previously held the seat, died earlier that year. She retained that seat until 1969. In 1949, Katarina Nutana also stood for Western Maori as an Independent, but she too faced criticism and failed. Other women known to have contested Māori seats include Hinerapa Ropiha, who stood for Southern Maori in 1957, and Whina Cooper, who stood for Northern Maori in 1963. In 1967, Whetū Tirikātene was elected member of Parliament for Southern Maori and retained the seat for 26 years. Like Iriaka Rātana, she too followed a family tradition.

Sandra Lee, a candidate for The Alliance, won the Auckland Central seat in 1993. She was the first Māori woman to hold a general seat in New Zealand. Following Sandra, came Dame Georgina te Heuheu, from 1996 to 2011, of the Tūwharetoa rangatira line, te Heuheu. She became a Cabinet Minister. In Parliament from 1999 to 2007 was the first transsexual MP, Georgina Beyer, ex-Mayor of Carterton, who won the Wairarapa seat; from 1996 to 2014, Dame Tariana Turia, the founder of Whānau Ora policy and founder of the Māori Party; from 2008 to 2017, the Hon Hekia Parata, who was the first Māori woman Minister of Education; and from 2005 to the present day, the Hon Paula Bennett has been a member of Parliament for National, and, in 2016, she became the first Māori woman Deputy Prime Minister and deputy leader of the National Party.

That is a brief rendition of the many Māori women that have come before us. These are but a few of our Māori woman heroines. There are many others of us who continue to fight the good fight in so many ways, as we continue to shape the future pathway for all women. I’m going to conclude my speech right now—because I know I’m running out of time—with these salient words from an amazing woman by the name of Helen Reddy:

I am woman, hear me roar

In numbers too big to ignore

And I know too much to go back an’ pretend

‘Cause I’ve heard it all before

And I’ve been down there on the floor

No one’s ever gonna keep me down again

Oh yes, I am wise

But it’s wisdom born of pain

Yes, I’ve paid the price

But look how much I gained

If I have to, I can do anything

I am strong

(Strong)

I am invincible

(Invincible)

I am woman

He waka eke noa—we’re all in this together. Kia ora, tēnā koutou.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E nga mema o Te Whare, tēnā tātou. I am really pleased to take a call in this acknowledgment of the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. As the first women to hold the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti seat, formerly known as Eastern Maori, it is indeed my honour to take a call in this important debate. Can I acknowledge Kate Sheppard, Meri Te Tai Mangakahia, and the many other women who sought change, who sought participation, who sought equality, and who sought justice in democratic Aotearoa New Zealand.

In my contribution, I want to talk about the great women whose shoulders I stand upon. Whatungarongaro he tangata, toitū te whenua. As people disappear, land remains. It is land and authority that the women I’m about to speak to fought gallantly for, for 30 if not 40 years before the signing of the suffrage movement petition in 1893—people like Akeniwa Pātoka Rātima Rerepukapuka Tomoana, the wife of the famous Ngāti Kahungunu chief Hēnare Tomoana. In his rendition in the Native Land Court in 1883, he says, “Through the courage of my wife Ākenehi … the lands have been retained …”.

Then we go to Arahia Te Nahu of Ngāi Te Rangi Konake, who was quoted as saying, “I know this land. I have rights of ancestry, occupation and cultivation; ancestry through Honomōkai, occupation through Te Whatu-i-Āpiti, cultivation through Te Hāpuku, and Te Moananui.” She said this in the Native Land Court in 18 May 1899. Then there’s Horiana Te Wharepū of Ngāti Kurukuru, who also spoke at the hui wāhine held at Te Haukē in 1895 who said, at this hui—she spoke on the motion of selling lands and, in the vote at that hui where the Māori women unanimously voted, Horiana called these sales of land “the greatest disaster to touch us.”

Then there’s Mārata Te Heuheu, also known as Mārata Te Hiria of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who was actively involved in women’s institutions—the temperance movement, the Land Court issues—in both Heretaunga and Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who formed and established Ngā Komiti Wāhine, which in 1895 had 35,000 members associated with it. Among these women were Akenehi Tomoana, Pukepuke Tangiora, Horiana Tiakitai, Niwa-ki-te-rangi, and Meri Mangakahia.

Ngā Komiti Wāhine was formed as a response to increasing land sales, increasing drunkenness, and the declining health of Māori families while women, as landowners, wanted simply the right to vote. Then Pukepuke Tangiora, who encouraged women at the hui at Te Haukē by saying “Other women have chastised the men for their failure to bring about the cessation of land sales; let us, the women share our thoughts about these issues.”

There is another whakataukī that goes “ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi”, which means as the old net weathers, the others remain. This whakataukī talks about succession. I want to talk about women like Dame Whina Cooper, who in 1975 led the land marches to Parliament here to say that not an acre more should be taken away from what was already a dwindling amount of Māori land, and, of course, the famous Eva Rickard, who fought gallantly for the return of the Raglan golf course for her people.

Then there’s this last whakataukī: “Ehara taku toa he takitahi, he toa takitini”, which means my success is not bestowed on me alone; it’s not individual success, but success of the collective. I want to acknowledge the fine women MPs in this House, on both sides of the House, who bring class, who bring strength, who bring wisdom to the debates that we hear in this House.

I honestly hope that that wisdom, that strength, and that passion for the issues that they represent continue as we forge ahead. There is much work to do, and I am proud to be woman MP No. 121, 120 years after the signing of the suffragette movement petition. I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

MELISSA LEE (National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

It’s a great honour to rise after my sisters have risen to celebrate Suffrage Day, and I don’t want to do any disservice to any of them, but I recognise that this is a general debate and I need to get to the point I want to make in the general debate. But before I do so, I’d like also to acknowledge the gratitude that I have to Kate Sheppard, and also to someone who has actually paved the way. Pansy Wong was the first ever Asian—Chinese—member of Parliament, elected back in 1996. Apparently, I made history by becoming, in 2008, the first ever Korean woman to hold office outside of Korea. So I take great privilege, and for the record, I’m No.105—105.

Earlier in the debate, my colleague Jo Hayes actually quoted something that Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley said, talking about fighting for something instead of each other. When I talk about the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and the former Minister, Hon Clare Curran, I want people to know that I’m not fighting her; I’m actually fighting for the transparency and the openness that she promised, and I actually want to get to that.

Today, I’m a little bit disturbed that there was actually a letter from the Chief Archivist that the right honourable Speaker tabled. I had a look at that, and it actually quotes, “Papers and records deposited remain in the care of the Chief Archivist, and unless the Minister depositing agrees in writing, they remain in the ownership and control of the former Minister.” Technically, what that actually means is that every Gmail that this side of the House has questioned the particular Minister and also the Minister of State Services on, in terms of transparency and openness in relation to the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer, which they have now had to cancel in relation to Derek Handley—how it all transpired—all of that communication that is actually, apparently, transferred to the Chief Archivist, is not available.

The Minister, Hon Clare Curran, has to give permission in written form to say that she gives permission; otherwise the Chief Archivist cannot actually release it. So I urge the former Minister, Hon Clare Curran, to come down to this House and actually, perhaps, give a personal statement and perhaps table all of those Gmails that are being questioned in this House. That would be the only honourable thing that she could do. Otherwise, as the Chief Archivist says, Ms Curran may establish, by agreement with the Chief Archivist, conditions for access under section 42(3)(c) of the PRA, the Public Records Act. That pretty much trumps any Official Information Act (OIA) request that we could use to try and get the information, and that seems really, really wrong. I think, as the Minister actually promised openness and transparency—even the Prime Minister has actually supported that view—I urge the former Minister to table all of those Gmails so that we will get to the bottom of it finally.

And what a shambles the actual appointment process has been. I mean, there’s been advertising that went out looking for the CTO, they closed the application, decided that the whole 60 people who applied for the job didn’t actually meet the criteria for Clare Curran, and then opened it up again a second time round, and, actually, apparently, she’s found one—delayed the announcement, delayed the announcement. There have been lots of OIAs and questions, and we find out that she did, in fact, appoint the Chief Technology Officer, even when the Prime Minister said that Derek Handley was still under consideration.

So there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and it has been very, very murky. Considering the fact that that Minister has actually promised that this Labour-led Government will be the most open, most transparent Government ever, it seems those words don’t really mean anything. If that Minister was the Minister for open Government and she has done these shady activities using her personal Gmail—and, as members have said, using personal Gmail’s OK, as long as you actually abide by the rules and be transparent, but she hasn’t been. If she’s doing that, what else is that side doing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First): On Suffrage Day, the last thing I would’ve expected was a member of Parliament to get up and attack a woman. They could’ve left it till tomorrow or next week, but no, they reverted to type, because deviation and sideshows and roadblocks are what they’re famous for. They’re famous for that because they’ve got a leader who has an abundance of inquiries, and the most serious inquiry should be about his status as a leader of that party.

Look, the most prominent inquiry in Parliament today concerns the leaking of information by one of his own National Party colleagues. Oh no, don’t shake one’s head. We all knew, the moment we heard this story, that there were 55 subjects who were all suspects. The inquiry that Mr Bridges launched—now, he’s the leader of the National Party pro tem—was on 28 August, to be conducted by, guess who? PricewaterhouseCoopers—they’re pretty big, but it doesn’t stop there, oh no—and Simpson Grierson. That was 22 days ago. They’re trying to find somebody who we know—that is, the identity of the leaker in the National Party—and guess who’s paying for the inquiry? Why, the New Zealand taxpayer, through the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership office funding. The New Zealand taxpayer is paying for this absolutely mindless, hopeless inquiry, the end pathway and result of which we already know. So why don’t we just cut to the chase here? Pay the money over to us, and we’ll give you the answer. Ha, ha! It is phenomenal.

You know what? Twenty-two days later, we are still no wiser, with these major New Zealand companies in full pursuit, and yet we formed the coalition Government in half that time—11 days—after we knew what the special votes meant. Eleven days to form a coalition; 22 days to try and find out what other people know: namely, who leaked on Mr Bridges. There are members over there that should be very nervous. I won’t look at them, or look where they should be, because if I do, then the suspicion will be cast on them without us getting the reward for disclosure. We are famous for disclosure, especially when it comes to the National Party’s sins.

Can I just say, the National Party has been utterly preoccupied, using taxpayers’ money, and it’s a disguise, because the National Party has an awfully sorry parliamentary record over the last decade. Do you know how many people they’ve seen come and go in the last decade, since 2008? Two pages full.

Clayton Mitchell: Woah, and small font, too!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Small font—two pages full. Unbelievable. People who either resigned or had to go—and that’s far more than two fingers on two hands—then you’ve got the people who got pushed—

Chris Bishop: What happened to Brendan Horan?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and then the ones like Mr Bishop over here mentions, who decided to jump before they got pushed. Forty-five MPs, in the space of three terms, all gone. My message to the National Party backbench is: your party is a very dangerous place to be. There’s no doubt about it. It is simply unbelievable.

Let me tell you what, in the last 11 months this coalition Government has made 100—no, 1,000—gee, I almost underrated the party’s performance. I underrated the coalition’s performance. We’ve made 1,057 decisions in just 11 months. It has taken them 11 months to get their boxes down here. That’s all they’ve done—11 long, tawdry, hopeless months to get their boxes down here whilst we have been making decisions, possibly 1,200 before the year is up—1,200.

Can I just say, as we come to a close, that the National Party in Opposition is “dysfunction junction”. Nothing’s happening there. It’s a total mess. The leader can’t even get one out of four National Party supporters. Whilst we’re interested in good public policy, all they care about is public relations. We strive for action; all they strive for is unction. The member—that’s Mr Bridges—needs to reveal to the public who the leaker is, or I will.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s really interesting that the last speaker started off by attacking a woman’s speech for attacking a woman, so there you go. I would also challenge the Rt Hon Winston Peters to put those stats that he just had into percentages and compare them with New Zealand First’s and bring them back to the House, because we would really like to have a look at them—thank you.

Now, in terms of women’s suffrage today, which I intend to make the bulk of my general debate speech on, I would like just to put a shout-out to my grandmother, who last Thursday, 13 September, turned 102 years of age. [Members applaud] Thank you. I think that’s fantastic. Her name is Joan Jeffries and she lives in coastal Taranaki. She was around when women had the vote but not at the time when women actually were able to stand in Parliament, so there’s a huge amount of things that have happened in her lifetime.

I am very lucky because I’m the middle of five generations. I still have my mum, I’ve got a daughter as well as two sons, and I’ve got a granddaughter as well as four grandsons. So being in the middle of five generations is very special. The things that I actually notice are from my grandmother’s time to the time that we’ve been here—and we’re lucky enough now to see 40 percent of our women represented in Parliament and I think worldwide that’s a pretty special thing that we’ve got going in this country. But over time, the changes that have been made in terms of what women were able to get out and able to do have been incredible.

Before I came into Parliament, one of the last directorship roles I did before I came into Parliament was on the board of New Zealand Young Farmers. I’m the only grandmother that’s ever served on the board of New Zealand Young Farmers because you max out at 31, but actually I was the DairyNZ strategic partner on there. To be a young farmer you don’t have to be young, so it was my luck to be on there. But when they are looking at new board members and strategic partners or whatever, you know the gender balance thing is very much taken care of now in some of those younger boards; it’s more of the older boards that are transitioning. I spent most of my time on boards or councils where I was probably one of maybe one or one of two women on a board and the councils might have been three or four out of 35 to 40 people, so things have changed.

I would just like to put a call out, as the 2012 inaugural Dairy Woman of the Year, that last night Rebecca Keoghan from the West Coast, who’s also a Dairy Woman of the Year, was named a rural Woman of Influence. We also have Dairy Woman of the Year Katie Milne who’s now the president—the first woman president—of Federated Farmers. So it’s quite a big thing for the rural areas. Often it’s said that it’s very hard for women to win rural seats. We certainly haven’t found that on our side of the House. Somebody went to the library the other day and just asked for the information—one of the people in my team went to the library and came back with the information that I’m the first woman that has represented either Taranaki - King Country or New Plymouth in the 52 years of Parliament. I would also like to acknowledge Harete Hipango, who represents the Whanganui seat, who also has part of Taranaki now in her electorate. So it’s a very big year for us. I am No. 126, in case anybody’s wondering.

One of the things that I just wanted to perhaps bring up on a more serious note, and off the suffrage topic, is the way that we treat people. I know that we’ve got a lot of work going on at the moment on the Employment Relations Act and it creates a lot of noise across the House. But what I saw when I came into Parliament is that it’s very difficult for the people that work here when there’s a change of Government. A lot of this open transparent Government and the stuff around the Chief Technology Officer has really been about emails and transparency. But I have to think about people who lift up their family and go to a place to get a new job and then find that that job doesn’t exist any more. I think we’ve got to be really, really careful as people how we treat others, so it’s not just about what we put in legislation; it’s about what we do as people and how we enact that legislation.

So, Mr Speaker, it’s been a pleasure to have a general debate today. Thank you, and I put a shout-out to all women in New Zealand on Suffrage Day. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m No. 122. I want to thank Louisa Wall and Joanne Hayes, as Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians co-chairs, and the Hon Anne Tolley for everything they’ve done to make this Suffrage Day commemoration so special: from the breakfast to the camellia, to the number, to the photo, to the event happening at the moment. It’s been an awesome day.

Today I recognise Kate Sheppard and her work on suffrage and pay equity, and I recognise Meri Te Tai Mangakahia on her work as the first woman to ever speak in a Parliament, in the Kotahitanga Parliament. Her issue was to ensure that not only were women given the opportunity to select MPs but that women could be MPs as well—and her work on land rights and the right for Māori women to own land.

But we all have our own perspectives on our heroes and our heroines, and my perspective on Kate Sheppard is about her advocacy with regards to family violence. The reason that Kate Sheppard wanted women to win the vote was that she wanted women to join the temperance movement. Men were using all of their wages to buy alcohol, coming home, and beating their wives and their kids. So my commemoration of Kate Sheppard is that she is our first family violence campaigner.

What would Kate make of us today? New Zealand has had three wonderful women Prime Ministers, Governors-General, Chief Justices, Ministers, CEOs, lawyers—wonderful women. But let’s balance that against the fact that, just a few years ago—three years ago—Labour and Green women members of Parliament in this House stood against the tyranny of being called supporters of rapists and murderers by the most powerful man in this House. Balance that against what happens to many of us in terms of cyber-bullying and abuse that we take even today, in 2018.

This House is currently reviewing family violence legislation, and only a few weeks ago my friend and colleague Jan Logie passed a significant bill, which affords women the ability to take leave when they are escaping violent relationships. My friend, I honour and acknowledge that. We have one further step to go, and that step is to ensure that our tāne are supported to change their behaviour. Kate Sheppard opposed family violence in all its gory details: women, men and children. Now, children, I have to say, have been and are my life’s work: children who witness and experience violence. They are the ones for whom we now need to pick up the mantle that Kate Sheppard left for us to ensure that their lives in this country are peaceful.

There are many differences in this world to the world that Kate Sheppard occupied. Gender is no longer binary, and in that regard I want to acknowledge the fact that there are many people who suffer in many extraordinary ways, and today I want to make some pledges in my remaining minute. I make a pledge to the people who are disabled who suffer at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. I make a pledge to our LGBTQI community. Your suffering is not in vain and it is not invisible. I make a pledge to Māori and Pasifika women, whose blood, sweat, and tears have flowed so that the Māori and Pasifika women who occupy this House can stand strong for you. But mostly, I stand for our tamariki today, and this day, Suffrage 125, let us make it be about our kids. Kia ora.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to get a slot in today’s general debate, because we’re celebrating the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage today, and I want to dedicate my slot to this celebration. I’m really proud to stand here and celebrate this day with you all—congratulations. It’s a real privilege and honour also to be the first Indian-born woman member of Parliament in our Parliament.

I am really proud of both countries that I belong to—my birth country and my home country. As I said, I am Indian born. I am really grateful to be born in the generation that I am, because I know that those women who were born before me worked really hard, in both countries. Here in New Zealand, yes, our suffragists led by Kate Sheppard—I want to acknowledge them, and I want to thank them for all the hard work they did in opening doors for us. Back home in India, in those days—I’m talking about my grandparents’ generation—villages used to be typical villages. Some villages didn’t have schools, and girls were not sent to another village or town or city to access education. It was only men who got access to education, so, obviously, that gender gap increased. I also come from the country where some—I say some—families desire male children over female children. Some families will go to any extent to make sure that their child is a male child, and this is despite all the efforts by the Government of India—and I want to acknowledge the Government of India for the hard work that they are doing in this space.

When I was growing up, I didn’t know that I would find myself in this beautiful country that is the first self-governing country to give women the right to vote. I didn’t know that I would be standing here in this House, having the opportunity to celebrate the 125th suffrage anniversary with you all, but I knew that my upbringing was the best. I knew that my parents looked after me and my sisters without any prejudice, despite all the surroundings that I have talked about. I want to mention that I’m not the only girl child; we are four sisters. So I want to thank my parents for the efforts that they have put in us. They provided us everything that we needed to achieve, to do well in our lives. So there is a role for every one of us, and that is to provide opportunities to younger generations, younger girls, and that is how I see this example.

We have so much to celebrate in our country. We are continuously advocating for women’s rights. We are fighting for our rights. Yes, today, while we are celebrating the 125th suffrage anniversary, we should also acknowledge and celebrate that we know what we want to achieve. Yes, the list is long, and I want to add more things to that list, and that is intersectional feminism. When people talk about feminism, we just bring one dimension to that, but I think we need to bring more dimensions to feminism, and that is people who are migrants, like me, and people who come from ethnic minorities. Having said that, I am here not because of my ethnicity, and I am here not because of my gender; I am here because of my hard work, and I’m really proud to be part of the National Party, which believes in hard work and rewards people for hard work.

We are the first country to give women the right to vote. Yes, it is our wish to be at the forefront for the social change that is right for our country, that is best for our country, and it’s a great privilege to be part of this continuous momentum for inclusion. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Chair, thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaker.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak today of three women who have worked or are still working to enfranchise women. The first I wish to speak of is Elizabeth Caradus, and I have with me here a page from the suffrage petition. The first name on it is Elizabeth Caradus—or, as I first heard of her, Elizabeth Russell Caradus. She is my great-great-great-great-aunt and, obviously, signed the suffrage petition, but that wasn’t all. She arrived in New Zealand at the age of 10, in 1842, on the Jane Gifford. Six years later, she married James Caradus. They had 15 children, of whom about eight survived to adulthood. In amongst all this busy life of rearing children, she was a prominent member of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, especially in Auckland. Then, when the Women’s Franchise League was started in Auckland, she became a prominent member of that group, too.

So she was one of the group of suffragists who worked hard to collect the signatures, who worked with Kate Sheppard. Later on, she became one of the earliest members of the National Council of Women of New Zealand. She was a suffragist, and it is an honour to have that somewhat distant connection to her—and I am very proud to have that connection. We don’t know much about her politics. We don’t even know much about what she thought because, as it turns out, she was a working-class woman. She and her husband didn’t have much money, certainly not much time, so she couldn’t go to the conferences and the debates and so on. But we do know—and this is a quote from someone who went to a meeting that she was at—that she spoke with her “accustomed zeal”, and on another occasion she was recorded as giving an “excellent and pithy” speech. So there seems to be a tradition of speaking in my family.

The second woman I wish to speak of today and to honour as someone who has worked to enfranchise women is Kristine Bartlett—the woman who took the pay equity case. Kristine and the union who worked with her took an important case that argued that women today should be paid equally for work of equal value, and today, on Women’s Suffrage Day, that pay equity work has now been acknowledged in a bill that has been presented to this House and will be debated.

It is wonderful to see the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill coming up in front of this House today. That bill also enfranchises women. Having a vote is only part of being enfranchised; being paid well for the work that you do gives you the capacity to operate, it gives you the capacity to be part of a community, and it gives you the capacity to be a full citizen. So I see that as very important work that is done not just economically but in terms of empowering women to be full citizens of this country. So to all the women and the men who have worked hard on the equal pay and the pay equity legislation, I acknowledge the work you have done to enfranchise women.

The third woman I wish to speak of today is a friend of mine—a friend who was honoured last night in the Women of Influence Awards, where she was given the supreme award for the work that she does for women. Jackie Clark, I salute you for the work you have done in South Auckland with The Aunties, supporting women who have been affected by domestic violence, and supporting them in the most tangible of ways: by ensuring that they can buy some groceries, by making sure they have a mobile phone so that they can make phone calls without being traced by their partner, by helping to pay for repairs to a car—all ways of empowering and enfranchising women so that they can lead full lives in their community. I am honoured to be part of The Aunties group too, supporting women in times of need, and enfranchising them.

We do this work not for ourselves, and we appear in this Parliament not for ourselves. I remember, every time I am in this House, the women who have supported me to be here and the women who I hope to support in my turn. I especially think of my mother, Marie Russell, and the support she has given me, and my three teenage daughters: Bridgid, Sophia, and Ruth.

To my darling daughters, it is for you whom I fight. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What a great day to be a woman parliamentarian here in New Zealand. I am No. 131, and at a breakfast celebration this morning, we were very honoured to have the guests Dame Ann Hercus and Dame Jenny Shipley. It was a time for us to recall all those amazing women who, against a backdrop of huge resistance, against physical and emotional hardship, kept moving towards their goal and, eventually, won their right and our ongoing right to vote.

Our women were the first in a self-governing country to be granted the right to vote, in those parliamentary elections back in 1893—that’s 125 years ago today. It’s a timely reminder of our responsibility to those brave women and those who suffered along the way to fight for us and our rights not to take it for granted, but to get involved in our democracy and vote.

One of our guests this morning, Dame Ann Hercus, talked to us about the barriers—the glass ceilings—and she suggested that they’re weren’t, in fact, actually made of glass. She suggested they were made up of thick layers of men, because men don’t want to share top jobs or positions of authority. Well, personally, I’ve never found that to be the case, but perhaps I’ve been fortunate because I’ve had opportunities where perhaps I did break through a glass ceiling, or that thick layer of men. Maybe it was easy for me; I’m not sure. But the reality was that I could have just simply snuck through because I was totally unaware that such a thing existed, and so I never paid it any mind. But I’ve been surrounded my whole life with very strong, hard-working women with very strong personalities and morals, who have always looked forward with their rose-tinted spectacles on. So whenever I wanted to get involved in anything, I just simply went out and did it.

For me, the glass ceiling analogy did almost ring true in local government, but not because I couldn’t break through, because I did. After six years of being on a council, I became the first female mayor to be elected on the West Coast, and it is quite a blokey place, so that’s quite an achievement. Now, the challenge of the glass ceiling actually came during one term where I was, in fact, around a table with a group of 10 men, leading them as the only female. It wasn’t so much a glass ceiling, but I think it was more the jolly green giant, because one or two of them felt that they were uncomfortable being led by a woman, and their tone and their behaviour, I believe, left more to say about them being gentlemen than about me as a woman.

My experience in local government opened up opportunities for me. It was soon after being appointed to the board of Local Government New Zealand that I was invited to represent New Zealand at a women’s congress in Mexico, and we were invited to send a speaker because of the historic event we’re celebrating here today. The women in Mexico got the vote some 60 years after us here, but their system was fraught with challenges, and I certainly do hope that since 2011, when I was there, things have improved. For instance, a woman could campaign to be elected and win her position, but her position was then transferable. So, in a country like Mexico, where there is quite a lot of male dominance, that transfer was not always willingly given. Sometimes it was under severe duress or duress threatened upon a woman’s family, and so some of these women actually lost their positions through that process.

But here in New Zealand, it took us another 26 years before women could stand for Parliament, and then another 14 years of trying before this country finally elected its first woman MP. I’m very proud of the fact that here, today, the National Party consists of 40 percent women.

But I’d also like us to remember today Elizabeth Yates from Onehunga. She became the first female mayor elected in the whole of the British Empire. She succeeded her husband, who retired due to ill health—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Sorry, I was so interested that I didn’t realise the member’s time was up, either. It’s a huge honour to take a call today, on the 125th anniversary of New Zealand becoming the first self-governing nation in the world where women could vote. I too would like to add my voice of acknowledgment to Meri Te Tai Mangakahia being the first woman ever to speak in the Parliament and providing some guidance for the suffrage movement in that achievement, and, of course, the woman out in front of the Pākehā activists, Kate Sheppard.

In 1893, the vote was extended to all women who were British subjects aged 21 and over, including Māori—we’ll put aside the politics of that, which are awfully uncomfortable. It took us longer to move past this foreign nationhood test, and it wasn’t until 1952 that Chinese-born New Zealand men or women actually got the right to vote in this country. So it wasn’t completely universal, but it was certainly the first time that women had the right to vote in a self-governing nation.

I do also want to recognise that New Zealand’s voting and political systems aren’t designed for everyone. Disabled people experience barriers to exercising their right to vote and to participate politically, such as inaccessible information and voting papers, limited voting methods, and a lack of physical facilities enabling engagement with politicians, so they haven’t actually, in practical terms, had suffrage always. So it’s been particularly great to see Chlöe Swarbrick shepherding through Mojo Mathers’ electoral access bill in Parliament, and I look forward to this House—I hope—unanimously supporting that bill to move us a step forward in terms of the political participation of people with disabilities.

I am very grateful to the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and the artist from the East Coast for the beautiful camellia that I get to wear in this House. My number is 112, which just completely blew my mind, if I’m honest. To think that in this day and age, having been in this House for seven years, I’m still only 112th of all women, is mind-bending. If I go back over that time, I’m the fourth out lesbian to be in this House, and many of us are still firsts or seconds. Golriz Ghahraman, sitting right beside me, is the first New Zealander with a refugee background, and Mojo Mathers was the first Deaf New Zealander in this House. There are still barriers to be broken through for people to be able to participate in this place, and it’s made me reconsider how I value this position to reflect on that.

I’m a person who, typically, for a long part of my life, looked at politicians and thought they were all full of—and I’d really not been particularly engaged or enthusiastic about the parliamentary political process, if I’m honest. It seemed a lot about fighting, rather than care for the community. It took, for me, working on the paid parental leave campaign from the community and working in partnership with a member of Parliament who liaised with us—and she managed the politics in this House. I saw that, actually, there was a hope that politicians could be linked to communities and could be about bettering the lives of New Zealanders, and, for me, ultimately, that is what it is about—to be in this place.

So while we celebrate the remarkable achievement of suffragists, today, I do also want to mention Kate Sheppard’s famous quote that “All that separates, whether of race, creed, class, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome.” I would like to extend that today to disability, gender and gender identity, nation or country of birth, and all of the other arbitrary measures that feed discrimination but that could bring us together as a much stronger country. Kia ora.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m honoured to stand and take a call in this debate today, on the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. I am the 138th female MP in New Zealand history.

It’s truly a day of celebration: 125 years ago, women stood up and claimed their equal status. They demanded the right to vote, the right to be included, and the right to have their voices heard, and it’s humbling to stand here in the House today and pay tribute to the women who led this charge.

In 1893, Kate Sheppard and 32,000 other women took control. They did that to not only fundamentally change New Zealand society for the better but they started a fire around the world for other women, too. While today is of huge national significance, all politics is local. So I want to take the opportunity to highlight and pay tribute to a key woman in the suffrage movement from my own electorate of Maungakiekie, Elizabeth Yates. She was a strong supporter of the suffrage movement. Elizabeth Yates was actually the first woman to vote in the Onehunga electorate under the new—back then—Electoral Act of 1893. She was determined to keep the movement strong, and so she stood for the mayoralty of Onehunga and won the election just a few short months later in November. Not only did she do that; that signalled that she was the very first female mayor in the entire British Empire, so a massive significant moment for my electorate Maungakiekie, for Onehunga, for New Zealand, and for the British Empire.

It is a privilege for me to represent and be part of a community that has that pioneering spirit such as Elizabeth Yates had, and it’s also a privilege for me to be the patron of the Onehunga Fencible & Historical Society, guardians of our Onehunga past. Gender equality and pay equity are targets that we should be continuously working for, and we must take the opportunities to reach this goal and do so and seize any moment that we can without delay. So it is disappointing that the Government did turn its head to some of these opportunities. They have now twice voted against a bill earlier in the year that I had in my name that would put in place a system to allow women to lodge pay equity claims. It is an important issue, and I’d hoped to see some progress on it from a Government that had previously said that it was a priority for them. So I surmised back in March when my bill went through this House for its first and only reading that the Government would wait for the suffrage anniversary to produce their version, and that’s exactly what happened.

So what’s the problem with this? Women have been waiting all year since the non-passage of my bill for the Government to have their suffrage day photo op today. They could have got on to this much, much earlier. One might wonder if they’ve been playing politics with pay equity. Having just seen the bill a very short time ago today, it is my understanding and initial summation that 90 percent of it is the same content of the bill that I put through back in March.

I’d like to switch gears now by acknowledging some very strong women in my family. I’m from a family of three girls—I’m the middle of three girls. My mother Lauris Lee is a hugely civic-minded, kind, wonderful, and nurturing mum and a female leader in our community. She shepherded Rochelle Lee and Angela Lee, my two sisters whom I adore and who have been towers of strength for me not only in my personal life but in my career. I think my father deserves a mention. He believed in hard labour from the very get-go. He was gender blind. We had to do everything that sons would have done, and my dad—I’m not sure if he’s thought about this—is a feminist from a long way back; he just may not know it.

I’m raising two daughters, Sydnee and Makenna. They face many issues that come their way and I’m doing my best as a single mum to foster the resilience in them that I see already. The Book of Proverbs has a quote. It says, “A woman is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.” It’s my hope that my daughters, like many strong women before them, the suffrage women of old, will stare down the barrel of adversity with assurance that they too can laugh at the days to come, and I’ll be there by right beside them.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d like to begin with a whakataukī: me aro koe ki te hā o Hine-ahu-one—pay heed to the dignity of women. It’s such an honour to stand and take a call in this general debate today as we celebrate 125 years of suffrage. It’s a particular honour for me, because as someone who’s worked for most of my life in the women’s rights space, I chose to move to New Zealand all those years ago largely because this was the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. As many others before me have said, I stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before me, Māori, Pacific, and Pākehā women, who have fought. Women, also, like Elizabeth Yates, the elected Mayor of Onehunga, who was elected on 29 November 1893, the day after New Zealand women led the world by voting in a general election for the first time. She was the first woman to record her vote in the Onehunga electorate at that general election.

I also acknowledge another mayor Dame Sukhi Turner, former Mayor of Dunedin, and for a very long time considered one of the most prominent New Zealand politicians of Indian origin. I acknowledge women from the diverse ethnic minority communities across Aotearoa who have fought over many decades to organise their own women’s auxiliary wings and their own organisations, and there were many women of Chinese and Indian origin who did this here in New Zealand, and their histories are part of our history, as well: women like Shantiben Parbhu and women like Rukshmani Kasanji, women who fought to be able to express their ethnic and religious identities as New Zealanders, and women who fought the isolation that many women from ethnic minority communities faced at the time. Without all these women, I wouldn’t be here today.

I stand here as a migrant woman of Indian origin, a woman who calls Aotearoa home, a woman who the Prime Minister would call “youth adjacent”, and, as I found out this morning, the 143rd woman member of the New Zealand Parliament. Yet there’s more to be done. We have a persistent gender pay gap, and for Asian women, we’re paid less than our male counterparts and less compared with Pākehā men and women as well. Gender-based violence affects us all, but there are still issues like forced marriage and dowry abuse that persist and disproportionately affect ethnic women. We are under-represented in virtually every level of leadership, including in our own communities.

I stand here and speak to, and on behalf of, women for whom ethnicity and gender collide to make it even harder for our voices to be heard. I spoke to a young woman New Zealander of South Asian descent recently and what she said has always stuck in my mind. She said, “I grew up thinking of myself as every other New Zealander. But it was only when I applied for jobs or board positions that I had my otherness fed back to me; that suddenly I was different.”

We get asked if we’re Indian, Chinese, Filipino, “fill in the blank”, or a New Zealander. Where are we really from? We also get those other questions about children, not having children: if you have children, it’s a problem; if you don’t, it’s a problem—we get those too. Our New Zealanders from different ethnic communities may speak different languages. We may speak English with different accents. We may have different skin colours, celebrate different festivals, be of different faiths, come from different contexts and backgrounds, and think differently about different things. That’s what diversity is about, and that is why we are strong as a nation.

We are all New Zealanders, and we have a right to play our part in shaping New Zealand’s future. As I acknowledge Kate Sheppard, the most famous suffragette and founding president of the National Council of Women (NCW) of New Zealand, the umbrella organisation of women’s organisations, I also acknowledge that that same organisation has today for the first time at its helm a Kiwi-Indian woman, and I acknowledge the leadership of Vanisa Dhiru as the national president of the NCW, New Zealand. Kia ora. Thank you.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Mana Whakawā, e te mana wahine, ka mihi nui te mihi ki a koe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker, may I extend a warm acknowledgment to you in your capacity as Speaker.]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge you, as you’re seated there in the Chair, on this very auspicious day. We’ve heard in the House today the acknowledgment to Kate Sheppard, New Zealand’s premier suffragette—125 years.

Every day is a revelation, and, in many ways too, a celebration of life—life that we have here in Parliament. So I acknowledge the movement, the women’s movement that is here. In so doing, I’m also reflecting on the words of Dame Jenny Shipley this morning. She was talking about Kate Sheppard sailing from afar, beyond the horizon, not knowing what was there. I acknowledge also my Scottish, my Irish, my Celtic ancestry. Kate Sheppard was from Scotland; she sailed to Aotearoa New Zealand. However, Aotearoa New Zealand is the land that I was born in, and, as my cultural identity, it is what has shaped who I am. Suffragette day today and the women’s vote is recognition of women’s rights and placement under the Westminster system. So I’m just going to turn and reflect upon my tupuna, my women ancestors.

I come from a small village at the mouth of the Whanganui River, Pūtiki. Rere-o-Maki—a tupuna, a mana wahine, a wahine rangatira—was one of five women who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. She gave birth to Te Kēpa Rangihiwinui—Major Kemp, he became known as. He gave great military service to our colonial nation and the shaping of it. He became, in his later stages of life, a great leader for his people in resistance of many of the wrongdoings that had gone on in the colonial actions taken against the people of Whanganui and Taranaki. So I’m going to fast track forward. I think it’s important to acknowledge and celebrate today, but also, because of the cultural heritage that I come from, that is part of my DNA. We have many great leaders. We remember them. We celebrate them.

Speaking of having many great leaders, last weekend I was back in Hāwera and there was the celebration and unveiling of two VC recipients, Harry Laurent and John Grant, for their service during World War I. Being immersed in my community, it is important to give acknowledgment to those who have given service in the shaping of our nation as it is today.

Talking about the shaping of our nation, I also come from tribal ancestral lineage of Ngāti Apa. Ngāti Apa has also given birth and placement to our first Māori woman MP, Iriaka Ratana—on 29/11/1949 she was elected in the Western Maori seat. Another who has been embraced by Ngāti Apa was our first Māori woman Cabinet Minister, Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan. Ngāti Apa is proud to have embraced these women who have contributed to the shaping of our nation.

Another tupuna of Ngāti Apa is Dame Tariana Turia. She founded the Māori Party, as we know, when she crossed the floor. Dame Tariana Turia spoke at the Whānau Ora hui last week, which I was delighted to be in attendance at, with the support of two of my colleagues. I was also delighted that the attendees noted the National Party’s attendance and recognised that the National Party, with the Māori Party, had given the shaping and the formation of Whānau Ora.

With the limited time that I have left, I refer to what was notably commented on at the Whānau Ora hui, and I refer to the words of Dame Tariana Turia in her speech: I believe that our greatest responsibility should be to insist that any definition of well-being without mentioning Whānau Ora is fundamentally flawed. I invite the Government to reflect on that, and when there is the formulation of policy around well-being, to take it back to our families. Whānau Ora is the origin of that.

In conclusion, I am again privileged to attend next week the Māori Women’s Welfare League—their celebration, their gathering. It is 67 years that they’ve been in the making. This is an organisation about wāhine Māori, but they also embrace the importance of whānau. Kia ora.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m humbled to speak today as I stand here, the 148th of 149 women elected to Parliament. I can honestly say that coming to Parliament was not my life plan. But, as a feminist woman and a woman who has been long and often told to shut up much more often than I’ve been told to speak up, I decided to take up that challenge. Last year, I voted on Suffrage Day; today, on Suffrage Day, I speak in this House.

What does Suffrage Day mean to us here in Parliament? I think we have all celebrated, and it has been absolutely amazing to hear our sisters and brothers in this House celebrating suffrage. We must remember though, with 125 years, what we have gained. There are still women across the world who are fighting for that very same right. There are still women dying for the right to have equal representation or to participate in democracy. I honour those women. We’ve heard lots of talk about the herstory of women and gaining the vote, and I just want to acknowledge and recognise this House and the fact that we have camellia carved in our walls to recognise suffrage. It is important that we are here, we are now, and we are honouring the fact that it has been 125 years.

The Labour Party, across the years, have been instrumental in changing laws that affect us as women, and I remember specifically one that I couldn’t believe as a young woman—a very young woman. In 1985, we made it a crime to rape in marriage. We made it a crime in 1985—I was around 14 at the time. Can we believe that? So within my lifetime, it was something that still happened as a right from a husband to his wife.

I want to come now to—and everyone has raised and talked around domestic violence, and I want to acknowledge the Domestic Violence Act and the place of making significant changes and helping significant changes be made in this space around domestic violence. Gendered violence—violence against women and children—is our shame, and it continues to exist. I am so honoured to be able to participate in the changing of the laws that are coming now, and to be able to speak on the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill in this House.

I would like to urge the public and my peers here to look at reflect on the recent draft CEDAW report. I don’t have time to go into the content of it, but CEDAW is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The report outlines how we are achieving and how much more and how much further we have to go. Please—public, peers—have a read and put your voices towards making change. We need to heed that gendered violence remains a significant problem, and we must work tirelessly to eliminate it. Until we are free of violence and safe in our homes, we will not be equal.

Finally, I want to speak of my mother—my mother, who is in her late 60s and still continues to serve her community, caring for foster children, working as a teacher-aide, donating her spare time to the Arts Council, and creating a Christmas grotto for the children of Kaikohe every year. I think of the impact, what it has meant to her, of earning far less than men and of the impact of a 50:50 split of assets at divorce, that did not take into account her role as a bookkeeper, a farmer, a horticulturalist, a mother—who made my lunch every day when I went to school—and a community volunteer. The financial split ignored the lived reality of this woman. How delighted I am that the Government has announced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to address this. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 7 November 2018, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Four major issues for Nelson and Tasman, as for New Zealand, are cleaning up our waterways, growing and diversifying our exports, providing more housing, and building our resilience to climate change. The easy part is giving speeches about those issues. This bill is about practical solutions. It enables the Waimea Community Dam to proceed by granting access to 11 hectares of public land. The biggest challenge for the Tasman District Council over this scheme has been funding the $100 million cost, to be shared between ratepayers, taxpayers, and horticulturalists. That has caused some to-ing and fro-ing over recent weeks but is now resolved. The issue for Parliament with this bill is authorising access to the Crown land, and, frankly, it’s a no-brainer. The detail is very straightforward. It grants the Tasman District Council an easement over 9.7 hectares of the Lee Valley in the Mount Richmond Forest Park for the reservoir, and enables the council to purchase, at market value, 1.3 hectares of riverbed managed by Land Information New Zealand for the dam structures.

I wish to make four points about the question of access to the land, and then four on the substantive issues of the scheme. The first is that the land area being required from the Department of Conservation (DOC) is very small. Out of the 166,000 hectares of the Mount Richmond Forest Park, it’s not 1 percent. It’s not even 0.1 percent. It is one seventeen-thousandth of that park.

Secondly, the DOC easement is only 11 percent of the reservoir area of 87 hectares. This is not the case of a piece of community infrastructure being put on DOC land as an easy or cheap option. Here, the council has identified the most practical site for water storage for the region and has acquired the bulk of the land from private landowners, and Parliament is being asked to unblock access to this last small remaining segment.

Thirdly, this is stewardship land, the lowest classification of conservation land. It’s not a national park. It’s not one of the 14 different types of reserve. It’s not a special scientific or ecological area. The area is so inaccessible that DOC has no records of any recreational use. It is riverbed, vertical bedrock, and beech forest. Now, I would take a very different view if this was unique or premium conservation land, like in Fiordland or in the Abel Tasman National Park. I am a practical environmentalist, not an ideological one.

And fourthly, the inundation of this small area of land was approved by the Environment Court in August 2004, with the agreement of DOC, Fish & Game, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. That consent order included an extensive biodiversity compensation package. It is disingenuous of individuals or groups, who have had ample opportunity to submit on the environmental issues during the resource consent process, to now want to relitigate those issues, particularly those that agreed to the consent orders. To argue this project is not environmentally sound is to argue that the Environment Court got it wrong. The project also has the strong support of former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams and the Ministry for the Environment.

Let me give some detail on the four broader benefits of the Waimea water scheme. The Nelson-Tasman region has good overall water quality, with ratings amongst the best of anywhere in New Zealand, but we have a longstanding and significant problem in the Waimea River: most summers, around February to March, the flows drop to a trickle, the nutrients concentrate, and we get ugly algae blooms that are so toxic that regularly dogs die and the council has to prohibit recreational activity. We also have, in the lower reaches of the river during summer, the serious issue of saltwater intrusion. This is not the clean, green reputation that either Nelson or New Zealand prides itself on.

The benefits to the ecological health of the Waimea River from the scheme are enormous. It will enable the minimum flows in the river to be increased by more than fivefold, from 200 to 1,100 litres a second—that’s a healthy river rather than a polluted creek—and will provide big gains for fish life and recreation. The increased flows will dilute the nutrients, addressing the algae problem. This scheme means the Waimea River will be able to fully meet the national standards for freshwater quality. Some critics argue more irrigation means more nutrients, but that’s far too simplistic. Irrigated horticultural crops like apples actually release less nitrogen than the existing dry land farming. Nutrients will still need managing, but this scheme is the only realistic solution for cleaning up the Waimea River. The alternative of slashing summer water takes for all users would be devastating for the region and would cost thousands of jobs and millions in exports as well as introduce harsh water restrictions on households.

Alongside these environmental benefits of the scheme are the economic gains. The Waimea Plains is an abundant fruit bowl because of its rich, fertile soils, high sunshine hours, and natural shelter. It already produces over $250 million a year of apples, grapes, hops, kiwifruit, and berry fruit, as well as an assortment of vegetables and nursery plants, employing over 3,000 people. This scheme, in providing additional water for irrigating another 1,200 hectares, provides the capacity for another $100 million a year in exports and a further thousand jobs. We hear so much about diversifying our export base. This is doing it.

The third issue is housing supply and affordability. The population on the Waimea Plains in the time that I’ve been a member of Parliament has doubled, from 10,000 to 20,000. That’s amongst the fastest of anywhere in New Zealand, and it continues to grow. The biggest affordability issue is actually section price. The council cannot allow new residential subdivision in places like Richmond, Brightwater, and Mapua without secure water supplies. This project improves water security for existing households as well as providing for the new.

The fourth benefit is building our community’s resilience to climate change. Weather patterns are changing and that makes our water supplies more vulnerable. The scheme will ensure secure water supplies for the next century even in the more extreme climate change scenarios.

Critics of the scheme say there are better alternatives. I’m a sceptic, having seen 15 years and millions of dollars spent on investigations. I do cringe when I hear the Green Party saying that the answer for my region is to switch to different crops. Hops, grapes, berryfruit, and apples are part of Nelson and Tasman’s identity as well as being the foundations of our economy, and I’m not prepared to see them sacrificed on some sort of ideological green altar. We have an abundance of water, and we just need the infrastructure to be able to manage it through the seasons. I get equally frustrated with the Greens when they demand progress on water quality and demand progress on housing and on improving our resilience to climate change, but then come to this Parliament and oppose the very practical measures that will do just that.

The tight time frame for reporting this bill back to the House is necessary to meet the conditions of financial support for the project and to enable construction to begin this summer. It is not a complex bill, and it still leaves time for public submissions and proper consideration.

Can I pay tribute to the many community leaders, particularly the late Nick Patterson, people like Julian Raine, John Palmer, iwi leader Barney Thomas, and Neil Deans, and I particularly acknowledge Mayor Richard Kempthorne and his council for the work that has gone into the project and this bill. A vote for this bill is a vote for a cleaner Waimea River, a vote for more jobs and for growing our exports, and a vote for increasing the supply and affordability of the region’s housing. It’s also a vote for a local council that recognises that investing in water infrastructure is essential for securing its community’s future. Can I acknowledge the Government’s support from the financial side and those parties and members that are committed to supporting the Tasman-Nelson community as we address these challenging water issues with this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I rise with pleasure, on behalf of the Labour Party, to express support for this bill. Can I thank the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this bill—

Hon Nathan Guy: That’s good!

Hon DAVID PARKER: We have, piping up somewhat sarcastically, the former Minister for Primary Industries saying, “That’s good!” We’ve actually supported this all the way through, and actually for many years, despite considerable local opposition from some subsets of the population. In the Labour Party, we have actually consistently advocated for this with the council and are pleased that at long last it is being brought into being through this legislation, if passed. There is a temptation, as is shown sometimes by the Hon Nathan Guy, that when you’re in Opposition you criticise everything that the Government does. This would actually have been a very easy project for us to criticise and to rark up public opposition to, but actually we didn’t do that in the Labour Party. We have consistently supported this for the reasons that the Hon Nick Smith has outlined.

I actually don’t know of a better water augmentation scheme in New Zealand than this one. Despite the fact that it is one of the most expensive for those who are purchasing the water at the end of this, it is one of the best schemes, and I absolutely agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the Hon Nick Smith that, in order to get a better minimum flow in summer and in order to reduce the pressure on the aquifer, which is being mined down by current levels of take—and that is, in turn, having an effect on minimum flows in the river—this water augmentation scheme is necessary.

It was tempting when we came to office to say, “Well, we disagree with the somewhat generous allocation of funding from the Freshwater Improvement Fund that the prior Minister managed to achieve.” And I did go through the paper trail of that and looked carefully at the appropriation, and I concluded that it was just within appropriation, and notwithstanding the fact that it wasn’t recommended by his ministry and was a late addition to the scheme put on by the Minister for the benefit of his own locality, actually we in the end chose not to criticise it but rather to support it.

The funding from central government here is very generous—very generous. There is, in addition to the grant of $7 million, a $35 million loan from Crown Irrigation. Now, when we came to power, we said we were going to bring an end to large irrigation schemes, and we had a number of exceptions to that. We said that we would honour a number of existing investments, but we also made it clear that we were most worried about schemes that were going to increase the intensity of ruminant agriculture in catchments that are already over-enriched. This actually is a scheme that doesn’t do that; it’s one that supports horticulture as well as reticulated water supplies in the city.

I respect the right of people to have different viewpoints in New Zealand and to have a different view as to what should happen, but I am personally convinced that this is a good scheme, that it should proceed, and that we in this Parliament should facilitate that through the passage of this legislation to get over the complexity caused in respect of that small amount of land that is stewardship land. I further expressed the view that I think Parliament is going to have to perhaps look at those issues again one day. The range of discretions that are open to the Minister of Conservation following the Ruataniwha decision and the legal analysis that lies around this case show that the discretion of the Minister to give a concession for what we in Parliament are agreeing is an appropriate thing to do here looks like it might be unduly narrow. But that’s an issue for another day. In the meantime, we of course are all bound by the law as it stands rather than what we might think it ought to be.

The effect of this on improving instream values on enabling irrigation to continue to support local industry is good. When subject to appropriate minimum flows and protection of instream values, we ought to be maximising the economic value that we can get from our abundant water resources in New Zealand. I agree with that. I just don’t think that some of the larger schemes that were being promoted through the Crown Irrigation scheme, well-structured though they were—I admit that the unit was doing a good job to spend that money if it was going to be spent on those projects. We just didn’t think that, generally, we should be adding pressure to the load of rivers through more intensive forms of ruminant production.

Of course, as the Hon Nick Smith has already mentioned here, more land in this area will actually, over time, convert from sheep and beef to horticultural uses, partly because it will be horticultural uses that are higher value land uses and thereby will be more able to meet the high cost of water that comes out of this scheme. That’s a good thing. That’s progress for New Zealand and shows that, actually, with the right planning, including at times Government interventions to assist with smaller irrigation projects—and we haven’t closed our minds on those issues; some of those will be able to be funded in the future through the Provincial Growth Fund—we can actually find a way through, I think, that is more profitable for our country as well as has a better environmental outcome.

In respect of the difficulty that the Tasman District Council had to get this through, again, that’s local democracy in action, but I was pleased to see that, in the end, the leaders there did stand up and enough of them led to get this across the line. I would have been quite happy to get the money back for the Crown, to be honest; there are plenty of other good things that the Freshwater Improvement Fund could invest its money in around the country, because we do have some water quality problems in different parts of the country that are worse than they are in this area. None the less, it’s been such a long journey. I’m very pleased that, eventually, the leaders in that community managed to get it across the line.

Can I also mention John Palmer; the local mayor, Mr Kempthorne; and also Morgan Williams, who I think played a good hand at the end. Also, it is worthy to note that some of the wiser heads in this actually have a bit of grey—

Brett Hudson: Hear, hear!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! And a bit of hair. And it was interesting to see that they rolled out Sir Geoffrey Palmer to say that, look, actually it is proper, in some of these decisions, for councils to actually reflect on what might be the consequence of the decision that has been taken and to have a think about it and reflect upon it, because if this hadn’t gone ahead, the effect on the local area would have been dire. It would have put real pressure on the economy. There would have been a decrease in output from horticulture. The minimum flow would have been enforced without the water augmentation, and therefore a haircut would have had to be taken rather than a route through found. And, actually, I believe also the advice that I had from the district council was correct that, over time, local water supply costs would have been more expensive because they would have had to augment sources of freshwater for their municipal water and they wouldn’t have had these egregious subsidies from central government to do so.

Brett Hudson: You’re sounding like us, almost! Come across!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha!

Hon Nathan Guy: This is a speech that should be given from this side of the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, sadly you’re in Opposition.

Hon Nathan Guy: This is the best speech I’ve ever heard.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, you obviously haven’t heard me speak very often!

With those comments, can I also reflect on the support of Fish & Game New Zealand and the Department of Conservation, who really did test the environmental case for this going through and concluded that this was not just economically sound; it was environmentally responsible. Indeed, overall, the environment will be better as a consequence of this project.

Finally, can I mention the saltwater intrusion issue. If this hadn’t been funded, the regional council—or the councils, because it’s a unitary authority—would have had to do its duty to the environment and actually stop what is causing those saltwater intrusions, which is excessive extraction from the aquifer in dry seasons. That’s a lesson that is difficult for councils to implement, but it is their duty to do so where the law requires them to. So, with those comments, I support the passage of this bill at first reading.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): That was a great speech, wasn’t it? The Hon David Parker—gosh! I couldn’t believe the words coming out of his mouth. He said things like he’s constantly advocated for this scheme—

Hon Member: Oh!

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah, he’s saying that’s true and that it’s the best scheme he’s ever seen. I couldn’t believe it. He went on to say that the Government has been very generous and that he could have clawed the money back but that they decided not to. I want to thank the Minister for his very good contribution. It was very reasoned. It was a contribution based on common sense. Water storage in this Waimea dam is based, fundamentally, on common sense. The benefits are going to be not only economic; they’re going to be environmental. And there are going to be social benefits as well. I want to cover all of those things.

First of all, I want to pay tribute to Dr Nick Smith. He has been in this House for longer than this bill has been thought of. This bill came out of the 2001 drought, when regional leaders and industry leaders in the Waimea and Tasman area in Nelson got together and thought, “We can’t handle these prolonged droughts. We need to do something.” So when that first vote from the council a couple of weeks ago failed, I was so disappointed. And to hear regional leaders and industry leaders on the radio saying that this is really going to cripple our community and our regional economic development—I want to put my hand up and say “Well done.” to all of those people who have driven this project for 18 years since its inception.

I also want to acknowledge Crown Irrigation, because the first vote was difficult for them to stomach and understand and reason with, but they got back around with the councillors and with the mayor, and struck a deal that is going to ensure that this project is built and is going to benefit many, many generations to come. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the mayor, Mayor Kempthorne, whom, when I was Minister for Primary Industries for a number of years, I got to know very well down there. Murray King, Julian Raine, and many, many others, like John Palmer, have helped to drive this project forward, but in particular Nick Smith is the sponsor of this local bill.

What was really telling in Dr Smith’s contribution is where he is sending this bill to select committee. Many would think, “Oh, it should go to the Primary Production Committee because it’s all about production and economics and growing vegetables and horticultural products, etc.” But he’s decided to send it to the Governance and Administration Committee, which I think shows the breadth of this bill. It’s not just about the primary sector and agricultural production; it’s actually about the community. This is going to supply water into the city and those other towns that are growing very, very quickly. We have heard numerous examples of where the Waimea is over-allocated. I was reading a figure before. It’s over-allocated by 64 percent. We’ve heard the Minister talking about saltwater intrusion. That is a big risk. We know that fish species are struggling to survive when we have a prolonged dry period like we had in parts of the North Island and across the country this summer. So this benefits, in particular, the community—those social benefits, providing a reliable source of water. It also means that the aquatic life is going to flourish into the future.

I’m looking forward to hearing from the Greens in a moment, because they have a bill that’s working its way through the Parliament. It’s going to be focused on native fish species. So you would think that the Greens would be standing up here this evening talking about the environmental benefits that we’re going to get from this scheme, because, ultimately, this will mean that instead of livestock production, it will change and we will have more apple trees. I’ve seen the economics on apples. It’s about $15,000 per hectare. No primary sector crop can match apples. So this will transform what happens in the Waimea Plains. There will be fewer nitrates into the water body, so you would expect that this would have the broad support of the whole of Parliament. I’m going to be really interested to see if the Greens support this bill this evening. I commend it to the House.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is a very pragmatic bill. It’s trying to find a solution for a problem, and a very real problem, in the Waimea Valley. It’s not actually a particularly complicated bill, but it’s taken a long time to get here—years and years of consultation and agonising, trying to work out solutions, changes of Government, and so on—and it does represent a compromise. The compromise is that some conservation land will be used in order to secure the water supply in the Waimea water augmentation scheme.

For that reason, I just want to sort of contradict something that the Hon Nathan Guy just said. He felt that the bill was going to the right place in going to the Governance and Administration Committee. Actually, I’m very disappointed that it’s not coming to the Environment Committee, because, to my mind, the discussion we need to be having is around the conservation values and when we need to perhaps sort of say “We understand the conservation values, but we’re actually going to override them in this instance.”, or, as it were, try to barter them or try to come to a solution that’s better overall. I think it’s a discussion that’s worth having at length, but I guess the Governance and Administration Committee can have that conversation too. But I am, as I said, very disappointed that it’s not coming to the committee that I chair. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to talk about it. And, of course, it would be well debated by all members of that committee.

I do think that the taking of any conservation land needs to be assessed very, very carefully indeed. We heard from the Hon Dr Nick Smith that this was a no-brainer, that we should be going ahead and doing it no matter what. The solution was, to his mind, obvious. I’m not sure that it’s quite a no-brainer. I actually do think that taking riverbed, taking land that has been set aside for conservation purposes, even if it’s only stewardship land, is not a no-brainer. That is actually an issue that needs to be discussed, needs to be debated, and needs to be weighed up. Here, even though we are being pragmatic about this, I do want to refer to a quote that my colleague the Hon David Parker—goodness; all these “Hons”—often makes. It’s a quote from the World Bank economist Herman Daly. David Parker often uses it. It says, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.” Now, I think the Hon David Parker endorses that often. Actually, I agree that the environment doesn’t serve the economy; it is the other way around.

Yet, in this instance, we seem at first glance to have an instance of the environment serving the economy. But that’s a simplistic way of thinking about it because, as has been discussed at length, this issue has gone to the Environment Court. It has been closely examined by the Department of Conservation (DOC). The costs and benefits—not in dollar terms; that’s a different issue—in terms of the environment have been assessed very, very carefully, and it does seem that on the whole the environmental benefits of this scheme will outweigh the costs of using some DOC land.

I think that has to be the assessment every time we’re engaged in one of these considerations of whether or not some DOC or conservation land should be sacrificed. We shouldn’t be assessing it simply on economic grounds, because it’s too easy to sell out the environment every time for the economy. It is much better to assess it on conservation grounds and on environmental values. Given that this has been through the Environment Court, given that DOC does support it, and given that there does seem to be a huge range of environmental benefits, I think, pragmatically, on the whole, this bill is a bill worth supporting.

It’s interesting to notice that the Tasman District Council has agonised over it as well. No one has come to this decision easily. So this is a bill that is worth supporting, certainly through this first reading, and it is a scheme, I think, that—for the reasons that Dr Smith has laid out—does need to find some way of being supported, because of the long-term benefits from it. So I’m looking forward to the discussion. As I said, I’m just disappointed that the bill is not coming to the Environment Committee.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s with much pleasure that I rise to offer New Zealand First’s strong endorsement of this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. Of course, we know this bill transfers, or seeks to transfer, 1.35 hectares of Crown stewardship land, administered now by Land Information New Zealand, in the Mount Richmond Forest Park. In doing so, it will create an asset for the Tasman District that will secure town water supplies into the future, and, also, allow us to irrigate up to 1,200 hectares of land that is suitable for horticulture.

We note that the resource consents have already been issued, but we also—as the previous speaker, Dr Russell, has alluded to—know that this has been a robust local debate. It did get the speed wobbles at the last minute, and the council, of course, originally voted it down. But I would actually commend those councillors who, when the second vote came forward, after new information was brought into the arena, had the courage to change their votes for the greater good, because these are 100-year decisions. These are not decisions about what the rate increase is going to look like on your next re-election pamphlet. This is a far-sighted, visionary bill that does take some courage. These are big numbers: $102 million, of which the Government is fronting in various forms with $42 million. Of course, $35 million of that is a loan, so that will be paid back by the farmers. And I think that’s worth noting. It is not a grant; it is a loan.

I just would like to give my own experience with irrigation. I grew up on an irrigated farm. I was one of the first farmers to drill a well in Canterbury, and through my farming career—I spent four years farming in north Otago—I saw the transformation of the north Otago District when the north Otago irrigation scheme went through. If you go to Ōāmaru now, you will see a thriving town—not only through the heritage that it has showcased but the economic impact of irrigation. The consistency of being able to guarantee production year on year has absolutely transformed this district. To any of those councillors who may have thought they’d made a decision that they may be uneasy with, I’d encourage them to go to Ōāmaru and their fears will be allayed.

It does allow for diversification into higher-value land uses, and we do have measurements now, or requirements and regulations, around nutrient management. Our investment in the OVERSEER programme enhances our ability to do that. So there are some protections on the environment. Of course, the minimum flows that we talked about are enhancing the recreational and environmental capability of the river. And we’re talking about minimum flows—in the 2001 drought that was referenced earlier, the river dried up completely. That is not a very environmental outcome, is it? So we’ve got the ability to mitigate that.

Of course, there is massive economic benefit. The $932 million over 25 years that’s been identified in the Northington report is real money flowing into the Tasman District and Nelson City, and for the likes of the Alliance Group, the meat plant—they’re a big user of water—that will secure their supply. So just that economic benefit, as well as the environmental benefits, will be significant.

These are intergenerational decisions. One thing I would say is that the farmers are often seen as the beneficiaries of this, but it’s actually the farmer’s children that are the beneficiaries, because the debt levels that are taken on are often generational investments. It’s the towns and the service people that benefit directly initially, but the farmers themselves are often taking on large portions of debt and risk, and that takes some time to pay off. So the thought that farmers are going to get rich off the back of taxpayers is just not how it works at all. So I commend this to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): This is a glorious day for water storage in New Zealand. To actually bring a scheme and a piece of legislation to this House that unlocks the potential for the Tasman District is actually one of the very reasons I came into this Chamber and into this House. I congratulate the last Government on putting together a package of around $42 million, which got this scheme under way, because, frankly, without it we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I’m the National Party spokesperson for horticulture, and I proudly know that that is a shining industry that’s going from strength to strength. Current exports are around $7 billion, and they’re targeted to go to $10 billion. If you look at horticulture, it has got everything New Zealand needs: high-value, high-quality products; it is job-rich, and environmentally clean. It’s an intensive form of agriculture, but it’s incredibly gentle on the environment. This scheme has everything. It is a win-win-win in terms of water quality—and we’ve heard previous speakers, including the Hon Dr Nick Smith, talking about the increase in minimum flow in the Waimea River. It has better availability and security of supply for both the productive sector, and the urban residents in Nelson and the Tasman District. Fundamentally, it also adds the potential for significant jobs and job growth in this part of New Zealand.

I want to acknowledge the tension that seems to exist when it comes to irrigation. It’s actually not about the water; it’s actually about water quality and nutrients. We need to unwind that conversation in New Zealand and in this House, if we’re going to make use of schemes like this into the future as we battle pretty significant challenges around climate change. In my maiden speech, I said I thought it was unfair to link irrigation to nutrient loadings. If you deal with the nutrients, then irrigation is a fantastic technology that can help New Zealand grow. In this Parliament, I want to be a champion of water storage, and I was pleased to hear the Hon David Parker’s speech earlier. I was a little bit surprised, I might say, because what he said is, fundamentally, what I agree with on how water can enhance our economy.

This project has been going on for 15 or 18 years, and it does go right to the heart of what New Zealand’s going to have to do as it seeks to address economic growth along with climate change. This is a unique proposal. It has the agreement now of all the local authorities, Fish & Game, Department of Conservation, iwi, and we’re being asked in this Parliament to deal with 11 hectares of land. As the Hon Dr Nick Smith has just said, the stewardship land is largely—I can’t remember the number he said, but a very small 1.5 hectares of 165 hectares. It is a very, very small amount.

I want to acknowledge the leaders in this community that have fought for this. I don’t know them all, but the ones I do know, I hugely respect: John Palmer, Julian Raine, my friend and colleague Mayor Richard Kempthorne, who I know has championed this for a long time as a fundamental part of the Tasman and Nelson success. I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman in front of me, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who has worked in this House and with this community for 15 years, at least, to advance this scheme. I want to acknowledge his tenacity and courage—that even in Opposition, he is supporting a local bill through this Parliament that will allow this scheme to happen.

This morning, Dame Jenny Shipley said, at the 125-year women’s suffrage celebratory breakfast, that when you come to Parliament you have to come with a couple of things that you want to do. I give notice to this House, in supporting this bill, that I am a hugely strong advocate of water storage, and at every opportunity I’ll bring those schemes back to this House. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party is opposing this bill to support the Waimea dam. We are very clear, and what we’re asking for—and I acknowledge all of the speeches that have just been put on the floor of this House. What we are wanting—and I want to support Deborah Russell in saying that this is not a no-brainer. At the very least, we need to acknowledge that there are valid, valid concerns and that this is not a no-brainer.

Now, I want to be very clear that we are sure that there need to be better assurances, especially environmental and ecological assurances. I think it was Mr Guy who previously stood and said, “I want to hear what the Greens have to say about endangered species.” We absolutely do have something to say about endangered species. We acknowledge the work of Forest & Bird, for example, who are highlighting species and plants that have not had their full day in being monitored and surveyed. We know this is not a “no-brainer”, as the Minister keeps insisting, and we are proud to continue to keep us all to account, making sure that absolutely all assurances and guarantees have been put in place so that we understand the social, environmental, and economic interdependent impacts that this dam will have.

I have acknowledged, and I do acknowledge, the arguments and the reasons that have been put forward by the members of this House to support this dam. What I am asking is that we haven’t had the full guarantees, particularly in the ecological and environmental monitoring. I also support Dr Deborah Russell in saying that it absolutely should go to the Environment Committee. I would be most supportive of this going to that select committee to make sure that the environmental impacts are being upheld just as much as the social and economic impacts. The Green Party has long understood that environmental, social, and economic impacts need to be considered together and that not one can be pulled out and looked at in isolation of the other. The Green Party has long understood that we need to understand the relationship between the causes and the outcomes of those sections of our lives and of our policies and of our laws.

So, yes, no one would be surprised that I am standing in this House to oppose this bill. I look forward to the submissions that may come if this bill goes through its first reading. Again, I want to support that this goes to the Environment Committee. I want us to consider the sentiments of Forest & Bird, talking about native snails and plant species, some of which will be majorly wiped out with the inundation of the land that is being proposed to be transferred to Tasman District Council. I want us to have those debates and be very, very clear that we also understand the long-term benefits, the long-term, seven-generations-ahead benefits, of this dam. While I won’t pretend to align this particular project with all of the large-scale irrigation projects that I’m proud this Government has committed to winding down, I want us to be very, very clear about the long-term, holistic aspects of this project and that we have those guarantees.

The Green Party does not feel that we have those guarantees all tied up here in this legislation. We understand that there are valid needs for the Nelson and Tasman communities. We understand the difference in value between using land for horticulture and agriculture. We understand the intricacies of what is being proposed. What we cannot see—and why we cannot support this bill—is that the assurances for long-term water quality, environmental quality, and, therefore, economic outputs have been preserved. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on this particular bill, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. Just a wee reminder to the House and to all those that are listening that, actually, this here is maybe a little bit unprecedented in terms of our party actually supporting this, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Nathan Guy also alluded to. They were quite surprised that we were supporting this bill, but, in fact, this here is us as a Government upholding our commitments.

You see, in April, it was announced by Ministers Grant Robertson and Damien O’Connor that the Government would be winding down all public subsidies for large-scale irrigation projects, and that is in line with our coalition and our confidence and supply agreements. But we also did this: we also agreed to honour the previous commitments to existing schemes, and the three in the works, including this particular one, the Waimea project. The other two projects in completion that we talked about were the completion of the $200 million Central Plains Water stage two in Canterbury, and constructing the Kurow Duntroon scheme in South Canterbury.

Minister Robertson indicated in April this year that the three developments could be met within the current appropriations. So I have heard we have absolutely pleased the other side of the House, we’ve pleased the mayor, Richard Kempthorne; we’ve pleased those people that were supporting the Waimea scheme, and we’ve also pleased those who voted for this Government and expected us to follow through on what we stood for, and that’s exactly what we’ve gone and done.

Let’s just take a moment to point out that the Waimea scheme itself doesn’t require parliamentary approval, but what this bill does is it enables Crown land to be accessed for this scheme—1.35 hectares of Crown riverbed on which the dam will be built. It also frees up the right to inundate 9.67 hectares of conservation land, about 1.6 kilometres in a direct line upstream from the dam, through an easement.

As our previous speakers have been talking about this bill, I’ve been wondering where iwi fit in this whole scheme of things. I had a little look into it, and I’m reassured when I see that iwi were consulted on this particular bill. I just wanted to point out this bit: the Tasman District Council has advised that all eight iwi with an interest in the bill have been consulted on it, with no opposition being expressed or expected. This includes Ngāti Kōata as an iwi with a particular interest being fully supportive of the bill, Te Atiawa and Ngāti Tama having confirmed their acceptance of it, and Ngāti Rārua are believed to be in support of it as well. To the extent that conservation land does not inundate it at any time, the public will have the same level of access as it does to the adjoining conservation land.

So despite this bill having quite a rocky road to get to this point, I’m happy to stand here and commend it to the House. It’s something that has been a long time coming, and probably, with the incoming Government, I’m sure the locals were probably a bit nervous about where the Waimea scheme was going to fit in with the future direction of this Government, but everybody that lives in the Tasman District should also know that we are supporting them on this particular project. This is a commitment from our Government. We’re following through with it.

I would like to point out that our confidence and supply partners over here, the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand, are absolutely within their rights to oppose it at this stage. I think that they’ve raised some really important points, which, as the bill moves forward, we actually need to be answering. So I mihi to our partners over there, the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand, and I encourage the select committee, as this bill moves through the select committee process, to actually look into what the Greens are saying, help to mitigate by finding some answers to the problems that they’ve raised, and help it move through unopposed. But for here and now, I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too stand in support of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its first reading here tonight. As we’ve heard from previous speakers, the bill does seek to acquire a very small portion of public land—11 hectares, in fact—in the Lee Valley, and I’m absolutely delighted that this bill has the support of Labour and New Zealand First.

This dam is not just so that more water can keep being drawn from local sources; it actually complements other measures which have been introduced over the past 17 years. We heard from the Hon Nathan Guy earlier that the need for this dam was highlighted back in 2001, in what has been termed the “Big Dry”. That was the most severe drought that the area had experienced in 60 years, and those areas that were affected went from Nelson, south to Richmond, and then all the way west, right to the coast, including Golden Bay.

The financial impact to horticulture and farmers was brutal during that drought and, of course, the damage to the river was significant. Throughout the first half of that year, the land was so dry and it posed such an extreme fire risk that even the Department of Conservation closed all of its conservation tracks up there—all of the walking tracks—including the Abel Tasman Coast Track, the Cable Bay Walkway, and the Queen Charlotte Track. The residents in those areas had their water supply severely restricted. This is, clearly, not sustainable, and in order to control water use, some water takes have been reduced by as much as 50 percent already. But even with the current controls, there will be times when we still won’t have enough water up there to keep both the river flowing and businesses and communities supplied with water.

Even though water restrictions have been required nearly every summer since the “Big Dry” in 2001, it’s been the irrigators who have felt those impacts the most. But, from November this year, when all of the water takes will be limited if the river falls below the minimum flow level, urban residents will also begin to experience more severe restrictions more frequently. They can expect about 50 days of restrictions on average every summer, and in drier times that could be extended and full cease takes for some of those people on the Waimea Plains.

Without the dam, the region could lose up to $1 billion of GDP over the next 25 years, but with the dam GDP could increase by about the same amount. I’ve spoken with one business in the Tasman District who supplies 60 percent of the apple trees to orchardists across New Zealand. Without the guaranteed supply of water, that business will either have to retrench or relocate. The use of this 11 hectares for the purpose of the Waimea dam has already been through the Environment Court and approved, as we’ve heard from Dr Nick Smith, and all the resource consents are in place.

The big winner from this dam is the Waimea River, and it means that minimum flows can be maintained in the river by releasing water from the dam, which, in turn, feeds the aquifers and the coastal springs and ensures the community’s water supplies are protected into the future and that the recreational benefits are maintained for families, and even the fisherman. It protects and enhances the Waimea River’s natural ecosystems, and it maintains the flow, which will prevent the saltwater intrusion into the drinking-water supply. Knowing that a consistent and safe water supply will be available will give absolute confidence to those industries in Nelson and Tasman that currently employ around 3,000 people.

I too want to lend my support and acknowledgment to Mayor Richard Kempthorne and his councillors, who have, after many years, approved this project. I also acknowledge the team of supporters who have courageously promoted this project over many years. I think we have light at the end of the tunnel. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): We don’t have that many local bills coming to the House and I think it’s useful just to reflect at the outset on the fact that this is a local bill and it’s a bit different from the others that we often speak about. So the first thing that I want to do is just acknowledge that before this bill has gotten to the House, it has had to have been supported by a territorial local authority, which in itself has had to go through a great deal of work in terms of consultation, in terms of planning, to develop the proposal that is inherent within this bill.

So I would, in the first instance, want to acknowledge that work from the territorial local authority—the Tasman District Council, in this case. Also, I say that I think that when these local bills do appear before the House, it behoves all of us—no matter which side of the House; no matter which party we come from—to give some respect and some consideration for the fact that our colleagues in local government have done some of the groundwork before it lands before us and to give it some genuine consideration, which I believe that all parties have been doing in the debate so far.

It is a bill that requires careful consideration, and I would echo the comments of my colleagues earlier in this debate the Hon David Parker and Deborah Russell, who made the point that we shouldn’t simply sign off on these sorts of things when they come before us because some arguments are put up about economic development. One of the real problems that we have in this country, that I think most of us are aware of and certainly most New Zealanders are aware of, is that we have suffered a significant degradation of the quality of our waterways over the past generation or so. That is a matter of considerable concern to many of us in this House and many people in our communities, and a big part of that has been our interference with many of those waterways for the purposes of economic development.

We have, on the whole, been too loose in this area and so I think it is important that we give serious consideration to ensuring that where we enter into these water storage schemes or where we, at this end of Government, support those water storage schemes, they are sustainable and the decisions that have been made are wise and that we are stewarding those resources well. I do take issue with some of the comments from the other side of the House to the effect that any water storage scheme is good, that any water storage scheme that facilitates agricultural intensification must be good and must be supported. I don’t support that position; we must have a better framework for making these kinds of decisions.

What I want to put to the House is that actually a useful framework for considering this particular proposal is the Living Standards Framework as developed by Treasury and that the Government is doing significant further work on at the moment. It actually provides a nuanced structure for considering the types of investments and types of decisions like this from a whole range of different lenses. There are four capitals which feed into the Living Standards Framework. I think two of them are relevant in this respect: that’s natural capital and physical capital; the social capital and human capital considerations I don’t think are quite as relevant. But certainly when you pass this project through the lens of natural capital and of physical capital, I believe that it does pass the test.

So let’s just have a look at some of those factors. The first is on the natural capital side. We’ve heard some of the arguments in the debate so far. In the first instance, this is a river which does have issues with its water flow particularly in the dry months. We know that one of the chief causes of the degradation of many of our waterways is when the water flow becomes too low. So the impact of this scheme in terms of ensuring a minimum water flow during the dry seasons is certainly one of the boxes that we can tick there.

We’ve heard that there are problems with saltwater inundation—that that has a significant impact on the health and the well-being of this waterway, and that the scheme will assist in that regard. One of the very interesting points that did come up in debate earlier on was the fact that, quite possibly, this scheme may act as an incentive for the kind of horticultural development in the area and possibly a shift from some more intensive forms of agriculture to horticulture that may actually be gentler on our environment and gentler on our waterways in the long run, so that’s something to be encouraged as well.

If we look at physical capital—that is, the well-being—the assets that we have that contribute to the well-being of our people, to their livelihoods, to material living conditions, then again there are strong arguments for this project. It will ensure that we have a stable urban water supply to support our growing communities. It will support horticulture and industry in the area and, as I’ve said, potentially do that in a more sustainable way.

So, overall, I do think this is a project which passes the bar in terms of enhancing the well-being of our communities, through looking at all of those capitals that enable us to make a wise decision, and it’s certainly one the Labour Party and I wish to see proceeding further. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I, firstly, acknowledge the wide range of comments that have been made. I particularly want to acknowledge the Minister for the Environment, David Parker. I also think the final speaker, Michael Wood, made a very good point, and that is reminding the House this is a local bill, this is a bill that has been voted on by the Tasman District Council and widely supported, and reminding the House that, traditionally, we have taken a view that this Parliament will generally support local bills, providing they have gone through good process. Quite clearly from the debate, there is a difference between myself and the Green Party, but I acknowledge their point of view and would welcome their involvement on the select committee.

I do note, in moving the bill, that with Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd requiring that all of the legal issues be resolved by December, it makes it necessary for me to move a procedural motion following consideration of the bill to be able to meet those contractual obligations. Again, I thank all members that have made a contribution, and particularly those parties that have agreed to support the bill’s first reading.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 112

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

Noes 8

Green Party 8.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be reported to the House by 7 November 2018, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday of a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

JO LUXTON (Labour) on behalf of Jan Tinetti: I move, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m delighted to present this bill, with changes, for a second reading after the select committee process. I would like to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their consideration of this bill. This bill complements the wonderful work that this Government is doing, by prioritising the rebuilding of New Zealand’s education system after nine years of neglect under the last Government. The bill originally sought to amend the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. The amendments proposed in the bill aimed to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum. The statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, or NELP, sets high-level priorities to guide planning for the early childhood and compulsory sectors.

The bill as introduced proposed substantial changes to section 1A of the Act through clause 4(2), (3), and (4). However, the member in charge of the bill wrote to the committee on 19 June 2018 asking to remove these provisions from the bill. Jan Tinetti said she felt that in light of feedback and plans the Government has signalled, any changes to the enduring objectives in section 1A ought to take into account findings from the Government’s Education Conversation | Kōrero Mātauranga.

This Education Conversation is part of this Government’s ambitious work programme for the education portfolio. An enduring, long-term vision for education in Aotearoa New Zealand is at the core of the work programme and will feed into all parts of the work to meet the needs of all learners, no matter who they are or where they come from. The work programme is made up of big reviews of parts of the system, medium-term strategies to map out priorities and actions over the next three or more years, and some key initiatives for things to get under way now.

I’ve spoken to people who have been involved in this conversation, and they are grateful for the opportunity for input—exactly what this bill now does through identifying groups who must be consulted on. It’s important that people have the opportunity to have their say and contribute to the plans that we have going forward in the educational space. I think a really good sign of leadership from our Minister of Education is not telling people what to do, but actually taking people along with him, allowing them to contribute, and having them buy into the priorities going forward.

Jan Tinetti’s letter to the Education and Workforce Committee also requested the removal of clause 4(7), which would have made the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities a disallowable instrument. With such an ambitious and forward-thinking work plan in education, and after listening to submitters, the committee recommended by majority to accept both of Jan Tinetti’s proposals and has removed the relevant subclauses.

Consultation on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities with the relevant stakeholders is really important. Currently, legislation states that the Minister must, at a minimum, consult with stakeholders in the early childhood and compulsory education sectors. The changes in this bill will ensure that the Minister will consult widely on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities and identify a wide range of groups the Minister must consult with.

Clause 4(5), inserting new section 1A(4A), sets out the stakeholders the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. The select committee recommended by majority a number of changes to the list to include young people and to replace references to “national representative organisations” with “national bodies representing the interests of” specified stakeholders. We recommended by majority inserting subsection (4A)(g) to (i), so that consultation would include national bodies representing the disability community, support staff in schools and early childhood services, Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations, proprietors of State integrated schools, and national bodies with a particular role regarding the character of designated character schools.

During submissions, the select committee heard from a number of organisations who agreed with the changes to widely consult, as outlined in this bill. Submitters welcomed the direction of consulting with young people in this process, and there was general agreement that it was heartening to see children and young people as the first group the Minister must consult with in the development of the NELP. The Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, stated that there has been a previous reluctance to hear from children and that future and similar provisions should become the norm. He stated that “Hearing from, and incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions … We support the intention to create a more equitable system, that supports children to develop to their full potential,” and that ensures children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions. Other submitters endorsed these sentiments, stating that the voices of young people are essential when developing the law.

As a teacher, I have long known the power of involving children in their learning pathway by having a voice in their own learning. When children have a voice and a choice in their learning, they engage more and learning outcomes are met. In issuing the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, the select committee recommended by majority inserting clause 4(1AAA) to make it clear in new section 1A(1) that the notice published in the Gazette may either contain the statement in full, or describe the statement in general terms and indicate where the full text can be obtained.

For the commencement in clause 2, the select committee recommended by majority changing the bill’s commencement date. As introduced, the bill would come into force—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

JO LUXTON: As I was saying just before the dinner break, talking about the commencement date in clause 2, the select committee recommended by majority changing the bill’s commencement date. As introduced, the bill would come into force three months after it receives the Royal assent. However, they recommended by majority that it come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

With such in-depth consideration of the bill by the select committee, it is disappointing to see that the Opposition members do not support it. Contrary to their view, this bill has more than minor changes, as evidenced by the enthusiasm of the majority of submitters. This bill recognises the importance of giving a voice to children and young people and agencies in the process of developing the important National Education and Learning Priorities.

I am proud of this bill, and I applaud the member Jan Tinetti for using her vast experience in education to work on strengthening this important area of legislation. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Can I just take a moment today, of all days, to acknowledge several previous Ministers of Education, particularly as it’s the 125th anniversary of women getting the vote. I want to acknowledge that we heard from Anne Tolley earlier today, the first female Minister of Education, and I also acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata—two outstanding women.

But while I also stand here, I see that Minister Chris Hipkins and his partner, Jade, have given birth to a beautiful baby girl, Isabel. Can I just take a moment in this House to say what brilliant and beautiful timing. I wish her all of the best, and also to Chris and Jade at this incredibly special time. So can I just acknowledge that in the House this evening.

I’ve got several points that I would like to make around this piece of legislation. My first point, which we said at the outset, is that of course we believe in having a strong, united vision for education in New Zealand. I have reached out, as have my colleagues, around our education system to say “If at all possible, can we work together with Government MPs to have as much cross-party agreement as possible?”, because when I get out there in New Zealand, the number of educators and parents who say to me that it is too important in many areas to be a political football. We have seen the swing back between particular administrations around our education system. That is why I have reached out in the area, for instance, of NCEA.

Also, I am deeply hopeful—and I really speak to the Labour and Green and New Zealand First members at this juncture—around that second languages bill that I have had drawn out of the ballot, because I think there’s a huge opportunity to have cross-party agreement—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! We can come back to the second reading now.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes, and I will come back to the second reading of Jan Tinetti’s bill, but my point is that no more important part of our law around education could be the National Education and Learning Priorities, or NELPs. So when we saw this piece of legislation, the natural instinct was to say “Can we possibly agree on this?”, but the reason that we have been concerned is that we do think that to be in this House and to be debating that statement, the first thing that you’ve got to do is get your timing right, Madam Assistant Speaker—and I do not mean you in particular; you’ve got excellent timing, but that we get the timing right. We do not think—and, actually, there are some Ministers who agreed with us when we went through this legislative process—that this is the right time to be amending the NELPs, when we have 16 reviews under way in education.

I want to give some really classic examples of that. We are going through a number of reviews, and there are a number of people—without dropping some people in it—who have said to me that they don’t understand how Tomorrow’s Schools fits with the education conversations, or how that fits with the NCEA review, and that is incredibly important when people look at the backdrop of National’s position on this piece of legislation. Our point is that when the Minister and the Government are spending millions and millions of dollars on 16-odd reviews and they haven’t been worked out, how could this Parliament possibly think that now is the time to amend that national education vision statement? It puts the cart before the horse. Submitters made that point, and we think the timing is terrible, at a juncture when National and Labour and the Greens are trying to come together to have some discussions about our education system and where we can agree. So that is the first point: we do not agree with the timing, and we share the concerns of the submitters throughout this process.

The reason we know that Government members agree with us on this issue—the reason that we know this—is that during the consideration of this bill, a very unusual thing occurred. Basically, it was gutted. So the member herself—and I do want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti; she’s a new member of Parliament, and this is more just about acknowledging as a Parliament that this was a very unusual thing to occur—withdrew a lot of the bill, from our perspective.

So, instead of saying “Look, it’s terrible timing and we want to come together and it sort of isn’t really that good faith in terms of the sector but also the Opposition.”, we then have the situation that the bill was gutted and, really, became a set of minor amendments. Previously in this House, I have walked the House through the types of amendments in terms of minor wording changes that have occurred. Now, we have this situation that not only do we think the timing is bad but the substantive content of the bill was gutted by the member, and then also, in our view, it is a little bit of a waste of the Parliament’s time to be making these amendments. As I say, that was acknowledged by many submitters, and it is, as I said before, contrary to the 16-odd reviews that are under way.

I want to spend the remainder of my speech, though, talking about—given that the substantive nature of this bill is around our vision for education, what I can tell you is that I have visited hundreds of schools in my time in this Parliament. I have met with incredible principals and teachers and I have sat down and had a drink with members of Parliament on different sides of this House, and I can say to you that the good news is that there are some very common themes that occur in terms of our education system. So when we get down to business, in my view—hopefully—through the Minister engaging in a meaningful way through the education conversation dialogues or the other reviews that are occurring with the Opposition, then I think there are some common themes that are going to come up. There is reform that needs to happen in terms of our learning support system. There are parents out there who need greater support. They need greater wraparound support.

There is a need—and that’s why I was so gutted with the communities of online learning being, effectively, scrapped through legislation before this House—to continually update our education system around the disruption of technology, and we are very focused on that. In fact, in my short time as Minister of Education, I did put through changes around the digital technologies curriculum. That is an area where there can be cross-party agreement.

There can be cross-party agreement in languages. When you look at the different positions of different political parties—and it does come back, Madam Assistant Speaker, to the content of this bill, because it is around the vision of our education system—there is cross-party agreement. We all want to strengthen Te Reo, but we all don’t want to deny people access to their heritage languages. So, again, that’s another area where there’s cross-party agreement.

Actually, while we did not agree with the process around scrapping national standards, I was the Minister who put the Cabinet paper through and who said, “Let’s move to a system of progress.” But where we differ is around that accountability and ensuring that we have that nationwide benchmark of achievement.

There is agreement around the fact that we have major issues in terms of teacher shortages and that we need to do more to incentivise people to come into teaching. That is a conversation. It is a conversation about class sizes. It is a conversation about workload. It is a conversation about pay, and can I acknowledge all of those people who have been involved in the collective bargaining and negotiations around our workforce.

There is, in my view, the possibility for huge agreement, but the problem with this legislation is that it goes ahead of those processes. It says, “We know better than the Opposition. We are not prepared to engage in good faith. We’re going to put forward a piece of legislation that initially would substantially change, really, the vision and priorities of our education system.” That’s what the Government member decided to do, with the support of Chris Hipkins, and, unfortunately, we thought that was the process we were then going into, and then the bill was gutted in the select committee.

From our perspective, what is needed more than anything is not this bill—because it is a little bit of a waste of Parliament’s time and it has disrupted our equilibrium in terms of relationships, because it put the cart before the horse—but actually to sit down, to talk through those issues, to acknowledge that there is agreement in a number of areas, and to stop the continuous conversations. Yes, we want to have the conversations. Yes, there is a role for the reviews. Yes, there is a role for a conversation about our national vision and learning and priorities. But in terms of this bill, this has got ahead of those conversations, and it has disrupted the good faith of this Parliament on such an important issue as the future of our education system, and that is why National opposes this bill.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is wonderful to get a call today, of all days, and it is a wonderful day to be a member of Parliament in Aotearoa New Zealand. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and earlier on we’ve had many, many events where we’ve actually thanked people like Kate Sheppard and others, who, 125 years ago, made sure that women in this country can vote and that we, as MPs, can be in this House.

The Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill is a really important one. The reason why we need this legislation is because NELPs, which is the short term for National Education and Learning Priorities, is not at the moment closely aligned with the New Zealand Curriculum. This particular legislation is going to rectify that. It is going to ensure that our curriculum, the New Zealand Curriculum, is something that is informed.

In response to the Hon Nikki Kaye when she said that we should not do this, and that the timing is not right, I disagree. The timing is absolutely right. We are looking at the education system in total. One of the things that has come back from the Education and Workforce Committee is the fact that we should ensure that Kōrero Mātauranga | Education Conversations—which was launched by the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, earlier on in May of this year, with a summit in Christchurch and then another one in Auckland—informs this work. We know that, to date, over 15,000 people have filled out the online version from the Ministry of Education, so these are a lot of voices, and that is one of the main things that this legislation will do.

It will ensure that our students, our learners, are put back in the centre. One of the things that we’ve done is not only just hold those two summits, but when I looked at the numbers, there were not enough voices from Pacific communities from the online surveys and from the folks that attended those two summits. What I did was I went out to get those voices, because when we look at the current population of schoolchildren today, 10 percent are Pacific, but we know that in the next 20 to 30 years, that number is going to double—so it’s going to be 20 percent. So the voices of our students are absolutely important.

I’d also like to acknowledge the author of this legislation, Jan Tinetti, who is sponsoring this bill—a person who has a lot of expertise in education and learning, someone who has taught in schools for many, many years, and for many of those years she was also a principal. We on this side of the House are really fortunate to have her as one of our members.

In developing this bill, Jan Tinetti has made sure that there are significant contributions to ensuring that our Government’s renewal of learning and education in Aotearoa New Zealand is absolutely addressed. If I can just go back to the reason why it is absolutely important to have the voices of our students, the learners, right in the centre, I would like to quote from one of the over 2,000 people that I connected with when I hosted conversations right across Aotearoa in the last couple of months. This is from a student—and I quote—“You can see in the best school, but if your cultural background, values, and family are not able to be identified, then that will impact on your learning. This leads to pressure to be part of a different, Pākehā identity in order to be able to feel like you’re part of the school community. It’s better to be part of the walls, because you don’t feel safe enough to make mistakes and to be who you are. You just focus on moulding yourself to become part of the norm.”

I cannot tell you just how many of these kinds of voices we heard as we went around. I began in South Auckland. I went to west Auckland, Hamilton, Porirua, Lower Hutt, Ōāmaru, and Dunedin, where we had students, young people, who told us things along these lines. If I can reword one of the conversations that a young 15-year-old who came and attended said, she said things along these lines: “When I attend school, my vision of a better education school system of the future is one where I, as a person, am valued and my culture and identity is valued, not just within the one week where we mark the language of the culture I bring to the school, I want to be valued as a student and as a person every single day that I attend school, in my culture, in my language, and in my identity.”

These kinds of voices from our students are why it’s important to have legislation like this—to ensure that our students, our learners, are at the centre. We know that quality teaching and learning and effective connections with Pacific parents and families and communities have the strongest impact on improving the educational outcomes of our students.

I would like now to refer to one of the quotes from our parents when we were connecting, asking them what would the education system of the future look like to them and what do they value. This was from a parent—and I quote—“We understand health, well-being, and safety from a Pacific point of view. However, the education system does not. It starts with the family—that is the core of everything. It doesn’t just start when the child turns up at school.”

In response to the Hon Nikki Kaye when she was saying that language, culture, and identity is important, I absolutely agree. It is absolutely important for so many of our students, not just Pacific students. In wearing my ministerial hat as the Minister for Ethnic Communities, I am now having conversations with ethnic community parents, with students, with community leaders, and with educators, and I’m hearing similar feedback from our ethnic communities. They would like their language to be in the schools. They would like their culture to be valued in the school.

One of the things that was unfortunate for me as I was convening some of these conversations was that I saw—I couldn’t describe it in any way other than racial bias in one of these groups. One of the parents that was there was telling us her experience while at school. This is a person who was born and raised in New Zealand. She doesn’t speak her own language—her mother tongue—but she said, that aside, she still wanted to be valued in that culture. However, what I saw in this little group discussion was a person from the mainstream culture trying to shut this parent down and to say, “Your opinion, your culture, and your language is not important enough in Aotearoa New Zealand. Get with the programme. Learn English. That is the most important language.” I’m sad to say that that particular contribution was from a teacher.

So there is a lot that we need to do to ensure that our students, our parents, and our teachers when they are in our schools are in a safe place. This is from one of our students—and I quote—“Stop institutional racism and bias. We as Pacific are successful. Value us and our children.” Ensuring that this legislation, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, goes forward is really important, because we must absolutely put our students and our learners right at the centre.

One of the things that this bill will do is—right now, the Minister of Education could consult with a couple of teachers and a family or two. That would be sufficient under the current law. But we say that that is not good enough. It is not good enough to only consult with a few people; we must consult much wider. So this legislation will ensure that we reach out to teachers, to principals, to schools, to Māori organisations, to Pacific organisations—education—to proprietors of State integrated schools. This legislation will ensure, as I say—which is my main point—that our students, our children, our learners are right at the centre.

I too would like to acknowledge our Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and his partner, Jade, for the new addition to their family, Isabel Eva, today of all days, as we celebrate 125 years of suffrage. Thank you very much for this time.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take this call in the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. This bill, as we know, is in the name of Jan Tinetti. This bill has been through the select committee process. The Education and Workforce Committee received around 20 submissions on this bill.

The purpose of this bill when it came before the select committee was to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. It also stated that this will help align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Education Act 1989.

The details of this bill changed substantially between the time it came to the select committee and now, when we are debating the second reading of this bill. This is not because of what submitters said. Yes, submitters definitely said that this was getting ahead of what is happening in the background in the education sector. So many reviews are happening, and some submitters definitely said that this bill should be delayed. But it was not because of what the submitters said; it was because the member in charge of this bill decided to withdraw several subclauses in clause 4.

To start with, this was a typical member’s bill, a very small bill with the whole substance being in just one clause—that is, clause 4—but now, what we have is that clause 4 has also shrunk. There were seven subclauses in clause 4, and the member in charge has decided to withdraw four subclauses out of clause 4 in her member’s bill. When we started with this bill—at that point we felt this was just a ballot-filler bill, because there was not anything that we thought was significant in this bill. Now, it’s become even smaller.

I also want to highlight that the Education and Workforce Committee, that I chair, is a very busy select committee. We are sitting on Wednesdays from 9 or quarter past 9 until half past 12 or 1—sometimes even after 1. We have been meeting in recess weeks. Some days, we have been meeting after question time, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., so it’s a very busy select committee. I feel that this bill was not fair for the time that the select committee spent on this bill. I’m saying this because after we closed submissions, and after we heard from all submitters, the member wrote a letter to the select committee asking to withdraw these four subclauses from clause 4. So that wasted the time of all the submitters. That wasted the time of the select committee, because we had to take into consideration all the submissions that we received on all subclauses of clause 4.

Now, going forward—as I said, to start with, we felt that this was a ballot-filler bill, with due respect to Jan Tinetti—I think that this is just going to waste our House’s time, going through the second reading, going through the committee of the whole House, and then going through the third reading. I believe that the member should have actually withdrawn the whole bill.

When the Associate Minister of Education the Hon Jenny Salesa was speaking, she said that this is an important bill, but I can’t see what reason she gave in her contribution to emphasise the importance of this bill. She also disputed the timing that we are saying is not right for this bill, and that is exactly the reason that was actually given by the member when she wrote to the select committee to withdraw some of the subclauses. She said, yes, because there are so many reviews happening—so that’s why she wants to withdraw those subclauses—which the Hon Jenny Salesa actually disputed, and I don’t understand why she disputed that.

She also spoke about summits in Auckland and Christchurch, and she said, “Yeah, we are getting really good feedback from young people and Pacific communities and other communities.” when they’re talking to young people and families and schools. But this bill is not informed by those summits that happened in Auckland and Christchurch, because we know that this bill was in the ballot before these summits. This bill was drawn before these summits, and the select committee has been dealing with this bill for a while now.

I also want to highlight that other things that are withdrawn from the bill are withdrawn because the member thinks that the timing is not right. So I’m thinking, now, what is left in this bill—why this component of this bill cannot wait until the whole review process and the process that the member is waiting for, and getting that signal from the Minister can wait. So I think that the whole bill could have waited. The member should have withdrawn the whole bill to save the time of the House.

Just to go into a bit more detail, the subclauses that are withdrawn are in clause 4—these are subclauses (2), (3), (4), and (7). So that means we are left, in clause 4, with subclauses (1), (5), and (6). Subclause (5) adds a new subsection, new section 1A(4A), into the principal Act. This is to set out the stakeholders the Minister must make a reasonable effort to consult with. Consultation is already there for the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. So the whole clause is redundant because consultation is already there—the consultation requirement is already there in the Act. I do not understand what the member wants to achieve by keeping that in there.

Yes, she wants to create a list—she wants to add stakeholders that the Minister must consult. I believe that that is getting a bit too prescriptive, because when we get so prescriptive, we have to make sure that we are covering all areas. But education, in my view, is a sector that is evolving really fast. Actually, it should evolve fast because of the technological advancement. With technological advancement, in my view, the education sector should be an early adopter of technology. With that, of course, the stakeholders will change too. So does this mean that we will have to keep adding to the list of stakeholders which are going to be in this legislation? That is going to create more work for the future, and I believe that it should not be that prescriptive.

Yes, on one side we are saying that the Minister should make a reasonable effort; on the other side we want to actually prescribe the list. I do not understand what the intention is behind prescribing this list.

As I said, this bill has already taken reasonable time of the select committee. I believe that the member should reconsider proceeding with the bill and actually should really consider withdrawing the whole bill and saving the time of this House.

Another clause in this bill—just to highlight what’s left in this bill—is about the commencement date. This is really interesting, because when the bill came to us in the select committee, clause 2 said that the commencement date is “3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent.” Now, after it has come back from the select committee for this second reading, the recommendation from the select committee—that is, by the majority, because Government members hold the majority on the select committee—

Hon Member: Yeah!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: So the recommendation is—yeah, a very interesting recommendation. This shows the level of intelligence. So this was to come into force three months after the Royal assent is received. The recommendation by majority is that it should come into effect as soon as the law is passed, through this bill. I’m just trying to understand what we are trying to pass through this bill, because there is nothing left in this bill after the member in charge has decided to withdraw most of the subclauses which were going to make significant changes in section 1A of the Education Act.

Kieran McAnulty: Great bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Clearly it shows—yeah, I can see that they are quite embarrassed and they’re trying to cover up their embarrassment through their laughter. That’s OK. I understand—yeah, you’re really embarrassed.

To add to their embarrassment, I want to say that they should look at the Order Paper, because this is just a time-filler bill blocking some sensible bills coming up for debate in the House because those bills are from National members, and you can see how substantial those bills are. They are meaningful bills—bills that, actually, people care about—and those are the kinds of bills we want to spend time debating in the House. So yes, I can see that members are really embarrassed, but with due respect, as I said before to Jan Tinetti, she should really consider—seriously consider—withdrawing the whole bill. For these reasons, we oppose this bill. Thank you.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to take this call on the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. And this is the face of an embarrassed MP—yes!

First of all, I’d like to congratulate my colleague Jan Tinetti for having her bill drawn and bringing this legislation to the House. I’d also like to echo the sentiments from our previous speaker, the Hon Jenny Salesa, with regards to Jan’s longstanding and staunch advocacy in the area of education. It seems very fitting on Suffrage Day that I take a moment to actually say thank you to my friend Jan Tinetti, who I only first met when I became an MP myself, and we had the sheer luck of having offices next to each other. I’ve learnt a tremendous amount of education-related information from Jan, so I’d like to say thanks to her.

It seems very clear—the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Parmjeet Parmar, keeps telling us that she’s trying to understand. Well, she’s the chair, so one would actually think she might understand, but I’ll explain. We heard from quite a few speakers previously, and the Hon Nikki Kaye also mentioned it, that the member in charge of the bill, Jan Tinetti, considered the Government’s very ambitious and forward-thinking plan—a bit different from just reviews—in education. She heard the feedback from the submitters, and then she wrote to our select committee on 19 June and she asked if it would be prudent, maybe, to remove some of those—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Do not have conversations across the House while someone is making a speech.

Kieran McAnulty: Yeah.

MARJA LUBECK: —perhaps some of these proposed substantial provisions are removed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That includes you, Mr McAnulty—it definitely includes you. Thank you. Can we just settle, please? Thank you.

MARJA LUBECK: My turn?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Marja Lubeck.

MARJA LUBECK: So she wrote to the committee. The committee considered it. Jan Tinetti didn’t tell us to remove it. The committee considered the merits of her request, and we considered it was a very reasonable request. So yes, I agree, this bill changed significantly from when it first came to the House and when we had our first reading speeches. But one can’t say that this bill is completely gutted, like the Hon Nikki Kaye said, and it’s not been a waste of time, like the chair of our committee has said. That is because what the other side of the House is missing is that there is a crucial component of this bill that is preserved, and that is the wide consultation requirements. These are not just a list of some extra people that the Minister has to talk to; this is a very significant and important part of this bill. So I’d like to go back to the beginning and talk about what this bill does, perhaps to aid the understanding of the other side of the House.

This bill amends the Education Act 1989, and it requires the Minister of Education to consult very widely on the statement of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPS)—and, for obvious reasons, I will refer to that from now on as the NELPs. Currently, what the Minister does is he or she consults with a couple of teachers that they like, or maybe some of the family, and under the current law as it is, that would be completely sufficient as consultation. Now, we don’t believe that is good enough. It is really important that children get a say on the education that they receive, and this bill will do that with some really explicit requirements that children and young people are consulted in forming the statement of the NELPs. So, in line with many of the other investments that this Government is making in education, this bill puts children back at the centre of learning, and it involves them in the process of creating any changes to the statement on the NELPs.

So what will wide consultation on the NELPs do? Well, it will actually give an opportunity for children, young people, parents, whānau, and employers to express their views on priorities for education. Existing requirements when developing the NELPs, as they are now, mean that the Minister must consult with those in early childhood education and the education sector that he or she thinks should be consulted. What this bill does is it amends section 1A, in clause 4, and it sets out a much wider range of stakeholders for consultation.

Now, it’s important to note also that this bill, as it originally came to us, only included six stakeholders. I think it was paragraphs (a) to (g) in subsection (4A)—is that six? Was it paragraphs (a) to (f)? Anyway, it had six stakeholder groups to consult with. But we listened to the select committee submissions, and their feedback really was very clear that we needed to expand on that list. So, as a result, for those of you that have the bill in front of you, you can see that subsection (4A) of section 1A in the amended clause 4 includes “(a) children and young people;” right at the top, but it also has another 11 named national bodies.

This is another thing that I would like to clarify that perhaps may help our chair. She said that she thought that the wording was too prescriptive. Well, in fact, we had the officials tell us that the original wording needed to change so as to not be too prescriptive. So the wording “representative organisations” was changed to “bodies representing the interests”. I guess that point was missed.

The bill as it was originally drafted has been amended by majority and it has reflected that feedback that we received during the submissions.

It has been mentioned already that we received 20 submissions in total on the original bill. This is the thing: yes, we have an incredibly busy and hard-working Education and Workforce Committee, but it is not much of a big deal to hear some of those—not all of the 20 wanted to be heard—submissions during gaps that we had while we heard other submitters on other bills. What it did mean is that I had to have a very clear head on which education bill it was—whether it was the Education Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, or the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill—but that is actually a very efficient way for us, as a select committee, to do our business.

So it’s also important to point out that of the 20 submitters, 17 supported the intent and direction. Some of the submitters did ask us for further changes, and I guess the changes reflect that feedback.

I’d like to make some comments on some of the submitters. We had the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, who expressed his strong support for the requirement to consult with children. So, once again, this is a change that the Opposition says hasn’t really got any effect. Judge Andrew Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner, told the select committee that everything in the amendment bill is consistent with what we have seen come out of the consultation document. On the consultation of children, he stated that this bill is much more holistic and—I quote—“in fact, it’s bang on.”

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner provided us with some verbatim feedback from their engagement with children and young people on the NELPs. It actually shows how important it is to get the children’s voices heard. We want to make sure that they reach their full potential, and we need to consider that achievement means different things to different people. So when the Children’s Commissioner asked children what achievement means to them, they had comments like “It means gaining knowledge about myself, others, and the world around me.” This was from a 13-year-old student. Another student said, “Knowing that you’re more than capable to achieve the highest of your abilities.” Another student, who was 14 years old, described achievement as “Working to the best of my ability and also being confident about whether my life is going the right way.” Now, the comments show that children have a range of views on what achievement means to them, and the objectives in the system should be to provide learning experiences that support children and young people with the opportunity to reach their potential.

We had other submitters who pointed out how important it is to get more stakeholders heard in the consultation process. The IHC commented that they “strongly support the proposed [change] … to include a list of who must be consulted by the Minister”. They quoted New Zealand’s obligations under article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, as a result of hearing them, we did include an extra stakeholder, being “national bodies representing the interests of the disability community;”.

The National Council of Women of New Zealand, Te Kaunihera Wahine o Aotearoa, submitted that they support ensuring that consultation is full and authentic—so, once again, complete agreement and support.

So I am really confused, you know the National Party says there’s nothing controversial about this bill—it’s really nothing controversial—but it says, “Let’s vote against it.” To me, it’s like everything else that they do: they vote against something because they just don’t want to support the good work that this Government is doing. It is sad, because it’s the children who will benefit from this legislation. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s always intriguing when a speaker manages to confuse herself in a debate, and I trust she will therefore not be at all surprised that she certainly confused the rest of us.

I hope you’ll indulge me for just a moment. As others have done, I would like to say what a significant—indeed, momentous—day it has been for our nation, and how proud I was to be able to attend the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians’ celebration of the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand with so many MPs this morning. We had those wonderful speeches from Dame Ann Hercus and Dame Jenny Shipley. I’m so thrilled to see all of the female MPs in the House tonight wearing the beautiful camellia brooches that were produced by my very dear friend Robyn Watchorn of Whakatāne. I’ve known Robyn for many years. She’s a very talented artist, and I’m so thrilled that she was able to commemorate this very momentous occasion in our history in such a lovely way. Madam Assistant Speaker, as I say, a great day for the whole country, and now, of course, I need to turn my attention to the bill, which I’m sure you were about to require me to do.

So I would like to start with a positive, and that is that on members’ days, I think it’s always nice to acknowledge those members who have not only been fortunate to have had a bill drawn but, in this case, Jan Tinetti has seen her bill passed at first reading, considered by the select committee, and reported back to the House. So it would seem pretty much inevitable that this bill will pass through to its conclusion, and I congratulate her for that. But, even though it is her big moment, this is not a big bill. In fact, on such an important, significant day for the country, it’s hard to imagine anything more trivial than this bill coming before the House.

This time last year, I was following in the footsteps of the Hon Anne Tolley and the Hon Hekia Parata when I had the privilege of being the Associate Minister to the Hon Nikki Kaye, and what a great portfolio education is. What a huge challenge it is, and there are some very significant issues facing all sectors of education in this country. I would welcome a debate in this House on any of those challenges and would look to work as constructively as I could to try to ensure that we find ways of recruiting more teachers, find ways of improving their pay and conditions, and find ways of dealing with the very real challenges that so many tell me about in my electorate, of children with special needs and behavioural difficulties who are a real demand upon the time and the energy of those wonderful teachers, who give so much to those children. This bill deals with none of those things.

Perhaps, as I’ve mentioned other Ministers, could I too add my congratulations to the Hon Chris Hipkins and his partner, Jade, on the birth of their daughter—I think I heard her name is Isabel. What a lovely thing that is. Coincidentally, today I’ve had the great pleasure of welcoming a great-niece into the world. Dara Grace Macindoe was born just a few hours before Isabel, and isn’t it wonderful that two fine young ladies have been born on the day that we celebrate the 125th anniversary of our country’s suffrage? How sensible of them both to choose to be females on this particular day, and I do congratulate their parents. I know that at least one set of grandparents and a very proud great-grandmother are watching right at this moment, and they’ll be delighted to hear that Dara is being mentioned.

Again, we talk about an education system that our young children are going to grow up in, and we would hope that this bill would add something to that education, but it won’t. We’ve heard that the Education and Workforce Committee has considered this bill, and they heard from many submitters who said that it’s totally unnecessary. It’s not a bill that matches the excitement and significance of this special day in our history, and yet I note that at the time that it passed its first reading in February, the member in charge of the bill, Jan Tinetti, said, “the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill [which has] passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday … would start to return mana to the teaching profession.” Well, it won’t make the slightest difference to the mana of the teaching profession. I am absolutely confident that the teachers in my electorate up in Hamilton will have no idea that the House is considering this bill and certainly won’t notice when it’s passed. It will not make the slightest difference to the job they do or to the education they provide to their tamariki, to all of our children.

Theirs is a calling, and I’m sure that we can all remember teachers who made a lasting impression on us for the good, and I thank those who influenced me. [Interruption] I was a teacher—I doubt whether I made a lasting, or at least positive, impression on anyone, Mr Penk, but thank you. I hope that in a small way I encouraged a few people to value their education, and I do thank—in all seriousness—the teachers around the country. I have to say that I thought, for most of her contribution, Marja Lubeck was making a valiant effort to suggest that this bill has some substance and purpose, and I commend her for managing to get through her 10 minutes, but I have to say to her that this is a stocking filler, and I’m sure we’ve all been with children who get incredibly excited on Christmas morning when they see all the presents that are wrapped and maybe pull them out of the stocking. They are so excited, and then we’ll all have seen the odd occasion when they unwrap the wrapping and then the present is of chronic disappointment.

Chris Penk: “This is a pair of socks!”

Hon TIM MACINDOE: One of Mr Penk’s pairs of socks, as he has mentioned. Well, Mr Penk, I don’t even think that this is a pair of socks, because at least they would serve a purpose. This—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Let’s come back to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I thought I was talking about the bill, Madam Assistant Speaker. This bill was introduced when the new Government was desperately scrambling to find legislation, and, in fact, you’ll recall that last year they were desperately filibustering on bills that they’d inherited from the previous Government, and now suddenly this came out and we find that they’re filibustering on a measure such as this. Labour, when they were in Opposition, used to rail against stocking fillers of this nature on members’ days, so what a shame when, as Dr Parmar mentioned a few minutes ago, we have some really significant members’ bills in the names of National members in the ballot waiting to be considered that we can’t be getting on and looking at those measures, which will make a real difference to New Zealand.

Purportedly, this bill amends the Education Act of 1989, supposedly to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) more closely with the national curriculum. But there was no need to add any additional statements to the NELPs. This bill also enshrines union consultation in those mission statements and any changes made to them. Well, that’s not necessary, because that consultation is already required under existing legislation as well. So this really is utterly redundant.

The bill is poorly timed because, as we know, the Government has reviews for Africa under way at the moment, including several that may result in some quite significant recommendations to affect the conversation around education, but this bill is not one of those. In fact, as has been pointed out, Jan Tinetti got the bill so wrong that she had to write to the Education and Workforce Committee to request that they remove clauses 4(2), (3), (4), and (7). That’s extraordinary. I’ve been here for nearly 10 years, and I don’t remember that happening before, and it was because she didn’t want to get ahead of one of those many reviews and the working groups. As a result, not only was the bill of very little consequence; its timing couldn’t have been worse.

I do want to pick up on a couple of other comments that the chair of the committee made just a few moments ago, in closing. The National Education and Learning Priorities were originally designed to ensure that members of Parliament, officials, and others in the education sector share a common understanding of the objectives of education in New Zealand. The few changes proposed have been weakened throughout the select committee process, to the point that they will no longer have any perceptible impact on education in New Zealand. For instance, replacing “good” with “positive”, and adding “to become lifelong learners” will have absolutely no effect, while removing “educational achievement is a core objective” will only diminish the value of the NELPs.

The bill replaces a number of sentences with words that are of almost exactly the same meaning, or it simply reverses the order of some words in phrases and clauses. For example, it replaces this point: “The inclusion within society of different groups and persons with different personal characteristics” with this: “To instil an appreciation of the importance of an inclusive society where all people are valued and are supported to participate in ways that honour and value diversity:”.

Chris Penk: It’s the same.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, it is the same, Mr Penk. You are quite right. There is no substance to these changes.

If members of this Labour-led Government think that this is a bill that is restoring mana to the teaching profession, then I have to say they have very low standards and expectations. As I’ve said, I’ll be astonished if a single teacher, not only in my electorate but around the country, even notices that this is happening. They will not mention it to us. They’re certainly not going to be grateful to us, and yet they would love us to be focusing on those challenges that are really important to them. So I hope that subsequent bills, if we have to deal with other bills from the other side, will at least deal with—

Dan Bidois: Lost opportunity.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —some important things, not the wasted opportunity, as Mr Bidois has said.

So may I close by again wishing everybody a very happy Suffrage Day. Again, my congratulations and warm welcome to the world to Isabel Hipkins—if that’s her surname—and to Dara Grace Macindoe. I’m thrilled to be able to acknowledge their arrival and this very important day.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I also would like to follow on from my colleagues in acknowledging this special day, that being 125 years of women’s suffrage. I myself am wearing this white camellia, which was gifted to all female MPs currently in this Parliament. I’m No. 146, for the record, as others have been citing their numbers. I want to use this opportunity that the conversation around suffrage opens up for us to reflect on the past 125 years with regard to democracy and representation and agency, which are really the core things at the heart of this piece of legislation, this member’s bill proposed by the incredible Jan Tinetti, who I’m privileged, I feel, to call a colleague, given that she has very deep and very long personal experience in the education sector. I would note that with a number of stakeholders that I’ve been engaged with over the past year in my time as education spokesperson for the Greens, she has been cited as somebody with incredible mana in this space, someone who is incredibly well respected for her track record and for her advocacy.

So as we reflect on the past 125 years, I think it’s important also to figure out how we design our future intentionally, and what that to me looks like not is not just kind of wading along and perhaps continuing to unconsciously perpetuate the issues and the flaws that we’ve seen in systems past. What this piece of legislation does is put stakeholders and education at the heart of decisions around the National Education and Learning Priorities. The way that it does that, in particular, which I’ll get to later as I run through the process that we went through in the select committee—the select committee process, I’ll note, was a whole bunch of fun in the Education and Workforce Committee, as it always is. I love our select committee and our polarised, intensive discussions.

Reading through the departmental report—which, of course, we went through line by line with officials throughout that process—I’d note that 17 submissions were in support. One was unclear but suggested changes to the system regarding learning support, which, notably, we did indeed pick up in the majority report. One submission didn’t quite appear to address the issues in the bill, but there was only one submission that was opposed.

One of the notable submissions was, of course, that of the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft. In response to, actually, a number of the points raised by the Opposition with regard to their fears or concerns that this may be superseded by the conversation and the reviews that we’re having in the education space, Judge Andrew Becroft said that he believes that the scope of this bill was wide enough to accommodate any changes post those education conversations or reviews. Indeed, officials, in the departmental report, did not recommend delay, because changes could be incorporated subsequent to those reviews and the education conversations report back.

So to speak to some of the debate points as raised—particularly by members of the Opposition, including the select committee chair, Parmjeet Parmar—noting that this was a waste of time both for the select committee and indeed for the House this evening, I’d just say that, actually, this is about the democratic process. The whole point of this going before the select committee and us hearing from submitters was to engage in the broader conversation about who indeed should be involved as stakeholders in ongoing development and evolution of the education system. So too, Ms Parmar said, the sector is evolving really fast. To that point I would simply state that, surely, it then makes the most sense to be actually engaging with people who are at the coalface, who are—to borrow a term from the vernacular of the Opposition—the consumers of this good or service that is education.

So then to speak to the points raised by Tim Macindoe, who stated that “This is not a big bill. It’s trivial.” and that indeed it was hard to imagine anything more trivial because it had no substance, I would just really like to point to what we do have here and to the list of people who the Minister of Education will now be required to consult with. It’s extensive, and it’s important that it is cohesive and it’s important that it touches on the lives of all of the people who do consume education. The Minister of Education must consult with children and, now—as a result of the majority report back from the select committee—young people too. The reason that we have included the terminology “and young people;” is because we want to ensure that we’re not just consulting with those in early learning or in the start of the compulsory sector but all the way through to senior secondary students.

So, too, we’ll be consulting with “national bodies representing the interests of teachers”. You know, teachers—those teachers who the Opposition are now declaring that they care so deeply about. Well, members of the Opposition, members of the National Party, if you would love to hear the voices of the teachers, then surely you would love to support this bill. So, too, the Minister of Education will be required to hear from principals, from governing bodies of schools, from early childhood services, from parents—who the Opposition, I note, often invoke in this House with regards to legislation on education.

But perhaps most importantly, with regard to the process that we’ve been through throughout the Education and Workforce Committee’s scrutiny on this bill, is the inclusion now of a number of other stakeholders. I personally think, in my capacity as the Greens’ spokesperson on education, following in the footsteps of an almighty stalwart like Catherine Delahunty in the space of learning support, that the disability community will now have to be consulted with and support staff in schools, those in Māori education organisations and Pacific education organisations, and—as the National Party I’m sure would love to hear—proprietors of State integrated schools and those of designated character schools.

So this was not by any means a waste of time. What we’ve ended up with is a bill that has evolved throughout the select committee process and, indeed, is much better off for it because we have incorporated the voices of those who have submitted.

I note, in my final 2½-odd minutes, that none of this is happening in a vacuum. This is happening in the context of the changes that we are making to the broader education system—perhaps most notably the increases in funding, as we’ve seen in the Budget passed earlier this year. For myself personally, the things that get me really excited are the new funding for learning support to ensure that early intervention help is available for another 8,000 kids in this country, and, so too, the new funding to support another 1,000 children with high and complex needs.

On the point of the broader reviews that are currently being undertaken, which I’m sure the speaker from the Opposition following me will herald as the sky falling in, the most important and largest one there is the Education Conversation, in which we are undertaking a new plan for the next 30 years—the next three decades—of education in this country. I would say to that point that for all of the criticism that is being thrown by the National Party, we’re extending an olive branch here, as members of the Government. We want you involved in this plan to develop the education system for the next 30 years—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! You are straying from the subject.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I appreciate that, Madam Assistant Speaker. So in summation, on this day celebrating 125 years of women’s suffrage, when we have the opportunity to consider the second reading of this member’s bill, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Jan Tinetti, we have the opportunity to choose to intentionally design the education system, moving forward. This is not a piece of legislation that is happening in isolation. It is something which I am incredibly proud to support as a member of the Green Party and a member of this Parliament. Kia ora.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would like to also start my speech by acknowledging the 125th anniversary of Suffrage Day here in New Zealand and the time when women won the vote. I think it’s an important moment in our country’s history and an incredibly proud one, and one that I’m incredibly proud of today.

I also have been reflecting, as this debate’s been going on, on some of the women principals in my electorate of Pakuranga, who do a fantastic job educating our students and our learners. I thought I’d acknowledge one from our primary school, Carol Dickinson from Riverina Primary School, who is the new principal there—she does a fantastic job—Linda Harvie at Farm Cove Intermediate School, and Louise Addison at Edgewater College, who was appointed earlier this year. These are three fantastic educationalists in the Pakuranga electorate, and I’m privileged to be able to work alongside them and the work that they do.

Let me get to the bill that we’re debating here tonight, which is the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard lots of speeches from the Government side about how important this bill is. I think one of the really interesting comments from Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party was that this bill has evolved through select committee stage. Well, I’ve got news for her. It’s actually devolved, because if people listening at home wanted to take a moment to have a look at the bill, they’d realise how much of the bill has actually been crossed out by the member in charge of the bill. It used to have new section 1A(4), (5), (6), and (7), in clause 4, and they’ve just gone—just gone. Just cross them out. We’ve just taken them out because the unions turned up and said, “Well, this bill shouldn’t be going ahead.”, and she listened partially. She listened to half of what they said, which was “Get rid of the bill.” Well, she just crossed out most of it and put a little bit less in there. But, actually, the message that they were giving to her—and I thought it was actually the best message I’ve heard from the unions in my whole year in Parliament—is “Get rid of this bill.” The message is still there for the other side of the House: take the opportunity and get rid of this embarrassment of a piece of legislation, which does nothing.

I’d like to bring to the House a different point from what my colleagues have been saying. We have been criticising the member in charge of this bill, and I do acknowledge Jan Tinetti. It is a fortunate thing to have a bill brought before Parliament and to be able to progress it through. I’ve got one myself, and I’m enjoying being part of that process. However, I would like to just make a point in that Jan Tinetti should be acknowledged for all the hard work that she has done on this bill, because we know that there are reviews for Africa going on in the education sector trying to discuss what the vision should be, and what we should be aiming to do over the next 30 years. Actually, if you read what’s been crossed out, she’s done a good job of trying to make a first attempt—she’s done a good job making a first attempt. She’s even tried to define what the education learning priorities for the country should be: “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”, and that’s actually not very different from what we had in the legislation and what’s currently in the law, but she has given it a crack.

So the point I’m trying to make is she should be given far more credit for the work that she’s done on the first reading and in drafting this piece of legislation, and she’s doing the work of multiple reviews. But we’ve got reviews going out there now to try and define that and to define how that should be implemented, and all of the other bits which have been crossed out: “resilience, determination, confidence,”—all of these great words as part of the education learning system which she has come up with and which she put in the bill, but which now have been crossed out and which, sadly, will not be going any further. But these are the issues that we should be debating here tonight.

I just come back to the point—it was made earlier by one of my colleagues, and I think it was the Hon Tim Macindoe, who was an Associate Minister of Education and a very good one. The point he was making was that when we go out and visit schools—when I go and visit schools in my electorate in Pakuranga—we don’t get people coming up to us and saying, “Oh, you need to change that National Education and Learning Priorities part of the Education Act. That’s our number one priority.” or “You need to make sure that bodies representing the interests of—

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

SIMEON BROWN: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. “That’s the number one priority.” or “You need to make sure there’s a long list”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No. Not me.

SIMEON BROWN: “That’s our”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Not me.

SIMEON BROWN: I didn’t say “you”, sorry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You did.

SIMEON BROWN: They don’t come up and say, “Well, we need to make sure that we include a long list of bodies which are listed as being in the consultation”. They don’t say that. They say, “We do need to invest in our teacher-aides. We do need to invest in ensuring that we have good quality teachers. We do need to invest in making sure there’s adequate learning support available for the children who require it.” Those are the issues which are raised when we visit schools and when we talk to principals and when we talk to teachers, and we talk to parents. They don’t come up to us, and I haven’t got a long line of people out my office door, saying, “You’ve got to change the National Education Learning Priorities.” That’s not what we get coming and lining up at our door, but here we are in Parliament debating legislation which makes inconsequential changes to the National Education and Learning Priorities.

Let me get to some of this. So “The Minister must make reasonable efforts”. We’ve heard Minister Jenny Salesa come up and say—and I think Chlöe Swarbrick made the same point—that this will require the Minister to consult. Well, I’ve got news for the other side of the House: the bill, as it stands, says “the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult.” There’s a big difference between “must consult” and “must make reasonable efforts to consult.”, because we know what will happen is the Minister will just keep doing what the Minister keeps on doing. So will the Government members take responsibility for their words and amend this even further, cross some more words out, and make it so that the Minister must consult, because that’s what they’ve stood up in the House—that’s what they’re telling New Zealanders. No doubt that’s what they’re going up and down the country and saying: “We’ve got this one piece of legislation which is going to make a huge difference. It’s going to mean the Minister must consult.” Well, it’s not what the bill says. So I’d like the next member who stands up on the Government’s side to clarify what they’re saying and get the record straight on this issue.

Marja Lubeck: Such conspiracy!

SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’m taking this issue so seriously because it’s a serious matter that the Government is wasting the House’s time with, rather than getting on and fixing the real issues which the House’s time should be used to do. This bill makes so many inconsequential changes.

Then we heard from Chlöe Swarbrick that this involves parents, and she said that with some sort of disdain, which I thought was very unfortunate. But it says here in the bill, in new section 1A(4A) in clause 4, that “national bodies representing the interests of parents;” must be consulted. It doesn’t say “consult with parents”; it just says “national bodies representing the interests of parents;”.

Dan Bidois: Like unions.

SIMEON BROWN: So is that—are unions? Can the members on the other side, as Dan Bidois very appropriately asks—does that mean unions? Because I think that’s something—or is there a union for that? That’s a question that I’d like the members on the other side to answer, because this bill does not clarify, does not make it clear, that parents will be consulted.

It doesn’t mean that parents have a requirement to be consulted. It just says “national bodies representing the interests of parents”, and I think that’s great. I think it’s good. There are bodies which represent parents, and I think they do a great job. But why can’t parents also be consulted? If we’re going to have a big, long list of everyone who’s going to be consulted, why can’t parents also be on that list?

I think the members on the other side of the House need to clarify whether they’re going to make a change—whether they actually back parents as being part of the education of their children, and the significant role that parents up and down our country play in the role of parenting but also in educating children, supporting their schools, and supporting the good work that teachers do in supporting children’s learning. So members on the other side of the House are misrepresenting the very bill which has so little in to be misrepresented. There’s so little in this bill to be misrepresented, but they’ve managed to find enough to misrepresent here in the House tonight.

One of the last changes that this bill makes—it says, in new section 1A(5A) in clause 4, “A minor change under subsection (5) is limited to a technical, short, and uncontroversial amendment that does not change or extend the policy of the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.” Well, that summarises the entirety of this bill. It’s a minor change, it’s technical, it’s short, it’s uncontroversial—well, it is controversial, because it’s a waste of this House’s time—and it does not change or extend the policy of the National Education and Learning Priorities, because they ripped out the guts of the bill, they got rid of it, and now we’re here wasting our time when we could be actually solving some of the real issues facing the education system in New Zealand. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. I’d like to pick up on a point right away that the member Simeon Brown mentioned. He said this bill is inconsequential. If it’s inconsequential, then why won’t the member support the bill? It is important in education that we work hard to find consensus across the parties, and I am disappointed that the Opposition members won’t support this bill.

Before I get on to the contents of the bill, I would also like to acknowledge the 125-year anniversary of women’s suffrage. One of the heroes of that movement was, obviously, Kate Sheppard, and Kate Sheppard fought for equal opportunity. That was one of her key points that she was focusing on, and this bill is about equal opportunity. It’s about putting the learner back at the heart of the learning. It’s about the New Zealand Curriculum.

Now, we have a world-class curriculum. When our curriculum came out in the early 2000s, it was lauded across the world, but in the past few years, under the previous regime, the curriculum was narrowed and teachers were forced to teach literacy, numeracy—they couldn’t teach the full breadth of the curriculum. But this bill puts the curriculum back at the heart of education, and I’m going to give an example. I’m going to give an example for the members. Before I entered Parliament, I was a music teacher. Back in 2012, the previous regime was going to remove the specialist subjects from intermediate schools. As a music teacher, someone wanting to teach in the full breadth of the curriculum—the previous regime wanted to get rid of those subjects. That’s one of the key reasons why I entered Parliament—because I believe in having a diverse curriculum.

This bill aligns the NELPs—the National Education and Learning Priorities—with the New Zealand Curriculum. It aligns them. The amendment will put children back at the centre of the learning, involving them in the process of creating or significantly changing the statement of the National Education and Learning Priorities. Now, what do the children want? The children, from my experience, want a diverse curriculum. They don’t want an education system based purely on literacy and numeracy. So, therefore, with the students back at the centre, with students involved with the Minister in creating the NELPs, we will have the kind of curriculum that will work for our young people.

The bill requires the Minister of Education to consult widely—we’ve heard that before, and it’s an important point—with children, young people, and teachers on significant changes to the statement of the NELPs.

Just a couple of other key points I’d like to pick up on here—

Simeon Brown: We haven’t even had one yet.

JAMIE STRANGE: You need to listen, young man—listen. I’d like to focus on the aspect of music in the curriculum. Music—a subject that the previous Government was going to remove from the curriculum back in 2012. When I was teaching music, I wasn’t just teaching guitar, drums, keyboard. I was developing key aspects of the curriculum: confidence, creativity, cooperation, discipline, and working in with others.

So the heart of this bill is about enabling teachers to teach the full breadth of the curriculum. It’s around the National Education and Learning Priorities being aligned to the curriculum. The curriculum is a diverse document—it’s a diverse document—and it’s important that these are related to that.

I would like to finish with a flourish for the members opposite. I’d like to acknowledge some of our wonderful principals, and in particular—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it’s not a general debate speech.

JAMIE STRANGE: Yes, yes, I know—because these principals—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, the principles are in the bill, surely.

JAMIE STRANGE: Yes, that’s right. The Minister of Education will be liaising with the principals, enabling the principals to teach the full breadth of the curriculum. That’s, basically, what this bill does.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the previous speaker for that entertaining five minutes. [Interruption] It was entertaining—come on. It was entertaining.

Simeon Brown: A Strange speech.

DENISE LEE: It was a strange contribution—that’s right.

Undoubtedly, we started with a bit of substance in this particular member’s bill, but we’ve ended up with a very, very weakened process—so weakened that it’s a little bit hard to figure out if there’s any substance left. Previous speakers on this side have outlined substantial clauses that have midway through the process, during the select committee process, been wiped out, taken away—gone, zip, “gone-burger”.

Now all that we’re left with is a couple of—in fact, let me just read out some of the wording, and the viewers tonight and everyone on all sides of the House can decide for themselves. So we have included—“young people;” has been put in as a stakeholder. That’s not a bad contribution, I have to say. The Children’s Commissioner spoke quite long and vigorously on that regard. But “national representative organisations” have been replaced with “national bodies representing the interests of” specified stakeholders—not a lot of substance there. Replacing the word “good” with “positive”, adding “to become lifelong learners” after a very long sentence—these sorts of things are going to have no substantial effect.

They’ve removed “educational achievement” as a core objective. How is that going to help anyone in the educational system?

The bill replaces this following sentence: “to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational achievement to the best of his or her potential;” with this: “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”. It’s just another way of saying what was already said. I’m struggling to figure out how any substance has been left in this bill, and I’ve sat through the entire process.

One more point: “the inclusion within society of different groups and persons with different personal characteristics:” has been replaced with “To instil an appreciation of the importance of an inclusive society where all people are valued and are supported to participate in ways that honour and value diversity:”. We’ve just said before “within society of different groups and persons and persons with different personal”—this doesn’t add up. It doesn’t make sense. It’s fluffing around with terminology.

I think what’s incredibly important here, too, is that there’s been a lot made from the other side of the House about inclusion of stakeholders and there’s been listing of all these important people groups—and isn’t that fantastic; isn’t that wonderful—yet they’ve failed to mention that all these stakeholders that have apparently been so wonderfully included already have to be consulted with. It’s already in law. It is law that they be consulted with. So there is no extra inclusion. We’re listing the people that already have to be consulted. Let me get my head round that—I actually can’t.

Now, let’s go to a couple of submissions in the short time that we have left. Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA)—right? We had a couple of really big unions come in, and PPTA were very, very clear on one thing: let’s not do this bill right now. They could not have been any clearer: let’s not do this bill right now. And guess what happened? The sponsor of the bill wiped out three-quarters of the bill straight after they left the room. So she clearly wanted to work with their strong suggestion of delaying the bill because of what they saw as poor timing, given all the other changes that are happening to the education sector. She clearly wanted to listen to that particular union, but I have a theory, and that is that what she probably wanted to do was ditch the bill altogether, but, given that that’s already happened once with the protecting teacher title bill, I’m not sure they could afford to ditch another bill in its entirety again.

There’s already been one failure; they can’t afford to have two. So we’re hanging in there by little threads. We’re hanging in there by the skin of our teeth, with just little bits left to make sure that we can at least pass something.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It’s a great pleasure to rise and to speak in endorsement and support of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill on behalf of this coalition Government. I would like to just start by endorsing some of the comments that were made earlier by some of the previous speakers on the momentous occasion that we do have today on the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. It is momentous that this country has led the world in this and it’s something we should and do take great pride in, and we see it, actually, here every day in this Parliament with the fabulous women parliamentarians on both sides of the House contributing strongly.

Of course, one of the other things that New Zealand takes great pride in is leading the world in education, and, as Jamie Strange pointed out in his fine contribution earlier, New Zealand has been seen as an exemplar in some of the curricula changes it made early this century. So we need to keep developing that and that’s why this Government has an ambitious plan in front of us in education reforms—several bills—and this bill has to been seen as part of a wider suite of changes.

I would like to commend the Education and Workforce Committee. We have a really strong select committee, particularly on our side of the House. It’s a little bit of a dream team, actually. I would commend the member bringing the bill forward here, Jan Tinetti. She has an incredible background in education as a principal of a decile 1 school, and she is shepherding this bill through and she is also a strong contributor. Jamie Strange is a schoolteacher and music teacher. Jo Luxton, from the early childhood sector—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ve now had two minutes. I’d really like you to come to the bill, rather than go through the caucus.

MARK PATTERSON: Well, I’m just trying to emphasise the depth of experience that’s brought into bringing this bill forward.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d quite like you to emphasise the bill.

MARK PATTERSON: The Opposition on this bill are a little bit deluded and ideological, and we do have a rather eclectic chairwoman as well in Dr Parmar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is actually quite a simple bill. It should be easy to speak to.

MARK PATTERSON: But we are here to talk about the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, or the NELP bill, which commits the Minister of Education to consult more widely with all stakeholders. The present, very narrow definition in the current legislation allows for hand-picked—maybe friendly—voices to be heard. This bill makes it much broader, and there is a far broader list of stakeholders that we have to consult. Children—imagine that, children—who are the people that this most affects. Parents, teachers, principals, early childhood, disabilities, support staff—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

MARK PATTERSON: —you may laugh over that side, but these are very important contributors to this sector—Māori, Pasifika, State and State integrated schools, and special character schools.

The 20 submitters were broadly supportive of this bill. The most prominent that has been mentioned is the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, and he made this comment: “Hearing … and incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.”—it could not be clearer than that from such a highly respected and experienced advocate for children. We also heard from the speech and language therapist Dr Hennig, and she said that “family and child voices are essential for developing effective … policy and law,”. The NZEI: “We welcome this because it gives students [a] voice and agency in the process, and recognises the critical contribution the knowledge and expertise of the teaching profession [and] will make … the priority-setting process [more robust].”

So why did we have to do this? Well, we’ve got to step back and take a look at the bigger picture, because what actually has been happening if we look at the international comparisons of New Zealand education—and remember what I said at the start: we pride ourselves in leading the world. We should do; we should accept nothing less. But in our Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings, by world standards—the gold standard in how we measure our education system—we have been slipping. So we need to bring a suite of reforms forward, and this consultation process that we are bringing here in the NELP bill absolutely fits that criterion.

It is part of our wider, 30-year strategic overhaul of the education system, and it does address those who are falling behind: Māori, Pasifika, boys—I know. I was on the board of the Lawrence Area School, and one the things that we had as a priority in our area school was boys. Boys were slipping behind in their education priorities. On women’s Suffrage Day, we also need to consider the males in our society and the boys coming through, who often go on to become slightly dysfunctional if they fall through the cracks, and can cause wider difficulties in our society.

There are also rural things like connectivity—all that sort of thing that we need to be able to take into account. The area school, as I say, that I represent, and those that are in our community of learning—there were many challenges that were specific to rural areas, and we will have to be consulted under the terms of this bill.

So New Zealand First absolutely endorses this bill. We will do what we can to help progress the other reforms that are coming forward as part of this package. It is a priority for us and we are very proud, of course, of the Hon Tracey Martin and the contribution that she’s making in this area. We also congratulate Minister Hipkins on the arrival of his new child. That is a momentous day for him, of course.

So, in conclusion, we are focused on the wider picture, but this is an important component of this—the National Education and Learning Priorities programme. So teachers will have a voice and principals will have a greater voice. Of course, this goes on the back of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Act that we brought forward last night—the great Act in which we allowed teachers to have a voice on their own professional council. Now we are giving them a voice in terms of the curricula and making it so that we need to consult them under this NELP bill.

We also have to be more future-focused, and I think, with the wider consultation that we will be doing under this NELP bill, that that will make it a more rigorous and robust process, which will give us better outcomes and bring us back up through those international rankings, where we should be—those PISA rankings where we are slipping behind. This will be a key component of that. We have to take all stakeholders with us. National standards were failing us on an international scale. That was becoming very apparent.

So with that, I will commend this bill in the second reading to the House. I will—

Hon Members: One minute.

MARK PATTERSON: Ha, ha! Well, the crowd do want more, and I know why they do, because there is such a lot of soundness, wisdom, and it is a popular measure. It is disappointing that the Opposition have not seen fit to get in behind our teachers and our educators in supporting this. It is very petty—very petty—and actually shameful that you have not got on board and supported a sensible group of measures to improve the well-being of our young people, improve our education system, and, therefore, improve our society.

I know that this is not a committee of the whole House stage, so I cannot get up and continue after the bell, so I will have to truncate my contribution. With that, I will commend this bill in its second reading to the House. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Let’s just settle down, OK. I know it is members’ day, but let’s just settle down.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Well, it’s going to be very difficult to live up to the high standard of that contribution by Mark Patterson—that performance which, clearly, didn’t involve the reading of the bill or, seemingly, any attention paid at the Education and Workforce Committee, which examined this bill.

Before I go on to speak about what has adequately been described as a petty bill, I do want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti, whose name this bill is in. I want to acknowledge the role she played as a principal at Merivale School in Tauranga, because in that role, of course, she was doing important things for New Zealand’s children and for the education system. In fact, it is for that reason that I am particularly disappointed by this bill, because it would be my hope that someone with that education experience and that front-line opportunity would be aware of some of the very significant challenges we do, in fact, have in our schools. They would be aware of the one in 10 children still leaving school with no qualifications at all, the one in four Māori school-leavers who leave without NCEA level 2, the people who have come to me to say that their access to resources for children with high health needs is inadequate, or the people talking about the inadequate support for those with additional learning needs. But, no, this bill doesn’t address that.

Before I move on to talk about the substance of what is in this bill, can I also just take a moment to acknowledge this, the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. It is humbling for me to be here as the 149th female member of the New Zealand Parliament. I have to say that until this morning, when I was gifted this brooch and had the opportunity to shake the hands of Dame Jenny Shipley and Dame Ann Hercus, I had not quite comprehended just how few women have had the opportunity I have tonight to speak in this House. That is a great opportunity and one that I take seriously. In fact, I think every 10-minute contribution in this House should be taken seriously, because when we are in this Parliament, we are given the ability to talk about issues of great importance to the country.

Unfortunately, this bill is not one of those. When it was introduced, Jan Tinetti was clear in her first reading speech about what its goal was. It was “to align the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities more closely with the New Zealand Curriculum, and provide an aspirational vision for the future of young New Zealanders.” Well, I’m sorry for Jan Tinetti, but all of the clauses relating to those goals have been gutted from this bill. They are gone. The reason they are gone, I am told, is because, in fact, this bill is—it’s a new term, something I haven’t learnt as a parliamentarian yet, but which I have learnt today—what is called a ballot-stuffer or a stocking filler. It’s a bill, in fact, designed to take the time of this House in debate that doesn’t further the objectives of the education system or further the interests of New Zealanders. It’s a bill simply designed to take the time of this House so that National Party members’ bills, which would progress those goals, are not advanced through the Parliament. I think that is to the shame of members opposite that they would fill this House’s time with a bill like that.

So what does—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh, you’ve forgotten your ones.

NICOLA WILLIS: —the bill actually do? It’s been clear in the debate tonight, Mr Faafoi, that the members on your side not only haven’t read the bill as it’s been presented to the House but weren’t listening at select committee when Jan Tinetti said, in a letter, “I want to remove all of the provisions that suggest a rewrite of the NELP.” She wrote us a letter and she said, “Actually, that whole suggestion I had about rewriting the words I have decided is actually a really bad idea, because we had said as a Government that we were going to consult in good faith about what those provisions should be.” So she said, “Let’s get rid of all of that.” She also said, “Let’s get rid of the bit where I said that, in fact, the National Education and Learning Priorities statement should be a disallowable instrument. No, I’m not going to do that any more.”

In fact, all that remains in this bill, after the extensive time at select committee, after the first reading debate, is a list of organisations that must be consulted when a future National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) statement is developed. As members on this side have pointed out, that might be interesting if there were currently no consultation requirements, but the Act currently has the same consultation requirements as the Minister of Education is required to take for the tertiary education strategy—something that members opposite don’t seem to have taken any issue with. In fact, it allows the Minister incredibly broad scope to consult with who he or she believes is fit and should be consulted with. So it’s almost a statement of a lack of confidence in Minister Hipkins—that one of his own members tries to progress a bill that makes it very clear explicitly who he must consult with, as if they would not be consulted otherwise.

Let’s actually examine who the bodies are that are to be consulted. In addition to children and young people, we have a whole list of “bodies representing the interests of”—and we’ve got everyone. We’ve got teachers, we’ve got principals, we’ve got governing bodies of schools, we’ve got early childhood services, we’ve got parents, we’ve got the disability community, we’ve got support staff, and we’ve got Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations, State integrated schools, and designated character schools. But what is not in that list is the need to consult with actual parents—the parents who actually volunteer on the school boards, who are actually members of the parent teacher associations, and who are the people who send their children to school each day.

I’ll tell you what I think they would say if they were consulted. What they would say is, “It is not going to advance New Zealand’s education system to lengthen the consultation list in the education bill.” They would say, “That is not what I want Parliament to focus its time on.” They would say, “I don’t think, Jan Tinetti, that the thing that is most important is that the Minister has a prescriptive list of who he consults with.” What parents would say is, “Get on with improving the fact that our education system still fails to deliver for far too many children.” The debates we have had in this House that most fulsomely deal with that issue are debates where the members opposite are revoking the very innovation we have had in the education system—revoking the partnership schools that have been helpful.

So we turn to this bill and we ask ourselves what the effect will be. What Mark Patterson said—and I cannot wait until it is election campaign 2020 and I can remind voters that what New Zealand First believes is that the way to help bring New Zealand up the achievement tables internationally, the way to improve the well-being of New Zealand children, is to have a list of organisations that need to be consulted with when a NELP is promulgated. That is what Mark Patterson and the New Zealand First Party believe is needed to improve the quality of our education system. It would be farcical if it weren’t true, but it is true, and that is what we have just heard 10 minutes of debate about—the wonderful impact on well-being and achievement we will get from a prescriptive consultation list. That is, I think, incredibly disappointing, because right here and now, the world is experiencing a digital revolution. We have a changing world of work. We have children with more behavioural and learning needs than ever before, and what members opposite think the House should spend its time on is an education bill designed to change the consultation requirements.

I want to take a brief moment to examine what was to be in this bill, but which we decided at select committee should be removed, or, rather, what the Minister, I think, decided should be removed and which the member then agreed should be removed. The proposed changes, I think, give us an indication of what this bill was trying to achieve but will no longer be able to achieve. There was a particular word that Jan Tinetti wanted removed, and that word was “excellence”.

The sentence she didn’t like was the sentence in section 1A(3) that read “(a) to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational excellence to the best of his or her potential;”. She said that that sentence, with that horrible word “excellence”, should be removed and replaced with a sentence that says “(a) to provide learning experiences that support children … to reach potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”.

So I would suggest that when these groups are consulted, as this bill suggests, what they will be being consulted on is whether in our education system in the future, we should get rid of excellence and focus on equitable. I think that this would have been a more constructive debate in the House if Jan Tinetti had told us what she really thinks, and the only way we’re really going to find out what members opposite really think is when their 14 reviews that they have under way in education report back.

So it is a small mercy that this bill doesn’t force upon the Education Act 1989 a complete change in the purpose of education yet, but it is farcical for members opposite to pretend that this will do anything at all to lift educational achievement, to change the life of a single child, or to improve the achievement of a single school, or that it aligns in any way with the issues that matter to everyday parents and New Zealanders who use our schools and use our education system. It is not a bill befitting of the time of this House, and I am disappointed to have had to address it.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an absolute privilege to stand here, and I know it’s because in 1893, when Kate Sheppard and the sisterhood fought for the right of women to vote in this country, it was so that we would be here, and we’re here to contribute. So it is a privilege to contribute in the second reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill.

I want to acknowledge the teachers that I grew up with, before I get to this bill. This bill is really simple, but I want to commend my teachers. First of all, I started in Tonga at the Hofoa Government Primary School, then at Onehunga Primary School, then at Manukau Intermediate School—which is now Royal Oak Intermediate School—then at Onehunga High School, and then, further, at the University of Auckland.

One of the things that I love about my high school, Onehunga High School, is it talks about courage: the courage to stand to make a difference. I want to acknowledge Jan Tinetti for her courage in bringing her insight and her experience in the education field to contribute to this Parliament and New Zealand. Whakatāukī—when I was sitting here, listening to members being confused about this bill, what came to me was a Māori whakatāukī. The whakatāukī that came to me was ko te ahurei o te tamaiti, arahia ō tātou mahi—let the uniqueness of the child guide our work—and that’s what this bill is all about.

Basically, the bill requires the Minister of Education to consult widely on the statement of the National Education and Learning Priorities. So to consult widely on uniqueness, it means that the Minister must consult widely.

It’ll be disrespectful if I don’t respond to Simeon Brown’s accusation that we were consulting our union mates, but I want to read out the submission from the Children’s Commissioner, who I think everybody here understands speaks for most of the children. Simeon Brown mentioned something about unions and mentioned something about consulting them. I just want to remind the House of only two submitters. Out of the 21 submissions, I’m only going to talk about two which I think fully represent some views that I hold.

The Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, stated that “There has been a previous reluctance to hear from children, and that future and similar provisions would become the norm.”—should become the norm. He further stated that “Hearing from, and incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.”, and they support the intention to create a more equitable system.

The National Council of Women—it is fitting that I refer to the National Council of Women on this day, the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage. I need to read the first part of their submission because it talks about the membership, mainly mothers, who are parents and who are bringing up our nation. So just to clarify to members across the bench here—and if you could just bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I need to read it because when I was sitting here, I was thinking that they’re talking about not consulting parents, but this group, well, I believe, represent a lot of parents. The paragraph—if you can bear with me—reads: “The National Council of Women of New Zealand, Te Kaunihera Wahine o Aotearoa … is an umbrella group representing 245 organisations affiliated at either national level or to one of [their] 19 branches. In addition, about 350 people are individual members. Collectively, our reach is over 350,000 with many of our membership organisations representing all genders. [National Council of Women of New Zealand’s] vision is a gender equal New Zealand and research shows we will be better off socially and economically if we are gender equal.”

So what that says is that because of the uniqueness of our children, we need to consult widely. So the Minister needs to consult widely, and that’s the submission of the National Council of Women. Later in the submission, they then state that the National Council of Women “supports ensuring that consultation is full and authentic. Members have often expressed their support for better consultation or their disappointment at the lack of authentic consultation,”. So that’s the key word there: “authentic”—authentic consultation.

So, really, can I remind the House that what this bill does is, well, simply, for me—and I want to acknowledge the schools that I’ve been to because, for me, it’s simple. It’s simple. What the bill will do is require the Minister to consult widely, including with the National Council of Women—which is only one of the 21 submitters—on the statement of national education priorities.

When I am a visitor to the Education and Workforce Committee, often, when I sit there, they talk about Māori and Pacific underachieving, or Māori and Pacific this and Māori and Pacific that. Well, what this bill is trying to say is that, actually, we don’t need anyone to interpret the views of Māori and we don’t need anyone to interpret the views of Pacific if we go to the people and consult widely—that’s what we need to do.

And one thing, while I’m on that subject, is that often we hear the words “Māori” and “Pacific” in one sentence. I want to encourage members to use “Māori”, which recognises their place in this country as the indigenous people of Aotearoa. Pacific people are migrants to New Zealand, just like Kate Sheppard was when she arrived here at 20 as a migrant to New Zealand. So if we are going to speak about the people of this country, please, I want to encourage every member in their speeches here in the House to talk about two separate groups of people. “Māori” is about the people here that have gone through a lot—no need to go through history—in terms of colonisation. Pacific people travelled and came from the Pacific to here as migrants, and, somehow, we just clump them together, clump them together, and call them one people.

This bill will ensure that the Minister consults with Pacific education organisations, and it is specific because what it does is it is authentic—the word “authentic” that the National Council of Women refers to. It needs to be authentic. It needs to be the voices of those people that have their children in our education system that may not necessarily be doing as well as others in this country.

I want to go back again to today in the House, and it was a passionate debate, acknowledging the women that spoke today: from the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern—the sisterhood in this House—through to Nikki Kaye and her speech. It really personified the sisterhood in this House—and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker. I liked your speech because it showed the sisterhood in this House. The foresight of Kate Sheppard and the National Council of Women, and all the women that were involved on this day, 125 years ago, was that we would be here in this House, and that the walls of this House would hear the voices. I am grateful that I am here. I am grateful, and I want to thank the women for their leadership that has enabled myself to be here. I am No. 137, and some people would say to me, “Did you ever think”—did Anahila ever think that she would be a member of Parliament? And I would say, in the spirit of Kate Sheppard, “Yes.” It was the intention of Kate Sheppard’s leadership that women are in this House.

Greg O’Connor: Destiny.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Destiny—destiny, according to my friend here, Greg O’Connor. It was their destiny for us to be in this House, and whether the members across the House think that this is something that is minute, that this is something that is small—I don’t think so. I think having the Minister consult specifically those that need to be consulted is something that Kate Sheppard would agree with, if I might say so myself. She would agree with that.

To all the women that spoke in this House, I want to acknowledge your journey to this House. I want to acknowledge that, and I want to acknowledge all the passionate speeches that were made, and I even acknowledge David Seymour, when he talked about his mum and the women in his family—I want to acknowledge that. It is about courage. It is about courage to stand here and to share your stories. To the men out there, I want to acknowledge your future courage in terms of supporting the women coming through. We in this House will have 50 percent women on all parties, being able to share their views on this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

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 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) 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.

Bills

Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill

Second Reading

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I move, That the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill be now read a second time.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As a vegetarian of 18 years, I’ve recently found myself in an odd situation of standing in supermarket chillers, going through piles of bacon, looking at the labels, using my phone to try to work out where the bacon has come from, and, frankly, it’s impossible for any New Zealander. I was recently on a television show, preparing for an interview to talk about our labelling laws in New Zealand. So I went to the supermarket and bought a bunch of bacon to try and illustrate the inadequacies of our labelling laws. But there I was: walking out of a TV studio with an arm full of bacon, a vegetarian literally bringing home the bacon, but I couldn’t touch it. Luckily my dog had a bit of a treat.

Now, I was looking at the labels to try and work out where the food was coming from, and any consumer in New Zealand would be hard-pressed to know where that bacon had come from. Most of the packs said, “Made in New Zealand from local and imported ingredients”. But given that 85 percent of New Zealand’s bacon and ham comes from countries other than New Zealand—imported meat—consumers are none the wiser from existing labels. It’s not just a problem with the bacon; it’s a problem with our total labelling laws, and that’s what we’re here tonight to fix.

Many people care about their food and where it comes from for environmental reasons, like maybe they are avoiding genetically engineered ingredients, pesticides, or antibiotics; maybe they are ethical consumers and they’re wanting to avoid food from countries with poor working or animal welfare practices; or maybe they just want to know. No matter the reason, Kiwis should be able to find out where their food comes from. You can’t have a choice if you don’t have the information. Fifty-five other countries already have country-of-origin labelling laws, including the US, the UK, and Canada. Australia has a comprehensive labelling regime that actually even indicates the percentage of Australian-grown products within it. New Zealand has required country-of-origin labelling for footwear and for clothing since 1992, but not for our food. Opinion polls show an overwhelming majority of Kiwis want to know where their food comes from.

The Green Party has long been the champion of country-of-origin food labelling, because we believe Kiwis have the right, and deserve the right, to know where their food comes from. I want to acknowledge the advocacy over many, many years of Sue Kedgley, who originally drafted this bill, and Steffan Browning, who shepherded this bill through a unanimous first reading vote.

The bill went to the Primary Production Committee, and it has gone through two tranches of public submissions. I’d like to thank everyone who made a submission, and the members of the committee, as part of their deliberation and constructive engagement. Going through the submission and consideration process, it was clear that the bill needed some amendments to make it more effective and workable—for example, rather than a stand-alone Act, as originally envisioned, the committee has recommended food labelling be achieved through the existing Fair Trading Act. This is to avoid the confusion of having legal requirements spread across several Acts, and it also gives access to the existing enforcement regime under the Fair Trading Act. Going down this Fair Trading Act path also allows the existing regulation-making powers for consumer labelling to allow other foods to be an included or excluded.

The committee also made some clarifications that food sold by restaurants, cafes, takeaway shops, or in fundraisers would not be included. The bill is designed to cover food sold in supermarkets, shops, or online.

A red herring raised by some large corporate submitters was that it risked breaching international trade obligations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised the committee that it would be possible to implement the proposed regime in a way that is consistent with our international obligations. The key here is having a fair, uniform system that doesn’t discriminate against imported products. At this point, can I please thank the officials who advised the committee and supported us. So that’s some of the details, but I’d imagine most people are interested in what is actually in the bill.

What is food? The original bill covered all single-component foods, but this has been amended by the Primary Production Committee to only include single-ingredient minimally processed foods. The rationale for this is that the committee wanted a scheme that was the simplest to implement with the least cost, and, to avoid confusion around definition, they recommended the regime should apply only to single-ingredient foods that are fresh, frozen, unprocessed, or minimally processed—for example, cut, filleted, or minced. It’s a quirk of Parliament that while this was a Green Party member’s bill, there was no Green member on the committee, or a Green Party vote, and it was a tied select committee, which meant every single party on the committee had to agree on the bill and the amendments to make progress.

I’m deeply thankful to the committee, who allowed me to sit in and participate in the discussions. In some respects, the bill has been significantly improved, but by limiting the scope of foods covered I imagine it may disappoint some consumers and confuse them about why some products have labels and others don’t. This means, for example, that dried, cured, and pickled foods are out. Nuts, grains, seeds, and oils are out. I think people shopping will be wondering why tomatoes are in but canned tomatoes are out. Fruit is in but nuts are out. A cucumber is in but a pickle is out. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and the committee has drawn it here, but I hope that, over time, the list of foods can be expanded and we can get closer to the more comprehensive Australian regime.

Bacon was the most controversial issue and a glaring problem of the bill’s watering down of foods covered. The overwhelming majority of our ham and bacon comes from imported meat, and 95 percent of that comes from countries with lower animal welfare standards. As a vegetarian, it’s a little odd for me to be promoting New Zealand bacon products and a little bad for my vegetarian street cred to have NZ Pork put out a press release thanking my advocacy, but, look, if Kiwis want to buy New Zealand pork products because they aren’t raised in terrible conditions like cages under animal practices that would be illegal under New Zealand law, bacon had to be included.

I’m very grateful to the committee that they listened to the overwhelming call from submitters—from New Zealand Pork, Consumer New Zealand, and hundreds of individuals—for bacon to be included. I’m also grateful for the work of the committee.

I still think the bill, however, needs to be beefed up a little bit more and include more foods like nuts, grains, and seeds, and I’ll be canvassing other parties for their support. The bill, though, does act as a flexible first step, a foundation on which further foods can be added later through regulations. Passing this bill is a positive step, and it does give Kiwis increased consumer information power. It aligns us closer to other countries who have country-of-origin food labelling, and I believe the cost is likely to be minuscule for families in New Zealand, as labels are frequently changed already. It’s a great foundation for the Government to build on, adding foods through the Fair Trading Act.

I want to thank parties for their support tonight. I want to make sure that in the future Kiwis, whenever they’re in the supermarket investigating the labels and wondering where their food comes from, can actually get an answer. I want to make sure Kiwis actually have consumer power. We’ve got some of the best food in New Zealand, and we’ve got a great story behind it. Why on earth would we want to hide that away? So I’d like to thank parties for their support.

Can I just, on this 125th anniversary of suffrage, acknowledge the fantastic speeches in the House and the amazing contribution of women to our country in Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to echo the last words of the last speaker, Gareth Hughes, that on Suffrage Day in New Zealand, we have the proud history as a country of being the first to enable women to vote. But it was quite bizarre when you actually hear that it took 40 years before a woman got to Parliament, and then only 10 percent of our parliamentarians have ever been women. So although we have near 40 percent now, we still have a lot of room to catch up on. So I’d like to congratulate those women in this House, especially the Deputy Speaker, as well. As a woman leader, who was in that first 100 women that had been in Parliament, you can be very proud of what you’ve done as a trailblazer for women in the National Party and also in Parliament and in general. So congratulations to you and to all the other women here tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, but come to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. Ha, ha! So now we come to the bill.

It’s unfortunate that there’s only one Green Party member here, Gareth Hughes. I’d just like to thank Gareth Hughes for the way that he conducted this bill through the Primary Production Committee. I think that it’s appropriate that we acknowledge Steffan Browning, as well, who had been an advocate for this issue for many years. I think the Green Party actually do need to be thanked and congratulated. This is something that they have been consistent on in all the time I’ve been in Parliament, and I think that they’ve always promoted this issue. It’s been a long road, but they’ve actually got there. I think that that is a genuine desire of the Green Party to actually have got this bill through, and I think that the Parliament itself has moved over that time to accommodate that. So a big congratulations to Gareth Hughes and your team, and I wish you all the best as it progresses through.

Gareth Hughes gave a very good explanation of the bill, and I just want to touch on a few things that were part of the decision-making process of the select committee. First of all, we had three options in front of us in the initial stages. We chose the least onerous option, which is the single-ingredient option. You’ve got further degrees of options. You can look at it through the tomato as a great example of whether it’s just the tomato you would get or whether you get it in a can or whether you get it more processed with other products in a can. So there are a whole lot of options, and it becomes more and more difficult as you go through those options to actually identify the country of origin. Although the Greens are quite correct in that this will give an indication, the reality is that when you get to those multiple-ingredient foods, it’s very, very difficult to be able to identify the country of origin, and it becomes extremely difficult for consumers to be able to rely on that. That may seem something that’s not beyond the realms of possibility, because, as the Greens have said, this bill was only on that first option of the most basic situation of a single-ingredient food.

But the key thing to understand about this bill—and the part that we didn’t know in the select committee until the very end—is that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, who is actually in the House here tonight, has the ultimate ability to include any food under this legislation. The advice we got initially was that it would have to go through the definition of the single-ingredient food, and that was the constraining definition that all parties agreed on within the select committee. However, at the last minute, we got advice that, in effect, the Minister has total ability to put any food into this through regulation.

I know the Minister’s there and he’s laughing, but he does have that power. That, effectively, means that this bill will achieve all the purposes that the Green Party had ever wanted it to achieve, because, effectively, it can cover every food. But it also means that we don’t have as robust a process around that as the Green Party or consumers would necessarily expect, because it is now only up to the Minister’s discretion as to what foods can come in or out. So you could have some foods in the third tier that are quite well processed—have multiple ingredients—which the Minister may determine that they want to include, and they could well be included, and there’s nothing that the consumer would be able to do in that case. That is something that many submitters will be unaware of as well.

So when we had submissions from, say, Fonterra, for example—they submitted in favour of the bill as the committee had determined, which was the single-ingredient, smallest option. That was because dairy is excluded from that single ingredient. Now, with the ability under regulation to include any food, dairy would be included. So their submission might be quite different with that further advice. Also, we had some submissions that were against having a mandatory country of origin. The Meat Industry Association was the main one that sought to have a voluntary programme. They felt that producers and manufacturers could make that definition and decision themselves, and determine that if the customers really wanted New Zealand country of origin on that food, that would force them, effectively, into doing it. That voluntary option didn’t find favour and isn’t how this legislation works. This is mandatory on that very single ingredient. But as I say, it will cover any food that the Minister deems should be included in there.

Another issue was around the pork industry, and the committee came to a conclusion that they were able to include that within the definition. That was partly because we knew the Minister was going to be doing that anyway, and, to save some time, we might as well just get it included now.

Hon Nathan Guy: He loves bacon. Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: He does love his bacon. And to save a Supplementary Order Paper going through this House—there was the potential to get it through—but also it doesn’t make any difference, because the Minister, in effect, has that ability to put any food through at any time once they’ve got that regulation-making power.

There were some submitters that were also worried about the costs involved, and it was hard to get a really definitive answer around the costs of this. Some manufacturers were keen to engage with the committee and explain what they think their costs were, but many weren’t. So the committee didn’t really have full information around those costs. But, you know, some expected costs were $15 million for fresh over a 20-year period and $29.8 million for frozen over that period, so you’re looking at quite substantial amounts, but spread over 20 years. There wasn’t that much of a push by submitters around that to the committee, because there would always be rebranding and other such things going on over that period of time. So the committee didn’t have full and frank information, you could say, about the cost, but then, at the same time, we gave submitters many opportunities to provide that and we didn’t receive that information.

In a sense, this bill is one which, I think, there is general public support to have a country-of-origin approach. People want to know what’s in their food, and that’s a general perception around, I think, this Parliament and around in the general public. However, don’t be under any illusion that this bill will actually mean that the consumer will know everything about what that product is, because it is related to those single-ingredient foods, and that is easy to do and we’ve done that. But the Minister has the ability to add in any food under the regulation-making power. When you get into those much more complex - type foods, it becomes much more difficult to actually guarantee country of origin, and that will be the difficulty that consumers will find and they may feel that that might be an issue.

So we recommend this bill to the House. It is a start in this area, but I think that there is one recommendation that I would make to the current Minister and future Ministers and that is just to be careful with their power under that regulation making, because there is a difficulty there. If we had a full Government bill that had gone through full advice, then we, maybe, could have come to some positions in that area. It’s a big power now in the Minister’s hands, and that should be exercised with care and done in a manner which doesn’t detract from the idea of country of origin which consumers can rely on. If it is used too broadly, that power, then that will detract from that intention, which is a very genuine intention, and something that most consumers would like to see. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the second reading of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Before I respond to some of the comments from the chair of the Primary Production Committee, can I ask for similar leniency that other members have had to note the significance of today, the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage here in New Zealand. Other members have highlighted particular people of importance to them, and I would like to highlight the importance of my predecessor, the Hon Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban, who I think is someone who people all around this House will understand paved the way in terms of Pacific women being represented in this House, especially in ministerial roles. So on this special day for women I’d like to pay tribute to her, a very important person in my political career, too.

Can I thank the Hon David Bennett for his contribution, a quite enlightening contribution around the select committee process for this piece of legislation, and also I thank him for his message around the duty of care with the discretion that section 27 of the Fair Trading Act allows the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs now. To a degree there is a carte blanche ability for the Minister who holds this responsibility to add foods to the regime. I also want to thank the select committee for putting in clauses within this piece of legislation to specifically exclude foods as well. I think that is one of the things that the select committee has done which I think will be a bit of a safeguard. As the member will know—he’s held a ministerial delegation with a fair bit of discretion in the past—I think a little bit of public scrutiny is also going to be one of the checks and balances to make sure that anyone who holds this responsibility doesn’t go too far.

What I would say—and I want to pay tribute to the Green Party, Gareth Hughes, and Steffan Browning—is that I think this is probably just the first step in a journey in terms of consumers getting more information about the provenance of their food. As a number of members have already mentioned, and I’m sure will mention through the continuation of this debate in this reading, it’s becoming increasingly important for consumers not only to know the country in which their food has been produced but it is becoming a selling point for many of our primary industries now: a particular area in New Zealand where their food may be produced. I think that is useful not only for the information for New Zealand consumers but for us in telling New Zealand’s story in terms of where our food has come from and exactly how that food has become produced and that it can add value. So I think in terms of this particular type of information it is also very important.

Just also, one other note that the chair of the select committee raised around costs. I guess I share—I’m not sure it was frustration—probably some scepticism about some of the figures that were put in front of the select committee so that those members on that committee could get a fair idea of where the costs would lie for food producers. Some figures which were, kind of, pretty primary were put in front of the select committee, and I think they probably struggled to get a handle on exactly what the costs would be for producers.

And as they were getting that information as members of the select committee, I was getting that information too as the Minister responsible for the officials who were giving the select committee advice, and I found it difficult to get a good handle on that. So I think that’s probably another reason as to why the Minister who has these responsibilities should be very careful about how they go about exercising their duties here and being very careful about what that may mean to the entities who are producing the food.

Can I just also come back and acknowledge the Green Party. As the chairman mentioned at the very outset, I think, of his speech, this is an issue that the Green Party has pushed for some time. This bill was originally introduced in the previous Parliament, under Steffan Browning, and I’d like to commend Gareth Hughes for taking the bill and for his tenacity for making sure that it got through the select committee process. I did wonder if it was ever going to come out of the select committee, with the to-ing and fro-ing that was going on within the select committee, especially towards the end, when there was the on-again off-again saga around bacon. And the Hon Nathan Guy is right: who doesn’t like a bacon sandwich in the morning?

Hon Nathan Guy: Plenty of pork!

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Ha, ha! There was plenty of pork on that side of the House for the last nine years. So what I would say about that, moving on to the substance of the bill, is that I thank the chair for his concern for me, as the Minister concerned, by putting the cured pork products within the remit of the bill as it stands, saving me the effort of putting it within a Supplementary Order Paper. I do know that there is continued debate about what is in and what is not in this piece of legislation, but I understand that that may be dealt with at the committee of the whole House stage, potentially, with a Supplementary Order Paper, but we shall see.

I do note that, across the Tasman, Australia has put in a multi-ingredient mandatory country-of-origin labelling regime, and while this bill, as the chair said, is only dealing with single-ingredient foods, we will be monitoring the implementation of Australia’s regime to see what we can learn from that experience. And we’ve said publicly that our aspiration is to get to that stage, and, as I mentioned earlier, this is, I think, the first step towards New Zealand going to that multi-ingredient regime in the future.

As the Minister responsible for including foods under the Fair Trading Act, I’ll be consulting further during the process of making regulations, and this bill provides 18 months in order to make those regulations. During this time, I’ll be considering whether there is any need to include additional foods if it is important for consumers to know where certain types of food come from. I’ll also be consulting with the food industry to make sure that the requirements of any regulations that may be coming into force are workable. I guess that goes to the caution that Mr Bennett did speak about, I guess.

In a pure sense, there is the ability just to make the recommendations without any consultation at all, but I think there is a responsibility—whether it be someone on this side of the House or the other side of the House—to make sure there is full consultation not just with those people who would like to see certain foods or ingredients included within the regime. Also, I guess, with so much uncertainty around the costs—and I think, hopefully, over time we’ll get more of an idea of exactly where those costs might lie—for the consultation to get to the point where the regulations might be needed will be very important.

As I said, also this bill will allow the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to exempt certain foods from the scope of the foods covered if it were to be unduly onerous or if it would not help consumers to make informed decisions.

I don’t think I need to take much more time of the House, but can I again just congratulate Gareth Hughes for his shepherding of this piece of legislation through the House. I am hoping that the committee of the whole House stage of this bill doesn’t take as long as the select committee stage of the bill, because it did take some time, but, again, I would hope that any issues that might not have been able to be dealt with at the select committee—bacon not being one of them—might be able to be dealt with at the committee of the whole House stage. So we commend this bill to the House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I acknowledge you in the Chair this evening and, importantly, on Suffrage Day. I note with interest that we have the largest number of female MPs in any Parliament ever, here in New Zealand, over the 125-year history, which I think really is significant in moving with the times. Importantly, I just want to make a short contribution on this bill this evening.

The genesis, indeed, was Steffan Browning. We had a big debate when we were in Government, the National Party, whether to support it or not. On balance, we felt that we should support it. Looking at it intently through the select committee process, it was pretty much a dog, the way it was drafted and designed, and Gareth Hughes came into the select committee process after the election and had to, in effect, pick up the pieces and work constructively with the Primary Production Committee.

The select committee had an option of pushing back and saying, really, it should be a Government bill, but Gareth Hughes was very determined to ensure that he got something through the select committee. So, in effect, the select committee worked the way it should do, and the bill was, indeed, panel - beaten to the point where there were some in society thinking that it was watered down too far, but I think we have the balance about right.

I thought it was interesting that we got 401 submissions—we heard from 22 in person in front of the select committee—and a wide array of concerns and views. But, fundamentally, those that submitted thought it was a good idea. There were those that were concerned about the cost, as we’ve heard from previous speakers this evening. I personally was quite concerned about our international trading obligations, and we had representatives in from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on two occasions. We asked them to go and do some work with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to try and understand if this would become what is commonly known as a non-tariff barrier. There are hundreds of these that come to the New Zealand Government in international markets every year, and, indeed, there’s been quite a rise. They are costly when you try and negotiate market access or free-trade agreements. The advice that we had from officials was that, indeed, it’s consistent with our international obligations. So that meant that I had some comfort, and I know the select committee members had some comfort, in supporting it.

One thing I thought was a good process that we went through once we’d done the changes was that Gareth Hughes agreed to the fact that we put out an exposure draft. So once we’d made the changes that were necessary, it was important just to do a head check—check with industry, check with consumers, what they thought of the redraft. Once again, there were those that thought it didn’t go far enough, but, importantly, those that were involved in food processing or importing food here into New Zealand felt that they could live with what the select committee came up with.

It’s interesting to hear from Minister Faafoi, who holds the responsibility for consumer affairs and oversees the Fair Trading Act. He, indeed, has quite a bit of power, through regulations, under this legislation. Probably the excellent chairmanship of David Bennett, who commented earlier—probably, if we’d realised that sooner, we may have addressed that early on, or, indeed, if it had been a Government bill, it would have been spelt out sooner in the process. But it’s heartening to hear from the Minister that these wide-ranging regulatory powers aren’t going to be misused or, indeed, abused.

So, in summary, we support this bill. I want to acknowledge the good work of the select committee. I want to acknowledge Gareth Hughes, too, because he picked up a bill that wasn’t going to deliver everything that we all thought it was going to, and he worked constructively with the select committee. I think credit is deserved to him, because often the public don’t get to see what happens in a select committee process. Because of the way that he approached the committee, we now have a bill that’s in a state that, I’m sure, this evening will get widespread support. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support this bill. I would also like to endorse the comments of Gareth Hughes and his tenacity in bringing this bill through. Of course, it’s a longstanding effort from the Green Party. Steffan Browning, of course, and Sue Kedgley, I believe, well before that, have championed this concept. New Zealand First, actually, has also been a longstanding supporter of this legislation. But it has been around the traps a little bit, and the advice I got, certainly from our caucus, was to keep this as simple as possible. I was soon to find out through the select committee process how wise those words were, because as soon as you start adding one exception in, it soon spirals out of control. The tin of tomatoes was often used—you know, if it’s got spice in it, is it still a single component or single ingredient? And we realised quite early on that if we we’re going to get this through in any sort of form at all, we would have to keep it very, very simple.

But we are doing this for the right reasons. The public are demanding this. The poll that was done said 71 percent of New Zealanders wanted to know where their food originated from. Only 9 percent were against. So this is a widely supported concept that New Zealand First are absolutely delighted to get behind.

It does, of course, amend section 27 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, and it does give the commerce Minister some wide-ranging powers to change the scope of the regulations. As has been mentioned before, I think he will have to use those wisely. But it was the correct way to bring this through so we at least got some foundation legislation in place that we could build upon later, and build upon that public support and appetite for this particular concept.

Of course, it incorporates fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, and seafood—fresh or frozen. That was a debate that came quite late in the piece, actually. Someone said, “What about frozen?” and we sort of threw it around a little bit and said, “Well, why not frozen?” It wasn’t in there initially in our deliberations, so we managed to bring that inside the scope of the bill. Packaged or unpackaged, and, of course, retail outlets only—so cafes or restaurants or whatever are not necessarily brought into this.

But what I think will happen is it will become such a popular concept and demanded by consumers that it will become just standard practice that the food components of a meal will be proudly demonstrated to be New Zealand made. And, of course, as New Zealand First, if we stand for anything, it is New Zealand made, so we’re absolutely behind this. Of course, there is quite a lot of time to bring this in. We haven’t rushed this. I think we’ve got the 18-month lead time and, of course, the time beyond that to bring in frozen.

I would just like to touch on the bacon and the pork, and Gareth Hughes has touched on the irony that a vegetarian has become the great champion of the pork industry. But we did realise that that was an important food group, because 60 percent of the pork products—bacon and pork, cured pork products—in our supermarkets are imported now, and that would not be apparent just through looking along the shelves. As was said earlier, 85 percent of those imported products originate from areas or countries, jurisdictions, that do not have animal welfare regulations that would meet our own, and I think we need to acknowledge that, actually. We are very tough on our farming community, and we expect high standards, and we are getting higher standards all the time. On an international comparison, we are right up there, and I think we often do not acknowledge the quality of the work that our farmers do. So it’s good that this bill actually helps to come in behind them so that we can absolutely showcase the good work that our pig and pork industry is doing.

Of course, as the former Minister Nathan Guy just said earlier, one of the real fish-hooks in this was the non-tariff barriers. As a country that exports 90 percent of its food, we had to be absolutely mindful that we weren’t creating a problem for our exporters with these non-tariff barriers, so we had to be absolutely consistent—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.