Wednesday, 17 October 2018

WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Fakalofa lahi atu. Last week, the International Monetary Fund released its October World Economic Outlook, showing an upward revision in New Zealand’s growth forecasts. The IMF is forecasting growth of around 3 percent over 2018 and 2019, recognising the sound fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. This upgraded view follows the IMF’s review of Budget 2018, which included growth-friendly policies like the R & D incentive and the Provincial Growth Fund, and record transport infrastructure investment.

Dr Duncan Webb: What does the IMF report say about the global economy?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report shows a downward revision in the global economic growth forecasts over the next two years. The IMF’s forecast of 3.7 percent in both 2018 and 2019 is down 0.2 percent compared to its April forecasts, largely due to rising international trade tensions and disappointing global activity. The average forecast New Zealand growth rate over 2018 and 2019 is, therefore, stronger than forecasts for Australia, the United States, the euro area, Japan—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough, thank you.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has the Minister seen that demonstrate New Zealand’s resilience to international risks?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The IMF also released its October 2018 Fiscal Monitor, which used New Zealand as an example of good fiscal management. The IMF expects the New Zealand Government’s financial position to remain better than peers, including Australia, Canada, the UK, the US, and the euro area, while our public debt will remain lower than these other advanced economies’. We remain committed to managing the Government’s books responsibly so that we continue to be in a position to respond to any external shocks that might come our way.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Faakalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many cents per litre is the regional fuel tax, and when did it come into effect?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The regional fuel tax came in earlier this year, in July, and is 10c a litre, as applied by—as local government chooses to implement it in Auckland.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she still stand by her statement last week that since October 2017 “petrol prices have risen roughly 39c, of which 6.8c at that point could be attributed to taxes and levies;”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if the House will indulge me, I’ll again give the quote that I gave—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Slippery.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —at the post-Cabinet—

SPEAKER: Order! Who made that interjection? The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: No, the member will do it—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Last warning.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will give the same quote that I gave in the post-Cabinet press conference from which the member is quoting me—to which I said, “between 27 October 2017 and 28 September 2018—this is where we have data—”. I was quoting directly from the latest data provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), which is exactly the same data that that side of the House used every single day they were in Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: So, in light of that, did she, or anyone in her office, actually go and check their work, given that they had put on those extra taxes of a regional fuel tax and an excise tax, that it had gone through Cabinet, and she had done it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I spoke openly about both of those in that post-Cabinet press conference as well. MBIE has fully acknowledged that they need to improve their modelling to take into account the regional fuel tax, and they also need to acknowledge up front that they discount 14c in that modelling for coupons and fuel cards. But I want to draw it back to the point here: either the member on that side of the House thinks consumers are dealing with an issue with overpriced fuel generally, or he doesn’t. In February 2015, he wrote a letter to all of the fuel companies asking them to bring their prices down. Clearly he thought it was a problem then, but he doesn’t now.

Hon Simon Bridges: If MBIE need to improve their modelling, why at her post-Cab press conference was she at such pains to hang her hat on it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I use the modelling that we have available to us, in the same way that he did when he was in office. It would have been the same data he used when he decided in 2015 to write to the fuel companies and say there was a problem—something his Government never resolved. They ignored him. They did nothing, and consumers are continuing to feel it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did she not include the regional fuel tax when she said petrol taxes have only increased by 6.8c a litre, given that it came into effect on 1 July this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was using the numbers to give the proportion across that period of time for which excise was accountable, relative to the increases that we have seen. And, if I was being fair, I would also acknowledge that some of the most significant margin increases we have seen have been since 2008. This has been a problem for a long time. We’re the ones doing something about it because that last Government failed.

Hon Simon Bridges: How can New Zealanders have confidence in her and her Government’s ability to deal with their cost of living rises when she relies on numbers that do not even measure the increase in petrol taxes her Government has imposed in July and October of this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is known to everyone what we have done with both excise and regional fuel tax. It’s been clear because we campaigned on it. We made it absolutely clear that if we wanted to invest in infrastructure, it was necessary to have the regional fuel tax. To imply otherwise is ludicrous, and those families that we are talking about also know that we campaigned on a $5 billion Families Package, increasing the minimum wage, abolishing the letting fees, making sure that we had a winter energy payment to put extra money in the pockets of those who need it most, and paid parental leave. All the while, our excise increases were less than yours the entire time you were in office.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to remind the Prime—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, excuse me—not yours.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah. You’re getting off light.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: With inflation numbers showing petrol prices have increased by 19 percent in the last year more than any other item, why is she still going ahead with more than 24c of petrol tax increases in the space of just three years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I addressed extensively in the last question, we’re working to both increase the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders whilst acknowledging that we have a significant infrastructure deficit. Every single cent that comes from that excise and regional fuel tax goes into building the infrastructure that that last Government never built—despite the fact that, I have to say, back when the last Government was bringing in 9c worth of excise increases, Gerry Brownlee then said, “Excise increases in recent years have helped maintain the real value of the land transport fund.” He said that as he brought in the exact same excise, in the form of 9c, that we have.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister prepared to explain all this to Mr Bridges in a personal note if I can find the crayon?

SPEAKER: I think the member does know what’s wrong with it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I don’t.

SPEAKER: The member has been here for a very long time—

Brett Hudson: Too long.

SPEAKER: I’m on my feet—who interjected? That member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Brett Hudson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And he’s on his final warning for this question time as well. The member, Winston Peters, has been here for a very long time. He knows that one cannot use irony as part of questions.

Hon Simon Bridges: How long will it take for the Commerce Commission to undertake a market study into fuel prices?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Less time than it took for his Government to do something about it. He wrote in 2015, and we’re still waiting for this to be fixed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You appear to have just taken three questions off us. What for?

SPEAKER: Yes, for your interjections.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Because we’ve just listened to very extensive explanations of questions from the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: The member will resume—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat now. The member will resume his seat. I took questions off because the member interjected while the question was being asked. We had, I think, while I was previously on my feet, at least three members who interjected, only one of whom was honest enough to admit it, and I was soft on the others. If the member is suggesting that we roll back the rules or that he has an exemption from them, then I’m not prepared to do it. Going back to the Deputy Prime Minister, I think it was relatively clear from the look on the Deputy Prime Minister’s face that he did accept the fact that he had acted inappropriately again.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I don’t argue with you about who it is that makes the decision about what an interjection is or is not. So I accept that you have said that my suggesting that the Deputy Prime Minister was being harshly treated—sorry, misunderstood—was in fact an interjection, but, none the less, the Deputy Prime Minister breached the Standing Orders in a very deliberate way and paid no price; but for sympathising with him, we lose three questions. Now, that’s no way to run this House in a reasonable fashion.

SPEAKER: Does the member have a further supplementary?

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister know how long it will take the Commerce Commission to undertake a market study into fuel prices?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we’re changing the legislation over the next two weeks. There’s then a statutory process the Minister will go through that takes, from memory, around a month, so I would’ve thought in the first half of next year. Again, I would again put emphasis on the fact that in 2017 the last Government tried to do this work unsuccessfully. Our expectation is that we, of course, now with the ability to undertake this market study, will be able to do it properly and finish the job the last Government didn’t.

Hon Simon Bridges: Once the Commerce Commission has reported back, how long will it take to act on any recommendations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I’m going to wait for their process to be completed, but, obviously, this is something we’re quite focused on.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it correct that if the Prime Minister wanted she could immediately legislate to remove the regional fuel tax and halt increases to the national excise tax—changes that would immediately ease the cost of living for Kiwis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, I cannot guarantee that that would be directly passed on to consumers. What I can guarantee though is every cent that comes out of excise goes directly into projects in the likes of Auckland, where we’re losing productivity, where those families are already paying the price of being stuck in congestion and being unable to move around their city. It provides genuine alternative transport options for them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it true that petrol taxes are roughly four times the size of importer margins?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of what, sorry?

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it true that petrol taxes are roughly four times the size of importer margins?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I haven’t got that figure in front of me, but what I can say is that, for instance, over the last decade—since 2008—petrol margins increased by 21c. The margin trend was up overall about 124 percent. So we have seen a significant change, one that we on this side of the House think warrants investigation. Clearly that side of the House has changed their tune since they were last in Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why won’t she take immediate action to ease the cost of living by removing her Government’s new petrol taxes, given it’s clear that the Commerce Commission and their decisions will take a good year, and that those importer margins are some four times the size of the petrol taxes in total?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Other way around.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Does the member want to ask the question again. I’m sorry, I—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I knew what he was trying to say though.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister gets it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I get the gist. I’ll reverse the last part of your question. When it comes to the cost of living, of course that is a focus for this Government. Everything we have done far outstrips anything that a consumer then would be paying at the pump via a regional fuel tax. The Working for Families package, on average, delivering $75 a week; minimum wage increases; winter energy payments—far outstrip anything that consumers are experiencing. And on top of that, we’re getting to the nub of the issue, which goes well beyond anything anyone’s experiencing in excise. Finally, I’d love to hear from the member what projects he will cancel because he no longer believes in excise, which has been in place since the 1920s.

Question No. 3—Defence

3. DARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received regarding support given by the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I know the House appreciates being updated on what our defence force is up to, and I can assure you that while Parliament has been in recess, our women and men in uniform have been very busy. On 3 October, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) responded to the devastating earthquake and tsunami in western Sulawesi in Indonesia. During the operation they flew seven missions, transported 646 people, including 158 evacuees, and delivered over 56,000 kilograms of aid and relief supplies. The New Zealand Defence Force, and the C-130 Hercules in particular, is a very important tool the Government use to assist in times of natural disasters, both overseas and here at home as well.

Darroch Ball: Is the Minister aware of any recent examples where the NZDF has delivered value to our nation and region?

Hon RON MARK: Yes. The New Zealand Defence Force recently helped out the Department of Conservation, surveying the number of southern right whales. Additionally, they’ve been gearing up for a very busy Antarctic season. As members might have seen on television last night, deployments got under way. We will soon see 220 personnel working on the programme, making it once again New Zealand’s largest military deployment in support of science. In this operation, we will see the C-130s in action, with about 10 planned flights to McMurdo Station, with another six planned flights with the Royal New Zealand Air Force Boeing 757s.

Darroch Ball: What else does the NZDF have planned in the coming months?

Hon RON MARK: Alongside our work in Antarctica over the summer, we will be sending an offshore patrol vessel down into the Southern Ocean to monitor fishing vessels. In this deployment, HMNZS Wellington will work alongside a P3K Orion and ensure vessels operating in the area are doing so within the boundaries of their catch limits and are not using illegal methods like drift-netting. And, of course, they’ll be looking for and reporting on any illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing activities that they may find.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Is it a goal of this Government’s economic policy to make it easier for New Zealand families to get ahead?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Yes, this Government believes we all win when we grow our economy for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister believe, as he said yesterday and repeated today, that he is, in fact, growing the economy for the benefit of all New Zealanders, when the Government’s new petrol taxes have led to some of our poorest families having to choose between filling their car or putting food on the table?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: New Zealand’s fuel excise is actually one of the lowest in the OECD, while the pre-tax cost of fuel is the highest. I’d also point out that the price of Brent crude has almost doubled since the middle of last year, and petrol companies have increased their profit margins by 10 percent in the last year alone. So I do not agree that petrol excise is the main cost of rising fuel prices. And if the member believes, now that she’s no longer in Government, that petrol excise should be done away with, she needs to explain to New Zealanders which transport project she would cut.

Hon Amy Adams: When the Minister said yesterday that the Government makes no apology for implementing policies that they’ve been told are likely to push up energy costs, was he just saying that this Government doesn’t concern itself with how its policies are affecting the cost of living?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Of course I am not saying that. I reject what the member’s saying. Through policies like the Families Package, and by raising the minimum wage, we are lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty. We have an economic plan to transform New Zealand towards a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy that pays higher wages, and where all New Zealanders will get to share the benefits of that growth.

Hon Amy Adams: So does the Minister actually receive advice from Treasury that quantifies the likely effect that Government policies, such as higher petrol taxes or residential property regulations, will have on the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t see all of the advice that the Minister of Finance receives, but we do receive a lot of advice on cost—of course we do. All Governments receive advice. Some of it we accept, and some of it we think is flawed. That’s natural. That’s what Governments do. Governments make judgment calls, and our judgment has been to support those on low and modest incomes in our Families Package—$5.5 billion more, that will see 384,000 New Zealanders $75 a week, on average, better off when that’s fully rolled out. We care about New Zealanders and making sure that growth is inclusive, sustainable, and shared across the economy.

Hon Amy Adams: So then what was that Treasury advice on the cost of living impacts on the Government’s oil and gas decisions?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In terms of oil and gas, this Government has an ambitious plan to ensure a just transition, and we are prepared to show strong leadership to get things done. I saw some of the advice on this subject and I simply did not agree with it.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very direct question about what Treasury advice was on the cost of living impacts, not what the Government’s plans for a transition are. He didn’t refer to Treasury’s advice and the cost of living impact at all in his answer.

SPEAKER: I think he did at the end. He said he saw it and he didn’t agree with it. Was that what the member said?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To clarify, I certainly have seen Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advice I disagreed with on the topic, and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Treasury advice. I’d need to check that, but I disagreed with it.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, then, what was the Treasury advice on the cost of living impact on the Government’s residential property changes?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member is asking very specific questions about very specific sets of advice. We know, as a whole, that rents are rising fastest in areas where the housing shortage is greatest. This Government has inherited a dire situation, where there’s a housing shortage around the country, and it is going to take time to build more housing, and it’s going to take time to insulate housing. It’s going to take time to get the housing stock up to where it should be, so that New Zealanders aren’t getting preventable diseases. That is the legacy of that Government—they should hang their heads in shame.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order, again. The question was about Treasury advice on the cost of living impact on the Government’s changes, not a general rant around the Minister’s view of property.

SPEAKER: The member asked a very specific question, and if the member expects to get a specific answer, then that should be part of the primary question.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not expecting a specific answer to know the exact detail, but I am expecting the answer to at least address the question that was asked on the Treasury advice. Now, he can say he hasn’t seen it, he doesn’t recall it—he doesn’t have to give a specific answer, but he does have to address the question asked.

SPEAKER: I think the member did.

Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement that “homelessness is likely to get worse before it gets better”?

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

Hon Judith Collins: Does he accept comments this morning by the Salvation Army that KiwiBuild is too unaffordable to address the growing level of homelessness?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Salvation Army has once again highlighted the extent of the housing crisis that this Government inherited. And no matter how successful our Government is at driving down build costs, reducing red tape, and making KiwiBuild houses affordable, for many New Zealanders who would love the opportunity to have a crack at affordable homeownership, a mortgage of $300,000, or $400,000, or $500,000 will simply be out of reach. That is why we are working on a shared equity programme that will give New Zealanders the opportunity to—people who otherwise would not be able to afford to—through a shared equity programme, have a smaller initial mortgage that over time they will have the opportunity to pay off and buy out the equity share of. If we’re successful in doing that, a much larger group of New Zealanders will have the opportunity to have a crack at affordable homeownership.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is he allowing high-income couples who earn $180,000 per year to buy KiwiBuild homes when this may mean that low and middle income earners will miss out?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, our policy with KiwiBuild is that until supply of new KiwiBuild homes matches demand, we’re going to ballot those houses, because balloting is by far the fairest and easiest way to do it. Under the policy settings of the former Government, who refused to build affordable homes, low-income families were forced to compete in the market against better-off families. They had no chance of affordable homeownership. Under our policies they will have a chance.

SPEAKER: Does the member want to take a point of order?

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, I would, thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I get it.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Does the member want to repeat the question?

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, sorry, Mr Speaker. Yes, I do.

SPEAKER: It’s probably the easiest thing. Repeat the question.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is he allowing high-income couples who earn $180,000 per year to buy KiwiBuild homes when this may mean that low to middle income earners will miss out?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, for a start I reject the premise of the member’s question—that allowing a broader range of New Zealanders to take part in KiwiBuild will disadvantage lower-income families. More important than that, the member needs to understand that after nine years of allowing the housing crisis to spin out of control, young New Zealanders, professionals in good jobs earning good money, even earning $150,000 to $160,000, cannot afford to buy their own homes under the housing crisis that you left us.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he agree with the Salvation Army that the basic problem we have is that “the rental market is on the collapse”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I agree with the Salvation Army when they say that years of failed policies have killed the dream of homeownership and put huge social stress on low and middle income New Zealanders and we need radical change, and that’s what this Government is delivering.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the level of sincerity in the questions today about the housing affordability, why has the Government changed its policy?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d invite you to reflect carefully on that question. The Minister has no responsibility for any intentions behind the questioner’s motives.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, my question is for an explanation as to why the Government has changed the housing policy it inherited. It’s very simple, Gerry.

SPEAKER: OK, I think what I’m going to do is I’m going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the question again without the preface.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was the best part, but I’ll summate by asking the Minister of Housing and Urban Development as to why it was that the new Government changed the housing policy that they inherited.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We changed our policies because New Zealanders believed in and voted for a Government that would first accept that there is in fact a housing crisis, and that would accept the fact that policies need to intervene in the market to deliver decent housing for ordinary New Zealanders. For nine years, they put up with a Government that refused to intervene, that refused to build affordable housing, that refused to make houses warm and dry, and that refused to change the tenancy laws to deliver more security of tenure.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he then agree with the Salvation Army, that has said today, “It might evolve that KiwiBuild does little more than replace the market as a source of new housing for higher-middle income households.”

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I don’t agree with that quote, but I am highly amused to see the new friend of the poor sympathetically quoting Alan Johnson from the Salvation Army. I never thought I’d live to see the day.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress has he made towards the Government’s KiwiBuild homes targets up to 2020/21?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): A few weeks ago, the Government announced the very first South Island KiwiBuild development in Wānaka, where there will be 211 KiwiBuild homes built over the next two years. Queenstown Lakes District is one of the fastest-growing districts in New Zealand and it has an acute housing crisis. The first 10 KiwiBuild homes to be balloted at Northlake include four two-bedroom and six three-bedroom modern stand-alone homes. Prices for these homes range from $565,000 to $650,000.

Paul Eagle: What reports has he seen on this announcement?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’ve seen reports of “KiwiBuild fever” in the Otago Daily Times. Cardrona skifield workers Emilee Laurie-Fendall and James Leech have lived in Wānaka for 18 months and have begun the KiwiBuild pre-qualification process. They said they’d been “seriously looking for a house for six months but everything in our price range just gets snapped up so fast.”

Paul Eagle: What interest has there been for KiwiBuild homes in the Queenstown Lakes District?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Over 3,000 people have registered an interest in KiwiBuild in Queenstown Lakes District out of over 44,500 people nationwide. KiwiBuild is restoring the dream of homeownership to thousands of families priced out of the housing market not only in Queenstown Lakes but across the country.

Paul Eagle: How do these KiwiBuild homes compare to homes on the market?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, for just over half the median price in Wānaka, these homes are fully landscaped with offstreet parking and a Fisher & Paykel home appliance package. They’re built in durable and low-maintenance materials in colours which reflect the natural beauty of the Wānaka area. The homes are backed by a 10-year Master Build guarantee.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Department of Building and Housing correct when it has stated that there are only 70 KiwiBuild houses presently under construction after a year of him being the Minister?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There is no Department of Building and Housing.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by his statements in relation to the criminal justice summit: “I’m totally satisfied with the cost of the summit.” and “It takes a lot to put … together”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the member is quoting from, but the last time I spoke in this House about the criminal justice summit I said that their costs were excessive. I’ve spoken to the Secretary for Justice about it, and I expect better cost control in future.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he know how much it cost to set up three registration desks at the summit?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is he surprised to learn that the cost of setting up those desks was $20,278?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not sure I have any information that supports that accuracy of that statement, but what I am pleased about is that since the criminal justice summit, and, in fact, since this Government has been in office, the prison population has reduced significantly, saving this Government tens of millions of dollars.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he think it excessive that $20,278 of taxpayers’ money was used to set up three registration desks at his criminal justice summit?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Assuming that that member is correct, yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How does he think that the taxpayers—the four taxpayers—feel about having their annual income tax, the income tax of four minimum wage earners, spent on setting up a registration desk?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The overwhelming feedback I’ve had from New Zealanders as I’ve gone around the country is to say, “At long last we have a Government that is addressing the very serious problems that underpin the rapidly growing prison population that happened under the previous Government.” They are very pleased to see a Government that doesn’t want to continue to spend over $1 billion a year on locking up ever more people and not dealing with the underlying problems. I’m pleased to see that a public debate about different ways of approaching criminal justice and prison reform is happening, and I look forward to good, positive results.

SPEAKER: And I am going to ask the Minister just to address the very specific question. The member might want to ask it again.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What would the Minister say to the four minimum wage earners that have had their annual income tax pay for three registration desks at the criminal justice summit?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would say what I said to the House a few weeks ago, which is that the costs of the summit were excessive. I’ve spoken to the Secretary for Justice about it, and said that I expect much better cost control on any comparable exercise in the future, but, equally, I’ve also said that the overwhelming feedback from New Zealanders as I’ve gone around the country—including in regional New Zealand; Ōāmaru most recently, Wanganui last week—was people saying, “At long last we have a Government that’s taking seriously the issue of getting to grips with the ballooning cost of imprisoning more people with no better results.” And we are facing that challenge.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How did he not catch the extraordinary waste of taxpayers’ money before the criminal justice summit?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My instructions to the Secretary for Justice were very clear during the course of the ministry putting together the criminal justice summit, which was that I expect good cost control. Since the criminal justice summit, I’ve continued that conversation with the Secretary for Justice, and I expect better cost control from that ministry in the future.

Question No. 8—Social Development

8. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What approaches, if any, has this Government taken to get people into sustainable and meaningful employment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Fakalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. For this Government, it’s about more than just getting people into any job; it’s about supporting them to find the right work for them that is sustainable and meaningful. Building industry partnerships and developing relationships with business and local communities is crucial to this. Last week, I visited Turners and Growers in the Hawke’s Bay, who are working closely with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to develop new initiatives that meet the growing needs of their business while adding value to workers’ lives.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What impact is this initiative having on the local community?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Hawke’s Bay is a leading producer of pipfruit, which is a growth industry. The work under way by Turners and Growers in Hawke’s Bay ensures that training and development is in place to meet the growing needs of industry and local workers are equipped to participate and thrive in this industry. Turners and Growers have partnered with the Ministry of Social Development through a number of programmes, including a sole parent initiative and Mana in Mahi. The labour manager at Turners and Growers told me his number one priority used to be the apples, but, since changing focus and catering to the needs of the workers, the apples are fine and business is booming.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does this approach support sustainable employment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In the last year, MSD have placed 204 people with Turners and Growers in Hawke’s Bay, and they consistently achieve over 80 percent sustainable employment contracted outcomes for people previously on benefit. A big part of this can be attributed to their focus on pastoral care for workers, flexible hours for working parents, and the provision of healthcare. One sole mother of three who’d been out of work for six years says getting a job with Turners and Growers has been life changing. She said, “It feels good knowing that your kids are fine and you’ve got a good job behind you as well.”

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many cents per litre has the “petrol margin trend New Zealand” in the MBIE data set titled “weekly fuel price monitoring” changed between the most recent data point and 27 October 2017; and, how many cents per litre have total Government or local government taxes increased over the same period in and outside of Auckland?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): 1.32, 9.53, 11.5, 9.53, and 0. For the benefit of the member, from October 2017 to 28 September 2018 the actual increase in the importer margin was 9.28c. This is part of a longer trend. In 2008, New Zealand had one of the lowest pre-tax fuel costs in the OECD. By 2018, the pre-tax cost for fuel in New Zealand was the highest in the OECD.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it correct that the 1.3c increase in the fuel company margin over a year, when smoothed out as a trend, is more than accounted for by the cost of the regional fuel tax, which is included in that margin?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member misunderstands what the most relevant figure is. In respect of importer margins, the actual increase from October 2017 to 28 September 2018 was 9.28c per litre, and, as I said, this is part of a longer trend which has seen New Zealand, from having amongst the lowest pre-tax fuel costs in the OECD, having, by 2018, the highest pre-tax fuel costs in the OECD.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would it surprise the member that the figure for retail margins that he just quoted bounces around? The Prime Minister used 27 October 2017 to 28 September 2018 to show a 9.8c increase in importer margin. If someone used the dates 8 December 2017 to 5 October 2018, the figure is 1c rather than 9.8c. And, given the bouncing around, the fairest representation of importer margins is the trend.

Hon DAVID PARKER: As everyone who goes to the petrol station knows, the price of fuel varies significantly from month to month. It has many components: oil, taxes, and importer margins. The biggest change has been in the price of oil, which has increased by more than 50 percent in the last year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it correct that after taking the Auckland fuel tax into account, margins have decreased over the past year by the petrol margin trend measure?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The largest increase has been of the margin that is going to the exporter of oil, because the price of oil has increased by more than 50 percent over the last year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He didn’t answer the question, which—

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member can ask the question again.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it correct that after taking the Auckland fuel tax into account, margins will have decreased over the past year by the petrol margin trend measure?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No. As I said when I last answered that question, the largest increase in margin has been as a consequence of the change in oil prices. That margin has been received by oil sellers, who have managed to increase their price over the last year by more than 50 percent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So does he agree with the Prime Minister’s conclusion: “New Zealand consumers, in my book, are being fleeced.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the increase in importer margins, that appears to be the case. As I have said, the latest annual trends are part of a longer trend which has seen New Zealand move from 2008, when we were in the position that we had the lowest pre-tax fuel costs in the OECD. By 2018, the pre-tax fuel costs for New Zealand were the highest in the OECD.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who is doing the fleecing if, by the time period that the Prime Minister referred to, fuel company margins have increased by 1.3 percent over the year, including the cost of an Auckland fuel tax—or is it his Government that’s doing the fleecing by increasing taxes on a monumental scale?

Hon DAVID PARKER: To quote the member’s own question to me just a couple of supplementaries before, it said that some of these prices move around month to month. That is true. That is why the long-term trend is the one that most attention should be paid to, which, I repeat, has seen New Zealand move from having amongst the lowest pre-tax fuel costs in 2008 in the OECD to having the highest pre-tax fuel cost in the OECD in 2018.

Question No. 10—Health

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Squeak—Speaker. My question is to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, my granddaughter calls me “Mr Talker”.

10. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Did he receive any advice about the $200 million in reprioritised medicine in Budget 2018 being redirected to nurse salary increases rather than the purchase of new medicines; if so, what was the nature of that advice?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Fakalofa lahi atu. Up until this year, Pharmac managed the district health boards’ (DHBs’) community drug-buying budget, while the DHBs held their own budget for buying hospital medicines. Earlier this year, Pharmac took over responsibility from DHBs for buying all of their medicines, which Treasury forecasts say will save close to $200 million over four years through Pharmac’s purchasing power. That change was made earlier this year, creating one-off savings for DHBs in the 2017-18 financial year. Given the inadequacy of the health budget put forward in 2017 by the previous Government, I made it clear to DHBs that any savings in the 2017-18 year could be used to offset the cost of wage settlements. Following the member’s questions yesterday, officials have searched and have been unable to find any record of advice about using the forecast future savings for nurses’ salaries.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did he not take the opportunity to invest the $200 million of reprioritised funds into new medicines?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There are always competing demands in the health sector. The budget for Pharmac has not been cut as a result of these savings. What is actually happening is more medicines are being bought for more New Zealanders with the same amount of money. Additional money in the health budget is something I am always seeking as health Minister, and there are a range of competing priorities.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many new medicines were actually funded in Budget 2018?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the member knows, the decisions around which new medicines are purchased and when are the responsibility of Pharmac.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t addressed. I didn’t ask who was responsible for purchasing; I asked how many new medicines were funded.

SPEAKER: And I think both members understand the way the system works.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No, the member’s not speaking to the point. The member will resume his seat. He can take another supplementary if he wants to.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think it’s acceptable that New Zealand women are selling their houses or setting up Givealittle pages to pay for cancer medicines that are routinely funded in comparable countries?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The medicines raised in the House yesterday are currently under examination for funding by Pharmac. It is true that there are some countries that have some medicines that New Zealand does not have, but I don’t think the member has changed his position and now wants to undermine the Pharmac model. If he has, he would need to explain to New Zealanders how we should make do with fewer drugs, because we wouldn’t be able to afford the drugs that we have. And, on top of that, I would also note that that party opposite, when they were in Government, had the opportunity to fund the health budget better and instead they cut money out of the budget. New Zealanders have a lot of catching up to do. It will take several Budgets to make sure the health system is funded as well as we would like to see it funded.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What action, if any, is the Government taking to address skills and labour shortages in the construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Fakalofa lahi atu kia mutolu oti, Mr Speaker. Earlier this month, along with my ministerial colleagues, I announced the Government’s Construction Skills Action Plan to address skills labour shortages in the construction industry. We’re working as a ministerial team, together with the sector, to improve the construction industry’s ability to deliver skills and training and careers in order to build more houses. Together with industry, we will ensure the construction sector is better able to deliver the right people at the right time with the right skills to build the houses New Zealanders need. The Construction Skills Action Plan will deliver at least 4,000 new people pursuing construction-related careers over the next three years.

Marja Lubeck: What are the key priority areas of this Construction Skills Action Plan?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The Construction Skills Action Plan has six initial priority areas, and they are: first, leveraging Government procurement, led by the Minister for Economic Development; second, growing construction careers and credentials, led by the Minister of Education; third, expanding skills for industry, led by the Minister for Social Development; fourth, further changes to immigration settings, led by the Minister of Immigration; fifth, establishing additional jobs and skills hubs; and sixth, Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work, both led by the Minister of Employment.

Marja Lubeck: Why is the construction sector so important to the economic well-being of New Zealand and its people?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The construction sector is one of our largest employers, with nearly 10 percent of our workers engaged in construction-related occupations. The construction sector is rapidly evolving. Embracing the opportunities provided by innovation and technology through prefabrication and new ideas for achieving sustainability over time is one of the things that we’re doing. Our construction action plan anticipates the changes ahead, supporting new skills that will be required to achieve the Government’s ambitious housing and economic objectives.

Question No. 12—Energy and Resources

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies, statements, and actions in relation to the energy and resources portfolio?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): On behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources, yes.

Jonathan Young: Is the Minister concerned by OMV’s comments to the Environment Committee yesterday, which said the country has just seven years’ firm supply, with natural gas production forecast to start falling away from 2021 onwards, and that we are heading towards a gas supply gap in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Long-term prices for electricity are set by the cost of new generation capacity. Wind power is already cheaper than gas, which is why Genesis has today announced a new 100 megawatt wind farm in Taranaki, which I’m surprised the member is not celebrating.

Jonathan Young: So is the Minister still concerned, following her reported comments to interest.co.nz, that she can’t be sure there will be enough affordable clean energy, despite today’s announcement, available to fill the gap when New Zealand’s natural gas reserves run out?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The first point I would make is an obvious point in energy markets as well as political parties, which is that you can’t start a transition without starting a transition. The second point is New Zealand can’t reduce its emissions by using more fossil fuels; we can only do so by using more renewables. The announcement today by Genesis shows that we’re heading in the right direction.

Jonathan Young: Is the Minister concerned by OMV’s comments that the country still needs a new immediate discovery to maintain security of supply over the next decade, but the new offshore exploration ban is discouraging potential investment partners that OMV and others need?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m confident that New Zealand has the security of supply settings right. I’ve heard scaremongering from prior National Governments about how impossible it was to increase renewables. We’ve proven that wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We did.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Actually, you opposed it at the time, Dr Smith, through your then energy spokesperson. I would also take some comfort, if I was the member and was so interested in the use of gas rather than renewables, that Todd Energy has recently committed to a substantial investment in a new gas peaking plant, which, of course, we will need in the transition to more renewables.

Jonathan Young: What plan does the Minister have to ensure New Zealanders have access to affordable electricity when current hydro storage is at its lowest point at this time of the year since 2010, with September wholesale prices up 58 percent on the same month as last year, and with longer-term natural gas backup constrained and less likely to be available?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have great confidence because I understand that the core principle that lies at the heart of the New Zealand electricity market is that long-term prices—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Could I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Chris Bishop to let the Minister answer the question so that I can hear him, rather than having their own debate. Could the Minister start again, thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have great confidence that long-term prices are under control because I understand that the most basic principle that lies at the heart of New Zealand’s electricity system is that long-term prices for electricity are set by the cost of new generation capacity, and we know that on this very day, wind power is already cheaper than gas, which is why Genesis have today announced that they’re investing in a new 100 megawatt wind farm in Taranaki, not in more gas. That’s because wind is already cheaper than new gas.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about the rise in power costs, is it not a fact that Contact Energy was sold on 1 October 1998, when I wasn’t in Cabinet?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It may be a statement of fact, but this Minister has no responsibility for it.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Well, we’ve had a lot of noise out of the beltway this week, but do you want to know one thing that I know New Zealanders are saying?

Hon Judith Collins: What’s that, Amy?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The cost of living is going up under this Government. Under this Government, it is getting harder and harder for New Zealand families to get ahead, and isn’t this the Government who, in the election campaign, told us they were all about families? They were all about the lowest-income families, and what have we seen since they’ve been in Government? They have put in place fuel taxes that are meaning that the lowest-income families are having to choose between putting food on the table or filling their car to get to work or to get the kids to school or to get to sport. That’s what this Government has prioritised. They have prioritised petrol taxes that hit the hardest, the most, over the needs of those families to put food on the table.

We’ve just seen this week, actually, Statistics New Zealand come out and say that we’ve seen one of the steepest rises in the cost of living for some time—far steeper, actually, than the market was expecting. The biggest single rise, really, of the household costs is the 19 percent increase—19 percent increase—in the cost of petrol over the last year, and we have a Government that wants to dodge and weave and hide its impact on that. For all of the nonsense we’ve heard from the Prime Minister that taxes are only 6-something cents, the public know the truth. The public know that thanks to this Government’s fuel taxes, it is costing them more and more to fill their cars. The average household in Auckland is paying $324 a year more in taxes—not just to fuel their cars but more in taxes—because of the Labour Government that they thought had their back.

And you want to talk about rents? Well, because the Government doesn’t understand that if you drive landlords out of the market, rents go up—

Hon Shane Jones: What about if you drive members out?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Those same families are paying rents $20 a week higher, Mr Jones, under the Government that you’re supporting than they previously paid—$20 a week higher on average every week in rent cost because of a Government that doesn’t understand the relationship between what it does and the market.

We heard today in the House from the Minister of Finance that the Government is unapologetic about imposing these new costs and is unapologetic about putting in place bans that mean their energy costs are going to go up, their fuel costs are going up, their housing costs are going up, and their food costs are going up. They may get advice that tells them that, but they simply choose not to agree with it. What incredible arrogance—what incredible arrogance—to simply say, “We are unapologetic. We’re ignoring all of the advice that tells us this is hurting Kiwi pockets.” This is hurting the governance of the people of New Zealand. And what’s it for? Well, the Prime Minister tries to tell us it’s going to improve congestion in Auckland.

Look, that would be a wonderful thing, but here’s the truth: those fuel taxes are paying for a trolley through the Prime Minister’s electorate. They’re paying for a trolley service up Dominion Road and through Mr Twyford’s electorate. So $5 billion has come out of the State highway budget to pay for a trolley in Jacinda Ardern’s own electorate and in Phil Twyford’s own electorate. In Selwyn and in the South Island and in the East Coast and in Coromandel and in Northland, hard-working families are paying petrol taxes brought in by this Government to pay for a trolley service up Dominion Road that isn’t going to do a damned thing for congestion in Auckland.

Let’s talk about energy costs—let’s talk about energy costs—because this Government, again, came out and announced an oil and gas ban without any consultation, without any Cabinet process, and without any good analysis that told them it was a good idea, and today we’ve got industry experts saying that we have an energy system that is, and I quote, “creaking and groaning” under pressure and that is an immediate threat to this economy—an immediate threat to the economy. The guys on that side of the House have no idea how to run an economy that actually benefits New Zealanders.

I’ll give them a clue: New Zealanders do better when they can get ahead. New Zealanders do better when there are opportunities and a Government that backs them, not a Government that’s imposing more taxes, that’s putting up the cost of fuel, that’s putting up the cost of housing, that’s seeing their electricity costs go up, their food costs go up, and their jobs go down. The people of New Zealand can feel incredibly let down by this Government in its first 12 months. Every day when they go the petrol pumps, they know that this Government is taking more money out of their pockets because they can’t control their own spending.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): That was audition number one. Out of 10: one. The next will be worst, of course, and this speech is for the National Party’s backbench, because their front bench is moribund, defunct. They are not going to last if they want to be anywhere and have shape in the 2020 election.

Can I just say, this has been a most blistering week. It’s been very hard to focus on one’s work or to get one’s colleagues focused on one’s work, because the moment we’re trying to be positive and get on with running the country, we are sidetracked by constant media questions as to: what do they think it all means? What it really means is doughnuts for National—that’s what it really means. Here’s the point though, you know: yesterday, you saw the National Party about to invoke the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act—about to invoke the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act. Just three weeks ago, who said this: “It is an affront to New Zealand’s core values of freedom of speech, of respect for democracy, and of tolerance of dissent.”, “a blunt tool to nail dissenters.”? Guess who said that? [Interruption] No—the master of cant, duplicity, and doubletalk, Nick Smith.

And then, three weeks ago, this is what David Carter said in sharing his conscience with the country. He said he “wouldn’t want to stay in [the] National Party … if my conscience … was curtailed”. He went further: “It is … a sad day for … democracy”. Chris Bishop, never to be left out, of course, said it was anti-democratic, and then Mr Brownlee, who was so pleased that his contest for the job is gone, said it was a travesty, and yet yesterday—yesterday—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: You were thrown out—you were thrown out.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Speaker gestures to himself]

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh, you were thrown out on plenty of occasions.

SPEAKER: And if it wasn’t so funny, so would you be.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I’m going anyway; I can’t stand too much more.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, we know you’re going—in fact, you’re gone and have been for a long time.

Can I just say, as the Good Book says, by their deeds you will know them. So, yesterday, someone challenged the veracity of the leader of the National Party—and he said things far, far worse, and they’ll be on those tapes—and instead of saying, “Let’s find out what the evidence says.”, no, they rushed to yet dispel someone who’s asking legitimate questions about whether the law’s been broken, and much, much more. And then, of course, Paula Bennett decided to get down into the trench with trolls and started being personal with family allegations. I would’ve thought, with the greatest respect to her, she’s the last person to make those allegations. Make no bones about it. She would be the last person to make allegations like that. But I don’t want to get personal.

Can I just say that Simon Bridges is a goner. His No. 1 achievement has been to become New Zealand’s No. 1 blame-thrower. He blames everybody but himself. He went out and faced the country with all that money, and the further that he went the more we loved it, because the more they saw and perceived what he was like. In fact, his negativity polling was 16 just about three weeks ago; now, I’m told, by their internal polling it’s past 25. That’s irrecoverable territory. But here’s the point: you can’t trust what this man says. He said on 14 August—to what I might call RNZ’s “Reporter B”—that “he might never get to the bottom of who leaked the information before it was due to be published but … it was not his caucus.”—not in his caucus.

The other characteristic of this brilliant leader is he can’t go anywhere without a support crowd. Now, we all know that features of leadership are grit, self-belief, and determination. A lot of my colleagues have got it, on this side of the House. A lot of my colleagues, they evince it, but no, not this man. He can’t go anywhere without a morale support crowd. [Holds up photo of Hon Simon Bridges holding a press conference] Excepting this bunch behind me, I’d have a mirror in front of me to make sure I can see over my shoulders. Now, would you feel assured by the “Crusher” behind you? I wouldn’t.

But here comes the point: they’re all going to take over in a contest to be the next leader, and not one of them rates more than 2 percent.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Mr Speaker—

Hon Members: Judith! Judith!

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Isn’t that lovely of them. They’re always cheering every time I stand up. See, I think it’s a lovely place to work, here in Parliament. I think that the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who’s resumed his seat, made one true comment in that. He said that wherever he goes he has a mirror. I think—and he nods; he nods to accept that. Some people would say be a bit careful when you’re crossing the road, Mr Peters, with that mirror in front of your face—it may not work that well.

Well, look, I thought we would talk about something important, so we’re not going to talk about him. We’re going to talk about the cost of living and the cost of living to New Zealanders. No matter what we want to talk about—and some people might want to talk about people with some sort of attention-seeking behaviours—what we’re going to talk about is what matters.

Let’s have a look at rental housing. We saw some issues today in rental housing from the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army are not known to be big supporters of the National Party or National Party Governments; however, they are coming out today with a long-term Labour Party activist representing the Salvation Army, saying that actually the rental housing market has got worse. In fact, what is the report that they’re talking about? It’s called Beyond Renting: Responding to the decline in private rental housing. Some people might think that’s not very important. Well, I think it’s very important, and I know on this side of the House we believe it is.

Every single announcement on rental housing from the Labour-led Government from Phil Twyford has been about actually decreasing the number of private rental houses available. The Salvation Army—certainly not people connected to the National Party—have come out today and said that’s absolutely right. What they’re saying and what Statistics New Zealand have said and what MBIE—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—are saying is that it’s around a $25 a week increase in the last year for a rental house under this Government, this Labour-led Government. They have actually overseen enormous cost increases.

Let’s have a look at petrol tax. In an electorate like Papakura, that I represent, it’s a big issue for people there. It’s a big issue for carpenters, big issue for people working on building sites, big issue for people who carry tools who have to go from site to site during the day—they’re not going to sit around waiting for public transport. You can’t take your building tools on public transport. You can’t do that. What we’ve got is a Government that turns their—we heard today saying things like, “Oh, it’s about $2 a week more.” What a load of rubbish. What a total load of rubbish. The further out people live from the building sites or from the worksites, the more they pay. Most people do not get the opportunity to have an electric vehicle.

Let’s just talk about electric vehicles for a moment. An appalling performance, yet again, from David Parker, representing the Minister of Energy and Resources—an appalling performance. He said wind turbines are so renewable. Well, actually, wind is; the turbines themselves, not so much. There is three tonnes of copper in every single wind turbine, all having to be taken out of the ground—three tonnes of copper. Then you have the concrete. Then you have the steel—massive amounts of steel. Guess what? You need to have iron. Steel is made from iron and coal. Why is it coal? Because it’s carbonated iron—that’s what steel is. So you’ve got wind, which may be well renewable—certainly, from that side of the House it’s very renewable—but the turbines themselves, not so much. And then there are the birds that they kill.

So 4 percent of our electricity generation is from wind turbines at the moment; 63 percent from the hydro—the same dams that what was the Green Party or the Values Party were campaigning against in the 1970s; those hydro dams. We’ve got a Government that is happy to sit by and let more coal be burnt so that Jacinda Ardern can virtue signal on the world stage and say she doesn’t want any more natural gas. We’ve got six years supply of natural gas in this country. It’s 16 percent explored and able to be guaranteed. We have 16 percent of our electricity generation from natural gas—

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well, for audition No. 2, I don’t think that was a very flash performance. I think we might have expected better from Judith Collins, a longstanding member and former Minister of that Government. I’ve never seen the National Party embracing the Salvation Army so warmly as we’ve seen tonight, and I’ve never seen a Minister who so misunderstands energy and what is actually happening and the challenge that we face and that this Government, along with the rest of the world, is facing up to on climate change.

I am very proud to be part of a Government that is facing up to the many challenges confronting our country and, indeed, the rest of the world. Fifty weeks on from being sworn in—356 days on—we have an impressive list of achievements that we can refer to. We have now under way the most comprehensive building programme of residential housing that we have seen in 80 years, and members opposite keep talking about “Look what’s happening to rental housing.” They thought nothing of the massive concentration of more and more houses in fewer and fewer hands. That’s all they cared about. Never mind about young couples—young professional couples, young low-income couples—wanting to chase the Kiwi dream of owning their own home. They didn’t care. They don’t care now. They are pushing buttons, and they don’t actually care.

We saw the largest programme of income support that we have seen in many, many years, with the Families Package income support, Working for Families—those things that actually put more dollars in the back pockets of working families and actually make a difference.

We’ve seen one of the biggest regional economic stimulation programmes that we’ve seen in more than a generation, with the Provincial Growth Fund in the hands of the Hon Shane Jones, who is doing a terrific job. We’re seeing massive investment in the regions, huge opportunities, amazing innovation. I look at what’s happening in Taranaki, and you see the new ideas emerging there: hydrogen development, new manufacturing development on the cusp—great ideas. People there are brimming with new ideas and wanting to do new stuff. That’s what a Government serious about the challenges facing this country does. It embraces new energy, embraces new ideas, and takes on new people and backs them to the hilt. That’s what we’re doing.

We are seeing record investment—record investment—in health. It was the poor cousin of the previous Government for nine years—run down. Hospitals were run down. People couldn’t get surgery, people were getting surgery in theatres that leaked and weren’t properly equipped, and now we’ve seen a Government committed to good healthcare for all New Zealanders.

What about the long-overdue positive changes in education? At last, an education Minister serious about the job of educating and preparing our next generation of working people and thinkers and leaders and innovators for the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century. Getting rid of national standards, getting rid of the burdensome load that that creates for teachers and that gets in the way of good, creative, innovative learning for young people—that’s what a Government stepping up to the challenges of the 21st century actually does, and we’re doing it. Modern learning environments, training new teachers—what about the dearth of investment in training new teachers by the previous Government? Not us—not on our watch. We are focused on the future, and we’re doing the stuff that matters.

Then there’s restoring balance to the workplace relations, lifting productivity, lifting wages, and giving more opportunities for work through Mana in Mahi, the great work that the Hon Willie Jackson is seeing through. We are getting more people who have been shut out of the labour market for far too long and giving them a chance.

Then you’ve only got to look at the economy. Look at the numbers coming through: a surplus of $5.5 billion—a record surplus—because this is a Government focused on the bottom line. We’re managing the books carefully and making sure that we’re making investment where it counts.

Fifteen out of 16 sectors experienced real growth—real growth and development. That’s what happens when you get a Government working alongside communities and working alongside business, serious about taking this country forward but doing it in a way that everybody gets to share in the gains and the benefits. Those are the challenges that this Government set itself to face up to. Less than one year on, we’re well under way. We’re doing amazing stuff, and New Zealanders are feeling better for it as a result.

I have to say this: as I get around New Zealand, the number of New Zealanders telling me how proud they now feel to be a New Zealander. They see Jacinda Ardern on the world stage there in New York, selling the message about New Zealand, selling the message about New Zealand values. They see us confronting the ignominy of the criminal justice system, where people were just left to rot. Hundreds and hundreds of people—billions of dollars spent on locking people up. New Zealanders are feeling proud again thanks to this Labour and coalition Government.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I would have been far prouder, as a Kiwi, of our Prime Minister visiting the UN if she’d gone up there and said that our New Zealand Defence Force deployed to South Sudan on a very difficult peacekeeping mission were actually getting the support that they need from New York and the United Nations. I would’ve been far prouder if that had been on the top of her agenda and she actually addressed issues like that.

This coalition Government is in big trouble, because what’s happening is—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: You might think it’s funny. What’s happening is that you’re not listening. You’re actually not listening, and let me give you a clear example of that.

I’m very proud that as an electorate MP for my electorate of Rodney, I hold constituent clinics, and I want to share some observations in terms of the type of constituent meetings I’ve been having over the last three or four weeks. I’ve had three business people come in and see me that I would never have seen come to the office when we were in Government. They wanted to come and see me—they have no political affiliation. They’re small to medium sized - business people, and they’re very concerned about the policies and the uncertainty that this Government is signalling. These are people that actually have to take a punt sometimes. Their main concern in life is cash flow and being able to make payroll every week or every fortnight, and they’re very, very concerned about the signals that are coming from this Government around industrial relations, and around some of the policies that they’ve already passed that transfers the risk from the Government back into their businesses. That is going to have an effect. So this is a Government that is not listening. They’re not listening to this sort of feedback.

I went and visited Wentworth College, a college in my electorate, the other day—year 9 students.

Kieran McAnulty: This speech isn’t going to do it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Go and fact-check this if you want to—go and fact-check this if you want. The first thing they raised with me was the regional fuel tax. Do you know why? And this is the arrogance of this Government, because they will not listen to the actual people that their policies are affecting.

Kieran McAnulty: Can you wait for Jami-Lee to finish—just listening to him at the moment.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So you want to get out there, Mr McAnulty, and you actually need to start talking to people and you need to start listening, because you’re—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr Speaker. The policies of this Government are starting to have a negative impact on the people that you’re meant to be governing for. So I had year 9 students at a college raising the issues around regional fuel tax, and then I had a delegation of senior Kiwis, older ladies, that came in and said that, actually, the regional fuel tax and the cost of fuel are starting to severely impact on what they’re doing. They live in an area that doesn’t have a strong public transport system. They’re all older. They’re senior, retired Kiwis, and they’re having to carpool and they’re having to find other ways of getting around, because the cost of fuel is starting to bite. This is happening.

I had the trucking companies and transport companies gather in my electorate in Silverdale to actually protest, to drive—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are you proposing a fuel subsidy?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m not proposing a fuel subsidy; what I’m proposing is this. Actually, the Greens—you should be lobbying, because if you’re coming to this House to advocate for the people that you say you support, then go and talk to your coalition partners and tell them that the one thing that they can do, the one thing that they can do to make a difference in people’s lives, is remove the regional fuel tax. I acknowledge that the Government doesn’t control the price of oil. It does have a little bit of control when you see our dollar starting to drop, because the weakness in the dollar reflects the lack of confidence in the economy, but these are actually the things that they do control.

I had a constituent of mine come to me before the election. Her husband is a proud serving officer in the New Zealand Defence Force. She has a rare disease and she was seeking more funding. She’d gone to the Labour Party, Mr Clark, who had given her a commitment—someone in the Labour Party had given her a commitment. She came back to me. She’d been a strong National supporter. She said, “I’m going to have to give my support to Labour because they’re going to invest money into rare diseases through Pharmac.” That’s what she was told. Guess what she’s got?

Kieran McAnulty: He’s just finishing up.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Guess what she’s got, Mr McAnulty: nothing—zero from you. That’s your proud result that you can stand on. I’d say to Mr Clark: put the $200 million back into Pharmac and start funding some medication for rare diseases. That’s what I’d say on behalf of my constituent, because you pulled the wool over her eyes, and that was a cruel thing to do to a young mum who was actually trying to find the money and the funding to be able to keep her going and support her family. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I need at the outset just to correct something the previous member, Mark Mitchell, has said. There’s been no $200 million pulled out of Pharmac. It’s a line that continues to be repeated by that Opposition. We have a record combined pharmaceutical budget this year—a record combined pharmaceutical budget. This is a Government that cares about healthcare. We are investing in our healthcare services after nine long years of neglect under that former Government opposite, who stripped billions—stripped billions—out of our health system.

Let’s talk about leaks for a minute—let’s talk about leaks. In our hospitals we had leaks—we had leaks in our hospitals. That should never be allowed to happen, but it did under that Government’s watch. We had rot and mould in our hospital walls. That happened under that Government’s watch. So it’s a little bit rich to get lectures from that member opposite about investing in health services. This is a Government that’s finally doing that. This is a Government that’s finally recognised the stress and strain that our health system’s been under, that looks at the buildings that need maintenance, that is investing in capital—the biggest capital injection in a decade into our health services. This is a Government that is investing more than they ever did in our health system year in, and it will be year out.

In order to make that investment, we have a strong and cohesive Government that is supporting a strong economy and running a strong surplus, and that requires strong leadership on the issues that matter to New Zealand. This is a cohesive Government running a strong surplus. If people don’t take anything else home from this speech today, that is my message, because we are determined—we are determined—to continue to run an economy that is sustainable and that is inclusive of all New Zealanders, so the benefits of productivity are shared with all New Zealanders. That’s what this side of the House represents.

We want a fair economy because that’s also a strong economy. We know when we invest in New Zealanders that they are more productive and we are all better off. If kids go to school hungry, they don’t learn properly. That’s why this Government is investing $5.5 billion in the Families Package. Those families with young children, 384,000 families in New Zealand when this package is rolled out, will be $75 a week better off. That’s investing where it’s most needed: the parents with young families who are doing it tough. This Government is convinced about, and committed to, making sure that the benefits of the strong economy are spread fairly across the economy to make sure that kids don’t go to school hungry, that they are learning when they’re at school.

We want to make sure of course that we are doing the infrastructure spending that is needed. That’s why we are saving for a rainy day. That’s why we are paying down debt, managing a debt situation. Of course Moody’s has just reaffirmed New Zealand’s Aaa rating—the best you can get—because Moody’s recognises not only that we have got strong economic growth in our future, higher than most countries we would like to compare ourselves with, not only that we have strong growth, strong fundamentals in the economy thanks to Minister Robertson who’s not in the House today—thanks to the Minister of Finance’s strong and stable leadership under this Government we continue to grow surpluses—but also that we are committed to paying down debt. [Interruption] I might also note, because I can hear members of the Opposition shouting out, that that National Party opposite, when they were in Government, borrowed more in nominal terms than any other Government in New Zealand history. They borrowed more than any other Government in New Zealand history. So it’s a bit rich for them to shout out about these issues.

Now, we’re paying down the debt. We’re running a strong surplus, and that’s of course the track record of Governments that have a Labour flavour in them. The last Labour-led Government ran nine surpluses in nine years and left money for a rainy day. Of course we’re prepared, should another rainy day come along. That is part of why we are managing debt, because we believe it’s responsible, should there be another earthquake or external shock—and there are storm clouds on the global horizon. We are managing the economy strongly and carefully so that if there is that kind of shock, New Zealand will be prepared.

We believe in running a strong economy. That’s why we’ve stuck to our Budget responsibility rules, but we’ve seen the economic growth figures: a 1 percent growth in the quarter to June 2018—that’s just in the quarter—the largest quarterly rise in two years. Growth is broad and reported across 15 out of 16 industries. This is a strong and cohesive Government that is supporting a strong economy and running a strong surplus.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the Government is hurting working New Zealanders. I know it, my constituents know it, and New Zealanders know it as well, and I suspect even those on the Labour-led Government benches know it too, but they’re blinded as we’ve heard in the contributions today by their own ideologies and special interests. They spend where they shouldn’t, they’re cutting where they shouldn’t, and they tax everywhere they can. It’s incredibly disappointing because as an electorate MP—and I know that’s probably a bit of a novel concept to the members on the other side—I know they’re not happy.

The members of Tāmaki are not happy. They are paying more for their fuel, they are seeing their rents going up, and they are being hit by the threat of more and more taxes. No one in the good place of Tāmaki has not worked out already that this Government is looking to tax more and more into the future. They begin of course to mock the good people of Tāmaki because they think it’s just a bunch of people who sit in the wealthy suburbs. Well, one, actually they are the people who work jolly hard and pay the most taxes; secondly, they involve also the great people of Glen Innes who are some of the poorest people of New Zealand and who are paying more and more now because of the fuel taxes and otherwise, because of this Labour Government. I’m predicting that come the next election my vote and the vote of National will go up in the likes of Glen Innes because they will begin to see the duplicity that comes out of this Government.

SPEAKER: Order!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Actually, that’s a very good point and I withdraw.

What we are seeing though is an increase of costs—I’ve obviously prefigured taxes. The fuel tax is the most obvious. It’s been said in recent days that the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, and others don’t seem to understand that. They seem to have glibly ignored it. It’s a real cost. In fact, we have seen in Auckland in particular that their friend the Mayor of Auckland, Phil Goff, who’s Labour to his heart and core, has also put a tax on Aucklanders who are paying substantially more for their petrol now increasing the cost day to day of every activity, and it probably doesn’t register in the minds of the Government that all those costs are passed on. When they increase the minimum wage, when they threaten to increase it even further, when they threaten capital gains taxes, that all puts greater uncertainty and cost into business which is why, while the taxes are going up, the confidence is declining.

The other side we’ve got to is of course wrong priorities. That’s a cost to this Government as well and to this country. Actually, it’s not a cost to the Government; the Government’s got no idea. Actually, while I think about it, one of the problems that we’ve got from the Prime Minister—you know, it’s only a few extra cents in tax. Well, that’s all well and good when you are on half a million dollars a year, same with the Ministers on quarter of a million. They don’t necessarily know what the costs are; they don’t care.

But also we’ve got wrong priorities. We have all this talk, particularly during the election campaign about how the Labour Party really cares about the workers. Well, why is it that we’ve got more rolling strikes anticipated with the teachers? The costs to New Zealand are actually involved with wrong priorities. So we are more interested, it appears, to be setting up an embassy in Stockholm—and no offence to the good people there—but why do we need to set up a new embassy in Stockholm instead of paying our teachers more?

Kieran McAnulty: The member’s getting worse.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I don’t hear anything coming from the other side apart from Kieran McAnulty, but no one’s ever quite understood what he’s had to say. But that’s a wrong priority as well, perhaps sitting right there—right there—wrong priorities.

Look, in fact, even when we think—we just had the Minister of Health speak. We found out the other day that actually there’s almost unlimited funding going to go to gender reassignment surgeries but where’s the money for cochlear implants, where’s the money for grommets for children, where’s the money for these women protesting and petitioning outside the Parliament yesterday for Ibrance? Those are just a few of the health cases—wrong priorities of this Government, which are more obsessed with virtue signalling, even to almost empty halls at the UN.

The final element really is what I would call the costs of unhealthy obsessions—unhealthy obsessions. This particularly comes from the Green Party. They’re obsessed with legalising drugs—the likes of cannabis and other products. Even in recent days when the psychoactive substances have been in the headlines and people dying, we had the likes of the Drug Foundation and the Green Party supporting it. Why is that a cost? Why is that a cost? It’s because it’s a belief that everybody should do whatever they want but everyone else will pay the consequences. Everyone else will pay the consequences. The cost is never in personal responsibility; it’s that everybody else has to pay for it. And the irony too is it comes, ultimately, from those people—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Your actions are costing lives.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —and there’s one of them yelling in the House at the moment—whose life experience is such that they have never really understood the cost of the people that they heard.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Look at the evidence.

SIMON O’CONNOR: They talk about evidence when really again the life experience is the best.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Fakalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker—in acknowledgment of Niue Language Week. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call in this general debate, particularly after the member who has just resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, bleated on about wrong priorities and the regional fuel tax, both of which I’ll address in my speech today.

When I was thinking about what I wanted to talk about today, I reflected on my first general debate speech, which was pretty much on the cusp of the Budget announcement in May this year where we talked on this side of the House about our vision for what we wanted to do in Government, the acknowledgment that we had to build strong foundations first, and that that meant absolutely building a strong economy so that the benefits of that growth and that generation of wealth could be shared more fairly, which was the point that all of us made on this side of the House—the point that none of us actually saw under the nine years of the previous Government.

We talked about the crisis we’d inherited back then, because, of course, any time we measure progress we have to do it from a baseline and that was the baseline we inherited, and we talked about fixing that. Now, of course, arguably, we could have said even then—at that point—that in the first 100 days of this Government we achieved more than the other lot did over nine years. But now it hasn’t even been a year that this Government has been at the helm and yet there’s so much that has been done already to ensure that that economic growth is maintained and that it’s shared more fairly as well, and that’s what I want to focus on, because those are the issues that matter to New Zealanders.

Now, in terms of economic growth, we’ve seen growth in the last quarter to June 2018. We’ve seen that that growth has been broad—that it’s been across 15 out of 16 industries—which is excellent. We’ve already demonstrated good economic stewardship, but indulge me as I explain how we’ve done that or what some of the indicators are that show we have done that. Growth has been faster than some of the other strong comparable economies internationally. Moody’s has given New Zealand a big tick—an Aaa credit rating again—and they’ve said: “Overall the economy is doing very well and financial markets are viewing New Zealand very favourably,”. Internationally, there’s confidence in the future of our economy.

Now, how have we shared it? In so many different ways that I won’t be able to go into all of them in the two minutes I have left.

Hon Peeni Henare: Well, that’s a shame.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, but I’ll focus on some that I feel particularly strongly about. The previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, talked about wrong priorities. I challenge him on that because one of the first things that this Government did was cancel the tax cuts that that side of the House would have put into place if they had been re-elected—

Hon Peeni Henare: The top 10 percent.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, the top 10 percent of income earners—it would have gone into the pockets of all of us. Instead, what have we done on this side of the House? We’ve cancelled that and reinvested it into the pockets of the families who need it the most, and frozen our pay rises instead. That, I would argue, is indeed one of the best priorities that this Government could have invested in.

So we’ve invested in the social, economic, and infrastructure foundations of this country. That benefits everyone. We’ve invested in the Families Package, which includes Working for Families, the Best Start payment, and the winter energy payment that will see about 384,000 families with children better off on average by $75 a week, and that is huge. For the family that was thinking about whether they take their children to the doctor or put food on the table, that is huge. We’ve invested in housing. We’ve ensured that the minimum wage has increased. We’re addressing pay equity issues, specifically for workers in female-dominated industries who for so long have languished on the minimum wage. Recently, I met a woman who was working and had been working, on the minimum wage, for 26 years. For 26 years she had never seen a pay increase. Those are the people that this Government is prioritising.

We are investing in housing. Housing is a huge part—and given that I’m running out of time I’ll keep it at this. We are addressing the housing crisis at every point of the spectrum: addressing homelessness; building more State houses; stopping the sell-off of State houses; affordable housing for my generation, which was locked out of it; and increasing renters’ rights while balancing protections for landlords. We are addressing every part of it. This is a Government that’s strong, that’s cohesive, and absolutely investing in the right priorities. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to speak in the general debate, continuing with the theme of this side of the House—the cost of living—and I’ll be majoring on the fuel tax. Now, for those on the other side who might think that this is merely a matter of economics—as though that’s not important enough—let me assure them it is also a matter of politics. There is an inverse proportion between the fuel prices and the Government’s support in my electorate. And if they don’t know that now and aren’t prepared for that shock, then that’s the real oil shock that they’ll be facing in 2020.

These things do matter. And I’m going to have to say, for the edification of members opposite, explained in very simple terms using the Micawber principle, “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.” These things do matter. While it might be rightly said that money can’t buy you happiness, it can ensure a more pleasant form of misery.

So these things are important to people up and down the land. They’re certainly important to the good people of Helensville. They are watching these matters carefully—the extra costs that are being imposed upon them by this Government. The numbers do matter, and often it’s the marginal increases that hurt the most—it’s the marginal increases. So I shake my head when I hear members on the Government side and their supporters saying, “Well, sure we’re increasing the fuel prices by way of excise and by way of fuel tax, but you increased it during your time in Government as well.” Well, I’d have some respect for that position if they’d repealed our increases and replaced them with their own, but they’re adding them on top. So they’re claiming the one and adding the other. So it makes no sense whatsoever for these crocodile tears to be shed about previous increases to which they are now adding further increases.

It’s not the first straw that breaks the camel’s back; it’s the last one, as the axiom goes, and the straws are being piled on thick and fast by the Government in their rush to achieve various aims, they say, which I’m dubious about in any case. Certainly, for the people I represent, there’s nothing much on the horizon in terms of the transport improvements that one might expect as a result of the fuel tax. We’re getting the pain but not getting the gain as yet.

In the context of politics generally, and certainly in the area of taxation, the other side of the House talks a lot about progressive taxes or progressive politics. It’s the idea that there can be an unequal application of a thing because the circumstances of people are different. Well, I respect and understand that as far as it goes. It makes sense in some situations. It might be possible to have different philosophical understandings of fairness—such that equality of taxation is on one measure fair and on another measure different. Well, that’s fine; we can have that argument all day long, but I’d actually like to bring a geographical analysis to the idea of progressive taxation, particularly with regard to the people I represent in the electorate of Helensville—namely, the west coast and the rural north-west of Auckland.

It is an electorate within Auckland that I represent. The electorate is therefore subject to the regional fuel tax that this Government has introduced, but the tyranny of geography is very important for two reasons. The reason that the impacts on my electorate are outsized compared with others—even within the Auckland region, and certainly compared to those without—is that my people have a lot further distance to travel, both within the electorate and also to the CBD and other areas where employment and other opportunities exist, more so in my area. So the extra fuel tax is actually impacting upon those people going about their daily lives in ways that they can’t very readily avoid, such as going to work, which is an activity we want to encourage and not discourage. And so that’s the first aspect: the greater distances to be travelled within areas of Auckland which are still subject to the tax but which require a greater expenditure of fuel.

The second element goes to the aspect of competition. Much has been made of the importance of competition in the fuel market. Of course, that’s true as far it goes—that competition is important—but in areas that are more rural, more remote, there are, naturally, fewer fuel stations. There’s less ability for competition. So it’s all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about “the Gull effect”, as though that were something that could be sprinkled about like so much fairy dust or, indeed, stardust, but it’s actually not understanding the geographical realities of areas of Auckland—specifically my area, but others too, such as the electorate of Andrew Bayly—that don’t have access to these ways of keeping the cost of living down, and that’s a real shame.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Faakalofa lahi atu. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I want to acknowledge those who have spoken before me and the emphasis that they’ve put on things that we have been doing recently as a Government—announcements that we’ve made, some of the emphasis that we’ve put on how strong our economy is, and how well we are doing in the ratings in terms of that performance—but, actually, this is the first time that I have the opportunity to speak in the House, and I wanted to speak about just how proud I am of our Prime Minister showing leadership on the world stage at the United National General Assembly in New York. As the news feeds were coming in, I was absolutely glued to the screen and so proud, my heart bursting with pride to see Jacinda representing New Zealand—

SPEAKER: Order!

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —the Prime Minister—sorry—representing Aotearoa New Zealand on the world stage. She demonstrated compassionate, value-driven leadership. She made history by being the first world leader to take her baby to the General Assembly, along with the support of Clarke Gayford. She set a shining example of what women can achieve in leadership roles. Her progressive politics made her and, by association, Aotearoa New Zealand a global sensation. I am sure that this is going to result in a boost to our tourism and more visitors coming to New Zealand. The media coverage: the NBC’s Today, the BBC, Fox, the New York Times, The Guardian, Quartz, Metro, Elle magazine—the list goes on.

Kieran McAnulty: Twitter’s been pretty active, too.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Ha, ha! She made history with baby Neve at the UN General Assembly. As I said, she is the first world leader to attend the UN General Assembly with her baby in tow, and is only the second leader in the world to have a baby while in office. She made a comment—and I quote—“she hopes one day [it] will be the norm for all women wanting to balance a career and parenting. If I can do one thing, and that is change the way we think about these things, then I will be pleased we have achieved something.” CNN’s headline was “Taking baby into UN can inspire change”.

There were opportunities to speak—for example, at UNICEF’s social good summit, restating her commitment to ending child poverty and making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. How proud I was to hear her on the world stage, talking about things that are so important to us—like child poverty—and making Aotearoa New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child.

She talked about climate change, but I want to talk about that UN speech, where there were messages of kindness and equality. In fact, the audience broke the convention that delegates and world leaders are told not to respond to speeches. They are not to clap and not to show any kind of emotion, but this was broken when our Prime Minister spoke about the Me Too movement, saying that Me Too needs to become “We Too”, and the General Assembly floor erupted into applause. Her point was that we are all in it together.

Her speech called for equality, equality for women, action on climate change, and a recommitment to multilateralism. I was also proud that in her opening, she spoke in Te Reo—not just a few words, but several sentences in Te Reo—and she was holding a heru that was gifted to her by the people of Ngāti Rēhia from Northland, from a recent visit where she and several other Ministers made announcements in my region that I know are already making such a change.

So I was proud of our Prime Minister representing New Zealand on the world stage and focusing on and encouraging and sharing our progressive politics in a world where we are not actually seeing much of that. I couldn’t be prouder. Kia ora.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s easy to sit in this House on the first day back of a four-week sitting and forget where we’ve come from. What I’ve heard today reminds me that this Government is big on ideology and big on working parties—and no real action yet. In fact, on water last week they announced three new working parties and, basically, said “We’ll carry on with the National Government’s plan.” In my own electorate of Tukituk, which I’m proud to represent, and Mr McAnulty will probably know this as well—

Kieran McAnulty: Tukituki.

LAWRENCE YULE: In Tukituki, which I’m proud to represent, the sole sum gain of this Government so far, in just over 12 months, is six new houses. Not a single change on water. The working group that was set up to look at a new school in Havelock North, I was advised by the Minister in a written question last week, won’t even report until early next year. The same Minister was in my electorate in the election campaign saying we’ve got to do something urgently. Nothing has happened.

The Minister for the Environment was in my electorate saying water quality in the Tukituki River was a disgrace. That’s what he said. Here we are, just over one year later, and not one single thing has changed. So, in my view—in the Hawke’s Bay economy we now have low unemployment, we have strong economic growth and exports—not one single part of that is as a result of this Government or any value that it’s added. All this Government has done is add to the cost of living—19 percent increase in the cost of fuel. If you go and look at my local newspaper, every Saturday they publish anonymous texts from people in the community. This week, they are full—full of people complaining about fuel taxes and, interestingly enough, not even one criticism of me this week, which is quite different! Every other text was by normal hard-working people in my electorate talking about the price of fuel.

On Friday, I attended the Gisborne show. I talked to transport operators. They have already lifted the price of freight by 5 percent. I came back to Hawke’s Bay—all of them have done it. One company said to me he lost $20,000 in a month, so he increased the price of fuel. What do you think that does, members of the other side? The cost of every single commodity that you use or purchase is going up and through the roof—sorry, that we use and purchase; my apologies, Mr Speaker.

The rental house market—in my electorate, what’s happening? All the landlords are getting out of it. It has become too hard—the compliance cost and the risk involved. A whole lot of those rental houses are now being sold, and this Government is buying up more and more motels as emergency housing—the same Government that when they were in Opposition, criticised this side of the House.

The thing that really upsets me, though, is that while the price of fuel has gone up like it has, the people in my electorate have lost a $400 million expressway, they are now paying the shifted cost of the Auckland fuel tax across New Zealand, and they’re getting nothing for it.

The worst one of all, while I’ve got some time, is this Government signed off a prison contract to build rapid deployment prisons for the increasing prison population. A firm in my electorate tendered for the first part and missed out. In February of this year, the same Government said we need to build another 600 cells. An expression of interest was sought, yet no tender was ever let. So a $125 million contract was let to an Australian-based company using Chinese cells, and people in my electorate or New Zealand were not even allowed to tender. In my view, it’s a complete disgrace, and it lets down the people in my electorate. There were 120 jobs involved in that.

So don’t tell me that this Government cares for our regions and Willie Jackson’s doing great things. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni came to Hawke’s Bay last week and commented on some great work that’s been done. It was work that was done by National. In my view, my district is being shafted by this Government. It’s losing infrastructure spending. It’s not even able to access contracts. I think it’s a disgrace.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Fakalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. I’m just sitting here freaking out a little bit at Judith Collins’ speech today, where she stood up and put up this new air of concern about people struggling with living costs and people struggling with being able to afford to pay their way and live their ordinary lives. I wonder where that concern was back in 2016—well, pretty much the whole time she spent in Government, actually—when she, actually, said publicly that the cause of child poverty was bad parenting. So I don’t know where this change—well, I do know where this change has come from. She needs to say something, doesn’t she?

So I really need to be upfront and state that, because she also asked a question today seemingly in support of the Salvation Army’s suggestion around equity share and some solutions to encouraging more people to be able to own their own homes. We’re currently at the lowest rate of homeownership that we have seen in a long, long time. She used the guise of concern for homeownership and concern for people struggling with living costs when she is really known for actually just slamming people—just blaming the individual and blaming parents for people being in struggling situations, the causes of which are systemic and were able to be fixed the whole time that she had access to power and resources while she was in Government and didn’t do a darn blinking thing about. And she, in fact, exasperated the issue for the families who were struggling the very most, particularly in cutting strong employment laws and employee protection laws—slashing all of those—keeping people in low-wage, precarious work situations. Those are the very people who she was calling out for being bad parents.

I did want to genuinely and authentically support the direction and the approach of the Salvation Army and a rent-to-own and progressive homeownership model, which, of course, is in the Green Party’s confidence and supply agreement with Labour, and we are working really well with Minister Phil Twyford to push that through and to come up with a model. We’ve done it before, too, in this very country, and, actually, those progressive homeownership models have had generational positive impacts, actually. We’ve seen what can happen, and we are again finally a Government who will also put something in place with that. So we’re working through what that could look like, and all that the Salvation Army were suggesting and highlighting today is that there are community, iwi, and hapū examples of partnerships where we can actually work together to enable more people to actually own their own homes.

That’s why I’m not too worried about some of those homeowners who might actually sell off some of their investment in speculation properties, because that’s fine. We want to assist more people into owning their own homes. We also want to make sure our rental properties are strong and healthy and affordable, and we also want to make sure that the balance of rights to protect tenants in this market, where too often—actually, there’s 60,000 people who are on the precipice, on the edge, of being pushed into a situation of severe homelessness: living in streets, cars, garages, and so forth. And so we really do want to sharpen up all along our housing continuum, and I am pleased to be at the forefront of working on those issues with the Minister Phil Twyford.

So I really just wanted to make it very clear that while I am on one level in agreement with Judith Collins, her record is a shocker. So she doesn’t actually mean it. Her reputation on how much she actually cares about people who are homeless, people who are struggling, and people who are not yet owning their own homes is a shocker. How dare she stand up and pretend to genuinely care about that.

I’m really proud to stand up and put our longstanding Green Party political positions and ideas that have existed, that we have campaigned long and hard on, again at the forefront of the work that we want to do. There’s a whole lot of stuff happening here in Parliament at the moment. We are continuing to put what people are actually experiencing and the job that we have to get on and do at the forefront. Those are bold, progressive policies. That is why I’m really proud to be the co-leader. The work that we have to do, working with our confidence and supply and Government partners to turn around the direction that that National Party had so much time to fix and so many resources—we will do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

In Committee

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave that the committee stage of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be taken as one debate.

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

Clauses 1 to 4

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking forward to the debate on this bill. I want to congratulate the member Jan Tinetti for bringing the bill to the House, and say that I’m very excited about the outbreak of bipartisanship that I now expect on this particular legislation, because I am sure the National Party will be revisiting their minority view on this bill as a result of the comments they made on a bill that we were debating earlier on today. I thought I might focus on that in particular, because the National Party, in their minority view on this bill—and I found this quite fascinating to read.

Perhaps by way of context, earlier this morning I heard four, five, six speeches that I sat through in here debating the difference between the words “may” and “must”—“may” or “must”. It required a good half hour of debate in the House to debate just that thing on the part of the National Party. They thought this was very, very important and very significant, so they took a whole half hour to debate the difference between the words “may” and “must”. Then they talked about how vitally important it was that these small amendments were considered in great detail—so much so that we spent an hour voting on those amendments.

So now when we come to this particular bill, it’s interesting to see, in their minority view, this particular comment: “This bill proposes several insignificant changes to the NELP.”—the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP)—“Replacing ‘good’ with ‘positive’ and adding ‘to become lifelong learners’ will have no effect,”. That’s interesting, because that’s their minority view this afternoon, and yet this morning they were arguing exactly the opposite. They were arguing that when it comes to consultation, the difference between “may” and “must” was something that the House should spend an extensive amount of time talking about.

Now, why is that important? It’s because when you look at the specific clauses of the bill, the most significant part of the bill now, as reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee, is that it makes very explicit in the law who the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult when setting the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.

Now, I think this is a good thing. It’s about saying that, actually, there’s no question of “may”; this is a question of “must”. Now, the National Party this morning thought this was an incredibly important distinction to make. In fact, Tim Macindoe—I’m looking forward to his contribution, because he spent at least two or three calls talking about the importance between “may” and “must” this morning, and now he’s going to vote against a bill that actually makes the change that he was arguing for this morning. So I’m looking forward to hearing Tim Macindoe explain, in great detail, the road to Damascus conversion he had over lunchtime, where he now no longer thinks that there is a particularly important distinction between “may consult” and “must consult”, because this morning “may consult” and “must consult” were the most important issues that the New Zealand Parliament should debate for quite an extended period of time.

But let’s actually look at who the Minister—and I’m the Minister concerned—would now be required to consult in setting the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. First on the list—very important—are children and young people. I actually think this is a very sensible decision. When I am, as Minister of Education, setting out what is important in education, National Education and Learning Priorities, I think it’s important that children and young people who are going to be affected by those decisions should be consulted and should have a voice. That’s something the Children’s Commissioner has argued for consistently, and I think that’s highly justified.

Second on the list—in new section 1A(4A)(b), inserted by clause 4—are “bodies representing the interests of teachers;”. Now, I think that that’s true. Now, who might those bodies be? We call them teachers, teacher unions, the Education Council—or the Teaching Council, as it’s now known—but the National Party like to call them our union mates when they are not being nice to the unions, but when they are being nice to the unions, they say completely the opposite to that. It seems to alternate on a minute-by-minute basis at the moment with regard to the National Party. They can’t quite decide whether they want to be friends of the unions and opposing the Government, or whether they think that they are our union mates. So that’s interesting. But I think teachers should have a clear say in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, and I think the Minister—and me, as the Minister—should be required to consult with them.

Bodies representing the interests of principals should be consulted. They are third on the list, and I absolutely agree that principals should be consulted. I think that our principals are where you get a huge body of expertise not just about teaching and learning but about how the education system is actually operating, and principals are right at the forefront of the relationship between schools and families and the wider community. This is what principals deal with all day, every day—that huge network of relationships that goes into the education system. So, yes, they have got a really vital and important view, and that should be heard when the Government is setting National Education and Learning Priorities.

Bodies representing the interests of governing bodies of schools—so these are boards of trustees, boards of proprietors and so on—I think that they should absolutely be consulted, bearing in mind that they are largely made up of parents. Parents are a huge stakeholder in our schools’ communities, and therefore they should be consulted when we are setting our priorities.

Bodies representing the interests of early childhood services—this is important because the National Education and Learning Priorities statement doesn’t just apply to schooling; it applies to early childhood education as well, and so consultation with early childhood education services is important.

Bodies representing the interests of parents should be consulted. Again, that will often be covered by some of the earlier clauses, because boards of trustees often are one of the main bodies representing the interests of parents in the education system, but there are others. There’s the parent teacher associations and so on, and they should be consulted.

National bodies representing the interests of the disability community—absolutely agree. One of the biggest issues that I’m dealing with as Minister of Education at the moment, and I’m working on it with my good friend and colleague the Associate Minister Tracey Martin, is the issue around learning support, and there are huge and many and varied issues around learning support. I would say it is the biggest issue that gets raised with me by school principals whenever I visit a school, and so I think that consulting with the disability community when we are setting national priorities is more than justified.

New section 1A(4A)(h) is “national bodies representing the interests of support staff in schools and early childhood education services;”. I want to say a word about school support staff. They are among the most poorly paid people in the education system, and they deserve significantly better than they are getting now. I can give them some assurance that it is one of our Government’s highest priorities to deal with the issues that they are facing. So I think that they should be consulted.

Then, national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations, Pacific education organisations—they should absolutely be consulted. We know that we have challenges around persistently lower outcomes for Māori and Pasifika learners than for others, and so I think it’s important that when we are setting our national priorities, that voice is heard in that process.

Finally, the proprietors of State and State-integrated schools and the bodies with a particular role with respect to the character of designated character schools—now, of course they should be consulted as well.

So this bill puts something into law that the previous Government refused to put into law, which is some requirements around consultation. This document that we’re talking about, the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, is not an insignificant document. It is the document that all school boards of trustees are going to have to give regard to when they set their school’s strategic plan. Now, this morning, the National Party argued that school boards of trustees should be “required” to consult around their individual plans, but now they are arguing, in their opposition to this bill—and it’s here in black and white in their minority view—that there shouldn’t be robust consultation requirements around setting the national plan, the plan that affects the entire country. Every young person in the country will be affected by it, but it should just be a “may”—the Minister can do whatever they like.

And I’d like them to explain to the committee why there’s that enormous discrepancy, because it seems to me they had a point this morning around the difference between “may” and “must”. Now, I don’t think it was necessary, in the context of that particular debate, to make that change, because I actually have faith that the boards of trustees will consult their communities, because they’re directly accountable and answerable to them. But as Minister of Education—Ministers of Education are accountable on quite a wide basis, for quite a wide range of things. And I think therefore being quite specific about the fact that when they’re setting the NELP, the National Education and Learning Priorities, they have to consult with those who are going to be affected by it and those who are going to have to implement the commitments in that statement—I think that that’s a very significant change to the law, and I think it’s a very welcome one. And, as the Minister who will be tasked with developing the first NELP, I can say that it’s one that I wholeheartedly endorse and look forward to seeing passed into law.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. That was a very interesting contribution from the Minister of Education. In my experience, I have not seen a member’s bill that is as tiny as this, with due respect to the member in charge.

Clause 1 in this bill is the title clause, and, of course, when you put a bill in the ballot, you need some kind of title, so there is a title in this bill, which is good. Clause 2 is about the commencement date and, yes, when you have a bill in the ballot, you need some commencement date, and so that qualifies. Clause 3 is about the Act that it is going to amend. So, yes, the member has identified an Act that she wants to amend, and then clause 4 is the actual amendment. As the Minister said, yeah, it’s about changing words like “good” to “positive”. He gave so much emphasis to those words, and for me, good is positive and positive is good. If there is that big a difference, then the other point he used from this morning’s debate was about “must” and “may” and the difference between two words. If these words are so important, then why didn’t the Minister accept that Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by us, by—

Hon Tim Macindoe: What a good question.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes. He didn’t want to answer that, but in this bill, it becomes really important—that kind of change of wording.

So this bill, as I said, is the most negligible kind of bill that I have seen as a member’s bill. Yes, we have to dissect it down to that level of wording. As we heard from Hon Chris Hipkins, it is about consultation. So it’s removing that phrase “must include consultation with—”. The new wording is “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult—”. Now, when we see these words “reasonable efforts”, to me it’s diluting the importance of consultation, because consultation was already there in the legislation. So when you put “reasonable efforts”, what does that mean? We really want to understand what that means.

For example, if the Minister’s office sends some form of communication to one of these bodies or representative organisations and does not receive a response, would that qualify as being a reasonable effort? Another example: if a Minister sends a communication and receives a reply back with some days and times that work for that body and the Minister is not available on those, would that qualify as being a reasonable effort?

So we really want to understand what “reasonable efforts” means in this. To me, it appears that it’s just diluting the importance of consultation, and then, yes, you can keep listing the number of bodies or organisations. It doesn’t matter, because there is no strict obligation for the Minister to actually consult these organisations and bodies.

Then—interesting, again—are some other words that this bill is to change. This is where “national representative organisations” changes to “national bodies representing the interests”. Then, of course, the Minister went through each and every body that is listed in this bill, because there is nothing else in this bill other than this clause 4, which inserts a new section 1A(4A).

But I was really sitting here and waiting for the Minister to come up to where it says “national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations;”, and he said the Māori voice is not heard. Yes, the Māori voice is definitely not heard, and I fully understand that because this morning we were standing here screaming loudly that Māori leaders are saying that partnership schools should be retained. So if I use this as an example for this bill, where this bill says that national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations will be taken care of, then this example of senior Māori educators coming forward and saying that we want to protect the interests of 1,500 Māori students that are in partnership schools—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! That bill is not under debate right now.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister spent half of his time in the first five minutes talking about this morning’s debate, and you did not object to the Minister. I am using this as an example, in a similar manner to the way that the Minister used this morning’s debate as an example in this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The difference between the Minister’s discussion and yours is that he was talking specifically to this bill. You are introducing material from the bill that we debated at committee stage this morning.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Sorry, Madam Chair, but with due respect, I don’t agree, because I’m talking about national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations, which is very much part of this bill, and I’m using that as an example.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is appropriate; the reference to partnership schools is not.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: But, Madam Chair, that’s an example that I’m using because Māori educators have represented their interests.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will allow the member to continue. I’d just ask the member, in the interests of remaining within the context of this bill, just to consider her arguments. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I am, Madam Chair. So that is an example I have used where, yes, we have to hear what the Māori voice is, as the Minister said, but this morning we heard that the Māori voice was completely neglected. So will that example that we had qualify as national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations? That is another question that I have for the member in charge of this bill.

So, yes, there are several questions. We want to understand what “interests” means and to what extent that interest goes. So this example that I gave: would that qualify under this legislation as the interest of Māori education providers, and what does “reasonable efforts” mean? Because, to me, it looks like it’s diluting the importance of consultation.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to take a call on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill in the name of member Jan Tinetti. I’d first like to acknowledge Jan Tinetti, an experienced and passionate educator and someone who brings to this House many years of experience in the education field. I’d also like to acknowledge the previous speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, who is the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I am a member, and we shepherded this bill and we heard a number of submissions on this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I hate to interrupt you. We’re having problems with ensuring that there are people sitting behind their file boxes. I hate to be the file box police, but this is the second time—

Chris Bishop: Oh, go on!

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Shall I? No, I’d prefer not to. I’d prefer for members to take responsibility for their own—

Kiritapu Allan: My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Continue.

JAMIE STRANGE: I’d like to pick up on new section 1A(4A), inserted by clause 4(5), and just follow on from what a couple of the previous speakers have mentioned about consultation. Now, I also agree that it’s very important that the Minister does—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise, Mr Strange. Could the Opposition whip please deal with that matter. Mr Stuart Smith, perhaps you could help me out here, thank you. Mr Strange, continue.

JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’d just like to explore some of the key aspects around consultation. So new section 1A(4A)(a) talks about “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult—(a) children and young people;”.

Why is this important? The reason I believe this is important is that when we have young people taking ownership of their education system, I believe we get much better outcomes. We have a higher level of engagement because they are involved in forming their education system. It’s about putting an aspect of trust and respect in the views of our children and young people. When I used to be a teacher, I would often ask the students for feedback. I would say, “How are we doing?”, “Are you learning?”, “What can I improve?” This is an example of that, and it’s an example of the Minister connecting with the young people.

So we’ve, basically, got the full breadth of the spectrum. We’ve got the Minister seen as being at sort of the top of the education system, and then we’ve got the students, who are right there at the chalk face, and that engagement covers the whole spectrum. I think that’s really exciting to see.

The next one, paragraph (b), talks about “national bodies representing the interests of teachers;”. Now, teachers are naturally collaborative people, and teachers like to collaborate. They like to work together, and teachers would welcome the opportunity, I believe, to engage with their Minister.

Another part here, we talk about engaging with parents. So in paragraph (f) there: the Minister must engage with “bodies representing the interests of parents;”. I’d like to ask the member: what would that body look like in terms of parents? As a parent of four children myself, I believe many parents would be interested in engaging with the Minister about the education of their children. Certainly, many parents have views around education, and there are certain things they would like to see either added or removed, and so I’m confident that they would welcome that. So I’d just ask the member: what may that body look like in terms of the make-up of that?

In my last few seconds, I’d just really like to sum up the importance of consultation. If we’re going to learn anything from each other, we must consult, we must engage, and we must collaborate, and I support this bill to the committee for that reason.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Peeni Henare.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Excellent, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku e te Tūru, ka tukuna atu ngā mihi ki tōku tuahine, ki a Willow-Jean kua hoki mai e mau nei i te kākahu taratara o ngā maharatanga tonu ki tōna pāpā.

Kāti ki a tātou e te Whare, tēnā koe.

[Thank you. Firstly, Madam Chair, I extend greetings to my sister Willow-Jean, who has returned, albeit wearing the cloak of bereavement for and remembrance of her father.

And now to us, the House, greetings.]

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s fantastic to have this opportunity to make a contribution. I do want to touch on a couple of points that have already been made, and I want to keep my contribution rather specific to the consultation part, which is covered under new section 1A(4A)(i) in clause 4, in particular. It talks about the “national bodies representing the interests of Māori education organisations;”, and it’s important. The part that I want to explore a little bit in there is around organisations, because we have heard rhetoric about the voice of Māori educational leadership speaking out against some of the policies of this particular Government, but in recognition that, actually, more Māori students attend mainstream schools and more Māori students are engaged in the educational sector right across the entire spectrum, from early childcare all the way to the tertiary sector—so exploring what a Māori organisation looks like and how we might be able to engage with them to make sure that those voices are heard in this particular bill.

I think that is important, because, as the point was made in some of the submissions about needing to ensure that a child’s voice is at the centre of this type of legislation and the rhetoric around it and the contributions made to it, just as important are families’ voices too. Well, we know too that given the statistics we are all too well aware of in this House regarding Māori educational achievement and Māori educational participation, I do think it is important that we do have Māori consultation. So the question I have for the member in the chair is simply exploring consultation for Māori organisations: how broad is that, what are we looking at, is it simply a tribal-based thing, are we looking at educational organisations—is it a combination of both?

That’s important, because we’ve heard regularly over the past couple of days, actually, how Māori leadership—according to the other side of the House—is embodied in the voice of one person. I’d argue in this particular instance that it is broader than that, and I do ask the member then: what do those organisations look like and how will they be engaged to ensure that those voices come to the fore as consultation as described in this particular bill is achieved? That’s an important part.

Of course, the same applies to much of the other areas of consultation, not specifically to Māori alone, and I take the point that, in this particular bill, it is clearly identified. As the Minister for Youth, of course, one of the other aspects that we’re quite keen to build a movement around is, of course, the disability sector. We want to make sure, of course, in the same vein as I did for the Māori sector in this particular bill, that it is the same for the disability sector, because if there’s one thing I’ve noticed—and it’s not just in policy documents but certainly in strategies and visions over many, many years for education and in a multitude of other areas—it is that the rhetoric’s good. The disability sector is indeed an important part of our community that we need to be hearing from and that we need to be engaging with, but I’m curious as to how. I’m also curious as to, well, how can we make sure that the consultation—regardless of the sector that’s being engaged with—actually translates further into meaningful contribution in the principles and the leadership of the educational sector that we’re trying to build. I do want to commend the member Jan Tinetti for this approach because it is that inclusivity that’s actually going to make an educational sector far more responsive to the learners, to the families, and to the wider community.

So a couple of questions there, just to recap, are around the consultation. What kinds of organisations are we talking about here? Are we simply placing the onus upon one particular part of Māori education, which was the example I gave, but I also make the same point with regard to the disability sector. Then, the second part, of course, is: then what? Consultation is fantastic and I think we can get some meaningful feedback, but how will that feedback actually feed right into the principles that I know the member is intending to achieve with this particular bill?

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, and, because it is still the language week for Niue, faakalofa atu. First of all, I’d like to congratulate my colleague Jan Tinetti on bringing this piece of legislation to the House. She is obviously the very first one of our “class of ’17” to sit in the chair there, and I admire her very much. I’ve learnt very much from her. She’s a very staunch advocate for the education sector and is our subject matter expert on our committee.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the points that the Minister of Education made. He outlined for us all of the different stakeholders that this bill drafts up, and it is important in that process to think about the fact that when we started to first look at this bill, we only had six stakeholders listed to consult with. But our select committee heard several submissions—there were, roughly, about 20, I believe, that came in to talk to us—and the feedback from those submitters clearly indicated that we needed to expand on that list of six stakeholders. So, as a result, the clause amended is clause 4. For anyone who’s looking at the bill at this moment, it’s new section 1A(4A) in clause 4, which includes “children and young people;” and another 11 named national bodies. The Minister, as he has previously outlined, must—and here is the importance of the “must” versus the “may”—talk with those that the statement will impact, and that’s children, teachers, and schools.

So I have a question for the member in the chair, in this regard: why is it so important to actually stipulate the groups who must be consulted with? So if I can have a little bit more context on that, it would be helpful.

I talked about the 20 submissions we received, and 13 of those 20 particularly submitted on the consultation requirements. We heard the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, who were giving us some verbatim feedback from children, and that particular submission showed very clearly how important it is to get the children’s voices heard in the process of making sure that they can be the best they can be.

In that regard, it surprised me to hear the member Parmjeet Parmar, who is the chair of our Education and Workforce Committee, make some mentions in that regard, because at the end of the day, it is the children that will benefit from this particular legislation, and it seems strange to me that when we’re making decisions around education which are about children, the National Party doesn’t want children to have a voice in those decisions. You would think that it is rather important that they do get to have a voice.

The Children’s Commissioner was followed by the IHC, and they spoke to us about the importance—as Peeni Henare has also talked to us about—of the inclusion of the rights of persons with disabilities. So that was another added stakeholder in that particular clause. The IHC requested that any statement that is developed is done in consultation with and actively involves people with disabilities, including children with disabilities. That’s to be done through their respective organisations, and that is reflected in the changed wording in this particular bill.

We also heard from the National Council of Women, and they actually told us that their members often expressed disappointment at the lack of consultation, and also a lack of authentic consultation. Actually, that is in line with a lot of the concern that we saw from people in general when the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) were first introduced, and we know that submissions were made to the then Education and Science Committee. So that is something else that we are making changes to.

I guess I want to end by saying that putting the children back at the centre of learning is absolutely in line with this Government’s commitment to improving the well-being of New Zealanders and their families. It’s also consistent with the words of our brilliant leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. So it’s consistent with our commitments in that regard. It’s hugely important that we put authentic consultation in the requirement for the NELPs, and I’d like to again congratulate my colleague Jan Tinetti on bringing this wonderful piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would like to rise to add the Green Party’s voice in support of this Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, or the NELPs legislation. I just want to echo the sentiments that were put forward by my colleague Marja Lubeck, who also joins me on the Education and Workforce Committee and who advised the House of the number of submitters who we heard from, who all helped to inform a really robust process by which we have actually improved this piece of legislation and added new stakeholders who must be consulted with in the process of the Minister of Education coming up with these National Education and Learning Priorities.

I also want to extend my thanks to the incredible Jan Tinetti for putting this bill in the members’ ballot. She is somebody who is consistently brought up to me by organisations across the education sector as a member of Parliament who has immense understanding of the sector, given her incredible life experience in leading the way and providing that space for kids.

This legislation, as has been noted, is improved by way of the select committee process. It obviously puts at the very centre of it children’s voices. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner made an incredible submission to this point in particular, highlighting how critically important it is that kids’ voices are central to decisions made about them, because so frequently they are ignored. I myself, as the baby of this House—it’s a technical term—would like to state that I do think that there is some incredible, “un-adulted” wisdom in the views that children so frequently put forward, as indeed do young people.

We have, as has been noted, added new stakeholders to this amendment bill by virtue of the submissions that we heard asking for those voices to be heard as well, for that expansion. I think it’s incredibly important to note that, in particular, the Minister will be consulting with national bodies representing the interests of the disability community. This is of particular interest to the Greens, who, obviously, in our Green-Labour confidence and supply agreement as negotiated to help form the Government, helped to secure that resource for children with learning support needs. I’m very proud to be working, obviously, with the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, and the Associate Minister, Tracey Martin, in delivering that work programme.

So too we will see national bodies representing the interests of support staff, something critically important; so too those representing the interests of Māori education organisations and those of Pacific education organisations. Also important to note, given the changes that are obviously under way in this Government’s education work programme, national bodies representing the interests of proprietors of State integrated schools and those in respect of the designated character schools.

So I commend this bill on behalf of the Green Party to the House and would like to say, once again, thank you to my incredible colleague Jan Tinetti and to the Education and Workforce Committee for our work on this piece of legislation, which I think will be an incredible improvement, putting children’s voices at the centre of the National Education and Learning Priorities. Kia ora.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you to the members so far who have made a contribution in this debate. I just thought it was probably timely to actually answer some of the questions that have been put here this afternoon. First of all, I’d like to address Dr Parmar’s contribution when she talked about how this bill is a minor changing of words. Actually, this bill is making some pretty big changes in that we are identifying groups that must be consulted with, with the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). Now, the reason for that—and my colleague Marja Lubeck asked why it is so important to consult. The reason for that is that this gives the education sector—it also gives children and young people and teachers and those that work within it, and parents—surety that their voices will be heard in this particular setting of the National Education and Learning Priorities. This is the national statement in education. This is a really, really important piece of work. To say that this is making minor changes is actually taking away from the importance of this particular piece of work. This ensures that the Minister will consult with these people.

Now, Dr Parmar also talked about the consultation with the groups in interest, or “can consult”—I’ll just read the proper words there: “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult”. I would advise Dr Parmar that she must read this amendment in consultation with the principal Act, because this is adding to the principal Act, the Education Act. It’s not diluting; it’s actually adding to. So it’s not taking away from anything there.

My colleague Jamie Strange and my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare both talked about what consultation looks like with certain organisations. One reason why this particular bill has not identified specific groups of people is that there has got to be a certain amount of fluidity around that consultation at the particular time that the NELPs are being created, that the national statement is being put out there. So when you’re talking about the national priorities, the Minister wants to have the opportunity to then look with the sector at who the most appropriate groups are to actually consult with within those groups. The parent groups, for example, will be decided upon at the time in line with that national statement. So that’s the reason why that has not completely identified exactly who those groups are. Also, if we’d put those particular groups in specifically and named them now, there would be other groups who had not presented to select committee who might think that they were being left out of the conversation. So it’s important that we make that broad and, at the time, the Minister can then consult with those in the sector who are the most appropriate for that national statement.

One point I want to pick up on is the point that the Hon Peeni Henare made around the disability sector. This is a really interesting point, because in the disability sector, I’ve had many, many people contact me to say how grateful they are that they are being identified in this particular bill. In fact, after the second reading, I had a young person contact me who has a disorder on the autism spectrum, who said that it brought him to tears because, in his knowledge, this was one of the first times in the education sector that there was a “must consult with the disability sector” in the work that we’re doing.

So, again, I think it needs to be broad for the sake of what the Minister comes up with for the national statement at the time, but I’m delighted that we have identified those particular groups to consult with.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. I’d like to acknowledge Jan Tinetti for working on this bill and bringing it to the House. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank the Education and Workforce Committee for hearing all of the submissions that have been put through.

I would like to talk about new section 4A, in clause 4, where it states that the Minister must consult with “national bodies representing the interests of Pacific education organisations;”. My question to the member in the chair, Jan Tinetti, is: as you’re consulting with these Pacific organisations, would you also consider organisations who are Pacific, serving Pacific children and Pacific students, who may not be members of a national body? For instance, we have had quite a few thousand Samoans, Tongans, and other ethnic groups who have moved to regional areas in Aotearoa recently, in the last one to five years or so. They are providing some educational services, but they are, as far as I know—we have been out there, both myself and the honourable Minister for Pacific Peoples consulting in these areas in the last few months, and we have not found all of them to be members of national bodies. So, as you are finalising this bill, that is my question to you, the member in the chair: could we ensure that we are going to be inclusive of those Pacific organisations?

I, like many members who have spoken on this bill before me, would like to commend you as well as all of those who have made submissions, including the Children’s Commissioner, who stated that it is so important to ensure that we consult with and listen to our children. You know, one of the things that I was actually quite surprised by as I went consulting on education, actually, with Pacific as well as ethnic communities, was that parents actually brought their children. I was quite surprised not only that we had children as young as four and five—some as young as 10—come and actually give us what their opinions are of education right now as they experience it but also that they were brave enough, at the end of these consultations, to get up in front of, in some cases, a few hundred of us and tell us exactly what they would like to see in the education system today.

Also, one of the questions was: what would you like to do if you were the boss of education? How would you ensure that the education system you experience when you go to school is an education fit for you as a child? I tell you, some of those conversations that we heard from these children were just breathtaking. We heard from an 11-year-old child in Porirua who told us exactly what it would be like if she was the Minister. Another child, who was 10, told us exactly what she would like to do if she was the Secretary for Education. So hearing from the voices of our children is absolutely important. I know that you, Madam Chair, being a teacher and having been a principal for so many years, know exactly what I’m talking about, because children are very honest and they do give you their honest opinion about things.

I would like to quote one of the things that the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, said at the hearing. He said, “Hearing from and incorporating the views of children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions. We support the intention to create a more equitable system that supports children to develop to their full potential, and that ensures our children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.” Other submitters were really in agreement with Judge Becroft.

Another group that I’m so glad to see that the Minister must consult with is national bodies with a particular role in respect of the character of designated character schools. We know that we have hundreds and hundreds of designated character schools right throughout Aotearoa, so it is absolutely important that we hear from them—that we hear from them directly what it is that they provide, what it is that they would like the Minister of Education to address as we firm up and finalise the National Education and Learning Priorities, moving forward. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E Te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Tuarua tēnā hoki koe e te whaea e, Jan, mō tō pire kei mua i te aroaro o tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. E mihi nui ana, e mihi aroha ana ki a koe mō tō whai whakaaro kia uru mai tēnei ki roto i tēnei pire, āe hei tāpiri atu ki te pire matua mō te taha o te mātauranga. E mōhio ana ahau ki tētahi whakataukī e mōhiotia whānuitia ana, arā ‘Ko te manu e kai ana i te miro, nōna te ngahere; engari ko te manu e kai ana i te mātauranga, nōna te ao.’ Ka huri ahau ki te reo Pākehā.

[Thank you, Madam Chair. Secondly, thank you, Jan, for your bill which is before us all this afternoon. I congratulate and thank you for having the presence of mind to bring this to this bill, yes, this amendment to the main bill on education. I am reminded of a well-known proverb which says, “The bird which partakes of the miro, the forest is his domain, but the bird which consumes education, his domain is the world.” I shall now speak in English.]

Firstly, I just wanted to acknowledge the member Jan Tinetti—I think I called her a whaea, which will make her feel a little bit old—for bringing this member’s bill to the House. This is my first time speaking on it—I didn’t get the opportunity in the first stage—so I want to acknowledge her for having the thought to bring this, to strengthen the system and the processes. She made the point in responding to some of the points made from the other side about what the importance is of this document. As she said, it sets the high-level priorities to guide planning for early childhood and compulsory education sectors.

The Minister, earlier, spoke about some of the debate that was had at the Education and Workforce Committee. I wish I was there to hear some of that. But the summary that he gave us, and what I pick up from the report that’s come back from the select committee, was the debate over “must” and “may”. It just still staggers me, the belief that the other side just still don’t want to consult and work with our communities to develop such important documents—they’re just anti-consultation—to develop something that is so important.

What I in particular was interested in, and I actually have a question for the member, is around Māori education. Given your experience as a principal in Tauranga, what does the member see as the importance of Māori education and for Māori organisations representing Māori education to have input into this process? So that really is my question, because it goes to what the importance is of that, and in terms of the importance of this document that we’re looking at.

I also want to support what the Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa said in terms of this now requiring us to consult with special character schools or bodies that represent those schools. In my rohe, in my area in Northland, proudly, my hapū, Waikare, has the only special character school north of Auckland to date. However, those of our charter schools are in the process of changing. Now, that school is different to many others in the area. They run on a different kaupapa, so their input is likely to be different to that of others. So it’s important that it comes through organisations representing those particular schools. So I’m pleased to see that in there, but my question really is around, from your experience, what is the importance—sorry, not for the Chair; it is for the member whose name the bill is in to answer that question.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a second call on this bill. I’d just like to ask the Opposition members about consultation. Why do the Opposition members not believe in consultation? That’s the question I’d like to pose to them, and I look forward to hearing their response. I would have thought the Opposition members would be supporting this bill, because, in my opinion, any form of consultation would improve our education system.

If I think back to 2012, under the previous Government—linked to the aspect of consultation, which is in new section 1A(4A), amended by clause 4. The previous Government talked about removing the specialist subjects from intermediate schools, and there was no consultation. So I’ll leave my point at that, but the question is—I am curious as to why the Opposition don’t support the aspect of consultation.

I’d like to highlight just one or two of the submissions that came in. The first one was from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. It talks about new section 1A(5A). New section 1A(5A) talks about—“A minor change under subsection (5) is limited to a technical, short, and uncontroversial amendment that does not change or extend the policy of the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.” The submission that came in from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner said, “We support the insertion of subsection (5A) to define minor changes that do not require consultation, because it further protects the democratic process and strengthens the assurance of public consultation on material changes to any statement of National Education and Learning Priorities that is in force.” Then they “propose the insertion of a provision whereby the intention to make minor changes is notified on an internet site maintained by the Ministry of Education. Were the Committee to agree to this proposal,”—they carry on.

My question is to the member, and it’s around the minor changes—so whether the member has given some thought to the submission around the minor changes, around some sort of internet website maintained by the Ministry of Education where minor changes can be notified. That’s about communication, and it’s about people in the education sector having that clear communication when minor changes have taken place. There was a submission from the National Council of Women of New Zealand which also spoke about minor changes, sort of in a similar vein. I think it’d be interesting to hear from the member her views around that.

One other submission I’d just like to pick up on and sort of raise a point around, was from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA). The PPTA said, “The amendments proposed in this bill make the enduring objectives more consistent with the language and tone of the New Zealand Curriculum, the current foundational curriculum policy statement and national curriculum statement established under part 60A section 1.” If we have a look at some of those enduring objectives of the New Zealand curriculum, I’d be interested to hear from the member her view around the New Zealand curriculum and how this bill relates to those enduring objectives in the New Zealand curriculum, and her vision around that.

I’d just like to, in my last minute here, refer back to new section 1A(4A), again, around the consultation, because I spoke about it previously but I didn’t talk about new paragraph (e). In paragraph (e), it talks about where the Minister must consult with bodies representing the interests of early childhood services. And that’s a new point that I haven’t really heard of much in this debate: the importance of early education—the importance of the first five years of a child’s life. Many people in this Chamber have had children go through our education system, and I’m sure we’d all agree that the first five years are incredibly important, because how someone starts out is a big determination to how they will continue. If our young people start well in those first five years, then there’s much better chance for them to do well in the rest of their life. So I’m very encouraged that this aspect is included in this bill, because what that does is it values our early childhood sector, it values those working in the sector, and it says the Minister must consult with them around some of the specific challenges within that sector.

So I’ll leave my contribution there, but I’d just like to ask the member if she could answer some of those questions I raised before. Thank you, Madam Chair.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. I’ll just start with the questions of the previous member, Jamie Strange. The first one—it wasn’t his first one, but the first one I will address—is about the enduring objectives. If you look at the front of the bill as it stands now, we’ve actually removed the reference to the enduring objectives of the national curriculum, the reason being that there’s some fantastic work being done by the Government at the moment on the Kōrero Mātauranga, which is the Education Conversation, and I really feel that that work needs to actually be included in those objectives, so that has been removed at this point in time. So I won’t need to talk much about that at this point in time. The minor changes, and I note the submission from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, but any amendments, any—by virtue of definition—minor amendments will be uncontroversial. So I don’t personally see that need for that, because they’re going to be small, minor, and technical, so there is no need for that recommendation to proceed.

I was asked about Pacific education organisations by the Hon Jenny Salesa. This bill talks about consulting with the national bodies that are representing, so that’s where this bill points towards at this stage. My colleague Willow-Jean Prime asked about the importance of Māori education and consulting with the groups involved in Māori education. As an ex-principal involved in a school that had a very strong Rumaki unit and also up to, at one stage, about a 95 percent Māori role across the total school, I see that importance is absolutely critical. For too long, in many education settings, we actually haven’t heard the authentic voice of Māori, and we really need to hear that authentic voice and them guiding and teaching us about the best way to progress Māori achievement, and what Māori achievement looks like, because it doesn’t necessarily look like what we see from a Eurocentric viewpoint. So we need to take that Māori lens, and we need to listen, and we need to really listen. We need to become the learners in those situations when we hear those particular groups and consult with those groups.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the member, I just want to encourage members—this is a small bill with some technicalities in it, however we’ve heard lots of argument around the specifics of clause 4. I’m looking for some new argument and for a little less repetition of the arguments we’ve already heard.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m happy to take a call on this part of the debate, and I just want to start off by commending the member who’s currently in the chair for putting forward this bill. I want to touch on a couple of the key changes recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee around clause 4. But just by way of context, I just want to touch on why this is actually a really important bill, and this is responding to some of the criticism that has been levelled that it’s a very minor bill; that its changes are apparently so insignificant that we shouldn’t be using House time on them.

I just want to draw the committee’s attention to the importance of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) and where they actually fit within the system. I think that helps us to understand why the bill’s important and what the operative bits of this clause actually achieve. The National Education and Learning Priorities—what they do is they set out the Government’s medium-term priorities for the sector, specifically the compulsory sector and the early childhood education centre, and that isn’t just words on a page that sort of exist in a vacuum somewhere. If you’ve been on a school board of trustees, like I have—I chaired my local school board of trustees for a number of years—you have to prepare a strategic plan, and that strategic plan has to be aligned to the NELPs. If you are an early childhood education centre, you have to demonstrate how what you are doing aligns to the NELPs. So this is actually really, really important stuff, and what the bill is doing is ensuring that we are building up the NELPs in such a way that it actually understands the needs and the issues within the sector so that when those institutions actually come to apply, it’s meaningful and it makes sense, and it actually contributes to greater learning and achievement in those institutions. So it is really, really important.

If we turn to the specifics of the bill and the select committee—and just acknowledging the work of the select committee on this bill—there are actually some reasonably significant changes that were made at select committee level. What I note in respect of clause 4 is that the member did write to the select committee to seek some of those changes, particularly around subclauses (2), (3) and (4) of clause 4. What Jan Tinetti has requested specifically is the removal of clause 4(7), which would make the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities a disallowable instrument. But what she’s also done is write to the committee in respect of clause 4 and note that the Government has a significant body of work under way in respect of the national level Education Conversation that’s going on at the moment, and she’s indicated changes and suggested removing parts of the clause there to ensure that we’re not precipitating any work which may happen in that area. To me, that was, really, a sensible move.

The nature of members’ bills like this one is that they don’t necessarily have to change the world, but all of us as members can make useful and sensible changes to legislation that advance things that are important to us as members and important to the communities that we represent. The changes that have been made in this area do that, and I just want to go to clause 4(5) and new section 1A(4A). This is the section which I think is really, really important within this bill, because it talks about the stakeholders who we’re actually going to consult with.

This is one of the really big things we’ve got to get right in education. It is one of the critiques we have, on this side of the House, about the way that education was managed over the previous nine years. A lot of the key stakeholders, the people within the sector—the teachers, the learners, the academics who apply their profession and their expertise to understanding and improving the understanding of the sector—were often locked out of policy development. This is actually about us saying within the bill: let’s talk to the people who know the sector and let’s talk to the people who are affected by the sector. So it’s really important, particularly within the context of this bill, that we’re actually talking to the learners; that we’re involving children and young people.

I was involved in local government before this role and one of my biggest epiphanies was, actually, the value of listening to children and young people when you are developing policy. When you are doing that, you pick up on things that you otherwise do not pick up on. It’s something about the “nothing to us without us”. So I really commend the member on that.

One question I do have for the member is just to give the committee a little bit more explanation around the change from national representative organisations to national bodies representing the interests of specified stakeholders. I’d appreciate some clarification on that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m going to call Mark Patterson. I’m just going to encourage you—there has been a lot of repetition in this debate this afternoon. If I hear the same arguments I will actually ask the member to resume his seat.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do take that advice on board. If I could start with what I’m sure has been some repetition, could I congratulate the member Jan Tinetti on bringing this bill before the committee. I have the privilege of serving on the Education and Workforce Committee with Jan, and her experience as a highly respected educator within that committee is invaluable. We’re seeing that come forward in this bill, because she knows full well the importance of consultation with the broader sector.

Of course, we’re seeing within the clauses of this bill teachers, principals, schools themselves, boards, early childhood, disability, Māori and Pasifika needing to be consulted, and they will be consulted more on changes to education, under this bill.

One measure hadn’t been specified, and I’d just like to ask the member—as a member of a board of an area school—will rural and area schools that do have specific needs maybe be one of the groupings that will be included in this consultation? I think that’s something that needs real consideration within this bill, because we do in area schools have different needs. We do face isolation. We don’t necessarily have the resources that bigger schools do have. So I would ask that maybe if you could bring an answer forward for that in your response.

New Zealand First has been a big supporter of this bill. Tracey Martin, the Associate Minister—I know she has played a role in pushing this forward. She really believes strongly in a stronger education system, in a strong public education system, and she has played a role, I know, behind the scenes helping to guide this through with Minister Hipkins. So, once again, it shows this Government taking education seriously, moving it in a different direction, back away from privatisation, as we’ve seen in other Governments, trying to do that, and back into building a strong public education system. So I think that this bill goes a long way to doing that. You can’t make the changes that we are making without consultation, and this bill will see this happen. Of course, there are a raft of other measures that we’ve put forward in this education space.

So without further ado, I would like some fleshing out around the area schools, because I do think that that is important certainly to me, and New Zealand First is a party that does look to represent regional New Zealand’s interest, and we’d like to see maybe where the thinking is going around that, the area schools in particular. Without further ado, I will commend the member on the bill and look forward to that response. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tuatahi ka nui te mihi ki a koe e te tuahine mō tēnei pire. Kia ū, kia māia, kia kaha, koinā te mahi—ko koe he tino pukunui; ki a mātou ngā tāngata e kore kōrero i ngā wāhi katoa, so kei a koe e te tuahine, thank you.

[Firstly, I congratulate the sister on this bill. Be firm, be steadfast, be staunch—that is what is needed; you are very greedy to those of us who don’t often get the opportunity to speak, so to you, sister, thank you.]

Thank you for bringing this very important bill before the House. I guess I had probably three key questions—I probably won’t use all my time, Madam Chair—just three, kind of, key questions that I was really interested in your feedback on.

Looking through the report, in particular I went to the minority view and noticed there were a couple of comments in the minority view that I found interesting. One that I guess I did have some further questions around—at the bottom there they mentioned that “The bill is poorly timed as we are currently carrying out an education conversation in a range of other reviews in the education sector.” So I guess the broader question that I have there is the consultation requirements in the specific amendments that you’ve set out in this member’s bill—just how does that fit in with the broader educational reforms that are currently under way? I’m sure you would have thought through that, but I was wondering if you could just elaborate on that a little bit.

I pick up on my colleague Michael Wood earlier. He made that statement and I turned around and I gave him a little look, because I was going to commence my remarks also with that proverb: nothing for us without us. You know, in my time prior to this House, in my former profession, that was the catchcry of community upon community, that Government would do things to them without engaging with them. It became the catalyst for many years—well, many generations, some would say—of becoming disconnected from a system that was constantly doing things to them.

But consultation can have many different faces and many different forms. I guess my second question that I had for you in particular is: how is the consultation that you’ve proposed here likely to occur? You’ve set out very clearly the communities that the Government must engage with, and I do commend you, and comments from my colleagues have widely traversed the benefit of the mandatory requirements to consult with that broad consortium of population groups. But, yes, the devil is always in the detail, so they say. So I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on what you envisage the form of consultation might look like.

The third question I had with regard to, I guess, that same point as well is that sometimes consultation can happen rather swiftly and under a curtain somewhere off to the corner, and it can be said that, you know, some official went out somewhere and they asked somebody and that consultation occurred. So I guess my question, on behalf of—again, having sat through many a hearing and far too many litigation forums prior to now, debating and trying to get some resolution around the mode of consultation, and really what you’re envisaging for the transparency around the way in which the Government might consult with these communities that you’ve proposed they will be.

So just those three questions there on my behalf, Jan, but I do really—the member, Jan. Ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! You must actually use the member’s full proper name.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s why I was laughing at myself, Madam Chair, because I wasn’t—usually you say the honourable somebody, but I wasn’t quite sure what the criteria was. But I do—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): So could you refer to the member by her proper name, please. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Sorry, yes, the member Jan Tinetti. So, yeah—look I do want to commend you because you’ve spotted a gap in our current legislative environment, and you have absolutely filled that gap. So thank you very much, Jan Tinetti.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go back to a couple of points. Firstly, thank you to the people that have just asked some questions. To the member Mark Patterson, area schools fall within section 1A(4A)(d), set out in clause 4. The bill allows for consultation with the governing bodies of all schools, so that’s where they come into there. But the bill also doesn’t prevent consultation with individual schools, so if that is part of the work plan at the time and that is particular, then there may be that opportunity to have consultation with the individual schools—and, believe me, area schools are an area that I’m very passionate about too.

Also, there was a question around how this work fits in with the Kōrero Mātauranga, or the Education Conversation. This bill is very much in line with it. When this bill was going through the select committee process, the Children’s Commissioner, who has an oversight of that particular work, stated that he would proceed with the bill because the wording is wide enough to accommodate any changes, and, certainly, this can be developed and also, then, inform the new work that’s coming through. So there’s not any clash there. That’s because we did the work around looking at those enduring objectives and taking those out of this particular bill at the time.

What might consultation look like? Again, that can be very fluid at this point because it will depend on what the statement looks like—the statement that is developed at that point in time—and so it would be a shame if we narrowed it down too far that we didn’t allow good consultation to occur. Certainly, consultation—I heard there that at times there’s a fear that consultation might be secretive or done under the cover of darkness. The whole intent of identifying groups of who the Minister must consult with is so that that doesn’t happen. We are giving people surety that they will be part of that consultation, that it will be open and frank consultation with those particular groups, that it isn’t just at the whim of any Minister, and this particular bill is identifying who the groups are that the Minister must consult with so it is not done in a secretive way.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62, Noes 56.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I’m actually slightly disappointed because I know that I got cut off halfway through in full flight, and I know there’ll be many—there were going to be many, many people coming in to tune in to my finishing of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, but they may have been slightly distracted. I feel a little bit aggrieved that my moment in the spotlight has been taken by others.

Just to review where I was for those that maybe didn’t catch the first part of my speech, I was reiterating New Zealand First’s strong support for this bill. I had commended Gareth Hughes and actually previous members of the Green Party who had also championed this bill over a long period of time, and it is good that we have got ourselves now into position to bring this important piece of legislation forward.

Consumers have voted enormously in favour of this: 71 percent of consumers in polls have declared that they would want to have this information, so it’s widely supported by the public. We know that in things like clothing and footwear we already have these provisions, so why not our food, which is something we actually consume in our body? As New Zealand First, we are totally behind New Zealand producers and the fine food and beverages that we produce here, and we want to see them showcased as highly as possible.

I also did go on to talk about the pork industry for which we have a special carve-out within this legislation, because we now have 60 percent of our pork imported, which is a huge proportion of our pork, obviously, that has crept in over the years. We are a trading nation so we’re not out to put non-tariff barriers in front of other countries. In the select committee process, we looked through this very carefully and we consulted with foreign affairs officials to make sure we weren’t creating a bill that maybe would be used against us when we tried to export our food products to the outside world. So we have managed to satisfy those proposals.

Of course, 55 countries in the world already have this type of legislation, so this is not world-leading legislation, and that’s something that we normally do pride ourselves on, especially in the food space, as leading the world. So we are Johnny-come-latelies to this particular debate. Of course, there is the animal ethics side of things as well with pork, which was something we considered strongly, because 85 percent of that 60 percent that we consume in New Zealand is pork and pork products that are not raised in conditions that would meet New Zealand’s animal welfare standards, and that is something we’re taking increasingly seriously. We’ve just had a new set of animal welfare regulations, which come in to play on 1 October, so I think consumers and a growing list of consumers want to know that the food they’re consuming has been produced ethically, and this will give New Zealand consumers of pork, in particular, that ability to know that. I know from a personal perspective there’s no way I’d be buying anything that is not New Zealand pork or bacon.

Marja Lubeck: Beef.

MARK PATTERSON: And of course beef and lamb. That is a very good point, Marja. Beef and lamb: in parts of the year, especially in winter—coming out of the winter when there is low production—up to 20 percent of the beef can be imported from Australia, and I would imagine that not many people know that. So under this bill we will know that, when we go to our butcher or our supermarket.

The other thing that Gareth Hughes, the proponent of the bill, has suggested, I think within the committee stages of this bill, is that we might look at incorporating a wee bit wider—nuts and seeds, I think, are a couple of things that he has listed that we might be able to bring within the scope of this bill as well. I think we should consider that, take it back to our caucuses. But my instructions were pretty clear from our caucus: that we need to make this as simple as possible at the start. It can get very complex very quickly as we found out during the select committee process. So we’re open to looking at those extensions, but we are very keen on this bill and we commend it once again to the House. Thank you.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill is a bill for which the credit needs to be given to Steffan Browning, as he was the original owner of this bill. I had quite a bit to do with Steffan Browning back in the last Parliament where he and I had several good discussions around his idea for an origin of food bill and, really, the reality of how we were going to make that bill work and put it into practice. I just want to really acknowledge Steffan Browning because he was a member of Parliament with really strongly held beliefs, very strong convictions, and this was one of those issues that he did feel passionately about. So Steffan Browning, if you’re around, and if you’re watching or listening to this debate, thank you for being the member of Parliament who sponsored this bill, which is why we’re standing here today supporting the bill.

We need to acknowledge that the bill has had a substantial rewrite, and that is in order for the bill to be workable, not only for consumers and customers who have so strongly asked for and supported the introduction of country-of-origin labelling with foodstuffs but also for those retailers, on the offering side, who have to comply with the requirements of any piece of legislation that this House brings through. I do think that this current bill—which was adopted by Gareth Hughes—does that, and I think it does it very well. I did not sit on the select committee that considered this bill, but I think they’ve brought back to the House a regime which will receive wide support and acceptance.

I note that the New Zealand Pork board is particularly pleased that cured pork products are included within this regime, as is single origin food, with a staggered introduction with fresh foods and then frozen foods and so on being brought in. Again, that is a pragmatic way of dealing with this issue so that—upon the passage of this bill, and in a bit of time—we can all go to our green grocer, as I do, or the farmers market or the supermarket and know exactly where our produce comes from. Support New Zealand products is all I’d say in conclusion. Thank you very much.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe, Te Māngai. It’s my absolute privilege, actually, to rise this afternoon, and I really do want to commend our colleague Gareth Hughes, from the Green Party, who has stewarded this bill through and has been very active in terms of his advocacy across the House for the rights of consumers to know where their produce comes from. I know it’s no small feat to have to navigate with both sides of the House to get to an end point. As my colleague Mark Patterson said just prior, this is the type of legislation that can very quickly become very complicated: the overlays of implications with international trade partners, roiling that right through to our domestic citizens’ right to know where their produce comes from. Yes, it has been quite a journey, and I know that the member Gareth Hughes picked it up from one of his former colleagues. So I just want to acknowledge the journey that this bill has been on, and the work that has gone on in that corner.

I mean, look, I’m a fairly new member on the Primary Production Committee, so I didn’t really have the opportunity to hear, probably, a majority of the precursory advice that was given by a range of different officials, but I do just probably want to acknowledge the history that this concept, I guess, has had within our domestic environment. Back in 2005, we had Australia—at that point they were legislating for their own country-of-origin labelling. Us, at that time, we had some concerns about the implications that it would have on our trade obligations if we were to do that, and there was some quite strong lobbying at that time. For a range of reasons, we determined that a voluntary scheme was going to be the best scheme. So companies or producers could label their produce, but it was voluntary, and the regulations have been relatively light.

But, over the years, there’ve been a number of studies. And I actually want to commend the work of Horticulture New Zealand, who have been very proactive in this area, actually; same with pork NZ—the New Zealand pork association—

Mark Patterson: Pork board.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —the pork board; thank you very much for the correction in my terminology there—who have really provided strong industry support over many years to produce information that can give the Government surety that consumers really do want to understand exactly where their produce has been raised, what it’s been eating, and where it’s from. And we will pick up on the example of pork, because that there is a classic example where you’re buying fresh pork down at your supermarket and you see it’s a New Zealand product. What you don’t know is that it’s probably been semi-frozen—or it could have been; not probably, but could have been—and imported in from elsewhere, and at point of entry in New Zealand, it’s been cut up, packaged, and then sold to our supermarkets. We think that we’re consuming a domestically produced product, but we’re not.

So I saw some statistics that the pork board had put up in their submission to us. It was very informative. I saw a graph that showed that in about 2014 you started to see, at that juncture, that New Zealanders had started to consume more foreign or more imported pork products than domestic pork products. That came as a shock to me, because I think that most New Zealanders do have a strong association and affiliation for wanting to protect or to consume our local produce. So where we, as consumers—and like my colleague Mark Patterson and others, actually, from across the House—have the option to know exactly where that food is from, no doubt many of us will choose to support our locally produced products.

Mark Patterson: New Zealand first!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Ha, ha! Aotearoa first; New Zealand first, that’s right. It’s all about our locally produced products.

Look, many of us from the regions, we harp on and on about how it is our primary producers that are the backbones of our regional economies. For example, where I’m from on the East Coast, in the absence of a thriving domestic and international market for locally produced produce, our economic backbone in the East Coast would be decimated if we didn’t have a fully thriving production across all aspects of it.

I had the opportunity recently to go over to Shanghai with some New Zealand kiwifruit growers. We went and had a good look at—well, actually, we went to a number of places in China, but what we were doing was looking at the way in which New Zealand produce was consumed by international consumers. What we are known for, whether it be honey, whether it be dairy, whether it be pretty much all of our horticultural produce—whatever it was, anything that was grown here was seen as a highly priced but also a highly valuable, healthy, and almost akin to organic product. The value of “Brand New Zealand” in an international environment—

Mark Patterson: Beef and lamb.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Beef and lamb. Yes, that’s right—I give kudos to my friend there—but the value of the international brand of New Zealand to an international consumer, as well as the domestic consumer, is worth volumes. You could see produce on the supermarket shelves. They looked relatively similar, but where it carried that brand—that this was made and produced in New Zealand—that product would sell, I think, probably 9.9 times out of 10, for a premium. So I think that that requirement for us here at the domestic level and at the international level to really invest in “Brand New Zealand” is something that we can all be really proud of.

Look, we know that through the select committee process, a number of amendments to the bill were made—and, again, kudos to our colleague Gareth for his work in terms of liaising with the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor, with the New Zealand First team, and with the Opposition to strike the balance to ensure that what we were doing was fit for purpose. So, basically, one of the key amendments is that we’ve, effectively, rewritten the bill to require that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Kris Faafoi, an outstanding Minister—it’s for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that the regulations be made under the relevant provisions in the Fair Trading Act. That will do a whole range of things, but, basically, the bill’s going to apply to packaged or unpackaged foods that contain one type of vegetable, fruit, meat, or seafood—and we did have that extra addition of cured pork, and that came in at the later stages in the select committee process, and, again, actually it was the Hon Nathan Guy, from the Opposition, that was really supportive of that initiative. So I do really want to commend the Opposition for coming along on that ground, because, ultimately, it’s our industries and our consumers both that benefit.

Look, we do know that this bill does create an offence regime. It creates offences for falsifying or misleading labelling. Again, if we come back to that example of pork here in New Zealand—the fact that we need to know exactly where that product comes from and the whole journey of that product, and if we don’t, or if it’s mislabelled, then it comes with a fine of up to 10 grand for individuals and $50,000 for organisations. That’s a substantive disincentive measure—

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you, Kieran McAnulty. I know this is a topic very close to your heart, and I commend you too for your work in stewarding this through, especially—yeah, no; I won’t go there.

So, look, I think that it does create a disincentive or a penalty regime that will require a heightened level of compliance—50 grand for any organisation is a fair chunk of cash that I think will act as an effective disincentive.

Look, there was a range of other food types that we did look to, and, like my colleague Mark Patterson said, those will be conversations for another day, but it didn’t feel like there was an absolute opposition to things like nuts and various forms of seed, but the regime does start to get very complicated. So that will be a conversation for another day. As a start-off bill, we’re very proud that we can endorse this. I commend it to the House.

Voting

Correction—Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, before I call the next speaker, the vote on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill was announced as the Ayes 62 and the Noes 56. The correct vote should have been Ayes 63, Noes 56. The record will show the correct vote.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Tank yu tumas. The Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill was introduced by Steffan Browning, who happens to be one of my constituents, a former Green MP and certainly a man who stood on his principles. He’s a guy I know very well, and I sent him a text to tell him his bill was coming up, so he assures me he is watching the bill go through the House. While he’s not able to shepherd it through now himself, I know he’ll be very justifiably proud.

This bill is really important, actually, and I had quite a bit of difficulty, I think, with a number of people across the House not understanding the importance of this bill and why it is so important. Coming from a wine industry background, I think what people misunderstood was how people do connect with where their food comes from, and the difficulties that have been alluded to before are actually with the drafting of the bill in its original state. However, the Primary Production Committee did do a lot of work on getting the drafting to a point where it was pared back to quite the minimum to allow the Minister to actually, through regulation-making powers, add foods as they go along, as seen fit. Where the bill has come in at the moment, it is at its simplest form, being single ingredient foods such as fruit, vegetables, and, of course, meat. But where the difficulty came was around things like bacon, which has, in fact, been cured, and those sorts of issues where it did in fact have another ingredient. Those things can and will be worked through with the benefit of the Minister’s regulation-making powers now that the bill has been pared back a bit.

Pork, of course, as has been mentioned, is a major benefactor of this, and in my electorate I certainly have the largest pork farm, in Patoa Farms, and the Sterne family run a fantastic operation there. It’s great that they and other pork producers now have a way of identifying their product on the shelf so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they buy.

As I said, coming from a wine industry background, I’ve always struggled to see why people saw this as a difficult thing to do. In fact, we have passed through this House in my time the Geographical Indications Act, which allows—in fact, requires—rules around identifying the area in which a wine is grown in New Zealand. That, of course, also goes with a country of origin. All of this goes back to—in fact, the wine industry and the cheese industry are really good examples around the world where the location of where those things are produced is very, very important. For example, champagne: you can’t make champagne or claim champagne on a label unless it’s been grown, made, and actually bottled in Champagne, the region in France. We’ve also got burgundy and Bordeaux, and they are two different regions in France as well, and gouda, in the case of cheese, in the Netherlands, and then Saint-Marcellin in cheese, and also Livarot, which is another cheese—all of those things relate to an area where they were grown and produced.

Of course, some on the other side don’t have the understanding of what happens around the world in terms of food and wine, but I’m quite happy to help educate them outside of the House.

Dr Duncan Webb: You give it, I’ll eat it.

STUART SMITH: As long as you pay, I’ll go through the wine list for you—

Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha! Typical Nat.

STUART SMITH: —and we can have a good little experience. Dr Webb is a very enthusiastic supporter of that idea, I can see.

But, back to the bill. I think when we went through all this in select committee, it was quite clear that there was a real will for this to go through. There were only a couple of minor objections from industries that didn’t seem to understand the benefits that New Zealanders will get out of this. I congratulate Steffan Browning for bringing the bill to the House and Gareth Hughes for taking it over. It’s fantastic to have a bill pass in your name, and I think that while Steffan’s name won’t be on the bill, it will be known by those involved that he was the person who brought this bill through, and we’ll all be the better for it. So it’s with great pleasure I commend the bill to the House.

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

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Fakalofa lahi atu. I am very pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill. It really is captured in the title: the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. I’m pleased that I was a member of the Primary Production Committee, which considered this bill, and I too want to acknowledge the member Steffan Browning, a former member of this House—a resident of the great province of Marlborough and also part of Te Tai Tonga—who brought this bill to the House. Whilst this bill was not in Gareth Hughes’ name when it was brought to the House, I do want to acknowledge him as well, as he has adopted it. We know its genesis, we know where it came from, and I do want to acknowledge Mr Steffan Browning for his contribution. Even though he may have had a limited time in this House, this is a piece of legislation that he can put down as a legacy of his work in this august place.

I support this bill. I too acknowledge all of the work that went on as a committee, but also the officials that we really tested through the examination of this bill. I know Mr Smith said that we all wanted this bill to go through, and whilst that is true, it’s fair to say that it was all around the scope of the bill where we had differences of opinion. But I’m pleased that, as a committee, we’ve come to a very sensible piece of legislation now.

The key change, as has been outlined, is that this is not a stand-alone bill. This bill will be amending some key provisions in the Fair Trading Act, and that provision, in particular, is section 27, which will now give the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the power to put in place regulations around implementing a country-of-origin food labelling regime.

In regards to the scope of this bill, yes, we are starting with single component foods, but we have included all those foods in their various forms—whether it be fresh, frozen, semi-processed, or in a raw state—and across all major food groups. So it is quite broad in its application, and this is a very good start.

It’s all about giving consumers the right to know where their food comes from. As Mr Smith said, we, as an exporting nation, want to ensure that all of our consumers and customers around the world know that their product comes from New Zealand—our location, the origin of our food, means it commands a premium. Likewise, the consumers that go to the supermarkets, or retail outlets, to buy their food should have the right to know where their food is coming from. So this is a really helpful start.

There is scope in the future for the Minister to make further regulations in this area, but we’ve started at a very common-sense place: single component foods. We’re not getting too technical; we’re keeping it simple. But single component foods, whether they be in various forms, across all those major food groups, will, in time, have country of origin. That’s why we’ve also staggered the implementation, under the regulations, of the time frame for which the industry will be required to put that labelling in place. So there’ll be plenty of time. This will be implemented in a very staggered and common-sense way over the coming years.

I’m very pleased and proud that I was part of the Primary Production Committee which considered this bill. It’s making good progress thus far through the House, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill, the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. I do so coming from what I call the food bowl of New Zealand—slightly further up from the Wairarapa, Mr McAnulty, but, you know, you produce some good food as well.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

LAWRENCE YULE: That’s right. But this is really about our future. Coming from a place which has exceptional food and wine, there have been lots of conversations in Hawke’s Bay over the years about how we protect and preserve the value in those products. So even in the wine industry, there have been changes to pretty much the origin of where wine comes from and the labelling resources, and in a place like Hawke’s Bay, if you look at our wine industry, there are unique parts. Gimblett Gravels, as an example, produces some of the best wine in the world. We need to make sure that we look after—

Kieran McAnulty: Not as good as Martinborough.

LAWRENCE YULE: Well, Martinborough’s got some not bad stuff, but not quite in our league. So we need to look after our products and, importantly, our value.

Last night, in Hastings, I attended the Hawke’s Bay Wine Awards, and it was packed. Those people are there because they believe, they work hard, and they are exporting to the world and supplying New Zealand consumers. And that value needs to be protected. We also know that in an international market—and I remember this vividly in Hawke’s Bay once. There was a glut of onions. You couldn’t give them away—a glut. You couldn’t give them away. They were in storage sheds all around the world. All of a sudden, the American crop failed, and the whole lot were put on ships and went to Europe. So we shouldn’t underestimate how much the global trade of food products occurs, particularly with multinationals, and particularly in today’s world, where so much is over the internet or online. So the National Party is happy to support this bill. It provides value to us and to our consumers in an ever-changing world.

If you look today in supermarkets and if you look at people doing their shopping, or if you look at a farmers market on a Sunday morning as an example, people are way more interested in their food products than when I was a young boy. When I was a young boy, my mum bought food products often around what was the cheapest, and often around way less choice. Today, if you go to a supermarket—and there are specialist supermarkets: some that specialise in Indian food, Asian food. There are even companies that specialise in bringing food-based products from the UK. We need to give consumers enough information and confidence that they can make informed choices and that the value of New Zealand - based products can also be enhanced, because it’s my view that if people actually know where the product is from—if you have pork from Canada or Australia and it’s sitting on a supermarket shelf and there is a New Zealand product there and there is a Canadian or Australian product there, unless there is a massive price differential, Kiwis will always buy Kiwi-based products. This bill is simply about ensuring that continues and that value is retained in New Zealand.

I also think it’s important—and there have been some changes in the Primary Production Committee, and I agree with those—that the compliance costs for failure get to a level that discourages people from trying to rort the system. There have been people in my own electorate, companies in my own electorate, that have, effectively, changed weights and done all sorts of other things. They don’t do it now, but they used to, and they are out of business, largely. So the consumer in New Zealand needs to know that what they are getting is the fair deal, where it comes from, that it’s weighed properly, and what its value is.

Don’t underestimate where this country-of-origin labelling will go in the future. I have been to Europe. I have been to Asia. Smart codes, barcodes, little implants—all sorts of things are on the agenda for people to be able to show where that product was grown. You put it up on your phone and you’ll see the farmer, you’ll see the country, you’ll see the mountains, you’ll see the grass, and you’ll see the products. That is our value. So anything we can do to enhance our value internationally and to protect our consumers at home should be encouraged, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Now, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, because it really is time that we beefed up this area of the law. It’s very important that people do have an ability to know exactly where their food comes from, and I congratulate Gareth Hughes for having this bill progress through the House. He does look somewhat like the cat that got the cream.

The way food is produced is very, very important, and whilst there’s room for improvement in New Zealand—and I know Minister O’Connor is doing that—we have some of the highest-quality food production standards and animal welfare standards in the world. So if you are buying New Zealand pork, you know that it has met minimum welfare standards, minimum hygiene standards, minimum packaging standards, and so on and so forth. Those standards simply don’t necessarily exist in other countries, so that’s simply one reason why this is such an important bill. It hasn’t yet expanded to some of the more complex products—the products that include multiple ingredients—in a substantial way, but it is clear, and the bill itself makes clear, that it’s open to the Minister to expand it in that way. So, hopefully, the Minister won’t simply cherry-pick the odd product here and there but will have a much more comprehensive approach to regulation of country of origin.

As I said, it is very important, and the fact of the matter is that for some of our foods in particular, country of origin is a quality mark. Where something comes from tells you something about those goods. Apricots are a good example: without wanting to disparage Turkish apricots, we know that New Zealand apricots and Central Otago apricots are a different product altogether to some of those apricots from overseas. And so, when we go to the shops, we don’t want to simply know they’re dried apricots; we want to know exactly where they come from, because it’s a different quality. It’s a different item and, as Stuart Smith was saying, location is part of the product and, in some ways, part of the brand. He mentioned French wines and Dutch cheeses that he might be familiar with; I’m more familiar with South Island lamb myself, which we know is the best lamb in the world. When you come to New Zealand and you look at it, you see it there, you know that it’s New Zealand lamb and, what’s more, hopefully, South Island lamb. Here in New Zealand, it’s going to be better than any other lamb there can be. And, of course, we are a bit behind the eight ball, because many overseas jurisdictions are well ahead of us on this. We don’t want to buy something that’s as cheap as chips and think that it’s a New Zealand product. We’re usually happy to pay that little bit more for something which is a New Zealand product.

Of course, the other aspect of this is the fact that in New Zealand we can usually identify the food chain—the farm to plate idea. We know there’s been security in it. We know that, in terms of all of those standards, it’s met those standards, whereas overseas food—and there was, not that long ago, an example of grapes having a venomous spider found in them. Now, if they’d been marked as being from, I think, South America, then at least you would have known that that was a possibility, whereas here, if you know they’re New Zealand grapes, you know they’ve got a full secure chain of supply, including biosecurity. So sometimes the systems overseas clearly don’t cut the mustard and you have to take their quality standards with a bit of a pinch of salt.

So what’s been done with this bill here is that we’ve really picked the low-hanging fruit by going for single-ingredient items, but I do think the Minister will soon have an opportunity to go further than that. And, also, it’s useful to have an ability to exclude some items, because, obviously, you don’t necessarily need to know the country of origin of a bag of lemons that you’re buying on the side of a country road. You pretty much know where they’ve come from, and other items. I see fundraisers are excluded as well, so your raffle down at the pub.

Kieran McAnulty: What about a National Party fund-raisers?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, even the odd bottle of high-quality wine at a National Party fund-raiser—you probably don’t have to label that, because sometimes it will be unduly onerous to label those foods. It’s important to note, of course, that you don’t have to mark everything; you don’t have to put a sticker on every apple. It’s going to be enough simply if you put, next to the price of the apples, a sign there.

It’s an interesting piece of legislation in some ways, because the Minister is, essentially, instructed to make these regulations and then the legislation expires within 18 months, and I must say it was the first time that I’d seen a sunset clause quite of that nature where the Act is repealed 18 months after its commencement, but that’s the mandate—that’s the indication to the Minister that the regulations have to be in place by that time. But it’s an absolutely appropriate thing to do, and I do think that this is the first step of a journey to improve our country-of-origin labelling so that people will know where their food comes from. We do have this broad ability to regulate anyway under the Fair Trading Act. I myself have been involved in litigation involving country of origin, and at the moment it’s simply not clear to people what those rules are. So even when you do put a “made in New Zealand” sticker on something—because it is a quality sticker—what we need is good guidance so that people know not only exactly when they can do that but also when they must do that.

Now, I hope that that guidance will be expanded so that when people are putting that “made in New Zealand” sticker on a packet of biscuits or a tin of goat’s milk or whatever it might be, they know exactly the kind of composition—that it doesn’t have to be 100 percent made in New Zealand, perhaps, but at least predominantly made in New Zealand. And, of course, it’s not just a manufacturing process; a lot of this stuff is simply grown in New Zealand, or sourced in New Zealand, or fished in New Zealand, and so on and so forth. So those kinds of thing are going to be important as well.

There’s a lot of food for thought in there, and it’s good to see that the National Party has come on board and has made a workable piece of legislation. There are no sour grapes there, and we’re not playing any pork-barrel politics, but, rather, we’re just getting on side with it and actually making something that is going to work. It is really a value proposition, and it’s great for New Zealand producers that they can now expect, on these items, not only to put their own sticker on their own food, or whatever it might be, saying that it’s made in New Zealand, but to not be at that disadvantage where someone thinks that the pork or the apples or whatever it might be are also sourced in New Zealand and that information isn’t given clearly and accurately.

When you think about it, it’s not that hard. Consumers do have a right to know. And, look, in many cases, consumers can find out, but it’s so difficult. So what we have here is the ability of the Minister to say, “Yes, you’ve got to label these foods, and here’s how you do it.” You do it prominently, you do it accurately, and if you look at the Australian framework, I think there’s plenty to be learned from there, where the ACCC, I think it is, has given a pretty good indication of how you might go about it, including a nice little bar that tells you what kind of proportion of the goods is made in Australia. Now, we don’t have to do that here because it’s mainly single ingredient goods, but when we do come to look at multi-ingredient goods, to know that it’s 75 percent New Zealand ingredients is a really helpful thing to know.

So if you’re a New Zealand producer now, the world really is your oyster. You can get out there. You can make sure that your goods are properly compared—that people aren’t under some misapprehension; that they’re not thinking they’re buying one thing and then they’re not. They can compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.

Kiritapu Allan: That’s right.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Exactly—actually and literally. So that’s a really good thing. So, look, I really commend this bill to the House because it is a real leap forward for consumers in New Zealand. At last, they can look at something, know what it is, and purchase something with full information.

David Seymour: Thirty seconds. The member can do it! A few more thoughts?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Seymour there, don’t look at me like that. I know you’re a bit sour about this, but don’t worry about it.

David Seymour: About what?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Don’t go nuts. Just hold your noodle. But this is a good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking the call, Mr Scott?

Alastair Scott: I am.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Alastair Scott.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’ve got a very short contribution. I do also want to commend Mr Browning on his contribution. I’m sure it’s not enough for him, but it is a start, as many speakers have said tonight. And I commend this bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a tremendous honour to stand here and speak in favour of this, the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, which, as has been mentioned by many contributors tonight, is about establishing a very simple principle: that consumers should know what it is that they are buying.

I want to commend Steffan Browning for introducing this bill originally, and of course Gareth Hughes, a comrade from the Green Party, for carrying this through the select committee stage, when it wasn’t all that straight forward. The principle at stake here—I would have assumed that it would get universal support across the House right from the get go, but it’s not as straight forward as one might imagine. The idea of ensuring that single-origin food is adequately labelled so that consumers know where that product has been manufactured or grown is pretty straight forward. What took the select committee’s time, of course, was when it became complex in the sense that there was more than one ingredient. How do we go about that? That was certainly the issue that dominated the discussions around the select committee process. And I suppose it’s only right that we look to acknowledge the approach that the select committee took. By and large, the National Party members, the Labour Party members, and the New Zealand First member in Mark Patterson—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

KIERAN McANULTY: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I hope you had a marvellous dinner break, as did I. I enjoyed it very much. I caught up with both One News and Newshub, which I found very entertaining this evening.

It is, of course, a tremendous pleasure to resume this speech on the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. I was only a minute and a half in to my speech when the dinner break started, and I was just commending the members who have introduced this bill and have seen it through the House. Steffan Browning, of course, introduced this bill with an eye to ensuring that consumers were fully informed at the point of purchasing food so that they understood where their food was grown and produced. There have been some amendments and, throughout the select committee process, Gareth Hughes has steered this bill through that. He’s not a member of the Primary Production Committee, but, of course, he joined that committee when this bill was up for discussion, and he’s done a marvellous job.

It’s been a difficult road, actually, because, of course, this is not a clear-cut issue or situation. Perhaps you might think it would be. It’s simply ensuring that consumers know where the food has come from, but all the food that we eat is not always single origin, of course. With a bit of meat, it’s pretty clear-cut. You’ve got some meat, tell the consumers where it’s from—easy. What about a tin of tomatoes? What about if those tomatoes are from Italy, but the basil’s from New Zealand—how do we go about that? What about those other food types that have got more than one particular type of food within them? It does get complicated.

So this bill and the amendments that the select committee have made allow the responsible Minister to bring in regulations after a period of probably about 18 months. After some consideration, they can bring in some regulations so that other food can be considered under this particular regime alongside those that are included. Just for those at home who are interested, those that are included are only those of one particular type of fresh or frozen “fruit, vegetable, meat, fish, or seafood”, and are “fresh (even if previously frozen) or frozen and is not, for example, dried, cured, or pickled;”. So perhaps you might start to get an understanding of how complex this became in discussions at select committee. You know, it wasn’t expected, but it was an engaging process none the less.

There were a lot of submitters—they were keen to have their say—of which, probably the most enthusiastic were representatives from our pork industry. Although they may not necessarily be completely satisfied with how this bill has come about from the select committee, I’m sure they are buoyed that as a result of the powers that this bill gives the Minister, they will then be able to look at bringing in regulations that do benefit them.

Take bacon, for example. Now, under the current law as it stands, a company could bring pork in from overseas, cure it here, and label it “Product of New Zealand”. Now, with the New Zealand pork industry, just like any other primary industries in this country that want to market their own products, I imagine for most consumers in New Zealand, if they buy bacon or ham or salami or whatever, if it says “Made in New Zealand”, they would assume that it was a product that was farmed here, because we are a world leader in primary production, and yet if you were to go and buy a steak from the supermarket, you’ve a pretty safe bet that it was farmed here. The same could be said, certainly, for lamb; perhaps not so much for seafood and fish, but for pork it is not necessarily the case. I think consumers in this country, given our love of bacon and ham, etc., would like to know if what they are eating was grown here or if it was simply manufactured here. In the eyes of the consumer, I believe that that is significant.

Another example might be fish. Now, the fish could be caught anywhere in the world, brought to this country, and crumbed, and, as it currently stands, it could be labelled a product of New Zealand. It’s slightly misleading, and I think if consumers were aware of that and if the price of the product was not necessarily a factor—we do want to perhaps at this point acknowledge that for a lot of people, it’s not necessarily a big deal where the food was made. It’s just what is the cheapest and most nutritious for their family, and we absolutely appreciate that. But when price is not a factor, if consumers thought they were buying fish that was caught in this country, under a system where they can have faith in the processes that are in place in the food safety regulations and regime that’s currently in place, then they would do so assuming that that was a safe product. Potentially, if a consumer was buying a product under the guise of “Made in New Zealand” but it was actually farmed or fished or grown or produced overseas and that consumer was not aware of that, then that is not an informed decision, and that is simply all this bill looks to introduce.

It does also create offences so that this regime and this system that’s going to be in place can actually be enforced. This is the sort of thing that in a voluntary system could not necessarily be effective, because we want to make sure that our integrity as a food-producing nation is also intact.

Primarily, the point of this bill is to ensure that people are aware of what they’re buying. But also, as a country that exports our food and looks, under this Government, with a vision for primary industries, where we’re not just leaving things like perhaps the previous Government did and just hoping that the market might deliver, but actually having a vision where we can strive towards extracting the highest value and targeting the most discerning consumer—doing that in a system where the New Zealand product is duly recognised, particularly when other countries have similar systems in place, is, I think, a right step.

I acknowledge submitters like Federated Farmers, who, whilst at an executive level agreed with the principle behind this bill—the red meat sector were concerned about potential retaliation from other countries. If we’re making them label their products so that Australian producers could sell their steak in New Zealand supermarkets and not be required to label it as Australian meat, then they might make us do the same over there. But I say, good—bring it on—because our products are better than theirs. Ours are more nutritious and more environmentally sustainable, and we have really quite high animal welfare standards that we should be proud of as a nation. We should be wanting to sing it from the rooftops when we are selling New Zealand products overseas, and I don’t think it’s anything to be scared of if other countries want to bring in a similar country-of-origin labelling regime like we are proposing here.

It is good news for our exporters, it is good news for our brand as a primary-producing nation, and it is certainly good news for consumers. I for one do not want to be buying meat, assuming that it is New Zealand grown and finding out that it’s not. I don’t want to do that with fish. I certainly want to be informed if I was purchasing any other product of a single origin. This bill, under the leadership of Gareth Hughes, provides that certainty for consumers, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Over the past eight months since my bill was drawn, I have been struck afresh with the urgency and importance of this issue. I want to start by thanking the Justice Committee and their diligence in addressing this bill, listening to the variety of submitters who appeared before it, and reporting it back to the House. I would also like to thank New Zealand First for their support in getting it to this stage.

During this time, I have also met with experts across numerous fields—experts in toxicology and public policy, social workers, and police officers—as well as talking with family members of those who have lost their lives from these horrific drugs. Despite the variety of perspectives, each has been personally affected by psychoactive substances here in New Zealand. The toxicologists have seen their A & Es filled with zombified patients, the public policy experts have grappled with the insufficiency of our legal framework, the social workers have comforted the whānau bereaved by the loss of a loved one, and the police have encountered the panic of teenagers and young adults trying to help their unconscious friends. These Kiwis have experienced first-hand the destructive effect psychoactive substances have in our community. All of them agree that disrupting supply is a critical component of our response to this issue. That is precisely what my bill does.

More than 45 New Zealanders have died over the past 12 months from consuming these drugs, a number of them since the first reading of my bill. In the face of this tragedy, it is easy to throw our hands in the air and to cry out that taking a law and order approach to this issue is not working. It is time, some may claim, for a different approach. It is time to treat this solely as a health issue. I sympathise with this argument.

We will never eliminate the harm these drugs cause by solely looking at this issue from the perspective of law and order. As a Parliament, we have to acknowledge that more needs to be done to support those suffering from addictions. That is why, earlier this year, I lodged a petition calling for a parliamentary inquiry into addiction to synthetics, so that our health system can be better prepared and equipped to help those trapped in the deadly cycle of addiction. The Government has ignored this petition, which would’ve allowed a public inquiry into how we could address this serious issue, frustratingly.

However, this is not solely a health issue; it never has been. The bill before the House this evening does not target users of drugs but those who supply these substances, those who think only of personal profit, taking advantage of vulnerable Kiwis. Fortunately, we don’t have to just take one option or the other but can compassionately care for the health needs of drug users while at the same time insisting that those who seek to make money off the suffering and death of others deserve to be punished for their callous indifference.

This bill addresses supply. Let me say that again: this bill addresses the supply of drugs, not the suppliers of drugs, not the users. By taking a clear stance against the distribution of these drugs, by increasing the penalties for dealing, bringing them into line with class C drugs and working with New Zealand First on their Supplementary Order Paper 23, we will be deterring the suppliers of these drugs. Those who are supplying drugs are not the victims of the suffering caused by drugs; they are the perpetrators of this devastating harm. We are acting irresponsibly and negligently if, as legislators of this country, we do not condemn through law the distribution of these drugs with harsher penalties than the paltry sentences that are currently in place.

I want to make one thing very clear: this bill will not be the final solution to this problem that grips New Zealand. The harm caused by psychoactive substances is a complicated, multifaceted issue, and additional strategies and legislation will certainly be needed, but these additional approaches must complement a decisive condemnation of distributing these substances, not undermine it.

Through the process of advancing this legislation, I’ve had the privilege of working with Lewis Jones, who joins us in the gallery here tonight.

SPEAKER: Order!

SIMEON BROWN: Lewis is the father of Calum Jones, a young man who died due to an overdose of synthetic drugs in September last year. I think the greatest tragedy of Jones’ story is that he was going clean. Jones had spent weeks in rehab and was sober, but because of how easy it is to get these drugs, within days of leaving rehab he was dead, and the perpetrator, when caught and sentenced, was given only home detention.

Underlining our justice system is a duty first and foremost to victims. For one person to take advantage of a vulnerable person for the sake of profit is a crime which demands justice. We must deter those supplying these drugs and those who might choose to supply these drugs because of the incredibly low penalties for doing so.

The Minister of Health has recently announced his intent to reclassify two strands of psychoactive substances as class A drugs. This is a positive and necessary measure, but it’s ultimately insufficient. Every batch of psychoactive substances is chemically different, and it is easy for manufacturers to simply change their recipes to avoid longer sentences. This bill, however, by amending the Psychoactive Substance Act, ensures that a consistent penalty is applied to those who supply any and all chemical compounds which make up psychoactive substances. If the Government only opts for classifying substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act, they will always be playing catch-up.

While the public of New Zealand is waking up to the harms of synthetics, there is without a doubt a culture of treating synthetics as a mild and safe drug. As submitters argued, if the dealers of synthetic drugs receive a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and the dealers of herbal cannabis can receive at least eight years, the public will be under the impression that synthetic drugs are not taken seriously.

I challenge every member of this House to consider the harm that has been caused to our communities through psychoactive substances and to support this bill in addressing the distribution side of this issue. I do not stand here and claim that this bill is a solution to the entire issue, but, likewise, we are foolish and derelict in our responsibilities if we believe that a lack of healthcare and counselling is what leads someone to go into their communities and sell drugs that they know will kill. We must take a compassionate approach, but it is not compassionate to those who prey on vulnerable people and have unfettered access to them—it is not compassionate to let them continue to do that. If a health-based approach means letting criminals poison our young people and they receive home detention, we need to rethink our perceptions of justice.

This bill is a much-needed response to this issue. It is consistent with a compassionate yet decisive approach and is necessary to address the changing environment of psychoactive substances. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I read from the Justice Committee report that the New Zealand Police Association argued that substance use and crime are often linked due to the high cost of a drug habit fed by a criminal marketplace. I bring to the attention of this House the fact that the police, who deal with the hardest end of drug crime in their organisation, as a Police Association, argue that this bill is not supported by evidence that increasing penalties will deter the people that use or supply these drugs.

The association, rather, supports a more holistic approach to the problems that are created by synthetic drugs, and I agree with them—I agree with them. I think we as a society need to tackle the real problems that underlie drug addiction. We know that drug addiction is driven by loneliness. It is driven, often, by a history of a difficult childhood. We know that there are many common factors that affect people’s addiction, and we can see the links that are there and plain to see. Simply increasing the penalties for the use of these drugs will criminalise more people. We do need to target the suppliers—I absolutely agree with the member in that respect—but I don’t think that doing that alone will achieve anything. In fact, if it captures those who are users as well, it will do—or it certainly risks doing—more harm than good.

Part of a health approach is attacking supply, and I want to speak little about that. I think, personally, that there are other ways to get to this issue, and one of them is to look at reclassifying, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, those known substances. That is something that we can do. Unfortunately, the drug law that we’ve inherited is rather clunky.

Hon Members: Oh, here we go.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The members opposite will mock this, but this is a serious issue. This is a very serious issue, and I accept that the member who’s brought the bill to Parliament treats this as a serious issue. It’s the members behind him that are doing the mocking.

We have a serious challenge on our hands with drug law reform to ensure that we are actually helping those who are caught in the web of addiction. We know that those caught in the web of addiction need our help and support. We know our health system is not geared up appropriately to support them. We know the police are calling for different interventions. We know that those at our customs level know that these drugs are coming into the country. And the real issue is both getting to the supply but also making sure that we’re not criminalising the users of these substances.

On top of that, of course, we know that desperate circumstances drive people to take drugs, so we know that the inequalities that are in our society need to be addressed. The homelessness, the housing crisis—all of these things have a contributing effect at some level. Unless we address the real causes of the misery that underpins the use of these substances—and, particularly, let’s note that the substances we’re talking about, the psychoactive drugs, are incredibly cheap. They are being used, often, by our most vulnerable and desperate. They’re not people who are thinking through the logical consequences of their actions. They are desperate people, and so I think that’s why we’ve seen so many of these submissions speak about the lack of evidence that longer prison sentences contribute to reduced harm.

I recommend the select committee report to the House and to the members of the public who might be listening in to this parliamentary session, because people who have expertise in this area have contributed a great deal to that report, I can see. They know that the prohibition of drugs causes harm, and I recommend to the House a book, Chasing the Scream, by Johann Hari. Now, the man who wrote the book has been accused of plagiarism earlier in his career. I don’t think that detracts from the story he tells of the history of the war on drugs and its failure to achieve what we need to achieve in our societies, which is support for those who are struggling with addictions and a hard approach to those who are driving supply.

But I don’t think that this is the approach that’s going to get us there. We need a more comprehensive approach that looks at community education, that looks at housing, and that treats drug use as a health issue and makes sure that when addicts come forward for support, there is support there for them—that we actually have a sufficient response to support addicts in the health system when they come forward. Our health workers work incredibly hard to make this happen, but they have been stretched for a long time.

I see also in the select committee report that Māori groups have come forward and said that this change that’s proposed will disproportionately affect Māori. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua submitted that increasing penalties around psychoactive substances would have a disproportionate effect on Māori. And we know, also, that in our criminal justice system those who are driven to crime by addictions then form a large portion of that criminal population who are incarcerated, many of them Māori, many of them disadvantaged in first place, trying to overcome their disadvantage, and then finding themselves in places of difficulty, taking solace in drugs that are incredibly harmful.

I want to say, also, in my other role as the Minister of Health, not just as an ordinary member on members’ day, that these are incredibly harmful drugs. Any people that do have a choice about them should avoid them like the plague. The psychoactive substances being peddled on our streets right now are incredibly variable in their potency, and many of them are new substances that have only arrived in the country in recent weeks. The supply is changing constantly. These are big challenges, and we do need a comprehensive and real response to the real issues that are driving the problems that we have in our society with these drugs.

It is the sellers and suppliers that should be punished, and in order to do that we need greater surveillance powers. Now, this bill doesn’t achieve it. The Misuse of Drugs Act does have the ability to put surveillance powers in place—greater surveillance powers for the police. That’s why I’m looking at whether there is a measure there that would be more appropriate, because we want to interrupt the major suppliers but at the same time we don’t want to get caught up in the existing structure in the Misuse of Drugs Act that would also criminalise those petty users on the street in desperate circumstances. So that is something that we will be dealing with.

Obviously, these deaths go back quite a long way. I don’t want to politicise it, as the members opposite seem to be doing, but let’s acknowledge that this problem has been growing for a number of years, and people have been dying for several years because of some of these products. It requires a serious solution and not a knee-jerk reaction. I am not condemning the member for bringing this matter, because I do think that the increase in penalties for those suppliers—well, more importantly, not the increase in penalties but getting to those suppliers is the critical thing. I accept that he is genuine in his intent in wanting to make a difference here.

Let’s go back to the fact that there has never been convincing evidence that increased penalties act as a deterrent effect. It’s appropriate that there should be penalties for those at the hard end of supply, but just simply increasing them is a fool’s victory—it doesn’t have any impact at all.

I also want to commend, before I finish, the work undertaken by the National Drug Intelligence Bureau on the development of a proposed drug early warning system. We know that one of the things that we can do and must do—

SPEAKER: Order! I’ve let the member run fairly wide, but I will remind him that on the second reading we are debating the bill before the House, not matters outside that area. I think I was fairly loose on the previous speaker, so I let the member run. But I do want to remind members now that they are debating the bill, not matters outside it.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Quite right, Mr Speaker. So to come back to the point, there’s a lack of evidence that increasing penalties will make a difference in terms of deterring those who are dealing with these drugs. Māori have submitted that this measure will have a detrimental effect on their well-being. Those who submitted on the bill were very clear that a wider all-of-Government approach would be necessary to reduce drug harm, which I believe to be the intent behind the bill, despite the fact that I think it just doesn’t get there.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on this, the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by acknowledging the sponsor of the bill, who brought this bill to the House, and that is Simeon Brown. Every member of the House that comes to this Parliament is passionate about something, right? We’re all united by one thing, and that is wanting to make our country a better place for the generations now and the generations in the future. He brought this bill to this House because he’s actually deeply passionate about this issue. The passion was evident through the select committee process and with the submitters that came before the Justice Committee. He’s already spoken to a tragic case of a young man that went far too early because he was in the grip of these psychoactive substances.

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Health. He’s taken the time to take a 10-minute call in this House on this bill. The thing that I want to address is the fact that, in the opening of his speech and in the closing, he said that “We’re not going to support this, because we’re only going to support legislation that’s evidence-based.” Now, I could accept that, because I actually agree. I think that having evidence and stats and figures that can back up policy decisions is very important, and I was proud that when we were in Government that’s exactly what we did. We were working very hard to make sure that we could gather even more evidence and data to support decisions that were being made.

But if you are going to apply that rule across the board, and if you’re going to stand in the House and you’re going to say that you’re not going to support this bill of Simeon Brown because you don’t have the evidence to back up that it will make a difference, then don’t bring legislation to us because you want us to support it, and then when we ask for the evidence, you can’t provide it. It means that you’re applying one rule to the Opposition, in terms of members’ bills and legislation that comes to the House, and you’re applying another rule to yourselves with a much lower bar.

I acknowledge that we’ve got the Minister of Justice in the House tonight. I’ve made a public commitment to work with him, in terms of the work that he wants to achieve. I don’t doubt his passion and his drive to want to make genuine change for the better in our criminal justice system. However, we had a meeting two weeks ago, just before the recess, where there’s several Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are going to be introduced into this House as one amendment in relation to the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. Now, we are looking through that, and we are going over it carefully, and there’s already areas that we’ve identified that although it hasn’t been through caucus yet, there’s a high chance that we will support parts of it.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ll come, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Well, get there.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m trying to address some of the issues that were raised by the Minister. I know that you gave him some scope—I’d appeal and ask—

SPEAKER: And I’ve narrowed it down now. We’ve had one wide scope each, and we’re now getting back to the bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s OK, fair enough. So, anyway, the point is simply this: a lot of those SOPs, there’s no evidence to back them up, and yet we’ve been asked to support them and yet the Government is advancing them as Government bills.

SPEAKER: Order! I warned the member. Even if the SOPs were about this bill, it’s not the right time to discuss them—and the SOPs that the member’s referring to aren’t anything to do with this bill. It’s not the time for a general discussion about Government practice. It is a second reading of a very specific, very tight piece of legislation. The Hon Mark Mitchell, on his last warning.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I’m just working through the list here and I’m trying to address the issues that the Minister raised in his address to the House.

In terms of saying that only a health-based approach is going to make any difference at all in terms of how drug dealers—and this bill relates directly to drug dealers, people that are actually dealing illegal psychoactive substances. Actually, yes, you can have a health-based approach, and yes, that could sit alongside a piece of legislation like this, but they should go together. You shouldn’t be saying, “No, we’re going to pursue just a health-based approach”, and using increased penalties or saying that increased penalties isn’t going to make a fundamental difference. How can you stand in the House and say this? Penalties act in two ways. One is, yep, you want it to be a deterrent. You want a prospective drug dealer to look and say, “Actually, you know what, if I get caught doing this, I don’t really want to go to jail for two years. I want to remain free. I value my freedom.” The other thing about penalties is this: as a country—if you choose to become a drug dealer, if you choose to peddle harm in our community and you get caught, then you’re going to go to jail. There’s going to be a penalty there for it. We’re going to say, as a nation, “We don’t accept that.”

I want to extend an invitation to the Minister. I want to say to him, come with me on just about any day of the week to the North Shore accident and emergency department. Come with me, we’ll go together, and I’ll show you what the people that are in the A & E department, in various states of—well, some of them, actually, as we know, actually end up dying. Others who are in early stages where they need some more minor treatment—come and see what the staff there at the A & E are actually dealing with. Come and see how many Kiwis—how many daughters and sons, fathers and mothers, are actually lying in the A & E because they have had an adverse effect or an overdose with these psychoactive substances. He says that the Police Association are saying that they don’t have any evidence to say that this would make any marked effect.

I was in Christchurch about three or four weeks ago. I was lucky enough to be briefed and hosted by Superintendent John Price , the outstanding area commander down there. At the time that I arrived in Christchurch, there had just been 24 people admitted into the critical care unit at Christchurch Hospital because they had taken a bad batch of psychoactive substances. He said any tool that they could have to deal with it, to deal with the dealers, to deal with the people that are peddling this harm, would actually be helpful for the front-line staff in the way that they are trying to apply the rules and they’re trying to deal with this. So, again, I’d say to the Minister: actually get out there. Get into the community, ask the people that are actually having to enforce the laws and are actually having to deal with it—

Hon Dr David Clark: Ask them if extending the term will make a single scrap of difference, because the health workers will tell you it doesn’t. The health workers will tell you it doesn’t—those people you just talked about it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So the Minister, again, is challenging the fact; he thinks that this bill that has been brought to the House to increase the sanction, to actually bring it in line with class C drugs—and tell dealers, the people that are actually dealing and peddling this substance in our communities—he’s trying to say that we as a Parliament should not be saying, “Actually, if you want to go out there and you want to deal these drugs, if you choose to do that, we’re going to come down and we’re going to have a harsh penalty. And you’re actually going to be taken out of the community that you’re creating the harm”, and it gives the police the tool to be able to do that.

So, again, finally, I would just ask the Minister to reflect on three things. One is: yes, a health-based policy should sit right alongside a punitive regime, in terms of us sending a clear message and saying—and by the way, Minister, they’re not choir boys and choir girls, these people that choose to become drug dealers. They’re actually people that enjoy generating the revenue from it. They prey on vulnerable people, the same vulnerable people that we want to help—

Kiritapu Allan: They’re usually vulnerable—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and they’re very open and overt about it. Sorry, what was that? What was that? I didn’t hear that. OK, well, if you’re going to interject, at least make the comments so I can hear it so I can respond to it.

Dr Deborah Russell: You don’t have to respond—you can just ignore it.

Kiritapu Allan: You don’t need to respond.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I don’t have to respond. OK, that’s fine. That’s right—they weren’t prepared to actually repeat the comment, which says it all.

The other thing, Minister, is that although you don’t have the evidence base that you want from the officials, if you’re going to apply that rule, then apply it to yourselves as well. Stop bringing legislation to us and asking us to support it when you have no evidence to back it up. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I’ll begin by saying that I think every member in this House recognises that this is a serious issue, and the sponsoring member clearly recognises that it is a serious issue. He’s made the effort to bring this bill to the House and run it through, and come back here for this second reading. I suspect that Mr Brown asked himself, and continues to ask himself, the same question that I do—and I ask it of officials, and I asked it of them recently: what is it that we can do as quickly as possible to stop the next death as a consequence of these substances being available? That’s the urgent challenge that we now have.

We know these substances are out there, they’re in the community, they’re being used, they are harming people, they are causing injury, and they are causing death. And when we hear that there are coroners now investigating between 40 and 45 deaths attributed to the use of these substances—psychoactive substances, or synthetic cannabis, as they are called—then we have a very serious issue that we have to address.

The sponsoring member takes the view that more punishment or the threat of more punishment will be enough to decrease, possibly even eliminate, supply so that we remove the threat. Now, that type of thinking is so far removed from the lived experience of those people using these substances that it beggars belief. Actually, that is not the way—whether it’s the pushers or the users—to deal with this issue. The question we might ask is not just about supply—we know folks are out there, taking advantage of the vulnerable, peddling these vicious substances, causing mayhem and harm and death, but there are people who are in the market to purchase the stuff. People are looking for a high, a rapid high, and sometimes, in fact often, a very dangerous high and a very dangerous reaction.

We might ask ourselves the question: why is that happening? Why are people feeling the need? What is it in their lives that drives them to want to search out this stuff, to not particularly care about the substance they’re taking, or to be misled and not be cautious at all because they’re so desperate to achieve a high and a very cheap one? And when we look at the kind of typical profile of the users of synthetic cannabis, they are people who are the more marginalised in our community, folks living on the street, mostly disconnected from a lot of institutions and a lot of social norms, people who live on the street day to day. They are the users of this substance.

Just saying “You know what? We’re going to increase the possibility that somebody peddling this stuff might go to jail for longer.” is somehow going to stop the supply? I doubt it because, as we know with supply, one guy goes into prison and there’s somebody there to take their place straight away. Is increasing the sentence going to change demand? Uh-uh. Not at all. Not ever. This doesn’t change the fundamental problem, and the challenge we have in this country with drugs, particularly drugs that are dangerous, that are potentially fatal, is actually to start to deal with the real problem. What is the source of the problem, and what can we do to stop the user feeling that that is the best option for them, that that is the way out for them?

As for increasing the potential prison sentence, we know, of course, that the justice system won’t impose the maximum sentence except in the most extreme and extraordinary cases. So it won’t be eight years.

Simeon Brown: So two years.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: You’ll lift it from two years but it will never be eight years, but it might be a little bit more than the average sentence now. Will it change a thing? Will it change a thing? I take the word of the police officers who I meet who say, “Uh-uh. That ain’t going to make a difference. There’s other stuff we need to do.” And they are out there doing it, trying to get to grips with the social issues, the social questions that are driving young, often, and mainly disconnected people who feel as if they’ve got no hope, no option, no choice, not much of a life. What are we doing about that? How are we helping that problem? Because that’s the real challenge.

I have immense respect for the member who’s just spoken, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and there is a lot that we can agree on and, I’m sure, at some point will agree on. But what this bill ought to kind of demonstrate to us, to this House, to every member in this House, is that we have a major challenge in this country, in this great country of ours, in these strong good communities of ours. We have this insidious problem, at least with this form of drug—synthetic cannabis as we call it.

Actually, what this bill ought to lead us to do and ought to lead Mr Brown to think and to act upon, and all members opposite to act upon, is to say, “You know what? We’re all in this together. These are our communities that all of us in this House are here to represent.” And if we’re serious about addressing the synthetic cannabis problem, the other psychoactive substances problems, the other drug problems that we know are causing mayhem, the meth problem—the peddling of which leads to much longer sentences than for synthetic cannabis at the moment; sentences that haven’t done a thing for supply—we might want to think together, all of us, that there is a set of other problems underpinning this one that we might want to work together on.

I would invite members opposite, including Mr Brown, who I know is passionate about this issue—that’s why he’s gone to the trouble of bringing this bill here—and say, “Let’s find a way that all parties in this House and all members in this House can work together on these problems and find some real solutions.” Those members opposite—of course they should be heaping the pressure on this Government and my colleagues and members on this side of the House, and talking about the need for a well-rounded, whole solution, not just parts of it; not just the rhetoric, not just the kind of grandstanding measures, the chest-beating “We’ll increase the penalties and do more punishment.”, because that doesn’t fix the problem.

So as we consider this bill, I invite members opposite to take the opportunity to consider whether or not extending the punishment for a small fraction of the problem, the peddlers, is really going to make a difference. Because there is no evidence that it will, and all the evidence points to there being a broader set of problems that need a whole range of solutions and different aspects to those solutions. When this House gets the opportunity, as it almost inevitably will in the next two years, and when we start to grapple with some of these health issues and the social issues that are driving this, I would hope that members opposite might find it within themselves to say, “You know what? None of us has a monopoly of wisdom on this. None of us can claim to have all the solutions or the best solutions, but within us we have effective solutions, a number of things, a range of things, a range of responses that can make a difference.”

That’s the challenge for this House; not this bill, not this legislation. That’s why we’ll continue to oppose this. We—my colleague the Minister of Health, the Hon David Clark, and my colleague the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash, and other members on this side of the House and non-executive members—are working hard to face the challenge of finding the range of effective solutions that mean that the young people who are prone to using these substances, who are attracted to these substances, and young, middle-aged, and older people who are disconnected, whose lives have fallen apart and who are attracted to a cheap high, might actually get a more effective solution from the stuff that we can put in place.

That’s the challenge New Zealand has. That’s the challenge this country has. That’s the challenge this House has, and I invite members to work with us, for us all to work together. None of us should be puffing our chest out and saying, “I’m the hero here.” We’ve all got to work on this together and find real solutions that aren’t about beating up and punishing people but are about helping people in desperate need, about calling to account those who would cause harm, but ultimately getting the stuff off our streets and making life better for those for whom it is a misery.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, sir. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. There are a few points that I want to make about this bill on behalf of New Zealand First—our stance and why we take this stance. The most important is obviously why we are supporting this bill. The main reason is that this focuses on dealers, manufacturers, and suppliers—that’s it. It is not talking about those who are addicted, those who are suffering, those who are vulnerable, and those who are users. We are talking about gangs. We are talking about the dealers, who don’t care how many people they kill; the manufacturers, who don’t care how many people are addicted. Actually, they want more people to be addicted, because it makes them more money. They don’t care about the effects; all they care about is themselves.

I have got no idea who in this House would have any sympathy whatsoever for those manufacturers, those dealers, and those people who peddle this—well, people call it a drug; it’s more like just a chemical.

Hon Members: Poison.

DARROCH BALL: It’s a poison. We have heard the stories, and we all know that there are dozens and dozens of people dying from this stuff every year, and it’s getting worse. It’s increasing and it’s an epidemic. There is no doubt also that, in isolation, this bill—will it stop all of those deaths? Will it stop all of those people from becoming addicted? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be taking a hard stance on those manufacturers and those dealers. There is no doubt that we must increase the penalties for the supply and manufacture of this poison.

We don’t believe, in New Zealand First, that this is the perfect solution. We’ve heard reasons from the speakers from the Labour Party, the Ministers from the Labour Party, about why it’s not a perfect solution. Actually, we agree with that, but if we’re standing in this House and the choice that we have is to do nothing, to kick the can down the road, or to make the choice to support something that will go perhaps just some way to deterring people from supplying this poison to those vulnerable people that we want to protect, then that’s the kind of bill that New Zealand First is going to support. The fact is we must do something—we must do something.

We do have some caveats and some concerns with the bill—we do, because it’s not perfect; there are some areas it does not cover, some important areas. The genesis and purpose of this bill is to move the maximum sentence from two years for manufacture and supply to eight. It’s been identified and mentioned before, but this is—and it needs to be understood—a maximum sentence. The judges still have discretion. The judges still have a raft of tools to use if they so wish and decide on the individuals that come in front of them. This is just a maximum sentence. We heard one of the previous speakers say that this will only criminalise more people. That is absolutely not true; all it does is allow the judge to dish out a harsher penalty to those same people, and when they get those maximum penalties and those prison sentences, they are reserved for the worst of the offenders—for the worst of the offenders. Why on earth would we not allow our judicial system to increase the penalties for the worst of those offenders? It makes no sense whatsoever that we will not give those extra tools to the judges.

One of the Ministers quoted from the Police Association submission. I would also like to quote something from the Police Association submission and in most part New Zealand First agrees with what the submission actually says. It says, “The Association recognises the link between habitual psychoactive drug use and crime is largely due to the high cost of a drug habit fed by a criminal marketplace. Therefore as with any other criminally supplied drug it seems logical to target the supplier as this amendment intends.” It goes on to say the association “would like to see an emphasis on a holistic approach to dealing with these illicit substances”—100 percent agree; there is no disagreement from New Zealand First with that statement—“one which prioritises factors contributing to addiction. Within the context of a broad review an extension of prison sentences for suppliers and manufacturers may turn out to be part of the equation, but we do not consider it the sole fix.” Absolutely—this is part of the equation, and if we’ve been asked in this House to make a decision about whether we want to vote for a piece of legislation that is part of the solution—understood it’s not the sole fix; but is part of the solution—then I wonder why we are not all doing that tonight.

I’d also, in my last few minutes, talk about the Misuse of Drugs Act, because it’s quite important and it’s actually one of the reasons why Simeon Brown has moved the maximum years of imprisonment from two to eight, because two is equivalent to a class C drug—importation, manufacture, or supply. The caveat, as I mentioned earlier—one of them is that New Zealand First’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is agreed to and passes in this House—is actually to increase the maximum sentence from two years to 14 years. The reason why we have decided on 14 years is that it is equivalent to a class B drug. If you look at class C drugs, you are talking about cannabis plant, cannabis seed, coca leaf. If you look at the class B drugs, we are talking about drugs like opium, morphine, amphetamine. We believe that the—

SPEAKER: Order! I am going to—the member sits down when I stand up. The member can make a passing reference to an SOP, but he cannot go into detail on it at the second reading. He must wait until the committee stage.

DARROCH BALL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister also mentioned that there was consideration being taken for bringing the psychoactive drugs, or those types of drugs, into the Misuse of Drugs Act and, potentially, into class A. I think that’s a very important discussion to have. I think that we need to be able, as part of the holistic approach, to give the police the ability that the Misuse of Drugs Act actually gives them—the tools that it gives them, the search and surveillance tools that it gives them.

We will be supporting this bill because we have an epidemic that is ever-increasing and thus far, over the years that it’s been occurring, we have not been able to come up with a solution. But we believe that this is a part of that solution. We believe that it is necessary as a deterrent—not only that but as a tool for our judicial system to use at their discretion. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, and we will be looking forward to the development of a more holistic approach in this search for a solution for this poison that is on our streets. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There’s a very simple question for Parliament with this bill: is the penalty of two years’ imprisonment adequate for people that are supplying and distributing psychoactive substances that have killed 45 fellow New Zealanders in the last 12 months? My colleague Simeon Brown has brought this bill to the Parliament to extend that to eight years. Given the epidemic that we have with these substances around New Zealand, I totally support the measure in the bill, and I’m deeply disappointed that both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health and the Labour Party and the Green Party are opposing this practical measure against something that is having such a devastating impact on communities up and down New Zealand.

In my own community, if you go to A & E, if you talk to the GPs, if you talk to the ambulance officers, and if you talk to those in our schools, you’ll hear that these psychoactive substances are wreaking havoc in communities all over New Zealand. Actually, it is in our poorest and our most vulnerable communities where these substances are doing the most harm.

I, like the sponsor of this bill, want to draw the House’s attention to the submission we heard at the Justice Committee from Mr Lewis Jones. I’ve been in Parliament for a while. I’ve heard a lot of select committee submissions. No person on any select committee could help but feel compassion and be moved by the tragic story of the death of his son Calum—the way in which he got access to these psychoactive substances, the tragic story of his life being trapped by them, the desperate attempts of his family to get support—and I am angry because Labour members of the committee blocked National, as recorded in the minutes, from just giving a human dimension from the loss of that one sad life to be able to tell the very human story that’s relevant to the debate on this bill.

I want members opposite to reflect on the powerful submission that we received from the Salvation Army. Now, the Salvation Army aren’t some politically biased organisation. In our communities up and down New Zealand, they do more work at the coalface of dealing with those people whose lives are wrecked by these sorts of substances. The Salvation Army does not come from some of that punitive or reactionary culture. They are sensible, practical people, who back this bill.

I found the arguments from the Minister of Justice against this bill to be nothing less than pathetic. He said that the answer was not penalties alone, and of course he’s right. Of course we need education. Of course we need to make sure that there is proper treatment and drug rehabilitation services across the board. But you don’t need a bill in Parliament to be able to fund improved services. You don’t provide education programmes by having a bill in Parliament. The one thing we do do in Parliament is set down what the criminal law is and what behaviour in this society is totally unacceptable. The peddling of these substances is unacceptable, and that’s why we should pass this bill.

I also want to draw to Parliament’s attention the well-informed and passionate submission from Mr Paul Quigley, a toxicologist. It was not some sort of emotional reaction. He’s somebody who’s an expert in this area, who equally said that our current law is out of step and that the very weak penalty of only two years for these substances is inadequate.

I was particularly concerned by the statement from the Minister of Justice that sent the willies up my spine when he told the House today—and I quote—“Penalties have no effect at all.”—penalties have no effect at all. If penalties have no effect at all, why does this Parliament say that those that commit murder must do life in prison? Why does this Parliament set down penalties for rape and for other criminal offences if we have a Minister of Justice who says that penalties do not matter, I say that the Minister of Justice is out of touch with New Zealanders. When we heard evidence at the select committee that for a substance like marijuana, which currently has a penalty of eight years, how can any member in this House say that two years for these far more dangerous substances is somehow just and is somehow fair?

I equally want to draw the House’s attention to the information that we heard at the select committee about the number of people that are presenting in accident and emergency clinics all over New Zealand from taking these substances. Yes, there have been 45 deaths in the last year, but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of cases that are coming before our accident and emergency clinics. And here’s the rub: if someone is a manufacturer and is making money out of peddling these substances—a single batch of these psychoactive substances could kill a dozen people; in fact, there’s evidence that some of the bad batches may have killed more than that many New Zealanders—how can any member of this House reasonably say that the maximum penalty for manufacturing and distributing those substances is a period of only two years? I do not think any member of this House could look in the mirror and say that that is a fair maximum penalty.

What we also observed with this bill were the huge contradictions within the Government in their approach to these sorts of law and order issues. On the one hand, we have the extreme positions of the Greens and the Labour Party opposing this bill, and we have another party within Government actually wanting to go further, from eight years to 14 years. Doesn’t that just describe so aptly the lack of direction?

No wonder justice policy in New Zealand is in a mess when you have got that level of disagreement within the Government parties on such a key area. Effectively, you’ve got some members in the Government parties—the Labour and the Green Party—defending having just two years for the manufacture and distribution of these substances, while you have another governing party saying that it should be 14 years. How can that in any way represent a coherent approach to justice and to these issues around the harm from psychoactive substances?

So members on this side of the House do not say that penalties being appropriate is the only part of the logical response that we as a country should be taking to these psychoactive substances. Of course we need to do more in the area of treatment, of course we need to do more in the work of customs, and of course we need to do more with our health and our drug rehabilitation services, but I say to this Parliament: if we are serious about stopping the ongoing tragedy of so many young people’s lives being lost, this Parliament needs to send a signal—a signal that we will lock up those people that make money out of peddling drugs that are causing so much harm in our community.

I strongly endorse the words of Simeon Brown and the work that he has done on this bill. I am absolutely delighted that we have the parliamentary numbers to ensure that this bill is passed, because it is time we took this problem seriously.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Can I firstly begin by acknowledging Simeon Brown. He’s actually been working on this kaupapa since June 2013. I wonder if he remembers when he was a member of Manurewa Local Board and Peter Dunne came and accepted a petition to stop a High Zone store in the middle of our community? So it is something that this member has been working on, and I want to acknowledge that.

What I now want to acknowledge, however, is actually the beginning of my colleague Nick Smith’s contribution tonight. In saying that, can I acknowledge everybody who was on the Justice Committee. I was not a member of the Justice Committee, so I didn’t get to hear from the 78 submitters. I just want to note that, of those, 64 were individual submitters, 14 were organisations, 18 supported. So 23 percent of those who submitted supported the legislation and 68 percent opposed, and there were 9 percent who were a little bit ambiguous.

But I do want to highlight who the 45 people who have died are, because, actually, in my community, the 45 people who have died are homeless people, Mr Nick Smith. They are the poor and they are the vulnerable. Unfortunately, in some communities, the people who have manufactured these products like to test them on people, and they’ve chosen to use my community as one of those test stops. And the other thing they do is they get these people who are addicted to these products to then sell them to their community. So I’m speaking about mine. I’ve had three people die in Manurewa, and they were homeless people. I didn’t hear from the parents and the families and the young people who were affected. If you look at definitions, we’re looking at party pills, legal highs, and then synthetic cannabis, and it’s the synthetic cannabis that seems to be killing a number of people who currently are affected by the availability of this substance.

Now, we can go back in history and look at the Psychoactive Substances Act, and the fact that in the principal Act we wanted to regulate these substances, so they’re not prohibited substances. We actually said, “We’re going to allow New Zealanders to purchase them.” And that’s the context within which this legislation should be viewed, because this is an amendment to the Psychoactive Substances Act—it’s an amendment bill. So that’s the Act that we are actually amending tonight. So what we’re saying is that we now want to treat a non-regulated, non-prohibited psychoactive substance as either a class C—in terms of this legislation; I’ve heard other colleagues say A—drug, and want to focus on punishment.

So I want to agree with my colleague Nick Smith that the people who will be punished—given they are the same people who have died—will be the poor and the vulnerable, and also, in my community, it is Māori, because, overwhelmingly, over 90 percent of them are Māori, and they are the homeless people living in my community.

So what did the submitters say that I particularly want to highlight? I actually want to highlight this whole theory that deterrence works. So if we put up these penalties, it’s going to stop people from—

Hon Member: It’ll help stop.

LOUISA WALL: Well, can I actually highlight what the bill says. Who is this bill going to affect? It’s going to increase the penalty for selling or supplying. I find it fascinating that if you look at the definition of trafficking, it talks about the preparation of a drug of dependence for distribution and it talks about manufacturing of an illegal drug. They aren’t the people that are targeted by this legislation. They are the people that are selling or supplying.

We know, from the police, that the people who are selling or supplying are actually those likely to use the substance. They are people with addictions. This is such a flawed piece of legislation, and I actually want to highlight what Peter Dunne said. He said that this is naive nonsense, and I agree with him 100 percent. So our focus as a Government absolutely has been on treating people who have an addiction, not sending them to jail for eight years, or 14, as I’ve heard tonight. That is a completely failed strategy if you want to actually address the issue. So why don’t you change it? You should have focused on the manufacturers.

Can I just say that I also want to highlight Massey University’s SHORE & Whariki, who, again, reinforced that all increasing penalties actually does is increase the number of people in prison. It does not reduce drug price, it does not reduce drug availability, and I agree with the New Zealand Medical Association: the big question we all should be asking ourselves is, how do we reduce demand? You do not reduce demand by penalising, in this case, the suppliers and sellers and making them go to prison for more time—oh, unless we’re going to, I guess, agree that it’s in prison that they’re going to get the health support that they need. So maybe that’s the irony and perversity of this piece of legislation: that, actually, by sending people there who we know are drug addicted, likely to be homeless, vulnerable, marginalised, Māori people, they’ll get into a system that actually will care for them and look after them. So let’s hope that there is a perverse consequence to this piece of legislation going through.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to highlight internationally this growing piece of research that I highlighted in terms of Massey University’s SHORE & Whariki’s perspective. Internationally, the evidence quite clearly now says we must focus on cultural attitudes about drug users and addictions. I’m anticipating that our mental health and addictions inquiry actually is going to highlight how substances are used by people who have mental health and addiction issues. What it will say is that people use drugs and alcohol to mediate and to moderate their mental health issues and that, actually, addictions are a symptom. So we need people to start acknowledging the fact that they have addictions and seek support.

That’s what we intend to do as a Government, and, quite clearly, that was articulated in the select committee report, because our main rationale for not supporting this piece of legislation is because, as a Government, we now philosophically believe in a health-based approach to drug use. We will not support punitive measures—deterrents that actually do not work. So I want to highlight how proud I was in the congruency of that philosophy that, when our Prime Minister was over in the UN, she did not sign the Global Call to Action on the World Drug Problem.

And can I just say, in highlighting that, there were particular elements of this call to action, and we’ve done quite a few of them, actually. We’ve strengthened international cooperation through the Maritime Powers Extension Bill. How do I know? I’m on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—it was a bill that we discussed. And, actually, it complimented—and I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri in the House—her Customs and Excise Bill, which colleague Tim Macindoe was also involved in, because, actually, it was creating a fit for purpose organisation that would be part of intercepting these drugs before they got here. It was absolutely about reducing supply.

So if you look at the whole framework, we know that we’ve got issues of supply, but, fundamentally, in our own country, the biggest issue is demand. So, from our perspective, we agree that we should develop a national action plan—and I want to reiterate—to reduce demand for illicit drugs. You know, Simon Bridges said he would have signed it. Well, this says we need to have a national action plan to reduce demand. That’s not sending addicts to prison, actually—which is what this bill is going to do. And so that’s why we will not support this piece of legislation. But what we do commit to—and I know my colleague the Hon David Clark is here in the House tonight—is implementing the recommendations that will come from our mental health and addictions inquiry that make sure that New Zealanders are getting the help they deserve and need, to reduce the demand for drugs in New Zealand. Kia ora.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise tonight to speak to the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. To begin with, I would like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, Simeon Brown, who I’ve met with about the contents of this bill to discuss my concerns. My concerns are perhaps best summarised, in a nutshell, in reference to the point made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith about how this bill represents a practical measure to combat drug use and drug abuse, addiction, and harms. To that point, I would say that practical measures work. This bill will not work. This piece of legislation is contrary to all of the evidence, to every piece of advice that we know with regard to how we tackle drug harm that is currently rippling through our communities.

I want to acknowledge, to begin with, the loss of lives that have been experienced in communities throughout this country: the sons and daughters that have been mentioned, but so too those who are homeless and jobless and amongst the most vulnerable in our society, which the research and evidence and coroners’ reports show are typically the users of these synthetics.

I think that all politicians, fundamentally, want the same thing here. We want reduced harm, we want safer communities, and we want investment in solutions that will actually work. So I think it makes a whole lot of sense to unpack how we got here and into this mess to begin with. In the early 2010s, synthetic substances began to emerge on the market, and what Parliament found is that we could not legislate to keep up with emerging substances by using the flawed model of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In 2011, the Law Commission provided a deeply comprehensive report on the efficacy of that Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and it recommended a complete repeal and replacement of the legislation, which was simply not working to reduce harm. It also recommended new regulations for emerging substances.

In 2013, the Psychoactive Substances Act, which this amendment bill would change, was passed unanimously in this House. It was heralded internationally as a world first to provide sensible regulation for new psychoactive substances, but that optimism quickly dwindled. It contained a provision in its original sections for the interim licensing of products that hadn’t yet been reported or complained about, but in May 2014, after the problem became visible as a result of the regulations that were imposed around that interim licensing, such as where they could be sold, politicians responded to moral panic, and all parties at the time, except for the 14 Green MPs in the House, voted for those interim licences to be revoked.

Speaking to that knee-jerk revocation of those licences, Kevin Hague, who is a former Green MP and health spokesperson, on the third reading of that Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill warned about what would happen, and I quote, “Prohibition takes supply out of the hands of regulated, controlled retailers and instead puts that supply into the hands of criminal gangs or other illicit suppliers. Unfortunately, what that means is that the drug dealer on the street in the alleyway behind the shop at Naenae and the drug dealer in the tinny house are not subject to those same controls. Those people supplying the demand that will not go away as a result of this bill tonight will not be checking people for their ID or for proof of age. We should expect that supply to people under age will increase as a result of this bill. Those people will not be making a distinction between those products that are low risk and those products that are high risk.

“We should expect that the supply of products that are high risk will increase as a result of this bill. Those people, those illicit drug dealers, will, in addition to having a range of psychoactive substances—those currently legal and those currently illegal—have, in another pocket, other drugs like methamphetamine. So the product of this bill will be that the demand, which will not go away as a result of this bill, … [will actually be increased]. We are going to be seeing a significant increase in harm.” And what did we see? We saw exactly what was foretold by Green MP Kevin Hague. We have seen the proliferation of psychoactive substances and their harm increase as a result of a lack of regulation. The chemicals have got nastier and cheaper to produce and throw together.

I want to quote here from a user from west Auckland who was interviewed by Vice Media, who stated, and I quote, “You get all these people addicted, like actually [expletive] addicted, and then you just take it away and [you] make it illegal? Of course it’s gonna go underground, and people are gonna start making [expletive] that is harmful.”

I also want to speak to the experience of the CEO of Lifewise, Moira Lawler, who is one of the providers of the Housing First model, which is often celebrated by many in this House as a perfect way to tackle homelessness by way of wraparound services. Moira, in relation to the synthetics crisis, stated, and I quote, “[We] had one of our whānau arrested and charged with dealing and one of the things the police said [which] really stuck [in my mind] was that their unit was full of coins. You don’t make your fortune dealing synthetics … [but] People use it because it’s all they can afford.”

We’ve also had the police submit on this bill, saying that they are not going to arrest their way out of it. We have had ample evidence, as has been quoted by previous speakers, such as from the likes of Massey’s SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, which states “Experience from overseas is that increasing penalties for drug trafficking increases convictions and prisoner numbers while [having only] a minimal impact on drug prices and availability.”

In 2017, when media reported that at least seven people had died from synthetic usage, former Prime Minister Bill English said it was an issue of personal responsibility and denied Government intervention was needed. That death toll from synthetic use rose to 25 in 2017, and now to 45 in 2018, and I am glad that the National Party has now changed their position from labelling this an issue of personal responsibility, because that is far too often an abdication of political responsibility.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, support the bill—support the bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Political responsibility, Dr Nick Smith, looks like the boldness to do what works.

On Monday of this week, I was at the opening of the harm reduction conference in Christchurch. It was timed to commemorate 30 years of needle exchange in New Zealand, which was introduced in 1987 by health Minister Dr Michael Bassett in the Lange Government. Due to that policy 30 years ago, New Zealand has a prevalence of HIV among those who inject drugs in New Zealand of 0.2 percent compared to 13 percent internationally. At the bill’s introduction, Dr Michael Bassett stated, “I do not think it is possible to have a perfect solution when the position is … a balance of awfulness.”

No one here is saying that drugs are cool or fun. What we are saying is that they exist and we have to deal with that. We have to reduce harm, and if we want to do something, why do we not do something that works? This entire system is broken, and we have known it for a very long time. We have known it because the evidence and the advice provided to politicians shows—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that increasing penalties will not reduce drug accessibility—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Two years is inadequate.

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

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —or affordability. We must treat drugs as a health issue, and that looks like taking them out of the shadows and providing regulation.

When people imagine regulation, they think of a free-for-all. They think of chaos. They think of bringing the issue into the light. But what we have right now in the shadows is chaos. Anybody anywhere in New Zealand who wants drugs can access them. Drug dealers, as was stated by Kevin Hague, are not checking ID, nor are they checking the safeness of the substances that they are flicking off. We know that arresting these dealers is only going to result in further dealers popping up, because the evidence shows it. So if we want to do something that works, we have to follow the evidence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call; the Hon Tim Macindoe.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. There is so much that I disagree with as I’ve listened to the previous speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, deliver, in a very articulate and passionate fashion, what I believe to be a fundamentally naive and misguided retort. But I simply ask her this: how many lives have to end?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Don’t you dare. Don’t you dare.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: How many young people have to suffer—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Before we do what works?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: How many young people have to suffer the dreadful destruction—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re despicable.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I am not despicable, Miss Swarbrick. I’m asking—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. I just want to call order. I called order when the previous speaker was being—there were interjections. So I would just ask for the same respect. This is a highly charged piece of legislation, and I know that emotions are running high. I just ask that we just come back into this place with some respect for those who are affected by this.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely. And it is out of respect for those families who have been utterly devastated by the consequences of this dreadful regime that we have at the moment that leads me to stand in support tonight of the measure that is being put forward by my colleague Simeon Brown, the MP for Pakuranga. I want to commend him for his initiative in bringing this bill forward, for his compassion, but, in particular—and I hope the member who has been criticising me and firing abuse at me is listening now—I want to commend his speech to her. It was measured, it was balanced, it was health- and evidence-based as much as it was sanctions-based, and I wonder if she even did him the courtesy of listening to it. I am very disappointed to hear that members of the Labour and Green parties will not support this bill, and I echo the concerns of the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he spoke earlier.

The sponsor of this bill has not claimed that this is a cure-all measure. He has not claimed that all of the problems that he’s trying to tackle will go away as a consequence of it. I didn’t have the opportunity to hear the submissions because I am not on the Justice Committee, but I do remember being a member of this House back in 2013 when MPs legislated, on the strong advice at the time of the police and the health authorities, the Psychoactive Substances Bill of that time—

Chlöe Swarbrick: And then you removed the interim.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —and we got caned for it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: We got caned for it. In our electorates, I remember some of the most uncomfortable meetings I’ve ever been to as a constituency MP with those in my electorate, and hearing from my colleagues around the country, as the public said, “This is fundamentally flawed legislation.”

Synthetic drugs are highly addictive and extraordinarily dangerous. Accepting them from a dodgy supplier is akin to playing Russian roulette. My heart goes out to the victims of these drugs, as I’m sure all members would feel. As a parent, I can only imagine the anguish and the heartbreak of seeing a talented child of mine—or any talented youngster—succumb to the evil manipulation and callousness of those who peddle these substances. And the problem in what we heard previously is that it was not focusing on those who are peddling the drugs, but that’s what this bill is about. It is not about saying that somehow we’re going to cure all the problems of the victims; it’s about saying, “We must focus on those evil, cynical, manipulative, devious, life-destroying people who peddle these ghastly products.”

Increasing the penalties in itself will not stamp out all the problems; we know that. But for Labour and the Green MPs to suggest that tougher penalties will make no difference is fanciful and it shows a heartless indifference to the suffering of all who are victims either as naive purchasers or addicts or the family and friends of those victims. And I cannot understand or find any sympathy for those who are indifferent to their plight. So tonight, in the short time I have available, I’d like to commend Darroch Ball and the New Zealand First Party. I don’t often do that, but I thought that was a fine contribution from Mr Ball and I thank him for supporting this measure, and for the reasons that he outlined in doing that. I believe that New Zealanders will thank them for doing that. I believe that New Zealanders will thank this Parliament for taking this measure. I am absolutely confident that the families of the victims will thank us for passing this measure.

Just in the last year, 45 people have died after consuming psychoactive substance, and for the victims I feel nothing but sympathy—that is a health issue—but for those who peddle these substances, I have nothing but contempt, and we must throw the book at them.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): There is significant agreement across the House on one thing: that New Zealand is confronted with an issue that is causing large-scale damage to our community. We agree on that. Where we don’t agree is on how we respond to the issue that we face. And here’s the difference: over here, we believe that you cannot address any drug issue in a piecemeal way, and it is ironic that the members opposite have used the word “naive” to talk about the previous member, because I believe it is naive simply to consider that supply control alone will cause this problem to be minimised, when the past has shown us, as we’ve heard tonight, that that has got us into this mess in the very first place.

We believe that you cannot address any issue around drugs with supply control alone. Any drug strategy around the world has three strong components: supply control, which this bill does; demand control, which looks at therapeutic and treatment; and harm reduction, which acknowledges that a level of drug use goes on and that that needs to be done in the safest way possible while we get people into support and treatment. These need to be done simultaneously—at the same time—in order for there to be any success in this space, and what this bill does is it pulls out just one, and that’s why it will fail just as the primary legislation failed in the past. Dealers, gangs, users, pushers, people who are homeless, people on the streets are part of the same problem. They are part of the same complex web, and the view that this can be pulled out as one issue—supply control—is naive and it will fail.

We should learn from the mistakes of the past. We should learn that there was an attempt in this House to regulate highs and that a moral panic that gave us cold feet and made a complete U-turn drove these drugs underground, created a black market, and made these substances far more harmful than they ever were when they were known as legal highs. And that is where the deaths occurred, that is where people lost their lives, and this bill is no different. It drives it further underground.

The last Government had the opportunity to completely overhaul the Misuse of Drugs Act. We had the Law Commission tasked, under the former Labour Government in 2007, to take a good look at that Act. In 2011, they reported back and the National Government refused to do anything on it. They carved out one simple Act—the Psychoactive Substances Act—and that is the reason we are in this mess today. They had the opportunity to do something, and if they had acted back then, we would not be standing here today discussing this mess that we’re confronted with now. In 2011, they did not do it, and that should have been done. By playing politics, it has just caused harm and further damage to our communities, and that is why this bill will not make any difference.

I sat on the Justice Committee and I heard submissions from 78 people, from 58 of those who were opposed, and I heard the stories of people who take these drugs every day because they have no hope, because they have nothing else going on, and it is a sad and debilitating place to be in this world. And by thinking about whether just increasing penalties is going to alleviate the lives of those people, it will not, because the truth is that as long as synthetics are cheaper than cannabis, people will continue to take them, and they will continue to die in New Zealand without that help.

The departmental report clearly acknowledges that increasing penalties do not provide a corresponding deterrent: “While there is strong evidence for the general deterrent power of a criminal justice system, increases in the severity of penalties do not necessarily produce a corresponding increase in deterrence.” And that is the truth. That is what the research shows us.

The political game that we must do something; that is the same push we hear from those members opposite—that we must do something; that push and that imperative; that quick ability. It gives you a photo in the paper, it gives you some quick political points, but it fails to understand and address those underlying problems—the underlying problems that are driving that. Addiction, poverty, and mental health: those are the issues that are contributing to this problem being around, and until those are addressed, we will continue to see people dying in New Zealand. It is not right that we can simply pull out and by changing it from two to eight years have any hope of trying to fix this issue. It digs us deeper into a hole and it plays politics with people’s lives and I refuse to support something that trivialises life in such a way.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I’d like first of all to acknowledge my colleague Simeon Brown for launching this. He’s a bit of a legend in our group. And I’d also like to acknowledge the support—amongst several legends around here—of Darroch Ball and New Zealand First. I listened to Darroch’s contribution and it made a hell of a lot of sense, because what we’re talking about are the dealers; not the users. And I’ve heard some arguments coming from across the floor, talking about the users. But we’re talking about the people who peddle this.

So we’re here for the likes of 22-year-old Calum Jones, who died of consuming this drug last year, and I looked into his father’s eyes today and shook his hand, and I cannot imagine being in his situation. I have a 20-year-old son and I could not imagine being in a situation that Lewis finds himself in. So we’re here for him and we’re here for people like him. Now, the supplier of that drug that killed Calum was charged under the two-year penalty and, as Hon Andrew Little said, the judges never give the maximum except in extreme circumstances; so they’re guided by the maximum penalty of the offence that they’re charged with, and it only carries a maximum two-year penalty. So that offender got home detention for the death of Calum Jones—home detention. That’s gutting. It is absolutely gutting.

So the select commit couldn’t agree on putting this bill through, because half of them were Labour MPs—so there you go. So what we’re seeking to do—this is not brain surgery—we’re trying to increase the penalty from two years to eight years. Now, dealing in cannabis is an eight-year penalty. I don’t know of many people who have been killed directly by consuming cannabis; maybe indirectly from their actions but not directly. But this drug that they’re consuming can kill them, and it’s a two-year maximum penalty for a person who sells and deals the drug to these users. And we’re not talking about the users; the fine for using it is $500—no imprisonment at all. So we’re talking about the dealers. We’re here for Lewis Jones—that’s why we’re here.

Labour and the Greens oppose it—surprise, surprise. Soft on crime, open the door, let ’em all out—pure ideology. I was a front-line policeman for 14 years. I saw the victims of drug abuse on a daily basis. I saw the suffering first-hand. The argument that was put forward that the penalty is not a deterrent—well, I’ve heard from the mouths of criminals myself that penalties do deter them, because the crooks themselves have told me that.

Hon Andrew Little: Not fixing the problem.

MATT KING: So what we’re saying is that this is not going to fix the problem. This is actually just one of the tools to fix the problem. This is just one of the tools. We’re not saying that increasing it from two years to eight years is actually going to fix the problem; we’re just saying it’s a tool.

It’s common sense to make these penalties proportionate to the harm that they cause, so at the very minimum it should be class C, like cannabis—it should be on that level—and I understand that there might be moves to make it even higher. Reclassifying meth as class A, where there are, obviously, serious penalties, actually did reduce harm in the community. It also gave police more powers—

Hon Andrew Little: What did it do to supply? It shot up.

MATT KING: With all due respect to the Hon Andrew Little, I’ve heard him make some arguments across the House over a range of bills, and he doesn’t make a lot of sense a lot of the time.

So what we did was that in 2013, we brought the Psychoactive Substances Act in. At that time, the potency of these drugs was not at the level that they are at now. The drugs nowadays—these psychoactive drugs—are many times more potent than when that Act came in in 2013. Forty-five people have died in the last year from that. So, yes, we agree: we treat the users of this drug—we treat it as a health issue. We absolutely agree with you on that. This is where we go—that’s why it’s a $500 fine to consume it—but we still have to go after the people that peddle and deal with it and make money from it. So here you go.

So 965 individual synthetic drug-related call outs for St John Ambulance last year—965. Dr Paul Quigley of the Wellington Hospital emergency unit said that synthetic cannabis dealers should be charged with manslaughter. Another doctor said that there’s no guarantee that some of those affected by this bad batch of synthetic cannabis will survive, and Dr Margaret Wilsher, Chief Medical Officer for the Auckland District Health Board, said there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of patients in A & E having consumed synthetic cannabis.

Literally, hundreds of these synthetic cannabinoids are available, and they change pretty rapidly, so it’s not the case of one particular compound being a problem. Some of them were found to be 85 times more potent than THC. Doing nothing is not an option. I accept there is a review coming up and there’ll be a wide-ranging look at the drug problem and how we deal with it, but just standing across the other side of the House and arguing to us that we’ll just keep it at two years, when we could put it up to eight years and at least match it with class C drugs makes sense—it just makes common sense.

So, again, I’d like to acknowledge my colleague Simeon Brown for bringing this bit of legislation to the House, and I would also like to acknowledge Lewis Jones and his family for coming down to Wellington today and for meeting with us earlier on and for backing Simeon Brown in this just cause. I commend this to the House. Thank you.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, there’s been a lot of passion in the House tonight on this issue, and I don’t want to diminish that passion from anybody who has spoken strongly about this issue that is so badly affecting our communities. I want to acknowledge anyone who’s listening to this debate or watching it or who is sitting in our House tonight who has had a personal experience and who has been harmed. This is a scourge. I think we all acknowledge that, and I also really want to acknowledge Simeon Brown for his passion and his determination, and acknowledge the fact that he, as a representative, has listened and is trying to do something about this scourge.

What I would say, though, is that we have been here in this House on this issue numerous times over the last decade, trying to address the terrible harm that is being caused in our communities—in 2013, in 2014, and we’re back here in 2018—and we haven’t got it right. None of us have got it right, and I really want to say that tonight because people are really passionate. There’s lots of anger on both sides and we haven’t got it right yet.

We need, as a group of representatives in our communities that listen to people, to meet with the families, whether it’s in the streets, whether it’s in their homes—I know I’ve been into the homes of families who have talked to me about the impact of how their children have changed absolutely. Their personality is changed by these drugs. They become people the family don’t recognise. They steal. They’ll do anything to get the money to purchase these drugs. These people are addicted. This is a fundamental health issue.

I’ve talked to toxicologists. I’ve met with toxicologists. I’ve met with people who have been affected. We know and we are representatives, and it’s up to us to come up with a better way to address these issues. We are more than representatives. We are legislators, and it’s up to us as a group, if we agree that this is a scourge, to come up with the best possible way to deal with these issues. An amendment to this legislation to increase penalties is not the way to deal with this issue.

I am hoping that there is agreement across the House—there does seem to be agreement, and I have listened to the whole debate tonight. I have been party to the debates over the years, and I haven’t got it right. I supported the legislation in 2013 to introduce a regulated approach. Then, as I think Tim Macindoe said, we were besieged by members of our community who were horrified that there were still legal places where people could go and purchase psychoactive substances, and we all came under incredible pressure. We all came under incredible pressure, and another amendment to that legislation was passed—under urgency, I think, wasn’t it?—in 2014, and I’ve got Tony Ryall’s statement in front of me tonight. The previous National Government was lauding the fact that that change was made and saying how it was going to make a difference, and then we heard Nick Smith tonight completely rewriting history, as if, somehow, Simeon Brown has come up with the way to deal with it. Well, the previous Government couldn’t get it right. The whole of the Parliament couldn’t get it right. We’re not going to get it right with an amendment to that legislation to increase penalties, which will not address the harmful health impacts and the drivers for these substances being on our streets.

So the upshot of that is the Labour Party cannot support this piece of legislation, but we want to work together to get it right. The intent of this, as I understand it, and I was reading the submission by the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which talks about how the intent of—and the select committee report talks about how the intent of the bill doesn’t even align with the intent of the principal Act, which means that not only is it not going to work but it’s actually a poor legislative approach. Simeon Brown, your intent is a good intent, but getting good law, doing our job as legislators and doing it well, should be the intent of the whole of this Parliament.

The intent of this bill—it’s not the right place for this amendment to occur, and the actual effect that it will have, as has been heard tonight, whether it was the Police Association, whether it’s the New Zealand Drug Foundation, talking about how addressing the supply side of drugs in this way is doomed to failure. They say that, theoretically, some suppliers may stop supplying certain products after penalties increase, but other suppliers with less to lose will inevitably fill the gaps. Supply will always step up to meet demand.

I think my colleague Andrew Little talked about how helping people who take the substances, holding those who supply it to account, and getting it off the streets is what we want to do as a Parliament. I think we’re all agreed on that, are we not? Does anyone in this Parliament disagree with that? No, we don’t, but by making an amendment to a piece of legislation to increase penalties when there is so much harm being done to people and when we are not addressing the health impacts is—and I think Nick Smith used the word “pathetic”. I describe that as a pathetic, inadequate measure that does not reflect well on us as representatives or as legislators.

But that does not mean that we can’t work together. We have a review of this piece of this legislation, the 2013 legislation, which I understand has been conducted. We have other measures being put in place. We have the inquiry into mental health and addiction, which has touched on the addiction to psychoactive substances—a major piece of work, which is about to land sometime in the next few months. Those are two really important things that together can help us provide real changes of substance to address the bigger issues. Why are we not waiting for that? Why have we not all, as a Parliament, agreed to work together to make sure that we’ve got the best suite of measures that will work together to deal with the whole issue rather than a small amendment aiming to raise penalties which will not address the fundamental issues? Then what we need to do is review the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is what the previous Government wouldn’t do.

Those things together will make change, and if we all agree to work together, then we will actually do our jobs for our communities as representatives and try to get the best legislative outcomes. They’re not all going to be legislative outcomes, because we need to address the health impacts. Those are the things that we need to do, and we need to do them together. I applaud Simeon Brown’s intent. I applaud the fact that he wants to take on these issues. Let’s all work together to try and make them work this time.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I start by acknowledging the member in whose name this bill is brought to Parliament—Simeon Brown—and also those who have supported its passage thus far, including victims; various campaigners in support of this proposed legislation including, in many cases, the victims themselves and their families; and other members of this House who have chosen to support this bill. I won’t be politically partisan, so I won’t be naming particular political parties in this, but I do acknowledge the good intent and ideals being displayed on many sides of this House tonight. But, certainly, some arguments I have considerably more sympathy with than others.

Taking the opportunity to perhaps wrap up some of the debate somewhat, if I may—being the final speaker—I’d like to touch on a few key distinctions that I think will help to clarify some of the impassioned arguments that we’ve heard back and forth tonight. A series of distinctions, as follows: the necessary versus the sufficient, suppliers versus users, justice versus health, perpetrators versus victims, other drugs as compared with psychoactive substances, and morality versus legality, along with deterrence versus prevention.

Touching on each of those briefly in turn, and to start with the necessary versus the sufficient, I don’t believe it’s been claimed by the author of this bill, or indeed others who are supporting it, that it is some kind of silver bullet. It’s not said to be the be all and end all of measures that are needed to attack the problem that we have in this nation, but, rather, simply one measure, and in that sense, it is something that we believe to be necessary albeit not entirely sufficient in itself.

The second is to acknowledge the distinction but also, at times, the area where suppliers and users do intersect, and I acknowledge the sophisticated argument and the experience on which Louisa Wall has based her remarks in that regard. I think—acknowledging that in cases where suppliers and users will be one and the same people—we’ve got the option either to carry on as we are, or perhaps to regard the opportunity to treat the matter seriously in a way that says that rehabilitation will be part of the time that they would spend detained so that they cannot incur further damage against themselves and others. So I understand there are philosophical differences in this House in that regard, but if we do regard the time that people who peddle these drugs and who also use it as an opportunity for rehabilitation not only in respect of that addiction but in other respects in which their lives are broken, whether it be lack of education, relationship breakdown, homelessness, and so forth, then I think we’ll be better off. So that is the approach, personally, that I would favour in that regard.

Justice versus health: well, it seems to me this is a false choice in that we do not need to choose entirely one or the other, and that relates, really, to the point regarding deterrence versus prevention. It was remarked by, I think, the Hon David Clark that the advice had been, at least from some submitters—including the Police Association, he said—that increasing the penalty will not have a deterrent effect for those who would supply these drugs. Well, that may or may not be true, but it is true that while behind bars, those who have been supplying the drug are prevented from doing so further, at least at that time. Of course, there is also the element of punishment, which is by no means the sole purpose of our criminal justice system, but it is at least one, as was acknowledged and highlighted by my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell.

It seems to me that it would be artificial to regard a distinction between deaths caused by the supply of substances that are known to have the effects of ending life as different from other ways in which life can be ended, such that murder and manslaughter would be the result. So to increase penalties such that we have something of a level playing field in that regard has a certain logical ring to it.

Finally, I would just like to wrap up by challenging on a logical basis some of the comments made on the other side of the House about their belief that increasing penalties will not have a deterrent effect or, indeed, a preventative effect. Well, if that is the case, then I challenge those members to argue for—perhaps by way of Supplementary Order Paper later in this legislative process—actually reducing the current penalty, such that if two years’ imprisonment should not go to eight years, or indeed further, as I understand others might be proposing, then perhaps—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, it’s that we need a different approach.

CHRIS PENK: The different approach that the member advocates might be to actually reduce it further. So I look forward to that potential engagement, if that is the best approach that those members believe to be in the interests of our nation and in the interests of those who are caught up in this awful practice, and I join other members of the House on this side of the House, and, indeed, the others opposite who are supporting the bill, in commending this bill at its second reading to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.

Noes 55

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

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 5 September.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill. I would like to state that if we are talking about harm reduction when it comes to drugs, we particularly, obviously, support regulations that reduce harm. So things such as impairment testing when it comes to driving are critical. We don’t want people driving impaired, but there is a difference between drug testing and impairment testing.

The issue with this bill as proposed is that it will not necessarily test for impairment of either prescription or illegal drugs. Indeed, the tests that are proposed to be used are slow, expensive, and identify only three types of drugs, and only will detect their presence, not the impairment that they may be providing. There is, therefore, a risk of false positives. We need a better strategy, and we need something that’s comprehensive and that works, and indeed something that picks up impairment.

So I would like to state that the Green Party MP and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter—who, in her maternity leave absence, is being covered by the Hon James Shaw—is working with the Minister of Police, Stuart Nash, on what that comprehensive response would look like. I’d just also like to state that if members in the House are genuinely interested in cross-parliamentary work on drug-harm reduction, then they are more than welcome to join the group that I have been working to bring together for the past six-odd months. Kia ora.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—I was going to call you Madam Chair there for a minute. It’s a real honour to take a call and to really build on the short speech by the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick. I want to just start by acknowledging the member who put this bill forward, Alastair Scott, and he’s here in the House, and just say that the coalition Government is opposed to it—I want to be upfront with that. When I first looked at it, I thought it was a tad mischievous—that’s the word I’ve found. It tries to play into that narrative of the Government being soft on crime, but I think it gets a big F, or Fail. I just want to say why.

Three points: one is that the Government won’t address drug harm in a piecemeal way. We’ve just had a big session around a certain drug, and so we’re not committed, certainly, to addressing it in a piecemeal way. The second point—and I’ll elaborate on this—is the impacts on Kiwis, and there are many. The third point is just the viability. Look, this isn’t a bill worthy of the time and the money required and all the extra effort not only to pass it but then to implement it. So those are the three reasons why, and if I have time I’ll finish off talking about what the previous Government really didn’t do, and that’s why we are standing here today, this evening, talking about this.

I go back to that first point—I said that we didn’t want to approach this in a piecemeal way. We do take drug harm very seriously. We’ve heard from some good speakers on the previous bill. We have committed to comprehensively responding to the Law Commission’s report Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and replacing it. So we have said that. We’ve also said that driving while under the influence of drugs is not solely a driving offence, endangering the lives of themselves and others; it is often also symptomatic of wider issues, including mental health and social influences. I think there’s lots of ways that we can address this far more comprehensively, and I’ll move on from that.

The impacts on Kiwis—in terms of the oral tests currently marketed, those that would be employed by this bill are expensive and unreliable. I’m happy to be challenged on that, but I’ve certainly talked to police. I’ve talked to others who carry this out, and those are the two words that I picked out from those conversations. Worse than that—and unfortunately the previous Government, the current Opposition, have done their finest at discrediting police senior staff, I must say—false positives would lead to mistrust, and I don’t want our police service further eroded by a bill, an operation, a way of working that would continue to tarnish their reputation. We do support roadside drug testing where the testing technology is fit for purpose. I want to say that—

Hon Member: Can you hurry up?

PAUL EAGLE: —issues—

Andrew Bayly: We’re waiting for something to be of relevance.

PAUL EAGLE: Keep calm. I’ve given you some really good issues there. Here is it: oral fluid roadside drug testing is likely to be a worthy investment, so you get a tick, although not one that warrants such a great expense where—dare I use that word again—reliability is questionable and a significant improvement is not seen over the current free testing method. What do you say to that? So until an alternative is available, this is not a bill worthy of the time and money required to pass and implement it.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m very pleased to take a call in this debate. I do acknowledge Alastair Scott for bringing this bill to the House; however, this bill falls short in a number of areas, as has already been canvassed in my colleague’s contribution.

Unfortunately, we will not be supporting this bill, because it is a suboptimal piece of legislation as it stands. The tests that are proposed are quite limiting. They are unreliable, they’re not as accurate, and rather than take a piecemeal approach by addressing a very narrow random oral fluid testing, as proposed by this bill, we want to take a wider approach as a Government. We’re looking at this area in a much broader sense, and so we’re not just focusing on a very narrow test, which will, arguably, only detect the presence of three types of drugs. We’re looking at it from a broader sense as a Government.

We want to take this matter of drug harm very seriously—as we do—and that’s why, under our Minister Andrew Little, we want to look comprehensively—as we are. We’re taking a good, close look at the Law Commission’s report Controlling and Regulating Drugs and are doing a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act to look at a replacement for that. The Law Commission’s report will be providing a lot of guidance to the Government on that.

But, in addition to that, we have to look at wider bodies of work and not just pure, narrow testing, as is proposed by this bill. We’re looking at wider solutions for the drug problem, as I’ve said. We need to crack down on the actual supply and demand of these drugs, and that means breaking down the supply chain, being more aggressive at the border, and controlling the importation of precursors and the illicit distribution and networks which are involved in the distribution of these drugs.

So there are a wide range of issues that are involved in this area. It is very complex, and we’re also looking at the reasons behind things—whether we’re looking at our mental health review. There are a lot of complex issues involved, and merely just looking at a very narrow piece of legislation, which is only looking at quite an ineffective form of testing, does not go far enough. And that’s why we cannot support this bill. We want to look at it more comprehensively.

I do note the noble intention behind the bill that Mr Scott has brought to the House, but, as I said, this is a very complex area. There is a lot of work under way, under this Government, in a range of areas where we’re looking at all of the interconnected factors which create and give rise to instances where folks may be driving under the influence of drugs. And, as I’ve said, we need to look at all of those wider issues and look at them in a responsible and a measured way. Merely focusing on a narrow piece of legislation for testing drug-driving under the influence is not sufficient and does not go so far as we would. At this point in time, it doesn’t meet the objectives that we want to achieve, which is looking at this in a much broader sense.

So, with those remarks, we won’t be supporting this bill, but we know that as a Government we are doing much more expansive work which will get to the real cause of our drug use, and the proliferation of users who may be under the influence while driving—we will be able to come up with a more comprehensive set of solutions than this bill offers. So we oppose this bill.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill. Like that side of the House, we take drug harm seriously on our roads, as we do in our workplaces. But Labour, as my colleagues have outlined, clearly opposes this bill.

There are a couple of reasons I also want to touch on, particularly the findings of the Attorney-General, where the Attorney-General applied a couple of tests to this bill: one where he subjects a member’s bill to section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of its right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The Attorney-General considers that the requirement to undergo one or more compulsory random oral fluid tests, as this bill is purporting to do, is inconsistent with section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General then addresses the arbitrary detention nature of this bill in terms of putting people on the side of the road to test them. The Attorney-General concluded that the bill is disproportionate and may lead to a warrantless arrest if the person fails to comply, so therefore, in the Attorney-General’s view, it failed section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He also goes on to say that this bill does not meet section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

To the member, Mr Alastair Scott, the local member for Wairarapa, which is part of my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, we too on this side of the House take drug harm in terms of influence and driving seriously. As outlined, our Minister of Police and the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, have got a comprehensive programme to address the issues that this particular bill is trying to address. But what I want to say is that in the proposer’s opening address, he talked about some findings or some evidence for why we needed to address the changes in the bill. One particular part he talked about was that the new regime, the actual Land Transport Act was implemented in 2009. I understand that some of the evidence that Mr Scott alluded to was in 2009, and it begs the question that if the issues around those pulled over or those dying on our roads through drug-related versus alcohol instances were identified in 2009, then it begs the question: why didn’t the Government of the day address it then?

Actually, what the Government at that time said was that the Land Transport Act, as it was stated in 2009, actually adequately addressed the issue of drug-related driving offences. So, therefore, Mr Scott might want to, in his reply, answer why the Government in 2009 didn’t address the outstanding issue that he’s identified through this bill.

Like I said, this side of the House has a comprehensive work programme to address and to enable our police officers the due tools and technology to ensure that we’re employing our police officers in the right areas. Until we can get adequate technology to address drug driving, which the Land Transport Act currently addresses, and the tools that it gives our police people and personnel, it is something that hasn’t quite yet been defined by the member in terms of what this bill is trying to address. The reasons why have been laid out; not just the Attorney-General’s test in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but also its impracticality in terms of the integrity of the testing regime and whether standing people on the side of the road for three to five minutes while they’re running the test is actually practical is yet to be explored and to be accepted on this side of the House.

Therefore, it’s clear that the coalition Government has made it really clear, and the Labour Party has made itself clear, that we will be opposing this bill. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Alastair Scott, you have five minutes in reply.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): The Government says they care—that they’re caring and they’re kind. The Prime Minister talks about being caring and kind and I agree with the sentiment. It’s all very well talking about caring for people, but it’s another thing doing something about it.

Unfortunately, this Government does not care about the drivers on our roads—most of us here in this room. Despite Minister Genter talking about having a zero road-death target, they are going to oppose this bill. They don’t care that there are 79 deaths of drivers who had drugs in them, as opposed to 70 who had alcohol. They don’t care about what the Automobile Association says about the effects of drug driving. They don’t care about what the police have said, despite some of them having said they have spoken to them—I would dispute that. Go and talk to the cops. They do not have the tools to adequately address the drug-driving problem.

They don’t care about the victims of drug-drivers, and they certainly are not caring about those people who will die as a result of drug-drivers by the time that lot organises some comprehensive—how many times was “comprehensive” discussed or initiated today?—review of drugs, whether it be supply—some of the members mentioned the supply—or distribution. Look, this is very simple. This is a very, very simple bill. This is about keeping people safe on our roads. This is about deterring drugged drivers from getting into their cars because they know that they can get away with it.

I’ll tell you what. I’ll address the three arguments that Minister Twyford had and that have been brought up recently. The first is the technology—that there’s not the technology to deal with the situation. Nonsense. Canada, the UK, and Australia all have saliva testing. The technology’s around. It’s been around for years. It’s a multimillion-dollar industry. The technology is available. They’re choosing not to read up on that issue. Section 21 of the human rights legislation, around arbitrarily holding people up for three minutes—for three miserable minutes—to save lives—that’s just too much! And I’ll get to another point in a minute. And, of course, the third reason Minister Twyford and others have said is the cost: 48 bucks a test. And I would argue that it’s actually about half of that.

But here’s the alternative. The alternative is the status quo, because that’s, essentially, what the Government is saying: the status quo is good enough; it’s OK. But here we have the status quo. We have drug-recognition experts amongst our police. We don’t have enough of them; there just aren’t enough. Why? It is because it’s expensive to train these guys. What do these guys do when they have a suspected drugged driver—the guy’s clean of alcohol but he’s blazed? What is the cop able to do?

He gets a drug-recognition expert—got to find him somewhere. He calls him down the road—there’s a couple of minutes. This cop has to do a 20-minute examination—20 minutes compared to three or four for a saliva test. Then the cop has to take him down to the police station—assuming he failed the physical test. That’s about touching your eyes and your ears and saying your name backwards and having some sense of what the time is around you. Failing that, the driver has to go down and get a blood sample. You’ve got to wake up a nurse or a doctor who’s on call to conduct the test. And these guys are saying three minutes is too long to hold a person aside and that it’s somehow a breach of their rights. And yet the cops are still able to pull a driver aside, not for three or four minutes but for 20 minutes and more, to get the tests done. And the blood results aren’t going to be instant, either. So the cost of that procedure is a lot more than $25—a lot more than $48, which is the number that Minister Twyford bandied around.

It is disappointing that the Government has voted against this simple piece of legislation that’s available in a number of countries and that would save lives if it was initiated. All these guys needed to do was chuck it in the select committee to enable that bill to be improved—to increase the number of drugs or reduce the number of drugs or increase that technology. On behalf of all the drivers in this country, it is very disappointing from a Government who say they care.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill

First Reading

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I move, That the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Firstly, I’d like to start my speech by reading from a few different articles and reading out some statistics that will, hopefully, for the members in the House or the parties in the House and the people who are watching, highlight the very real daily struggles that our first responders—in most part, our police officers, our ambulance paramedics, prison officers, and our firemen and women—face every day. I truly believe that people, for the most part, underestimate the scale of the problem when it comes to assaults and, in particular, serious assaults against our first responders when they’re in the line of duty. Hopefully, when I read out these stories from these first responders, the articles from the representatives of those first responders, and some of the facts and the statistics, it will clearly highlight the reasoning behind the genesis of this bill and tabling it in this House.

“Auckland paramedic Dylan Schwartz has been working in Mt Roskill for four years and patient abuse is a daily reality for him. While treating patients St John ambulance staff have been relying on police for help as their own lives get put in danger. In 2017 paramedics asked for police assistance for more than 12,000 incidents … The highest number of police callouts was in December 2017 with paramedics needing police assistance in [over 1,200 different] cases … These calls included situations where ambulances were hit with bottles, drunk patients coming out of their homes swinging broken bottles, and patients becoming violent and refusing transportation … There had been times when Schwartz questioned why he became a paramedic because of the abuse he and his fellow paramedics regularly experienced … Chief executive Peter Bradley said the number of times paramedics had been abused was ‘appalling and should be deeply concerning to the New Zealand public … Our people are there to help, and they cannot help you if they are having to defend themselves.’ ”

Abuse and assaults on ambulance officers just for the first seven months of this year: more than 1,600 crew abuse and assault incidents have been reported. This is an average of 53 cases of crew abuse and assault recorded every single week in this country, and those are just the cases that have been reported. In the 2017 calendar year, the abuse and assaults for the ambulance officers and crews numbered over 2,500. In May, a south Auckland ambulance officer was punched in the face by a bystander of a synthetic drug overdose patient she was treating. In August, an ambulance officer who had recently given birth as a surrogate was the victim of assault on the first day of her return to work from maternity leave. She and her partner were shoved and kicked to the ground, and that was in Nelson.

Assaults on police officers: from 1998 to 2017, serious assaults on police have increased by 244 percent. In the last two years, serious assaults on police increased by over 20 percent—from 526 to over 630. Last year, assaults on police totalled over 1,600—an average of five every single day. The serious assaults averaged more than two a day.

In regards to our prisons and corrections officers: over the past 10 years, there have been 220 serious assaults on our prison officers. This is a growing problem. It’s a growing concern and totally and utterly unacceptable. We cannot keep doing what we’ve been doing to try and stop these assaults from occurring. Clearly, it is not working. We cannot keep excusing and ignoring the people who commit these crimes. We need to get the respect back for the people who wear a uniform.

The New Zealand Police Association president, earlier this year, put out a press release, and he was talking specifically about the increase in the numbers of serious assaults on police officers. He says that “Assault on a police officer carries a maximum jail sentence of three years. Assault with reckless disregard is five years, and intent to cause grievous bodily harm is 10 years—neither of these offences record that it was committed against an officer.”

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.