Thursday, 20 September 2018
Volume 733
Sitting date: 20 September 2018
THURSDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2018
THURSDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill will complete its remaining stages. The Maritime Powers Extension Bill will receive its third reading. The committee stages of the Education Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (New Registry Framework) Amendment Bill will progress. The first readings of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Equal Pay Amendment Bill will be completed. The Government will move to extend the sitting of Tuesday, 25 September until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 September. The Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill will pass under urgency on Wednesday, 26 September.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the acting Leader of the House for quite an extensive indication of the programme next week, but I would point out that, particularly, with regard to the decision by the Government to take urgency on a bill that we have said we would be quite happy to cooperate with is a little disappointing, and I think it calls into question the purpose of having a Business Committee operating inside the complex. We were able to close a road in Auckland very, very simply and in a very straightforward manner with a great deal of cooperation last week. On something like this, quite frankly, that is making politics of something that should be a little more virtuous than that, and I express my deep disappointment that the Government is not showing the respect to the Business Committee that it should be, particularly given that there were undertakings offered at that Business Committee for a discussion, which, quite clearly, has not taken place.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Housing and Urban Development
1. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he commit to ensuring that the 800 tenancies terminated or otherwise affected by Housing New Zealand’s previous approach to meth testing receive compensation that genuinely reflects the level of harm done, and takes account of both direct costs and emotional distress?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. Housing New Zealand has outlined an assistance package that is flexible and will take account of each tenant’s individual circumstances. It will cover costs incurred, debt that may have been charged, or possessions that may have been lost, but it will not cover emotional distress. Other forms of assistance will focus on activities that Housing New Zealand can offer through its operations, including housing affected tenants who are on the public housing register and formally apologising to tenants.
Marama Davidson: Is the proposed payment of between $2,500 to $3,000 only reimbursement, or is it intended to be compensation for the harm suffered by families forced out of their homes through no fault of their own?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So the compensation package that will be tailored to the individual circumstance of tenants could end up being several thousand dollars more than the base $2,500 to $3,000. It’s designed to address actual costs and losses incurred. Sometimes that refers to possessions that were lost and costs involved with losing a tenancy and having to find somewhere else to live.
Marama Davidson: Will the Minister urgently prioritise finding homes for the over 90 tenants and their families in unsuitable housing and on the social housing register as a result of inhumane meth-testing policies?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. Housing New Zealand is working on ensuring that every tenant who is eligible for public housing who was on the public housing register is rehoused. The assistance package includes rehousing tenants who used to be Housing New Zealand tenants but moved because of methamphetamine contamination and who are currently on the register.
Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any report that shows a house can test positive for meth at any level if no one has been smoking or baking a highly dangerous and illegal class A drug in that house?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the meth-testing approaches that have been used over the last few years have a very high level of sensitivity, and there are many cases where contamination or residue from meth consumption in a house has registered in the testing. In fact, it’s sometimes been above the threshold in the guidelines that were earlier provided by the Ministry of Health, but independent scientific experts have pointed out that that level of contamination is equivalent to the contamination of methamphetamine that you might find on a banknote in ready circulation.
SPEAKER: Order! No, I am going to ask the Minister to—it was a very tight question. I can’t insist on a yes or no. He gave a very good answer but not quite to that question.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Would you mind repeating it?
Hon Judith Collins: Has he seen any report that shows a house can test positive for meth at any level if no one has been smoking or baking a highly dangerous and illegal class A drug in that house?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Marama Davidson: What is the Minister doing to make sure affected tenants not on the register have somewhere decent to live and get the compensation they are entitled to?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Housing New Zealand has urged any former tenant who was affected by this situation to get in contact by either calling 0800 006 077 or emailing meth.enquiries@hnzc.co.nz. They will also be partnering with other agencies and groups to find people who have been affected. Over the last few weeks, there’s been an extensive effort to track people down through Government databases, to get in touch with them and ensure that assistance can be provided where appropriate.
Marama Davidson: Does the Minister agree that the report released today demonstrates a series of significant failures by Housing New Zealand over an extended period of time, and what steps is the Minister taking to ensure this never happens again?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The report that Housing New Zealand released today makes it clear that there were significant mistakes made over a number of years, mistakes that included applying a meth contamination standard that the Ministry of Health designed for properties where meth had been manufactured in a home, which was then applied as a threshold for decontamination. Housing New Zealand now acknowledges that, in hindsight, that was wrong. They have acknowledged that they applied a zero-tolerance approach to this issue that caused undue hardship to hundreds of tenants, many of whom were made homeless. They were, in some cases, denied natural justice. They were thrown out on the street not only on the basis of a bogus contamination standard but often without reasonable evidence that the tenant had in fact been responsible for the contamination. The report identifies some failures of governance and overseeing of this policy over a number of years. This is an exercise in Government accountability. Housing New Zealand is stepping up, acknowledging that it got it wrong, and putting things right.
Hon Judith Collins: Is the Minister saying that it is wrong to end a tenancy when someone is using a house to break the law?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re saying that it’s wrong to make innocent people homeless on the basis of bogus science and no decent evidence of responsibility or culpability. Hundreds of people were made homeless under this policy, people who, in some cases, were vulnerable—people with addictions who were made homeless. The worst possible thing that you could do to someone who has an addiction is to make them homeless.
Question No. 2—Housing and Urban Development
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand tenants to smoke methamphetamine in Housing New Zealand houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Methamphetamine is, of course, illegal and is doing immense damage to communities across New Zealand. Our Government does not condone the smoking of methamphetamine anywhere; however, the member needs to understand the counterfactual: it is not acceptable for the Government—for any Government—to throw tenants and their children on to the street and make them homeless. We recognise that making people homeless does not solve a tenant’s problems or help people overcome addiction; it just moves the problem to somewhere else and makes it worse for the person involved, their family, their children, the community, and the taxpayer.
Hon Judith Collins: Where meth testing showed residues exceeding previous standards, can this meth have gotten into Housing New Zealand houses any way other than smoking or baking meth?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, but there was no consistent baseline testing done by Housing New Zealand over those years. There is no way of knowing whether the hundreds of people who were made homeless under this policy had any personal responsibility for the contamination of those houses. Frankly, I’m shocked that the member, who used to be a lawyer, would think that that is OK. Is this the modern, compassionate face of the National Party?
Hon Judith Collins: When he said that “800 tenants suffered by … losing their tenancies,” is he saying that these 800 tenants were all wrongfully evicted from Housing New Zealand houses?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It depends what you mean by “wrongfully evicted”. Clearly, some of the 800 people—and I believe many of those people—had their tenancies terminated and were evicted without natural justice, without proper evidence of the case, on the basis of a bogus scientific standard. All of those people—all of the people who were evicted, bar some for whom the standard of contamination was more than the 15 micrograms per 100 centimetres that Sir Peter Gluckman recommended as a sensible standard—were evicted on the basis of a scientific standard that the previous Government allowed to persist for years on the basis of no scientific evidence that exposure to third-hand contamination posed any kind of health risk to anybody.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the housing ministry restored the fundamental principle that one is judged to be innocent until proven to be guilty?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I believe, with the report released today, Housing New Zealand has embraced basic concepts of natural justice, of scientific evidence-based policy-making, which is the exact opposite of what that Government allowed to persist for years. In fact, they campaigned to drum up the moral panic, and every day got up in this House and vilified State house tenants.
Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen on Housing New Zealand’s meth report?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There are many contradictory reports swirling around on this issue, but one that I’ve seen that makes a lot of sense is where, and I quote, “people were unfairly removed. If that’s the case, they should be compensated, and Housing New Zealand management should answer for it.” That’s exactly what today’s report does, and that quote is from Judith Collins.
Hon Judith Collins: Will people who smoked meth in Housing New Zealand houses now be given $2,000 to $3,000 compensation?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The point of the compensation is to compensate people who wrongly had their tenancies terminated and their possessions destroyed and who, in some cases, were made homeless. Those are the people who will receive a payment under the assistance programme.
Hon Judith Collins: Will people who sold meth in Housing New Zealand houses now be given $2,000 to $3,000 compensation?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Kieran McAnulty: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to meth contamination in Housing New Zealand properties?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’ve seen reports of an approach to meth contamination where Ministers have said, and I quote, “We will not tolerate any meth use in [Housing New Zealand] properties”, and I quote, “[State housing] is a privilege, and abuse of that privilege won’t be tolerated”, and then who gloated over the fact that Housing New Zealand were, “focusing more on meth use as opposed to previously targeting only home-based drug manufacturing”. That approach led to Housing New Zealand wasting the best part of $120 million, and it made hundreds of people homeless. And those statements were made by the Hon Paula Bennett.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in their context—particularly when they are backed up by solid, broad-based growth data, like the GDP figures out today showing the strongest quarterly and per capita growth since June 2016.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying he’s pleased that after we’ve had five years under National when New Zealand grew faster per person than Australia, we have now fallen well behind?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might be interested to know that our quarterly growth in the June quarter, of 1 percent, was higher than Australia’s.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he today rule out applying a capital gains tax to the 2.8 million Kiwis with KiwiSaver accounts in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The working group’s report was released today. It is their report; it is an interim report. What we are focused on is making sure that we get a fairer and more balanced tax system than the one we inherited.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm—
SPEAKER: Sorry, a point of order, the Hon Paul Goldsmith.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I asked whether he’d rule out something and he made no reference to that whatsoever.
SPEAKER: The member can ask it again. I think the inference to be taken was pretty clear, but have another go.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thank you. Will he today rule out applying a capital gains tax to the 2.8 million Kiwis with KiwiSaver accounts in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat: what’s happened today is that the independent working group have produced their report. We will take our time to work through that report and ensure that we get a tax system at the end of it that means that all New Zealanders pay their fair share of tax.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm with today’s truly outstanding growth figures that the ship of State is now strong and not floundering from a leak?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I most certainly can, because what today’s GDP numbers showed was broad-based growth across all but one sector measured, showing that while we have a long way to go to reach a more productive and sustainable economy, the coalition Government and our confidence and supply partner have got us, finally, on the right path.
Hon James Shaw: Can the Minister explain how GDP growth can be as strong as it has been reported today, when the apparent sole determinant of GDP growth, namely the ANZ business confidence survey, is at record lows?
SPEAKER: I am going to allow the question, but I’m going to warn the Minister who asked it that irony is not allowed as part of questions.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that’s probably because the GDP data is based on real data in the real economy, and we will continue to focus on that.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why will he not rule out putting more tax on Kiwi savings?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because today there was an interim report from the Tax Working Group. What we want to do is encourage more New Zealanders into saving, and, in fact, on this side of the House we’re particularly proud of the introduction of the KiwiSaver scheme, which has actually meant that millions of New Zealanders now have a nest egg for their retirement. I would back our record on this side of the House, when it comes to saving, over that member’s party.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think taxing KiwiSaver more with a capital gains tax will help Kiwis get ahead?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that, on this side of the House, we have a proud record of ensuring that millions of New Zealanders actually have a nest egg for the future. We’re determined to continue to grow KiwiSaver and support more New Zealanders to come into it.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister confirm that strengthened primary industries, including dairy, forestry, and fisheries, drove the exceptional economic growth we’ve seen in the figures released today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that agriculture, forestry, and fishery lead the growth, up 4.1 percent in the quarter, and that this was boosted by strong dairy production. In fact, agriculture had its strongest quarter of growth since September 2014.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it would be fair to tax capital gains from, say, a Northland couple’s rental house worth $300,000 but not from John Key’s home in Parnell?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member is suggesting that a capital gains tax should be applied to the family home, that’s a very interesting development indeed.
Question No. 4—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
4. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcements has he made on the scope of his new portfolio?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): This week, I was proud to announce the new scope and name of the Crown/Māori relations portfolio. We changed the name to Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. The name reflects feedback from the hui that Māori should appear first in the relationship. Te Arawhiti refers to the transition phase we are in—that is the bridge between Māori and the Crown. I’m proud of the work we as a Government have achieved so far, but as Sir James Hēnare said, “Kua tawhiti kē tō haerenga mai kia kore e haere tonu. He nui rawa ō mahi kia kore e mahi tonu.”—you have come too far not to go further; you have done too much not to do more.
Rino Tirikatene: How did he ensure that a Māori voice was reflected in his final scope and priorities?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Māori wanted the portfolio to have its own agency with its own mana. This week, the Government agreed to establish an agency to oversee the Government’s work with Māori in a post-settlement era. The agency will be called the Office for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti and will help facilitate the next step in the Treaty relationship, moving beyond the settlement of Treaty grievances into what it means to work together in partnerships.
Rino Tirikatene: What does the scope of the new portfolio include?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In addition to finishing Treaty settlements and marine and coastal area applications, the new agency, based on the new scope of the Māori/Crown portfolio will provide strategic leadership across the public sector to ensure the Crown meets its Treaty obligations and develop a new engagement model and guidelines for the Government and public sector. It will co-design partnership principles and frameworks to ensure that agencies generate the best solutions for issues affecting Māori. It will ensure public sector capability is strengthened across the board. That’s just to name a few of the things we’ll be doing.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Is an important role of Te Arawhiti to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi is a successful partnership between Crown and Māori?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Can he confirm that he’s fully explained to his Cabinet colleagues all the constitutional implications of some of the new roles of Te Arawhiti?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In terms of constitutional arrangements, that’s under the portfolio of the Minister of Justice, but we have futureproofed the partnership. The constitutional change is not on our radar, but we have futureproofed the relationship in that if there are any discussions by Governments in the future, we want Māori to be part of those discussions.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Will Te Arawhiti have any new or additional powers over the public sector; if so, what will they be?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Te Arawhiti will be working alongside the public sector to become a better Treaty partner.
Question No. 5—State Services
5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and contents of all work-related electronic communications between former Minister Hon Clare Curran and the Prime Minister since the decision in Cabinet last year “that the CTO be appointed by, and accountable to, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Government Digital Services and Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media”?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: The Prime Minister’s office have advised me that there are two email communications that they have identified between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran that relate to the Chief Technology Officer. On 9 February 2018, Clare Curran sent an email to the Prime Minister providing an update on the CTO recruitment process, including the appointment panel’s thoughts on candidates in round one of the recruitment. On 27 May 2018, the Prime Minister forwarded, without comment, to Clare Curran, correspondence that she had received from a member of the public on data rights which also made a passing reference to the CTO role, but not to any candidate. I’m advised by the Prime Minister’s office that they are working through other electronic communications to identify those that are with Clare Curran and are relevant to the CTO role. I will make sure that these are provided to the House when they are available, in accordance with the public interest. I can confirm that the former Minister communicated with the Prime Minister to keep her updated on the process of the CTO selection in a manner that would be expected for a position of this type.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Were there any communications between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran, or their offices, around the time that Derek Handley texted the Prime Minister in April this year, seeking the Government’s Chief Technology Officer role?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in that answer, I cannot answer that with respect to electronic communications, other than emails. But emails, no—I’ve listed those. That information will be provided to the House when it’s available.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Were there any communications between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran, or their offices, around the time that Derek Handley emailed the Prime Minister’s private email address on 7 June this year seeking the Government’s Chief Technology Officer role?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I just simply have to repeat the answer I’ve previously given. With respect to communications other than those of emails, I’m unable to answer that today, but that information will be provided to the House when it is available.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who was being referred to when Derek Handley tweeted the then Minister Clare Curran, saying that he had been encouraged by “friends” to apply for the Government’s Chief Technology Officer role, and was one of those “friends” the Prime Minister?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ve allowed quite a broad approach to this question, as the member is aware, but responsibility for Mr Handley’s tweets is not something that this Minister has.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was the date that Mr Handley was offered the role of the Government’s Chief Technology Officer, and what date did he accept that role?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of the first question, I would want to make sure I get the date exactly right. It was a date in early August. I will come back to the member with the exact date. I cannot answer the other part of the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that the responsibility for the debacle over the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer rests equally with both appointing Ministers: Clare Curran and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why—when both Ministers were clearly given responsibility by Cabinet for the appointment, and given the extensive communications, including by the Prime Minister’s own private email—does the Prime Minister not share some responsibility for this debacle?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not the Prime Minister, though.
SPEAKER: No, I think it’s a reasonable question.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the Prime Minister was kept in touch with this process by the former Minister, as would be expected, and only as would be expected.
Question No. 6—Finance
6. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What is his reaction to the independent Tax Working Group’s interim report released today?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, the independent Tax Working Group released its report on the structure, balance, and fairness of New Zealand’s tax system. The report had two main findings: New Zealand continues to have a relatively narrow tax base when compared to our OECD peers, and New Zealand’s tax system reduces income inequality by less than the OECD average. The Government has published its response to the interim report today and asked the working group to undertake further work on the topics that we gave it.
Dr Deborah Russell: What is the Government’s response?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has reaffirmed the areas that are out of scope for the review, including any income tax rate or the rate of GST increasing, inheritance tax, any other to changes that would apply to the taxation of the family home or the land under it, and the adequacy of the personal tax system and its interaction with the transfer system. We have asked the group to come back to us with their final report in February with a package of proposals to meet their terms of reference and have encouraged them to undertake further work on areas that they have highlighted. This includes proposals that would not increase the total amount of tax collected—in other words, a revenue-neutral package.
Dr Deborah Russell: What are the next steps in this process?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The group is seeking feedback from the public on its interim report over the next six weeks, and I encourage New Zealanders to engage in this process. The group will make its final report in February 2019, and Cabinet will consider the recommendations of that report. I can confirm that no changes from any legislation arising from this will come into force until 1 April 2021, after the next election.
Kieran McAnulty: Does the Minister agree with the recent suggestion from the Hon Paul Goldsmith that a capital gains tax should apply to the family home?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not, and that was clearly excluded from the terms of reference of the group. I am somewhat surprised to hear the member opposite now make this policy. This will make for a very interesting discussion about the future of tax in New Zealand.
Question No. 7—Education
7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: How many communications has she received from teachers or principals in the last three days regarding teacher shortages, relief teacher issues, and increases in class sizes, and is she confident there will be no more primary teacher strikes this year?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Acting Minister of Education): In the last three days, in the midst of bargaining with NZEI and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association, my office informs me that up until midday today, we have received approximately 100 submissions from teachers and principals across the country. Given that there is a vote taking place right now on the new offer for NZEI, it would be inappropriate to speculate on further strike action.
Hon Jacqui Dean: What does she say to the principal of Waitaki Valley School, who is struggling to get adequate levels of learning support, enough relievers to cover release time and resource teacher of learning and behaviour meetings, and has teachers who come to school ill as there is no cover for them?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would acknowledge the principals, such as the one mentioned there, and their frustration, considering that this topic was raised—for example, as reported in the New Zealand Herald in 2016—with the previous Government, who, if I recall correctly, said, “There is no crisis.” and promptly did nothing. But I also want to give these principals and teachers the assurance that this Government is, unlike the previous one, taking action to rectify this issue as quickly as possible through measures such as the $370 million in this year’s Budget to fund 1,500 more teacher places; a teacher supply package of $9.5 million announced in December 2017, with a further $20 million over the next four years; and funding more than 1,000 teacher refresher places to remove cost barriers so that teachers can return to teaching faster.
Denise Lee: How does the Minister plan to respond to the emails she received from a teacher at Onehunga Primary School that stated their roll has increased by 50 students in the past year but, because of teacher shortages, they’ve only been able to add one extra teacher?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I will address a personal response to that particular email as soon as I return to my office.
Jan Tinetti: What is the offer on the table for primary teachers and principals?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The current offer is $569 million for primary teachers and principals. For teachers this is a cumulative increase of 9.3 percent over three years. I would note that this offer is more than the three settlements combined under the previous Government.
Jan Tinetti: What other actions has this Government taken to attract New Zealand teachers overseas to return home?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The member may recall the shocking situation in October 2012 where a complete graduating class of primary teaching students were told there were no jobs here in New Zealand and were advised to go overseas. That is why on 17 September this Government announced a targeted campaign to attract New Zealand - trained teachers to return home and overseas-trained teachers looking to move to New Zealand.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she consider additional funds to primary school teachers prior to Wednesday’s vote to include reducing class sizes and having special education coordinators in schools to try and prevent the future strikes?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It would be irresponsible for a member in this House to answer that question considering that the negotiations are going on right now, an offer is on the table, and a vote is taking place.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, precisely how long does it take to train a teacher; and what was the deficit she inherited?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The exact numbers of teachers that are required in this country, whether full-time or part-time, I do not have on me right now, but it takes between three or four years depending on the level of mastery that we are seeking, so we cannot snap our fingers after nine years of neglect and just magic up a teaching workforce. However, this Government is doing, on many levels, as much as we can to work with the sector to ensure that we futureproof this workforce.
Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the 100 principals and teachers that have written to her within 72 hours, will she do something to ensure that there is additional funding for special education coordinators in schools?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The 100 or so form submissions that have been sent to our offices are being responded to. With regard to this Government’s intention to provide greater support for the diverse learning needs of our students across New Zealand, there will be an announcement tomorrow.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Has her Associate Minister Tracey Martin advocated strongly—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, the member’s got to get that question right. Someone can’t be their own Associate Minister.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, OK. Has she—
SPEAKER: She is the Minister.
Hon Nikki Kaye: OK. Well, has she advocated strongly throughout the last number of weeks, given the fact we’ve already had one set of strikes for additional funding for special education coordinators in schools?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I have worked collegially with Minister Hipkins and other members of Cabinet to ensure that tomorrow we are able to make an announcement.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she listen to the number of teachers and principals who are raising issues around relief teachers and additional short-term supply measures to ensure that we try and prevent future strikes in our school system?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can guarantee all teachers, principals, and educators in this country that this Government will listen to them, will work with them, will introduce workforce planning—something they have not had for at least the last decade. And I can also guarantee them that we will not insult them, as they have been for the last nine years.
Question No. 8—Biosecurity
8. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many inbound passengers arrived at Auckland international airport yesterday between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and how many dog detector teams worked on the green lane at this time?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Five international flights arrived between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. yesterday. Three of these flights were cargo and two were inbound passenger planes. All of those flights were appropriately checked. The two small passenger flights were risk assessed and screened. One flight was from Doha, with 215 passengers, and there was a Melbourne flight with 220 passengers, plus pilots plus crew.
Hon Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No. No, I don’t think we need a point of order. I think the Minister will answer the second part of the question: how many drug detection dogs?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: None.
Hon Nathan Guy: For how long has the green lane at Auckland international airport had no detector dogs working between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware that was the situation last night. I’m not aware of that being a regular situation. Can I say that—look, that member’s idea of a high-tech biosecurity system may be a detector dog. We on this side of the House have a multilayered, sophisticated biosecurity system. We have $10 million of additional funding into biosecurity to buy X-ray technology. We’re not totally reliant on detector dogs like the previous Government.
Hon Nathan Guy: When did he find out that detector dogs aren’t working on the green lane between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and what has he done about it?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I say I’m very grateful that I’m not rung at 2 a.m. in the morning to be told that there’s not a dog in the green lane at Auckland Airport. These are operational matters. I am confident that the multilayered system that we have in place for biosecurity is far more robust, more sophisticated, and more effective than the system that he ran.
SPEAKER: Order! The member’s now going to answer the supplementary question. When did he become aware?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I was made aware this morning.
Hon Nathan Guy: Is there a bullying and toxic culture within management running the dog detector teams at Auckland’s international airport?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have not been made aware or received a complaint of bullying at all. I’m aware that—a journalist raised that with me on my way into the House. I have to say that we are making some changes to the biosecurity system. I have to say we were left with what was called a dog of a system, run by that previous member. Can I say that we don’t believe our biosecurity system relies on 38 dog detector teams; it is far more sophisticated. There will be change, and I expect change in the biosecurity system. If that results in some personnel issues, I expect the director-general to deal with it.
Hon Nathan Guy: Apart from cutting the ribbon on the new dog-handling facility earlier this year, what else has he done to enhance border security at Auckland’s international airport?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Firstly, in our first Budget, we added $10 million to the biosecurity system in this. Much of that money will go into better offshore intelligence, better risk-assessment systems, and if I could say and quote from Horticultural New Zealand, an industry that is entirely dependent upon the security of our biosecurity systems, “The Agriculture and Biosecurity Minister and MPI are doing an excellent job holding the line at the border. All of us in the primary industries need to support them to keep doing their job and become even more vigilant. The loss to New Zealand—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough. It might be a good answer for a Government patsy, but it’s too long.
Question No. 9—Housing and Urban Development
9. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a compassionate landlord focused on tenant well-being?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Housing New Zealand’s report into methamphetamine contamination has found that Housing New Zealand applied the guidelines wrongly and adopted a punitive, zero-tolerance approach that compromised tenant well-being. In all, 800 tenants lost their tenancies and were not rehoused by Housing New Zealand—many of those people were made homeless. The Prime Minister has asked us to put compassion back into Government, and that’s why Housing New Zealand is now focused on sustaining tenancies, wrapping support around vulnerable families, and allowing them to live their lives with dignity. We know the counterfactual: that making vulnerable families homeless is the worst-case scenario for the families, their neighbours, community, and the country.
Tamati Coffey: How will Housing New Zealand deal with drug addiction in the future?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are focused on the health and well-being of our tenants, and we intend to provide increased support to people experiencing addiction and drug-related harm. Housing New Zealand will continue to report tenants who deal drugs or manufacture P to the police, but drug use will be treated, in the first instance, as a health problem. As a compassionate landlord, Housing New Zealand will make sure that tenants get the medical support they need to deal with their addictions.
Tamati Coffey: What other projects does Housing New Zealand have under way to better support its tenants?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Housing New Zealand has been changing its policies and practices to improve outcomes for the people we house both now and in the future. Housing New Zealand is partnering with other agencies and specialist NGOs to address the deep and complex social issues like addiction and drug-related harm. For example, the new Greys Avenue development in Auckland will have supportive housing, combining public housing with services, including 24-hour specialist services to support people with addiction issues. Housing New Zealand wants to be a very different organisation now. We want tenants to live their lives with dignity and respect.
Tamati Coffey: Why does the Government believe sustaining tenancies is so important?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: All of the evidence tells us that secure housing is critical to people’s well-being, especially for children and for people who are vulnerable in other ways—for example, with disabilities or illnesses. Throwing people with addictions out on to the street is the worst possible thing that we can do to them.
Question No. 10—Courts
10. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Courts: Is he confident that the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will comply with all requirements of the rule of law?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Yes.
Stuart Smith: On whose advice is he establishing a tribunal which will have the power to override contractual terms in an insurance contract between the insurer and the insured?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member has confused the rights and powers of the proposed tribunal under the bill. No tribunal or court has the power to override contractual obligations; their job is to interpret and enforce and uphold.
Stuart Smith: Why did he ignore the Ministry of Justice’s advice, which says that “Enabling a tribunal to override contractual terms would retrospectively change the legal basis for determining these disputes, breaching fundamental rule of law principles.”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The role of the tribunal will not be to create new conditions or do anything other than is provided for in existing policies, as between policyholders and insurance companies. This is about getting on with resolving the nearly 3,000 residual unresolved insurance claims arising out of the Canterbury earthquakes that were not resolved under the previous Government because it chose to do nothing about them.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not true. That’s a complete lie—an absolute lie.
Stuart Smith: On whose advice is he establishing—
SPEAKER: No, no. I think the member’s—I’m not going to make him apologise twice, but he must withdraw and apologise.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I hope it’s not going to be in relation to that, because the member has, basically, lost his rights by his intervention.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh well; I’ll have a go later in the afternoon.
Stuart Smith: On whose advice is he establishing a tribunal which will have the power to override contractual terms in an insurance contract between the insurer and the insured?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Mr Speaker, I think I’ve answered that question. There is no power to override contractual obligations.
Stuart Smith: Did the Minister inform his Cabinet colleagues about including a provision which would impede on fundamental rule-of-law principles; if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If I understand the question, it’s asking whether advice was given that was clearly in breach of the rule of law. No such advice was given to ministerial colleagues, and, look, “why not?”—that is the most absurd tail to a question I’ve ever heard.
Question No. 11—Health
11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Health: When did the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs give its advice that synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB be scheduled as class A controlled drugs, and what action has he taken on this advice?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs met on 17 April 2018. I was advised of the outcome in the weekly report of 6 to 12 May, which also advised me that the ministry would consult with relevant stakeholders on the recommendation and prepare a health report for consideration. On 13 August, I instructed the ministry to prepare a Cabinet paper to progress this matter. I received that paper on 5 September.
Simeon Brown: In light of the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, will he commit to scheduling AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB as class A drugs; if not, why not?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That matter is going to be considered in coming weeks. Reclassification has the advantage that it allows the police wider search and seizure powers if it’s then classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and I think that interrupting supply is something New Zealanders could agree with.
Simeon Brown: Will his Government also support my bill which will increase penalties to supply other dangerous synthetic drugs, following his statement on One News last night that “Disrupting supply is a good thing.”?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Just increasing penalties alone is not a solution to the synthetic cannabis issue. The advice from the Ministry of Health is clear: there is insufficient evidence that increased penalties will lead to reduced drug-related harm. It also advised that increases in penalties do not necessarily produce a corresponding deterrent effect. I can put it no better than the police, who are on record saying, “We will not enforce our way out of this problem.” Drug abuse is a health issue. This Government will treat it as such.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the recent UN Human Rights Council recommendation that providing support, prevention, and treatment measures instead of increased criminal penalties results in a decrease in drug use and the drug-induced mortality rate?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I agree that there is no convincing evidence that increased penalties will reduce harm. We need to treat drugs as a health issue—so, yes, support, prevention, and treatment are the key. I think the public will also agree that interrupting the supply of drugs which are killing people is also important, so widening the police’s search and seizure powers is also worthwhile.
Simeon Brown: How many deaths have been reported to the coroner caused by the consumption of synthetic drugs, which includes synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA or 5F-ADB, since he first received this advice from the expert advisory committee?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can speak to the fact that the coroner has reported back and has estimated 40 to 45 deaths have happened—
Hon David Bennett: Oh! On your hands!
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —during the past year. I forget where the year runs to. Obviously, that was mostly before we took office, but we are responding. This Government is taking action. One of the things that we did when we formed the coalition Government was establish the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, a powerful and broad inquiry that is looking directly at the problem of addiction and access to drugs like synthetic cannabis. The synthetic cannabis issue was also taken to the first Cabinet meeting following the release of the coroner’s findings about related deaths. As a result of that meeting, experts from the Ministry of Health, police, along with the Ministry of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Bureau, and the New Zealand Customs Service were asked to find solutions to this tragic problem. A decision on possible reclassification will be taken in coming weeks.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the Minister’s answer to that question, a totally inappropriate interjection was made—more inappropriate because we were talking about people who have died, and I’d ask you, as Speaker, to ask the member responsible to withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: I called the member to order when he made the interjection. I don’t propose to take it any further.
Simeon Brown: Given that he has claimed to be taking this issue seriously, how can—sorry, can I start again, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: Certainly.
Simeon Brown: How can he claim that the Government is taking this issue seriously given that more than 100 answers to written questions show that he and his ministerial colleagues of the multi-agency working group have taken no action to address this issue for months, the mental health inquiry does not include synthetic drugs in the terms of reference, and how many more deaths from synthetic drugs will it take for him to take this issue seriously?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject a number of the assertions made in that statement. This Government takes the issue incredibly seriously. The member may wish to dismiss the work going on between responsible agencies, but that work is how we will find meaningful solutions. What I can tell the member is that we are working closely with the police and the New Zealand Drug Foundation. We are talking to service providers and drug users to identify areas of need and how we can reduce them. We are also focusing on community-based initiatives, such as those operating in Porirua and the Far North, that may be expanded. Locking people up for longer may look like tough action, but we need to take measures that will actually reduce harm.
Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
12. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures has the Government announced to protect the public from unscrupulous wheel-clamping practices?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Recently, transport Minister Phil Twyford and I announced a new Government measure that will enforce a cap of $100 to be charged for the removal of a wheel-clamp. This move has been done to protect consumers from the behaviour of wheel-clampers, who have gone unchecked for years. We acknowledge there is a legitimate need to protect private property, but the practices of what has become a cowboy clamping industry is causing significant harm to consumers.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government implemented these changes?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government was tired of hearing about cowboy clampers using stand-over tactics to squeeze unfair fees out of motorists. Stories of mostly elderly motorists being targeted by clampers within minutes of parking and being charged as much as $700—
Hon Member: How much?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —$700—for the removal of wheel-clamps were far too frequent. The charges were excessive and were causing financial loss and emotional distress. The coalition Government is one that cares about protecting consumers, and I thank the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party for their support.
Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What will the consequences be for cowboy clampers if they don’t comply?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, as I said, there is a maximum $100 charge for the removal of a wheel-clamp. Infringement fees of $1,000 for an individual and $5,000 for a company can be charged, and a fine of up to $3,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a company can be imposed if the matter goes to court.
Bills
Maritime Powers Extension Bill
In Committee
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Acting Minister of Customs): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Acting Minister of Customs): Madam Chair, can I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this committee stage of the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. This bill has two main components, both of which are contained within Part 1 and the related schedule. Firstly, it amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to make drug smuggling in international waters an offence under New Zealand’s domestic law. Secondly, it amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide a framework for customs to investigate and prosecute these offences—these powers are set out in new schedule 5A.
The bill makes drug-smuggling in international waters an offence under domestic law. As members may be aware, current offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act only occur at importation and exportation when items cross the 12 - nautical mile limit. However, this bill gives customs the ability to respond to drug-smuggling activities in international waters before importation occurs. Therefore, this part introduces two new offences relating to the smuggling of controlled drugs as well as prohibited equipment or material outside of New Zealand. These offences can be committed on board any ship in international waters, provided there is an intention to import into New Zealand or to further the exportation of illicit drugs from New Zealand. These offences can be committed both by individuals who have possession of the drugs and by those on board other ships where they take steps to receive the drugs. This ensures that others who are directly involved in a drug-smuggling operation are also liable, even if they are apprehended before they had actually handled the drugs. Establishing new offences is a critical part of this bill. It means that New Zealand can take necessary prosecution against those involved in these smuggling activities.
The bill also establishes a framework for customs to exercise powers in international waters. The new schedule 5A, as I mentioned earlier, outlines the new powers that will be available to customs for dealing with drug smuggling outside of New Zealand. This includes stopping, boarding, and searching ships and taking enforcement actions where evidence of offending is found. These powers are broadly in line with relevant customs powers in territorial and contiguous waters. However, there are some differences to reflect New Zealand’s obligations and commitments under relevant international conventions. These are the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, also known as the drug-trafficking convention.
These powers can only be exercised where the ship is suspected of being involved in drug smuggling, and customs will not have the powers to take action in response to other types of offending. In the case of foreign ships, customs must seek consent from relevant States to exercise any of these powers. More intrusive powers, such as full searches of people and electronic devices and arrest, are subject to a higher threshold. Customs officers may take further searches of persons and electronic devices only where there is a reasonable cause to believe that there is drug smuggling evidence on the person or contained in the device. These powers achieve the right balance between ensuring that customs has the tools to do its job, ensuring New Zealand’s rights and obligations under international conventions, and ensuring the rights of individuals that may or may not be committing an offence.
Can I also thank the parties around the House for their unanimous support for this piece of legislation. I also note the hard work done by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in dealing with this piece of legislation in the select committee.
Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): This is a good piece of legislation. Drugs do harm all over New Zealand, and I challenge anybody to say that we don’t need robust protection at our borders to give the tools that our customs officials and others need to be able to police our borders and to catch people that want to bring drugs into New Zealand and to hold them to account. In many cases, that will mean very long prison sentences at great cost to the taxpayer, but that is a burden the taxpayer must take on to make sure that New Zealanders are safe.
We have quite a challenge, on this side of the Chamber today. We are going to support this legislation, but the challenge is that on the one hand the Acting Minister of Customs, Kris Faafoi, has come to the committee and said “We want the best rules we can have to hold people to account on drugs.”, yet in question time in the House we’ve had repeated Ministers stand up and give a very different view to the public of whether or not this Government takes drugs and the harm they do seriously. We’ve had the Minister of Housing and Urban Development say it’s OK for people to use methamphetamine or cook methamphetamine in houses. It is illegal. It is illegal, and he said it’s OK. Then we had the Minister of Health, who said people shouldn’t be held to account when they are peddling synthetic drugs that have killed 45 people in New Zealand over the last year—45 people. He said, “Actually, the penalties don’t work. It’s only a health issue.” Yet we have this Minister come to the committee now and say we need to strengthen legislation in this bill to give greater tools to our customs officials and others so they can go and police our borders so drugs don’t get in here. So I ask the Minister to take another call and to explain clearly to the public exactly what the position of the Labour-led Government is when it comes to drugs.
The Opposition is supporting this legislation, because it is important that actually we have those tools. We should do everything that we can to stop drugs like methamphetamine, P, synthetics, and everything else coming in and harming New Zealanders. There is no place in this country for the harm that drugs do. But he must also explain to the committee why other Ministers, when it comes to policies that are involved with drugs, are giving a very different signal than the Minister is. I think there is a very clear reason why, and the public can see it.
You see, my colleague beside me has just said that this bill has been around for a while. It wasn’t introduced by the Labour-led Government just a year ago; it was brought in by the previous Government, the National-led Government, to make sure we could protect our borders. So since the election, this Minister and his Government have used this piece of legislation to talk up how tough they are on drugs at the border, but when it comes to the things that they’ve had to do over the last year, they’ve done nothing but undermine the system, make it more difficult for the police, and say to New Zealanders, “It’s OK. We’ll look after you. We’ll treat it as a health issue. Do what you want in Housing New Zealand houses. Actually, we’ve set up a committee, and over the next period of time we’ll get a bit of advice, and we’ll have a look at whether we reschedule a few synthetic drugs that are harming New Zealanders. We’ll get there eventually. Forget the 45 people that have lost their lives this year.” That is, frankly, not good enough.
Now, we will be supporting this legislation, but here is the challenge that Andrew Little has as a Minister in this Government in the coming days, weeks, and months of this Labour-led Government. He’s soft on crime. His colleagues are soft on crime. The only thing he’s done since taking up the position as Minister of Justice is to help his colleagues spend $2,700 per person on a summit that didn’t actually achieve anything but have the people that attended it say, “It was a talkfest.” Now he puts his head down.
This is a good piece of legislation, brought to this House by the previous National Government. Everything else they’re doing on drugs is a disgrace.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Now, I just want to make it clear that we are discussing the bill as a whole, and so that means it is a broader debate—but that does not mean that it is a broad debate around drugs, and it is not a general debate. So keep the focus on the bill in front of the House, which is the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. I will be somewhat lenient, because it is about drugs, but I don’t think that we should be debating the use of drugs, and I will stop people who continue that.
Hon Todd McClay: Do you want me to do my speech again?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ha, ha! Are you seeking the call?
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow on from that last speaker, Todd McClay, who made some very good points around what we’re seeing in this House today, which is bizarre behaviour from the Government—effectively, saying that drugs are a health issue and not a criminal issue.
I just wonder, when we look at this bill here, the Maritime Powers Extension Bill—our maritime border is very important to New Zealand, as a country that is an island with very coastal boundaries. It’s very difficult to maintain that degree of separation between what we actually have as our landmass and the potential for people to come to New Zealand, or to bring products to New Zealand that don’t go through the normal and legitimate channels. So smuggling drugs through our maritime boundaries is something that is quite common. There are often cases where you hear of situations where drugs are smuggled through on to beaches, and on small ships and boats that take advantage of New Zealand’s coastline to bring drugs in, so we need to be vigilant in this area.
This bill is something that the Acting Minister of Customs has put forward. Generally, the Hon Kris Faafoi is a very good Minister, I must admit. He is one of their better ones. It always helps when you’re Associate Minister of Immigration—I think you do get a lot more praise when you hold that ministry portfolio. No, he’s a genuine and good Minister. So he’s putting this bill forward, and National is supporting the bill through the House because we recognise the importance of our boundaries. And New Zealanders need to see that in our Government, because part of being a Government is to give New Zealanders a sense of security. We do that in a number of ways in this Chamber—just look around at the military security, the plaque names in this Chamber.
The public expect the Government to keep them safe. It’s a fundamental principle of Government. There are not many fundamental principles of Government, but one is to keep the people safe; one is to run an economy which is successful, as well, and doesn’t rely on a little bit of rainfall to get their GDP figures up. Actually, that fundamental basis of keeping our people safe is a responsibility of whoever is in Government, not something that they can walk away from, and we need to see that responsibility held up in our maritime boundaries, just as we need to see that responsibility held up in our airport boundaries.
It’s just not good enough to have a period of time each day, at the earliest point of the day, that people can come into this country without any checking. The normal things that go on in our airport boundaries should be able to be there for all 24 hours. Now every drug dealer out there will be booking a flight from Melbourne coming in at 3 a.m. because they know that there are no sniffer dogs there. So tomorrow it will be all these drug dealers—well, they’ll probably get a free State house, as well, when they get here, because they can go back to their home and have that—
Louisa Wall: No, they don’t; they get nothing. They arrive and get nothing.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: They arrive and get nothing?
Louisa Wall: That’s right.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: So the Labour Party said they arrive and get nothing. Well, if somebody is a drug dealer in New Zealand and living in a State house, they can’t lose their house because it’s a health issue for them. It’s not actually a criminal issue any more; it’s a health issue. If they just go to Melbourne and come back at 3 a.m. bringing some more drugs into the country, they’re not going to get caught at the airport, so why would they want to even engage in the maritime issue when they can go through our airports freely? That’s the issue that most drug dealers will be looking at this afternoon. They’ll be knowing they can’t get thrown out of their house and they’ll be knowing—
Hon Andrew Little: The member hasn’t read the bill—doesn’t know what he’s talking about. What a hopeless speech.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: This is the member here—this is Mr Little. This is Mr Little, who refuses interviews, who refuses to actually answer questions. Mr Little is in a corner, and he knows he’s in a corner, because he genuinely believes that these are not criminals, that people that breach our maritime rules aren’t criminals. That’s what—
Hon Andrew Little: Which rules?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Because they’re drug dealers; because they’ve got a health issue! They’ve got a health issue! They’re not criminals; they’ve got a health issue! They need to be supported through health issues!
Hon Andrew Little: Which rules in the bill? Just talk about the rules in the bill—just one.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: That’s what you believe. That’s what the Minister believes.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Customs): Madam Chair, I’m just going to take a quick call. I get a funny feeling from the tone of the debate from the National-led Opposition that we’re not going to actually be dealing with the bill itself. So can I just correct the Hon Todd—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, actually, the Minister is questioning the Chair.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Can I just correct one issue put by the Hon Todd McClay. I’m aware that these speeches are actually recorded for future reference, so I would hate for the public to think that Mr McClay was right, when, in fact, he is wrong. Mr McClay said that this piece of legislation was introduced by the former Government—that is wrong. This piece of legislation was introduced to this House by the current Government, by the Hon Meka Whaitiri, and referred to the select committee on 3 July.
So I’d just like to put that fact right and also make the point that not only was it obviously not a priority for the previous Government to get this legislation—this is how much of a priority this piece of legislation was for the previous Government: it didn’t introduce it. That’s how much of a priority stopping drugs at the border and before they come into our economic zone was. It was such a high priority for the previous Government that it didn’t even introduce this piece of legislation. So I just want to make sure that the Hon Todd McClay is put right. I do want to apologise to him, because I understand that information was given to him by the Hon Mark Mitchell, so, by association, he was wrong.
Can I also point out one of the stupidest things I have ever heard said in this Parliament, and that was the Hon David Bennett inviting drug dealers from overseas to come to New Zealand. Now, that is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard a member of Parliament say in this House, and I think I’ve said enough about that.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak in this, the committee stage of the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. I’d like to focus, in my contribution, on some time frames involved in this piece of legislation, starting with the fact that in the title of the bill is, of course, the word “Extension”, which is a pretty easy hint that we’ll be making some changes—indeed, extending powers. So my question to the Minister—it’s actually a series of questions that I’d like him to address—is around the time frame of the Act, as it will be, coming into force, which is, of course, pretty soon, being 1 October 2018. Notwithstanding that the word amendment isn’t in the title, it is, effectively, a bill that amends other legislation, as noted in the commentary, specifically the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
One of the things that we discussed in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and I acknowledge various members around the Chamber at the moment who are present now and were present indeed on that committee when we were discussing the bill—was the need for it to pass with various amendments. No doubt, colleagues will talk about those in more detail—the timing of the implementation—to understand those amendments and also just the nature of the bill itself, which, of course, is not yet law but in just a couple of weeks appears likely to be.
When I spoke at a previous reading of the bill, I noted—perhaps flippantly—that offenders, or would-be offenders, don’t need much time for compliance. They don’t need much time to get their acts together to be able to comply with this law, because what they’re doing is, of course, already illegal, and, actually, what we’re talking about is the means of enforcing that which is already prohibited. However, what I should have, and perhaps could have, noted at that time is the fact that compliance will be needed—changes will be needed—to ensure that compliance is done properly by our customs agency and also the other agencies that will be necessary to ensure that the bill has effect. In particular, I refer to the navy, but I understand that other Government agencies might well be involved in the very sense that this is intended to work, which is one of interoperability.
In relation to preparing themselves for the new regime that will come into force once this bill is passed, the customs agency, the navy, and so forth will need good advice on the rules of engagement, from their legal offices and so forth, to ensure that they don’t overstep the powers that they’ve been given. They are extensive powers—that is the very purpose of the bill, and it’s one that we on this side of the committee support the Government in introducing, but the fact that it is such a major issue to enable not only New Zealand - flag ships but also overseas-flag ships and status vessels to be boarded is something that we should take very seriously and get right the first time. While the action out on the high seas or within the exclusive economic zone, or wherever it might be, can take place in circumstances that don’t allow a lot of time for reflection, of course, courts applying and understanding the nature of alleged offences can be a bit more reactive; so it’s really in terms of the agencies that will be fulfilling the aims of this legislation that I am thinking about when I talk about the time frames involved.
Essentially, my points in relation to this boil down to the question to the Minister where I wonder whether 1 October 2018 is an appropriate commencement date—whether that will give sufficient time for the various agencies to get their heads around the things that will be needed. If there’s any doubt about the seriousness of what’s involved, and therefore the states of compliance and understanding where the rights and responsibilities lie, I think it can be found in the fact that, as alluded to in the commentary, the changes to existing law can be described under a couple of different headings. One is expanding the powers of the New Zealand Customs Service, and the other is establishing offences that apply in the circumstances that are set out there. Those are major things, because they do impact on New Zealand citizens as well as citizens of other countries and perhaps even Stateless people—analogous to flagless vessels—and so I welcome the contribution from the Minister on that point regarding timing.
HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Madam Chair, thank you for this call. I just want to ask the Minister Kris Faafoi a couple of questions regarding this bill and also to pick up on a couple of his previous comments. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister speak, listening to some of his answers. It’s very disappointing that he’s injured his leg and he won’t be playing in the Parliamentary Rugby Team, because with that golden mouth he would be able to convince the referee to turn back on his decision. He’d be able to screw the scrum and get away with it.
I just want to pick up on a note one of his officials just handed him a couple of minutes ago, and I just wanted to know, Minister, if this bill was prepared under the previous Government or under this Government. I have reason to believe the note from the official may suggest that it’s actually prepared under the previous Government. And the only reason why they’re using this legislation is because this Government can’t think of anything themselves.
I just want to acknowledge the amazing work of the customs officials and the police, especially those customs officials and Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) officials working this morning at Auckland Airport between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. Unfortunately, they didn’t have a dog to work with them, through the incompetence of the Minister of Agriculture. And I just want to acknowledge the previous work of the Minister Nathan Guy, who increased the number of biosecurity dogs from 40 to 60.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member there’s no dogs in this bill.
HAMISH WALKER: Sorry, Madam Chair. Just with this bill, I have got a couple of questions for the Minister: (1) Minister—if this bill goes far enough in terms of the penalties. We know that there’s got to be strict criteria when using these search options. Currently the customs officials have to establish clear procedures over offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and this has got limited powers, and I just want to ask the Minister if he would consider extending those powers, loosening them up a bit, because a month ago, under urgency, the Government rushed through, basically, powerless authority for warrantless searches for MPI officials on farmers’ properties. These MPI officials now have more power than police officers. How is that fair? And, just looking at this piece of legislation, the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, I just wonder if we can put more power on to these customs officials considering the fact that MPI officials have more power now than police. And, if they just want to get their sort of priorities right, that would make sense.
I just want to also talk about a couple of the other changes and the range of circumstances when officers can board ships, including when they apply in a range of circumstances, including if an individual is on a ship in international waters and is in control of the controlled drug or equipment or material and the individual or individuals intend to import the item into New Zealand. Another circumstance available is when an individual on a ship in international waters is involved in other ways or smuggling these items out of New Zealand.
Another question for the Minister—obviously there’s a high cost for these people bringing drugs into New Zealand. They have to have quite a large capital outlay to buy a vessel to get the drugs from oversees into New Zealand, and I believe that the vessel can be forfeited, a bit like illegal fishing. If you’re caught fishing on one of our beautiful lakes or rivers, the Act works really well at the moment. It deters some people from fishing illegally. If they are caught by MPI officials, they have to give up their fishing gear. I was just wondering if the Minister would consider whether they can go not after just the vessel, but be able to seize further assets, a bit like the measures which National put in place five or six years ago which are collecting a large amount of revenue.
We know the financial impact from drugs is about $1.8 billion a year. This is a huge, huge cost to our society—not just financial but the impact it’s having on our families and communities. Criminal networks do not care about the devastating effect they are having on our country. They are motivated by greed and the relatively high prices. In return, the risk for reward is quite high. So I commend this bill to the House. I would like to hear from the Minister, and, hopefully, he will reconsider his decision around the parliamentary game Saturday week.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Maritime Powers Extension Bill, which this Government is progressing through Parliament, and a very good bill it is, drafted under the National Government. And I’d like to just congratulate the parties on the other side of this House for actually taking the issue of drugs seriously for once, because what we’ve seen is that they have been talking about it as a health issue, but it’s good to see this bill taking a law and order approach to drugs, and taking it seriously, and trying to crack down on the suppliers of the drugs.
We do have to remember, when talking about drugs and drug harm, that there are suppliers and there are users, and the appropriate response to those supplying drugs is to crack down on them and to take it seriously. And that’s exactly what this bill does in implementing our international obligations to play a part as a country in terms of our maritime area, our exclusive economic zone, and ensuring that we do the right thing.
So I’ve just got a couple of questions that I’d like the Minister to take. Firstly, this is in jest, but I noticed that the bill refers to “the high seas”. I was wondering initially whether that was something which was just added in humour. However, I did note that it is defined in new section 12D(8) inserted by clause 7 that the “high seas means all parts of the sea not included in—(a) the internal waters, territorial sea, or exclusive economic zone”. So I had that one clarified, so I don’t need a response in terms of that issue.
But I do want to ask in terms of the definition of “prohibited equipment or material means”, what is referred to as a “precursor substance”? It talks about the means—there’s two definitions for prohibited equipment or material. One is a “precursor substance”. The second is “any equipment or material, other than a precursor substance, that is capable of being used in, or for, the commission of an offence under section 6(1)(b)”. So the question relates to what is defined—I can’t find a definition of a precursor substance, possibly that might be defined in another Act or in another piece of legislation, but I would find that quite helpful to have a definition of a precursor substance, because I guess the question relates to whether this is targeting the chemicals which are used in creating or cooking drugs or whether this is actually the drugs themselves. I mean we know what comes across our borders, whether that’s via ships or other maritime vessels, or which come off planes and land at Auckland Airport in the early hours. We know that they come across not only as precursor substances, if that’s the definition, as, sort of, the chemical compounds which get turned into a drug which is then peddled on the street, but we also know they come across as drugs themselves in their pure form. There are many examples where customs and biosecurity are doing their diligent work at the border to ensure that we get as much of that as possible.
Part of that, as Mr Bennett has very helpfully laid out today, is the importance of the dogs—and, of course, I know we’re talking about the maritime part of this supply issue. However, we know that we have to crack down on both the precursor substances, if I’m correct in the chemical compounds which then get turned into different drugs, and we also have to crack down on the actual drugs themselves which come across the border.
So that’s the first part, the precursor substances, and then it talks about “any equipment or material that is capable of being used in, or for, the commission of an offence”. I guess that’s a very wide definition, and I guess that’s used to define a wide range of different objects and items and machinery, etc. I guess the question there is whether the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, is satisfied that that is wide enough. Is it wide enough to catch everything which comes through across our water? What advice have the officials provided to the Minister in regards to that? I guess it’s focused there on equipment and material other than precursor substances. Is this wide enough to also look to the future for what else might be coming down the pathway?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I do apologise to the member: I didn’t interrupt him, but, of course, dogs could well be used on boats.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also to the Minister seated beside you, Kris Faafoi, to acknowledge you in this role. In speaking to the committee of the whole House in relation to this, I just remind the Minister, courteously, that there was mention made that this is a Labour Government or Government bill. I certainly heed and acknowledge that it is before the Labour-led Government, in relation to the sailing through of this—the transmission of this—to its final passage in the third reading, but I’m just going to traverse the legislative history, as is noted here in the Maritime Powers Extension Bill as reported from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I’ve had the privilege and also the experience of substituting and sitting in on.
On the last page, page 17, under “Legislative history”, it says the introduction of the bill was on 27 June 2018. We heed that the Labour-led Government came into power last year; however, this is a piece of legislation and an idea that has sailed through from the National-led Government. It was taken to the first reading and the referral to the select committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on 3 July. It came before the House for its second reading on 13 September, and here we are. So it’s about how smoothly this may transition and sail through to the third reading.
I just mention that, this bill having come before the select committee, it was noted that there be a report back to the House stating, obviously, the changes to the existing law, which is under the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and proposed minor drafting changes for that in terms of clarity and consistency. So I invite members in the Chamber, should you have a copy of the bill before you, to turn to those, specifically the headings in clause 4.
Clause 4 is at page 3 of the reported copy of the bill that we have, and for the benefit of those who have a copy of the bill itself before them, it would be at page 3. So I’m going to speak to—for, I think, ease of reference—that which was reported from the select committee around the proposed amendments; so, at page 3 of that report, the insertion under clause 4 of a cross-heading, which is “Drugs smuggling outside New Zealand, etc”. So is the chair comfortable with the member and other members of the committee referring to that? In clause 4, it makes reference there to “Powers for dealing with drugs smuggling outside New Zealand etc”.
We can turn over now to new schedule 5A, which details, from page 11 onwards, the powers specifically granted to those enforcement officers when dealing with drug smuggling. I invite the Minister to consider that in relation to those powers, from page 11 of the bill through to page 17, including “Supplementary provisions”. Is this aligned somewhat similarly with the Search and Surveillance Act and the powers there that empower our police officers in relation to the acts and powers of search and seizure? I take it that the officials who have worked on that have cross-referenced appropriately the Customs and Excise Act, and also, just in light of the fact that there are these powers detailed which are powers of investigation, powers of arrest, powers of detention, and powers of forfeiture. So we have here empowering search and seizure - type laws.
So it’s really just a matter for the Minister to turn his mind to, in considering that, consistency. However, appropriately, this is about the extension of powers for our enforcement officers in relation to drug smuggling that happens on the maritime seas outside New Zealand chartable, navigated waters, into the scope of international waters, and also beyond those waters. So I invite the Minister to perhaps take some advice as to whether there may be some inconsistencies around the powers that are being granted to our officials in relation to the search, the seizure, the forfeiture, and also the other miscellaneous provisions. Thank you for your ear time. Kia ora.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a few points and, first of all, to defend the comment made by the Minister Kris Faafoi in his last speech where he attacked me for just pointing out the reality of what people listening to this committee today would have seen. I merely pointed out that the Government of the day has indicated that they have nobody checking drug dealers coming into this country, and that that’s an opportunity for anybody that wanted to come in. That would be exactly what the people that would be listening that are of that persuasion will be doing: they’ll be booking flights from Melbourne, coming in at 3 o’clock tomorrow morning and bringing their gear in, and it’s a free ride because you can’t get picked up. There’s no one there. There’s no one there to pick you up.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I won’t be doing it. I won’t be doing it, so I don’t need to be picked up.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: But we have got a profiling system that will do that so—I just want to make it clear I’m not in any way bringing the Chair into this debate at all.
The other thing that the Minister said is that it is very clear that this is a Labour-led Government bill. Now, I remember the Hon Mark Mitchell and myself were actually on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and maritime powers and their relation to international rules have been something we actually debated in that committee some years ago. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as well, it’s been in there as well, so this has not had a genesis—
Mark Patterson: What did you do about it?
Hon Ron Mark: You got paid as a Minister.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Is that member over there saying something—the New Zealand First member that paid $300,000 to Winston Peters and then suddenly ripped up the contract and now can’t find his contract? But I know he’s got it in his bottom drawer because—well, yes, Madam Chair, I know you wouldn’t have it in your bottom drawer either.
But, certainly, the Labour members and New Zealand First members are promoting a bill here today which Simeon Brown very correctly identified has got a law and order focus to it. If we look at it, it says that it enables necessary enforcement action to be taken in international waters. That is a law and order focus. That reflects the National Party, which set this bill up in the first stage. We’re not talking about a health issue as the new approach to drugs is—and I must admit the Green Party will be very, very happy that they now are talking in this House about drugs and drug smuggling as a health issue rather than a law and order issue. The Greens are nodding. It’s something they’ve always wanted to see happen because they don’t see drugs as an illegal activity; they see it as a health issue.
This is a very unusual bill for the New Zealand First and Labour members to be supporting, because it takes an enforcement approach, a law and order approach. So I feel the Minister might need to take this bill back to his office and reflect on the new approach that we’re seeing to drug dealing in New Zealand now: that it is a health issue and that it has no consequences. First of all, the person’s not going to get picked up at the border because there’s nobody there to pick them up, and, secondly, they can come in and live in a free house and still, basically, be a drug dealer, and it doesn’t mean anything because it’s a health issue and it’s not a legal issue. So we’ve seen that new precedent created today, which I’m sure the New Zealand public will be very interested to hear the logic behind, and which I’m sure New Zealand First will take a month to reflect on and then decide that they can’t support, and they will seek some kind of compensation in some other form, as we know happens with that party.
But if we go further down the bill, it talks about the jurisdiction of a drug-smuggling offence committed in international waters. It uses the word “offence” and says what the offence will be if an individual on a ship is in international waters and involved in the smuggling of drugs. They are law and order perspectives, and I just can’t reconcile that with the new approach of this new Government to drug dealing as a health issue. I really would like the Minister to explain how he reconciles this bill with his senior members’ new approach to drug dealing and his coalition partner’s considered and always consistent approach to drug dealing—that was the Green Party, that they saw it as a health issue. We know that the Minister of Justice is firmly behind the approach that this is a health issue and not a criminal issue. He does not see that drugs in any form are a criminal issue.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Customs): Madam Chair, thank you for giving me another call. I thought I’d better do so because after the last contribution by David Bennett I feared there might be a closure soon.
Can I respond to some of the questions that have been asked from members opposite. First of all, to Chris Penk’s question about the date from which this piece of legislation comes into force, it is closely aligned to another piece of legislation, the Customs and Excise Act, which comes into force the same day. I think it’s a fair question that the member asks as to the readiness of the Customs Service to be ready for the new regimes. Can I just assure the member that in the short time that I’ve been the Minister of Customs, this is an issue that the customs management are taking very seriously, and have done, I think, excellent work, given that the time frame is not too far away, to ensure that all front line and management and leadership are ready for the change in regime with the Customs and Excise Act and also with this piece of legislation as well.
I think a number of members have asked questions about the new bill in terms of powers that have existed pre—and will exist post—the passing of this legislation. As I mentioned, and others have mentioned, there are already two international treaties which New Zealand is party to. Again, article 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and article 17 of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances allow in some part limited powers under international law, but this piece of legislation, as I said, gives some certainty by putting it in our own legislation.
Mr Walker, thank you for your concern for my health, but I can answer you in terms of your question around vessels: if you look at clause 8(3) of new schedule 5A you will see that vessels can be forfeited and further assets may be sought also under the proceeds of crimes legislation. I also think Simeon Brown asked a fair enough question in terms of the definition of “precursor substance”. If I can point Mr Brown to page 12 of the bill—the copy of the bill that I’ve got anyway—the definition of “precursor substance” is the same as at clause 1 in new schedule 5A: “Precursor substance has the meaning given to that term in section 2(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act”. So if Mr Brown would like to know exactly what that is, then I suggest he head towards that section in that particular piece of legislation.
Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report adopted.
Bills
Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I move, That the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The purpose of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill is to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and consistency of the military justice system with the law governing the criminal justice system and to correct minor flaws in the relevant legislation. Most significantly, it aligns the rights of victims in the military system with those in the civilian system.
I would like to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell, who introduced this bill on 15 August 2017, for the work that he did when he was the Minister of Defence. It is an important bill and one that I was happy to take forward, given its intent of making legislative amendments to the military justice system in the areas of victims’ rights, notice of judiciary appointments, court martial procedures, and onus of proof, which I will speak about in a little while.
The bill was considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which reported back to the House on 4 May. The select committee process and the committee’s report demonstrated the strength of this bill—again, I say, put up by the Hon Mark Mitchell—as do the broad support it enjoys both in this House and within the wider community and, I will say, specifically within the military community. During the consideration of the bill by the committee of the whole House, it has enjoyed the full support—again a testament to the strength and importance of the bill.
One part of the bill that has been subject to much comment during both the second reading and during the committee of the whole House is that around onus of proof, in particular. I wish to make clear that under the common law and section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, any accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law, something that I didn’t always feel was actually—so, when I was a recruit under training at Regular Force Cadet School, they often pre-empted their orders with the words “March in the guilty [person]”—to change the word slightly, Mr Mitchell.
The prosecution has the burden of proof to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. That right also applies in the military justice system. Until now, however, there has been an odd quirk within the Armed Forces Discipline Act section 3(2). Clause 4 of the bill is intended to remove this unusual exception, whereby, should a person have a defence to a specific offence, they must prove it on the balance of probabilities. This was a reflection of provisions that used to exist in the civilian system but had been repealed.
I also introduced during the committee of the whole House a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that the changes intended by the Courts Matters Bill to the way fitness to stand trial is managed would be equally reflected in the Armed Forces Discipline Act. This could not have been done prior to the committee stage as it was most appropriate to wait until the Court Matters Bill had been recommended to the House by the Justice Committee considering it. That Supplementary Order Paper was also agreed to by the committee. With these changes, the military justice system is updated and better aligned with that in the civilian system, and on that basis I commend the bill to the House.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a great pleasure, actually, to be in the House today and rise in support of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, which is of course in its third reading. Can I acknowledge the previous speaker, the Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, because, yes, we did introduce this bill. He didn’t need to pick it up and keep it moving but he saw that it was a good bill, and that actually there’s not a lot of point in having two disparate systems, one running in our military justice system and the other in our civilian force. So it just made good sense, especially around putting some more protections around victims and how they’re treated through the military justice system as well. So can I just acknowledge him for supporting the bill and carrying on the good work and sponsoring it through the House so that we can come here today and we can pass this legislation.
As I was saying, one of the most important changes, to me, has been around victims, so I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of the changes that were made to victims’ rights. Part 3 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 confers rights on victims of certain serious offences—especially, namely, sexually-related offences or violent offences—including the right to be kept informed and the right to be consulted in respect of decisions such as bail. If you talk to the victims of these types of offences, one of the things that’s most important—that’s critically important to them, actually—is that they are kept aware of the status of the offender. You’d be surprised at how many tragic cases we’ve had in the past, if you go back 20 or 30 years, where actually offenders have been given bail or their status has changed and the victims or the victims’ families have never been notified and never been told of that change of status. Sometimes they have been put in a terrible situation. Sometimes it’s resulted in a horrible outcome.
The amendments made by this bill are that victims of specific offences have rights and protections in the military justice system that are equivalent to those that they would receive in the criminal justice system. I’ll just go back to the point that the Minister raised, and I’m just reinforcing that, which is that it made no sense in having rights for victims in our civilian court system and, of course, our New Zealand Defence Force personnel, who are actually out there serving the country, didn’t have the same rights in our military justice system.
I’m just going to move forward to objecting to a military member. This is a bit more technical, and this does relate really to just what’s happening in the military justice system, but it is actually really important. Before this change was made, you could end up with the invidious position where you have a miscarriage of justice because, actually, the appointment of a military member to that court, for whatever reason, couldn’t have been challenged. There was no legislative provision for the director of military prosecutions or the prosecutor to object to the assignment of a military member to the court martial. So that simply meant that if a military member was nominated, there was no way of objecting to them. In the civilian system, if you’re going trial by jury, then there’s a process—if you’d ever seen it—where actually the jurors can be challenged by either the defence or the prosecution. That was actually—for whatever reason, whatever technicality—not possible in our military justice system.
It is possible now that the director of military prosecutions or the prosecutor may be aware of circumstances that would make it untenable for a particular person to be assigned or to sit as a military member. However, in the absence of a formal process for raising such matters with the court, there is the potential for a miscarriage of justice. The bill amends the Court Martial Act 2007 to remedy this anomaly. Like I said, it may seem very technical, but it’s actually very important. We’re very proud of our justice system in New Zealand, whether it be civilian or military, and the last thing that we want to see occurring is a miscarriage of justice.
Onus of proof: section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 provides that the onus—and the Minister was talking about this. He was relating it back with tongue in cheek as being the young army officer or being in the army, and often you’d feel, in that environment, that actually you were guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty. Although he was using some humour, there was an important message around this, and this is exactly what the onus of proof actually speaks to. The onus is on the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, any excuse, exception, exemption, or qualification that the accused relies on as a defence to a charge. So the onus of proof was actually back on the person being accused.
Provisions placing the onus of proof on the accused have largely been removed from the criminal justice system following the decision of the Supreme Court in R v Hansen—that was back in 2007. There is no good reason for members of the armed forces who are tried under the military justice system to have an onus of proof imposed on them that is not imposed in the criminal justice system, and that comes back to the heart of what the Minister raised. So this has been another very good change in the bill.
I’m very happy to stand in support of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I would also like to mention my predecessor, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He was a big driver of this as well. I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their work. I understand this has unanimous support in the House, and I was very pleased to take a call. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill in this third reading and to acknowledge the speaker who has just resumed his seat, Mark Mitchell. Obviously, this bill has had a lengthy gestation, but it’s one that has had the support of all sides of the House so far, and long may that continue.
It’s important to note that for those men and women who are serving in the uniforms of our defence services, they have to operate in a highly disciplined environment. So their workday situation is different for them, but the one thing they should be able to expect is that if they are facing an allegation of misconduct, or ill-discipline, or, effectively, an internal crime, the same standards of justice that apply to every other citizen in the country also apply to them, understanding the importance of the disciplined environment in which they must work. It is encouraging, indeed satisfying, to see in this piece of legislation work that started, actually, under the previous Labour Government, continued under the most recent National-led Government, and now being rounded out by this coalition Government achieving the objective that was long set for it, which is that members of our armed forces get access to, or are guaranteed, justice in accordance with the same principles that every other citizen has.
So as the Hon Mark Mitchell, who has just resumed his seat, has said, a number of areas that this bill covers include changing the previous military onus of proof provisions, where if a member of the Defence Forces was up on a charge and was relying on a particular defence, or an exception or an exemption, the onus was on them to prove that that applied. That now goes back to the consistent situation that every civilian citizen faces, which is that those prosecuting, those bringing the charge, bear the burden of proving every element of the charge. That is right, and that is the correct thing to do.
Secondly, in terms of victims’ rights, this bill enables those who are victims of offending by a member of the armed services to have the same rights that a civilian would get under the Victims’ Rights Act, mutatis mutandis. There are some variations to meet the disciplinary environment, but they have rights of notification. Where there are issues of detention or bail, or if they’ve been transferred to a hospital or other form of detention, then the victim has a right of notification for those things as well. When it comes to penalty, the victim has a right to have their views represented, either themselves or through a representative. When it comes to the notification procedures, as well as that, the victim of a misconduct or offence by a member of the armed services has the right to appoint a representative to receive notifications and advice on what is happening with the particular matter. So all of that is right and good.
Then, of course, the other final point that both Mr Mark Mitchell and, indeed, the Hon Ron Mark referred to was the substitution provisions for members of the bench hearing an offence. If they are to change—if a member who has started hearing a matter falls ill or is indisposed and cannot continue to hear it and there needs to be either replacement, there is the right, in fact, to have a say about that. It doesn’t make sense part-way through a trial involving more than one person on the bench for things to continue with somebody who’s only heard half the evidence. So it is right that those rights and powers are clarified and, indeed, established for members of our armed services.
This bill brings consistency in terms of rights and principles between the military justice system and the civilian justice system, and those who move in and out of both—particularly those who are members of our territorial forces—know that regardless of what status they are acting in, they will have the same rights to justice and the principles of justice that they would have, regardless of which world they are walking in. That is right.
I just make this point. As somebody who, as an MP, has had the great privilege of seeing many of our men and women in uniform serving, whether it’s training here, whether it’s operating here, or whether it’s operating abroad—indeed, I was on a trip with the Hon Mark Mitchell to Iraq, where we watched the deployment up there doing their job in very difficult circumstances—I say that every New Zealander should be very proud of the discipline with which our armed forces operate and work. The leadership that every member—those who are officers and those who are non-commissioned—demonstrates and that they show and the discipline that they have makes me very proud, having seen that, and I know every New Zealander will be proud of the approach that they take to their role.
So I would certainly hope—look, in the nature of any human organisation, there are going to be those who are going to fall by the wayside and make wrong choices every now and again. But I think we can be satisfied that the armed services serving in the name of New Zealand and representing New Zealanders and defending our reputation and our rights and interests are good people. It is through not only effective training and the culture that has developed within our armed services; it is systems like the military justice system that also inculcates that sense of discipline and respect for each other and respect for the law. So, on that basis, like my colleagues, I support the bill.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill, and I suppose you could say I’ve been parachuted in from left field to some extent, because I’ve certainly played no part in the earlier discussions on this bill. Given the speeches of the legal and military heavyweights who have preceded me, I’ll deal with a few different issues that I think are very relevant to the bill.
I want, firstly, to commend the Ministers—the two previous ones and the current one—who have brought this bill to the House. I also want to speak briefly about the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee under the leadership of Simon O’Connor, of which I’ve been no part, and you can’t blame the Parliament for not wanting me to be part of our foreign affairs discussion. I think I get to speak on this bill because I do have three of the major Defence Force bases in my Rangitīkei electorate—and I’m extremely proud of that—in the Linton, Ōhākea, and Waiōuru military bases. Also, from the weekend on, I will be able to lob a ball from my bed on to the Ōhākea base. I won’t take that chance, because they’re pretty alert; so I won’t be doing that, but I do live very close to the Ōhākea base. I also, incidentally, was called up; so I’d be one of very few people in this House who might have ever been called up, and when you see me walk, you’ll see why I never completed that service.
The men and women who join our Defence Force join it knowing full well what they’re going into. I would think that a hundred years ago you could very well have said they didn’t understand fully what they were going into, and certainly they didn’t expect to end up where they ended up. So you can see why military justice law in those days was very different than what it needs to be now. This piece of legislation really brings the military justice system into line with the rest of our criminal justice system, and it also enables members of the Defence Force to be treated in the same manner, whether they’re in the Defence Force military justice system or in the criminal justice system.
I want to make the point here that this bill doesn’t refer to mass disrespect or mass criminal offending in the Defence Force; it will be very rarely used. When you live where I live, like all other men and women, from time to time they fall foul of some sort of legislation on a Friday night and they inevitably appear in our justice system—the normal justice system. There are a number of cases now where members of our Defence Force have appeared in the normal justice system, but there are specific areas where they haven’t in the past. One or two of the things that I think are very important in this case is that there used to be no way that some of these crimes would ever appear on these service people’s records—and when I say “some”, it’s very rare as well. It would be that you could commit a reasonably serious crime in the Defence Force that would not appear on your record in the future. I think, at the end of the day, from a community-safety perspective and the safety of our people, it’s necessary that those people are treated in the same manner, whether they’re in the Defence Force or outside the Defence Force.
So I think this bill, as has been said before me, does a pretty good job. It tidies up an area that, historically, has been untidy. It aligns the Defence Force legal justice system with the criminal justice system. It protects victims’ rights and ensures that they are treated the same way, whether they’re in the Defence Force or out. As I think all three speakers have mentioned, it reverses the onus of proof, and that’s an issue that’s been much discussed in the Parliament in the time that I’ve been here, whether it’s in this bill or whether it’s in other bills that we have dealt with. I don’t think a firm conclusion as to the best way has ever been come to. Obviously, the courts have ruled on this, but I don’t know whether a firm conclusion has ever been come to as to what the best way of doing that is, but none the less this bill has standardised it.
I want to congratulate the people who brought this bill to the House. I fully support it. I also want to make the point once again that I think the men and women who join our Defence Force are a huge credit to us. They go all over the world at significant risk to themselves. Whilst I think that our Defence Force has changed the way it operates internationally, it is a huge credit to them that they can go out there into all those dangerous places and do what they do in the form of what we might perhaps now term “peacekeeping” rather than what we used to term “going to war”, effectively. None the less, the same risks apply to them. They are under pressure all the time, and I think to bring them back here to New Zealand, they need to be treated as almost, I guess, the heroes they are, because they are special people.
I’ve got no problem commending this bill to the House, and I’m sure it will go through to its conclusion with unanimous support. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. I want to begin by acknowledging the former Minister of Defence, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and also the current defence Minister, the Hon Ron Mark. I want to congratulate both of them and thank them for their work with regard to this bill. As we’ve heard from speakers who have spoken before me, the military justice system is currently not aligned with the civilian criminal justice system, and that is what this bill seeks to do. It confers the same rights to military victims of serious offences, including those who are victims of sexual offences and other violent offending. It confers them with the same rights that are afforded to victims through the civilian criminal justice system.
This is essentially a bill that is about fairness and it’s about equality of justice for military members. It also removes an unnecessary process step that is contained within the Court Martial Act 2007 so that any judicial appointment to the court martial would now be published through the Gazette, rather than requiring prior arrangements with the Chief of Defence Force, and this increases the efficiency of the system. In essence, what this bill aims to do is align the two systems, as I’ve previously mentioned, and also enhance the efficiency, the transparency, and the consistency of the system, as well. It also makes an amendment to the court martial procedure. It aligns the provisions governing whether an accused is unfit to stand trial with those provisions that are contained within the criminal justice system, as well.
Finally, this bill makes a significant change also to the onus of proof within the military justice system. I know that previous speakers have gone into that in quite a bit of depth, so I think I will just leave it there for now and say that this is a good bill. It ensures that provisions of a number of aspects related to the military justice system will be aligned with the criminal justice system, and it aligns with this coalition Government’s focus on the values of fairness and equality of justice. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in the third reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s encouraging to see, actually, that an encouraging mood of congeniality and support has broken out across the House this afternoon. It’s splendid, and I would like to, I guess, congratulate the Labour-led Government for their support for this bill. It was originally put forward by the previous Minister of Defence, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and I thank him for his work on this and subsequently the current Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, for continuing this work, progressing this through as a necessary piece of legislation to really update and amend some of those aspects around both the military justice system and how that relates to and compares with the civilian system as well.
There are a couple of aspects, actually. Just before I delve into the detail of it, I want to comment on a previous speaker Ian McKelvie’s words of support as well in terms of his reference to having three of our defence force bases in his electorate. It’s quite a large electorate, of course, that he looks after and does a fantastic job of representing as a hard-working local MP. I am proud to have been able to have spent some time in his electorate, running round in the character-building environment that is the Waiōuru military training area. I have many fond memories—
Hon Ron Mark: Good for people. Good for people, that.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —of my time. Yes. Good for your health. Good for the mind—character building, indeed. There is nothing quite like seeing a warm car driving along the Desert Road in the distance when the sleet’s coming in sideways at 2 in the morning on sentry duty. That aside—
Hon Ron Mark: Gives you a reason to get out of bed.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —ha, ha! That’s right. It is the reason we get out of bed. Yes, infantry all the way.
Anyway, so coming to this particular bill. Now, this is an update, really, effectively, bringing into alignment some of the aspects of the military justice legislation as it exists for that environment. It is, I think, important to note that there is a unique set of circumstances in any military environment and you do need to have a separate system for military justice compared to a civilian system.
Having said that, though, there are certain elements that should of course be in alignment as much as possible, and this bill is bringing those a little close together in some of those aspects—in particular, around the onus of proof. It’s repealing the previous provision in the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 that places the onus of proof for defence of a specific charge on to the accused. So, really, what we’re moving now towards is, as in the civilian setting, innocent until proven guilty, in layman’s terms. So, really, it’s about better alignment there, recognising that that’s the more appropriate manner in which to reflect justice through both the military system as well as the current civilian system.
Alongside that, the other key aspect is around victims’ rights. This is really important. We need to be ensuring that the victims’ rights are placed at the heart of our decisions in any justice process actually, not just this. I would encourage the justice Minister to ensure that he does consider victims’ rights if he is holding another summit—hopefully, not at similar cost to the last one. That aside, victims’ rights are absolutely crucial in this environment.
One of the other key aspects within this as well was around the fitness to stand trial. In military environments, there can be some incredibly confronting situations that soldiers deployed on operations can be faced with—some pretty tough stuff to comprehend that can lead to all sorts of different scenarios playing out. That’s certainly not necessarily justification for a particular offence or not, but it is a recognition, I think, of the fact that those situations can be quite unique and quite challenging. Post-traumatic stress disorder—we’ve seen that recognised a lot more widely in recent years than it was post - World War I and World War II. Although, no doubt, it was present then, it was not understood and appreciated and supported appropriately. We have a much better grasp on some of those mental challenges around mental wellness at the moment; so that, I think, is part of why we need to be clear around whether or not people are fit to stand trial in this situation.
The key aspect here, as I mentioned, is modernising these three bills to make sure that they’re actually in alignment—the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, the Court Martial Act 2007, and the Court Martial Appeals Act 1953. So if we can bring all those into alignment, I’m confident we’ll have a much better outcome for our military justice system and for those who are bound by and operate within those parameters as well.
I would just like to take a moment to thank all members of our defence forces for the incredible work that they have done throughout their tenure in those particular services—whichever one it may be—and for what they are doing currently and will continue to do. It is an incredible job. They put their lives on the line for our country. They do any number of tasks that are above and beyond on a regular basis so that everyone in New Zealand can enjoy a prosperous, successful life. We are also contributing to global stability, which is an important aspect for us as a major trading nation, in terms of those relationships with our trade and international partners. Defence contribution plays a significant role, especially around peacekeeping missions these days, which is much more encouraging than all the war that we did see throughout the last century, on two major occasions of course.
So, look, with that, I think I would just like to finish up by thanking the current Minister, the previous Minister again, and also the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their work in this. It passed through, effectively, without amendment other than including Supplementary Order Paper 37. So, really, I think we’ve got a good conclusion here, and I therefore commend this bill to the House.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. Look, I’ll reveal to the House that I come from a military family. Both my parents actually met in the New Zealand Navy; wider family was involved in it. I rebelled: I joined the “hippie navy” and went sailing with the Rainbow Warrior instead. But it’s an important part of my history and an important part of our country’s history. What we’re doing today, with the support, I believe, of all parties in the House, is aligning and updating our military legislation and making it closer, in terms of the progress we’ve made in the civilian sector, with our normal justice system. There are three main positive changes from this legislation, regarding victims’ rights, the onus of proof, and those cases where the person is unfit to stand trial.
The first is preserving victims’ rights. Here you did see a very clear anomaly and separation between the two justice systems. As a result of our 2002 victims’ rights legislation, those who were, unfortunately, a victim of serious sexual or physical violence had the right to be informed not only about the application of bail but wider sections such as bail breaches, release, and escape of offenders who had offended against them. What we know is that that wasn’t the case within the military justice ecosystem—a clear separation—and, I think, for those who were subject to those offences in the military system, quite a clear and egregious secondary abuse to them. I know it could be seen as quite a traumatic experience and a re-victimisation when the information just wasn’t provided; so I’m glad to see this updated.
At the, I guess, meta-level, I want to read a quote from Golriz Ghahraman, from the Green Party, who was standing in for us on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and heard the submissions: “In this case, the discrepancies between the procedural safeguards, the standards for fitness to stand, and even victims’ rights were not in alignment and therefore … not really knowable to those who they apply to. And that kind of discrepancy really kind of undermines the rule of law across those jurisdictions.” This is where, I think, for me it was quite shocking to learn that there was not only a separation but a complete reversal of the onus of proof in the military justice system. I bet that if you surveyed New Zealanders, 99 percent of them wouldn’t be aware of this and would be quite staggered, because it is such an important constitutional point in our traditional justice system. It’s great that the onus of proof is being reversed back to what most people would consider a more natural and normal sense.
Lastly, when it comes to those cases where the alleged offender is declared unfit to stand trial, what is happening in this legislation is now aligning it more closely with the civilian justice sector, requiring two expert psychiatric reports before someone is declared or considered unfit to stand trial—a much better situation than the status quo in the military justice sector.
So, look, I won’t take too much more time, except to say that this is positive legislation. I guess, on the other side of the ledger, while we’re also talking about our civilian law as it relates to the military forces, I’d like to acknowledge the work of Dr Kennedy Graham, a former Green MP, who’s been pushing successive Governments to sign up to, in our legislation, the, I believe, Kampala convention internationally, where heads of State can be put on trial when they breach international law when it comes to conflicts, abuse of power, and invading other nations, for example—something I hope to introduce as a concept to this House, if members are unaware, and something I believe it’s high time for our country to sign up to. Kia ora koutou.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this, the third and final reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure to do so as I start, in particular, by saluting the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force. I thank them for their service and also those, in particular, who have been involved in helping the legislative process of putting together this bill.
The defence forces have been a solid and continuous feature of our national security for many years. While politicians come and go, it’s our military that’s charged with keeping us safe on the international stage—indeed, the national stage, too, to the extent that they are involved in non-traditional military operations such as search and rescue and disaster recovery and the like. I’d like to acknowledge and thank Ministers past and present for their work in bringing the bill to the House and, indeed, to this relatively late stage. I see the current Minister of Defence is present with us, so I acknowledge him in particular, and also the officials and advisers who have been an integral part of putting together the bill that we have before us now, such that my fellow members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and I have been able to contemplate it.
I think a helpful context for a discussion involving military justice is the relationship between discipline and morale. Morale, it’s almost a truism to say, is crucial within a defence context to make the boat go faster, if it’s a warship—I start with the navy for parochial reasons—or the aircraft to fly that much better, or for the soldiers to march that much further, or whatever the appropriate analogy might be. But it’s crucial to have good morale, and an aspect of that is to have discipline within the units of the Defence Force that the various women and men of our Defence Force can rely upon in relation to fairness, equality, and certainty. Those values, like in the rule of law that applies to all New Zealanders, are reflected in particular provisions of this bill that helpfully reverse some anomalies that other members have already spoken of.
In the context of the Defence Force—particularly the navy, with which I have some familiarity—we used to talk about lower-deck lawyers and cuff-rate lawyers, somewhat disparaging about those of our colleagues who—
Hon Ron Mark: Barrack-room lawyers.
CHRIS PENK: Barrack-room lawyers? Excellent—very good. Well, I’ve had an army equivalent educated to me by the Minister of Defence, so I thank him for that. So the general principle seems to be that the Defence Force has no shortage of people who are willing to tell others about their rights and responsibilities, and, indeed, that’s a healthy thing. A natural consequence of that, I think, sometimes, is that there are urban legends that prevail, whereby all kinds of stories and explanations might go around the mess decks about what is and is not the case regarding military justice.
I think if the average soldier, sailor, or airman had been told, upon joining, that their rights were such that if they were accused, in fact, of a crime in a military context they would not have the right to rely on the standard burden of proof provisions of the law, I think they would be amazed and probably somewhat disbelieving of such rough and ready advice. However, as we have heard, that is indeed the case as it stands now, but perhaps not shortly—hopefully, not shortly—once the bill passes. The Armed Forces Discipline Act currently states, in section 3(2), that the onus is on the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, “any excuse, exception, exemption, or qualification” that the accused relies on as a defence to a charge. It was explained quite clearly, and I think accepted very readily by members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, that this was an anomaly to the extent that it departed from the general standard of New Zealand law—indeed, Westminster and common law justice systems throughout the ages and across the waters—so it makes sense to be righting that wrong by the passage of this legislation now.
A couple of other aspects of the bill have not been touched on so much in these parliamentary debates. They are, I suppose, less arresting in the sense that they are not such major headline kinds of events, but none the less it is worth noting, perhaps at least in passing, that the Court Martial Act 2007, for example, is being amended by this legislation so that there can be a situation in which a particular person might be inappropriate to be sitting as a military member on such a court martial. There is provision now for that to be objected to in a way that you would expect in any sort of judicial or quasi-judicial process, whereby a decision maker is expected to be fully above board in all respects in relation to that particular case.
So, with no further ado, I’ll join colleagues across the House in congratulating those involved in the passage of the bill, thanking members of our New Zealand Defence Force, and I look forward to the implementation and passing into law of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you, my colleague David Bennett. We are having a split call, and I do appreciate you allowing me to go first.
As a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we have considered the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I just wanted to start with the purpose of the bill, which is, essentially, to bring efficiency, transparency, and consistency to both the military justice system and our criminal justice system, because, currently, they’re separate. The objective has been to align military justice with criminal justice, because, at the end of the day, the people who are part of our society, whom our criminal justice system serves, and the people in the military are actually equal citizens of our country. The whole objective of this bill is to ensure fairness and equality of justice, and also to ensure that victims of serious crime actually have the same rights and receive the same support.
We really need to look at where, I guess, the context of this change came from, and it was actually a review of the military justice system that took place between 2002 and 2006. It was to look at whether or not the military justice system was robust and fair and to align it with our criminal justice system. I do want to note that the review was a collaboration between the New Zealand Defence Force, the Ministry of Justice, and the Chief Judge of the Court Martial, and, specifically, in consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and victims’ support. It did make amendments in the following four areas, and this is what this bill will do.
The first—and one of the foci of this piece of legislation—was around victims’ rights. It is to ensure that it conferred the same rights to military victims of serious offences, including sexual or violent offences, as those rights afforded to victims in the civilian criminal justice system. I think we’ve all become a lot more aware of the sensitivities in those situations, in making sure that victims have access immediately to counselling and other support services, given the trauma of being a victim of sexual violence.
It was also about judicial appointments and ensuring that judicial appointments were fit for purpose, and that purpose was to ensure that there were no conflicts of interest, and also to separate what, interestingly, had been a kind of situation within the military system where military commanding officers, essentially, had all the power and could do whatever they wanted. I will talk about a case from the UK which kind of highlights all the flaws in the military justice system.
It was also about court martial procedure, and whether an accused was, in the first instance, unfit to stand trial, because what you had in the military justice system was a trial, and then there was an assessment about whether or not that person was incapacitated and actually should have stood trial in the first place. So if people are unfit to stand trial because they have a mental illness or they are deemed by a psychiatrist to be in a state of insanity and they shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, then, in fact, why would we go through an entire court process?
And then the other major focus has been on shifting the onus of proof. In the criminal justice system, if someone, like the police, takes a charge against you, they have to prove that you’ve committed a crime. In the military justice system, actually, by mere virtue of you being charged, there’s an assumption that you’re guilty, and so, again, that was probably a big highlight.
What I wanted to share was that these things have been driven because of precedents, and there was a case in the European Court of Human Rights. Essentially, it was because a soldier had fought in the Falklands. He’d witnessed horrific things, and he actually had a mental breakdown while he was still working for the military. He tried to kill himself—shot a television—and he went right through the court martial process. That shouldn’t happen, and this bill will stop that in the future. Kia ora.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Just following on from previous speakers in this debate, I think everyone’s pretty much of the same ilk: that we need to actually make sure that the military justice legislation is updated so that there is treatment in the military system that is commensurate with what you would get in the criminal justice system, and so that there is no sense that victims or those that are going through the system have a different approach that could be to the detriment of themselves—and taking into account that this bill has the support of the parties in this House to make sure it goes through. When we look at this bill, it was introduced by the previous Minister in 2017 as part of that adjustment and renewal of the military justice system.
First, I want to just acknowledge those great men and women that serve in our country’s armed forces and put their lives on the line for our country’s safety and security. Their dedication to New Zealand is second to none, and they deserve to have the best of our justice systems as well, for anybody that may find themselves in a situation needing that. So I think that’s important.
I’d just like to acknowledge the other Minister here, Minister Ron Mark, who’s taking this bill through, and the parties that will be voting for it in the House here today. As has been said by other speakers, it does bring military proceedings into line with those in the civilian courts, where the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty. It also makes some changes around the procedure of court martial in New Zealand, aligning the provisions relating to fitness to stand with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and allowing a process for objecting to and substituting military members of the court martial.
When we look at those military members of the court martial, there is a couple of things in there that it does focus on, and that’s objection to a military member or substitution of a military member. So the objection—currently, there’s no ability for objection from the prosecutor. This would enable the process for that to happen, and that’s an important part of any justice system. Substituting a military member—this can be assigned to the court if the military member dies or is absent or retires or is found guilty of contempt. So this bill amends the Court Martial Act to provide that a substitute military member cannot be appointed after the accused has entered a plea, and that’s an important part of our natural justice system, as well.
The third area of real change is around the onus of proof, and section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act provides that the onus is on the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, “any excuse, exception, exemption, or qualification” that the accused relies on as defence to a charge. This provision is something that has been looked at in this bill. The bill repeals section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act as they should be tried just as in any other criminal justice system, where they have been considered innocent until proven guilty.
So this is a bill which, I should imagine, would have full support through the House, and we look forward to it passing through.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): This is a piece of legislation going through which is highly significant, and I congratulate the Hon Ron Mark for bringing that and those from the Opposition before him who conceived this. In a previous existence, I had quite a lot to do with the military, and I expect Mr van de Molen and Mr Penk, who I know both came from the military, when they were there, probably weren’t aware of just the basic rights that they lacked. It was only when something occurred that people in the military realised just the world they lived in.
In my previous job, I often had meetings in darkened corridors and cafes where no one would be seen, where people from the military were seeking the right to start an association, to have some rights, and to have someone speaking on their behalf for the very reasons we’re seeing today. I think New Zealanders should understand that we send people off to do some pretty dangerous things and some terrible things are often bestowed on them, but, while we’ve done them, we’ve denied them some basic rights, and this legislation has brought to light just what we expect of our military out there. So I hope we see this as not the end of anything but just the start of acknowledging how we need to treat those in our military much better than we do today.
So I congratulate the Hon Ron Mark for bringing that today, and I just hope that in the future we can look at other legislation where we can actually make life much better for our people. I mean, just think about this: if you’re accused of something—and this had its genesis in a time when this could well have ended up with you in front of a firing squad. This is legislation that really had its genesis in the First World War, and we’re just now recognising some of the things that happened to our soldiers there. But, when you were accused, you had to prove that you were innocent. Just the mere fact that you were behind the line was enough and could, and did, get you shot.
So having a look at this legislation, again, particularly focusing on section 3(2) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, which we are repealing today, which has said that, unbelievably, the accused has to prove on the balance of probabilities any excuse, exception, exemption, or qualification that the accused relies on as a defence to a charge—I mean, can you believe that? That’s what we’re repealing today. So this is actually a very significant piece of legislation. We sit in the House here and talk about what we’re going to do, the tanks we’re going to buy, and the ships and various other pieces of paraphernalia, but, actually, it’s about the people. We often hear that expression used “It is people, it is people, it is people.”, in this House. This is about people. This is about our people, and I really do commend this to the House and hope that it’s not just the end of recognising that; it is the start of a necessary recognition for what we do and what we expect of our people who we send out there to look after us. I commend this to the House.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand for the third time to address the House on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. I am the last speaker for the National Party, and the National Party supports this bill which was introduced under the ministership of, at the time, my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell, as Minister of Defence, on 15 August 2017. I acknowledge our current Minister of Defence, Minister the Hon Ron Mark, and also your service that you’ve given as a senior military army officer, and also too our Minister of Justice, across the House—I also acknowledge the Hon Andrew Little.
So it’s quite significant and special that I’m able to take a final call on this matter with the Ministers present in the House. Also, may I share that I have just placed beside me a photo of my brother the deceased Lieutenant Colonel Waata Hīpango, who gave service of many years. When I first spoke to address the House in relation to this—I’ll just place Waata to the side—I referenced the significance of this, because of his service, but also it’s because of my service as a lawyer in the civilian criminal justice system.
So this is about an alignment of the military justice system with our civilian criminal justice system. So when I addressed the House first, rising to take a call at the first reading, I mentioned that I’d practised for many years—30 years—as a criminal lawyer, as a family lawyer, as a mental health lawyer, and as an advocate for our people but not as an advocate in the courts martial. So, speaking from that experience and the service that had been given by my brother and also many military personnel both passed and both still living, it really is a privilege for me to stand to address the House today on this bill.
So may I just share a brief anecdote from my experience. I come from a family that has given long military service and history dating back from the 1840s through to date. I sought to join the New Zealand Navy as an 18-year-old back in 1982. And I’m talking about alignment now, because I stand before the House to address the alignment of the military system with the criminal justice system. Back in 1982, as a young 18-year-old—people may calculate my age; I’m in my mid-50s—I sought to join the New Zealand Navy as a young officer.
I was denied that opportunity because I sought to pursue a legal career through the navy. My brother was a serving military officer at the time, and he had friends who were junior officers and they were tracking through doing their degree through the navy. That was denied me as a woman, and that was prior to the days of our anti-discrimination laws—that was 1982. We had, in 1990, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 19 addressed, particularly, freedom from discrimination. That was not available to young women seeking to join our military forces to pursue other levels of learning. Then, also, the Human Rights Act in 1993: section 21, which prohibits grounds of discrimination on the basis of sex. So there was a disalignment at the time.
Had I entered into the navy, I may not be standing here addressing the House as a member of Parliament, but I share that brief anecdote because this is very much about enhancing and very much about consistency, efficiency, and transparency, marrying the laws of our military justice system with our civilian justice system.
May I just turn now to the bill itself. I spoke about my experience as a Family Court lawyer and an advocate, also, in the criminal courts. Part 3 of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill is specific to victims’ rights. I have addressed the House about the importance of that in terms of victims now, under the military justice system, having the same rights, the same access to justice, but the same provision of justice as well under this legislation, and that is commendable.
I also turn to the importance of fitness to stand trial. As a criminal lawyer practising both in the criminal jurisdiction and the mental health court jurisdiction, I represented many people who came before the court. Now, a particular amendment that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee have proposed—and also, I believe, the Justice Committee as well—is the importance of aligning the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 under a Supplementary Order Paper for an amendment to be covered under the Courts Matters Bill to reverse the current sequence. What that means is that when I stood in court to represent a person who was mentally impaired or declared to be mentally disordered, the criminal law—until such time that the Courts Matters Bill is assented to; I believe it still stands at the moment—in the provision under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, specifically section 7, requires that the fitness to stand trial can only occur after all evidence has been heard to substantiate whether or not the offence or the omission has been committed.
So, basically, in short, what I’m saying is that as a result of this piece of legislation, it is seeking to reverse the requirement as to whether a person has committed the offence or the omission—to reverse that. So the priority comes around to the fitness of that person’s mental capacity as to whether they are fit to stand before the court for a trial. This is really important and significant legislation because the committee appropriately recognised, and seeks to amend by way of a Supplementary Order Paper under the Courts Matters Bill, the reversal of that part.
Time often escapes when one’s so immersed in the importance of this legislation and the detail of it. I turn now to the onus of proof. Significantly, as has been spoken to and addressed by colleagues and members of Parliament before the House, the onus of proof will now shift. Previously, in the military justice system, the onus of proof was on the accused to prove their innocence. That does not align, but will soon align, with what’s required under our civilian criminal justice system: that the onus of proof is on the prosecution to establish the offence or the omission.
So, in closing, may I just share again a brief anecdote. I had a visit, as many of us—I believe all of us, as members of Parliament—will, from the ambassador of the United States of America. Our discussions, again, led us into military service and history. Ambassador Scott Brown disclosed that he was a lieutenant colonel serving in the army—the national guard—and he has presented, not only to myself but, I believe, to all other members that he is meeting with, this coin. When he presented this coin, we just shared our relationships and associations by way of that military history and service. In closing, he had shared with me that he was aware of my brother—he’d done a little bit of background search for information.
So, in closing off, as the last speaker for the National Party, in commending this bill, soon to be legislation, to the House, I’m immensely privileged to be able to speak not only on behalf of the National Party but also of all of those persons who have given service in our armed forces and continue to give service. It is about aligning their access to justice in an equal and appropriate way. Tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.
VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. First and foremost, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Defence, Ron Mark, and also the former Minister of Defence the Hon Mark Mitchell, for the good work they’ve put into the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill reaching this third and final reading, this being the final speech in this as well.
It is an important bill that enables four really key areas in terms of alignment, and that’s around victims’ rights, notice of judicial appointments, court martial procedure, and onus of proof. Aligning the military justice system with the criminal justice system makes good sense. Military personnel deserve exactly the same rights enjoyed by civilian victims of serious crime, particularly those of a violent, sexual nature. We want to make sure there’s consistency across both of those systems.
There’s been a really interesting change, a good development, in general in New Zealand over a decade now, across both parties, to really acknowledge and enhance the rights of victims. The first significant change in this space, as already mentioned, has been in 2002 with the introduction and implementation of the Victims’ Rights Act. Victims of serious offences under that Act were given a right to be informed or notified of applications of bail, breaches of bail, and release and escape of offenders.
I know that was quite an onerous duty. I was involved in implementing some of that myself from the police’s end, and there is a lot of work that goes in to make sure victims are clearly aware of those key points in the justice system. Previously, for those under the military justice system, they were only advised of when bail was being granted. They weren’t even consulted; they were just advised. So ensuring that there is consistency across both those systems is important, and, as we see an increased diversification in terms of our military—we see more women involved—it’s important to make sure that everybody’s rights are protected in that space.
I won’t speak for a long time as this has been a good discussion and it’s good to see consensus across the House on a non-controversial but yet important piece of legislation. On the last sort of note, I’d like to say that it’s important that we don’t silo off or make insular those areas like the military, like the Defence Force. If there are positive changes happening across New Zealand society, it’s important that we bring those changes right across all the institutions within our country, and this is an excellent piece of legislation that makes that so. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Statutes Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the Statutes Amendment Bill.
As a member of this action-oriented Government, I’m happy to usher this bill through the House—[Interruption] Why are you chuckling? Ha, ha!—with the support of our political parties present. As the House will be aware, statutes amendment bills are legislative vehicles that make minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament.
The bill as introduced amends 42 Acts administered by 10 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references, such as an amendment to the Coroners Act 2006. Previously, coroners could rely on powers in the Criminal Procedure Act to order any person committing contempt to be taken into custody—this would apply until the rising of the court—or to sentence that person for contempt. Due to a cross-referencing error made by the District Court Act of 2016, coroners currently cannot sanction contempt of court for coronial proceedings. This amendment would restore the contempt powers of coroners. Another example is the amendment to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. This act sets out the order of priority when distributing money or property that is forfeited. One of the payments is paying the Secretary for Justice any amount payable by way of legal aid to the person whose property is forfeited. However, it is the Legal Services Commissioner’s function to recover legal aid debt, not the Secretary for Justice. This amendment would correct these references.
Some amendments make non-controversial and supported improvements to the way various Acts work in practice. The amendments to the Building Act, the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act, and the Registered Architects Act would ensure greater efficiency and consistency of the appointment process for all occupational regulatory boards. These amendments take away the Governor-General’s appointment and removal role, to create a consistent process across all occupational regulatory boards and to ensure more efficient process by reducing administrative work. An amendment to the Standards and Accreditation Act would modernise modification requirements for vacancies and resignations to the New Zealand Standards Approval Board. This amendment would mean that vacancies can be notified online, reducing costs and increasing the efficiency of the appointment process. Other changes make technical amendments to facilitate functions of governance. The New Zealand Government Property Corporation Act currently has a restriction on powers of attorney being used for documents that must be executed as deeds and are executed in New Zealand. This amendment would remove this restriction, reducing practical and administrative burdens.
The examples of amendments I’ve mentioned demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. While all the political parties in Parliament support the amendments proposed in the bill, I do look forward to hearing the committee’s examination and views on these matters as well as any views of the public. I look forward to the passage of this bill through its stages and will be working constructively with all parties as such bills are put together in the future. Madam Assistant Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and it’s my pleasure to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. The Minister did very well to get his composure back. I’m not sure whether it was that he hadn’t read the speech or whether it was something that his colleagues said to him, but, anyway, I do feel his pain because this Statutes Amendment Bill is actually a very important bill. The reality is that it’s an omnibus bill and it makes minor technical changes. So it’s not like it’s just for those who have got nothing better to do on a Thursday evening than watch Parliament TV. It’s not a bill that we’re going to debate in great depth around each of these changes. Because it’s an omnibus bill, they are very small, minor technical changes, and the Parliament uses a bill like this to be able to make a lot of changes through the passage of one bill. It saves the Parliament a lot of time.
If you will bear with me, Madam Assistant Speaker, I was going through some of the changes—the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014—and I wanted to acknowledge that we still have the Minister of Defence in the House, we still have the Minister of Justice, and we had a very heartfelt speech from one of my colleagues, Harete Hipango, relating to her brother’s service as well. I just wanted to touch very quickly on the fact that when I saw the Terrorism Suppression Act, it reminded me of a lot of work that I’d done with David Shearer, when we both sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I was lucky enough, in our last recess, to travel down to South Sudan and visit David Shearer, who is the UN Secretary-General’s special representative there, which means that he’s heading up UNMISS, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan.
To give you an idea of the challenge that he has, South Sudan is geographically about the size of France. It has no infrastructure—I mean no infrastructure. It has clay roads, and its main supply route is the White Nile, which comes from Port Sudan, through Khartoum, down to Juba. He’s got tribal warfare that’s been going on for centuries. He’s got corrupt politicians that he has to deal with. They’re right in the middle of a civil war, trying to broker a peace agreement, and he’s got 160,000 internally displaced people that the UN are actually providing security for and protecting. I was lucky enough to go with him to visit one of those camps so that I could have a clear understanding of what they’re actually dealing with. I want to acknowledge him, and I want to acknowledge the leadership that he’s providing in what is a very difficult situation.
The reason why I was there is that, in my previous role as Minister of Defence, I received a request from him asking for more support from our Defence Force. At that time, I thought that was definitely the right thing to do, and I signed it off. I was pleased to see that the incoming Government and the Minister continued with that commitment, and so I wanted to go down there, I wanted to visit them, and I wanted to see how they were doing on the ground and the challenges they were facing. I really wanted to be sure—as someone who doesn’t have a high level of confidence in the UN—that our people were being supported properly from New York. And, you know, the great thing about David Shearer is that if anyone can achieve something down there, a man like him can do it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): This is a great valedictory for our former colleague, but is this relating to the Armed Forces Discipline Act or the Terrorism Suppression Act? I’m having some difficulty identifying just which part of the Statutes Amendment Bill the member is referring to.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I understand that, Madam Assistant Speaker, and I thank you for your tolerance, because I knew that I was stretching it a bit—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): It might not last.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —in terms of bringing it back to the Terrorism Suppression Act and the Veterans’ Support Act—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: But I wanted to acknowledge our people down there and the work that they’re doing.
As I say, this is a highly technical bill and we go right from the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 right through to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Act 1965. I mean, you know, people might wonder what that’s about. I can see Rino Tirikatene over there. He’s definitely wondering what it’s about. So, quite simply, what it is: “Clause 155 provides that Part 42 amends the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Act 1965. Clauses 156 and 157 repeal the Long Title and insert a purpose provision that is based on the repealed Long Title and on section 18(1)(a).”
Brett Hudson: Tell us more about that! I’m not really interested in that.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’ll tell you about clause 158: “Clause 158 amends section 13 to add new functions to the Board. The amendment enables the Board to spend money ‘to increase public awareness of the Fund and to promote the other functions of the Board and the purpose of this Act’.” This is actually really important, because what it means is that the board can function a lot more efficiently, and they’re, obviously, funding projects and local groups. So although these are small and technical, and I come back to the Minister’s opening comments, they do often make a real difference in terms of governance and how people are actually trying to go about their work. We often have debates in this House about red tape and compliance; so it’s actually nice to be able to make technical changes that get rid of some of that red tape and compliance.
If I go back to the Veterans’ Support Act, we’ve had a lot of contact with the veterans over the last few weeks with our repatriation project that’s been ongoing. Again, I just want to acknowledge our Defence Force personnel and the great work that they’re doing. The veterans, the Minister, and I had a talk about this the other night. The veterans, of course, had a big part to play in that. If it wasn’t for their work over decades actually, in terms of bringing petitions to this House and making submissions to a select committee, we actually would never be repatriating. They had a massive part to play, alongside some of those families as well. I want to recognise them and acknowledge them.
“Clause 150 [of the Statutes Amendment Bill] provides that Part 41 amends the Veterans’ Support Act 2014.” and “Clause 151 amends the definition of working day in section 7 to exclude the relevant province’s anniversary day. This aligns the definition of working day in the Act with several other legislative definitions of working day. It will avoid confusion about when applications and correspondence may be processed and when statutory time frames start and finish.” So it is another good example of a minor technical change, but one that will actually make it much easier for people to understand what paperwork needs to be submitted and how they actually engage in the process.
“Clause 153 removes the reference to an ACC entitlement in section 271(1). Section 271(1) mirrors a provision of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, but the provision does not apply to the Veterans’ Support Act 2014.” So it is another very good example of where the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 was not aligned with an earlier Act, which is one that is, obviously, a much bigger Act and has a significant impact on people’s lives, and that’s the Accident Compensation Act of 2001.
“Clause 154 amends clause 2 of Schedule 1 to allow for certain older pensions to be adjusted to keep pace with the New Zealand Consumers Price Index (CPI). The pensions are those payable under section 29A of the War Pensions Act 1954 and Part 5A of the War Pensions Regulations 1956.” This is very important because this does relate directly to pensions, making sure that they do remain aligned with our CPI. “The pensions are preserved by clause 2 of Schedule 1 as if the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 had not been passed, but it is appropriate to allow for their adjustment in line with the more modern approach taken in section 31 of automatic updating in accordance with the CPI”—
Brett Hudson: That’s very interesting. That’s good.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —well—“(rather than requiring the rates to be adjusted to the same effect by amendment regulations every year.” So that has stopped actually having to go through a regulatory process, and it’s actually now just an automatic annual update. So that’s very sensible. It’s technical but it is very sensible.
Now, if I come to the State-Owned Enterprises Act, this is another one that I saw Rino Tirikatene—I know that he seems very interested in this one as well. Let’s talk about the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Did you talk about 91?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, but if I have time, I’ll come back to that. I’ve run out of time. OK. “Clause 127 provides that Part 37 amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. Clause 128 repeals section”—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member. We can all read that. We probably don’t need you to read that out to us. It would be much better to be explaining the impact of the changes to those clauses, rather than reading the clauses to us.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: It was more for the viewers, Madam Assistant Speaker—
Brett Hudson: Many viewers.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and for Mr Tirikatene. Yeah, the many viewers watching this—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. It’s been very entertaining.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Well thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call in the first reading of this Statutes Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge Mr Mark Mitchell for his very helpful contribution in this debate, stepping us through some of the provisions that we are amending under this bill—very helpful. But first of all, I want to acknowledge the Hon Aupito William Sio, who has brought this bill to the House—a very hard-working Minister. We are bringing this bill hot on the heels of the Statutes Amendment Act 2018, which has recently come into force, and which demonstrates the great work that the Hon Aupito William Sio is doing in this area. So I want to acknowledge him.
I do want to actually pay tribute to this Government, because what we are doing in this bill—yes, we are doing minor, technical, non-controversial amendments to a whole range of principal Acts, but these are all very important. There are times when we have to update, give legislation a bit of a tune-up, sometimes correct some errors—a whole range of matters—which we are doing with this bill. In total, we are amending 42 Acts, and they span across a range of Ministers and their relevant departments or ministries.
The bulk of the Acts which we are amending come under the justice portfolio of the Hon Andrew Little. To my knowledge, I believe 16 Acts that we are amending under this bill fall under his purview, his jurisdiction. Likewise, we are spanning everything from justice to building and construction, to the Defence Force, veterans’ affairs, internal affairs, culture and heritage, the environment, Treasury and finance, also State-owned enterprises, State services, and also health. So this is a very wide-ranging omnibus bill, and by that it means that we are simply amending principal pieces of legislation. That’s why we can, under the Standing Orders, combine all those diverse areas, all these diverse amendments, into a single omnibus bill.
I do want to observe, I guess, that there is provision under Standing Order 262(1)(d) for there to be a Māori Purposes Bill. I guess you could say that a couple of the Acts within this omnibus bill could, I guess, technically have come under a Māori Purposes Bill—that being the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act and also, I guess one could say, the technical amendment to the Ombudsmen Act with the removal of the Māori Trustee—but it just goes to show that we are wanting to get the job done. Rather than waste Parliament’s time by creating separate Māori purposes bills under Standing Orders, we as a Government are getting the job done, combining everything into a single omnibus bill covering a whole range of different areas.
I want to acknowledge the work of the various legal teams across all of the different departments and ministries that have been working on all of these different amendments. Some are very straightforward, but I guess they all take time, and a lot of work has to go into just the whole process of bringing these bills to the House, especially covering such very wide areas of Government. There is a lot of work that goes into these bills, and I am pleased that we are able to continue this work with haste. This bill was introduced just last month, and we are getting on with the job and making sure that we can get these changes implemented as quickly as possible.
I do want to acknowledge all the parties in the House because, as an omnibus bill, it does require consultation across the House. I acknowledge the Minister for undertaking that work, and I do acknowledge the support that we have from across the House to actually implement all of these changes.
I don’t really have too much more to add. I look forward to the Governance and Administration Committee examining this bill, and I’m sure they will conduct their work with great vigour and will be very careful in their consideration of the bill. Along with that, it is important that we make these changes. Yes, they may be technical, minor, and non-controversial, but they are necessary for ensuring that our laws are up to date and are legal, and that we’re able to run the country. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. When you walk through the streets, you can see the beautiful daffodil flowers, which are blooming. I guess you could consider this legislation a bit of a spring clean for our laws. The Statutes Amendment Bill cleans up and modernises many of our laws. I can only presume that the Minister, the Hon Aupito William Sio, has diligently read every single piece of New Zealand legislation, spotting the areas to be modernised, if not one of his staff—things like repealing the definition of “Commonwealth force” because it’s no longer needed, things like removing the requirement for the Governor-General to sign off the board of the Chartered Professional Engineers Council as part of the drive for efficiency. These are non-controversial methods that the House agrees to unanimously and that the Green Party is proud to support.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Bills
Education Amendment Bill (No 2)
First Reading
Debate resumed from 18 September.
JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’m delighted to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). This is a new experience for me, as a relatively new member in the House, to see a bill that is cognated in this way, and I had to do some research around that find out what that was, but I’ve delighted with the way that this bill has come together.
In very simple terms, for those people that are watching this back home, these are simple changes that are being made to the Education Acts. It’s an amendment to the Education Acts. They don’t always fit together, but they kind of hold hands through the process, and all of these amendments are ones that I wholeheartedly endorse, but there’s one in particular that I would like to talk about. I’ll talk about all of them, but one in particular that I’m absolutely passionate about.
Before I get to that one, though, I’ll talk about some of the other amendments that are in this particular bill—for example, the first one is ensuring that the key Education Council decisions are made in the context of Government policy. Now, I think that that is a really important discussion that the select committee will have, and it will be great to hear the feedback from the different sectors that that impacts upon in that particular way. We haven’t had that in the past, but I think it is a debate that is worth having. We talk about the work of our key education bodies being in line with Government policy of the day. As I say, I think that those particular peak body groups in education need to have that discussion, and I look forward to this coming to select committee.
One area in this bill that I think is a very good one is requiring private schools to have the same health and safety legislation in place that is required for State schools and State integrated schools. Having been a principal in a State school and having worked in a State integrated school as a teacher, the fact that we had lots of requirements around making sure that our schools were physically and emotionally safe places for both students and staff was really, really important to the work that we did. In my head, it is quite amazing that we actually have part of our sector that isn’t falling under that same jurisdiction and doesn’t have those same expectations around it that the State schools and State integrated schools do, so I think that that is really important.
I wonder whether, when parents choose to send their children to those private schools, they actually understand that the same law is not in place for those particular students. I’m sure that that is something that we will hear a lot about from parents, and I look forward to hearing from those parents. I’m sure we’ll also hear from those particular schools, but I’m excited that we are now bringing those schools into line with each other. I think that that is a really good move in this particular space.
Going on to the third part of this particular bill, the repealing of the very recent legislation, and it was very, very recent, on the communities of online learning (COOLs)—this is a really important time to be having this debate. I think that with everything that we are debating and looking at and having the conversation about in the education space, the communities of online learning are an absolutely important part of that. Now it’s only been in place since the Education (Update) Amendment Act of 2017, so it hasn’t been in place for very long. It’s not going to be a huge disruption to actually repeal this at the moment, and it’s not taking away from our really big providers, our Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu, or The Correspondence School—business as usual for them—and our virtual learning networks; business as usual for them. They do an absolutely fantastic job in that particular space, and we want to see them continue, so we don’t want to see the disruption to those providers. What we do want to see is that that legislation is actually fit for purpose for the changes that we are bringing in, in this particular space. Well, not even so much the changes that we’re bringing in, but the changes that our public, our sector, our young people, our teachers—all sectors are having the conversation at the moment and actually looking at where we’re heading.
One of the issues that we’ve had in recent times—and I go right back to the change from Tomorrow’s Schools, so when I say “recent”, I’m then talking about the last 30 years—is that changes to education have been very piecemeal. So we’ve had one bit happening here, one bit happening here, and something else happening over here. We haven’t had this coordinated approach to education, and the COOLs, I believe, have been part of that particular piecemeal approach. It is timely for us to be having this discussion, and it’s a timely discussion across both political sides of this House.
It is really important that we hear from people, and it is really important that we hear from our particular sectors, but the one area that I’m absolutely passionate about and that I’d like to spend the last part of my discussion talking about here this afternoon is the cohort entry of five-year-olds. Now, I’m absolutely passionate about this because I do believe that cohort entry of five-year-olds has its place. But what I don’t believe is that cohort entry of under-fives into schooling has any place in our education system whatsoever. I am delighted that in this bill we are talking about having cohort entry of children on their fifth and after their fifth birthday. I have heard the argument made that we’re taking away that right of children to start school at five—absolute, no, we are not. I take those people that make that argument back to recommendation 13 of the Advisory Group on Early Learning, which was in place to the then Minister of Education in 2015, the Hon Hekia Parata. It was an absolutely fabulous report that that advisory group put out. There were absolutely amazingly talented, incredibly gifted academic practitioners and academic people on there from the early childhood sectors: people like Dr Joce Nuttall, people like Dr Jeanette Clarkin-Phillips—the most amazing academics that we have in this country, and we can be very proud of the work that they did.
Recommendation 13 in that particular report talked about perhaps having cohort or individual enrolments, or a mixture of both. But one thing that that advisory group was very, very, very clear about, and was very clear about to the Minister at the time, was that that had to start from five, and that there was no place in this country to undervalue early childhood education and have our children starting in at schools younger than five. When our Education Act was changed, when cohort entry was introduced to allow children to start up to eight weeks before their fifth birthday, this particular advisory group actually contacted the then Minister with their extreme disappointment. They had been the Minister’s advisory group and they were incredibly disappointed in the decision that had been made, because out of any of their recommendations this was something that they were very, very clear about. You could not start—and there was no place in this country for that.
The reason I’m so passionate and the reason that I know this advisory group worked so well is that I was actually the schooling representative on that advisory group, so this is work that I know inside out. I absolutely know the passion of our top early childhood academics for this particular work, and that is why I am incredibly proud that we are actually putting in place the true recommendation that that particular group made to the Minister and to the Government at that particular time.
What I do look forward to is us as a Government—and I know that this is happening—working through the other recommendations in that particular report that we haven’t quite got to yet. That’s not in this particular bill, but the fact that we are truly putting in place the recommendation that those particular women—and they were all women; wonderful women, and I don’t count myself in that, actually. I am talking about the early childhood academics, who just blew me away with their knowledge and their expertise. The fact that we are doing this today and doing this now and taking this to select committee—I am very proud. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill amends three Acts, so, obviously, there is a list of things that this bill does, and this is the list that we do not agree with. I haven’t seen any good reasons so far from the two speeches that we’ve had from the Government side that would convince us to agree with the provisions that are proposed in this legislation. It is very interesting that the member Jan Tinetti, who spoke before me, was really reluctant when she spoke about the Education Council and the provision that is in this bill that affects the Education Council legislation that passed earlier this week.
Yes, earlier this week, on Tuesday, we passed legislation, because Government members supported it. It was a Government bill. That was the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill. In that bill the big argument that we heard from the Minister of Education and all the members on that side was that they want to make the Education Council—now Teaching Council—an independent body, independent of Government and independent of the Minister. They wanted to increase the membership on it, increase it from—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Can I bring the member back to this specific bill. If the member wants speak about the Education Council, there is a provision within this bill to discuss that, rather than referring to a previous bill. Thank you.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m actually going back to state that the big argument we heard about the independence of that education bill from the Minister, or from the Government, is actually ruled out because of this bill. So the provision in this bill is connected to the legislation that was passed earlier this week. It’s important to give that background to those people who are just focusing on this legislation—that the other legislation said that the Education Council is going to be independent, and the basis of bringing that mix of elected and appointed members on to that was that it’s going to be an independent council.
But now, in this legislation, we have four main provisions, and one of the provisions says that the Education Council will have to work within the context of Government policy. So where is that independence that the Minister was claiming in that other legislation when we had the first, second, and third readings and we passed it through the committee stage because Government members supported that legislation?
The independence that was talked about in the other legislation does not exist. I think the Minister must have thought that it would be easy to slip it through in other legislation, and then later on he realised that this provision should come into effect when the other legislation that was passed earlier this week will come into effect, because it’s all connected. So yes, he didn’t get that opportunity to give that big gap. We are quite disappointed that this provision actually should have been in the other legislation so that we could see the whole picture of the Education Council that the Minister of this Government proposed.
But that didn’t happen. That didn’t happen. What we saw from the Education Council legislation was that big emphasis we had on leadership and governance was taken out, and now we understand why, because it has to work according to the Government policy. So that leadership and governance that was required, which we had put in, is actually not required, because the Minister doesn’t want that. The Minister doesn’t want the Education Council to be self-regulated. He’s taken those components out. It’s all about Government control. It’s all about a nanny State approach to the Education Council. We can see exactly the same thing in the other provisions in this bill. It’s the nanny State approach.
The second thing I want to talk about in this legislation is about getting rid of the communities of online learning provision that was put in place by National in 2017. Yes, there was plenty of time to establish communities of online learning. This is about giving access to people, those who cannot be physically in a classroom, cannot be physically next to a university. They could be living in different parts of our country but they want to access education—this could be part-time or full-time. So why would an education Minister take away access to education from these people, those who cannot be physically in a classroom? I simply do not understand. I didn’t get any good reason for this to be repealed.
We want to see that technology is actually adopted in the education sector. This is a good way that people, those who cannot—there are some people who don’t want to do full-time studies; they want to just do part-time studies, and sometimes it doesn’t work with their other commitments. So, yes, they want online tuition, they want online learning. But with this provision, that is going to be repealed, so people will not have access to online learning because of this provision in this legislation. I think it’s because private providers can provide online access to learning. We can see that this Minister is anti - private providers. He’s already got rid of partnership schools, so he wants to get rid of communities of online learning only to get rid of private education providers.
There is another provision in this bill which is about, again, private education providers. I understand the basis that is given in this legislation, that is, to make sure that students are looked after well. We want to make sure that all our schools are able to look after students, in terms of any physical or emotional harm—that it is kept at negligible. Schools should have systems to control that, but what this Minister is saying is that the Secretary for Education will look at this factor while registering the school, and if the Secretary for Education thinks that there are some concerns, then they can actually cancel the registration.
So, to me, the way I read the bill, it appears that it will be really easy for the Ministry of Education to cancel the registration of private schools when we compare it with State schools. Why are we making it easier for private schools to be shut down based on this concern, when we compare that with State schools? So, again, I have this concern that the Minister is definitely targeting private education providers.
The fourth provision in this bill, which is a very interesting one—and, yes, we are all passionate about this, because this is about children starting school. A fifth birthday is special for every child. It’s not special just because it’s number five; it’s also special because the very next day—if it’s a school-going day—the child starts school. There is a lot of excitement in the family as well, because they’ll take that young one to the uniform shop, try the uniform on, and take several pictures, and the kid is also looking forward to starting school. But now the age of five years is not going to remain connected to the school-starting age.
What we did—we wanted to make it easier for schools, to make sure that they understand what their enrolment is. We wanted to make it easier for early childhood education centres, to make sure they understand what their enrolment is. Also, to make it easier for parents, from 1 January 2018 we said that if there is a child that is within two months—that is, eight weeks—of five years of age, they can start school at the start of the term. That was just to make it easy. It’s not like four-year-olds or three-year-olds are starting school. There is no harm, if kids are able to learn from the earlier age, and that is why we want to see them going to early childhood education centres, so that they can interact with other children there, they can interact with their teachers, and they can understand what the learning environment looks like.
But now this Minister is saying that, actually, no, they cannot start school at that time; they can start school only after—after—they are five. So there will be cohort entries, the first one at the start of the term and the second one sometime during the term. So there could be some children that will have to wait for two to three months to start school after they turn five. How fair is this for children? It’s not fair at all. It’s not fair at all. We know that some students in year 12, they get enough credits and they start university without doing year 13. So I think that is the next thing the Minister will do: block kids accessing university earlier if they are capable.
What I have seen in this whole piece of legislation is, actually, that control, nanny State approach through the Education Council bill, which passed earlier this week. Now we see that it is going to work within the Government policy. Then we are seeing another nanny State approach with how they want to control the school entry of children, how they want to control communities of online learning because they do not want—actually, they’re denying access to education, access to learning. I just simply don’t understand. How can this be an education bill? If you just look at the name of the bill you would think that it is going to improve access to education and make it better for everybody to access education, but it’s not—it’s not. First, it was misleading—one of the bills that was passed earlier this week—because we did not see the whole thing in that legislation; it came out in this legislation. The other provisions that are coming are actually denying access to education or delaying access to education: denying, when I talk about the communities of online learning, the repeal of that provision; delaying, when I talk about five-year-old students starting school. So we oppose this legislation. Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to, once again, support another fine piece of legislation being brought forward by this coalition Government. I note—what was the number we were up to?—on Tuesday we were up to 1,055 collective decisions that we have brought to the table. We’re probably over 1,100 now. This is another piece of education legislation that we are bringing through. What a powerhouse our Education and Workforce Committee is. The chairwoman, Dr Parmar, that had previously spoken—you could hear the defensiveness as she tried to defend a system that has been failing far too many of our young people. We are doing something about it, and this is a very, very active space for this Government.
So there are four provisions in this bill, as has been outlined earlier. I won’t go through them in any particular order. The private schools one that the previous speaker seemed to be so offended by, that somehow we were going to be closing down private schools—it’s not anything of the sort. The provision about the private schools just ensures that they have to take emotional health and physical safety into account. It is fixing an anomaly. At a time when mental health is at the top of everyone’s thinking in terms of an agenda of how we can do better for our citizens, this is an absolute anomaly that we just have to get right and fix. This is just making these private schools accountable to the Education Review Office.
Cohort entry—another provision that the previous speaker seemed to be railing against. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that starting school before five makes a single bit of difference—in fact, starting school before six has not shown to show any difference in international studies. It is a cultural milestone for every New Zealander. I started school 43 years ago, on my fifth birthday, and I remember that day like it was yesterday. It was a momentous occasion for me as an individual, and it’s not a nebulous, you know—eight weeks before I was five, or whatever. We have taken into account the cohort entry provisions and the ability to streamline entry, and that’s why we’ve started with five as the baseline and have given an eight-week provision where a mid-term cohort entry can happen as well. So it does smooth the transition. It takes into account the sensible nature of that, but it does not allow us to start before five—that milestone day in every young New Zealander’s life.
The communities of online learning—and it is true that this is something that’s a future-focused provision, and the wider review that we’re doing of Tomorrow’s Schools will take that fully into account. But what we deemed within the pending legislation that was coming forward, that progressed under the previous Government, is that it did not have the regulatory oversight necessary. It was open to cowboys coming in, and we just cannot afford that with our young people. We cannot afford to take those sorts of risks.
The fourth provision is the Education Council of Aotearoa, and having them take into account Government policy. I recall one of the earlier bills, when the Hon Nikki Kaye came down here—one of those many earlier bills that the Education and Workforce Committee brought through. She came down here and alluded to a conspiracy: that Minister Hipkins was going to be taking some Draconian provision to stymie any sort of dissent and thought. But it’s nothing at all of the type. All it is doing is requiring the newly to-be-established Teaching Council of Aotearoa to take into account Government policy. While we are giving teachers their own positions on their own professional council—that is a great thing to do, but we’re not electing them as a dictatorship that can go above Cabinet. So they can still critique Government policy all they like, but they have to take into account what the Government policy is, what the elected Government of the day—the direction that that Government wants to take. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And I’d note that the Education Council themselves, the very structure that that Opposition over there has been defending and been very defensive about the restructuring of—they themselves recommended this very measure.
So there is nothing Draconian at all about this bill. It’s just a sensible measure—another one—and within these four provisions, they’re all very sensible. They will speak and work in with the overall package of this wider suite of measures that we’re bringing in as we seek to reform our education system. Tomorrow’s Schools is now yesterday’s schools. We are taking things into the future, and we look forward, within this bill, to progressing it as another piece in that puzzle. So New Zealand First has absolute pleasure in supporting this through to the select committee. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). This is the first reading of the second bill which this Government has brought through to make changes to the Education Act. I think the context that needs to be remembered as we debate this piece of legislation is the fact that there are I don’t know how many reviews going on in the education sector. Yesterday I heard 16 reviews are being undertaken by this Government around the education sector. They’re trying to make the argument that “We’re out there, we’re listening, we’re taking into account, we’re wanting to hear what people have to say, and we want to have a conversation.”, and here they are—this is the second bill—ideologically repealing parts of the Education Act which they disagree with. Before they’ve had the conversation, before they’ve heard back from teachers and parents and principals what they want to hear, before they’ve even heard back from children what they want to hear, here they are ideologically pushing through the next set of changes that they want.
They’re not exactly progressive changes. I thought this Government thought they were all progressive. Well, these changes aren’t progressive. All they are doing is taking the changes back—the changes that National put in place when we were in Government. That’s all they’re doing. They’re just repealing stuff. That’s essentially what they’re doing in this piece of legislation and what they did in the previous piece of legislation. We really have to ask the question: why didn’t they include these changes in their first Education Amendment Bill? Is it because they just want to look busy? Well, that’s what it seems to be. I know that members on the other side are talking about how busy the Education and Workforce Committee is. Well, they’re only busy because you’re splitting the—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The committee is only busy because they keep splitting their changes across multiple pieces of legislation, rather than actually putting it together and making a cohesive, coherent piece of legislation.
Let me get to that point around cohesiveness and coherence, because this bill is anything but cohesive and coherent. One of the key changes that this bill does is it means that the Minister will have the ability to direct the Education Council on Government policy. Now, what they’ve just done—and we have to remember that the Government has just put through legislation to change the name of the Education Council and also to make it so that elected members have the majority of the appointments on the council, not Government appointments. We heard members on the other side talk about how this would mean that the independent voice of teachers would be able to direct the Education Council and it would be able to make policy and be able to do its work, and what do we have here in this piece of legislation? We’ve got the power going to the Minister so that he can direct the policies of the Education Council. What we will end up doing is giving the unions positions on this council but then telling them what to do. That’s essentially the Government’s position through these two pieces—
Hon Andrew Little: I thought the unions controlled us! I thought the unions were running us!
SIMEON BROWN: As Andrew Little reminds everyone here in Parliament, the unions control the Labour Party. We know that. But in this instance, and I know the Hon Andrew Little needs to be reminded, it’s really just jobs. The legislation, put together, provides jobs for some union mates on the Education Council, but then the Government will just direct them in what to do. So that really just makes a mockery of what this Government’s intention was when they put through that piece of legislation.
We heard the Prime Minister—standing outside Parliament, facing thousands of teachers—even saying, “This Government is making a meaningful difference for education. We are going to give the Education Council back to teachers.” Well, this legislation gives the Education Council back to the Minister, so I think this Government and the Minister of Education have a lot to answer for for their position in those two pieces of legislation taken together. I think it is an absolute mockery of the changes that this Government is trying to make, and it absolutely reduces the independence of the Education Council, which they said they were going to empower through democratic processes. We heard the cries of democracy. Well, it’s democratic election for positions, but all that the members on the other side are then doing is telling them what to do. That’s not democracy in the fashion that they stood up and spoke about in the House—
Mark Patterson: That’s not true at all—total misrepresentation.
SIMEON BROWN: —for hour upon hour when they were debating that. And Mr Mark Patterson says it’s a total misrepresentation. Well, I just encourage the member—and he sits on the Education and Workforce Committee—to actually read the legislation which goes through the committee, because I think he would actually realise that it’s not a misrepresentation; it’s the facts. I think he’s got a thing or two to do before this comes before the committee and he listens to the submissions and actually tries to make sense of what the changes are that he’s making.
So that’s only one of the changes. There are a number of other changes which this bill continues to do, and I’d like to touch on the next issue, around the registration of private schools. One of the changes that this does is it, essentially, puts in place requirements for private schools to have these new policies regarding well-being. Essentially, what it allows the Minister and the ministry to do through that is to be able to then strike out schools where there is a complaint and they’re found not to comply.
Now, we absolutely believe in the need for there to be good quality private education as well as good quality State education, and of course we care about the health and well-being of students, but the powers that are getting put in place through this legislation, essentially, raise the stakes so that the ministry has the power to deregister. There’s no sort of progression of powers depending on the different breaches or potential breaches which could be in place. There’s no progression of what could be done to that private school. There’s no fine or decision to do something else. Essentially, the decision is do nothing or deregister. That’s essentially what this legislation provides the ministry. That is massive power for the ministry to cut to the heart of our education sector and our private schools and our private education sector here in New Zealand.
On this side of the House, we back our private education sector. Right next to my office is Saint Kentigern College, a fantastic private school which does a great job and has a fantastic reputation across Auckland and across New Zealand. Under this legislation, the Government will be able to just close that school down because there was some potentially minor breach of some policy which was put in place. There is no progression of how the Government can react; they simply can close it down or do nothing.
Now, I say to the private schools out there that they should be very worried, because I ask: where is the evidence that this change is required? And we’ll be asking officials for the evidence. Where is the evidence that these changes are actually required? What impact will they actually have on improving the private education sector? What cause of concern has the Government actually had to instigate these changes? They might point to a Law Commission report, but where are the concerns that they’ve raised? [Interruption] And look, as you can hear, they’re getting a bit worried here, but where is the concern? Where is the evidence that they’ve put together? I think they have a duty, an obligation, to not just put in place legislation which has harsh penalties—actually, the closing down of schools—but provide evidence to base behind their decisions, and this piece of legislation has no evidence.
Lastly, I will touch briefly on the provisions relating to the communities of online learning, another ideological change which they’re pushing through in this piece of legislation. I note that in the explanatory note of the bill, it says “These provisions [will be] repealed. This will provide further time to consider the future of online learning in New Zealand, in the context of wider education sector reviews.” So what they’re saying here is that they’ve got a whole lot of reviews going on, and they’re not sure where that’s going to land, but, in the meantime, let’s just repeal stuff. Let’s just repeal some stuff. There were good reasons to put the communities of online learning into the legislation. They’ve got no reason to bring it other than they don’t think their reviews will be finished on time. They don’t think their reviews will be finished on time, because there are 16 reviews. We know the education sector’s saying to us, “There are all these reviews happening. What’s the strategy? What’s the plan?” But all that their plan is is to repeal pieces of legislation they don’t like while they wait for these reviews to happen. We oppose this piece of legislation.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui kia koutou, kia ora. After listening to the two National speeches on this legislation from Dr Parmjeet Parmar and Simeon Brown, I was reflecting and reminded of the book by Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, because it was kind of like these two spectres had come and visited the country and visited the Parliament and told us about the dystopian future we could have experienced had the election had turned out differently. In fact, we saw quite a reflection and a truth of the realities of today. What we heard were two speeches: one entirely focused, almost, on providing corporate profit in educating our kids with this support and defence of charter schools, and then we saw Simeon Brown focus most of his speech on the difference between different bills and parliamentary procedure, and whether it should have been one bill or two bills. What I didn’t hear was kids, what I didn’t hear was education, what I didn’t hear was better outcomes for our country. I heard two MPs entirely focused on corporate profit and entirely focused on the intricacies of parliamentary procedure. What I didn’t hear was about education.
Now, the problem for National is these ghosts are also the spectres of National’s future. If this is what National is putting to the country on their vision for education, God help us, because what they didn’t stand on was their track record—delivering a $1.1 billion funding hole when this Government joined hands to take over the crumbling infrastructure in education skills. We inherited a system that saw a teacher-training deficit, and now we’re trying to pick up the mess from that teacher-training shortage they left us.
They focused on corporate profits with their charter schools and forced National Standards on the country. They failed those special needs students and their whānau with the lack of Ongoing Resourcing Scheme funding. They were closing schools up and down New Zealand. For nine years they were a massive mess for education in New Zealand. And their main focus is that we’re repealing their legislation that they foisted on the country.
Look, what this legislation does, quite unambiguously, is repeal some of the most egregious parts of the education legislation that they ran through this House: things like the Education Council. It makes sense that the public interest should be achieved through the new requirement that the Minister can direct some of the special determinants of the Education Council which play such an important role.
I can’t believe that National is opposed to making sure that private and integrated schools are safe places to be. Now, I think most New Zealanders would be quite shocked to find that at present there’s nothing in the private school registration criteria that enables the Secretary of Education to consider the physical and educational safety of students. This is the present status quo in the public system. Is National that opposed to public and mental safety in private and charter schools that they’re going to oppose this legislation tonight?
Then, of course, we get to the communities of online learning. I remember, when voting against this in 2017, reading out a whole bunch of headlines from educators—not from parliamentarians, who are focused on the parliamentary procedures; from actual educators—and what did they say? They said that communities of online learning had gobsmacked them—they were incredulous. Headlines were “Principals hot under the collar”, “Education reforms half-cooked”, but the most important one, “Risk of harming learning”. National was focused, of course, on rolling out the scheme, putting our kids in front of screens for private profit, when we know from the educational experts that face to face is the best way.
Now, of course there’s a role for digital technology in our schools. Reflecting as a father, there are some great programmes out there—Reading Eggs, Mathletics—which enhance the learning, but it was no panacea for the problems facing our education sector from the massive underfunding, the infrastructure deficit, and the lack of teachers. Computers and screens were no replacement for those critical education initiatives. So I’m proud that this Government is opposing and rolling back the communities of online learning, because the way it was rolled out was damaging to the educational outcomes for our kids. Now, there is a role for online technologies, as I said, and this review allows those best-practice learnings to be rolled out.
Lastly, when it comes to the cohort entry for five-year-olds, the way the previous National Government had rolled it out meant that in reality, four-year-olds could be going to school—again, against evidence-based best practice. So all this legislation simply does is make sure and clarify that despite the cohort policy of individual schools, you’ve got to be five to go to school.
So am I really hearing tonight that National is against promoting safety, both mental and physical, in charter schools? Is National really, despite all the evidence, still focused on charter schools? Is National really happy seeing four-year-old kids go off to school? That’s on top of the crisis and the catastrophe they were in the tertiary education sector, and despite the negative stances and outcomes and actions they took when it came to early childhood education. Is National really taking this position?
I know this Government is really standing up for what’s important, which is our kids and their educational outcomes. This is the way we’re going to grow a richer New Zealand, a more prosperous New Zealand that invests in its people, invests in knowledge. If that’s how we’re going to grow a richer, more innovative New Zealand, I’m proud to be voting for this legislation today.
DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m happy to take this call for the few minutes that we have remaining here in this particular segment of Parliament, on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Now, one wonders why, straight off the bat, it’s not part of the Education Amendment Bill. I think that my colleague Simeon Brown touched on something very pertinent when he talked about the segmenting of this very prolific number of education bills going through Parliament that we have—
Simeon Brown: Trying to look busy.
DENISE LEE: They look like they’re being segmented because—you’re exactly right, Simeon Brown; there’s a need to look busy in the education sector. Well, in fact, we are very busy with reviews and working groups—16 of them. They’re going on behind the scenes. Meanwhile, here in Parliament, we are having what is looking like a haphazard number of education bills. We started with the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill. It was a member’s bill, but that one didn’t quite make the course—withdrawn. We then had a NELPs bill, a National Education and Learning Priorities bill, which has been gutted but we’re still trucking on with that, and here we are with a No. 2 bill that feels random and not at all coherent. Why is this not part of the primary Education Amendment Bill? We don’t know why.
Now, I’m struggling to choose either irony or hypocrisy for what’s taken place this week when we have been debating vigorously—and, of course, on this side, opposing—the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, which has been heralded on the other side of the House for so-called lifting of teacher status, independence brought back, enjoying all the elected-member status and all that comes with that, yet we are here right now debating not independence but the removal of independence for the Teaching Council. How do you add that up? How does one manage to reconcile those two? It is beyond me, and an absolute mystery.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.