Thursday, 25 October 2018
Volume 734
Sitting date: 25 October 2018
THURSDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2018
THURSDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, and the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill. As notified to the Business Committee, there will be an extended sitting on Thursday morning. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder if the Leader of the House can tell us if it’s the Government’s intention to advance with some urgency legislation to give effect to the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday with regards to regional fuel tax no longer being Government policy.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): First of all, that wasn’t the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday, and also there is no need for legislation to give effect to the Prime Minister’s commitments yesterday.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions
Question No. 5 to Minister, 24 October
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave yesterday.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] Order! There is no objection.
Hon SHANE JONES: Yesterday, uncharacteristically, I erred. When answering a question on behalf of Minister Phil Twyford, I was asked when I became—and I was speaking as if I was him—aware of the Prime Minister’s clarification that there would be no additional regional fuel taxes while she was Prime Minister. As I was speaking on behalf of the Minister, and not myself, the correct answer should have been that I, speaking as the Minister, was aware of this clarification yesterday morning. It was a matter of mixed personalities.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A personal explanation is, generally, to clarify a situation. What’s still not clear here is the time line. Now, is Mr Jones going to elaborate a little more on that—
SPEAKER: No. No, he’s not. I think he made it clear. Yesterday, he said, “When the Prime Minister said it in here.” Now, he has said, “It was in the morning”.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: He said “yesterday”, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Yesterday morning. In fact, let’s get that absolutely clear now: when he was saying “yesterday”, did he mean yesterday, or yesterday from yesterday?
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport): For absolute lucidity, I am referring to yesterday, today being Thursday, and the period of time I am referring to is at some point during the course of yesterday’s morning.
SPEAKER: Thank you. Is that clear now?
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What investments has the Government made to support low and middle income New Zealanders to meet the cost of living?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s investments were, in part, in response to what the Salvation Army pointed out in its State of the Nation Report in 2017, where it said, “it is clear that the benefits of … recent … economic growth have not been shared across the board, or trickled down, as the theory would have it.” The Government agreed with this, and that is why we made significant investments through our 100-day plan and Budget 2018 to support those who have struggled the most with the cost of living. Our $5.5 billion Families Package is lifting the incomes of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families and helping tens of thousands of children out of poverty. We have received many positive comments about this, including one from a budgeting agency who described the winter energy payment, part of that Families Package, as a “godsend” for their low-income clients. Along with our investments in housing, health, and education, I am extremely proud that this Government is focused on helping those who need it the most.
Willow-Jean Prime: How will the Government’s overall economic strategy help low and middle income New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Under our economic strategy, we’ll ensure that all New Zealanders get a fair share of the country’s economic growth. The previous drivers of growth, such as housing speculation and population growth, have actually resulted in pressure on infrastructure and public services. Our plan is for an economy powered by innovation rather than speculation, and one that meets the needs of the present without compromising our ability to do so in the future. Our economic strategy will see an economy that is more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive, and where growth will improve the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders.
Willow-Jean Prime: What alternative strategies has he seen for assisting low and middle income New Zealanders?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On coming into office as Minister, I inherited the settings for a very different strategy that would have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest New Zealanders, giving the top 10 percent of earners—those who need it the least—collectively, a benefit of $440 million. We decided that this was not focused on low and middle income families, so we reversed those changes, and now 384,000 low and middle income families will be better off by an average of $75 a week by the time this is rolled out. On this side of the House, helping low and middle income families by providing targeted relief, lifting wages, and shifting the economy to one in which they can all share in the benefits of growth is a project, one year on, that we are very proud to have started.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all the Government’s actions and statements in relation to the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.
Hon Amy Adams: Did the Prime Minister discuss with him her concerns about the extension of regional fuel taxes to other regions prior to her announcement in the House yesterday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister and other Ministers have discussed often over this year the question of the way in which we fund transport infrastructure around New Zealand. I’ve enjoyed being part of those discussions and, indeed, have spoken about them in public previously.
Hon Amy Adams: So what were the concerns the Prime Minister discussed with him about the extension of regional fuel taxes prior to yesterday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we’ve discussed is that there are many ways of funding transport infrastructure. In Auckland, the Auckland Council proposed, and the Government agreed to, a regional fuel tax. I can give the member an example of when I was in Hamilton in February and I was asked about this, and I made it quite clear that a fuel tax for Hamilton was not on the agenda.
Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully, and I had asked for some indication of what the concern was about it being used in other regions. The Minister talked about transport funding and having ruled it out for Hamilton. I didn’t hear anything where he attempted to address the reason they had concerns about extending it to other regions.
SPEAKER: Well, I thought the Minister said that there are alternative ways of funding it.
Hon Amy Adams: Did the Prime Minister express those concerns to the Minister prior to the legislation being passed which legislated for exactly the situation the Prime Minister ruled out yesterday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, what this debate is about is how we fund transport infrastructure across New Zealand. The legislation says that in this term of Government there will be no other regional fuel taxes. The Prime Minister has made that fact absolutely clear. That’s an important thing to do when the Leader of the Opposition is spreading false and fake news.
Hon Amy Adams: Has the Prime Minister expressed concerns to him about any other aspects of the Government’s programme that might indicate that more backflips are coming?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister is always urging Ministers to move faster and further to correct the mistakes and the underfunding of the previous nine years.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to be clear, Minister, is it the Government’s position that despite the numerous calls for the fuel tax to be spread to other regions, we are staying staunch with our commitment to leave it just for Auckland?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. I’m not entirely clear what the Opposition’s stance is now on how they’ll fund transport infrastructure, and we once again wonder where the Opposition’s fiscal stance is. It’s very hard to see today how they would fund transport infrastructure.
Hon Amy Adams: Is the reason that the Prime Minister yesterday ruled out any new regional fuel taxes while she is Prime Minister, despite having just legislated for exactly that, because the Government has now had to accept that it’s the one fleecing New Zealand over power prices?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member might have meant fuel prices rather than power prices, but no, the reason the Prime Minister did that was because it was time to clarify in response to the misinformation being spread by the Leader of the Opposition.
Question No. 3—Transport
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Malo ni. I stand by my statements and by my actions in leading record investment in a modern, safe transport system.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement in his corrected answer to the question yesterday, “When did he, as Minister of Transport, know about this change of policy?”—i.e., earlier that morning—whose idea was it to rule out further regional fuel taxes?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Prime Minister phoned me early yesterday to seek my views on whether—in light of the Opposition’s scaremongering and baseless misinformation—it was time for a clarification of the Government’s position to make it very clear to people that there would be no further regional fuel taxes under her prime ministership. I agreed.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What exactly is “scaremongering” or “false information” in the assertion that the Government may consider a regional fuel tax outside Auckland when allowed in 2021 by their own legislation—something that he as Minister pointedly never ruled out before?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it was scaremongering and misinformation for the Leader of the Opposition to go around claiming that the Government was in secret talks with Wellington councils to implement a regional fuel tax. It was never going to happen.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s changed in the past six months since his earlier answers where he refused to rule out extending regional fuel taxes beyond Auckland after this parliamentary term to yesterday’s new policy that it will never happen as long as the Prime Minister is Prime Minister—assuming that’s a longer period?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What’s changed in the last six months is the plummeting level of confidence and the growing desperation of the Opposition—that they’re willing just to make things up.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How did this matter arise when the Mayor of Wellington says his council never ever asked for it?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’m baffled as to how this idea could be circulated by the Leader of the Opposition. The Mayor of Wellington said there were no discussions going on about a regional fuel tax; I ruled it out. The only person who seems to publicly believe that this was something worth talking about was the Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he square his statement on RNZ this morning, “To be fair, you know, we’ve never had a plan to have additional regional fuel taxes.”, with his statement in a letter to the Mayor of Hamilton: “If in the future Hamilton City or the Waikato region wish to seek a regional fuel tax, I would encourage you to engage with officials at the Ministry of Transport. Officials will be able to provide guidance for any future applications, including the matters that will need to be considered and addressed to increase the likelihood of an application being approved,”?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We welcome discussions about the different options for actually addressing the infrastructure deficit that we inherited after nine years of that Government. I welcome discussions with councils about how we do that, and for the last nine years, those councils have never had a Government willing to talk to them about these issues.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That noise from that side is unbearable. We understand—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The three members who interjected will now stand.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise.
Andrew Bayly: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: I said three when I saw four.
Lawrence Yule: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
Nicola Willis: I’ll withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: To repeat, the fact is that that level of noise is just unbearable. It’s inexcusable. Everybody understands that this is a place where people are entitled to voice, with some noise, their level of dissent, but that is just a screaming, disorganised rabble, and they should be stopped.
SPEAKER: I want to thank the member for his advice.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it the case that it was very much his intention to introduce other regional fuel taxes in 2021 if he had a chance, and that he and the Prime Minister changed their minds because they’ve finally woken up to the fact that Kiwis are sick and tired of being fleeced at the fuel pump by this Government?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.
Question No. 4—Housing and Urban Development
4. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress, if any, has been made towards the Government’s KiwiBuild homes targets?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): This morning, I announced that the ballot will open next week for the first KiwiBuild homes to be built in the Waikato: 175—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! David Bennett, yesterday I probably should have named you for your behaviour. What you will let this Minister do now is at least start his answer without facetious interjection.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This morning, I announced that the ballot will open next week for the first KiwiBuild homes to be built in the Waikato. One hundred and seventy-five KiwiBuild homes will be built at the Lakeside development in Te Kauwhata. This announcement follows Monday’s announcement of 18 KiwiBuild homes in Ockham’s Tuatahi development in Mount Albert in Auckland. These homes will provide an excellent start for young families who are currently priced out of the dream of homeownership.
Jamie Strange: When will the first Lakeside homes be completed?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The first 10 KiwiBuild homes to be balloted are two-bedroom, modern, stand-alone homes, all fully landscaped, with off-street parking and a home appliance package. Initial works are already under way, and construction of these KiwiBuild homes will be completed by Christmas 2019.
Jamie Strange: When will the Tuatahi homes be completed?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The 18 Tuatahi properties available via the KiwiBuild ballot consist of nine studio apartments, six one-bedroom and three two-bedroom apartments, ranging in price from $435,000 to $600,000. Construction of these apartments is under way and due for completion late next year. While the Tuatahi development began several years ago, this is an example of how KiwiBuild creates efficiencies and accelerates the construction of quality affordable homes.
Jamie Strange: What will these homes mean for young Kiwi families?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A generation of young Kiwis with good jobs are priced out of homeownership. They made good choices but they still cannot afford the security of their own home. KiwiBuild is building homes for families of all shapes and sizes, right across the country, restoring the dream of affordable homeownership to families who traditionally would have expected to own their own home, and extending that same dream to many more.
Question No. 5—Social Development
5. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Is the figure of 4.3 percent which, according to the Ministry of Social Development quarterly benefit statistics is the percentage of the working-age population on the Jobseeker Support benefit, higher or lower than it was a year ago when it was 4.1 percent?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister, I can confirm that those figures are correct and that there’s been an increase by 0.2 percent. This is offset by a 2 percent increase in the working-age population in New Zealand from June 2017 to June 2018.
Hon Louise Upston: Why has the percentage increased?
Hon PEENI HENARE: As mentioned in the previous answer, the increase in the population—for example, in Auckland—of the working-age population in Auckland has grown by some 34,000. Therefore, it’s quite natural that there would be an increase.
Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question on notice was a percentage of the working-age population. So the population comments that the Minister made aren’t relevant.
SPEAKER: Well, I think one of the things that we do know, and it’s been established over a long period of time, is that Speakers will not take responsibility for the quality of the answers. The member got an answer.
Hon Louise Upston: How many more people are receiving the jobseeker benefit than a year ago?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It may be of interest to the member that the current unemployment rate is 4.5 percent in the June quarter, whereas, under the previous Government, in the June 2017 quarter it was 4.8 percent.
SPEAKER: That did not address the question. The member might like to ask the question again.
Hon Louise Upston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many more people are receiving the jobseeker benefit than one year ago?
Hon PEENI HENARE: I currently don’t have those figures on me right now.
Hon Louise Upston: Why are there 9,000 additional people on the jobseeker benefit while the unemployment rate has dropped?
Hon PEENI HENARE: I’ve already mentioned the population increase in this country.
Hon Louise Upston: In addition to the jobseeker benefit statistics increasing, why has the number of benefit advances increased by 27,000, and the hardship grants for food increased by 20,000?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Because we know that, for far too long, communities in this country have suffered under the previous Government. We’ve made it very clear that we want to make sure that all of those who are eligible receive fair and correct entitlements. That has meant that there have been resets that have made people come to Work and Income to make sure that they are receiving fair and correct entitlements. With regards to hardship, I can say that the housing pressures have put pressure on families. Families have come in and sought the assistance that is available to them.
Hon Louise Upston: Why has there been an increase of 9,000 people on jobseeker benefits while her Government has reduced obligations and sanctions by 35 percent?
Hon PEENI HENARE: We acknowledge that under the last regime, which had a punitive approach towards those who are in receipt of a benefit with regard to sanctions—we want to work with these people to make sure we can give them meaningful employment opportunities. That means that they come in, they work with our people, we manage their aspiration, and of course we match it to an appropriate job to allow them sustainable employment opportunities into the future.
Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety
6. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in regards to workplace relations?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: On behalf of the Minister, yes.
Hon Scott Simpson: Does he stand by his statement yesterday “we’ve made good progress in this House on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill,”, and, if so, does he define “good progress” as the Government ignoring the voice of nearly all businesses at the select committee stage of the bill?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, and this Government has good quality—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. Sorry, I’m going to rule the question out. It’s not an area the Minister’s responsible for.
Hon Scott Simpson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, does not the Minister have responsibility for relationships between trade unions and businesses? I would have thought that the question was in order.
SPEAKER: Yeah, absolutely, but he doesn’t have responsibility for changes at a select committee that either did or didn’t happen.
Hon Scott Simpson: Could I rephrase the question, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: You can have another question. I’m not giving you an extra one.
Hon Scott Simpson: Does he accept that a gulf has emerged between the business community and the trade unions over the last 12 months, and, if so, why?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There has been a gulf between workers and employers since the time of the Tolpuddle martyrs that, in the course of history, sometimes is closed and sometimes widens. The challenge for Governments of any country where there are relations between business and workers is not the size of the gulf; it’s the quality and strength of the bridge to bring parties together to get fair, good outcomes for everyone.
Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with the organiser at Unite union Joe Carolan’s criticisms that their workers hold “huge anger” and that the Government has not done enough over the last 12 months to improve their lives and that this is why they have threatened a “big round of strikes in 2019”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I know Joe Carolan very well and regard him as a friend. He is sort of the Jim Larkin of the New Zealand union movement and a firebrand at that, and he has his view. What I do stand by is the actions of this Government to bring back justice to workplace relations in this country, so workers can look to their employers with a sensible framework to get fair pay increases, fair pay and conditions, and safe workplaces.
Hon Scott Simpson: If, as he said yesterday, employment law settings haven’t changed and there were so few people on strike over the last nine years compared to the 65,000 on strike in the last 12 months, isn’t it true then that the only thing that has changed in the last 12 months is the Government?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The underpinning sort of principle to that question is typical of a time when the National Party was led by people like Sid Holland, as opposed to the progressive labour Ministers of that party like Jim Bolger and Peter Gordon. But the reality is workers in modern liberal democracies have the right to withdraw their labour and have that protected, and to press their case for better pay and conditions. The fact that workers in New Zealand wanted to do that is a good sign, and we need to have a good legal framework that protects them but, ultimately, gets agreement not only on fairer pay and conditions but on what really matters, and that is—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Speech.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —lifting productivity across businesses, from which everybody—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Speech.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —shares the gains.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: The member would like to have a call now—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Thank you.
SPEAKER: —would she, as opposed to a minute ago?
Question No. 7—Small Business
7. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies and actions?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: On behalf of the Minister for Small Business, yes. For example, about an hour ago, in Canberra, I signed a formal trans-Tasman e-invoicing arrangement with the Australian Government. New Zealand and Australian businesses process around 1.3 billion invoices annually, and research indicates that the economic savings of e-invoicing could exceed $30 billion in both countries over 10 years. This Government is committed to growing the economy and working with businesses to encourage productivity. This agreement is yet another step this Government has taken to support small businesses in New Zealand over the last year.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Is the Small Business Council providing value for money?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I believe that it is. The Small Business Council is set up to ensure that there are quality conversations between the Government and small to medium sized enterprises. The Prime Minister is going to come and meet with the Small Business Council, and I’ll be delighted to accompany her to that.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Is it correct that part of the report back from the Small Business Council includes a recommendation on whether or not to establish a small business institute?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have that level of detail in front of me, but if the member wants to put that question in writing, I’m sure she will receive an answer.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Well, isn’t that just, then, a working group tasked with creating another working group?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No.
Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he believe it is a good use of taxpayer money spending $135,000 on a new working group who has been tasked with deciding whether or not to establish another new working group and whether or not to keep the current new working group?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government believes in the value of small business. Unlike the previous Government, we want to support relationships and make business easier rather than adding the red tape that was added during the last nine years. We are concerned to make their lives easier. We’re progressing e-invoicing that would create savings of around $30 billion across Australia and New Zealand over the next 10 years. We’re making improvements to the New Zealand Business Number, including initiating legislative changes. We’re renewing the small business payroll subsidy. We’re providing the R & D tax credits. We’re applying GST to offshore suppliers of goods to make life easier for small businesses. And we’re launching the online tools Choose Business Structure and Workplace Policy Builder. I think the small business area is delighted they’ve got a Government that’s finally listening.
Question No. 8—ACC
8. Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 10 yesterday?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Yes.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Have ACC officials made a “very convincing case to him” as to why petrol prices should increase by a further 1.9c a litre through the proposed motor vehicle levy?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, the consultation process for levies actually ends today. No doubt, upon the completion of the consultation process, advisers will come back to the Minister with the advice from the consultation, where he will forward that conversation to Cabinet for a decision to be made.
Hon Tim Macindoe: What is the current financial position of the ACC scheme in terms of assets, reserves, and investments?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, if the member was listening, only today the current ACC annual report was tabled in the House, and I’m sure all of the up-to-date figures will be in there. The numbers that were given by the Minister yesterday were the data that he had at hand.
Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was, effectively, a question on notice, because it is exactly the same supplementary question that I asked the Minister yesterday. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, we’ll give another couple of supplementaries to make up for the interruption. The member can have his point of order again.
Hon Tim Macindoe: You’d like me to raise the point of order again, sir?
SPEAKER: Yes.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Sir, the point I was making is that this was, effectively, a question on notice, because the primary question asked if he stood by all of his answers from yesterday’s oral question, and this is exactly the same as a supplementary question that I asked yesterday that the Minister didn’t answer at that time.
SPEAKER: Well, my view is that he sort of not only answered it but doubled down. He said he stood by the figures from yesterday and there are some updated ones available on the Table now.
Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that by putting a document on the Table of the House, that is a sufficient answer to a question during oral question time?
SPEAKER: Well, I think that if one references a newly tabled document immediately available to members with the updated figures of the type that the member is asking for, then the answer certainly does address the question.
Hon Tim Macindoe: Why does the Minister consider that it would be “bordering on unconstitutional” for him to give advice to his ACC officials?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, it’s very clear, the consultation process for the levies. The words of the Minister were, in effect, not an attempt to pre-empt any of the consultation process and to make sure that once the consultation process was finished, the right process would be followed from there, and that is to collect all of the consultation submissions that were made, and put that together. Then there would be a conversation, of course, to be had with ministerial colleagues, and then on to Cabinet for further decision-making to be had.
Hon Tim Macindoe: That was a long answer, but the Minister has not answered the question of why it would border on being unconstitutional for a Minister to give advice to officials.
SPEAKER: Well, I think it did address the question, and this area, both yesterday and today, sort of reinforces to me the need for some better training for MPs on processes.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister told the House yesterday that the ACC accounts were very, very full and that there needed to be some rebalancing of those accounts, did he convey that to the board of ACC, and is he concerned that the board appeared not to listen to him by proposing the consultation document that ACC levies for motor vehicles go up?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Can he repeat—I was mistaken and thought it was a point of order.
SPEAKER: Yes—no, I think many of us thought that you were overriding the point of order rather than asking a question. I think it was a very good question. The member should ask it again.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister said yesterday, in an answer to a question, that the ACC accounts were very full and that they needed to be rebalanced down, did he convey that Government position to the board of ACC, and is he concerned that the board of ACC did not listen to him in preparing a consultation document that has motor vehicle levies going up?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I’m sure that, upon the balance of all of the submissions after the consultation period, the Minister will then be able to make more direct communications to the board and, of course, to his ministerial colleagues in Cabinet.
Hon Amy Adams: That’s not an answer.
SPEAKER: Order! Can—I’m tempted to call the member the wrong name. The Hon Amy Adams, the Minister is making an attempt to answer the question. I think he’s probably going to make another attempt in a minute, but I want to be able to hear if he gets to an answer, and I can’t if the member is making those noises.
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, can I first say that the figures given by the Minister yesterday were the figures that he had at hand, and acknowledging that the brand new annual report was tabled in the House today. Secondly, with regard to advice to and fro between the board and the Minister, it was very clear that, through the consultation period, we needed to let that take its course to ensure that the voices of the people were heard on the matter. Once that’s concluded and the submissions are gathered together, there will be advice and further conversations had between the Minister, ministerial colleagues, Cabinet, and, no doubt, the board.
SPEAKER: OK.
Hon Judith Collins: Proper process.
SPEAKER: No, I can deal with it. The question asked, I think, was about communications, which included the period before the consultation document. Now, it may be as the Minister’s an acting Minister he’s not aware of the detail of it—and there’s nothing wrong with saying that—but if the Minister who is acting for the Minister is aware of any advice or discussions before the things went out, he should say so—otherwise, he should just say that he’s not aware, and we can move on.
Hon PEENI HENARE: I am not aware. However, having the consultation document in front of me, there are proposals in here that make it quite clear what the purpose of the consultation process was.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite your assistance to the Minister answering the question, the answer ignores the fact that ACC is a beast of statute. There is a letter of direction to ACC as to how they should operate. There is a concern expressed in this House by the Minister that the funds, or the accounts of ACC, are topping 120 percent, etc., and then a concern and then a suggestion that it’s OK for the board to go out and consult on whether even more money should be taken off New Zealanders. Now, I’m simply asking in that question: was the Minister consistent in his dealing with ACC and its board in the answer that he gave to the House yesterday?
SPEAKER: None of that is clear and it’s not going to be answered now. But the thing that I will do is remind the Minister acting for the Minister in the House today, especially given what happened yesterday, that we should make sure that we always say “on behalf of the Minister” and that that is understood, because otherwise we might be running into another problem. Now, I don’t think we’re going to make much more progress here. I think the standard thing is if members want to progress it, they should put down a very specific question about it or follow other processes.
Hon Tim Macindoe: If his Government was “very well aware of the cost pressure New Zealanders face”, why did he put out for consultation the proposed 12.1 percent increase in the motor vehicle levy when it was suggested by ACC officials, given that ACC’s strong financial position makes it clear the increase isn’t needed?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, this is a process that’s undertaken every two years, so it wasn’t something that was sprung on the general public via the New Zealand Government. This is a process that happens every two years. So, therefore, the consultation scope was very clear from ACC to the members of the public, and that consultation process—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Come on, I want one person to answer it, not three, and the member’s not being helpful in encouraging them to do it. I don’t think anyone was the wiser from all of that, and I think we might move on if there’s no further supplementary.
Question No. 9—Research, Science and Innovation
9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Does she stand by all aspects of the Government’s R & D tax credit policy?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Malo ni, Mr Speaker. Yes, in particular, that we will have our R & D tax incentive scheme in place for 1 April 2019 due to this Government’s commitment to prioritising an uplift in R & D, and I was pleased to be able to introduce the enabling legislation today. I want to take this opportunity to thank all stakeholders who submitted during the recent consultation phase, and I look forward to engaging with members as the legislation makes its way through the House.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why did the Minister tell the House that the R & D tax credit policy, as originally proposed, would help 3,000 businesses, but with the finalised R & D tax credit policy, which has a higher rate and a lower threshold, she’s saying only 2,000 firms are likely to benefit?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The figure that has been used from the time that we introduced the discussion has been between 2,000 and 3,000 businesses that could benefit. I’ve used the number between 2,000 and 3,000 in the media and in statements consistently. We have conservatively estimated 2,000 companies will benefit from this, but we remain optimistic and actually expect that we will see between 2,000 and 3,000 businesses benefiting from this scheme, and we certainly have allowed enough headroom in the funding of the scheme to allow for that.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To an oral question, the Minister said it was around 3,000 firms that will benefit—in the House.
SPEAKER: And why are you telling me that?
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: The Minister is saying that she has been saying it’s 2,000 to 3,000, and that is not right.
SPEAKER: Well, if the member thinks that the Minister’s been deliberately misleading the House, then there’s a process for that. If she disagrees with an answer, well, I think the word is “tough”.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she really saying that making something more attractive and easier to qualify for will mean fewer people do it?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Not at all. If the member had listened to my previous answer, the number of between 2,000 and 3,000 businesses that will be eligible is still the same. That is what we expect. We certainly note this is a huge uplift on the 300 businesses that benefited from the previous Government’s growth grant scheme. I would point that member to the hugely positive reaction there has been from our business community. They are looking forward to the introduction of this scheme and a Government that truly backs them in an uplift in R & D.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is the reason she has reduced the number of likely firms that will benefit to give the appearance the new policy will cost the same as the budgeted policy and to hide the risk of the scheme blowing out, the same way the Australian scheme did?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Again I invite that member to listen to my previous answers. Let’s be very clear on the amount of money that was budgeted for this scheme in this year’s Budget, because this is a Government that believes in the value of R & D. Over a four-year period, there is over $1 billion additional funding budgeted for this scheme. Over the four-year period, there will be available from growth grants baseline funding a further $528 million, making $1.5 billion available over the four-year period. The forecast cost of the scheme at the 15 percent rates that we’ve gone with, with the $50,000 threshold, is $1.2 billion, give or take. That allows $333 million worth of headroom. While that member might call it a blowout, we will call it a success when we get to spend that money. This is a Government that backs our businesses into R & D.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she accept the fact that the R & D tax credit policy will not benefit 99.6 percent of New Zealand businesses, a thousand fewer than originally claimed, is an admission that the policy is not nearly as effective as originally claimed?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That member should really listen to answers that are given in this House and adjust her questions—
SPEAKER: No, this has gotten to the point of being tedious repetition. I’m going to stop it.
Question No. 10—Education
10. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action has the Government taken over the past year to place young learners and their needs at the centre of the education system?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Heaps, but I’ll highlight just two in the answer to this question. I’m particularly proud of the fact that this year’s Budget contained the largest increase in learning support funding for those with special needs in over a decade, and the Government has also successfully overseen the roll-out of the first-year fees-free education and training for all those who haven’t participated in formal post-school education and training in the past, and it’s two years for those undertaking industry training.
Ginny Andersen: What else has the Government done to improve New Zealand’s public education system?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, there’s heaps here, but I want to highlight one issue in particular, and that is the work that we have been doing with the teaching profession to lift the status of the teaching profession and to address the issues that they have been raising. In particular, we are committed to addressing the serious teacher shortages that we currently face, and we’ve invested over $40 million to do that. We’ve given teachers back the right to elect representatives to their own professional body, and we are working on a long-term education workforce strategy so that we can ensure we’ve got enough teachers to meet demand in the future.
Question No. 11—Building and Construction
11. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What steps has she taken to ensure a sustainable construction workforce for New Zealand?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo ni, Mr Speaker. Lifting the capacity and capability of the construction workforce is key to a number of our Government’s priorities in housing and economic development, including KiwiBuild. That is why I established the ministerial group on construction workforce, which oversaw the development of a mobilising construction skills action plan, which my colleagues and I announced a few weeks ago. The construction skills action plan has six priorities intended to work together to increase the profile of construction, the number of people entering careers in construction and training and industry, and business investment in skills and training development. This mobilising action plan we will continue to add to, to ensure that we build the skills that New Zealand needs for our future.
Andrew Bayly: Will the decrease in the number of people undertaking apprenticeships and brick- and block-laying in the year to 31 August 2018 achieve her plans for a sustainable construction workforce?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The reality is that we came into this Government and we were confronted with the fact that we were short by many, many thousands of people in the building and construction area, not just block-laying—block-laying plus many others like carpentry and plumbing. What we are told at the moment by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is that we are short by 30,000 skilled people. This did not happen over 12 months, but what we as a Government are committed to doing is ensuring we train up New Zealanders to build our houses and our infrastructure.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that, of the data that has been released by the Minister of Education in response to written questions from the Opposition about the various building and construction trades, in fact almost all of them have shown increases in the number of trainees since this Government took office, and block-laying is one of the few that’s shown a decrease?
SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for that.
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, then all of the questions are out of order, because they’re all questions relating to written question answers that I have given the member.
SPEAKER: And if the member had said that, and that was the basis of his questions, then they mightn’t have been out of order. But he didn’t, and they’re not.
Andrew Bayly: Will the decrease in the number of people undertaking apprenticeships in floor- and wall-tiling in the year to 31 August 2018 achieve her plans for a sustainable construction workforce?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The reality is that there is an increase in trained people in apprenticeships right now. There are 46,000 people who are training to work in the construction and skills area. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that we train up New Zealanders to ensure that we build up our houses. There are a few decreases, as the member states, but overall there are 46,000 who are training in apprenticeships for construction and workforce.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is that Minister saying that despite the tens of billions spent on the Christchurch rebuild, the tradespeople were not trained to be prepared for the building programme of this present Government?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Unfortunately, that last Government did not take the opportunity to train up New Zealanders when we had the opportunity with Christchurch. We would not be in this position if we had used the Christchurch earthquake rebuild to train up New Zealanders. We wouldn’t be short by 30,000 skilled people, but we are absolutely committed to ensure that we train up New Zealanders to build the houses that we need as well as the infrastructure for New Zealand.
Andrew Bayly: Will the decrease in the number of people undertaking apprenticeships in heating and ventilation in the year to 31 August 2018 achieve her plans for a sustainable construction workforce?
Hon JENNY SALESA: As the member is focused on heating and block-laying, we are focused on making sure we have enough carpenters, enough plumbers, and enough builders to build the 71,000 residential houses that we’re short by. That is what our Government is committed to doing, and that is why we have a ministerial group made up of nine Ministers to ensure each and every one of us and our ministries puts our best foot forward to ensure we train up enough people.
Tamati Coffey: What has been the response of the construction sector to the construction skills action plan?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The construction sector has responded very positively to the announcement of the Government’s construction skills action plan. For instance, the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation stated, “The plan will cultivate skills … industry desperately needs.” The Construction Strategy Group, key construction sector leaders, are supportive of the Government’s plan, commenting—and I quote—“The industry will strongly support these initiatives.”
Andrew Bayly: Is she concerned that the announcement today of 10 two-bedroom houses in Te Kauwhata will cause a building boom—
Hon Phil Twyford: Te Kauwhata.
Andrew Bayly: —that will put massive pressure on the construction workforce?
SPEAKER: Order! I want to ask members just to be a little bit more tolerant than they are being. People have a different range of skills in the Māori language. I’m not perfect, and there are members on both sides of the House who have a lot to learn. Mocking people who make mistakes is not useful.
Hon JENNY SALESA: Can the member repeat his question please.
Andrew Bayly: Is she concerned that the announcement today of 10 two-bedroom houses in Te Kauwhata will cause a building boom that will put massive pressure on the construction workforce?
Hon JENNY SALESA: We know from the National Construction Pipeline Report that we will have a building boom right up until at least December of 2023. This is one of the reasons why it is absolutely important that we look at training enough people. But what the member also needs to take into account is the fact that we are looking at new ways of building houses in Aotearoa New Zealand. With prefabrication, we’re building houses that take only about three weeks. One builder and three semi-skilled builders can build a house in just three weeks. So we are looking at new ways of ensuring we build houses.
Question No. 12—Health
12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress, if any, has been made in the last year towards a more sustainable public health service?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government has made health a priority since day one. To mention just some of the progress we’ve made, we’ve made it easier for people to get care when they need it by making doctors visits cheaper for around 600,000 New Zealanders. We’ve begun to address long-standing workforce issues with pay equity for mental health and addiction support workers and a significant settlement for district health board (DHB) nurses. We’ve started work fixing up our hospitals by investing $750 million worth of new funding into capital works. This is a Government that believes all New Zealanders should have access to high-quality public health services.
Angie Warren-Clark: What progress has been made to ensure DHBs can cope with an ageing and growing population?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The staff in our DHBs are world class and deliver quality care day in and day out. This Government has recognised that DHB resources have been stretched too far for too long. That’s why, in Budget 2018, as the Dominion Post put it on its excellent front page, health was a big winner. [Holds up front page]
Hon Grant Robertson: Who’s that guy?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We put an extra $22.2 billion—that guy, Minister of Finance, is the Minister of Finance—into DHBs over the next four years to help them maintain services and add capacity to cope with growing demand. One Budget can’t fix the legacy of underfunding we inherited, but this is a Government that is firmly focused on the long-term well-being of New Zealanders.
Angie Warren-Clark: What progress has been made in the last 12 months in improving mental health and well-being in New Zealand?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Improving mental health is a major challenge that requires a community-wide response. We prioritised initiatives we know will make a meaningful difference, including the Mana Ake programme, which is putting mental health support in primary and intermediate schools in Christchurch and Kaikōura. We’ve extended the nurses in schools programme to ensure decile 1 to 4 schools are covered, we’ve funded the construction of new alcohol and drug detoxification beds in Auckland, we’ve launched the Integrated Therapies Pilot for 18- to 25-year-olds, and we’ve boosted the DHBs’ budget for mental health services by around $200 million over the forecast period. And, of course, next month, we will receive the report of the inquiry into mental health and addiction, which we commissioned in our first 100 days. That will come to shape our response to these issues for years to come.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: If health was the big winner in Budget 2018, why was the DHB funding increase lower than the previous Government’s last increase, and how does that constitute progress towards a more sustainable public health service?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I believe the member is expressing those things in a way which is a little misleading. He will be rolling one of the settlements into that funding increase. He’s done that before. The actual increase to DHBs for running their services was the largest in nearly a decade.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think that providing not a single dollar of extra funding for new medicines constitutes progress towards a more sustainable public health service?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We continue to get excellent value from Pharmac. They continue to provide more drugs for more New Zealanders, and that is excellent performance. This Government cares about making sure that the health dollar is spent as wisely as possible to make sure we get the most value we can from the health dollars for New Zealanders, and we will continue to do that unapologetically.
Bills
Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 24 October.
JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m just going to give a brief summary of what I said last night. I said last night that this is one of the dumbest bills I’ve ever seen come through this House. It has wasted this House’s time, and it has done very little to actually keep people safe who are new tenants or prospective new tenants into the future. It’s the type of bill that takes a blanket sweep to find and weed out the rogue landlords. They forget that not all landlords are rogue landlords; there are some very good landlords out there, and this bill punishes them.
It’s the type of bill that some people from last night, from across the Government, said was a very fair bill. Well, it’s not fair; it’s very unfair to tenants, and it will open up an ability for additional money to be added to the rentals of the new tenants, as landlords and letting agents work to recoup that letting fee loss that they are going to suffer from this particular bill.
So what we’re going to see is that, potentially, families aren’t going to be able to afford to keep up with the increased rent and they’re not going to be able to afford those homes to live in. It’s the type of bill where, because of rogue landlords, it is going to hurt everybody, absolutely everybody. It’s going to hurt the good landlords, it’s going to hurt the tenants, the prospective tenants, and I don’t want to see that happen.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Malo ni, Mr Assistant Speaker. I waited very patiently yesterday for this opportunity to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, and I was very disappointed not to get my chance. But you can imagine how delighted I am to speak in favour of this marvellous bill—this bill that will, for once and for all, level the playing field that has been unfair and discriminatory towards tenants in this country.
At a time when tenancies are at an all-time high and homeownership is at an all-time low, we have realised that we have an unfair system that allows people to charge letting fees to tenants—letting fees that are not part of a competitive market. There is no incentive to shop around and get the cheapest fare. It is simply the case that when there is so much competition for rental places, letting fees can be charged on the tenants at pretty much any rate they like. What this bill is going to do is bring it into a competitive market.
The other side of the House believes in market forces. They believe in competitive markets, yet what they have done yesterday and today is stand up and argue for the rights of landlords, completely dismissing those growing numbers of people in this country that have to rent in order to have a home. This is not a fair situation, particularly given the housing crisis that this Government inherited after nine years of National. And what do they do? They sit there and whinge and moan and point fingers and say that this is wrong, yet at not one time in all their speeches did they say that they would reverse this bill if they got back into Government in, say, 15 to 18 years’ time, because they know that once all this blistering noise has settled down, this is a bill that’s fair and that will benefit most people, and then, when they are in Government in a long, long time, they will not reverse this.
But let them whinge. Let them moan. While this Government gets on with helping people and building houses, we’ll leave them to crumble bridges.
The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.
Question agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill be now read a second 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 second time.
Bills
Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 18 October.
RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The bill establishes the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission. The commission’s purpose is to review sentences and convictions and decide whether to refer them back to the appeal court. This will replace the power currently exercised by the Governor-General under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961. Currently, someone who has been convicted of an offence and has reasonable grounds to believe that they might have suffered from a miscarriage of justice may apply to the Governor-General to exercise what is known as the royal prerogative of mercy. By convention, the Governor-General acts on the formal advice of the Minister of Justice, and the work on the prerogative of mercy application is undertaken by lawyers in the Ministry of Justice.
Establishing the commission is an opportunity to enhance this system by having an independent review authority with dedicated staff focused on the mandate to identify and respond to any possible miscarriages of justice. I should emphasise that the design of this commission is informed by the core principles underlining the prerogative of mercy and the referral mechanisms exercised by overseas commissions. The statutory grounds or tests for such a referral would be high, and the commission will have the power to refer the cases back to the appeal courts. It is not the commission’s role to determine guilt or innocence.
Comparable jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom and Norway, have established similar review commissions. These examples provide a valuable experience for us to draw from. The equivalent review commission in the UK sends about one in 30 cases back to the appeal courts, and in New Zealand, information released by the Ministry of Justice showed that 11 people and eight cases had been compensated for wrongful conviction since 1998.
The New Zealand Bar Association has welcomed the development. They have been advocating for an independent review authority for many years, and other experts have said that such a development is long overdue. I commend the bill to the House.
LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to speak on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. As has already been outlined by my colleagues last evening, we are opposing the bill, and there’s a very simple reason for that: we just don’t believe it is necessary.
This bill “establishes a Criminal Cases Review Commission”, and “The Commission’s purpose is to review convictions and sentences and decide whether to refer them to the appeal court.” As has previously been said, this will replace a power currently exercised by the Governor-General. The Criminal Cases Review Commission provides a mechanism for addressing miscarriages of justice. As an independent body, it can refer cases back to the appeal courts but it does not determine guilt or innocence. In our view on this side of the House, this will open the floodgates to a whole lot of people who believe they have a miscarriage of justice and will allow a lower threshold of entry into the appeal system than currently exists.
I’ll remind members on the other side of the House, who think this is such a wonderful idea, that two-thirds of the commissioners in this bill are not required to be legally qualified, making untrained and unaccountable commissioners extremely powerful, and the remaining one-third of the commissioners are not required to have criminal legal expertise or experience. This sets a very dangerous precedent. It should not be easy for somebody to actually bypass the court system if they want to appeal something, because at the moment they have to go to the Governor-General. It’s a high threshold for that to happen, and, as part of the Governor-General’s decision making, she or he at the time takes advice from the Minister in charge, with all the lawyers.
The status quo does mean that there is an appeal mechanism currently available. It’s not used that often but it is available. What we’ve got here is we’re setting up another commission. We’re advised that the set-up cost of this is $2.3 million to establish, and it will have an annual operating budget of $3.9 million per year. So it’s not an insignificant entity. The mere nature of that would indicate to me and members of this side of the House that we are expecting an influx of these types of appeal processes, and, as I said before, it will lead to the floodgates being opened.
The low threshold for people referring things back to the court will actually see more pressure placed on the courts, and we already know that the courts are overloaded. We already know that in many court jurisdictions, people are waiting for months—sometimes over a year—for a hearing. So we are now allowing somebody to go through this process and, I remind members on the other side, on any crime, not just a certain threshold of crime. On any crime, they can take it to this authority.
So, I remind members, the commission will receive applications from eligible persons or their authorised representatives, carry out activities it considers necessary to make the functions known to and understood by the public—in other words, to promote the body—have the ability to undertake initial inquiries into a conviction or sentence, undertake thematic reviews into a practice, policy, procedures, etc., and have reasonable powers to obtain information relevant to the investigation. There is a whole lot in these things that is unclear, and I remind members of this House that it should be by exception that this type of appeal to the Governor-General be used.
What we’re having here is normalising this, and there’s a whole lot of things that are equally not laid out in this bill. The bill is silent on the possibility that a decision by the commission could be subject to judicial review proceedings. In other words, at the moment this decision by the commission is not appealable on either side—even by the court or the people that represented the original prosecution. There is no limit on the types of matters that can be reviewed—as long as it’s a crime. This opens the floodgates. In our view, it should be strongly opposed, and we are opposing it.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill, and also to—I don’t know whether it’s really to challenge what the previous speaker, Lawrence Yule, who has just resumed his seat, said, because parts of it just weren’t that clear. It was “too much justice”—not sure if he stood against too much justice—“normalising justice”, the fact that it was too expensive to get justice. It was completely unclear. He seems to think that this is going to open some sort of a floodgate, so that we’re going to get too many people who want justice. I’m not sure what exactly his problem is, because what this bill does is establish an independent body to review criminal convictions and sentences, and decide whether to refer them to an appeal court.
It’s independent. If this bill passes and this commission is established, it will run entirely independently of the Ministry of Justice. Commissioners will be experts in criminal law, in other fields. The reason we need this is that there are concerns about the timeliness, the quality, the fairness, and the independence of the current system. That’s exactly what this bill is aiming to address. We know there have been high-profile cases, as members from this side of the House have spoken about previously, that attest to some of these concerns. This commission is a tool to identify and to correct miscarriages of justice when they occur. So I’m not too sure what exactly that member has an issue with.
There are tests for referrals as well. There’s a whole process that the bill lists, in terms of a test for referrals. It doesn’t completely replace the Governor-General’s powers, either; it replaces part of the royal prerogative of mercy. It just replaces the referral power that the Governor-General can currently exercise. That’s where the perception of political interference is addressed, in terms of this commission, as well. So the Governor-General still has the power to grant a full pardon, but of course the use of that is quite rare as well.
I just want to end actually by quoting the findings that the Minister quoted as well in his first reading speech, I think it was. It was the findings of the United Kingdom’s House of Commons Justice Committee in assessing the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission there. It said, “If a bolder approach leads to 5 more failed appeals but one additional miscarriage being corrected, then that is of clear benefit.” I, too, agree with that sentiment and believe that this bill will enable us to achieve that. I commend this bill to the House.
CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I know why this bill has come about, and no one denies that it is well-intentioned, because no one in the Parliament wants there to be miscarriages of justice. No one in the New Zealand Parliament wants people to be wrongly convicted—
Kieran McAnulty: Lawrence Yule does.
CHRIS BISHOP: —of crimes. No, Lawrence Yule does not want that. Don’t be silly. Don’t be silly, Mr McAnulty.
Where this bill came about was because of a spate of cases over the last 10 years—the Bain case, the Teina Pora case, the ongoing saga to do with Peter Ellis down in Christchurch. The Labour Party decided, for reasons best known to themselves, that one solution to the problem of alleged miscarriages of justice—and I’ll come back to that—was a criminal cases review commission.
Jacinda Ardern, the now Prime Minister—I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee with her, along with Jacqui Dean and others, in the last Parliament. She was very keen on this idea. A lot like when the Prime Minister makes policy—she sees something that sounds quite good and she doesn’t do the real homework on it and doesn’t do the reading on it. “Oh, we’ll have a review commission. Oh, that sounds great. The United Kingdom’s got one, so if it’s good enough for the United Kingdom, it’s good enough for New Zealand.” And now poor old Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, has been handed the hospital pass of trying to make this into reality and trying to grapple with, actually, some pretty complex underlying criminal law issues to put this into place. I will come to some of the issues that are not dealt with in the bill so far. So I acknowledge completely the intention—it’s a sound one; it’s a good one.
But the first and most important point I want to make—and it deals with the member who is scarpering out, which is Priyanca—is they have not—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Full name.
CHRIS BISHOP: Priyanca Radhakrishnan. The Government has not made the case, in my view, for how the current system does not work.
Let’s look at the examples that Ms Radhakrishnan talked about. She said, “Oh, there are lots of notable examples in the recent past of miscarriages of justice.” OK—the David Bain case. David Bain was convicted in 1994 for the murder of his family. He went to prison. He eventually went through the legal process and went all the way up to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which ordered a retrial which quashed his convictions in order to retry him in 2009, largely on the basis of the new evidence that Joe Karam was able to introduce around the luminol footprints. OK, fair enough. The new trial was held, I think, a couple of years or so later. David Bain was not convicted of those crimes; he is a free man. Well, why do we need a criminal cases review commission? What would a criminal cases review commission have done for David Bain? David Bain appealed with fresh evidence. He went up to the Judicial Committee, they quashed his conviction, he was retried, he was found not guilty and he’s a free man. Why do we need a criminal cases review commission?
What about the other example—Teina Pora. The same thing happened. Teina Pora’s convictions were quashed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, largely on the basis of new scientific evidence around foetal alcohol syndrome disorder and whether or not he actually was guilty of the murder of Susan Burdett. Again, why do we need a criminal cases review commission? His conviction was quashed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Mark Lundy—Mark Lundy went through the various processes. Mark Lundy appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the grounds that he couldn’t possibly have committed the murder of his wife and his daughter at that time. There was evidence around the McDonald’s that they’d consumed the night before, there was the question of was he able to get back to the Foreshore Motor Lodge in Pētone—which, incidentally, is about 45 metres from my house, as it happens—and whether or not he could go back there in enough time to make it back to Palmerston North. And, of course, there’s that evidence around the human tissue that was found on—I think it was a T-shirt found in his car. There was new evidence adduced by Mr Lundy and his lawyers at the Privy Council around the testing technique that the police used back in 2000 in Palmerston North, and his conviction was quashed. Then he was retried and, actually, he was found guilty. Actually, the police completely changed their theory of the case, or the Crown changed its theory of the case, and it turned out that they made a much more obviously convincing case for him being the guilty suspect. So, again, why do we need a criminal cases review commission?
A Labour member over there said before, “Well, it took a long time.” Well, look, actually, these things do take a long time, and I’m telling you now that once this Criminal Cases Review Commission is established, it will take a long time for people who think they can make use of its resources to go through the process, and that’s without even talking about all of the unknown elements of the system.
For example, will the system be amenable to judicial review? I’m telling you now, if there’s judicial review available for what should be a public body applying public law principles, then that is going to literally insert another whole massive layer of appeals inside an appeal system, as it is—OK? If you think the Kim Dotcom saga was bad, with multiple different chains of litigation and multiple chains of appeal around, essentially, what’s a pretty simple case of should he be extradited or not, and, what is it, seven or eight years later, we’re no closer to that decision actually going to the Minister for a decision—if you think that’s bad, because it’s largely judicial review and appeals that have caused that, then you have not seen anything yet when it comes to the proposed Criminal Cases Review Commission.
So I just simply ask the House and ask the Government—all of the cases they have made reference to and have averred to in their speeches have been dealt with through the traditional criminal process. The second point is, what is superior about the Criminal Cases Review Commission compared to the royal prerogative of mercy? It’s not clear to me how it will be superior, because Raymond Huo, who’s the chair of the Justice Committee, just spent quite a degree of time in his speech talking about how it largely replicates the elements of the royal prerogative of mercy and it seeks to, basically, enshrine that into a formal statutory process. So what is superior about this process?
The system we have now, I believe, works well. I believe it is effective, and I believe I’ve pointed to examples of the criminal justice system working effectively to remedy wrongs committed during the system. I’ve listened to all the Government speeches, and beyond pious words around “We’ve got to make justice work for everyone.” and stuff like that, which no one disagrees with—beyond kind of “motherhood and apple pie” sanctimony, which we’re used to from the Labour Party, they have not made a credible case for the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
I’ll repeat what I said at the start of my speech: it largely reflects the work that was not done by Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister, who was the then justice spokesperson in Opposition, when a spate of these cases were going through the courts. Very, very high-profile cases—Bain, Pora, the ongoing drama to do with Peter Ellis—and like a lot of Labour Party policy, it sounded like a good idea: “We’ll chuck it in the manifesto and see what happens. We’ll probably never have to implement it.” Well, now we do, and, I’m sorry, but the bill that has been presented to the House so far is a shocker.
Let’s talk about the actual issues to do with the bill which have been canvassed already. One-third of the people on the commission have to be lawyers—one-third? One-third? This is, essentially, an appellate body, right? This is a body that is going to weigh up evidence, and if it believes that it’s in the interests of justice—because that’s the test—it can then refer those cases back to the appeal court. One-third have to be lawyers? Seriously—one-third? I mean, seriously—only a third? We’re going to get people—I’m in no doubt that there will be smart people on it, but one-third? This is a body that is going to deal with the most fine-grained issues of criminal procedure. That’s the reason why there’s a Criminal Cases Review Commission in the first place. That’s the reason why the cases are going to end up there, because the admissibility of evidence is really complicated. That was true in Bain, it was true in Lundy, and it was true in Teina Pora as well. These are really tricky issues, and the Government wants to put on the Criminal Cases Review Commission two-thirds non-lawyers. It’s an absolute shocker.
What about the rules about how this is all going to operate? It’s not subject to the Official Information Act—that’s bizarre. What about the rules of contempt of court? Does that apply? We’ve got no idea. What about the rules about the privilege against self-incrimination? We have no idea. The rules of evidence—will they be applicable in the appellate body, and will they then be applicable again in the court that it gets referred to? We have no idea. The Government has not made the case. This is a shocker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I’m really disappointed that Mr Bishop didn’t read the bill before he started his speech, because there does seem to be a fundamental misconception on the other side of the House about what this is. It’s not an appellate body.
Look, as someone who has worked on innocence projects, I can tell you what this does and I can tell you what goes wrong. I can tell you, in respect of each of those cases, why we need a criminal cases review tribunal, because those people, whilst they were waiting for justice, were languishing incarcerated whilst people worked tirelessly for nothing because they thought something had gone wrong.
So Tim McKinnel, an investigator—not a police officer, not a lawyer, but an investigator—looked at Teina Pora’s interview tapes and thought, “Hang on. This isn’t right. The police didn’t behave properly here. This person wasn’t dealt with fairly.” So he worked tirelessly until he gathered enough evidence, talked to enough experts, and got lawyers on side who would help him progress that case until it crossed the threshold, so that the team could then go and persuade the Legal Services Agency that it was deserving of legal aid. Only then could the appeal case be put together. All of that was for years, and Teina Pora, whom I have met, was in no position to pursue his own case.
This is not a court. It doesn’t need fixed rigid rules. It is a threshold body, and its job is simply this: to take these instances and determine whether it is in the interests of justice for an appellate court to have another look at what has gone on. Once that threshold has been reached, it will be able to be funded through legal aid and the process will be able to move more swiftly.
It’s not the courts, necessarily, that are the problem; it’s all of the pre-court processes that are difficult. One of those is this: that an application for an appellate opinion on the prerogative of mercy goes through the Minister’s office, and lawyers in the Ministry of Justice who have full-time jobs doing something else have to look at these things. That’s entirely inappropriate. What we need is devoted people.
As for the suggestion that at least 33 percent, or one-third, of the members must be lawyers is a bad thing, what the cases have shown—whether it be Bain, whether it be Lundy, or whether it be Teina Pora—is that the breakthroughs in these cases are usually forensic. Bain was luminol on the bloodied footprints. That evidence wasn’t a question of law; that was a question of science, and we have to get over the fact that lawyers are some kind of priesthood who know all the answers.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Who thinks that?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ha, ha! I don’t know. What we need is people who listen to good advice from other professionals—investigators, forensic scientists, police officers—and others with real skills in this area.
So this is absolutely needed. It’s not a court. What it is is an independent body which will look into these serious breaches, and it’s entirely a misconception to think that it’s going to be overwhelmed. But what it will do is it will give justice much more quickly, much more robustly, and much more fairly than we have under the current system, and what it will also do is make sure that it doesn’t rely on the luck of some lawyer or investigator seeing a miscarriage of justice going by or someone looking for a bit of glory in their professional career. What it will do is even the playing field so that anyone who thinks there has been a miscarriage can approach this commission, whether they have a high-profile gory murder case which has had lots of media attention or whether it might be something a little less salubrious but still very serious, where it’s had serious criminal consequences.
So I applaud the Minister for following through on yet another promise that this Government has made and addressing the miscarriages of justice which have happened and moving on to this criminal cases review tribunal. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Noes 55
New Zealand National 55.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Bills
Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 27 September.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when the House last considered this bill, Melissa Lee had the call, and she has nine minutes and 40 seconds remaining should she so wish.
MELISSA LEE (National): I do so, sir. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think when I got up to speak on this bill the last time the bell literally rang as I stood up to say a few words, so I have no idea what I actually said in those 10 or 20 seconds.
Hon Member: It was very good.
Hon Member: It would have been fantastic.
MELISSA LEE: Thank you so much. My colleagues behind me are very, very kind, obviously.
Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill in its second reading today. I’d like to begin by thanking the 20 submitters who wrote to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and the 11 who actually came and gave oral submissions to the committee.
Right from the get-go, I need to say that I oppose this bill. I guess, simply put, I don’t want people at home listing to the debate to think that I’m not against the idea of people or businesses engaging in cartel behaviour. Obviously, it’s actually bad. The point at which I actually oppose the bill is that the National caucus has determined that the criminalisation of cartel conduct is actually a step too far to be put into legislative practice. We feel that that move from civil actions to criminal sanctions undermines the economy and does not actually support the ability of businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and develop their companies. We feel that the civil actions already, in fact, impose big deterrents for businesses to act in a cartel manner.
One of the submissions that actually makes a clear statement—well, there were actually quite a lot, but I remember the submission by barrister John Land of the Stewart Germann Law Office. In his submission, he was concerned with the extension from civil action to criminalisation in terms of the definition, and the effect that legislation regulation of cartel behaviour may have on franchise networks where market allocation is a vital part of the development of each practice, and that it could, in fact, come into the determination of a cartel, as this law is being proposed, and that it is simply not appropriate and not what the law should be envisaging in New Zealand.
And there are so many franchise businesses. Some of the examples that the select committee went through and discussed were in fact quite interesting. For example, one of the things that even our departmental report sort of suggests is that when a doctor in a low-decile community gets together to agree a maximum child consultation price for the benefit of the community—I mean, that is actually price fixing. Would this be considered cartel behaviour? Pubs in a university town agreeing to impose an early closing time to curb drunken behaviour—that’s an output restriction. Competing supermarkets agreeing not to offer free plastic to customers to reduce waste—that comes under price fixing and output restriction as well. Doctors agreeing to cap fees for the elderly—that’s price fixing. Car dealers agreeing not to sell cars with perceived safety issues such as potentially faulty air bags—that’s an output restriction. Some of these things are definitely cartel behaviour, and sometimes businesses do not intentionally offend. They do not intentionally do things thinking that they’re wanting to act like a cartel or actually harm consumers.
It must also be noted that the New Zealand Treasury is not in favour of cartel criminalisation, and they believe the existing regime to be working well. I quote Treasury’s regulatory impact analysis team’s conclusion: “Because of the hidden nature of cartels and the difficulty of actually determining the costs they impose on the economy, a more precise cost benefit analysis is not feasible. This makes it difficult to precisely determine the incremental impact of criminalisation in deterring cartel conduct”. So whether it is a proportionate response to the problem posed by cartel conduct—I mean, that’s what they said. Is criminalisation needed? Even Treasury doesn’t seem to agree.
A business that falls foul of this legislation stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions, for an action deemed prohibited cartel behaviour, like some of the examples that I quoted earlier. I believe such an approach is probably better. As I’ve said, they stand to lose a lot of money and, you know, that is enough of a curb instead of criminalising it. It seems a little step too far.
Many submitters believe that criminalisation will have a chilling effect. One of the things that I would like to also possibly read out is, for example, from the New Zealand Initiative, which said that they’re concerned “the mere intention to engage in cartel conduct is insufficient to target criminal liability and something more is required to reflect the moral wrongfulness or knowledge of wrongdoing.” Some of these things are very difficult to in fact prove. I think it is quite worrying when people and submitters and businesses are actually saying that this bill would potentially create a chilling effect on the way that people actually run their business or, in fact, compete. As I said earlier, often these cartel behaviours are hidden. Nobody actually outwardly shows off that they’re behaving in a cartel manner when they do these things, and I think going that step further might actually bring them further into the darkness. I just think it is very difficult legislation.
Also, I believe that this is something that we, as a National Government, dealt with, and I don’t understand why this Minister has actually brought this back, like, I guess, a re-hash job of the legislation that National actually passed. We actually dropped the criminalisation in that previous bill, which was actually passed by this House, and this is literally just adding the criminalisation. Once again, I stand to oppose this bill, and I hope that other members will agree with me that it is very difficult if we criminalise this behaviour. It doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, but I think we have enough of a sanction for them.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to support this legislation. Following on from that last member, Melissa Lee, it’s incredibly curious that the previous Government supported this—the criminalisation of cartel behaviour—then they changed their mind. The Green Party at that point changed our vote to vote against the previous Government’s amended cartel legislation because it wasn’t giving the legislation the teeth that it needed to do the job. Now that the new Government—the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government—has put crimination of cartel behaviour back inside this legislation, the Green Party is supporting it. Why? It’s because we know that cartels are so damaging for consumers, for the economy, and for the country.
This legislation allows company directors to be criminally liable for knowingly running cartels. It allows a new defence, sets the maximum sanction, provides matters relating to the proceedings of the court case, and provides the two-year transitional period.
Cartels reduce competition. They act against the interests of consumers and they keep those prices high. In a small country such as New Zealand, with limited players in a market, it’s critically important that we have the protections to make sure that all businesses can operate in a fair, transparent way, and on a level playing field.
I’d like to thank the submitters. There were 20 of them who provided written submission and 11 who made oral submissions. It was interesting to canvass the debate. Now, basically, it comes down to the idea that there’s a spectrum of, I guess you could call it, cooperating on one side, through to collusion and cartel behaviour on the other side. Now, most New Zealanders, quite rightfully so, would say that cooperative behaviour is morally and, in the case of our existing cartel civil legislation, legally appropriate, but it’s that end of the spectrum, that cartel behaviour, which is so damaging for customers.
Now, it is a balance, and what I would point out for those National members who are opposing it is that it’s not a blanket criminalisation of cartel behaviour. There’s still that spectrum of options available to the existing civil remedies for those lower-level infringements. The fact is there are exceptions and defences incorporated into this legislation to make sure that we are not being overly onerous or unreasonable, but the key point is that we need to have these criminal sanctions available as a remedy.
I can’t put it any better than Professor Peter Whelan, who is an expert on these issues, who said that criminal sanctions “should be introduced in New Zealand … [they act] to secure deterrence … [they] help bolster the administrative enforcement of cartel law in New Zealand … [and] the operation of the administrative leniency programme”. The key thing is if you’re going to only have a dollar penalty as the ultimate sanction, there is the risk that those who knowingly are operating a cartel will be quite happy to pay the fine. This is why we need to make sure that the legislation has teeth.
We are very happy to support this. We were disappointed when the previous Government took the criminalisation of cartels out. We are very glad to see it here today and, ultimately, it’s in the interest of the New Zealand economy and New Zealand consumers.
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill. I have the privilege of sitting on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, it’s a very hard-working and collegial committee, chaired by a very able chairman in Jonathan Young.
But, despite that collegiality of the committee, unfortunately, we have reported back the bill as a bar 1, so it’s a very slim little report. We couldn’t come to agreement on whether or not it should be passed. We did, though, benefit from the expertise of the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Paul Goldsmith, and I think he gave a very good speech earlier in the debate on setting out the reasons why National is voting against this bill, despite what has been said this afternoon in support of it, or, I guess, in opposition to cartel-like behaviour.
We will be opposing the bill, and I will run through a few of the reasons why. The first one is really because we’re not satisfied that a criminal offence is required. There’s a very substantial regime already in place around civil proceedings that are available to members of the public, or indeed agencies, should they feel that there is some sort of cartel-like behaviour occurring in industries or between companies. The threshold for a criminal offence is very, very high. We need to be very, very careful when we do create a new criminal offence that it is not creating a chilling effect, which has been talked about a little bit in the debate this afternoon.
There are two important tests, in my view, that need to be reached before you can create a new criminal offence. The first one of those is you need to prove that it is required, and I’ve already talked about the fact that there is a civil regime in place that provides for very substantial penalties if cartel-like behaviour is proven. The second one is that it needs to outweigh the costs, and there has been some discussion already about the effect that this bill could have on very well-meaning and very well-intentioned individuals and companies out there in the economy and how they behave.
On the first test, I need to turn to the excellent submission by the New Zealand Initiative. In their submission, they start by saying that they “accept that cartels may harm consumers and reduce welfare by enabling firms to raise prices above competitive levels. We also accept that cartels are difficult to detect.” But they go on to say that “It is not clear that New Zealand has levels of cartel behaviour that warrant criminalisation. As at 2011, only 16 alleged price fixing cartels had been the subject of civil decisions by the New Zealand courts during the preceding 25 years, and the maximum civil penalties have never been imposed. … Given the civil penalties already available, criminalisation is unlikely to significantly increase … the deterrence or detection of cartel behaviour.”
So it’s very questionable whether or not this bill is actually required. As the Initiative point out, there’s a substantial civil regime already in place. The most severe penalties have never been applied under the current regime, so there’s a question about why the Government wants to go further and include a criminal offence. They also provide some useful data on criminalisation, which I think has been, unfortunately, lacking probably throughout the select committee process and in terms of what Government has presented to us, or what officials presented to us, about why this is required. They haven’t proven the case as to why a criminal offence is needed.
I then turn to my second point, which is whether or not applying a criminal offence outweighs the cost of doing so. In their submission, they identify that “The costs faced by businesses exposed to risk of criminal prosecution. Despite the clearance regime for collaborative arrangements, there is a risk criminalisation will have a chilling effect on pro-competitive behaviour.”
I want to expand on that point, because it is an important point which Treasury themselves identified a few years ago—in fact, in 2011. They said, “On balance, it is difficult to see how the likely benefits of cartel criminalisation in terms of international cooperation would exceed the likely costs imposed on businesses, the Commerce Commission, and the Courts. The benefits from clarifying the laws around cartel behaviour can be achieved without the introduction of criminal penalties.” I’ll just repeat that last point, because it is an important one: the laws around cartel behaviour can be achieved without the introduction of criminal penalties.
The select committee considered these matters very, very carefully and over quite a few weeks, and one of the important points that we considered at length was around innovation, because numerous submitters did raise in their contributions that they had a concern about chilling behaviour, not just on the wider economy but also on innovation within the economy. One of the examples that was raised—which was also mentioned earlier by my colleague Melissa Lee—was around doctors and other medical professionals perhaps getting together in a community, and I’ll use Timaru as an example for argument’s sake. It might be doctors getting together in Timaru and deciding that they are going to establish a maximum price for treating young people, and I think we’d all accept in this House that that would be a good thing if that was to happen, particularly if they come from low-income backgrounds. The problem with that, of course, is that to do that, those doctors would, essentially, be agreeing to subsidise that operation by charging other patients higher fees, and so that would trigger this bill, or it would suggest there’s cartel behaviour going on.
Now, I should point out that our officials did say that there is a regime in place for different companies or organisations to go off and get approval, if they can prove there is no market benefit for them or no financial incentive for them to do so, but I wasn’t satisfied with that because the problem with doing that is there’s a huge cost in doing so. It’s tens of thousands of dollars to go off and get one of these approvals by the Commerce Commission to say that you’re able to behave in this way. A huge cost is involved, and so I just can’t see why we would support that.
The second issue that the committee grappled with was around franchises. Again, there were some valid questions around whether or not franchises compete with one another or whether they essentially have a market to themselves. I think we’d all accept that perhaps McDonald’s in Ashburton—there is only one McDonald’s in Ashburton—would not be competing with other McDonald’s franchises, but that rule doesn’t strictly apply perhaps to Starbucks in Wellington, where they seem to be on pretty much every second corner. So if you’ve got a McDonald’s franchise in Ashburton, they would justifiably say that they are not engaging in cartel behaviour by fixing prices, but that rule doesn’t apply for other franchises.
So that’s one of the many reasons, I think, why the Franchise Association of New Zealand did oppose the bill. There were 20 submissions on the bill, as has been heard earlier. The majority of those submissions were against the bill. The Franchise Association of New Zealand was just one of those, but there was also a large number of some of our largest law firms in the country.
I do want to turn first to Russell McVeagh’s submission. In it they say, “We remain of the view that the administration and the enforcement costs of the criminalisation of cartel conduct are likely to be disproportionate to any benefit, and that the claimed deterrent effect does not outweigh or compensate for the potentially chilling effect it will have on pro-competitive collaboration between competitors.” They go on to say that “The investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of offences facing significant criminal sanctions will be a significant departure from the Commission’s existing expertise and experience in enforcing breaches through civil proceedings.”, and they go on to name five or six different Acts that will be included as part of that.
One of the concerns I have is that given that there’s this new power being applied to the Commerce Commission, it just, frankly, comes down to resourcing, because, as we’ve seen in recent days, there’s been other legislation going through in the name of the same Minister, Kris Faafoi, which would provide for market studies, and, in fact, it would give the Commerce Commission the ability to determine whether or not they have their own market studies. So that will put more work on to the Commerce Commission, and this piece of legislation will put additional work on to the Commerce Commission. So that will be one of the many questions I will be asking the Minister during the committee stage.
I did have a number of other points I did wish to make, but I see my time is rapidly diminishing, so I will leave those until the committee of the whole House. I’m sure members opposite will be very pleased to listen to them. I just want to wrap up by saying that we do support the overall intent of the legislation, which is, of course, to reduce cartel behaviour, but what we don’t support is the criminalisation, including creating another offence when it’s not required.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes.
TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me just start by saying that this bill is another example of why we are on this side of the House. This is about the Government actually looking after the rights of the consumers—the little guys. That’s exactly why we are doing this. What we have to do—the means that we are using to do it—are through this particular bill here, the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill.
Now, when I go back home and I talk to friends and family about cartels, they don’t really understand them. You see, it’s not the common man’s kind of language: “cartels”. When you’re talking about cartels, generally people that are embarking on that kind of behaviour are people that earn quite a bit of money. You’re talking about big corporations. So when you’re talking about that kind of behaviour, which is anti-competition and considered to be one of the evils of the business community, then it needs to be dealt with in the same kind of language and with really tough penalties.
The Commerce Commission was one of the submissions that we had before us, and, in fact, they too agreed that with stronger penalties it would lead to better outcomes for consumers. Let’s just think about that for a moment, because they were adamant that financial payments are deterrents—yes—but, actually, if you really want to discourage the bad behaviour, you actually have to step up with very severe penalties. So the criminalisation aspect is obviously what we’ve been talking about quite a bit throughout this whole process.
Putting more people in jail isn’t exactly why I came into this job; I came in here, actually, to look after New Zealanders. But what I do understand is that when we’re talking about cartel-like behaviour and we’re talking about markets going awry, then, actually, we absolutely need to step up. Overseas experience has shown that, as I say, financial penalties contribute towards deterring those corporations—big money—but individual criminal sanctions also play an important role in deterring that kind of cartel behaviour.
So it is with that in mind—and also, I guess, just an acknowledgment that, yes, we did have some submissions that were in favour, and we also had some that were against. In terms of weighing it up, we as a committee looked over it, and we as a Government are really happy to put our support behind this piece of legislation. It is a good piece of law that we will be making today. This is the second reading; there’s still, obviously, the committee stage to go as well.
Andrew Bayly: You’ve got another two minutes.
TAMATI COFFEY: I’m done. I commend this to the House. Go!
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill’s second reading. Well, that member who just resumed his seat, Tamati Coffey, could get three minutes out of this—amazing. You know, this bill, actually, is essentially a National Party bill, which the previous member didn’t really seem to understand, although this Labour - New Zealand First Government wants to put that littlest extra twist into it—that criminalisation stuff. And I tell you what, it’s the same issue that we discussed last night around the Commerce Amendment Bill: this is a Minister, the Minister of this bill, Kris Faafoi, who is a soft touch—a soft touch. Because we’ve now had three pieces of legislation where all these little twists that the Labour - New Zealand First Government want to make are the extra bit that all our former Ministers on this side of the House went so far to make the changes—and you’ve nicked all our bills—but you then just accepted, willy-nilly, what the officials have said to you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just to remind the member: I didn’t nick anything.
ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So let’s have a talk about what a cartel is, because I didn’t hear that from the previous speeches. So a cartel is now defined as a situation where two or more businesses agree not to compete when engaging in one of the following activities: price-fixing, restricting output, or allocating markets. And the thing about cartels is that, currently, it’s a criminal offence. In fact, it’s quite a substantial criminal offence. We’re very careful at the moment about making sure that cartels do permit—you can undertake certain arrangements, which are collaborative arrangements, vehicle supply arrangements, and joint buying and promotion. So all this is bona fide—you’re able to do that. But the cartel where we have this price-fixing and restricting output—we all agree with that. We agree that that should not occur, and we agree that the Commerce Commission should do that. That’s a given. But at the moment, we have severe penalties for activities that involve that, and they are civil. It’s absolutely incredible, in terms of the extent of those. For instance, the sanctions at the moment: if you’re an individual, you can be fined up to $500,000; if you’re a corporate, you can be fined up to $10 million—$10 million if you’re a body corporate. So the issue around this is that we’ve already got very significant civil penalties, and very few people actually want this. In fact, not even the Commerce Commission wanted this change, which I find quite remarkable—that the Commerce Commission didn’t want it.
But let’s see who else didn’t want it. I think they are fairly august and well-known organisations: Buddle Findlay, quite a significant law firm; Business New Zealand; Franchise Association of New Zealand; Horticulture New Zealand; Institute of Directors; Matthews Law—he does competition law, based in Auckland; New Zealand Certificate of Building Association—they’re a pretty good body, and I’ve had a lot to do with them; Russell McVeagh—again, well-known lawyers; Simpson Grierson—yeah, pretty good lawyers, too, I must admit; and the business New Zealand Initiative. Not a bad sort of cast of people who are saying, “Let’s not do this. Let’s not do this. Let’s not move into the criminalisation aspect.” And I think that is a pretty weighty group who are saying there are good reasons not to do this.
I think the issue around the criminalisation is that you get into uncharted territory. First of all, there’s no proven case why we should be moving into criminalisation, but the thing is—and this is where the Government just goes where no one else wants to tread—what the Labour - New Zealand First Government has done in the last 48 hours is pass a whole range of bills that basically say, “We do not worry about commerce in New Zealand.” The Minister talked about consumers last night. He’s also the Minister of commerce. He should be concerned about commerce in New Zealand. He should be protecting and making sure that they’re operating correctly—and we all have that concern—but what he’s doing, and what you guys over the other side are doing, is putting in place these arrangements that take it a step further and put us into an area where it has a chilling impact on people, on businesses, and on commerce in New Zealand.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the member that I’m not doing it.
JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, I just want to start, first off, with my contribution this afternoon, where the previous member who’s just resumed his seat, Andrew Bayly, made a comment about the fact that my colleague Tamati Coffey spent only three minutes discussing this legislation. And I say—I put it to that member—it’s about quality, not quantity. I suggest that that member might like to consider that the next time he stands to take a call.
Anyway, so I’m going to begin by talking about this piece of legislation. Thanks to the submitters who contributed and to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which I’m recently a new member of. I am really enjoying learning about this legislation and all the other pieces in front of us.
Basically, what this is about is stopping cartel behaviour. It’s about protecting consumers, right? So consumers—and people in general—are actually what this Government is all about looking after. Now, most businesses act in a proper way and comply with everything they’re supposed to, but there are the odd rogue ones that don’t. There was a member that spoke previously about the fact that we don’t need to have a criminal offence with regard to cartel behaviour because it’s not happening on that large a scale here in New Zealand. Well, I say: is that a reason not to, or is now not the perfect time to do it, before this starts to happen? So that’s just what I would have to say around that.
Consumers need to be able to trust businesses—that businesses are acting with the best of intentions. When businesses are doing that and not participating in cartel conduct, then we see that, actually, competition is better—competition is better among businesses, it’s better for consumers, and it leads to lower prices and better quality goods and services. I say that now is the perfect time—the perfect opportunity—to implement this piece of legislation to protect our consumers now and into the future. I commend this bill to the House.
BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to oppose this bill, this unnecessary bill, the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill, at second reading. Fundamentally, if Parliament is going to pass laws, we are going to do something that is going to—in the really good cases, we enable things, but all too often we constrain activities. In this case, we can do damage to markets, which, ultimately, harms consumers. So we should be undertaking legislative change when there is an absolutely clear need to do so, where there is evidence to support it, and where the benefits that we can very reasonably predict will flow through are greater than the costs that could be incurred by doing it. This bill fails on pretty much every count.
To begin on the first part, in the last term we passed a commerce amendment bill around cartel behaviour which places very significant—quite onerous, if the court feels it is necessary—and very serious civil penalties on individuals and bodies corporate that would be found to be conducting their activities in such a way. There is no fundamental—I mean, we’re talking about things that could be around $10 million or potentially even more in terms of a fine on a company, and half a million dollars on an individual. These are sufficiently serious penalties to deter people or at least make them very careful about how they go about their business activities.
We do acknowledge and we should acknowledge—we certainly did when we went through that bill—that there are instances where collaboration between companies can, in certain perspectives, look like it might be transgressing the sort of pro-competitive behaviour that we want and need in our market place but where, often, it is the case that it is not. So we’ve already got the law to capture this, the law to investigate it, and the penalties to take appropriate action, and that, to an extent, will also provide a deterrent from individuals and companies participating or acting in this sort of nefarious manner. So there is no clear rationale as to why we must have a criminal sanction.
Next, we should look for—OK, what’s the evidence that there is such egregious behaviour that it might be worthwhile having this? The reality is—and as the former speaker that just resumed her seat a few moments ago, Jo Luxton, pointed out—that evidence doesn’t exist. No one claims that they have instances in New Zealand where such egregious behaviour has taken place that people should be locked up, so why on earth are we putting in such a sanction when we’ve got no grounds for its need in this country?
Now, it doesn’t surprise me from this Government, because just this week in the Commerce Amendment Bill—the other commerce amendment bill—we saw them do just that in the greater regulation-making powers to do with regulated airports. The officials, on the introduction of that bill, in their regulatory impact statement, pointed out that there was no evidence that the current regulatory regime for those regulated airports was not working. They also said that even if it wasn’t working, it would have a minimal impact on consumers anyway, which should be another huge test for amending the Commerce Act. But, none the less, they still said, “Let’s go ahead and give greater regulatory powers.” We resisted that. There was a reason why we changed our position and voted in support of that bill in the end, and it was to seek to help New Zealanders with the costs they’re bearing at the petrol pump, but, none the less, we resisted that because it was a case of creating greater regulatory authority when there was no evidence of a need existing, and this particular bill also fails that hurdle.
On the benefit side, if we’ve already got the ability to sanction people and companies appropriately or well or harshly, and those sanctions themselves form a level of deterrence, then what are the benefits that could accrue through criminalisation that we wouldn’t otherwise get? Really, they should be benefits related to deterrence of the behaviour, because we do have some very harsh penalties already if it is investigated and found. There is nothing in the bill that suggests that there is anything extra to be gained for the consumer—after all, the Commerce Act is about protecting the interests of the consumer. So there is nothing in the bill that evidences or even talks about the additional benefit that consumers would get—New Zealand citizens would get—if we were able to lock people up instead of just fining them for such behaviour.
But let’s look at the cost, or the potential cost. Officials were really quite clear on this, and it was in the regulatory impact statement. Officials like Treasury and others oppose these measures because they believe that the criminalisation element could have a chilling effect on business investment and pro-competitive collaboration between businesses in New Zealand. Let’s bear in mind, where we do have pro-competitive collaborative behaviour, when businesses, for their own mutual benefit but also the ultimate end benefit of their customers—potentially joint customers—are working together, that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in most cases, it’s an incredibly good thing.
If you want to take a simple example—the relationship didn’t always work too well, and at times it went to court, but a simple example is if you take IBM as once the greatest manufacturer of personal computers, and Microsoft, the near-monopolist—at the time—producer of operating system software for those computers. They ended up competing—because IBM also created software, and a lot of it—in the market of software, but they worked together in terms of what they were able to bring to companies, to individuals, to homes across the world, in fact, by working together on being able to put together a package of hardware and software that made the personal computer a great utility not only for businesses but for people. That’s a simple example of where two competitive firms can be working together for the common benefit not only of their firms but, particularly, of the market and their consumers.
So do we really want to have a situation—and some officials believe this is something that could arise from these criminalisation provisions—where businesses who could work together constructively, not only for the benefit of them and their shareholders but, ultimately, for the benefit of consumers, are constrained or scared from undertaking those positive actions, those positive investments, because they’re somewhat worried that the big guns are going to come out for them, and if they are found to have strayed beyond a mark, that the sanctions that could be imposed on them could extend as far as criminalisation?
I don’t think and I certainly don’t believe that the Government has put up any credible argument to suggest that the additional benefits of criminalisation for cartel behaviour, over and above a civil penalty regime, outweigh those costs or those potential costs. That’s another reason why Parliament should be opposing this bill. We don’t need it. The costs it could impose—not actually on those businesses. I want to make this point very clear, because, ultimately, that pro-competitive collaborative behaviour works in the best interests of consumers. So why would we put something in place that, ultimately, has more cost in terms of missed opportunities for consumers than additional benefits it provides?
But, alas, none of that surprises me with this Government. We see it time and time again with legislation that they bring to this House, with regulations they seek to make, and with their rhetoric up and down the length and breadth of the country. They fundamentally have an issue: they believe that all business is bad and that business people, if left unchecked by things like the criminalisation of cartel behaviour, will run amok, will seek to rip their customers off, and will seek to cause them harm in any way they can, and that they can only be managed through the iron fist of Government regulation and legislation.
Not only is that fundamentally and palpably wrong, but in doing so they miss the heart of the Commerce Act, which are competitive markets to the benefit of consumers. Competitive markets aren’t simply prices or big sticks held up to businesses; competitive markets are borne out of business people and businesses investing: investing in new products, investing in new technologies, or creating new services and products of utility to customers. Along the way, in doing that, they create jobs and they create higher-paying jobs. The attitude this Government consistently takes is to the detriment of the consumer. I oppose this bill.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It’s an absolute delight to stand here and speak in favour—just like my comrades here on this side of the House—of the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to address the mistake—yet another mistake—that was made by the previous Government. Here we are, yet again: another example of this Government cleaning up the mistakes of the previous Government. This was touched on by Andrew Bayly—“Old Yeller” himself—who stood there and said that this is essentially a National Party bill. And he was right, because when this bill was first introduced to this House back in 2012, it proposed the criminalisation of cartels, and they backed off. They fluffed it up, and here we are having to fix their mistakes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would indulge me, let me read this quote, please: “I believe that with the introduction of criminal sanctions,”—in relation to cartels—“New Zealand stands to benefit in three ways. First is the increased deterrence of hard-core cartels due to the severe sanctions, associated stigma, and possible restriction of an individual’s freedom. Second is the increased detection of hard-core cartels from improving the effectiveness of the leniency regime by increasing the value to the individual applying for leniency. The leniency regime is administered by the Commerce Commission, and encourages cartelists to come forward in return for leniency. Third is an improved ability to cooperate and detect cartel conduct.” That wonderful quote, which outlines exactly why we need to criminalise cartels, was made by the National Party Minister who introduced the bill in the first place: Craig Foss.
Hon Ruth Dyson: What happened to him?
KIERAN McANULTY: What happened to Craig Foss? I spend a lot of time in Hawke’s Bay. The Wairarapa electorate goes up to central Hawke’s Bay, just above Waipawa—in fact, I’m going to be there tomorrow—and what do I hear whenever I walk around Central Hawke’s Bay? They say, “Bring back ‘Fossy’ ”. They say, “Bring back Craig Foss. At least he lived in the electorate, and at least he worked hard.”
DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, you must refer to people by their proper name—
KIERAN McANULTY: And that’s what I tell them, Madam Deputy Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and, second of all, I’d like you to speak to the bill.
KIERAN McANULTY: Dead right—what a great bill.
This bill will fix the mistake that the previous Government mixed up, because what it will do is it will increase penalties and make them a criminal matter when having them as a civil matter simply does not fit the bill. Craig Foss thought that, I think that, and my comrades on this side of the House think that because, of course, a civil matter—[Interruption] All I hear from the other side of the House is jealousy—jealousy. When they look to their left and their right, like I do now—when I look to my left, I see my mates, and when I look to my right I see my mates, and then, when they look to their left, they see knives and daggers. That is not a very safe environment to be in. But, over here, we’re getting things done, like looking to pass this bill.
In a civil matter, if found guilty, of course, the company will pay or the insurance will pay, and in a situation when cartel behaviour can significantly benefit a business, a fine that is disproportionate to the potential profit is not a fair deterrence.
Dr Duncan Webb: No. It’s just a tax.
KIERAN McANULTY: It is just a tax. My learned colleague from behind me, Dr Duncan Webb, who knows about these things and who spoke in favour of this bill, says that this is where we should move.
They say that this will have a chilling effect. I say that what will have a chilling effect is behaviour that works against the interest of consumers. This Government stands here proudly introducing bills that will help consumers, so that people can have faith that businesses are acting in good faith, within the rules, and so that we as consumers can operate within a system that gives us confidence. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
The question is, That the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill be now read a second 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 second time.
Bills
Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill
Second Reading
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Malo ni tau huhuga a te Takitaki Fono. Malo ni, ko te vaiaho fakamanatu o te Gagana Tokelau. I greet you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that this is the week of the Tokelau language.
I move, That the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for New Zealanders who wish to live in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to a Pacific reset. We want to continue to grow and strengthen our existing and new relationships in the Pacific, and this bill is an important part of this. We want to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported. We also want to ensure that superannuitants have as many options as possible as to where they choose to live.
New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions are our main forms of income support for older New Zealanders. New Zealand superannuation is payable at age 65 years to any New Zealand citizen or resident who is ordinarily resident in New Zealand when he or she applies, and who has been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years over the age of 20, and also for five years over the age of 50. Veterans pension is the alternative pension for veterans and their partners who qualify for New Zealand superannuation based on the veterans’ qualifying operational service.
Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to one of 22 Pacific countries and territories, including the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. The provision that makes this possible is called the Special Portability Arrangement. Under the arrangement, New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension is paid at a minimum of 50 percent after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand, rising to 100 percent after 20 years’ residence. The Special Portability Arrangement is designed to recognise the contribution Pacific peoples make to New Zealand and the inability of Pacific countries and territories to fulfil the reciprocal obligations necessary to conclude social security arrangements with New Zealand. There are currently 408 people receiving their New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pensions in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and 351 of those people live in the Cook Islands.
Generally, to be eligible under the Special Portability Arrangement, a person must be resident and present in New Zealand on the date of his or her application. An amendment to the Special Portability Arrangement introduced in 2015 allows people residing in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to apply for New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pension from the Islands, rather than needing to be resident and present in New Zealand at the time of their application. The intent of this change was to remove a disincentive for people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to live. However, the change has had a smaller take-up than expected. It is now evident that the 2015 change, while removing some disincentives for skilled people to return to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau during their working lives, did not achieve the desired effect of encouraging people to move back to and remain in those countries.
The Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue are concerned that the five years over age 50 residence requirement is the reason for the low take-up of the amendment made in 2015. They consider that the five over 50 residence requirement is deterring skilled people from returning and contributing to their countries. They are also concerned that the five years over 50 residence requirement may induce some people to return to New Zealand in order to ensure that they will be able to claim New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pension later on. This bill will remedy these concerns by allowing the requirement that a person have five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50 years to be met instead with residence and presence in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, or any combination of those countries.
The Social Services and Community Committee has examined the bill and recommends that it be passed without amendment, and I want to acknowledge and thank the members of that select committee for the work they have done on this bill. One of the issues raised in the submissions on the bill was the effect the changes would have on the economic activity of Niue. It was suggested that the bill could have a detrimental effect on the economic activity in Niue by creating an incentive for Niueans to live in New Zealand in order to become eligible for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension.
This bill is about supporting the economic and social viability of the Pacific Realm countries. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for these Islands. This bill will reduce the incentive for people to return to New Zealand in order to satisfy the five years over 50 requirements, and this will help boost economic development and human resource capacity by allowing highly skilled people to continue to contribute to their communities in these countries.
It was also suggested that full entitlement to New Zealand superannuation and veterans’ pension should be extended to all New Zealand citizens in Niue, regardless of whether they have resided in New Zealand. This would not align with New Zealand’s approach to superannuation, in which the residency requirements are there to ensure that a person who is applying for New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension has a connection to New Zealand. Also, the constitutional arrangements in Niue mean that they are responsible for their own tax and welfare systems. I want to thank those who took the time and effort to make submissions to the committee.
Another submitter raised concerns about the implementation of the changes, and suggested that the application process be automatic, if possible. The Ministry of Social Development is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to consider how to provide services for applicants. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has an established presence in the Islands, and already has local relationships and infrastructure in place. To expedite an initial backlog of applications when the bill is passed, people will be able to register that they intend to apply.
I want to reiterate that this Government wants to continue to show that we value our Pacific neighbours and acknowledge our constitutional ties with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—after all, they are family to many of us. The citizens of these nations share New Zealand citizenship and through this bill we’re able to better respond to the needs of those citizens. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions
Question No. 8 to Minister
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to make a personal explanation, correcting an answer given during oral question No. 8 today.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does anyone object to that? Leave is granted.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During oral question No. 8 today, the Hon Gerry Brownlee asked, “When the Minister said yesterday, in an answer to a question, that the ACC accounts were very full and that they needed to be rebalanced down, did he convey that Government position to the board of ACC, and is he concerned that the board of ACC did not listen to him in preparing a consultation document that has motor vehicle levies going up?”
I did not need to convey that position to ACC, because, under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, ACC is required to give effect to the Government funding policy statement on ACC levies, which requires ACC to target a funding band of between 100 and 110 percent of reported liabilities, and also requires ACC to make adjustments to levy rates that would achieve that target funding band over a 10-year horizon, should current accounts be outside of that band. That funding policy statement was gazetted on 10 May 2016 by the Hon Nikki Kaye.
BRETT HUDSON (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A personal statement is made in the House to correct an error or a misleading statement given to the House. The Minister has answered the question a second time. What’s the error or misleading statement he’s apologising or notifying the House about?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): There was some back and forth—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —about the answer to this question. I believe the Speaker indicated that the answer had not enlightened the House, as to the answer to the question. I have come to the House in order to provide the information the House required.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it probably would have been better if he’d sought leave to clarify the answer rather than correct, because, in fact, the point of order is correct: there is no correction, but you did explain to the House the answer to the question. In fairness, there was considerable back and forth.
Bills
Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise in the second reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill and will put on record that National will, of course, be supporting this legislation in the second reading. There was, of course, a prime ministerial visit last year by Rt Hon Bill English to the Pacific, where he made the undertaking that this issue would be resolved. That’s why National is pleased to support this legislation. Unfortunately, there is a lot of legislation that is supported around the House that doesn’t usually make headlines, but I know this particular legislation will make a significant difference even though the media might not report it and be singing it from the rooftops.
This is about making the superannuation requirements fairer for residents of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. So it is, of course, nice that this is getting its second reading in Tokelau Language Week. But also, as the MP for Taupō, I have a significant Cook Island population, and I know this is an issue they’ve raised and this is an issue that will make a difference to them.
For those listeners or viewers who have just tuned in to this particular debate, there is a requirement at the moment, which came into effect in 2015, that has a New Zealand superannuation residence requirement of five years’ residence from the age of 50—what’s more commonly known as the five years after 50 rule. What it means for those in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, which we have particular constitutional arrangements with in New Zealand—a very special relationship—is that it was actually deterring skilled people from returning to those countries, which, in many cases, desperately need the skills of that population. Instead, it was kind of forcing them to remain in New Zealand, which had an economic impact on those home countries. So this is a practical and sensible change that, as I said, the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Bill English had committed to in the Pacific in June last year. So I do want to commend the Government for making this a priority.
I was on the select committee that considered this legislation. It’s an interesting select committee. We have bills like this that are very simple and straightforward. There were seven submitters, and the submitters did raise a number of issues. The Minister has gone through those in detail, so it’s not my expectation to traverse that ground again. I do want to just say, though, if any of the submitters are listening to this debate or will read the Hansard subsequently, the issues absolutely were considered by the select committee. They were considered at length and discussed at length. The overall decision, though, was that the bill wouldn’t be changed as was presented to the select committee. And, as I say, the Minister who spoke before me, Minister Sio, I think traversed those issues well, and I don’t intend to do it. The Social Services and Community Committee has other legislation that is not quite so straightforward but is also unanimously supported, like child poverty legislation, that has taken a significant amount of work and cooperation to get back to this House.
So, in terms of this piece of legislation, the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, it absolutely recognises the special relationship that New Zealand has with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. While we welcome the right of people from these countries to live in New Zealand, it’s also really important that we give them the equal opportunity to live in their original Islands, and we don’t want to be imposing something that actually, by way of providing a superannuation payment to someone, is then detrimental to the home economies, and, at the same time, we are making sure that those individuals aren’t punished by not receiving or qualifying for the superannuation payment.
So it is a simple change. The cost identified to taxpayers is actually very little. One of the numbers that was considered, for example: it was thought that perhaps, if this wasn’t progressed, about 200 people would delay their departure back to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau until they reached the age of 65. They would then have qualified for the residency and for the New Zealand superannuation and then travelled back. So it’s not a large number who are affected, but for those individuals and their families and the three countries involved, actually, it’s a significant benefit.
So, for those listening, it’s a fairly simple piece of legislation, but it will have wide-ranging impacts. I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues on the select committee for the work that was done on this, and to make sure that this legislation progresses with reasonable pace so that those individuals and families and the three countries of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau receive the adequate benefit. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Malo ni, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with particular delight that I rise to speak in favour of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill, that will affect the people of Tokelau as we celebrate Tokelauan Language Week this week. I think previous speakers have outlined what this bill does in quite a lot of detail, so I don’t feel the need to go into too much detail, except to say that, of course, it is about greater pension flexibility for retirement. It alters some of the residential qualifications that allow New Zealanders and New Zealand citizens from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to retire in any one of those countries—including, of course, New Zealand—or in any combination of those countries, as well.
It’s an important bill because it responds to some of the concerns that have been raised by the Governments of those Islands as well in terms of the economic and social losses that they have experienced because, for example, of depopulation that arises from those residential qualification requirements. To be counted towards the New Zealand superannuation or the veterans’ pension qualification, the qualification requirement is for five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand after the age of 50. I just want to point out that the requirement for 10 years’ residence in New Zealand over the age of 20 remains a core entitlement requirement.
Now, of course, again—as has been mentioned previously as well—people born in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau share New Zealand citizenship. Therefore, New Zealand has an obligation to respond to the needs of these citizens as well, and this bill reflects those constitutional responsibilities that we have for the citizens of those Islands. This is a Government that is committed to a Pacific reset, and this bill contributes to the continued strengthening and the growing of that relationship that we have with our Pacific neighbours from the point of view, of course, that we are also part of the Pacific.
This is a good bill. It will help and will be particularly well-received by our Pacific populations here in New Zealand as well as those in the Islands, and it is with pleasure that I commend it to the House.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I think it’s appropriate to begin in the languages of the Realm, so kia orana, faakalofa atu, malo ni, kia ora, and hello. Look, it’s a real pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. A little bit like with a piece of legislation last evening, I don’t actually sit on the social services bill, but I’m speaking on this as I hold—
Nicola Willis: Committee.
SIMON O’CONNOR: —two associate—sorry, on this committee, thank you. It isn’t a very good start, is it? Thank you very much. However, I now have nine minutes and 24 seconds to make good. I don’t sit on the committee. However, I have two associate portfolios—which is really going badly. I’m just so excited to get to talk about the Realm. It’s going to be great, particularly with Prince Harry and Meghan coming here—where could this go?
But, in all seriousness, it’s two associate spokesperson-ships that I hold in this area, and I’m delighted to talk on this social assistance legislation bill because, in effect, it’s a National Party bill. Actually, without throwing too many brickbats, it’s another example of legislation being put forward in this House—rightly under the new Government’s name but, actually, National Party originated—and this particular part is from the Rt Hon Bill English, or should I more correctly say now, seeing he is a knight of the Realm, Sir Bill English.
We’ll go through a little bit of the history in a moment, but this, as I say, is the second reading of a good bill. There were seven people who submitted and two who did so orally, and by that, I mean that they came to the committee and discussed matters. The report back from the committee—the Minister who resumed the chair earlier has traversed some of that, and it’s not my intention to do so. But, fundamentally, this is a progression in New Zealand’s laws. In this case, it’s around its superannuation and veterans payments, to recognise not only the rights, if you will, of those who reach retirement age to access their entitlements but, I think, importantly—and really importantly—actually, there are consequences of New Zealand being a realm.
It’s not always known, but some of the language in this House and otherwise can sometimes get blurred. We talk about New Zealand as being a State or as a country, but, actually, we are a Realm. We are a Realm because our head of State is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and under that Realm, New Zealand sits as an independent country. The Cook Islands and Niue also share the Queen of New Zealand as their head of State and are in free association with New Zealand, and Tokelau is a dependent territory. Granted, they have sought referenda before to discuss whether to move into free association with New Zealand or, if they so chose, to go completely independent. They have, up to this point in time, not done so, and they remain, as I say, a dependent territory with, rather than under, the Queen of New Zealand.
So the Realm of New Zealand is actually larger than simply the North Island, South Island, and the Chathams and Stewart islands. It also includes the Cooks, Niue, Tokelau, and, actually—if it’s of the curiosity interest—the Ross Dependency. So New Zealand is more than what we initially think, and it makes a lot of sense to me that if we’re going to have a realm and if we’re going to engage under the same head of State, actually, the same rights and privileges are accorded.
I may go on a little bit further to see where these next expansions go, but, in terms of social assistance, up until 2015—well, actually, firstly, Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to acknowledge this as an omnibus bill. In other words—and as you would know—as an omnibus bill it’s affecting two pieces of legislation: obviously, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans’ Support Act, more recently updated in 2014. People, at this point in time, over 65 who are to become eligible have had to have lived in New Zealand for at least 10 years since they became 20. So people have to be resident in New Zealand, but, importantly, and as other speakers have indicated, you need to have lived in New Zealand for at least five years once you’re over the age of 50.
This is where the little complications began to kick in. So the problem we are seeking to solve is that New Zealanders who are eligible, or would normally be eligible, for superannuation: in New Zealand, everything was fine; those New Zealanders living in other parts of the Realm—obviously, the likes of Niue or Tokelau, for example—were not eligible. In fact, their living in that part of the Realm meant that they could not be seen as resident for five years. In a sense, to make matters worse, they had to, if they were in those parts of the Realm, come back to New Zealand to apply.
So in 2015 changes were made so that a New Zealander living, let’s say, in the Cook Islands would no longer have to come back to apply in New Zealand. So that was part of it: not only five years in New Zealand but you had to be in New Zealand to make an application. So we, in 2015, fixed that requirement. People were able to apply from the Realm, which makes sense, and this piece of legislation as agreed by the Rt Hon Bill English in 2015—no, it must have been nearer 2017; I’d have to double check those dates—said, “No; actually, living in the Cook Islands, living in Niue, living in Tokelau—that will count towards the five years over 50.” And I think that’s really, really prudent.
Again, I think, first and foremost, it’s good for the person who is going to receive the superannuation, of course. They want to receive the money. It’s their entitlement. They’ve worked hard for New Zealand. It’s obviously good for those parts of the Realm: the Cooks, Tokelau, and Niue. Those people are able to remain there, to be resident there, and to, obviously, spend their superannuation there. That’s a positive. Others have talked about keeping those skills there. I would add, on top of all of that, that there are just good social benefits as well. People do not like having to move around unnecessarily.
So that’s incredibly positive there as well, but I think, much wider than that, it sends an incredibly strong signal that New Zealand is a realm. The way that we are constitutionally structured is finally being reflected in our legislation—that, actually, these places, in free association or as a dependent territory, as Tokelau and Ross Dependency are, are part of New Zealand and they should be treated equally and as such.
Really, just to illustrate the point, up until this legislation goes through, living in the Cook Islands or living in Tokelau doesn’t seem to count, even though it’s part of the Realm, for that five-year entitlement. It would be akin to saying, “Well, I’m sorry. All of those who live in”—I don’t know—“Havelock North or Dunedin, sorry; you don’t count.” It’s as if we’re dividing up, I would argue, arbitrarily, where the lines go. And it’s a slight contradiction because, at the moment, things like our exclusive economic zone and our military and diplomatic capacities are based off those territories, off those areas of free association like the Cook Islands. There’s some element of connection already, and it makes a lot of sense to me that we continue to emphasise the importance of New Zealand’s constitutional structures. And one of the best ways to do that—other than, obviously, educating people—is to make sure that the constitutional actions and our laws reflect that: in other words, that there’s equality for all of those people within the Realm.
So it’s my hope that as time goes on this is not the last piece of legislation we bring to the House that makes it really clear that all of those—all of us, in fact; all of us—who live in New Zealand, who live in the Ross Dependency or work down there, or who live in Tokelau, the Cook Islands, or Niue are all under the one head of State, and therefore we should reflect that, in a sense, uniqueness—because it is not all that usual. But that uniqueness should be reflected not only in social assistance but also in the areas of travel—how we actually move across those territories. That raises, obviously, much wider discussions around the freedom of movement, visas, passports, and so forth and what is required there.
I think too it ensures that we must have a mature conversation as, if you will, the one people in multiple areas within this Realm of New Zealand on how our relationship continues—importantly, together. If we wish to separate things out, I just think that’s fundamentally important.
So we are wholeheartedly in support of this legislation and happy that it’s processed through the select committee. It seems like a very robust process. I think the recommendations and the way that the issues have been articulated are particularly positive. I look forward to it progressing swiftly through the House and other contributions as we count down.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I do need to put on the record a couple of things. It’s been very interesting sitting in here listening to some of the speeches from the Opposition benches, and I really do hate to upset the atmosphere of collaboration, cooperation, and mutual admiration that does seem to be befalling us right now, but one cannot let some things go by, particularly with this being the 25th anniversary of the birth of New Zealand First—well, not this day, but this year. Right from the outset, the Rt Hon Winston Peters has championed and advocated for this law change.
It’s been interesting listening to various National Party speakers talking about how they support this legislation and talking about how it’s good that this inequity, this anomaly, this injustice is now being corrected. The Rt Hon Bill English promised in 2017—he just happened to be on the election trail at that time—that he would correct this anomaly, this error, this inconsistency. I do recall that the Hon Murray McCully, likewise, whilst he was flitting around the South Pacific as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, having heard the representations from Pacific Island leaders, both here in New Zealand and back in the Cook Islands, in Niue, and in Tokelau, also promised to redress this anomaly.
I do recall very clearly, on 29 April 2015, as we debated the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill in its second reading, a speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, where he pleaded with the then National Government Minister the Hon Alfred Ngaro to accept his Supplementary Order Paper that would have redressed this very matter. And what happened? See, one would assume from all of the speeches thus far from the National Party that they agreed. Well, clearly, they didn’t agree, because that’s why we’re having to pass this legislation now.
It is just absolutely mind-boggling that the party that has opposed this tooth and nail, back as far as 1993 to now, should be asking everybody to recognise and applaud the Rt Hon Bill English, the Hon Murray McCully, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro, because this piece of legislation, apparently, my coalition colleagues, is a National Party - birthed child.
Kiritapu Allan: Ah, that’s what they’re saying, isn’t it?
Hon RON MARK: Apparently. Well, it is far from that. Then we go back to 29 April 2015 and read the words where the Rt Hon Winston Peters was pleading. He was saying, “We have a Supplementary Order Paper in respect of this bill, because this … bill”—being portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau bill, which was the National Party bill—“is extraordinarily biased and prejudicial towards Realm countries in the Pacific.” He said, “Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, has continually emphasised the special and historic”—[Interruption] Here they go. They don’t like it up ‘em, do they? They don’t like it up ‘em, do they—“relationship of the Realm countries, and Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue, and Tokelau) Bill is doing just half the job.”, said the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
“We appeal”—now, this is us asking. I don’t want to say “begging”, because the Rt Hon Winston Peters never begs, but he does put a compelling case, and he does ask the people who say they’re going to do something to stick by their word and do it. So he said, “We appeal to the Minister to finish what he started and amend the agreement to exempt the Realm countries from section 8(c), and that is what our Supplementary Order Paper will be [all] about.” And—hello—what are we doing right now? We’re exempting section 8(c), and the audacity—the audacity, my coalition colleagues—is that that lot want to sit over there now and reap some sort of credit. Some credit? You have got to be joking me.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not.
Hon RON MARK: Seriously, they—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not. Could you come to the bill.
Hon RON MARK: Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you come to the bill before us.
Hon RON MARK: I am talking to the bill—section 8(c).
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, but you don’t argue with the Speaker. I have asked you to come to the bill. You’ve read something from years ago. I would like you to address the bill.
Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The bill, the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill—which we are supporting in New Zealand First—waives section 8(c), which is the five years after 50 rule. Why do we believe in doing that? Because it was wrong. It actually discriminated against people who are New Zealanders. It required these people to leave their Realm country and to come back to New Zealand to fulfil that five years’ requirement to qualify, and that is the very point that has been argued in this House for decades—decades.
It is nice to see that after 25 years, we are putting it right. It’s interesting that when we look at these people who have been simply asked as New Zealanders to be treated correctly—and I do say, we have to acknowledge that on this day of the second reading of this bill, a Mr Les Priest, who has represented in the Rarotonga and New Zealand superannuation lobby group of Cook Islanders and expatriate Kiwis, these citizens, for so long and so well. This has been a long battle for these people, fighting for many, many years. It is satisfying that we get to this point on the second reading with the unanimous support of the House, and I do thank the National Party for finally getting to this point.
But I do not think it’s unreasonable to remind the nation at this second reading of how good this bill is and the tortuous path that has been walked to get section 8(c) and the five years after 50 rule finally dealt with. It has caused inappropriate dislocation. It has caused disruption. It has caused relocation. It has caused a breakdown in the social cohesion of the countries involved. It has caused people who have returned to their land, having gained wonderful skill sets here in New Zealand in the decades that they’ve lived here and paid taxes, who’ve gone back, transferring those skills, taking money with them, and investing their time, their knowledge, their skills, their talent, and their money back in their countries, in their own islands—to have to then up sticks to come back here to New Zealand to complete those five years so that they might qualify for something that was always rightfully theirs. That another Government could not recognise that in the last term is very, very sad. It’s sad.
I’d only encourage those National Party members—and I congratulate them for voting for this legislation here today and on supporting it through to third reading—all to go back up to their Pacific Island communities and apologise. You know, certain National Party Ministers gained honours and recognition from these Pacific Island nations on the back of promises that they made and did not keep.
I think, in amongst all of this, the one man who has stood true to his word steadfastly for the last 25 years on this very issue, and who is now the Deputy Prime Minister and enjoying the pleasure of seeing it enacted—and I thank the Opposition party for coming along with us on this ride—is the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who made those points to, sadly, deaf ears on 29 April 2015. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand today in support of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in its second reading. It’s a little bit of an anti-climax for me to stand and speak, considering I’ve just followed the deputy leader’s speech. It’s a great pitch, Ron Mark, and if we’re scoring you, you would be right up there.
Hon Member: It was a challenge. He wants the job back.
MAUREEN PUGH: We know he wants the job. We’ve had some very enlightened and sometimes irrelevant contributions on this bill during this round of reading, the second reading, but I will do my best to maintain my focus.
This is an omnibus bill and my understanding of the use of “omnibus” means that it reflects some changes in more than one bill, which this one certainly does, and it makes changes to the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans’ pension. The purpose of the bill is to allow people from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to be able to be resident in New Zealand for a minimum of 10 years after the age of 20 and five years after the age of 50 to qualify for New Zealand super—the bill will, in fact, mean that that New Zealand residency post-50, so the five years after 50, will actually apply in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.
One of the main reasons behind this change is that there was concern in those Islands about the depopulation of those Islands to New Zealand in order to qualify for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pension. By having those five years after 50, at that age people are probably well settled here in this country, there was less motivation perhaps to go back to the Islands for their retirement, instead preferring to stay in New Zealand where their families are. A motivator for coming to New Zealand in the first place, as we heard during the submission period, was to further education or to come here for work or to reconnect with family that were already resident here. So now this bill is proposing that, provided they have spent 10 years here in New Zealand after the age of 20, their return to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau after the age of 50 for five years, will mean that they will qualify for New Zealand superannuation or veterans’ pension.
There were seven submissions made to the select committee; two oral submissions, including a very impassioned one from the High Commissioner from Niue. His submission was suggesting that the 10 years after 20 and the five years after 50 would apply in any of the countries of the Realm, and although it was quite an ambitious request, the committee and the advisers did suggest it was far outside of the scope of the intention of the bill.
There were concerns raised during the submission period that this bill was actually not complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990 and one of the submitters had actually taken a case to Human Rights Review Tribunal based on this, but the advice received was that this did appear to be consistent with the rights and freedoms as in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and so as a result there were no changes suggested.
My contribution to this debate is actually going to be about the suggestion one submitter had, which was that all of the Pacific Islands be included in this bill, which of course deemed it out of scope for the contribution. But I thought it was an opportune time to pay tribute to the other Pacific Islands, because I know from the area I am in, West Coast - Tasman, that the Pacific Islands and the contribution they make to our Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) schemes—and then, further, to the economic prosperity of not only the areas they come to work in here in New Zealand but their own country when their funds are able to go back—absolutely makes a different to us all. I think that partnership is invaluable to all of those Islands. There are 11,100 places available, as at the end of last year, for RSE workers, and I think it is a fine opportunity to pay tribute to them, and I’m sure the orchardists and vineyards around New Zealand would also accept that.
In coming to a close, I’m actually going to suggest that we shelve this bill. The reason for that is last week Mark Patterson from New Zealand First was fortunate to have his member’s bill drawn from the ballot; the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. Now, I congratulate Mark Patterson. He’s been quite lucky in having that one drawn. I think he’s had two drawn in the short time he’s been here. He stated very confidently that he believes he’s going to get support across the House for his member’s bill. But what that will do is actually make the residency requirement 20 years here in New Zealand, so it looks like we’re going to be debating two separate bills that are conflicting in terms of the outcome that is required.
We have not had that discussion as a caucus, but that proposal was actually put forward, as the Hon Ron Mark has already mentioned today, by National, by Sir Bill English last year, in June, I believe it was. So it is a concept that National has supported in the past, but with two bills now, with two different time frames attached to them, it seems only logical that we should put this bill and this debate on hold while we see the outcome of this new bill that has been introduced into the House.
I will wind up my contribution by just talking to some of the other submissions that were heard by the Social Services and Community Committee. One of those was about the objectives around the constitutional arrangements that we have with Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—[Visitors enter gallery] A colourful contribution in the House today!
One of the submitters, as I talked about before, said that this could apply to the other 22 countries in the Pacific, and our contribution back was that the provisions that are already in our arrangements around the 10 years after 20 and the five years after 50 was applicable to all of those other Islands, and that we would not be making any further changes to the bill.
The bill as it’s been presented to the House is unchanged from the original, and even though we did have some very good contributions from our submitters, I think that we’ve found a good place. I think also that if the House is of the opinion that we should delay having any further debate on this bill while we see what the alternative bill of Mark Patterson’s comes to, then I think that would be a very appropriate outcome. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. Kia orana. Fakaalofa atu ki a koe. Malo ni, tau huhuga te Takitaki Fono. It’s a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party and offer our support as well to this second reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I will just say upfront that I’m not feeling compelled to draw this out for the full 10 minutes, because this is actually quite a simple bill. We have debated this, and the community has been calling for this for a long time, and there is unanimous support, thankfully, in this House. The Green Party has long supported this change, possibly not as long as New Zealand First, I hear, but still quite a long time. It’s great to see us get to this milestone in the House and get unanimous support for it.
For anybody who may be listening that is new to this, what this legislation does—the purpose is to alter the residential qualifications for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to allow the requirement that a person also has five years’ residence and presence in New Zealand over the age of 50, to be met instead with residence and presence in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, or any combination of these countries in that territory.
The reason for this change is to take into account those close constitutional relationships with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. As it is really important to note—and I think the Premier of Niue was pointing out quite strongly—we do need to remember that often people from those countries feel as if it’s often forgotten that they are indeed citizens of New Zealand. This bill reflects that constitutional responsibility that New Zealand has for all its citizens living in those Pacific countries in that territory.
The current settings shift it from needing to have five years after the age of 50, being here, to being able to be in any of those areas, which I think is great. It specifically addresses the concern that while people may come to New Zealand to connect with wider family and look for further education opportunities or particular career prospects, often there’s a significant group of people who may at the age of 50, or around then, look to be returning to their home base and wanting to bring those skills and that knowledge back home. And the current policy settings that we have at the moment are preventing that. That’s been a real challenge, in terms of those communities at home, where they have—and I remind New Zealanders about some of the challenges for those communities of populations. I think, in Niue, the population right now is only 1,626, from the last count; in Tokelau, 1,325; and in Cook Islands it’s around 17,500. You need all your people on board, and you need as many people with skills as you can get to be able to get your community functioning well and building business and contributing to the running of the State. So it’s been a real shame that our policy settings here have acted against people returning home to contribute and to support those communities and countries. It’s fantastic to see this shift back.
I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee, actually, for their report on this bill. It’s one of the more plain-English reports that I’ve seen that directly responds to the concerns that people raised. They didn’t recommend any changes to the bill, but they explicitly outlined the concerns that people had raised through their submissions. And there were only seven, and only two oral submissions, but they went through those concerns and addressed them in a committee report, which is not actually that common—in my experience—to see it so clearly outlined. I really appreciated it, as not having been part of that process.
They pointed to some people having a concern that maybe this set up different requirements for residency for people who were born in New Zealand versus the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, around the 10 years after the age of 20. We’ve had that clarified by the officials: that that isn’t the case; that that is the same for somebody who is born in New Zealand as it is for people born in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau. Also, there was a bit of a concern that maybe this could have an impact on economic activity in Niue, and people thought that maybe it would reduce the incentive for people to return to New Zealand in order to satisfy the requirement for five years. They suggested that full entitlement to New Zealand super and the veterans pension should be extended to all citizens living in Niue, which shifted the settings so that it would be different to what it is in all of the countries. So the advice that was offered to the committee—and accepted by the committee—was recognising that it’s trying to get the consistency across, and recognising, as well, that the constitutional arrangements in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau mean that each realm is responsible for their own tax and welfare system. So that is up to that point of superannuation—that it seemed to be consistent.
There was the suggestion of extending the changes to all other countries in the Pacific. And I think, fairly, it was considered by the committee that the purpose of the bill is an acknowledgement of the special relationship and the fact that we all have New Zealand citizenship. So that is the reason for this specific focus.
There were concerns raised about the implementation, and assurances have been given that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be working closely in-country to support people to be able to access this support. So, in conclusion, the Greens are, again, very happy to support this.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Malo ni, tau huhuga te Takitaki Fono. Madam Assistant Speaker, happy Tokelauan Language Week—just had to get that right. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I’d like to apologise to all the people of Tokelau for my poor linguistic ability. I’ll stick to English, which is my mother tongue, for the duration of this speech.
Hon Member: Among many other things.
DAN BIDOIS: Ha, ha! I was also reminded, with the colour that was just in the House about five minutes ago, that it is also appropriate for me to say “Happy Diwali.” For everybody in New Zealand, it was a fantastic celebration last weekend, and I’ll be continuing to celebrate that this weekend. I’ve got about 2,000 people in my electorate of Northcote who celebrate that, and it’s just a fantastic celebration.
It’s a pleasure to talk to what is an important bill today. The purpose of this bill, and the way I see it, is threefold: the first is around flexibility, the second is around fairness, and the third is around contributing to local economies in the Realm. We are very happy to support this bill because it allows people who are from the Realm of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau the ability to come to New Zealand and contribute to the New Zealand economy, but also to go back to their home countries—or their countries of origin—and continue to contribute to those economies and, at the same time, fulfil their residency requirements for New Zealand super or for the veteran’s pension. It’s also about fairness, and it’s about those who contribute to New Zealand and who have the ability to access their New Zealand super also being able to access super wherever they are in the Realm.
Finally, it’s around contributing to our local economies. I see this as actually a very important bill for helping to provide remittances back to these local economies, to provide the skills and expertise of all these people who have worked here, who have got New Zealand connections and expertise, to go back to their home countries once they’ve turned 50—or are over 50—and be able to contribute to their local economies. I would certainly love to acknowledge, Madam Assistant Speaker, your origins, in coming from the Cook Islands, and also our colleague on this side of House, Alfred Ngaro, because both of you come from the Cook Islands as well.
Of course, we cannot underestimate the importance of our relationship with the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue, both from a historic perspective, dating back somewhat to 1946, in terms of the South Pacific Commission, but also the political and economic relationship that we share together today. It really is by way of a constitutional relationship. The people in these countries are New Zealand citizens, and this bill extends the same level of rights that they have in order to get access to the pension.
So what is the policy problem that this bill is trying to solve? Well, certainly, it’s around the 10-year residency requirement for pensioners to get the pension. I would like to acknowledge the fantastic contribution from my colleague Maureen Pugh, who outlined that there is a member’s bill that will, in fact, extend this requirement to 20 years. So if that progresses through the House, then we’ll need to discuss the implications for this bill. It’s also around the next requirement, which is around the five years above 50—this idea that you have to stay in New Zealand over 50 years of age in order to qualify for the pension. This bill, essentially, does away with that so that people from Niue, Cook Islands, or Tokelau may go back to their countries, contribute to their local economies, and also fulfil the requirements for the New Zealand super or pension.
Now, other options were considered in the select committee process. The option that was really chosen by the select committee was an option that removes the disincentives for people to move to the Islands and to contribute to their local economy. It’s also the option that retains the core principles of New Zealand superannuation, which means that you must stay here for a certain number of years and work here in New Zealand and you also must work in these countries in order to satisfy the requirements. Because of our special relationship, it is believed that if you’re in the Realm, no matter where you are, you’re fulfilling the requirements for this bill. So that was the option that the select committee chose for this.
I do want to go through some of the submissions from the select committee. Essentially, we did receive seven submissions in total—not a lot but certainly very substantial and high-quality submissions at that. Two of those submissions were received orally, and I was there at that meeting when we heard them, one of them from the High Commissioner to this area. Essentially, there were three key arguments that were raised against this bill. The first was that there is potential to discriminate in this bill between those who are from this Realm versus those who are not from this Realm. I want to assure the submitters that this bill doesn’t in fact discriminate—that anybody, no matter where they are from, can move to these countries after they’re 50. Perhaps you’ve come from South Africa, for example—we’ve got a lot of South Africans in my electorate. You’ve come from South Africa at 45, you work right up until 50, and you decide, “Well, Niue, Tokelau, and Cook Islands—they’re beautiful pieces to live, and maybe I’d like to retire there.” So it actually gives these people the opportunity to go to these countries and also fulfil the requirements for the New Zealand super or veterans pension. So, in fact, it doesn’t discriminate.
The second point that was raised in the select committee submissions was that there would be an unfair advantage for people from those Islands. I’ve just demonstrated that there will not in fact be an unfair advantage from these Islands.
The final thing that was raised was around the economic impact of this bill, and there was a sense that—[Bell rung] ha, ha; Madam Assistant Speaker was so engrossed in my speech that she forgot to do the buzzer—the economic value would actually be harmed by this bill. I want to assure the submitters that I actually think the opposite: this bill has the potential to add a significant amount of economic value to these countries through remittances and also through the economic activity of these people in these countries while they’re fulfilling the requirements for their pension. So there you have it: those are the major flaws that were raised in the submission process, and I’ve managed to dispel some of them.
I’d like to spend the last kind of minute just talking about the select committee, and I’d like to thank all the members on the select committee for their tiresome work in hearing the submissions. There were—
Brett Hudson: Tireless, I think you mean.
DAN BIDOIS: Tireless—tireless. Thank you to my colleague Brett Hudson. It has been a long week. I’d just like to say that this is a good bill, and it’s a good bill that I believe is going to get—
Hon David Bennett: It’s a good bill.
DAN BIDOIS: —bill?—a lot of support in the House, and I’m looking forward to seeing all of those people who contribute to New Zealand’s economy also being able to access New Zealand super. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Greg O’Connor, you have five minutes.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m confident you won’t have as much difficulty concentrating on my presentation as you did on the last.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I wouldn’t back myself on that, Mr O’Connor.
GREG O’CONNOR: I’ll just say that—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I said I wouldn’t back myself on that, Mr O’Connor.
GREG O’CONNOR: Well, I’ll do my best, Madam Assistant Speaker, at this time of day.
I’ve been a part of the Social Services and Community Committee that has considered this bill. It is a very collegial select committee and, like many select committees, we have considered many aspects of this bill. You come into the House to speak, and you think you’ve pretty much covered it. We’ve had the benefit of the Hon Ron Mark, who has filled in many of the details that we weren’t aware of, and I think it’s very good that we know much more background to put things in perspective. However, it is late on a Thursday afternoon, and I think it’s probably apt that in that spirit of congeniality we continue.
I think everyone’s sort of claiming some sort of credit for this bill. There’s an old saying that success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan. In this case, I think if there were to be a paternity test, I’d be confident that this side of the House is where the results would lie positive.
However, to the bill itself—a lot of the commentary around this bill has been talking about some sort of social benefits. I was looking at some of the comments made by a prominent broadcaster who was lambasting this as being another way that we are throwing money at the Pacific—an unfortunate comment. I just want to share with you a very good example of how this is benefiting both countries economically. I speak of a relation of mine who is married to someone who is actually a Cook Islander, who was very successful in business in New Zealand—ran a home-kill business. After success, he and his father went back to the Cook Islands and have re-established a similarly successful business. They now are most certainly into their over-50s and are over the qualifying period, and now seek having to come back to New Zealand to close down their business, so they will qualify for the pension under the old regime. However, this allows them now to ensure that they are able to maintain their business, that they do employ people there. So this has a direct economic benefit. So I think those of you who are watching, those who think this is another sort of handout something we’re doing—this is very much part of being New Zealand.
The people in the Realm—and one of the previous speakers, my namesake in fact, described what the Realm is. I won’t go through that. Essentially, Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans are New Zealand citizens, but there is still a qualification. They still have to have been in New Zealand for 10 years, and they have to also—this is a very important part, particularly for those listening at home. The five years qualification can only be in one of those Realm countries. It can’t be anywhere else in the Pacific, and that’s a very important part. So it’s not as though they can take off, live anywhere else—live in Germany, live anywhere else—it has to be in one of those Realm countries. So it is to the benefit of all. And it means that, socially, this is very much a win-win situation.
So in the short time allocated to me, I just want to make sure that people understand that this is very much not only fair—and there’s been all sorts of adjectives, all sorts of descriptors of this—it actually makes economic sense as well. So this is a very important bill. It is something that, again, I can see why those opposite would be very keen to put their fingerprints on it—their DNA, or whatever it is. I can understand why they’d want to do that, because it is an excellent idea, and I’m very, very proud to stand here and commend this bill to the House.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Mr Greg O’Connor, who just sat down, was complaining, I thought, about the limited amount of time that he had to speak. He left a minute on the clock, and I was just about to jump to my feet at the end of his speech and seek the leave of this House to give him an additional five minutes, but I’m not sure whether that would have been granted.
But it’s a pleasure to take a short call for five minutes on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill at its second reading. I do note that I wasn’t on the Social Services and Community Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, but I do just want to congratulate the select committee, and in particular the chair, Gareth Hughes, for the good work that he’s done, working hard as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. It is an important select committee here in Parliament, doing good work, and, in this instance, progressing legislation which was put forward initially by the National Government and by our good friend Sir Bill English—the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, actually. I should be correct in the titles that I give to former members of this House.
This bill makes a significant change in terms of our superannuation and veterans pension entitlements for those living in the Realm of New Zealand, those who may have been born in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and who then have moved to New Zealand and spend 10 years here—they are New Zealand citizens by birth, but then move to New Zealand and contribute to New Zealand—and then look to go back to where they came from to retire. This ensures that they will no longer be needing to spend five years between the age of 50 and 65 in New Zealand in order to maintain that entitlement, but will be able to spend those five years in any of the four countries within the Realm—whether that be New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau.
So I think this bill does a number of important things. I think, first and foremost, it builds on the incredibly important relationship that we have within the Realm, and that we have as New Zealand citizens, and that these shared benefits are shared benefits of being New Zealand citizens. But I think it’s important to distinguish between our superannuation scheme and what entitlements they would have if they were to live their entire life in their home country. It is important to note that our tax system and our superannuation system are a benefit of contributing to New Zealand for that period of time—for those 10 years.
That is the requirement which is in place in order to be entitled to New Zealand superannuation, and that entitlement is therefore required as a way to ensure that economic contribution to New Zealand through work, through study, through whatever that might be, is something which is required in order to be a beneficiary of the superannuation scheme that we enjoy here in New Zealand. If people in those islands, whilst New Zealand citizens, choose to remain in their home country, they will not be entitled to New Zealand superannuation because they haven’t contributed here but will have contributed and be entitled under their own schemes in their own country.
So I think the important benefit really is economic from this: economically to New Zealand by continuing to allow people to come here to contribute to New Zealand, but then an economic benefit back to the Islands, in terms of the money that they send to family back in their home country while they are working in New Zealand. I think that’s a hugely important role that many of these people do play while they are in New Zealand—sending money back to support their families. But also the important benefit it provides by encouraging and allowing and making it easier for them to actually retire back in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, and that will provide huge economic benefit, as they have New Zealand superannuation while they are retiring. So I commend this bill to the House. We look forward to it going through the process.
TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Sorry, I cut the last person, Simeon Brown, off. I didn’t mean to do that. I apologise for that. I was—
Simeon Brown: Eager.
TAMATI COFFEY: I was eager—that’s exactly what I was. I just want to stand and contribute to this piece of legislation. It is a good piece. It has wide support around the House. I think that all of our previous speakers have rattled through all of the components of the bill. It is the second reading, so there’s still the committee stage to go, but I just want to acknowledge an article about the Prime Minister’s visit to the Cook Islands earlier this year. She was given this responsibility by the Prime Minister over there, said that actually this was an issue that needed to be dealt with, and, as a Parliament, we have debated this and been through it and, actually, have all decided that it’s the right thing to do, just to swing in and, obviously, support it. I’ve got nothing too much left to say about it, other than the fact that I commend this bill to the House.
JO HAYES (National): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to speak on this bill that everybody is supporting in the House, to do with the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I am very much like the previous speaker, Tamati Coffey—with the purpose of the bill being well traversed in the House and with me being just about one of the last speakers. I’m really pleased that this bill will actually allow whānau within the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and those that live in New Zealand, to actually remain in their respective Islands without having to travel to New Zealand to qualify for superannuation and the veterans pension.
I’m going to traverse another area of whakapapa, and I’m talking about the whakapapa of Cook Islands—of your whānau, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it’s really interesting that whenever we travel overseas to the Islands and whenever we meet as Māori and Pasifika, we always treat each other as brother and sister, and never more so than with the Cook Islands community and whānau there. Why do I say that? It’s because we share a common ancestor. We share a common ancestor in Paikea. Paikea’s name was actually Kahutia-te-rangi—was his real name—and he was an ancestor of the Cook Islands people and lived in the Cook Islands. So if you asked a Cook Islands person about where Māori come from, they would respond by saying “Nō konei”—in other words, “from here; from our islands and from Kahutia-te-rangi.”
So what happened with that whakapapa—Madam Assistant Speaker, I know that you’re well aware of it, but the members of the House may not be—was that Kahutia-te-rangi had a brother, Ruatapu. He was of lower rank to Kahutia-te-rangi, and so he hunted him down. He hunted him down because Kahutia-te-rangi was an excellent fisherman, and, because the younger brother was jealous, he hunted Kahutia-te-rangi down and tried to kill him. But Kahutia-te-rangi did an incantation which brought forward the southern humpback whale, of which Kahutia-te-rangi jumped on the back, and voila—he ended up in Aotearoa New Zealand. Therefore, the iwi of Ngati Porou and Ngāi Tahu were actually born. That is why, when I am down in Ngāi Tahu and when I’m up in Ngati Porou, I see the whakapapa of Paikea: Paikea on the walls of schools, at Waitākiri School and other schools. I hear the kōrero about Paikea, and that is what actually links Māori and Pasifika together. That and many other—a lot of people call them our “legends”, but they are our history. They are the things that bring us together.
So when I look at this particular bill, this bill where New Zealand has constitutional responsibility for the Islands, I am very proud that we can go across all political realms and actually come together and support this bill. I know that this bill actually started under a National-led Government, and it was led out by the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, because he had that passion there and he wanted to see that our constitutional responsibility for the people of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau was being upheld. So I am really pleased that I can stand here and say well done to everybody in this House for supporting this particular bill.
I want to also mention the select committee and the process that they went through. I no longer sit on the Social Services and Community Committee, but I think that the work that they have done on it has been really good. Even though there haven’t been any changes to it, I think that it has been well traversed and well debated in the submissions that have actually come forward to the select committee. I do look forward to the committee stage. I think it could be quite a quick committee stage and then a very quick third reading, because this is a bill that we all support.
I just want to acknowledge all of the residents within the Islands and within New Zealand. I don’t really have a lot more to say about this bill, just that I do support it. I think that if we can have more bills like this—my colleague Maureen Pugh talked about the bill that was in the ballot that has been drawn out, the Mark Patterson bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, and about extending the time of residency in New Zealand. I think that the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau people have, actually, nothing to worry about, because, like Māori, they don’t travel that far—we stay fairly close to home. So I think that this will have no impact on them.
So without any further any ado—it is always the hardest part, to be one of the last speakers, because everybody’s said everything—I’m very proud and very honoured to support the bill. Kia ora.
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): In contrast, it is a privilege to follow Jo Hayes, because there’s still so much more to say on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It is my privilege to stand here and speak in support of yet another marvellous Government bill, and something else that’s going to bring some equality into a system that—over the last nine years, one might think that the previous Government might have wanted to make some changes. But, no. This Government, within its first year, sees an issue where there is some unfairness and looks to address it.
Under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, eligible New Zealanders can receive the New Zealand superannuation and the veterans’ pension in what has been known and referred to tonight as the Realm of New Zealand. As a committed republican, I don’t like using that term, so, of course, specifically we’re talking about the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Of course residents of these Islands, who are also residents of New Zealand, should have equitable access to the New Zealand superannuation and veterans support. But at the moment they do not.
If they were to work in New Zealand as citizens of New Zealand but residents of those three islands for 10 years and then go back and spend the remainder of their time in those islands, they currently would not qualify. We say that’s unfair.
Hon Ruth Dyson: It is unfair.
KIERAN McANULTY: It is unfair. If they would otherwise qualify and they are New Zealand citizens living in those three Islands, why should they not qualify for this?
I commend the National Party—it doesn’t happen often—but good on them for supporting this bill.
Jo Hayes: It’s our bill.
KIERAN McANULTY: I acknowledge Greg O’Connor and the comments that he made about that—
Hon Ruth Dyson: So was the last one, and you opposed it.
Jo Hayes: It’s our bill. You’re just picking it up and carrying it on.
KIERAN McANULTY: Claiming the bills, left, right, and centre. Thinking about the good old days—the good old days a few years ago, when they were in Government. They’re not now, and they’re slowly getting used to it.
This is, essentially, about fairness. Just looking at the details about this, it actually struck me—why hasn’t this been done earlier? Why hasn’t this been done earlier? I wonder if it’s a case of previous Governments perhaps—and this isn’t a dig at any particular party—not necessarily having representation within them that can bring these issues forward. I acknowledge our Pasifika caucus in this Government as well—staunch advocates for their communities and the issues that face their communities.
Of course, it’s also beyond fairness; it’s about relative issues around depopulation as well, as the populations of these Islands—the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue—decrease relatively and, of course, the diaspora in New Zealand continues to grow. We only need to look at the previous images of the last weekend’s game of rugby league, Tonga versus Australia. Wasn’t it wonderful to see a proud Pacific Island community in this country standing there in support of their home nation playing against Australia?
We have a proud history in this country and a proud connection to the Pacific, particularly the three nations that we’re talking about here today whose citizens are also New Zealand citizens. This bill addresses the inequities in the previous system, and I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
I’d firstly like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its work in examining this bill through the select committee stage and to recognise the committee as the impetus for this bill through its 2016 report Inquiry into whānau access to and Management of tūpāpaku. This bill implements the recommendation from the report that requires legislative change.
I’d also like to thank everyone who submitted on the bill for their feedback. It’s always a valuable part of the development of legislation to hear from the public about their views, and I’m pleased that, generally, the submitters were supportive of the bill’s objective.
The Coroners Act 2006 regulates the coronial system in New Zealand. The role of the coroner is to investigate sudden or unexplained deaths and to make recommendations that can help reduce the chance of further deaths in similar circumstances. The Act’s core purposes are to help prevent deaths and to promote justice. To achieve these purposes, the Act states that it recognises the cultural and spiritual needs of family and others close to the person who has died.
The loss of a loved one is an incredibly difficult time for all involved. Of the estimated 31,000 deaths in New Zealand each year, 20 percent are referred to the coroner. While the Coroners Act 2006 currently responds well to the cultural needs of whānau and family during the coronial processes, the report by the Māori Affairs Committee identified that there was an opportunity to improve the coronial system so that it can better meet the needs of our culturally diverse society, and this is why this bill has been brought before the House.
The Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill will ensure that all cultural beliefs, including tikanga Māori, will be recognised and supported in our coronial system. I understand that this already happens in practice and is included in guidance for coroners. However, it’s not a legislative requirement. This bill will ensure that cultural beliefs are explicitly taken into account as a matter of course. The bill amends section 26 of the Coroners Act to explicitly require the coroner to consider tikanga Māori and the expectations of other cultures when determining who can view, touch, or remain near a body.
I’d like to reaffirm that this bill does not seek to change the current practice of coroners. The work they do is very important to society, and it is always performed to a high standard. What the bill does is ensure that this practice of taking cultural considerations into account is more visible and concrete for those who are dealing with what will usually be quite unimaginable loss.
I note there has been some attention surrounding the new contracts for pathology services across New Zealand, and, in particular, there was concern that services available to whānau during the death of an individual would be reduced and that it would result in fewer opportunities for coroners to respond to the cultural needs of loved ones. The Ministry of Justice is engaging with local iwi and communities on the impact of the new contracts. Overall, the new contracts mean people across New Zealand should see improved hours of access to their deceased and the ability to stay close prior to a post-mortem. These new contracts for pathology services do not conflict with the purpose of the bill or the ability to implement it.
I know from engagement in at least one or two communities where mortuaries have been either closed or about to be closed that there is the possibility that whānau may have to travel reasonably long distances to stay with the tūpāpaku. That is an issue that is being addressed by district health boards, who are in the position of deciding what they do with their mortuaries. So those issues are under active consideration, I know, by many in the community, and I am sure that we will achieve a good resolution of it so that the spirit of this bill can be truly brought to bear.
I am pleased that this bill was widely supported in its first reading and that the benefits of this bill were recognised. I hope this support continues at this stage, and I commend this bill to the House.
JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m privileged to stand to speak in the second reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Just a little bit of history: I was on the Māori Affairs Committee in the 51st Parliament when Metiria Turei brought this kaupapa to the select committee. Her stories around why she was bringing it were quite riveting for us. For some of us, we had experienced some of the issues around access to our tūpāpaku that were good experiences, and we had whānau that had had bad experiences. So I guess what this bill is doing is actually responding to the needs of Māori whānau and the way that they look after and care for—and I’m not saying “treat”. I’m saying they look after and care for and love their tūpāpaku right to the end—to the day that they are buried. Therefore, I think that what this bill is doing, as the Minister has said, is taking into account tikanga for Māori around the care of their tūpāpaku.
The submissions that came in from the submitters did raise a few questions. However, we were able to work through that as a committee, and I’m really pleased that we all got behind this and we had cross-party support for it.
As Māori, we treat tūpāpaku as a living person as well. We love them and look after them all the way to their final resting place. I’ve had, as I said, a good experience of this, but other people have not. I have known whānau that have been locked out of mortuaries and have had to sit outside and wait. I have heard from whānau who have had issues with coronial services in their areas over access and being able to give their tūpāpaku—their loved one—their farewell kiss and being able to hold their hand. However, once we get through that process and we’re able to care for our tūpāpaku, then we can do that.
I just want to reflect on a personal experience that I had and the way that we were treated as a whānau. Back in 1996, my father passed away. He had cancer. The coronial services that dealt with him were just very, very good. Within no time, we had our father back with us, and we were able to deal with him and able to dress him and do the final rites as a family—able to look after him to his burial day. I think that with this bill and the way that it’s being set out, a whole lot of that, I suppose, raruraru that they talk about with some whānau will actually be placed over to one side, and they will be able to continue on with their tikanga process of the treatment, or the loving, of their loved one.
So, it was an interesting time. At times it was sad, listening to some of the stories. For some of us it brought a lot of memories back for the way that we have with our tikanga process. It was mixed feelings of sadness and happiness all the way through. So, without any further ado, I just want to thank our select committee, with our new chair, Rino, for being able to shepherd this bill through the process to where we’ve got it today. There is really not much more that I can talk about and add to what the Minister has put in his contribution. So therefore I am humbled and honoured to be able to support this bill through to the second stage. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I just wanted to remind the member, when referring to other members, to use their proper names. Thank you.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It, again, gives me great pleasure to speak to this bill. This sort of takes me back to a time before I came to this House, when I spent some time in the New Zealand Police. One thing you do learn as a young police officer is that you deal with death—deal with sudden deaths. I remember many times through my career where there was dispute, particularly over the custody of bodies of the deceased. It’s one of those abiding memories that there’s always a lot of grief around these situations and, adding to it, much of the tikanga. So it is actually, I think, very apt that we now ensure that in legislation these matters are covered, because so often the problem was, when we tried to deal with these issues, that there were actually no protocols; there were actually no guidelines for this—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.