Thursday, 18 October 2018

THURSDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2018

THURSDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the Commerce Amendment Bill and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) Agreement Bill will complete their remaining stages. The committee stage of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill will proceed, and the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill will receive its second reading.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I wonder whether I could ask Mr Hipkins as to whether he’s given any consideration to the courtesy of giving a valedictory to Jami-Lee Ross of at least half an hour, because he’s got things he wants to tell us.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Based on past precedent, if a member retiring from Parliament requests a valedictory, that’s either a matter for the Business Committee—and the Government would look favourably upon that if that was presented—or for the Speaker, if they wish to do a valedictory before the Business Committee met.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. 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: Is it a sign that New Zealand families are finding it easier to get ahead that there are now 9,000 more people on job seeker benefits and 20,000 more seeking food hardship grants than there were this time last year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m advised that that’s the same rate as it was last year.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, will the Government commit to cancelling its further planned petrol tax increases should the price of petrol reach $2.80 a litre, as some are predicting, to help ease the cost of living burden on New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The New Zealand fuel excise is actually one of the lowest in the OECD, while the pre-tax cost of fuel is actually the highest. I’d 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. This Government is committed to looking after those who are struggling, including young families, and if you look at our Families Package, it puts $5.5 billion towards those who are struggling, including 384,000 New Zealand families who will be $75 a week better off when that policy is fully rolled out.

Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that if petrol prices increase by another 30c a litre, the Government will be collecting just as much extra revenue from the GST alone as it would from its next petrol tax hike; and if so, why is the Government going to be double-dipping from New Zealanders’ pockets?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: If that member no longer believes in petrol excise then she needs to tell New Zealanders which transport projects she is going to cut.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, the Minister’s asked me a question and I seek leave to answer it.

SPEAKER: Well, the member seeks leave. Ministers are not meant to ask questions of the Opposition, but the member seeks leave to answer it. Is there any objection? The Hon Amy Adams.

Hon Amy Adams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I can tell the House that a re-elected National Government certainly would not be putting up the tax on petrol in New Zealand—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—[Interruption] Order! Order! A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The member was granted leave to tell us which projects the National Party would cut. She is not addressing that. That’s the only reason she got leave, so could she now address the issue: which projects is she going to cut? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The member will do that, she will do it now, and she will not do it in a disorderly way.

Hon Amy Adams: A re-elected National Government would not be funding a trolley bus up Dominion Road from petrol taxes on road users, and it would not be putting up the cost of petrol at a time—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no—I’m going to deal with the member first. The member made a comment which was not a response to the question. She will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Amy Adams: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: There will be no further supplementaries.

Question No. 2—Housing and Urban Development

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he confident that the proposals included in the reform of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 discussion document will benefit both landlords and tenants?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Faakalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti. We are seeking feedback on how we strike a balance between providing tenants with security of tenure and allowing them to make their house a home while protecting the rights and interests of landlords. We need good landlords, and it’s lucky for us that most landlords are good people trying to do the right thing and provide a professional service. Our policy is to set decent minimum standards for the 21st century that will professionalise the rental market and clean out the rogue operators at the bottom of the market who are undercutting good landlords and giving the whole industry a bad name.

Hon Judith Collins: Will proposals to end no-cause terminations and end fixed-term agreements make it almost impossible for a landlord to move on from a difficult tenant?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, because we’ve made it very clear. We’ve heard landlords tell us that many of them rely on no-cause, 90-day terminations to get rid of rogue tenants, and we’ve said to landlords in meetings all around the country that while we want to get rid of 90-day terminations because we don’t believe in the 21st century it’s justifiable for one party to be able to cancel a contract for something as important as someone’s home without having to give any kind of justification, if we’re going to do that, then we’re going to try our best to find new ways that landlords can get rid of rogue tenants in a practical and timely way.

Hon Judith Collins: Will proposals to allow tenants to make modifications to properties mean that landlords will no longer be able to refuse a request from a tenant to modify a property?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we haven’t proposed that, but the current law that allows tenants to request the ability to make basic alterations and requires that landlords have to have a reasonable case for declining that request—we note that that doesn’t appear to be working. The evidence from tenants all around the country is that they are, basically, too frightened in many cases to even request the opportunity to make simple or basic alterations. So our consultation document invites feedback from tenants and landlords about how we can make this work better so that tenants can paint a wall, put up a shelf, and make basic alterations that will allow them to make a house a home.

Kieran McAnulty: What effects will the Government’s proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act have on families?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Insecure tenure can force families to continually move house. It’s particularly tough on children when they have to keep changing schools. By ending no-cause terminations while ensuring that landlords can still get rid of rogue tenants and increasing the amount of notice a landlord must give tenants to terminate a tenancy, we hope to be able to provide families with a stable and secure home.

Hon Judith Collins: If, as he says, the proposal is to balance landlords’ and tenants’ rights, which proposals in this discussion document address any of the issues that landlords say that they are currently facing?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The requirement for landlords to be able to get rid of rogue tenants in a timely and workable way. Landlords tell us that the current Residential Tenancies Act does not allow them to get rid of tenants in a timely and workable way.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it the case that if these policies make it much more difficult and costly for people to rent out homes to tenants, people may simply just choose to, as he’s told them to do, take their money elsewhere?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I reject the member’s premise that modern, decent, civilised tenancy laws that provide a balance between the responsibilities and obligations and rights of tenants and landlords is necessarily going to make renting a more difficult and costly thing. We don’t accept that.

Kieran McAnulty: What other changes is the Government making to ensure families have warm, dry, and secure rental homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we know that rental homes are more likely to be older and of poorer quality than owner-occupied homes. Approximately 2,000, or more than one-third, of rental properties have no insulation. Many are cold, damp, and mouldy, and cause respiratory illness, toxic reactions, and allergies that see more than 40,000 children bundled off to hospital every year. We do not accept that this is OK in the 21st century. The healthy homes guarantee standards, which we are now consulting on, will set minimum standards to ensure that families in this country have warm, dry homes.

Question No. 3—Housing and Urban Development

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): This morning, the latest Massey University Home Affordability Report shows a 4.4 percent improvement in the national affordability over the most recent quarter, and a 2.1 percent improvement over the last 12 months. This comes on top of CoreLogic reporting that one in every four homes sold in New Zealand last month was sold to a first-home buyer, the highest rate for first-home buyers since the Clark Government in 2006-07. There is still a lot of work to do to build our way out of the national housing crisis, but we’re making good progress.

Jo Luxton: How has housing affordability improved across regional New Zealand?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Over the past year, seven regions have shown improvements in affordability, led by Northland, with a 6.5 percent improvement. Housing affordability has also improved in Auckland and Queenstown, two of the areas with the most acute housing crisis. There’s a lot more to do, but this is an early indication that this Government’s policy to intervene in the housing market on the side of first-home buyers, to discourage speculators, and to build our way out of the national housing crisis is starting to bear fruit.

Jo Luxton: What did Massey University’s report say about median house price-to-income ratios?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, most importantly, median house price-to-income ratios are starting to contract. House prices in Queenstown moved from 13.7 to 13.2 times annual wages, and nationally moved from 9.1 to 8.8. We are stabilising house prices and lifting household incomes through increasing wages, sensible economic management, the Government’s Families Package, and increasing the minimum wage.

Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen on the effect of other policies on home affordability?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Recent research has found that special housing areas created to improve housing affordability actually generated a 5 percent increase in house prices and worsened the affordability of homes in that area. The researchers found that the special housing area programme simply allowed developers to offer new homes with an additional attribute, a shorter delivery time, which allowed developers to set higher prices.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by the last part of his answer to my question on Tuesday, “Does he agree that the Prime Minister’s summation on 8 October that taxes and levies amounted to 6.8 cents was wrong?”, namely: “As the Prime Minister also pointed out, the lion’s share of the increase in petrol prices in the last year is due to the pre-tax cost, not Government revenue measures.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I always agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who is doing the fleecing?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Just check the Prime Minister’s statement—it made it pretty clear.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the Prime Minister the judge and jury in any inquiry that’s going to be going on into fuel pricing?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Question No. 5—Education

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): A question to the Minister of Education—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: In fact, you’ve just given them two.

5. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Is he confident that education expenditure has been a priority for this Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In the context of the largest increase in Vote Education in over a decade, absolutely, yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he apologise to teachers if the New Zealand Police are prioritised and offered a salary increase of more than 4.5 percent per year, well above the offer for teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand Police have not been offered that.

Hon Nikki Kaye: If the New Zealand Police are offered more than 4.5 percent, which includes 3 percent plus competency/service increment (CSI), will he promise to match that for teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member’s not comparing apples with apples.

Hon Nikki Kaye: If the New Zealand Police have been, effectively, offered 4.5 percent, which includes CSI, will he promise to match that for teachers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, the member’s not comparing apples with apples. The pay structures are different.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple yes or no question, and he didn’t answer it.

SPEAKER: I think that the member got an answer to it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Was he wrong when he told the House the financial breakdown of the offer was published on the Ministry of Education’s website, given the ministry have contacted the Post Primary Teachers’ Association to say that he was wrong and that the information will now be up shortly?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A financial breakdown of the offer was published on the Ministry of Education website, and I had a copy of it in my hand at the time that I made the statement. The financial breakdown that the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) were looking for was different.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he saying the Ministry of Education were wrong in what they said to the unions—that he had not published the financial breakdown of the offer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, the financial breakdown I was referring to published in great detail the step-by-step changes that had been offered as part of the contract negotiations.

Hon Nikki Kaye: That is not true. That is not true. He knows they—you know they’ve been asking for it.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What the PPTA have asked for—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Nikki Kaye will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: The Minister will start again.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What I understand the PPTA have asked for is the individual costing of each element of the offer.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he accept that if he is unable to provide a larger fiscal envelope for teachers, we are likely to have rolling strikes and several thousand teachers short, given the projected teacher shortages out today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The retention rates for existing teachers are relatively high. What we do know is that we don’t have enough teachers because the previous Government didn’t train enough, and that is something that this Government is going to address. With regard to increases in pay, I’d point out that this Government has prioritised an increase in teacher pay, and we have made them the largest pay increase offer that they have had in over a decade. In fact, the pay offer that they have been given amounts to more than all of the settlements they reached under the previous National Government.

Question No. 6—Social Development

6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions in relation to the social development portfolio?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Fakalofa lahi atu. Yes.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are there 9,000 more people on jobseeker benefits than a year ago?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member knows that the proportion of people that are currently unemployed is exactly the same as what it was at this time last year: 9.4 percent. The actual number increase comes down to population increase in areas like Auckland and Canterbury, where there has been a significant population increase. What is incredibly heartening is that in the provinces and regions like Northland, we’ve seen a reduction in unemployed, and that goes to show this Government’s focus on the regions is working.

Hon Louise Upston: Why has there been a 9.6 percent increase of people aged 18 to 24 on the jobseeker benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member knows, because she would have received the benefit numbers this morning, that the actual unemployment rate overall is 9.4 percent, which is exactly the same as what it was this time last year. This Government has made no secret of the fact that we are focused on getting people into meaningful and sustainable employment. We’re not satisfied with the fact that under the previous Government, within 18 months 50 percent of people were returning to benefit. Our focus is on ensuring that people get into sustainable and meaningful employment, and that means also having a focus on upskilling and training for our young people.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very long answer that did not address the question, which was about the unemployment rate increase for 18- to 24-year-olds.

SPEAKER: I know the member sort of waved in the general direction of the question right at the end, but I don’t think she did address it, despite a very long answer on other things. Have another go.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The actual breakdown I don’t have in front of me. However, I would like to say that that particular age group is getting a lot of attention from this side of House, particularly with our first-year free policy for fees and Mana in Mahi. This is not just, for us, about pushing people off into the next minimum wage job. It’s making sure that they have sustainable, meaningful employment to go into, and we’re focused on making sure that they are upskilled and trained for the job opportunities that we’re creating through things like KiwiBuild.

Hon Louise Upston: How can the Minister explain that the unemployment rate is the same as a year ago and yet there are 9,000 more Kiwis on the jobseeker benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I mentioned before, the actual proportion of people that are on the benefit is exactly the same—it’s 9.4 percent. The increase that the member is referring to is as a result of population growth. If she wants an explanation, I can give one example, and that is that in Auckland the working age population has increased by 34,000 over the last year. The actual proportion of those unemployed is exactly the same as what it was a year ago.

Hon Louise Upston: Other than cost of living increases, how does she explain the nearly 20,000 more hardship grants for food in her Government’s first year in office?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m really glad that that member has asked that question. All of the evidence that we’ve been provided with shows us very clearly that the fact is that, for the nine years under that side of the House, housing was ignored, the crisis was denied, and the most common reason that people are seeking hardship assistance is because of the cost of housing. I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is finally addressing the number one concern that New Zealanders are faced with. It’s long overdue, but thank goodness we’re here to do it.

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked about hardship grants for food, and I was quite clear in my question.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister can have another go if she wants.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK, sure. The number one reason that people are citing for needing to access hardship grants from Work and Income New Zealand is the cost of housing. Just to further elaborate on this, recently the Household Incomes Report was released, and it showed that, after housing costs, our most vulnerable families’ incomes haven’t changed since the 1980s. That is a desperate situation that the previous Government left New Zealand families in, and we’re doing something to address it.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of the answer to an earlier supplementary question, is the Minister telling the House that “the next minimum wage job” is not good enough for those on jobseeker support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I’m saying is this side of the House is aspirational for New Zealanders. We want to make sure that more New Zealanders are able to reach their potential. The strategy that was employed by the previous Government was obviously unsuccessful, because 50 percent of those who left benefits were back on within 18 months. We’re about making sure that families are better off, and that they go into sustainable, meaningful employment.

Hon Louise Upston: Is a person receiving the jobseeker support payment better or worse placed to cope with the increased living costs from this Government’s policy than a person in full-time employment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are working with those who come for support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to ensure that their long-term options are much better off than what they were under the previous Government. We’re making sure that when people come to MSD for support, they are getting everything that they are eligible for, which was not happening under the previous Government.

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a really clear question about a comparison between the jobseeker support payment and someone in full-time employment around cost of living increases, and the Minister seems incapable of answering a clear question.

SPEAKER: Well that’s not a point of order.

Question No. 7—Disability Issues

7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve the disability support system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): On 1 October, Minister Shaw and I announced the roll-out of the prototype for the transformed disability support system, called Mana Whaikaha, in the MidCentral District Health Board region. This new prototype focuses on what disabled people can do, not what they can’t, and offers flexible options to increase well-being and health outcomes. The Government has committed $21.24 million over the next two years to fund the new system in MidCentral, which includes Palmerston North, Horowhenua, Manawatū, Ōtaki, and Tararua districts.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What’s different about this new approach?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The transformed system enables disabled people to have greater decision-making authority over their lives and supports. Mana Whaikaha is based on the Enabling Good Lives principles and approach and lessons learnt from the Enabling Good Lives demonstrations in Christchurch and Waikato, as well as the Ministry of Health’s new model and international evidence. Enabling Good Lives takes a person-centred approach, supporting disabled people in families to think about what they want in their lives and what support they need to make that happen.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will the Government ensure that the new system is right for people with disabilities and their whānau?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In this new system, there will be a connector who will work with disabled people and their whānau to identify the supports they require to live the life they want. We’re taking a try, learn, and adjust approach to this new system, so we can be responsive and innovative during the prototype and ensure the voices of disabled people continue to be at the heart of this work. Mana Whaikaha was co-designed by disabled people, whānau providers, and Government officials working together over the last 18 months. This reflects the Government’s commitment to “Nothing about us without us”.

Question No. 8—Small Business

8. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Has he heard from any small-business owners about any increased cost of doing business?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: On behalf of the Minister, yes.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How does he explain the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey, which shows that business confidence among small firms is now at a 10-year low?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member has to somehow relate it to the original question. Just the words “small business” are not enough.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How does he explain—in the context of the increased cost of doing business—the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey, which shows that business confidence amongst small firms is now at a 10-year low?

SPEAKER: Very marginal ministerial responsibility, but—

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: On behalf of the Minister, looking at the headlines from the small firms confidence survey, cost of doing business is not mentioned as a headline issue in business confidence.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Which of his policies, if any, support small businesses against rising costs, when the ANZ report says that “small firms continue to see reasonable demand for their goods and services but perhaps some difficulty in passing on rising costs to consumers,”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: On behalf of the Minister, the policies that will best support small businesses to protect themselves against rising costs are the policies that support growth in New Zealand, and policies such as the Provincial Growth Fund, the R & D tax credits, and the largest investment in transport infrastructure that this country has seen in decades will all contribute to small-business confidence.

Hon Jacqui Dean: So what does he say to the Wairarapa builder I met who wanted to take on an apprentice but is holding back because of the rising cost of fuel and wages?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: On behalf of the Minister, I would say to that person that we have the huge KiwiBuild programme, which will give them certainty of demand for their services over at least the next 10 years. I would point them towards the Mana in Mahi programme—that will support them to take on an apprentice. I would point them towards the fees-free policy—that gives not one but two years of free fees for people who take up an apprenticeship. This Government has a range of policies that respond to that person’s concerns, and that is, I am sure, why they have more confidence in this Government than anything the previous Government did.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. 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—

SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt. I think he is the Acting Minister, isn’t he? Aren’t you?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, because she’s overseas. Yes, sir. I still thought I had to say who I—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t, because you are the Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, yes—in context.

Jonathan Young: Thank you, and congratulations. Does it remain the Government’s policy that there will be no new mines on conservation land, as stated in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not sure of the detail of that. If the member is referring to stewardship lands, I think the position has been made clear in respect of fossil fuels. I’m not sure in respect of other mining on conservation lands. If the member cares to put down a specific question, I’ll ensure that it’s answered.

Maureen Pugh: If this is already Government policy, how can those most affected be confident that the upcoming consultation will be thorough and meaningful?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The consultation document that has been produced will be processed in the normal way.

Maureen Pugh: Is the Minister aware that banning new mines on conservation land will ban new mines on 85 percent of the land on the West Coast?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s a hypothetical question, and therefore I won’t answer it.

Jonathan Young: Is it the intention of the Government to extend new section 50A, recently introduced in the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, which bans access to Taranaki conservation land except for minimum impact activities, to the rest of the country, and if not, then why is it in the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t have the answer to that particular question, but I’m sure if it’s put down in writing, it will be answered.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to recent events, I seek the leave of the House for Maureen Pugh to put a couple more questions to demonstrate how effective she’s been as an MP.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Maureen Pugh: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m going to deal with this one first, and that is that the member is an experienced member—the most experienced member in the House—and he knows that one cannot seek leave on behalf of another member when that member is present.

Maureen Pugh: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at that comment from the Deputy Prime Minister, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, no, I actually think that that was not an offensive comment. I mean, one might say, given a number of the comments that have been made here recently, from both sides of the House, I think it was, if not absolutely polite, then not so bad as it would cause me to require the member to withdraw.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: And it’s after lunch.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re gone—we all knew that.

SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will stop referring to me in that way.

Question No. 10—Trade and Export Growth

10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What actions is the Government taking to enhance New Zealand’s international trade relationships?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): On my own behalf, the coalition Government is getting on with the governing, and we’re working hard to grow exports, jobs, and incomes. An important part of our trade strategy is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which we hope to ratify in the coming weeks now that our foreign buyer ban is in place. With the rising tide of trade protectionism, CPTPP is essential to protecting and enhancing our trade interests. I’d also like to thank the Opposition for supporting the Government to improve outcomes for our exporters by supporting that legislation. We believe CPTPP is good for New Zealand.

Jamie Strange: How is the Government representing New Zealand’s trade interests internationally?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re doing this actively around the world. I was in Singapore last weekend at negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, and next week I’ll be in Washington and Ottawa. I’m meeting US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, as well as other members of the US administration. In Ottawa, New Zealand will be presenting our options for reform and improvement of the World Trade Organization. The maintenance of a fair, rules-based international trading system is essential to protecting New Zealand’s economic interests.

Jamie Strange: How is the Government rebuilding public support for trade at home?

Hon DAVID PARKER: After years of dwindling public support in New Zealand for international trade, this Government has turned that around by going out and listening to people. We undertook extensive public meetings around CPTPP, around our ban on foreign buyers of existing homes, and on forestry investment rules. We recently launched the Trade for All agenda, which provides a forum for all sectors of civil society to make recommendations to the Government on how New Zealand conducts its trade policy. We believe it is critical that New Zealand remains an open, export-focused nation, but we need to ensure that the Government has the social licence to do so.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he believe that the Pacific Alliance trade deal, launched by the previous Government last year, will enhance New Zealand’s trade relations with Columbia, and if so, is he concerned that Columbia didn’t turn up to the most recent negotiations hosted by his Government, held in New Zealand last month?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, we were concerned by that. It was occasioned by the fact that the new Colombian Government has not yet decided whether it wishes to pursue the Pacific trade alliance. I’ve also seen recent comments from other South American countries that say that the Pacific Alliance is less important to them because they now have CPTTP.

Question No. 11—Economic Development

11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What are the key elements of the Government’s economic development strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): There are four main parts to our plan for growth: firstly, strengthening the foundations of future success by developing new points of comparative advantage; secondly, in the farming and tourism sectors, we need to add more value to volume while reducing adverse impacts on the environment—we believe this will add value both via efficiency improvements and by enhancing the brand we rely upon for premium prices—thirdly, we need to leverage new opportunities, many of which are adjacent to our existing key sectors—that’s important to lift productivity and exports and enable higher-value land uses as well—and, fourthly, we need to back the industries of the future, positioning New Zealand as a hub for world-leading innovation linked to global value chains. We’re doing all this as we move New Zealand’s economy away from its reliance on speculation and immigration.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does increasing the cost of doing business fit into the economic development strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, if the member’s referring to the price of oil, that’s beyond our control. If the member’s suggesting that we follow the Argentinian example of fixing exchange rates, well, the only thing I can say is that’s a Muldoon-ian heritage that he shares with other people on that side of the House.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think increasing petrol taxes by 24c a litre of petrol in the space of just three years will increase the cost of doing business?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it will actually free up traffic congestion in Auckland and make our economy more efficient. It will also reduce travel times for people as they go to and from work, and it will assist in increasing productivity in a way that the prior Government was never able to achieve after nine years of pretty lacklustre economic performance.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: If investing in transport infrastructure is such a priority for economic development, why doesn’t he insist that the lion’s share of the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund be devoted to priority transport infrastructure?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because that would be a waste of money. It would fund lower-value infrastructure projects, and it would not achieve what I believe is the most important attribute of the Provincial Growth Fund, which is to bring forward new points of comparative advantage, to grow productivity, and to increase job prospects and incomes in the regions.

Question No. 12—Revenue

12. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by all the Government’s policies and actions in relation to the revenue portfolio?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: On behalf of the Minister of Revenue, yes.

Andrew Bayly: Does the Minister believe that IRD has in place the necessary resources to collect the expected additional $2.5 billion of new taxes introduced by the Labour – New Zealand First Government, including the revenue from fuel taxes—

SPEAKER: Order! The member has finished the question.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I question some of the premises in the member’s question, but what I would say is that there never is 100 percent compliance with tax policy, but the IRD does a pretty good job by world standards.

Andrew Bayly: How much additional GST revenue does he expect IRD to collect from the 40c increase in the cost of petrol?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s a very specific question. If the member wishes to put it down in writing, I’m sure an answer will be provided.

Andrew Bayly: What certainty can he give to the House that overseas suppliers of goods sold online will comply with the requirements to collect GST from consumers and not be a disaster from a revenue-collection perspective, as noted by an EY tax partner earlier today?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s a useful question to ask, and I’m very happy to answer it. To minimise the risk of any supplier leaving the New Zealand market, we’ve designed the rules to be as simple and flexible as possible. And if we look across at Australia, my understanding is that Amazon, as a good example, is complying with the rules that have been put in place.

Andrew Bayly: What is the estimate of the cost of collecting tax revenue from a capital gains tax, as proposed by the Tax Working Group?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Tax Working Group final report will be released in February. It hasn’t been released as yet, and when it is released in February, the Government will then look into it and form its priorities from there.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I should have done this at the end of my question. I seek leave to table a speech setting out the economic development vision for the Government. It is not on the web. I delivered it on 16 October, and I think the member opposite who asked the question would like to read it.

SPEAKER: I’ll put that leave to the House. Can I say that, in the future, there is a relatively simple system for ensuring that is made available; it is called an envelope. The question is should the document be tabled. Is there any objection? No objection.

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

Bills

Education Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a watershed moment for New Zealand’s quality public education system. It is a moment in which we put education over ideology and we reject the notions of privatisation and deregulation, instead returning our focus to a quality public education system for all New Zealanders. This bill is a major first step in fulfilling the Government’s promises for education. It delivers on the commitments made by the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party, through successive elections, to put the focus back on quality public education that works for all New Zealanders. We have a collective vision as a Government for a quality education system for actually measuring a student’s progress across the whole of the New Zealand Curriculum, for restoring student and staff voice and representation in the education system, and for a schooling system that supports all of the children in it.

This bill delivers on these commitments. It strengthens the quality of school education by removing national standards, which did not work and which prevented teachers from doing the job of teaching young New Zealanders. It removes the charter school model from New Zealand law and brings an end to the privatisation and deregulation of our public school system. It improves the governance of our tertiary education institutions by restoring places for elected staff and students on their councils. It supports the introduction of fees-free tertiary education by making it an offence to make a false representation about an application for free tertiary education, and it improves the new strategic planning and reporting framework for State and State-integrated schools, and I will speak to each of those provisions now.

We are removing national standards. They were neither national, nor were they standard. They led to an enormous increase in workload and compliance costs for schools, and they did not lead to an improvement in student outcomes. They were passed by the incoming National Government at the end of 2008, under urgency. They didn’t send them to a select committee, which is ironic, because they’re now accusing us of being undemocratic in their removal. This bill went all the way through the democratic process, including a full select committee hearing at which every New Zealander could have their say on it, unlike the introduction of them, which was passed in a matter of hours, under urgency, by the incoming National Government. National standards were a woeful failure and will for ever be a blight on the track record of the previous National Government, because they showed that they were putting ideology over education—the obsession with measurement and accountability over what is in the best interests of New Zealand children.

While national standards were introduced and implemented, the performance of New Zealand children went backwards. They did not improve the ability of New Zealand kids to read, write, and do maths. In fact, during the time national standards were in place, that got worse. So we want to see the focus go back on teaching and learning because that is the thing that is going to improve the lot of young New Zealanders.

This bill removes charter schools from New Zealand law. We are committed to having a quality public education system. When it comes to disadvantaged young New Zealanders, we do not believe they should have to be driven out of the public education system to get the education they deserve, and that is what the members opposite continue to argue for. They continue to talk about Māori and Pasifika educational achievement as if the answer to that is to take a handful of them out of the public education system and put them in a deregulated education system, where the safeguards are not in place to protect them. We don’t agree with that approach. We think the answer to Māori and Pasifika educational achievement in New Zealand is to make sure every public school in the country is delivering them the education that they deserve, and that is what this Government is going to deliver.

To give two examples of the failures of the charter school system: first, we had a charter school fail within the first year of operation, and the money still has not come back—and probably never will come back—into the public education system. Millions of dollars were flushed down the drain by the members opposite in the name of their ideology of charter schools. The second example happened under this Government, where we had to step in to stop a charter school closing in the middle of the school year and putting kids out on the street, because they had a lease that expired in the middle of the school year and they couldn’t renew it. That’s the kind of dodgy, slap-up model of education that was being promoted by members on the other side.

We don’t believe in that. We believe that we should have a quality, robust education system that delivers all young New Zealanders the quality of education they should have, that has qualified, registered teachers who actually know what they’re doing delivering education to young New Zealanders—they should be teaching to the New Zealand Curriculum—and that should have education, first and foremost, as its priority. The privatised, deregulated model of charter schooling did not guarantee those things.

Now, as for the claims by the members opposite that those existing partnership schools, as they call them, which everyone knows to be charter schools—to claim that they are being closed is wrong, because, actually, we recognise that while the model was flawed, there were some people within it who had absolutely the right intentions. So we will work with them, and we have been working with them, to transition them into the public education system so that they can continue to do what they are passionate about, which is educating young New Zealanders.

It is absolutely wrong for the members opposite to continue to mislead and claim that those schools are being closed when they know they are not. But, what’s more, it is also wrong for them to trash the reputation of the schools that are transitioning into the public education system before they’ve had the chance to do that. By saying that those schools will no longer be able to do and no longer be able to deliver equality of education to the kids in their schools, they are trashing the reputation of those schools, and they are not putting the best interests of the kids who are attending those schools at the forefront of their consideration. That’s not just me that’s saying that; that’s the operators of those schools who are saying that, who have been outraged at the way their kids have been politicised by the members opposite because they are not operating in the best interests of those kids, and that is what this Government is committed to doing.

With regard to the governance changes for tertiary institutions they should never have been removed. The National Government said that it would be better—we would get better governance of our polytechs, for example, if staff and students weren’t on their councils. Well, how’s that worked out? How’s that actually worked out? We’ve got a polytech system that is in the worst state that it has ever been. The Government has had to remove several of those councils because of chronic governance failures. Millions and millions of dollars in taxpayer funding is having to go into bailing out those institutions because they have been failing, and that all happened under National’s watch. When they were claiming they were going to improve the governance of those institutions, they failed spectacularly. Staff and students bring a legitimate perspective to the governance of those institutions. It’s one that never should have been taken away and we are putting it back and we are making it right.

The final changes that I want to talk about are the changes to the strategic planning and reporting requirements that were introduced under the previous Government. We believe in those changes—or at least most of us do believe in those changes—but we think that they were being rushed. We need to take our time, and we need to get them right, and that is what the provisions in this bill allow for. They change the time frames, and they ensure that we will get that right so that schools have the ability to plan for the future and that the interests of their kids are being put first in that process.

This bill fulfils commitments that all three of the parties in Government made during the election campaign and committed to when we became the Government. We have worked hand in hand to deliver these changes for New Zealand because we know that they are going to be in the best interests of our education system. I want to particularly acknowledge the members of the Education and Workforce Committee—the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green members in particular—who worked as a cohesive, stable, solid team to deliver these changes which are going to be in the best interests of all New Zealanders.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I cannot believe the speech that we have just had from the Minister of Education. He has said this is a watershed moment in New Zealand’s history. I’ll tell you what a watershed moment is: a watershed moment is the fact that, as of today, with this legislation, there is an urgency application in the Waitangi Tribunal. They are a Government that claim they care about Crown-Māori relations, and they are pushing through legislation for no urgent reason but to get rid of partnership schools. Here is my message to the iwi leaders of New Zealand who have backed these schools: we believe in you, and we will bring partnership schools back. Under a future National Government, we will bring the model back and we will expand those partnership schools. Why? Not because we believe in ideology but because we actually believe in vulnerable young people and helping kids with complex needs.

It is not just the National Party that believes this; we heard from the schools. We heard from the schools not only about their achievement. We saw the Martin Jenkins report. We saw the huge independent evaluations of partnership schools. And do you know what? It isn’t just the National Party that believes in these schools; it’s Sir Toby Curtis, it’s Dame Iritana, it’s Lance O’Sullivan, it’s huge Māori leaders—the tōtaras of Māori education—who have supported these partnership schools. And do you know what? It isn’t just the National Party. It’s also Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis, who, prior to the election, said they believed in these schools. Kelvin Davis said that he would resign if these schools closed. We believe in partnership schools, and it is a very sad day for New Zealand to see this legislation going through the House. It is about ideology, and I am very sad for those students who have had to be put through this.

I do want to acknowledge the leaders from partnership schools: Alwyn Poole, Karen Poole, Nick Hyde, Raewyn Tīpene, Roanna Bennett. I know that it’s been a really tough time for you. The National Party has not trashed their reputation. We have spent months fighting for these schools to ensure that they don’t close. We realise that today is, effectively, the legislative process to get rid of the model, but we also know that we completely disagree with the Minister of Education’s process around terminating the contracts—effectively, publicly before the legal process but also prior to this legislation occurring. The question that we have asked for the people of New Zealand has been: what is the cost of that?

So we won’t take a lecture from the Minister of Education around the costs around partnership schools, because there is a secret amount of compensation and deals that have gone on to transition these school to designated character schools, which is not in the public domain, and the estimates that we’ve had from the Minister and the ministry is that that could be around $30 million. So we support these schools. We know they’ve been through a tough time. We really hope that they are successful under the designated character model, but it is not the same as a partnership school model. There are some fundamental differences. Those differences are flexibility and management, and flexibility and funding.

But I do want to make this point, which is what we made throughout the process, and, again, I want to quote the Prime Minister here. She said there would be a pathway for these schools if they, effectively, had registered teachers, followed the Curriculum, and had comparable funding. Well, here are the facts. The facts are that just like every other school in New Zealand, there is limited authority to teach. There are unregistered teachers in other schools in New Zealand. The facts are that the partnership schools were following the Curriculum. The facts are that, actually, the partnership schools had a comparable amount of money, and it was worked out on a formula level to a State school.

So the reality is that these schools and this model have gone because of the Minister’s blatant ideology, not because of what’s best for schools. The Labour Party has continued to spread misinformation about the model. National will bring these schools back because we fundamentally believe not only in the iwi leaders who have gone behind these schools; we believe in the people who established these schools. We believe in the fact that Martin Jenkins has said that these schools have done a good job, and that’s why we will bring back partnership schools.

The second issue that I want to cover—again, to get a lecture from the Minister of Education about ideology—is national standards. We accept—and, in fact, I was the Minister that put a Cabinet paper through last year—that we want to transition to a system of progression. We accept that. We put through the Cabinet paper last year to do that. But what we hoped—and what I did with that Cabinet paper—was that we could get cross-party agreement and work with schools over a two-year period to ensure that they had not only the Curriculum resources and the ICT systems to improve quality reporting for parents; but we also believe in accountability around that data.

What the Minister of Education did was rip up any cross-party agreement late last year—this is, effectively, legislation that cleans up what he’s already done. Late last year, he scrapped national standards by changing the national advisory guideline. He did that without consulting a million parents. And do you know what? It might be novel to the Labour Party, but we actually back parents. We actually believe that they have a right to have a say in the reporting system for their children, and it’s a Labour Government that took that away late last year and is now passing legislation to clean that up. It is not correct to say that somehow there’s been a select committee process around national standards, when they already got rid of national standards at the end of last year.

So my plea to the Government, my plea to all of those educators out there, is to know that we do support moving to a system of progression. We believe that the teaching profession needs to be supported in the way that we do that. We believe there should be some data that comes back to the Ministry of Education for this single reason: we need to be able to stand alongside many other countries in the world and demonstrate that we have a good understanding of the nationwide picture of achievement. That is a partnership between the profession and the Government. We need to do that because we need to be able to target some of our most vulnerable young people in areas like numeracy and literacy.

What the Government has done is they have moved ahead of the sector. There is now chaos and confusion in some schools because they are not clear what the status of national standards has been. And also, we don’t have that nationwide picture of achievement at an individual school level, and that means that we’re not going to be able to help some of our most vulnerable people. That is why the National Party has opposed this bill. Our plea to the Government is: stop trying to be so ideological and be so arrogant in the way that you are doing these things. Work across the House around a system of nationwide achievement. Work across the House around models like partnership schools for disadvantaged young people, because we owe it to the parents of New Zealand and we owe it to the families of those children in schools like partnership schools.

I do want to acknowledge that in this bill there have been a number of other changes, including to the tertiary education and governance model. But I think I want to end my speech on this note: again, we all come into politics to help young people. I don’t know a member of this House—and it doesn’t matter what side of politics you’re on. Everybody thinks about how we can ensure that we have equality of opportunity? What makes me so sad about this bill is that there is so much in this that cuts to the heart of how you deliver that equality of opportunity—how you ensure that we know where those young people might not have the skills that they need to succeed in life.

It is about recognising that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to education; that, actually, we back innovation, we back iwi, we back the education entrepreneurs of this world, and that we accept there are multiple ways to deliver education. I’m proud to come from a party that backs private schools, that backs State-integrated schools, that backs partnership schools, but also that believes in a strong public education system. I reject the notion that we can somehow believe only in a public education system in New Zealand.

There are multiple other people who make a huge difference to the lives of New Zealanders. If we’re going to continue to have that ideological debate, we’re going to continue to leave a group of young people behind. That is why we have been incredibly sad about this bill. We make a plea to the Government at this last hour: why have you done this? Why have you ignored the Waitangi Tribunal and the urgent claim there? Why are you scrapping these schools? We believe in partnership schools. We believe in accountability. We believe in good reporting to parents. We believe in the power of teachers and principals, and this is a very sad day for New Zealand. It is a watershed moment. That Government chose ideology and not what’s best for young people, and we support young people.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): What a load of nonsense from the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye. As the only person in this House who has set up a charter school, I think I come from a much more informed base. What a load of nonsense, in terms of the Māori leadership and what they’re trying to do at the moment—Māori leadership who are very close to myself: Sir Toby Curtis, my wife’s uncle; Whaea Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, someone we love very much, particularly Māori members in this House; and Lance O’Sullivan, who doesn’t know what political party to join and is disoriented most of the time, sadly.

When you talk about Māori independence, when you talk about tino rangatiratanga, try to come from an informed base, because that member is not coming from an informed base at all. Māori tried the system out—the system that the National Party allocated 0.1 percent of their funding to. That was their commitment to charter schools. They weren’t interested in charter schools. My whanaunga Hekia Parata was involved in it. They were not interested. I know this because Mr Seymour told me. So I know that for an absolute fact. Now they’re interested because it serves their political purposes. Now they are the great advocates for Māori. Now they’re worried about what’s happening. At the end of nine years—

Nuk Korako: Fifty-nine Treaty settlements.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —we found out, and that Māori member should know—34 percent of Māori leave school without qualifications.

Nicola Willis: So what are you doing about it?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What we’re doing about it is we’re going to get a mainstream right to incorporate the values and the principles we learnt.

I know, you see, because we set up a school, and we set up a school because it was going to be set up less than one kilometre from our marae—less than one kilometre from our marae. And when we heard that, we felt at the Manukau Urban Māori Authority that we should give this a shot. It wasn’t about embracing the free market model that Nikki Kaye and the National Party and David Seymour want to promote. It wasn’t about embracing that; it was about embracing our tamariki. It was about embracing our kids, giving our children opportunity. And in our organisation, we dealt with prisoners who had to go back into the community. We dealt with disorientated youth. We dealt with domestic violence. We dealt with every aspect of Te Ao Māori. So we decided to give the charter school a crack—and why not? We put up my wife as the principal—my wife, who’s been a long-time educator. And we had people like Barbara Ala’alatoa and others who were advisers and supporters. We gave it a crack. Why wouldn’t we give it a crack when your kids are failing? We gave it a crack, and our kids came through the system and did well. There’s no doubt about that.

But through that process there were a lot of anomalies that appeared in terms of our school—the compliance and the reportage were just ridiculous. My wife was working until one o’clock in the morning every night trying to get reportage back to maintain that school. It’s ridiculous. Mr Seymour knows this. He acknowledged this. We had compliance costs on my—I would say today if I supported charter schools, I would not be standing for the Labour Party now. But we saw at the coalface, when a board was meeting every night, when the principal was working till one o’clock in the morning, when a small community organisation had to foot every cost because the National Party only wanted to give 0.1 percent to the charter schools, that it was a flawed model—a flawed model.

Simeon Brown: How did the children do at your school?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The student achievements at charter schools were expected to be—some schools were at least meant to be 20 percent higher than mainstream. And we were dealing with students who were excluded from mainstream that had already been given up on. So stop trying to promote something that clearly, clearly wasn’t working for us.

Brett Hudson: The member said it did work.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You make things work—you make things work within the system. You know, you can change as you go through. We would try anything to turn around our kids—anything. And the reality is that just because we embraced the model for a little while, it did not mean that mainstream shouldn’t work. As our Minister of Education said today, mainstream should allow and embrace all kids. Mainstream should embrace all kids. We need to learn the lessons in terms of the charter schools—learn the lessons in terms of tikanga Māori, in terms of whānau ora, in terms of looking after prisoners when they come back into the society. A quarter of our kids’ fathers were in jail. Should mainstream still be looking after those kids? Of course they should—of course they should. These are the things we did under charter schools. We should be able to do them under mainstream. There is acknowledgment from everyone that that could and should happen. So we have become converts; we challenged mainstream. We said, “This is what we do. Can we embrace? Can we change? Can we do things?” The answer is yes, yes, yes, yes. And you can do it in a character school; you can do it in an integrated school—[Interruption]. You can. You don’t know—you weren’t involved. You’re not involved. All you’re interested in putting down this side. You have no experience.

Our people who have worked at the coalface—people you appointed, like Barbara Ala’alatoa, worked on my board. They were our advisers; they were our supporters, and now they’re saying mainstream must adopt and embrace what we have learnt within the charter school system. Stop waffling on about stuff you don’t know. And Māori here, stop trying to challenge us about what we are doing. In terms of our Māori leadership, they are a leadership who I have the utmost respect for in terms of things they’ve done through their lives. But on this particular kaupapa, they are being used by the National Party and by the ACT Party.

Nicola Willis: Shame on you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Shame on you—I’ve told them to their faces. I tell them to their faces. These are people who I’ve worked with who wouldn’t even know if you walked across and met them—wouldn’t even know who they were. We are being used. Iwi leadership who come to the party here, I asked them today to relook at what’s happening here. We know that mainstream has not delivered at times in the past, but people like Jan Tinetti and others in this Whare today have learnt the lessons, have put the challenges, are putting the challenges to our Minister of Education, who has been terrific in accepting some of those challenges and saying to mainstream, “Mainstream should be for everyone.”

And the charter school model for us failed. David Seymour would say the same thing if he was being completely honest. He knows the type of support he got from the National Party, which was absolutely minimal—absolutely minimal. They didn’t care at all about what he was talking about. They just wanted to tick a box.

So I say today: congratulations to our party for listening to everyone, for accepting criticism, for understanding the Māori position. And myself, Peeni Henare, and Kelvin Davis stand by our schools, who have gone through quite a process. We reject some of the lies that have come in the Facebook posts and the madness that has come from some of the people who keep waffling on about these schools being closed. Not one school has been closed—not one school has been closed. And even Alwyn Poole has become a convert and has said stop the rubbish and stop the lies. They have Alwyn Poole: the biggest critic of us early on is now a convert—is now a convert. So the Opposition must understand that they have lost badly.

Nuk Korako: Is that all you’ve got? PR work.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Stop trying to use Māori. Stop trying to promote something that is not true. A free market model, Nuk, will never, ever, ever resonate with our people. We must make mainstream understand our side of things in terms of tikanga Māori. Mainstream is doing that right across the spectrum and we should be able to do it in health and housing, and we’re doing it now in education. And you have an obligation, Nuk Korako, to stand up today and support what we’re doing instead of constantly putting out the waffle and nonsense that your right-wing—anyway I won’t carry on—party waffles on about. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That was a load of nonsense—just a load of nonsense. I am taking this call to strongly—I’m saying strongly—oppose this bill, the Education Amendment Bill. I’ve never seen any member doing such a big U-turn after just a few months’ time. Before this election, Willie Jackson was saying that he would resign if partnership schools closed. Today, he got up to give this big explanation and to tell us how his partnership school did, and he said that the students were doing better. The students were doing better, but they had to work harder, and that’s the reason they don’t support partnership schools. So it’s not about students; it’s not about students’ performance; it’s not about us putting in that hard work to help students to do better in their life; it’s all about them, because it is the Government’s stance. He has been forced to stand up and take this call. We can tell that in the way he has done a U-turn in this situation.

It’s really embarrassing. He challenged my colleague Nuk Korako. Nuk Korako is here standing with senior Māori educators. It’s that member who doesn’t stand with those senior Māori educators. I have never seen someone undermining senior Māori educators like the member did just now. Why would they care about them because now they’re in Government? Before the election, they were desperate to get into Government. They wanted to get that extra percentage of votes, and that’s why they were saying everything to please those voters. But now, yep, they’re in Government. Why would they care about the support that they received from Māori voters? They don’t. This is their real side. This has exposed their real side, and this is really sad.

Māori MPs in the Labour Government said that they would resign if partnership schools were closed, and now we have seen one member, who stood up, doing this big U-turn, saying that he supports the Government stance. We are here standing with Māori educators, and we are here standing with 1,500 students—those who are doing really well in partnership schools. We could see that they can reach their potential through these schools. Yes, we agreed with the ACT Party to bring partnership schools in. The legislation was passed in 2012, and, yes, we had 12 schools in this short time since 2012, and the schools were giving us really good results. So we wanted to try this model and we did, and the model was working, and we are against the removal of this model from our education system. It was clear to us that the mainstream was not working for the students, and we wanted to provide them with another education model. What’s wrong with that? Why would you put these students back in the mainstream where we know that they were not able to reach their potential?

This Government, as I heard from the Minister of Education before, said that, actually, they’re not closing—well, there is no continuity for partnership schools, because what is happening is that all these schools have been approved to be transitioned into State-integrated schools. It’s not the same thing. There’s a big difference in the two education model systems, because they’re going to lose that flexibility that they have around teaching resources and the flexibility that they have around the governance model. That was the key thing in partnership schools that actually worked, and we want to retain that. That’s why National is really proud to say that we will bring partnership schools back because we care about these students. We want to see all students, including Māori, Pasifika, and other disadvantaged students doing well in their life. They are taking away this model from a society, and the end result will be that these students are going to suffer, and then the whole community is going to suffer, because if a future—that is, if children don’t do well, the whole community and whole nation suffers.

The other point in this bill: national standards. That is again another tool that was put in place by the previous National Government. We care about precise reporting systems because we want to see how students are doing in the big picture, but the Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins, was saying that actually if parents want to see where their child is at in a competitive model, that is not helpful. So instead of going out and consulting with parents on what kind of reporting system parents want, the Minister is actually telling parents what kind of reporting system he’s going to deliver. So this Government doesn’t care about parents. They don’t care about students’ performance. They don’t care about consulting. They don’t care about the select committee process—because, as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, I know the process we had to follow—and they don’t care about the Māori voice. They have undermined that strong voice. It is because of that—those senior very, very respected members were pleading in the select committee, and when nobody heard, they went to the Waitangi Tribunal. And, again, they have undermined their claim that is still outstanding.

We have this third reading that means this bill will be passed. The other thing I want to bring to everybody’s notice is with every piece of legislation, it’s a requirement that we test our legislative content. This report here—which I have, a departmental disclosure statement—is dated 30 January. One of the things which was looked for in this bill, as is done for other bills as well, is consistency with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations. Yes, we have this obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to see that it is in line with our obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. This was prepared on 30 January, and it was in June when the Crown was served that notice of the Treaty of Waitangi claim.

I haven’t seen this redone. Why hasn’t this been redone? Why hasn’t the assessment been done again? We have heard no explanation from the Government or the Minister if the criteria is fulfilled, given the current circumstances. We’re really disappointed, because this bill is actually going to damage our education system. Parents want to see where their child is, whether they are at national standards, they’re below national standards, or they’re above national standards. And if there is a child performing below national standards, they can set goals to help their child to go to that level of the national standard. Or, a child that is at national standards can be helped to improve to do better—that is, to get above national standards. What’s wrong with setting such goals? What’s wrong? Nothing. So this Minister is going to take away that aspiration from students to do better and aspiration from parents to help their children do better in school because the reporting system that the Minister wants to put in place means nothing—means nothing.

So we are disappointed. Since we started the first reading of this bill—yes, we opposed this bill, but by the third reading, the list of reasons why we are opposing it has grown. There are more compelling reasons, which I have already talked about, including the Treaty of Waitangi claim.

Then another component in this bill is about the fees-free education. So the Minister is introducing a new offence. Yeah. So they didn’t think about the policy properly before the election, because so close to election, they just wanted it to be a vote-grabbing thing. Yes, they did that. They might have got some votes out of that, at the cost of $2.8 billion of taxpayers’ money. Now, he’s realised, actually, yeah, some people can misrepresent themselves and take advantage of that system that is available for free, so we should have some kind of offence. What kind of homework did he do where he introduced the policy first and now he wants to have this new offence introduced in this legislation?

He didn’t think about the unintended consequences, and now we don’t have the data, because we don’t know what kinds of degrees people obtained 15 or 20 years ago. We don’t have any electronic data for 20-30 years ago about what people did. So there is no way the ministry is going to be able to verify the information. So for the Minister to stand up and say, actually, that “No, there is no data suggesting that people are misrepresenting.”—who’s going to believe that? There is nothing that the Minister can verify it against—there is nothing. So that is why this new offence is created by the Minister. And, again, the new offence that is created by the Minister is a joke—up to $5,000.

I think the Minister doesn’t realise that when you give something out for free, at a cost of $2.8 billion of taxpayers’ money, you have to be more accountable. He doesn’t want to be accountable for anything. He doesn’t want to be accountable for a free education system, he doesn’t want to be accountable for a reporting system, and he doesn’t want to be measured for his own performance. That is why he has taken away this national standards system of reporting, because, at the end, we can clearly see how many children are at national standard, how many children are above national standard, and how many children are below national standard.

The Minister didn’t want to be measured using these national standard achievements for his own performance. That is the reason the Minister is getting rid of national standards. It’s a big cover up. It’s nothing about education. It’s nothing about student’s performance. It’s nothing about parents. It’s the two-way street between unions and the Labour Party. They’re just looking after each other, and we are disappointed. I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to strongly support the Education Amendment Bill, but can I just say that that was bizarre. The contribution by the member who just resumed her seat, Parmjeet Parmar, was bizarre. And the fact that she is the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee concerns me immensely. We need to have a conversation about that.

The reason why it concerns me is—let’s just take what she ended on, which was around national standards. She obviously did not listen to her own education spokesperson, the Hon Nikki Kaye, who, in her contribution on numerous occasions, has talked about the fact that the Hon Nikki Kaye, when she was the Minister of Education, took a Cabinet paper to the previous Cabinet—her own National Party Cabinet—saying that national standards had failed. This was a Cabinet paper. It was only at the beginning of this debate that the Hon Nikki Kaye stood up and articulated that. It was during the negotiations that the Rt Hon Bill English articulated the same thing. The National Party had already recognised they were not working and needed to move to progressions. Goodness me! Somebody inform the National Party chair of the Education and Workforce Committee please, before we go much further into this term.

It is amazing to me that the National Party finally realised that national standards weren’t working, and now—and now—articulate, “But what is to replace them?” when it was a National Minister of Education who created the New Zealand Curriculum. This is concerning too. Apparently, none of the speakers on the Opposition side are even aware of what is in the New Zealand Curriculum, created under the guidance of Lockwood Smith, that has the progressions inside of them from year 1 through to year 13 that are attached to every single part of the New Zealand Curriculum. It was a National Government that did it. But it was supposed to be introduced in 2008. The professional development was supposed to be rolled out in 2009. What happened in 2008? An election. What happened in 2009? National standards were rushed through under urgency and implemented inside the New Zealand education system—completely crushing the amazingly good work of Dr Lockwood Smith. But there seems to be a bit of a lack of knowledge from the Opposition side. So that’s concerning—that’s concerning.

Let’s have a talk about the crocodile tears that are being used here and the rhetoric—the amazing, descriptive rhetoric. It’s an awful way that these children inside partnership or charter schools are being represented by that party. The language that they are using around these young people is incredibly concerning—incredibly concerning. I’m not going to repeat the descriptors that they have used, but I find it very interesting that that party, who refused to give alternative education, activity centres, and teen parent units any increase in funding over the decade that they were in power, now articulates about our most vulnerable students—who were excluded or expelled and supposedly needed charter schools to be developed by that party—when they were the ones who refused to actually implement any funding increase, even a Consumers Price Index increase, for the very skilled and committed individuals inside our alternative education sector. So it’s crocodile tears to decide to set up something completely new while starving those that were already working for those very students and who had begged for more funding so that they could lift their performance, so that they could provide greater pastoral care, so that they could put consistency across the country—it’s crocodile tears.

But that is something that this Government is doing. That is what we are doing. We are going to make sure that every area inside what is English medium, Māori medium, and alternative education is appropriately funded and is well-designed, with the students at the centre—not for political gain, but because those students deserve not to be set aside over somewhere else. We will not run a parallel system. These are our children, all of them, and we will keep them inside of our education system.

I thought the other thing that was incredibly interesting was the reference to the Martin Jenkins report. So let’s just talk about the last of the Martin Jenkins report that was delivered on 6 April 2018. Now, let’s remember this was a report commissioned by the previous Government into the performance of charter schools. The report failed to cover the schools’ academic achievement because they had not been operating long enough and their NCEA data was presented in a way that was not comparable to that of other schools. So that was what Martin Jenkins said.

I’m not sure where the Opposition got their information from—actually, I know where. It’s in the glossy brochures that Vanguard Military School put out, it’s in the glossy brochures that the Villa Education Trust schools put out—that is where the Opposition got their information from when they’re referring to how wonderful these schools were.

I mean, there’s no conflict of interest there, obviously, for those schools and their glossy brochures! There’s obviously no conflict of interest there—and that’s sarcasm, if you didn’t recognise it. But that is where I would suggest the Opposition has got their data from—because this is what the Martin Jenkins report said. This is what Martin Jenkins, commissioned by that Government, said. An appendix to the report said that the consultants received three years of NCEA results for students in years 11 and 13 at these schools but that it was not possible to know how many students had achieved the NCEA level expected for their year group. It said that also made it impossible to compare the charter school data with figures from other schools.

Then we go on to another report that has revealed that charter school pass rates “are out of line with State schools.” The reported “exam results of the controversial schools ‘gave an imperfect representation of overall school performance’, an analysis given to Minister Hekia Parata states.”

Nicola Willis: Did you visit?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Actually, I visited Vanguard Military School. I have visited the charter school up in Whangarei. I have visited—

Nicola Willis: Is that where you thought the dogs were?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, he we go. It’s not the answer, unfortunately, the member wanted. I have visited charter schools. I have visited with Alwyn Poole while the idea was being floated, and I explained to Alwyn Poole, as he explained to me the deal he had been promised with regard to levels of funding to meet his private school funding—the deal he had been offered by the National Government at that time—and I clearly articulated to Mr Poole, in that moment, they will not remain: “They will not remain. Please, Mr Poole, do not put yourself in debt for these schools, because when there is a Labour – New Zealand First – Green Government, they will be gone.” And today is that day. He was told. They were all told. It has been 100 percent transparent.

But let’s get back to this. The NCEA exam results dropped massively from charter schools when brought in line with State schools. The reported results were inflated, because the charter schools, also known as partnership schools, were using a different method from State schools to report the pass rates. The report showed Vanguard Military School on Auckland’s North Shore and Te Kura Hourua in Whangarei reported they had met their NCEA 2014 leaver targets but when the figures were analysed they did not. Vanguard reported a 100 percent pass rate for NCEA level 2. However, when revised in line with NCEA standards, it dropped to just 60 percent. That is below State schools.

So I’m not quite sure where the Opposition gets their data from, but, if it’s from glossy brochures from those who are promoting themselves, I suggest it’s not a valuable source. I suggest that they go to the reports given to Hekia Parata that showed quite clearly this model was failing. I want to assure the New Zealand public that this side of the House is going to get the education system for all our students back on line and performing how it needs to. We’re not going to sideline some individuals. This is a good day for New Zealand education.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is extraordinary what we have heard in relation to partnership or charter or kura hourua schools this afternoon. This is the final reading, and when we’re finished speeches here this afternoon, that’s it: the model has gone. What we’ve heard from the Minister of Education himself—I need to go back to Hansard and read, but I am 99 percent sure he said that charter schools, kura hourua, are a dodgy model of education. He certainly used the word “dodgy”, and if anyone’s listening here this afternoon who is involved in any partnership schools, kura hourua, your Minister of Education used the word “dodgy”.

And then we had Willie Jackson. He’s not Tā Willie Jackson, like Tā Toby Curtis is; he is Willie Jackson. He said—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): He’s the Hon Willie Jackson.

DENISE LEE: All right. Well, he’s not Tā Willie Jackson; he’s the Hon Willie Jackson, and he wasn’t behaving honourably, because he, in one fell swoop—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will withdraw and apologise for that comment.

DENISE LEE: I withdraw and apologise. But here’s what he said: “The model, kura hourua, clearly wasn’t working for us.”—and by that he meant Māori. Then he also said to eminent Māori iwi leaders that they clearly don’t know what they are talking about and they have been led astray. That is offensive and they should, and will, take action.

So here’s how it has played out: those on the other side of the House campaigned to scrap charter schools, they came into power, they terminated contracts, and they’ve held sham negotiations to force schools into a State model without acknowledging what would be lost. Meanwhile, they then introduced the bill that we’re going to sign off here—well, they are going to sign off; we’re not—and we sit in hearings, me and other members of the Education and Workforce Committee, and we hear members of schools, parents, and students imploring us to keep these schools open, or at least give it some transition time. Then the Minister puts out a press release not just saying but celebrating that they’re gone. It was predetermined, celebrating the closure of these schools—no negotiations or hearings. Hardly anyone from the other side visited these schools and talked to students. The schools were held over a barrel. Try and deny it. They can’t.

I have a question for the Minister, and it really comes off the back of the extraordinary words from the Hon Willie Jackson, and that’s in regards to kaupapa Māori and kaupapa Pasifika. These are principles—and no one here would deny it—that are bigger and bolder and more intrinsic than politics, more intrinsic than education principles and policies. It is not about what we do; kaupapa Māori and kaupapa Pasifika is who we are. We all know it.

Now, the other side of the House may think that we’re playing a political game, so I’ll take the words away from me and I’ll give the words back to those who had a voice in the hearings. I think they deserve a voice back here again today. Kaupapa Māori and kaupapa Pasifika, learning about mana, I am but a shadow, but we heard from the likes of Tā Toby Curtis, Pem Bird, Dame Iritana, John Morris, Sir La‘auli Savae Michael Jones, and Dame Tariana Turia. Just two of them alone, Tā Toby Curtis and Dame Iritana, have 130 years between them—just the two of them—in Māori education. They speak with the backing of the Iwi Chairs Forum. And here’s the difference: the other side of the House thinks that things just carry on. Well, they don’t. Here are the differences: flexibility in allocation of resources—give us the assurance for that; autonomy of management—give us the assurance for that; freedom to innovate—can you lock that down for us; genuine accountability for quality achievement results for Māori learners—they want to meet the needs of their rangatahi—can you ensure that for us here this afternoon?

Do you understand the leaders and the weight of the responsibility that they feel and why they turned up to our select committee to pour their hearts out? For Tā Toby Curtis, it was personal, and I sat there and saw him, heard him, and listened to him. These are the sorts of words that he said: “I was short-changed”—this is what Tā Toby Curtis said—“in education. The English language does not cater for my emotional, cultural, and spiritual intelligence, but this is the first time that we have had a Pākehā process succeeding with Māori children.” That does not stack up with what Willie Jackson said just moments ago. Ask yourself: why do these leaders, these iwi leaders, need to use the following terminology? This is what they said: “We deplore the lack of consultation.” You, the Government, are irreparably harming Māoridom. This is good old-fashioned bullying, and the Minister doesn’t want to talk to anyone.

And on the Pasifika front, Sir La‘auli Savae Michael Jones said, “If you’re determined to dismantle the model, know what you are doing. The solutions to our community are within our community.” He said, “Our pioneers have dreamt of this.” And I really like this: he said, “My mum dreamt of this.” She is a school teacher. He went on to say, “We had four months to set up a school with those who are most disengaged from their normal schooling community, and it’s been the most amazing waka. We are the first Pacific Islands secondary school in New Zealand, and we are unique in the world. Too many of our rangatahi are in the truant space, and we wanted to do something about it. It’s a gift to us. We want to fiercely protect it, and we are now having to fight for it.” That’s Sir Michael Jones’ words.

So where are we now? Eleven kura hourua closed by this Christmas, a Treaty settlement claim, and now a request for urgency for that claim. This Government has backed them all into a corner. It’s the ultimate case of smashing a square peg into a round hole, and the schools just simply haven’t fit the union-driven, Labour-laden ideology. They now obviously value brazen political point-scoring and payback over kāwanatanga, governance.

Kei te whakanuia te kaupapa o ngā kura hourua. Kei te mihi ki ngā kaimahi mō ngā tamariki tauira Māori, ngā tamariki tauira Pasifika, ngā tamariki katoa o ngā kura hourua; ēnei kura ngā kākano o te ao hou, o te ao mātauranga. Ka whawhai tonu ake.

[I celebrate the very purpose of partnership schools. I salute those who work on behalf of young Māori students, of young Pacific students, of young people everywhere in partnership schools; these schools are the seeds of the modern world, of the education world. We shall fight on.]

I celebrate the cause, the purpose, and philosophy of partnership schools. I acknowledge the workers for our Māori student children, for our Pasifika student children, for all the children of the charter schools. These schools are the seeds of the new world, the world of learning and knowledge, and the fight endures.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa on the Education Amendment Bill in this here third reading. It will of course be of no surprise that we support this bill and its contents, given that it is exactly what all three parties in this Government campaigned on. It, therefore, should come as no surprise to the Opposition, nor to the majority of New Zealanders, who voted for this Government, that this is exactly what we are implementing.

It’s been stated by a number of members of the Opposition that what we are seeing today is ideology. Again, I would like to raise the point that: is it not the case that the actions undertaken by the National Party were informed by their ideology, by their values of individualism, whereas we come from a place of collectivism? We come from a place of believing that all kids should be able to get the best possible education from their local school.

So this piece of legislation does a number of things for a number of different parts of our education system. As has been well canvassed, it removes provisions for charter schools. I don’t intend to labour that point any longer, but presume that the Opposition will get back on that horse. However, I will speak briefly to the point around removing national standards empowering provisions, because, in particular, members of the Opposition have cited multiple times, without any evidence to back it up, that this was about kids and their achievement.

What we’ve seen after nine years of national standards is no discernible change in achievement. In fact, in some areas it’s actually gone down. OECD measures of our poorest kids achieving averages in reading, maths, and science in 2006 showed that 36.6 percent were beating the odds. This was obviously prior to the introduction of national standards. But, in 2012, four years after the introduction of national standards, the number of those kids beating the odds had dropped by more than 10 percent, to 23.6 percent. So I’m quite perplexed by the statements by the Opposition that this is about our poorest kids, who are disproportionately, currently in our society, Māori and Pasifika, when the national standards project did not work for them.

So, too, I’m quite fascinated by the recent kinds of statements from the Opposition that they now care about teachers and that they now want to see reduction in class sizes and they want to see the workload on teachers reduced. Well, if that’s the case, I would suggest that they sit down with teachers, many of whom are represented by those evil unions they so often lament, because, in 2016, a survey by the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand showcased that 69 percent of teachers in primary and intermediate schools narrowed their curriculum as a result of national standards.

So I am proud to stand in this house this afternoon—I would note probably as the member closest to having had an experience of the education system—stating that I am incredibly proud of the fact that we are removing these national standards to focus on the needs of kids.

A third part of this piece of legislation is restoring elected places for elected staff and students on tertiary education institutions councils. It’s been quite fascinating to watch this argument play out in an incredibly polarised manner, with members of the Opposition, in particular, belittling representation, saying that there is no guarantee of expertise. I would reiterate my argument on that point: that’s exactly what we are, here in this House as MPs. We are elected to be representatives. There is no guarantee of our expertise. The point is that we bring the perspectives of our communities to this decision making.

In response to the select committee submissions—and there were a huge number of select committee submissions to our Education and Workforce Committee on this piece of legislation. There were 641, many of whom we heard, and 481 of those submissions spoke, in particular, to staff and student representation on tertiary institution councils, and 451 of those supported guaranteed places. However, 449 of those submissions wanted more than one representative of both staff and students. That’s more than 90 percent of submissions on the issue of staff and student representatives on tertiary councils who wanted more than one.

So I would just note that I’m a bit gutted that my Supplementary Order Paper 104 to see out this request from members of the public was, unfortunately, voted down in the committee of the whole House stage. This, of course, was off the back of an open letter from 14 different presidents of student organisations around the country, facilitated by the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. It was to ensure that what we were seeing wasn’t check-box tokenism but was genuine representation, so that there could be the ability to share and discuss confidential information between at least two students, to come to robust decisions, and so that they could feel supported in putting forward their views and, indeed, in speaking up.

I also want to speak, just briefly, to the final two provisions in the Education Amendment Bill. They are, of course—one is about making it an offence to make a false representation on an application for free tertiary education. This ensures the smooth sailing of that introduction of free tertiary education. I have been incredibly pleased to be around the country recently, visiting a huge number—all, actually—of our tertiary education facilities around this country, speaking to first-year students about their absolute delight of not having to be saddled with immense amounts of student debt. If I may report my own, for the sake of members in the House who perhaps went through university before tertiary fees were instituted, the personal student debt that I racked up was to the tune of $43,000, and these are the kinds of fees that we were talking about imposing on our next generation.

I just want to touch as well on the point made by members of the Opposition that the mainstream isn’t working. That’s right: the mainstream isn’t working, and it’s not working for all of our kids.

Nicola Willis: What are you doing about it?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So what should we do about it, Nicola Willis? We should fix it, and we have an opportunity to fix that with the education conversations that we are working on. Nicola Willis and members of the Opposition have been invited to participate in this educational conversation, which we as a Government are facilitating to move into the future—a fit-for-purpose education system that works for all of our kids. And I think that this is particularly important because of the points that have been raised about tikanga Māori, about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because our current education system absolutely does not put those kaupapa at our core, and we have an opportunity to evolve the education system so that it recognises our past and our history and so that it teaches our kids how to be engaged citizens, not just workers.

So I think that this is an incredible opportunity actually for a cross-partisan project to develop a sustainable outcome that works for all kids, moving into the future. And it’s an opportunity actually to put the petty point-scoring aside and work on something that all of us can be proud of, because all of us and all of our kids are going to be looking at this education system to carry our country into the future.

Just briefly, in my final minute or so, I want to acknowledge the incredible mahi of Catherine Delahunty, who was our former Green spokesperson on education. All of the things that are happening in this Education Amendment Bill are things that she campaigned tirelessly on and are things that she actively engaged with the sector on, and they’re things which we in the Greens are very proud to be supporting through the House this afternoon. It is something that makes me incredibly proud to be a part of this Government: that we are getting on with creating an education system that works for all of our kids, because, in the words of Mary Richmond, “All I can ask is to give every child as fair a chance as possible. As we are a formal democracy, let us be truly democratic.”

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. This is a very sad day for our country. Today is a day when members opposite should be hanging their heads in shame, because today is the day when they’re turning their backs on some of the most vulnerable young people and communities in our country. It’s a day when members opposite in this coalition Government are confirming their refusal to listen to impassioned appeals from community leaders, iwi leaders, the staff and families connected with our country’s partnership schools, and many, many concerned New Zealanders. It’s a day when they proclaim that dogma trumps evidence and that their “We know best.” arrogance matters more than the experience, passion, commitment, and achievements of those who teach, mentor, and learn in our partnership schools. It may well be the day when the Ardern-Peters Government triggers its foreshore and seabed moment.

Māoridom will not forgive them or forget this breach of trust. And it was very well articulated earlier by the Hon Nikki Kaye as she spoke at length about the iwi leaders and the claim that is currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Hon Willie Jackson interjected several times while the Hon Nikki Kaye was speaking of Sir Toby Curtis, Dame Tariana Turia, and those other very experienced, very well respected iwi leaders, that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and just in case it wasn’t picked up by the Hansard reporters, I want to put that on the record now: that the Hon Willie Jackson several times interjected that Dame Tariana, Sir Toby, Pem Bird, and all the others who we’ve been talking about don’t know what they’re talking about. And I’ll come back to the Hon Willie Jackson a little bit later, because it got even worse, in one of the most incoherent and unconvincing speeches I’ve ever heard in this House.

The Minister of Education, Hon Chris Hipkins, justified his decision to close all partnership schools on the grounds that one partnership school failed early on and had to close. There’s no doubt one did close down soon after its establishment, but what a fatuous argument that is. On that basis, every State and integrated school in the country should now be closing down because a small number of them have problems with bullying, truancy, and underachievement. Yet most State, independent, and integrated schools in our country are doing incredibly well, and so are most partnership schools. So why punish all for the problems of a few? It makes no sense, it’s cruel, and worse than that, it flies in the face of all the evidence that those partnership schools were making a difference to young people in a way that no previous education system, no previous school, had ever made.

I have been so impressed by those who have advocated for partnership schools in recent years, but even more so I have been impressed by the huge impact that they have made. I mentioned in a previous debate on this bill that when I visited a partnership school, the thing that really struck me was the tremendous atmosphere of respect, the sense of purpose of the young people there, because there I saw young people for whom finally the lights had come on and an understanding of the value of an education had become apparent to them. Yet, as I mentioned, we then had to listen to an appalling and disjointed rant from the Hon Willie Jackson, who, let’s remember, is a serial party-hopper who now finds it convenient for his own political comfort and perks at this moment to turn his back on all he claimed to believe just a few years ago, including about choice and opportunities in education.

It was Willie Jackson who said, not so long ago, “I truly believe in the partnership school model.” When Labour was in Opposition and he was a leading figure in the Māori Party, he said, “The opposition’s stance on partnership schools won’t get a pass mark from me. And as far as Māori are concerned,” said Mr Jackson, “Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins’ Private Members Bill to scrap partnership schools [ranks] an E.”, and so it went on. He was supported by the man who is now an Associate Minister of Education, the Hon Peeni Henare, who said, “The bottom line is, why would you stop something that is working.”, and he was talking, of course, about partnership schools.

This is the man—the Hon Willie Jackson—who told the nation the day after Labour’s humiliating defeat in the 2014 election that Pākehā New Zealanders have rejected the Labour Party, and yet, for some reason, Māori have embraced them. Willie Jackson shrugged his shoulders, concluding, “It’s hard to work out.” There’s a real irony there.

Willie Jackson said, “Why on earth would Māori support Labour MPs committed to such policies as abolishing partnership schools?” Well, he was right when he pointed out how incomprehensible that was, although he won’t thank me, of course, for reminding the nation today of those comments or of the contempt he felt for New Zealanders who voted Labour just four years ago. Yet, today, he has done a total about-face and proudly embraces his current party’s cruel indifference to vulnerable tamariki and communities the length and breadth of our country, and he insults respected Māori leaders he once worked hard to support. We can only hope that with his record of serial party-hopping, he will once again come to support partnership schools when he emerges as an ACT Party candidate in 2020.

In 2008, the National Party campaigned on a clear promise to introduce national standards in our primary schools. Yet, again, today the Minister of Education repeated his trite, irrelevant, and disingenuous claim that they were neither national nor standard. Yet he consistently ignores the reasons why they were introduced and the support that they secured at the polls from New Zealanders.

The evidence that underpinned their introduction was that a decade or more ago, too many parents found out too late that their children were not developing the literacy and numeracy skills that are the foundations of a successful education. Without literacy and numeracy, young people are not going to be able to succeed in education, and their life choices will be severely restricted as a result, and yet we have a Government today that says “We don’t need to give parents that information.”, even though a decade ago, parents were saying, “If only I had known in time, I would have sought the remedial assistance that my children required.” But, no, this education Minister says, “We’re not interested in the parents getting that information. We’re much more interested in dogma overtaking our decision making in education.” So that’s why I say this is a very sad day for our country.

Let me turn just very briefly to the tertiary education fees-free policy enforcement provisions in this bill, because what we have there is a Government spraying the cash around—it is a hugely expensive policy which didn’t have any real evidence behind it—and yet now we know that it’s making no significant difference at all in driving up enrolments in our tertiary education centres. Well, in the committee stage, the Minister admitted that he hadn’t looked into the question of whether this was a policy open to fraud. Then, he came back the next morning and said, “Oops! I have looked into it, and yes, you’re right—there is some. But I’ll still have to go and do a little bit of work on it.” In the little bit of time left to me, I would say get on with that work quickly, Minister. That is a huge oversight in your administration and you will be judged for it.

Let me just conclude on a positive note. I was very proud to serve briefly as the Associate Minister of Education—

Simeon Brown: A very good Associate Minister.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —in the Government of Sir Bill English—thank you, Mr Brown. In that time, we were able to point to clear evidence of improving results, particularly in NCEA and particularly for our Māori and Pasifika students. It was up from 51.6 percent for Māori in 2008. NCEA-level achievement in 2016 for those young Māori was 74.9 percent, or virtually 75 percent, and it was even better, the improvement that we saw for Pasifika students: up from 50.5 percent in 2008 to nearly 80 percent in 2016. We, as a Government, were prepared to put out measurements by which we could be judged. We delivered, and this Government is sweeping it all away, to the great detriment—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. I call Jan Tinetti—five minutes.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): On the absolute polar opposite from that particular speaker, Tim Macindoe, I think this is the best day in our education system. Today, we are righting a vicious attack that was made on our education system over the term of the previous Government. Today, we reflect this Government’s commitment to having a high-quality public education system, and I am so excited about what we are seeing.

I was really surprised when I heard a member over in the Opposition talk about the fact that they don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. However, in 2008, through urgency they introduced national standards. We absolutely couldn’t get more of a one-size-fits-all approach to education. They did that without any consultation. Today, we are putting that right.

What did that mean? That meant for me, in my school at that time, that creativity and that ability to actually form our localised curriculum became narrower. That actually meant that the ability for us as a school with a predominantly Māori population of children, where we had made great gains to get those vulnerable children all achieving by combining our curricula and teaching through Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, even in our mainstream classes—we could no longer do that because we had to report our mainstream classes against the national standards. So therefore we were forced to actually teach from the New Zealand Curriculum, which is a great document, but it didn’t meet the needs of our school. They talk about meeting the needs of the pupils and meeting the needs of the school, and yet they introduced those national standards that took that right away from those schools, and today we are putting that right. The schools are happy, and, contrary to what that side might say, parents are happy.

I have an email box that was flooded from last year by parents who said, “We are happy that our children are going to be valued.”, because not many people realise but all children were subject to national standards evaluations—all children. That means even the children that struggled at school due to special learning needs had to meet those national standards. That became really difficult for them, and they were labelled as failures the whole way through their schooling. So I’m happy to see this bill being passed today. I’m happy for the New Zealand education system, and I am absolutely delighted for all of our New Zealand children.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Nicola Willis—five minutes.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): The bottom line is: why would you stop something that is working? Those were Peeni Henare’s words and they were wise words and they are words that members opposite have not heeded. We have had speeches today from people making all sorts of claims about partnership schools, but the people we have not heard from are the parents whose lives and whose families have been transformed by the experience of having their children attend partnership schools.

I want to read from the submission from Ms Tiffiny Hodgson, a mother of a chronic dyslexic who attended Villa Education Trust. She says, “Within 3 months of the new school year there was an incredible change. My angry, miserable and increasingly problematic son came home happy. And learning. He read his first ‘chapter book’ … He wanted to learn, and wanted to go to school. ‘Mummy, I never knew I could be good at anything.’ ” Then she goes on to say, “Not all schools fit all kids. … the idea of abandoning the Partnership model altogether … takes away a much needed option for [families] like ours. There are few enough options for some kids … without taking away schools that are already working well.”

I thank Tiffiny Hodgson because she goes to the heart of the matter, which is that today in this House, Labour members are choosing to fundamentally revoke a system that has worked for hundreds of students and hundreds of families because they believe that they know better what is right for those families and what they should choose. We’ve had the inglorious claim that somehow these partnership schools aren’t closing; that they will continue, when in fact right now there is a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal protesting the very fact that these schools are being closed. The model which allowed for their own management, their own funding, their own pay rates for teachers has been removed and where submitters have been very clear is that the process that has been forced upon them by the Minister of Education has caused inordinate trouble for parents and families.

Let’s talk about Alwyn Poole, because Minister Martin raised Alwyn Poole in her speech and said that Alwyn Poole was happy about these changes. Well, I want to quote what Alwyn Poole said at select committee: “The processes we are finding incredibly fraught and extremely difficult. We want to be respectful of the ministry but at the moment we are under two processes.” Those are the words of a school leader who feels completely pressured and bullied by the Government but who is going through a fraught and extremely difficult process. And the saddest thing of all is that the debate that we have had about the future of partnership schools, the changes that have been made, have meant that these excellent education leaders who have been transforming the lives of young people have been distracted by this sort of thing and will continue to be distracted by a new model that will be clunky and will not work as well for them or the children that they are there to serve.

We have had a State system of education in New Zealand for many decades that has delivered well for many, many children, and many of us are grateful for that strong public education system. But it is foolish of members opposite to pretend that that system delivers for every child. For far too long, that system has failed Māori and Pasifika children in particular, and for far too long that system has not delivered for groups of children. Partnership schools were a way of attacking that. They were a way of saying “Let’s try something different. Let’s not give up on those kids. And let’s not be naïve enough to simply pretend that if we say ‘public education’ enough times with a big enough smile on our face it’ll mean that it’s working for them.” Well, it wasn’t working for them, it’s not working for them, and partnership schools were, and that is why they should remain.

Instead, we have had a Government that has removed this model without considering the evidence of their success, without consulting the parents who support them, without consulting Māori who view them as a wonderful form of providing self-determination. And the people who should find it hardest to sleep in bed tonight are the members of the Labour Party opposite who said that they would campaign against the closure of these schools: Willie Jackson, who said that these schools were fundamental for Māori, that he truly believed in the model, and that this alternative style of education gets an A every day—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. This is a split call—five minutes. I call Jo Luxton.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I can assure Nicola Willis, the member who’s just taken her seat, that I am going to sleep very well tonight because today is a wonderful day for education. It is a wonderful day for teachers and it is a wonderful day for our children—our children. This Government is, yet again, delivering on its pre-election promises with this piece of legislation, the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting children at the heart of every decision it makes, and I am proud that we have a Minister of Education who believes the same.

I want to talk a little bit about the removal of national standards. Now, we heard from NZEI at the select committee when they submitted, and they talked about the anguish and the heartache that parents of children with special educational needs have. They talked about the fact that the children were doomed to fail from the outset—doomed to fail right from the beginning. Right from the time they entered our schooling system, they were doomed to fail.

We heard from the Hon Tim Macindoe, who said that this particular piece of legislation was going to be terrible and it was going to be a sad day for some of our most vulnerable children. Well, actually, I put it to that member that some of these children are our most vulnerable children, who were disaffected by national standards.

I want to also make comment about something that Parmjeet Parmar mentioned about how parents want to hear precise reporting. Well, actually, this isn’t some sort of forensic DNA analysis. These are children, a diverse group of young people that we are talking about, who are all different, who all have different needs, and who all learn at different rates and at different stages. I take the point that a previous speaker—Jan Tinetti—brought up around something that the Hon Nikki Kaye mentioned about how one size does not fit all, and that is exactly right. So that is why we are getting rid of the national standards.

I have my sister, Teresa, who has Down’s syndrome, and I think about how that would have affected her and my mother had she gone to school during this time when national standards were in place. Now, when someone has a child who has Down’s syndrome or some other disability like that, they know that that child’s life, and their life in turn, is also going to have several challenges along the way, and I think that it is disgraceful that children like that are faced with the fact that they are doomed to fail, right from the word go. That child might not be aware of it, but their parent certainly is, and I for one am so proud to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call David Seymour—five minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to proudly oppose this piece of legislation. I’d like to make a couple of comments about the debate that we’ve heard so far, beginning with Jo Luxton, the member who just resumed her seat, who says she’s proud to be part of a Government. Well, I hate to tell her that she’s a backbencher. She’s not part of the Government. The Government is the executive: the Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. She didn’t know about that, and she didn’t know anything about the policy she’s talking about, either. That’s the standard you get from the Labour backbench these days, and what a shame.

But I want to come back to Tracey Martin, who made a disgraceful speech. She said that Alwyn Poole had been in a discussion with the National Party about promises for the private school in my electorate that Alwyn and Karen Poole run. There was no such discussion, and it’s shameful that a member of Parliament would use the privilege of this House to defame an individual, especially one that happens to live in the Epsom electorate. Tracey Martin should apologise for that.

Tracey Martin said that Villa Education have been distributing glossy brochures about NCEA. If Tracey Martin knew anything about the subject, she would know that the Villa schools—Mt Hobson Middle School, Middle School West Auckland, and South Auckland Middle School—are year 7 to 10 schools. They don’t offer the NCEA and, strangely enough, they don’t have any glossy brochures about the NCEA.

This is the Tracey Martin who said that partnership schools treat children like dogs—what a disgrace. What a disgrace in this House, and Tracey Martin should be down here to make a personal statement and apologise. But I don’t think there’s a lot of time for that, because, just quietly between you and I, Mr Assistant Speaker, I’d hate to think what Winston Peters would say if he was caught on tape talking about Tracey Martin. The fact of the matter is that Tracey Martin didn’t come to Parliament because she got bored designing rockets at NASA—that’s the fact. She’s got the highest confidence to competence ratio of anyone I’ve ever met, and, by the way, she’s not even that confident. Anyhow, I needed to get that off my chest, because it’s disgraceful the way that Tracey Martin has used the House and abused parliamentary privilege to defame my constituents today.

But what was the problem that partnership schools kura hourua set out to solve? It’s this: it’s a great shame that we have increasing global convergence—that is, a billion people in Africa and Bangladesh and India are joining people in Asia and the former Soviet Union and joining the global economy, low-skilled people driving down the cost of low-skilled labour. That means in the 21st century, if you don’t have skills in a global economy, you’re toast. Added to that, New Zealand has the shame of having the third-greatest gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent of learning outcomes in the OECD. This is a time bomb. This is a problem.

We need to do better for disadvantaged New Zealanders. We need to do better for those New Zealanders who go to Te Kāpehu Whetū, a partnership school in Whangarei, who were explicitly told in mainstream schools that they wouldn’t succeed because they’re Māori. They have gone to a partnership school where they feel valued. They are students like Hope from the Vanguard Military School, who I spoke about in the first line of my maiden statement in this House, who said to me, “I never knew I was smart until I came here.”

Partnership schools were put in place to give opportunity to that, and they did, but what a contrast between that and this Government’s consultation. It is $1.5 million dollars of asking people what they think should happen in education. It’s working groups into the NCEA and into Tomorrow’s Schools—all the asking and navel gazing and pondering and consultation—and what of this legislation? They’re saying, “Oh, well, it’s our policy, so that’s OK.”

I want to finish by paying tribute to the sponsors of partnership schools: the Nick Hydes, the Raewyn Tīpenes, the Sita Selupes, the—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Alwyn Poole.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —Alwyn Pooles—thank you—all of the sponsors who stood up and took a risk to make this country a better place. I want to put on record how sad it is—Ronnie Rochel, she deserves a mention.

Hon Tim Macindoe: And Catherine Isaac deserves a mention as well.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely—from the Waikato. Absolutely, they deserve a mention. I want to put on record how sad it is that they have had their livelihood and their project kneecapped by a Government that’s done no consultation. All it has done is the bidding of its union volunteers and paymasters. They have put comfortable, mostly white, middle-class teachers in reasonably well-paying jobs ahead of some of the most disadvantaged brown kids in this country, and it is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Education Amendment Bill. I’d like to start by reminding Mr Willie Jackson of his comments and his words that he spoke prior to becoming a Labour Party member of Parliament. I’d like to remind him of his comments in regards to Chris Hipkins’ member’s bill to scrap partnership schools. He said that that bill would receive an E—that’s what he said it would receive. It would receive an E. But then he said that when you look at the success this alternative style education model has had for Māori, then it gets an A—it gets an A every day. Well, I’ve got something for Mr Willie Jackson. His speech and his actions are an F, because they are an absolute fail. He has failed the people that he says he represents. He has failed Māori, and he has failed himself because of his dramatic U-turn that he made here in the House this afternoon.

This bill that we’re debating here today does a number of things, but, first and foremost, it primarily removes the partnership model—it rips it away, and it takes this opportunity away from some of our most disadvantaged communities.

The Prime Minister said that she wouldn’t be closing down these schools unless—the three conditions would be that they receive the same amount of funding as State schools, they have registered teachers, and they follow the school curriculum. We had those partnerships schools before the Education and Workforce Committee, and they ticked all three of those boxes. They told us they received the same amount of money. They told us they had registered teachers. They told us they followed the school curriculum, when they submitted to the select committee.

But the real agenda that this Government has, and the agenda which they are not talking about here in the House, is that they want to ensure that the unions have the contractual ability to have collective agreements over the staff in these schools. They want to have the power over the staff in these schools. They want to have a one-size-fits-all model for all education. They don’t believe in different models of education. They don’t believe in the partnership school model. They don’t believe in giving flexibility in teaching resources and flexibility in the classroom so that these children can have the best opportunities to learn, and they don’t believe in supporting our most at-risk young people in this country.

I want to read out part of an email I received from a mother who sent two of her children to South Auckland Middle School. Her name is Shiri Te Whatu and she said, “It is hard to put into words how invaluable South Auckland Middle School has been, not only to my own children, but also my wider whānau that have attended. I attribute my oldest son’s success to the step up that SAMS gave him when current school systems were failing him. They were able to meet him at his level and empower him to exceed all our expectations. I have three older daughters in their early 20s. It was always disheartening to see so many students—literally hundreds—start on the first day of school in year nine and then just a handful of students complete their schooling to year 13. I believe that SAMS is an important and vital bridge to this obvious gap in our current education system. We know that this problem in our education is there, but not everyone is prepared to do what it takes to ensure that this cycle does not continue. Due to the confidence”—she finishes—“and good study habits that my son learnt at SAMS, he finished year 13 well, and is now enrolled with Air New Zealand and studying a career in aeronautical engineering.”

Those are the words of a family, a whānau, in South Auckland who—their young children were failing in the State school education system, but SAMS gave them the opportunity to break the cycle—to break the cycle—and for that young man to be able to succeed. And I’m proud of that young man. He’s working at Air New Zealand. He’s studying. He has a future—a bright future—and he’s working hard towards it. He has aspirations, and that was what the partnership school model allowed. It allowed the young people from the most disadvantaged communities in our country, from the electorates which are represented on that side of the House, to be able to receive an education, to be able to break those cycles, and to be able to achieve in life.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Achievement for our poorest kids went down.

SIMEON BROWN: We can hear members on the opposite side of this House complaining about our position and the opportunities that we sought, and we heard Chlöe Swarbrick talk about the hundreds of submissions which were received in support of her Supplementary Order Papers. Well, I challenge Chlöe Swarbrick to read the dozens of submissions from people in support of partnership schools. The majority of submitters on partnerships schools who submitted on that issue in this bill were in support. If the member is going to talk about the number of submissions on this bill, be consistent and support what the majority of submitters on partnership schools actually said when they came before the select committee and when they made their submissions on this bill.

Kelvin Davis said that he would resign if partnership schools were closed in his electorate. Well, will we see him resign this afternoon when this bill has been passed? I doubt it, because there is another man who has broken his promise to his electorate and broken the promises that he said.

The other point that I think has been made, but it needs to be made again, is that there is a Treaty of Waitangi claim being made at the moment. Urgency has been requested to that claim, but the Government continues to steamroll this legislation through Parliament and continues to push its agenda—continues to ignore what Māori and what the people who have benefited from these schools are saying. This is a Government which has said that they want to ensure—and we have again heard members opposite talk about how they want to bring the Treaty into our education system. Well, the first thing they’re doing here is ignoring the Treaty as they let this legislation go through while there is a Treaty of Waitangi claim going before the Waitangi Tribunal at the moment.

I’d like to touch quickly on a couple of other parts of this bill and some of the other aspects that it does. I’d like to touch on the elements that it covers in regard to the enforcement powers for the fees-free policy. I think it’s important to reflect on the fact that that policy was rushed through and this has taken the Government one whole year—one whole year—for them to get to the point where they actually take some enforcement against people who might be making a false declaration and receiving potentially thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money if they were to make a false declaration on whether they had received funding before.

So I’d just like to make the point that the fine which is in this bill is only $5,000. It is a very small fine, and we have put Supplementary Order Papers in to say that this fine should be increased, that this is about accountability for those who take public funds, that their statements that they make should be truthful, and we actually believe on this side of the House that it needs to be increased to ensure that it is a reasonable fine which actually reflects the seriousness of the taxpayers’ money which is being taken. This was a rushed policy, put through and now they’re finally putting in place legislation which allows for some accountability to be held.

Lastly, I would like to touch on the clauses in this bill which relate to the boards of governance, the councils, in our Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics, the polytechs, and our universities. We’ve heard arguments from the other side around how this is going to dramatically improve governance of our polytechs and our universities. The argument has been made that we need to have more elected representatives on those boards. Well, I have a point here: we differ on that issue. These are governance bodies and the people that should be appointed to these bodies should have the required set of governance skills which should be on those bodies.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about us, Simeon?

SIMEON BROWN: Chlöe Swarbrick says “What about Parliament?” Parliament is a representative body. We represent the people of New Zealand. These people are governing a specific body, given specific funds, and these require a specific set of skills on those bodies. We have put forward the case that those people who are elected, if they are to be elected, should also have those governance skills as a prerequisite to being able to stand in the elections, but that point was put down at the select committee when the argument was made.

So let me conclude. This bill is a dark day for New Zealand. It takes away opportunity for some of our most disadvantaged young people. National will oppose it and we will bring back partnership schools when we’re back in Government in 2020.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): This is a great day for education in New Zealand. As the final speaker on this bill, the Education Amendment Bill, I’d just like to quickly highlight a couple of key points and just pick up on a few points that we’ve heard from the other side of the House.

But, first, I’d like to start with the partnership schools. Now, we heard from the Hon Nikki Kaye, who said that if the National Party gets back into power—if they get back into power—they will restore and expand these schools. Well, I’m just sort of curious as to their commitment to these schools, because they were in Government for nine years—nine years. I wonder how many schools they brought in. I wonder how many partnership schools. You would have thought maybe what? Two-hundred? Maybe 250? No. A hundred? No, less than that. Fifty? Less than that. Twenty? Less than that. Eleven—11 partnership schools in nine years! Do they even believe in this policy themselves? I’m not sure they do.

The next point is around national standards. I’d like to highlight one of the key submissions around national standards which came from NZEI. This is what the submission said, “NZEI is pleased that there can now be a focus on teaching and learning not just assessment, and on the broad New Zealand curricula, including competencies, engagement, and language”. NZEI also on that point said, “How soul destroying for parents with kids with special needs to have them marked against the national standards when there was already so much for them to overcome”.

The problem with national standards, and we heard it from the Minister, was that they were neither national nor were they standard. They were not accurate. That’s the key point. They were not accurate. I remember speaking to principals who would fill in their national standards data. They would send it off to the ministry, and the information would be sent back saying “No, you haven’t moved the kids enough.”, and they would send it back; “No, you haven’t done it.” So they actually had to fudge the data in order to get it accepted. And those principals would get together and say “We don’t want to do this. We want to give an accurate record.”, but the system was actually forcing them to fudge the data. So they weren’t accurate anyway.

Brett Hudson: Forcing them to fudge the data. Why? Weren’t they into teaching?

JAMIE STRANGE: The members opposite ask about being into teaching. Teachers want to teach the curriculum, and the problem with national standards was that it was narrowing the curriculum so that they were teaching maths, English, and there wasn’t enough time in the day to be able to teach the other subjects. The key focus of this Government is to enable teachers to teach the broad aspects of our world-class curriculum.

I’ll pick up on one final point, and that’s around the fees-free. So this legislation here supports the introduction of free tertiary education by making it an offence to make a false representation about an application for free tertiary education. For me, personally, the thing I like about the fees-free the most is the apprenticeship aspect. So what the fees-free policy does is it allows people to have two years free if they’re undertaking an apprenticeship. We have a huge shortage of skilled tradespeople in this country and to incentivise apprenticeships like this I think is an excellent policy.

So this is a wonderful piece of legislation. It’s an exciting day for the New Zealand education system, and for me personally, one of the key reasons I stood for Parliament was around national standards. So it’s exciting to see this removed. It’s exciting to see a broad curriculum will once again be taught. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to start by thanking members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their work on this important piece of legislation. The committee’s recommendation is that the bill be passed with a small number of technical amendments. Completion of consideration by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is a further important step in our consultation with the public on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and on trade matters more generally.

The committee process follows on from numerous outreach meetings that it had up and down the country. I’ve been to many of them. Trade officials have been to a lot, lot more. They haven’t just been on CPTPP. We’ve been engaging on some related legislation which includes the ban on foreign buyers of existing homes, and, more recently, officials have been involved in the Trade for All outreach meetings as we endeavour to rebuild the social contract for trade.

This Government is committed to ensuring that trade delivers sustainable and inclusive economic growth for all New Zealanders, no matter who they are or where they are in the country. We’ve already shown that we’re open to finding better ways to do things, including through the changes that were made to the previous Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) under difficult circumstances in our first weeks in office. As a result of these changes, we were able to conclude the CPTPP. For me, the most significant change was finding a route through on controlling overseas foreign buyers of existing New Zealand homes. We support CPTPP. It will bring commercial, sustainable, and strategic benefits to New Zealand as the national interest analysis—which was released some weeks prior to signature—highlights.

On the commercial level, the CPTPP matters to New Zealand. I’ve made the point that trade agreements aren’t the be all and end all of economic and trade policy. There are other very important settings in the economy, like those affecting research and development, and tax policy that encourages investment in productive enterprises, rather than speculative investment. The productive investment, of course, helps grow new areas of comparative advantage. But I think everyone in New Zealand knows that we’re a small country that needs trade so that we can afford the things that we can’t produce efficiently—the cars, the computers, the mobile phones, and the medicines that we import, and that to pay for them we need to sell products and services that we produce competitively so that we can provide the means for all New Zealanders to enjoy a decent standard of living.

This is a very significant agreement. Of our exports, we expect a third of our goods and services—about $15 billion in goods and $6.8 billion in services—to go CPTPP partners. Economic modelling has shown, in the national interest analysis, that once this is fully into effect, the agreement is expected to increase real GDP by between $1.2 billion and $4 billion per annum. That’s additional sales every year, effectively, of exports to the rest of the world of those amounts. On the other hand, if CPTPP goes ahead without New Zealand, the modelling estimates that our GDP will decline—we’d go backwards—by a more modest $183 million, but, none the less, the relativity of those figures shows that there are clear economic benefits. Tariff reductions alone could deliver an estimated $222 million of savings annually—$95 million of this accrues as soon as the CPTPP comes into force. These are large numbers.

Early ratification also means an immediate levelling of the playing field for many New Zealand exporters in some crucial markets. I’ll give you some practical examples. For kiwifruit, New Zealand exporters incur a tariff of 6.4 percent in Japan. Chile, a key competitor in this high-value market pays a zero tariff because of its existing free trade agreement with Japan. On entry into force of the CPTPP, New Zealand will be on an equal footing with Chile, and this will represent tariff savings of more than $26 million to that industry. That will flow through to—amongst other things—higher wages in that sector and profits for the owners.

CPTPP will also immediately remove Australian beef exporters’ current tariff advantage over New Zealand in Japan. This has resulted in a very steep decline in New Zealand exports of beef to Japan. It’s one of, if not our premium value markets in the world, and there’s been a loss of $53 million to the industry per annum because of the disadvantage we currently suffer relative to Australia. On entry into force, we immediately gain duty free access to our fourth-largest wine market, Canada. Further, New Zealand wine has tariff reductions in Japan—where we currently pay 15 percent tariff, whereas Chile and Australia only pay 4.6 and 9.5 percent respectively. All of these things affect not just the amount that we sell things for but the volume of what we sell.

Importantly, it’s not just major exporters who will benefit. Many of New Zealand’s small and medium enterprises will benefit too. For example, the cost of the, quite low, 3 percent tariff to the buttercup squash producers—you might think, 3 percent, well, it’s not that much. Actually, it’s worth $50,000 each to the 30 or so producers of buttercup squash in New Zealand who sell to Japan. That’s quite a bit of money, and it will save around $19,500 in tariffs for each of the commercial growers of onions who sell into Japan. So these things make a real difference for real people.

While crucial market outcomes have been retained—and I thank the prior Minister, Todd McClay, for his negotiation of those—they are effectively a carryover from TPP that were kept alive by the prior Minister’s good efforts. What were suspended were various other provisions that were problematic for New Zealand. Of the five points that we took into the election that we wanted to see adequately dealt with, the first I’ll mention is the Treaty clause. We’ve got a fantastic Treaty clause in New Zealand. It’s been to the Waitangi Tribunal. They gave it a very good pass. They said, “Look, you could tweak it here, tweak it there, to make it even better.” But the advice that we accepted from officials was that, in practice, you can’t do that, because if you reopen it you’ll go backwards. Most other countries—in fact, no other country has a clause like that.

On Pharmac, the Pharmac model had already been protected by the prior Government. We wanted to avoid some of the increased costs, though, caused by longer patent terms for medicines—particularly, biological drugs—and to avoid some transparency costs. Those are fixed by CPTPP and don’t apply.

The right to regulate, whether it’s environment, public health, tax, education system, State-owned enterprises, or appropriate environmental or safety regulation—this is all protected. Whether it’s for plain packaging cigarettes or for climate change, we’re protected. In respect of land, as you know, we’ve protected the sovereign right of this Government and future Governments to protect New Zealand against—or to control—foreign buyers.

We think that we’ve protected the sovereignty risk. The one are we didn’t completely succeed in was investor-State dispute settlement clauses. We’ve narrowed them. We’ve got various side agreements with a number of countries that we won’t apply them bilaterally within the agreement as between those countries. So we got, effectively, letters covering 80 percent of current investment flows under CPTPP countries.

On sustainable development, it’s a fantastic agreement. It’s why it’s called “Comprehensive and Progressive”. We have the most comprehensive outcomes on sustainability of any trade agreement we’ve ever been able to get on both labour and environment. Vietnam is required to bring its labour standards up to international norms, albeit over a period of time, and it is enforceable through trade remedies after a period if they didn’t—they’re given time to adjust.

In respect of fisheries, New Zealand’s carried this torch for 20 years and we’ve never been able to get enforceable rules in our trade agreements where countries promise that they will not subsidise illegal or unreported fishing in other people’s waters, which is what happens around the world at the moment. We have trade disciplines around that, and the countries agreed not to do it.

Finally, we’ve got some various side agreements to pursue with our partners Canada and Chile—a progressive and inclusive trade agenda, including issues relating to gender, Māori, and small to medium enterprises.

Finally, I want to mention the strategic importance of CPTPP post the global financial crisis. There have been over 3,200 new trade restrictive measures introduced and only 850 dismantled. We’ve seen trade escalation in recent months—

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to speak in support of this agreement and in support of this bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister that has taken a seat, David Parker, for the work that he has led here and, too, who he actually called the Prime Minister. I think he was the then—he’s very flattered.

Hon David Parker: Prior Minister.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, prior—my hearing. On this side of the House we began to think it was the Prime Minister. It was quite the promotion. But, returning to seriousness, to acknowledge the Minister in his work and the prior Minister, Todd McClay.

I’ll leave it up to other colleagues to discuss how much this agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), has changed from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It hasn’t been substantial, but I will myself not get so much into that, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, instead, will focus on a little bit about the process.

First and foremost, it was a good engagement with the public. We had over 500 people who wrote in to us and around 30 who wished to be heard. The committee was very keen to progress that through, and I want to thank all those submitters for their time. Many were familiar to us—they had also engaged in our prior treaty analysis some weeks and months prior. I think it was quite good for the committee to hear once again their core concerns.

Can I thank too the committee—the members there, who worked through this. There were very robust discussions, as often—and always, actually—happens in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Brett Hudson: Can you detail the contributions of each member?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’m being asked if the contributions of each member are discussed here. No. You can come and join the committee sometime, Brett Hudson. But, actually the committee worked quite hard on this.

I think it’s quite important to note we have returned this bill to the House early but not in any rushed fashion. I have been asked questions of “Wasn’t this meant to be coming back some time in December?” That’s, strictly, when we could—or rather the amount of time that we did have, but the committee felt that we were able to deal with the discussions, engage the public appropriately, hear their views, and report back swiftly, first and foremost, because we didn’t need to prolong the process, and, secondly, I think, because most members of the House—and certainly on this side of the House—see the benefit of New Zealand depositing the CPTPP as soon as possible. Being one of the key countries, some of the key negotiators, being a great champion of this free-trade agreement, New Zealand wants to symbolically show that by being one of the early adopters. So, again, the committee has been happy to report back to the House.

Really importantly, it was a little bit like other treaties that we’ve had. What we were dealing with is a piece of legislation. It’s only a few pages—important as they are. But one of the elements we had to engage with was some submitters and the general public was the understanding that we were no longer really discussing the treaty as a whole. What we were discussing in the select committee was a very particular piece of legislation, which in effect takes this treaty, which sits within the realm of the executive to decide to sign or not. We were looking at a piece of legislation—which, effectively, takes an international treaty; in this case a trade treaty—and gives it domestic effect.

Why I mention that is a number of people were, understandably, coming to express once again their concerns, as they had done when we looked at the national interest analysis and looked at the treaty as a whole. We’ve attempted, in our select committee report, to reflect those arguments; though strictly speaking they didn’t actually relate to the bill. Again, the bill is quite a technical set of clauses to bring about, in New Zealand’s domestic legislation, the powers which are needed to bring that international treaty into effect.

So we tried to balance that. As the Minister noted, we made a few suggested minor changes there, and I think it’s in particular thanks to his and other officials who have helped guide us through that. It’s a good piece of legislation and I believe, overall, a very good trade agreement.

I would just finish by acknowledging one thing. There was and always has been a bit of debate in the trade space around—we heard gender was mentioned, indigenous rights, and so forth. There’s sort of a wider discussion going on in the committee at the moment as to what degree, if any, trade agreements should be used to further much, much wider causes. In other words, one side says, actually, a trade agreement is a great opportunity to talk gender and indigenous rights, to put forward climate targets, and so forth—it should be very, very broad and using trade as a lever. On the other side, there’s some debate that says, actually, keep the trade agreement a trade agreement, and one should not be using that economic leverage to push other philosophies and agendas. I’m obviously not going to answer that today. I’m only one member of the committee. But I just wanted to signal there’s a wider discussion. So I’m pleased, as the chair of the committee, to speak in the second reading, and we’ll leave the more political side to other colleagues in their contributions.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): It is a real pleasure to take a call on this bill. Labour Governments through the ages have supported trade agreements on the basis that they improve the wealth of a country. What we regard as incredibly important in the Labour Party, and I know across the coalition Government, is making sure that the benefits of trade are shared across the whole population, so that we have an inclusive economy that looks to support all of its members from the economic gains that come from trade. In fact, the first Labour Government, of course, fought for agricultural access into the UK, and Labour Governments since then have done that.

This Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is one that includes suspensions from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) text to ensure that New Zealand’s interests are better protected. I do want to acknowledge, at the outset, the trade Minister, David Parker, for his significant contribution, both in terms of intellectual leadership when in Opposition and fighting many of these battles about what could be improved in the TPP deal in order for it to be acceptable for this side of the House; and also in Government as he negotiated things like ensuring that we do have the right, as a sovereign Government, to ban non-resident buyers from our housing market—speculators from overseas wanting to push up house prices here. So I want to really acknowledge, in my short contribution, David Parker’s significant personal contribution to this piece of legislation.

I also want to acknowledge Simon O’Connor, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee chair, for the process that he ran in the select committee. I’m informed that it was both a very thorough process but also a prompt process that went the full course but came back to the House in time to ensure New Zealand would be one of the first six countries to ratify the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, meaning that New Zealand gains the benefits immediately—immediately the treaty comes into force. That will mean tariff reductions, for example, on kiwifruit, which will be eliminated straight away. It means also the elimination of New Zealand sheep meat tariffs, including locking in preferential rates to Canada, which is New Zealand’s seventh-largest sheep meat market. It also means that tariffs on forestry products will be eliminated over time. So there are a range of very valuable gains for New Zealand that will come into force, some of them immediately, because there was a very constructive process in bringing this back to the House. So I do acknowledge the select committee chair, Simon O’Connor, for his contribution to this.

I don’t wish to say much more, other than to reinforce that for us on this side of the House, it is very important that the benefits of trade are shared across the population, that all New Zealanders should gain from the benefits of trade from a wealthier economy. We will be making sure, as a Government, that we support low and modest income families, as well as those who trade directly and benefit directly from the trade access. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading debate on this piece of legislation, which is extremely important to every single New Zealander. The reason for that is quite simple: when it comes to trade, trade creates jobs, and jobs deliver for New Zealanders and for their families. We are a trading nation, and so the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—it’s quite a mouthful. It might even be the first time, Mr Parker, that I’ve said it in full there, the CPTPP, and it could well be the last. The point here, though, is that it is virtually identical to the original TPP.

Now, I think that what we should do in this House when it comes to trade is put the small part of politics aside so that what we can do is what’s right for New Zealand. There will always be an opportunity to say that deals can be better. Maybe there are parts of them that should change over time, but, ultimately, when it comes to the things that are important to New Zealanders—the last speaker said “Sharing in the benefits of trade.”—there isn’t any difference between this and the original TPP when it comes to sharing those benefits. When it comes to what most New Zealanders actually think of trade, which is the trade in goods and the trade in services, equally there is no difference. That’s why this is a good piece of legislation, a good bill, and a good trade deal: because the original TPP was also.

The last speaker, David Clark, who now looks after health for the Government but previously was a trade spokesman when he was in Opposition, mentioned a couple of areas that, actually, New Zealanders—exporters and producers—will benefit from straight away. He mentioned sheep meat and kiwifruit and forestry products. Equally, under the revised TPP, their treatment into these markets, the tariff rates that fall away, are identical to the original TPP deal. That’s what makes this a good deal, because the last one was good as well.

I just want to touch on forestry products for a moment and make a plea to the trade Minister, Mr Parker. It is good, when we think of the environment, that we now get to export forestry products and wood products—processed or otherwise—from New Zealand to these markets without any tariff restrictions on them. That’s a good thing for New Zealanders. It does mean that some of those barriers at the ports that hold back the adding of value to logs in New Zealand before they are exported are coming down.

Equally, there is a lot of work to do around non-tariff barriers. If we take the free-trade agreement with China—and the New Zealand wood export industry believes they don’t have a free-trade agreement with China—actually, in many cases, the products that could get to that market are not able to because of standards, because of non-tariff barriers. We need to continue to focus on those, but there is also a debate going on in the World Trade Organization (WTO) around the Environmental Goods Agreement. It’s imperative that when Mr Parker and our negotiators go back to the WTO and the debate around the Environmental Goods Agreement kicks in again, we insist that we get wood products as part of that agreement and that the tariffs fall away. The reason for that is we now have it under TPP, which is very important for our wood-processing industry—imperative for adding value in New Zealand—so that it’s not just logs going across the border.

But the Environmental Goods Agreement is much larger than just the TPP and, therefore, if we can deliver the same outcome in the Environmental Goods Agreement as was under the National Government and TPP, then actually the vast majority of the world, very large markets, including if the US is still there around the WTO, then the US market opens up to us, and that really will benefit so many parts of New Zealand and our wood processors. So, I encourage him to continue to fight that.

The one area in the original TPP where I think we would all have liked to have seen greater movement, particularly around tariffs, was around dairy. It wasn’t able to be delivered, but we took the position in Government that although it wasn’t perfect, it was better than not having the deal, given the significant size of the markets into these countries that we wanted New Zealanders to export into, and at the same time we would find other ways to come back and to improve dairy access. And I would again implore Mr Parker, as he hops on a plane next week—to head off, as good trade Ministers do, to go and talk to other countries about better access for Kiwis—and he’s on his way to Washington: actually, it’s a very short detour to go to Colombia to talk to them about the Pacific Alliance trade agreement.

The thing about the Pacific Alliance trade agreement is that it has four countries in it. Three of them we now have a trade deal with, which was the TPP and now the revised TPP. One of them we have a trade deal directly with, which is Chile. So, for those four counties under TPP, for two of them, it’s a first deal: Mexico and Peru. And the problem we have under TPP is our dairy access to Mexico—and some other product—is not perfect. It was held back because of resistance, primarily from the US, and the US has better access for dairy than New Zealand does. That needs to be fixed. Well, it hasn’t been fixed in the revised TPP because market access remained the same, but it was always going to be revised and made better in the Pacific Alliance. That’s why it’s concerning to hear Mr Parker say that some of these countries are not sure they want to do it now because they have the TPP. Well, that’s fine for them because there is no barrier around tariff for their goods to come to New Zealand for anything under TPP—over time or straight away—but for dairy into Mexico there is, and that was the reason for the Pacific Alliance deal.

The second part of the reason that the Pacific Alliance is important is that Colombia is not part of the revised TPP. It is not a large market for New Zealand, because they’ve gone through many years of guerrilla warfare and they’ve been closed off to much of the world. But we supported them and encouraged them, and they found peace last year. Last year, they agreed to take part in the Pacific Alliance trade negotiation that includes New Zealand. Their market is opening up to the world; their economy is growing quickly. It’s important we have a trade deal with them, because they were not able to come to the revised TPP. I think they want to, but Mr Parker needs to say to them on his way to Washington next week, if he’s able to stop off, that if they want to get access to these other countries that are in the revised TPP, they cannot without New Zealand’s agreement, because it takes a unanimous agreement of all of those countries, and they must remain committed to the Pacific Alliance trade negotiation. It’s the only way we’re going to get better access for dairy and other products in Mexico, it’s the only way we’re going to get a trade deal with Colombia quite quickly, and I would encourage him to do that. It’s very, very important.

It was disappointing that Columbia didn’t send negotiators to the formal trade negotiation of the Pacific Alliance trade deal in New Zealand last month, but it’s not too late. Mr Parker shouldn’t give up on the Pacific Alliance trade deal. He needs to go and see them and convince them. That’s what a hard-working trade Minister does.

The final thing I want to say is that, when it came to the TPP, we were the second country after Japan to ratify it. I remember the night it happened in this House, when everybody said it was over, it was a waste of time, that the National Government and I, as trade Minister, were wasting this Parliament’s time: the deal was dead. I want to congratulate the trade negotiators and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for not accepting what the Opposition at that time had said to them, for getting on planes and going over and persuading everywhere. Our current ambassador to the WTO, and our current lead negotiator, Vangelis Vitalis, got on planes day after day, night after night, and went around the remaining countries of the TPP without the US, and convinced them of the importance of this deal. If those trade negotiators had listened to the Labour Party and the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party and the Māori Party at that time, this deal would not be in front of us, it would not be done, and New Zealand would be poorer for it, both through access to these other countries and also New Zealanders whose jobs depend upon those exports.

We have some exceptional trade negotiators—the best in the world. When they turn up to these trade negotiations, they are the smallest groups there. They don’t have the hundreds of officials, but they punch above their weight. It’s them who deserve all of the credit for delivering the deal. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): Kia ora nō tatou. During the course of my speech I’m going to avoid tying my tongue with the acronym; I’m going to call it the Trans-Pacific Agreement, for fear of muddling not the vowels but the consonants.

First thing, one of the most challenging decisions that we had was to recover the territory so there was partisanship in our New Zealand political system. Now, I know that the former ambassador to Washington is the self-decreed trade expert of the world, and I know that our colleague from Rotorua, Todd McClay, was disappointed, but this is a vastly improved bill. I say that because there are very few other issues—[Interruption] Fortunately, this bill will lower the cost of bibs for young Bidois to wear, as he is the baby of this kōhanga reo backbencher society. A koe—me turituri ina tū tō rangatira a Shane Jones.

[And you—you should be quiet while your elder Shane Jones is standing to speak.]

So I would say that it was a difficult and challenging task to recover that territory, but it’s worth fighting for because it’s sovereignty. Now, where David Parker actually led us was to ensure that we had enough safeguards in the revised foreign direct investment rules, under the overseas investment legislation, so that when we sign up and we go forward as an open trading nation we’ve kept enough gunpowder of a legislative nature back home to protect the interests that define us as Kiwis. That’s worth fighting for. Now, I’m not quite in the space of Jane Kelsey and Annette Sykes and a host of other conspiracists, but they did make a good point. We should not ever have surrendered to a shadowy, vague, unelected group of self-appointed jurists to deal to our interests in a disputes resolution process in the way it was devised under the last Government. And that was a fair criticism, not necessarily because of the zest with which the Opposition pursued this but because they were unwilling to stand up to certain corporate interests. So, in that respect, we have done a great job by securing a stronger base for us as a bunch of parliamentarians and political parties to be better stewards of our sovereignty.

On the question of those other nations, I think there’s a fault line that’s emerged, and I read recently that the current President of the USA has pretty much said to Mexico and Canada that if they ever consider doing a trade deal with China, he will extinguish and cancel that trade deal that’s he’s just agreed to overnight. I presume he has similar views about the EU and Brexit, and I presume what that represents is a major challenge to what we’ve taken for granted as an open trading system—the orthodoxy of the last 30 years, and we’ve been key contributors. So whilst we are keen to defend our birthright, we have bigger battles ahead of us. The fact that we’ve hung tight, we’ve moderated, we’ve improved this legislation, and we’ve actually defended it from excesses that would have come our way in the future—now we need to continue the mission.

The one thing I do agree with Mr McClay about, not necessarily about Colombia or anything, is being a standout performer in not only joining other nations to the fray but leading the way with innovation—not only with political leadership; with executive leadership—and for those reasons we are thoroughly proud of our leader, Winston Peters, our Deputy Prime Minister, for boosting the pūtea of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is not inexpensive, and it is not glamorous going to all of these places, but unless we, a relatively small fish in the global sea of politics, are there—kanohi kitea—constantly affirming the importance of rules, constantly reminding our bigger players that there is greater wealth by working together whilst at the same time not selling ourselves out, we’re laying down a better platform for the next bunch of politicians that come and for the next generation of entrepreneurs.

Now, there is unfinished work in respect of refining the next stage of improvements for the China free-trade deal, and that’s in the capable hands of our colleague over here. But I would say to corporate New Zealand: we do a certain level of the heavy lifting, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not the “Ministry of Fonterra”. They too have to join the fray and constantly demonstrate to garden-variety Kiwis that the international set of rules that enables us to trade is for the benefit for all, not just the big end of town. And their unwillingness to join in that endeavour only worsens the prospects of the fault line leaving long-term damage. I’ve constantly said this, but the banks recently don’t like it. That bothers me not one iota; it only proves that I’m more provincially attuned than they are.

So we support the bill. We support the efforts of the Minister, and I do want to acknowledge Todd McClay. It just required a more mature trade Minister to refine and get it over the line, with the entirety of New Zealand behind it. Thank you very much.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and it is a pleasure to take a call on this, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. I’m going to refer to it as the “Trans-Pacific agreement” also. Can I acknowledge the Minister. I sat on the select committee with the Hon David Parker when we had the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in front of the committee and we received hundreds of submissions—

Hon David Parker: It was David Clark.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, was it David Clark, was it? I stand corrected.

Hon David Parker: It was Korea, you and me.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, it was Korea? I stand corrected. Well, that was another very good free-trade agreement that we now see delivering great results for our country, and it just highlights the importance, as a small but proud trading nation down the bottom of the world—that these quality free-trade agreements are actually critically important for us. They add a lot of value in terms of our companies and our businesses and our products that we want to trade around the world. In fact, if you look at it—I may stand corrected, but the last time I checked—for the countries that we do have free-trade agreements with, generally speaking, our trade increases by about 10 percent annually. For countries that we don’t have free-trade agreements with, actually that trend is reversed; it drops by about 10 percent annually. So it actually highlights and shows the importance of these very good free-trade agreements.

I have to say that if we go through the history of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it did fall over, and I remember very clearly going and attending a debate in Wellington with the Hon Grant Robertson in front of a business crowd and he made it very clear to me when we were talking about the TPP. At that stage, I said, “Look, I always see the world through a glass half full, and I believe that if we work hard enough and if we’re able to get our partners back engaged in it, then I believe”—and this is when America pulled out of the TPP—“it could be revived.” I thought that we could get it back on track again. The Hon Grant Robertson took a very, very different view. He said, “Forget about it and move on. You’ll never breathe life back into it. It’s failed. It’s been an abject failure. You guys have failed on it. Move on.”

So I was very pleased when actually our trade Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, who spoke earlier, supported obviously by the Prime Minister, went out there—and actually I wanted to acknowledge the Japanese Prime Minister and the Japanese Government because, really, what they did is they stepped up and they took a real lead on this in terms of being a critical player in revitalising the TPP and getting it back on track again.

Hon David Parker: They still are.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, and they still are. The Minister was just saying they still are. So I just want to acknowledge them. And while I’m making acknowledgments, the Hon Todd McClay did ask me—and I agree with him entirely—to acknowledge David Walker from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), because he was, I think, the original MFAT negotiator working on the country’s behalf with his team, and I just want to say that this team was world class and they definitely did an outstanding negotiation for us, and so I want to acknowledge him and the team that worked on this. And I want to acknowledge the team that have carried that great work on, serving the current Minister and making sure we get this agreement across the line. It is critically important for the country.

I have to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones and the fact that he made reference to Professor Jane Kelsey, because Professor Jane Kelsey engaged with the committee in a very respectful way. I actually arranged some additional meetings—some private meetings—with her with the committee so that she could advance the issues and we could look at the issues that she’d raised. She was clearly against the TPP. She has her own very firm ideas and positions around what trade agreements should look like for this country, and it was very clear that she was against the TPP in that form.

I remember when we had select committee submissions and she came along. She would get a very warm welcome from the Opposition members—the Labour members and the Green members. They’d welcome her, they’d make sure that the chair was pulled out, and she’d get a cup of tea and maybe, if she was lucky, a cucumber sandwich as well. Then, it was very interesting when the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was brought to this House, and Jane Kelsey was able to have a look at the text and to have a look at the agreement. What did she do? She came out in strong opposition to the CPTPP. She thought it was still a very poor agreement, and so what did the Labour Party do? They shunned her. They wanted nothing to do with her—no more cups of tea, no more cucumber sandwiches, and no more having the chair pulled out.

So I just find it quite ironic, actually, that the Hon Shane Jones raised Professor Jane Kelsey and said that she was opposed to the TPP. She remains opposed to the CPTPP.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, but not as much.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, just as much, Willie. Don’t you worry about that. So, finally—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I just remind you to—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry—the Hon Willie Jackson.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, her level of opposition remains exactly the same as it was with the TPP.

Look, finally, I’d just like to say that we do support this free-trade agreement. They are very important to New Zealand. We need to maintain a robust programme in terms of continuing to develop free-trade agreements all around the world to make sure that we continue to offer our country the ability to sell our wonderful goods. Thank you very much.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise to speak in opposition to this bill again, as a lone voice representing the Green Party in this House. We remain opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA), and to any Act of this Parliament that would enable the implementation of that agreement, or those agreements that do seem to overlap eerily.

Kieran McAnulty: They’re different.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Not according to Professor Kelsey.

We do support trade. New Zealand needs trade. We’re a small country and we need trade, but not much of the 6,000 pages of this particular deal seem to relate to actual trade. They do, however, lay out in minute detail the privileges of foreign multinational corporations that we’re giving up over the rights and interests of New Zealanders, of ordinary people, and of our environment.

We agree with the two-thirds—two-thirds; yeah, it was actually as high as that—of submitters who oppose this bill and who know the chilling effect that that agreement and, through it, this bill will have on New Zealand’s democracy. Most submitters—the overwhelming majority—raised concern with the remainder of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in this bill through the trade agreement. That is to say that this House of Representatives, this elected body, this supreme Parliament, is about to pass into law an Act that allows a mechanism to sit above New Zealand’s law, above this House of Representatives, and above our courts in giving privileges to foreign multinational corporations, saying that this Parliament will take account of their profit margins alongside the interests of Kiwis, our workers’ rights, environmental protection, and our commitment to the founding constitutional document of this nation, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We say that no lawmaker, no policy maker, should be taking account of the profit margins of any private body, let alone foreign multinationals, but that’s what we’re being asked to sign up to through this bill. That’s what the submitters knew and they begged us not to do it, as they begged us not to sign on to this agreement, and as they begged us not to sign on to the TPPA, and it does remain largely unchanged. It represents an archaic form of trade, and we’ve seen that model collapse. We’ve seen the suffering that was caused by the latest global financial crisis, and we’re signing on to the same model. That’s not what New Zealanders voted for this election.

To focus back on the bill, what we’ve found most alarming in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—and there were questions from both sides. There were questions from the Hon Todd McClay, and he made this clear, and the officials, in answering him, made it clear that what we’re signing on to here with this bill means that the old TPPA can be reactivated through the joining of, say, the United States without further parliamentary oversight, without a select committee process, and without public input. This deal was sold to New Zealand through promises that it was changed, but we’ve found out since then that even the old TPPA can come into law without further scrutiny.

Now, some of the changes that were made are real—between the TPPA and the CPTPPA—and they came in the form of suspended provisions. Some of those were, for example, the provision that now protects Pharmac in this deal so that Pharmac can independently protect the price and quality of medicine for New Zealanders. That was one. There are provisions that protect our patent and copyright law so that New Zealanders can compete on an even playing field against these large, established multinationals. These are good things. But we also learnt through the process and the officials told us that there is nothing in this bill that says that were a new member State to join, whether it’s the US or any member State, those provisions could be lifted—those suspensions could go—without parliamentary oversight. So we are signing away our ability to oversee these changes—the very changes that the coalition parties relied upon to sell this deal as a changed, new, progressive deal. All of that could go and there’ll be no parliamentary oversight, no democratic process. That is chilling.

So the Green Party doesn’t support the bill; we support democracy for New Zealanders. And we do support It’s Our Future’s call for, essentially, changes to the bill that say that no further ISDS can be added to this agreement without Parliament coming back and having a look at it. That’s a big change but it’s also still limited. But if we could at least say that if new member States are going to join and they will be signing on to a deal with ISDS in it with that mechanism sitting above our law, at least Parliament should have a say. We should at least get to look at it again, and that’s how the bill could introduce some meaningful protection.

But what’s more, we are saying that trade should change, that trade deals—international agreements—should always come to Parliament, that those deals shouldn’t be allowed to be made with complete lack of transparency in those dark corners of the international financial markets where corporate lawyers agree to the text and it’s years before the public are allowed to look at it. It’s as a result of leaks that experts like Professor Jane Kelsey get to look at those deals and tell us what’s in them and tell us what’s been signed away. We say that it should be Parliament who decides what we sign on to in such a critical area.

Trade, and a trade agreement particularly like this one, affects everything in our lives. If our health and our environment are on the line—and we heard from so many sectors about the way they would be limited. The most chilling was hearing from the doctors. They asked what would happen if they want to introduce warnings on alcohol packaging to warn mothers against foetal alcohol syndrome. That’s a problem in New Zealand. What happens if we want to introduce a sugar tax to protect the public against toxic junk food that’s clogging up our health system and our standard of living?

Mostly, as a Green, I want it noted that around the world where ISDS clauses identical to this have been used, they have been used to stop environmental protection from being implemented. This bill could affect our ability, for example, to reform our mining sector and say that exploration permits won’t automatically turn into mining permits. Those are the types of progressive changes that we promised New Zealand this election and they could be at risk.

So we won’t support this bill because we support a truly progressive, transformative Government and change for New Zealand. We say that we owe it to the global order and we owe it to New Zealanders that we do trade differently from now on and we say that the vast majority against and the incredible, overwhelming opposition to this trade agreement and to this bill should mean that the Government rethinks ratifying the agreement through the bill. We say that’s the only way to honour democracy in New Zealand. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’d like to start with a number of positives because this is actually a very good moment for the House. I’ll surprise Golriz Ghahraman, the Green member who’s just resumed her seat, by praising her in the first instance, because while I disagree with her position, as do members of all the other parties in the House, I do respect the fact that it’s important to have a voice in the House for those who are opposed to this agreement. I want to both acknowledge the very courteous way in which she engaged with all members of the committee and those who made submissions and acknowledge the fact that today, she is being the voice for those who are opposed to the agreement. So in a healthy democracy that’s a good thing, and I acknowledge her for that. I also want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker and his predecessors the Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Tim Groser, because each of those three Ministers has made a very substantial contribution to this very significant development in our trading relationships, which is going to have an immensely positive benefit for our economy and for jobs in our primary production and export markets.

But I dare say that members of the public who may be watching this debate today will be having a degree of puzzlement about the fact that we are even doing this because they’ll feel that this is an argument that has been held now over a very long period of time, and they’re correct. I dare say that they’ll be experiencing a degree of déjà vu, perhaps wondering why do we need to do all of this when they have such vivid memories of all the argy-bargy and the protests that accompanied the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) debates, and we can all remember those. I certainly remember those who were camped out—well, not camped outside my office, but who protested outside my electorate office in Hamilton, and who scribbled on the cobblestones and did all sorts of things.

The passage of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—which is an agreement simply reincarnated in this new agreement—was something that was contentious and, not least, was opposed by members opposite who are now so quick to embrace it, and yet, essentially, what we are talking about is an agreement that has two rather fancy words added: “comprehensive” and “progressive”. They sound good, but they are actually fairly meaningless. I doubt whether anybody could tell us why adding “Comprehensive and Progressive” is substantially changing an agreement that is in all other respects, apart from some very minor changes, the same. Why those two words should make such a difference is beyond me, and so I commend the Hon Shane Jones for ditching them when he stood up and said, “Well, I’m just going to call it for what it is: the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.”

Hon Member: Did he say that?

Darroch Ball: He didn’t say that.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: He did. That’s exactly what he said. But it was his colleagues in New Zealand First and Labour who huffed and puffed for a very long time when they were in Opposition. They expressed outrage about the enormous damage that the TPPA would do to our country, and yet now, because they’re in Government, it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as trade arrangements are concerned.

Kieran McAnulty: Now, it’s great.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, the member opposite is interjecting, but it’s worthwhile—he wasn’t on the select committee; I was—pointing out that those who came to submit to our committee on this bill essentially said “It’s the same thing.”, and particularly those who opposed it could see no significant difference at all. They put in their submissions opposing the original TPPA with great feeling and conviction, and came along and argued their point and had some support from those parties who are now in Government. Now, those parties who are now in Government have turned their backs on these same submitters, who are feeling quite dispirited and defeated by the fact that they actually feel really badly let down by those who claimed to express the views that they felt were so important.

Of course, the real substantive difference between the TPPA and the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is the absence of the United States, but I very much doubt that anybody in either the Labour Party or the New Zealand First Party is claiming any credit for the election of President Donald Trump and the fact that one of the first things he did on taking office was to sign his notice taking the USA out. Who are the countries who are left? Well, it is important. They’re very substantial economies in some respects. Others are small, like New Zealand. They include New Zealand, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. When—

Dan Bidois: Some good countries there.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: There are some very good countries, you are quite right, Mr Bidois—particularly Japan. It is particularly significant that Japan is in there, because that’s been a market New Zealand has wanted to be able to deal with—a hugely significant economy—and it’s been fiendishly difficult to have a trading relationship with Japan up until now that would maximise the benefits. Here, this agreement does that.

Kieran McAnulty: Yep, we got that.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: So that is, as Mr McAnulty is acknowledging—and I’m happy to agree with him. This makes a real difference.

But I remember that I was driving to Auckland—it must have been the morning of 8 March, or the next day—just after Mr Parker and other trade Ministers had signed the agreement in Chile, and I remember listening to Radio New Zealand interviewing the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because the Minister for Trade and Export Growth was, obviously, away in Chile. So the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a certain Mr Peters, was invited on to the programme. Even by his particularly cantankerous standards that he tends to adopt when he’s asked to be awake in the morning, he was extraordinarily aggressive, and the Radio New Zealand interviewer became more and more incredulous at the fact that Mr Peters was, effectively, arguing black was white. Everything that he had previously stood by he was now completely denying had ever been his view. He was trying to argue substantive differences. Nobody was taking it seriously—in particular, not the Radio New Zealand interviewer—and it was probably one of the least edifying experiences that anybody in broadcasting or those who listen to Radio New Zealand has had to endure for some time.

When we were in the select committee, we heard that there is a very good reason for New Zealand being among the first countries to ratify the domestic requirements for implementation of this agreement—and, of course, by doing what we’re doing now, we should be on target to ratify the agreement by the end of this year, and I am very pleased to be able to contribute to that process. I’ve mentioned that many of those who came along to submit expressed their considerable disappointment, but there were some very substantial submissions from leading export groups that represent our exporters who were, naturally, very strongly in favour and delighted to see that what they thought had come to an end was back on the table again.

We heard oral evidence from 33 submitters at our hearings in Wellington, out of the 577 written submissions that were received. I wasn’t on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the previous Parliament when all of the consideration of the original TPPA was going through, but I hazard a guess that probably the submissions would have been at least 20 times that number, and probably took 20 times as long. I certainly remember that the committee had very long days and nights of meetings, including a lot of meetings outside of Wellington, so it was an extraordinary sort of experience to see how quietly this was all being dealt with. But, as I say, it was because those who were opposed to the agreement felt really badly let down by Labour and New Zealand First members, who had completely changed their minds on something for reasons that, really, no one who had made a submission against the bill accepted made a substantial difference at all.

So let me just conclude by noting, for people who might be listening, what is so important about this particular agreement. The economies included in the CPTPP account for 13.5 percent of the world’s GDP. It’s worth a total of US$10 trillion. Those 10 economies are the destination for 30 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports, worth NZ$15 billion, and 31 percent of our services exports, worth NZ$6.8 billion annually. So this is very, very significant.

As I’ve mentioned, it includes four of our top 10 trading partners: Australia, Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia. It also includes four countries with which we haven’t previously had a free-trade agreement: Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. We currently export over $5.5 billion of goods and services to those four countries, but imagine where things are going to head now. This is unlocking tremendous potential and opportunity. This will be not only great for our economy but it will create jobs in the export sector. It is a very good thing that it’s happening. I’m so pleased that those parties have had a change of mind, and I strongly support this bill and this agreement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): In his comments earlier on in the debate, the Hon Todd McClay said that we should take the politics out of the conversation around trade, and in the brief contribution that I make today I want to refute that motion. I want to refute it very strongly, because it is my view that those of us in this House, in the political system, who want to strengthen trading relationships, who for the most part believe in free and open trade, are making a very, very bad mistake if we believe that ignoring legitimate community concerns about the world trading system, the distribution of wealth that it feeds into one way or another, and other such factors—if we ignore those concerns, all we will do is drive the rage machine and undermine the agenda for trade.

I think what is the responsibility of members in this House is to actually engage with the community through our political system. Our political system is about mediating community concerns and feeding them into our decision making. For those of us who believe in free and open trade and the benefits that it brings, benefits which are brought through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), we will actually be doing that cause a disservice if we pretend that it is not political—if we just put in a box and say, “It’s a little technocratic project that is run by people in the political world and our diplomats, and don’t you people worry about it. We’ll take care of it. It’s not political. It doesn’t involve you.” That is what has, in fact, driven the opposition and the concern about trade and about the previous Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA), not just here in New Zealand, but around the world.

So I’m actually very proud of the position that the Labour Party has taken across the course of this issue, because before the TPPA was initially negotiated, every other party in this House had a position for or agin. The Labour Party was the only party which said, “We will judge the outcome of those negotiations on the basis of a series of tests based on our values—based around issues such as the Treaty, the right to regulate for health and education, the right to control our own land, the issue of investor-State dispute settlement, and the position of Pharmac.” We made our position based on whether the original agreement met those tests, and it didn’t meet enough of them. That was the position we took.

I’m then exceptionally proud that upon taking Government, the Hon David Parker and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern went to bat for this country—went in, worked with partners in the agreement, and managed to bridge the gaps in most of those areas. So, for example, we ensured that we have the right to control the sale of land—an issue that is incredibly important to New Zealanders. That is engaging in the democratic, the political process. That is about taking care of community concerns. And we can do that at the same time as negotiating a high-quality agreement such as this one that brings huge economic benefits to our country.

So that really is my message. If we want to rebuild the consensus around trade, which has broken down through the course of the TPPA process, we don’t do that by ignoring politics. We do it by engaging with our community and engaging in politics, listening to the concerns, and rebuilding the consensus. This is a good bill because this Government, the Labour Party, has done that, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Assistant Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a brief call on what is a very important bill for New Zealand. There aren’t really many bills that you can say have this much potential to make a difference to New Zealand’s economy, both now and in the future. So it’s a pleasure to take a call to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill.

I want to pick up on something from a contribution from the Green Party before. It was Golriz Ghahraman who mentioned that this is an archaic law—

Simeon Brown: It’s not even passed yet.

DAN BIDOIS: Exactly—it hasn’t even been passed. She should’ve said it’s an archaic bill. But I want to rebut that a bit, because I think that this bill is, in fact, very progressive. It’s modern, and it is, really, the gold standard of new trade agreements going forward. I want to just spend a bit of time outlining how this trade agreement is, in fact, different from all the other trade agreements that New Zealand has signed and why this is unique.

The first is that it sets standards for trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The second is that it lowers barriers for services sectors across the region, and that includes people that want to move around and work, and it will give New Zealanders an opportunity to participate in a much larger global market. It creates a governance structure that will monitor and regulate trade across the region. It also creates channels for public-private collaboration on various trade issues. It’s a catalyst for wider economic regional integration and political cooperation. That, in fact, is how this trade agreement differs from others that we have signed.

The benefits of this trade agreement are very clear. It’s going to promote a level playing field for all of our exporters, provide greater opportunities for our businesses and also our workers, and reduce the costs for exporters, and it also provides cheaper imports for New Zealand consumers. My colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe outlined some of the economic benefits of this trade agreement: 480 million people in the area of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership with a combined GDP of well over $14 trillion, and the projections for how much economic value this trade agreement will add to New Zealand by 2040 is anywhere from $1.2 billion to $4 billion per annum, depending on the various scenarios that have been modelled. In terms of exporters, this trade agreement will provide up to $2.6 billion in economic impact in our export sector by 2040. That’s going to make a real difference to our economy and provide opportunities, advance incomes, and make us all a wealthier more prosperous country in the future.

The National Party has a far longer history of supporting free trade than other parties in this House today. We believe in a country that is open to the world, where our businesses are global and think globally, and where we have opportunities for all of our people in a global country, but I do agree with the previous contribution by Michael Wood that we must continue to ensure that we get economic value out of our existing trade agreements and that it’s not, in fact, enough that we sign an agreement and, there we go, that’s it. We must do much more to make sure that the economic value is in fact realised, and therefore this side of the House will be making sure that the Government will be in fact delivering and engaging with the public of New Zealand, whether it be businesses and private citizens, to ensure that the economic benefits are in fact delivered from this agreement.

Just to outline my final contribution there: a special thanks to all of the people and parties who have been part of this process. It’s been many years in the making, and I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. This bill is not about whether we trade or not. I was going to do the “To trade or not to trade; that was not the question.”, which is a truism. The bill, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill, was actually about ratifying the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to ensure that we had six countries that were fit for purpose, really. It was incumbent on us to join Mexico, Japan, and Singapore, who have ratified, and with Australia, Canada, Chile, Peru, and Vietnam—we’re all in the process of ratifying.

I want to acknowledge, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, that we had 577 submissions. We heard from 33 submitters. I too want to acknowledge the amazing advice that we always receive from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and just highlight that there were actually two proposed areas of amendments that we made as a select committee to fully meet our obligations. The first was in the Copyright Act, and that was to ensure that we implemented two international treaties from the World Intellectual Property Organization related to Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Also, there was an amendment in the Overseas Investment Act to remove references to significant business assets.

But what I really want to focus on for a minute or two is the 22 suspensions and how relevant they are. Everyone has been saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the CPTPP are the same. Well, they’re not, and I’ll tell you why they’re not. There are 22 suspensions, and of those 22 suspensions, seven of them require legislative change. Seven of them also require Parliament’s examination, and what are they? So, in terms of legislation, copyright term extension: this suspension means “New Zealand will not be required to extend the term of protection for copyright from 50 years to 70”. It requires legislative change. A Parliament examination—an example: “Pharmac administrative changes: This suspension means Pharmac is no longer required to make certain administrative changes concerning the listing of new pharmaceutical products or medical devices for reimbursement purposes.” It requires Parliamentary examination.

Actually, there’s another one under a Standing Order that would require it to come back to Parliament to have the scrutiny of the House, and that’s the delay of Government procurement negotiations: “Any negotiation to expand coverage of the Government procurement chapter will be delayed until at least five years after the date of entry into force of the agreement.” So to say the TPP and the CPTPP are the same is incorrect. It’s incorrect based on us having to bring this back to the House.

The other thing I just finally want to highlight is that there are eight suspensions that do not require to be brought back to the House, because, actually, we really have the legislation, and they do not change our obligations. I’ll give one example, such as the commitment to the start date adjusted for Malaysia. So that suspension affects the obligations of Malaysia, not New Zealand. Kia ora. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the chance to speak on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. I’ll follow the convention of others who have spoken before me and adopt a shorthand version of that.

I was part of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which considered the bill, as well as the select committee that considered a number of submissions in relation to the agreement itself. In the second phase, we considered submissions that were made in relation to the legislation that would ratify the agreement, and so I’d like to focus on some of those contributions. Previous speakers, including the one who’s just resumed her seat, Louisa Wall, have mentioned changes that we did recommend. I’d actually like to focus on some changes that as a committee, the majority thereof, we did not recommend but that I think none the less deserve the credit for being intelligently proposed and made in good faith.

I think it is important that we do have a political approach, as the member Michael Wood encourages, notwithstanding that politics as opposed to politicking might be different things. I don’t wish to get into that, except to say that I do believe in an adversarial system of lawmaking, such that if we thrash out all the ideas in a way that’s passionate but none the less reasonable, then we have the best possible chance of arriving at the least dangerous laws for our land.

So I’d actually like to focus, as I say, on a change that was proposed to the select committee, albeit not recommended by it. That was by the NGO named It’s Our Future. It was supported by the Green Party in its minority view, and I think it’s worth setting out the reasoning and, indeed, the proposed amendment itself. Essentially, it’s to limit the expansion of the agreement, such that other countries, nation State parties, will not be able to join the agreement, except for a couple of conditions applying. The first of those would be that New Zealand would negotiate and sign a binding instrument with that new country proposing to join, in which such an instrument—as opposed to the agreement proper—would waive the right for investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The second criterion was in relation to full parliamentary examination, as though the whole treaty and ratification process were to begin anew. I think those have a certain logic that is very reasonable from a certain constitutional perspective—namely, that Parliament should have oversight of all treaty-making. That’s certainly not the traditional case in a Westminster system, whereby it’s the executive that has the power to execute foreign policy, originally derived from the monarch. So, essentially, what is being proposed here, while it would be in favour, I suppose, of greater consultation, would actually represent a considerable constitutional change, and one that I think is more appropriate for a broader conversation about the way in which laws are made internally in this country, and with respect to international obligations. For example, if the laws that we make locally to ratify other agreements—for example, the Paris climate accord—needed to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny every time another State signed up to that or, perhaps, withdrew from that, then that would be something that, I suspect, those who are proposing this kind of change now for this agreement, with which they do not agree, would find, perhaps, unpalatable. So a consistent approach across that constitutional proposal, I think, would actually be very helpful to bear in mind.

So the rules of the game are known, as they currently stand. So, actually, what Parliament is doing now is considering a bill that will ratify a particular agreement that is known, with a particular set of parties that are known, and also other parties that may wish to join on the terms currently agreed in that agreement. On that basis, my party is very happy to maintain our original position in favour of an agreement that we think will do very good things for our country—and other countries too, incidentally—in respect of boosting trade, and do that in a responsible and safe way. Other parties have apparently changed their position on that somewhat, but I do note the principled consistency of the Greens, at least in that regard, to recognise that the things that they found objectionable before, they still find objectionable now.

So I’ll bring my contribution to a close now with that final plea. Just to encourage those who would suggest changes to the way that we make our laws in this country—that if it is good enough for this particular agreement with which they’re not enamoured, then that should be the case for others as well. That would be a broader debate that, as something of a constitutional geek, I would welcome very much indeed.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a very brief call on this, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. Really, the point that I wanted to make—having sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that considered this bill and listened to submitters, as well—is that so much about politics and, indeed, trade is about choices and about cost-benefit analysis.

So I challenge what the member Mr Tim Macindoe said when he made the claim that not a lot had changed with this bill in its current iteration, which is the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), because, actually, it has. Previously, in its previous shape and form, the costs to New Zealanders outweighed the benefits, and that’s why this Government went in to bat for New Zealanders. So the five bottom lines that Labour had campaigned on—the five bottom lines that we said this bill must meet so that we feel that it is then in the best interests of New Zealanders—we went in to bat for those. And we met pretty much all of them, in terms of increasing tariff reductions and increasing market access; ensuring that Pharmac is protected; ensuring that we have the ability to restrict foreigners from buying existing homes, which we have done; and upholding the Treaty of Waitangi, which is a clause that, internationally, has been recognised as being almost unheard of, in terms of regulating for the benefits of an indigenous population.

The investor-State dispute settlement clauses are ones that the Minister has himself said, look, we would have liked to have done better, but we do have side letters that mean that 80 percent of trade that goes through the CPTPP won’t be subjected to that.

The point that I want to make, really, is that we’ve gone in and we’ve batted for New Zealanders and ensured that the benefits now outweigh the costs. Therefore, this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 111

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 7

Green Party 7.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 7

Green Party 7.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members, when we were last debating this bill, Kunwaljit Singh Bakshi had six minutes and 45 seconds remaining to speak should he so wish to do so. I understand this is a five minute call, I call Raymond Huo.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I do want to acknowledge Mr Bakshi—thanks for his contributions—and I also want to acknowledge the contributions by the Hon Mark Mitchell, who also asked some questions last night. It’s rather easy to answer his questions, because the role for the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission is to review convictions and sentences and determine whether they should refer the cases back to the appeal courts. It’s not the role of the commission to determine whether it is guilt or innocence. For the rest of the questions he asked, I think they can be easily dealt with at the select committee level.

Having said that, I really want to put the bill into the real context to appreciate the principles and rationale behind the bill. We are all aware of the Teina Pora case, where he spent 20 years in jail before his convictions for rape and murder were quashed. I can quote from the media such names as David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas, etc. They all had spent years in prison fighting convictions that were eventually quashed. There are others who are currently in jail and should not be there.

The bill establishes the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.