Tuesday, 30 October 2018

TUESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2018

TUESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why was Karel Sroubek granted residency?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The person in question was granted residency after the Minister of Immigration, in a very difficult case, personally made a judgment; didn’t leave it, like in the past, to the officials; and ensured that there were caveats on its continuance.

Hon Simon Bridges: What was difficult about it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, what was difficult about it was facing up to his responsibility, for a start, which is new, because the last Government overturned 108 deportation orders, and the Minister at the time—after 2014—gave those decisions to the officials and ducked his personal responsibility.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many kickboxing fraudster drug dealers were there in those 108 that the Prime Minister referred to?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of the 108, there were the following types of people: serial sex offenders, a woman who killed her husband, a man who killed a grandfather in a road rage attack, and several rapists. The former immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse, according to this report, handed over most decisions on deportations involving criminal behaviour to officials in 2014.

Hon Simon Bridges: What verification of Sroubek’s claim to stay in New Zealand was made by the Government before Iain Lees-Galloway granted residency?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Iain Lees-Galloway should’ve been a lawyer, because he put certain caveats on the verification process, and his decision only kicks in if that verification is satisfied, unlike the previous Government, that overturned 108 deportation orders and refused to take ministerial responsibility.

Hon Simon Bridges: Wasn’t significant independent verification needed given that New Zealand’s judicial bodies—the Parole Board, the Court of Appeal—did not believe Sroubek and said he was untruthful?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to thank the member for being finally on to it. That’s precisely the ground that the Minister of Immigration covered, and there is a caveat also on that verification that until it is satisfied, then his decision will not take effect.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the Government ignoring the Czech Republic’s request for extradition?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to tell the member that some matters internationally have to remain private in the interests of the safety of others. And anyone who’s been involved in international affairs would know that responsibility, and the Czech situation is precisely one of those.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why on earth should Sroubek remain in New Zealand rather than going to the Czech Republic—a First World EU nation with the European Court of Justice at its head?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’d like to answer the member, but, because of the privacy provisions which were at the centre of the Minister’s decision, I cannot. Now, let me say that there have been countless cases such as that, like the 108 that National left to officials in the main, and not one of them was explained.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the Government giving residency to an international criminal over hard-working, law-abiding people who want to make New Zealand their home?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question, of course, is that the very people he seeks to use as his whiter than pale example were in this country seeking that very decision from him as a Minister of Cabinet, and he did not make it. Now, can I just say this. Look, in 2012, this is what happened: someone convicted twice for sex offending, including while on bail, would not be deported even though he did not complete any rehabilitation programme or offence-related courses in prison. That’s the kind of standard that his Government set.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister’s comment to “read between the lines” on Sroubek really mean that under her Government, New Zealand’s gone entirely soft on international criminals?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s an amazing, though typical, allegation. The reality is this is a Government that, to ensure that our streets are safe and our country is safe, is getting 1,800 more front-line police, and 400 more in back-up of the office—a record in this country. And as for the allegation of being soft on crime—if you’ve got no front-line police, then that’s what happened under the previous administration, not ours.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What progress, if any, is the Government making on implementing its fiscal strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government is making excellent progress, as demonstrated by us delivering on all of our Budget responsibility rules in our first Budget and across the forecast period. We’re taking a prudent approach to managing debt to ensure New Zealand is able to respond to any potential shocks and we are maintaining expenditure around its historical average as a percentage of GDP, and we are delivering surpluses that are truly sustainable by continuing to make the necessary investments in health, housing, education, and infrastructure. This is what responsible fiscal management looks like.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why is it important to maintain sustainable operating surpluses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The operating surpluses that we have already delivered and will continue to deliver allow us to pay down debt and make much-needed capital investments in things like hospitals, schools, and transport infrastructure. As noted at Budget 2018, across the forecast period, we will actually be investing $25 billion more overall than the previous Government had planned. Treasury’s latest forecast shows rising operating balance before gains and losses surpluses over the forecast period while we continue to make significant investments in our public services. This shows that we are living within our means while also allowing ourselves the ability to respond to any unexpected events that may occur.

Dr Duncan Webb: What alternative proposals has he seen for managing the Government’s books?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen analysis from a group of commentators who have suggested that the Government should cut significant amounts of revenue—for example, through tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest New Zealanders—while at the same time suggesting that we should spend significantly more. This confused combination would, of course, lead to much higher debt, or, if you will, a fiscal hole. On this side of the House, we’re very clear about our fiscal stance. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the National Party.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: For the second time today on behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: When exactly did she decide that there would be no more regional fuel taxes while she is Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, the Prime Minister was instrumental in ensuring that there was a regional tax in Auckland and that it was confined to that in law all the way to 2021. Then she decided that she would make sure that the misinformation campaign, or fake news, did not succeed by putting her personal reputation behind it. I can say, personally myself, that there will be no more petrol rises on my watch, as well.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked when exactly the Prime Minister decided.

SPEAKER: That’s right. That’s what the member asked.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that her Deputy Prime Minister has not been apprised of the exact chronological thinking order, so I can’t possibly answer that question. But if the member was concerned about that difficulty, why didn’t he put it down in his primary question?

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she make the decision on the hoof in the House last week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There are a lot of things that one could say, but the last thing anyone would describe about the Prime Minister is to do things on the hoof.

Hon Simon Bridges: If she didn’t make the decision on the hoof, on the fly, why did the Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford, say on Thursday last week that he knew about it “Earlier yesterday,”—that is, Wednesday—“the prime minister gave me a call and asked me what I thought about the idea of ruling out future regional fuel taxes. We had a conversation about it and agreed … it would be better to just rule out future regional fuel taxes.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So the member did know when the conversation happened? He began by saying he didn’t. So he did know about the timing. Now, let me say this: between 2021 and beyond, there will be an election, so the relevant matter is that the Government has made a statement pertinent to this term of Government, and that’s what really matters.

Hon Simon Bridges: If she didn’t make the decision on the fly, why did Associate Minister of Transport Shane Jones say that he only found out about it “When the Prime Minister stood up.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality of it all is that not everyone in the coalition membership knew about this decision. Now, can I just say, why this has become a mountain from a molehill I don’t know, because the law is clear as daylight. There will be no changes until 2021, and so any promises made beyond this election are for the next election campaign.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why, when asked by Ryan Bridge on The AM Show last Friday “It’s important we get the time line right because if a Prime Minister is going to make a unilateral decision like that, we should know about it probably as soon as it happens.”, did Parliamentary Under-Secretary Michael Wood answer, “You pretty much did. It was made on the day it was announced in question time. That’s not news.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He’s right.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can we confirm, then, that the decision was made last Wednesday?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member Mr Bridges, in setting out his question, gave the time line himself, so it begs the question: what on earth am I doing here now, dealing with this triviality?

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did the Rt Hon Winston Peters say Mr Wood was right to say it occurred and the decision was made on Wednesday, and then also say that that wasn’t so?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think I’m going to give the member another chance to phrase that question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did the Prime Minister just say that Michael Wood was right to say it happened on Wednesday—the decision for no new regional fuel taxes made—and then say he wasn’t?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, words matter in this game. Mr Wood said that it wasn’t news and it wasn’t, and it’s not now.

Hon Simon Bridges: When Michael Wood said last week “It was made on the day it was announced in question time.”, was he right or wrong?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What Mr Wood said in response to a question was that whatever the timing was, it wasn’t news.

Hon Members: That’s not what he said.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s what he said. Go and read the transcript, and in Gerry’s case, I’ll send it in a note over with a—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well—

SPEAKER: He’s an honourable member, or he’s Mr Brownlee.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the honourable Mr Brownlee—I’ll send it over on a note written by a crown, if he likes, and maybe pictures. But the reality is that what we have here is a firm Government policy on not extending the regional tax outside of Auckland before the next election, and that’s all the New Zealanders want to know.

Hon Simon Bridges: Which Cabinet committee did she discuss not implementing new fuel taxes, and why can none of her Ministers remember that discussion, including Shane Jones, who told media last week that he cannot remember it being brought up?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ve got to say that politics is about the here and now, and we’re dealing with 2018, 2019, and 2020, after which time there’ll be an election. In the meantime, that which was a decision made by the full Cabinet to not extend regional fuel taxes beyond Auckland stands, and it’s all the New Zealand taxpayers want to know.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister have any idea when the decision for no new regional fuel taxes was made by the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that she was appraised by her helpful Cabinet colleagues of the import of the legislation, and the second thing is that by the look of her polling, she’s better appraised of things than someone else I know.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Over the last few days, I’ve taken the opportunity to reflect on the decision that I made and to consider the information that was available to me at the time of making that decision. Having done that, I absolutely stand by the action that I took. I also stand by the following statement: “I can understand why people want more information. However, I must maintain the long-held convention that Ministers do not divulge the reasons for reaching their decision in order to maintain the integrity of the process.”

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What specific regulation, convention, or law is stopping him from revealing the reason the immigration Minister decided Karel Sroubek should not be deported?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is a long-held convention that several Ministers of Immigration have adhered to not to divulge the reasons for their decision in order to maintain the integrity of the process.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, does he agree with the member for Palmerston North when he said, “That’s the problem with the use of ministerial discretion: it’s not transparent.”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It certainly can be a problem from a public perception point of view, but the truth is that in order to maintain the integrity of this process, it is incumbent on Ministers not to divulge the reasons for reaching their decision.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, does he agree with the member for Palmerston North, who also said, “Yes, and I intend to hold myself to the standards we have demanded in Opposition.”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was the Minister privy to all of the information before the Parole Board before its decision not to grant Karel Sroubek parole?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I was privy to all the information that was provided to me in exactly the fashion that the member would be aware of from when he was Minister. I believe that I had sufficient information to make a decision.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe the right of a recidivist, unrepentant, drug-dealing gangster is greater than the right of the public to be kept safe and know why he made that decision?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It’s absolutely true that I had to weigh up matters of public safety and the criminal behaviour of the individual involved. I weighed up all of those matters. I believe that it is important for Ministers, when taking these serious decisions, to weigh up all of the evidence.

Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

5. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (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): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Saturday, the first 18 KiwiBuild families were welcomed to their new homes by the Prime Minister. KiwiBuild is giving thousands of young families who have been locked out of homeownership a chance to buy their own affordable starter home. There is still a lot of work to do to build our way out of the national housing crisis, but Saturday showed that we are making progress.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What reports has he seen on the welcoming of the first KiwiBuild families?

Hon Phil Twyford: The first KiwiBuild families come from diverse backgrounds, but one of the things they have in common is that they are young families looking to get a place of their own and struggling to find affordable-priced homes in a city where the housing crisis is most acute. As the first KiwiBuild family said on Saturday, they had given up on buying their own home before KiwiBuild arrived because housing is just so expensive. I’m proud that this Government is giving these families and thousands more like them hope.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Government building KiwiBuild homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because a generation of young New Zealanders with good jobs are priced out of homeownership. The families at McLennan represent many areas of the workforce—nurses, warehouse workers, concrete workers, medical students, administration workers, engineers, designers, and stay-at-home mums. KiwiBuild aims to increase homeownership, to increase the number of homes being built at an affordable price point, and to use Government procurement to drive down costs. Only 5 percent of new builds are in the affordable lower quartile, which means that there are fewer and fewer modest starter homes for young families.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why has the Government set the eligibility criteria that it has for KiwiBuild homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, KiwiBuild is about restoring the dream of homeownership to young families, and it’s a sign of just how bad the national housing crisis has got that for young families in places like Auckland, couples with good jobs—like two teachers with five years’ experience earning $160,000 a year pre-tax—are locked out of homeownership. In fact, since 2007, the greatest fall in homeownership has been for families earning between 80,000 and 180,000.

Hon James Shaw: Does he think it’s appropriate for KiwiBuild families to be targeted for online bullying by members of Parliament?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, other than the use of the word “KiwiBuild”, there’s no relationship with this Minister, and if there are serious allegations to be made like that, they shouldn’t be made as a casual question.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by the following statements in regards to KiwiBuild, “Our objective is to deliver quality, well-located homes that are inherently affordable”, and “it is not a programme aimed at low-income families, because they may not be able to service a KiwiBuild mortgage”?

Hon Damien O’Connor: When have you ever cared?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. KiwiBuild has always been—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I’m going to interrupt the member. I’m going to ask Damien O’Connor just to—[Interruption] Thank you. Start again, please.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, KiwiBuild has always been a homeownership programme. We are building quality, well-located homes that are more affordable by virtue of good design or efficient land use for first-home buyers to buy their first home. Only 5 percent of new builds are in the lower quartile, which means there are very few modest starter homes for young families. KiwiBuild changes this. KiwiBuild homes are not subsidised and this means that families will need sufficient household income to sustain a mortgage.

Hon Judith Collins: What income segment of families is KiwiBuild aimed at?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: KiwiBuild is aimed at the income segment of the squeezed middle, who have suffered for nine years. If you look at the income demographics, the bands between household income of $80,000 to $180,000 have experienced the biggest drop in homeownership in the last decade—more than low-income families and more than high-income families. What’s more, that income demographic contains half of all families with children.

Hon Judith Collins: When he has said that the KiwiBuild homes are inherently affordable, are they being sold at market rates?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I’ve always said is that KiwiBuild homes are not being subsidised. We choose to build in the lower quartile—something that that Government refused to do for nine years. They even refused to acknowledge that there was a housing crisis. We are building lower-quartile affordable homes that young Kiwi first-home buyers can actually afford to buy. They are not subsidised, and in the process we are changing the market.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: are they being sold at market rates? We did not get anywhere near that answer.

SPEAKER: I think the Minister can—I mean, there was a long answer that got fairly close to addressing it, but I’m sure he can be more—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve made a decision, Mr Hipkins. You’re not going to argue with it.

Hon Chris Hipkins: How is the lower quartile not part of the market rate?

SPEAKER: It does depend on the type of house. I’m sure that the Minister is capable of a succinct, direct answer.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are building KiwiBuild homes so they are being sold at the market rate. They are in the lower-quartile affordable segment of the market.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Regarding the earnings of KiwiBuild applicants, can the Minister confirm whether or not one of the young couples who recently bought one of the KiwiBuild homes could, in fact, afford to visit 204 countries, which is some arcane measurement from a member of Parliament?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Again, that is not an area that this Minister has responsibility for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point that was being made—and it’s the subject of the political debate—is that there is an affordability capacity in the applications and that a certain type of person can afford to buy at that quartile level. My point is: is this person who was an applicant successfully being utterly misdescribed, or are the rules being ignored by the officials? One of those things has to have happened and that’s why I’m asking that question.

SPEAKER: If the member had been very direct in asking about the criteria and whether that sort of criteria applied to applications, which would be the Minister’s responsibility, then I would have let the question go, but the member didn’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When applicants come before the process of qualifying for KiwiBuild, are all their earnings and income and past looked at in terms of whether or not they are properly declaring their level of wealth?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We set an income cap for KiwiBuild, but we did not set a policy that said that if you’ve travelled and done your OE, then you should be permanently banned from buying a KiwiBuild house. It seems that some members of this House were confused about a romantic message on the personal Instagram page of a young couple—a couple of young New Zealanders who committed the crime of buying—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Paul Eagle: What responses has he seen to the new KiwiBuild families?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ve seen some fantastic responses. We’ve seen commentators who have declared that KiwiBuild is going to have the effect of stabilising the housing market and making housing more affordable for first-home buyers across the market. We’ve seen families—18 families—who were thrilled on Saturday that they had successfully navigated the ballot and had the opportunity to buy their first homes, because they have been locked out of the market by a housing crisis that was allowed to spin out of control over the last nine years.

Paul Eagle: How is the Government assisting families who cannot afford homeownership currently?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There’s more good news from the Government: there are more than 1,200 more public housing tenancies than there were a year ago. Budget 2018 funded 6,400 more public homes over the next four years, and Housing New Zealand is currently investing $4 billion in a massive build programme to increase State housing and make the existing State houses warm and dry. Our Government is reforming and modernising the tenancy laws, discouraging housing speculation, and putting more resource than ever before into tackling homelessness.

Hon James Shaw: As the Minister responsible for KiwiBuild, will he speak to his colleague the Minister of Justice about whether KiwiBuild families should be protected under the Harmful Digital Communications Act from the actions of Opposition MPs?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think that’s an excellent decision, because I think almost everybody in this House believes that cyberbullying, particularly of private citizens, has no place in—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Judith Collins: What has happened to change his mind so that, instead of waiting five years to be able to sell a KiwiBuild house, the owners can now sell after only three years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We listened to expert opinion. We weighed up all of the competing factors and tried to settle on the best and most wise policy that we could.

Hon Judith Collins: What steps has he taken to securitise against these certificates of title any deed requiring a payment of capital gain in the event that the house is sold within three years?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s not part of our policy, but we have got provisions in place under KiwiBuild to ensure that people understand that they are required to live in that house, and not to sell it within three years. If they do choose to sell it within three years, they have to have a conversation with KiwiBuild and there’ll be a case by case decision made on whether it’s justifiable for them to sell within those three years. That’s a practical and perfectly reasonable response to that situation.

Hon Grant Robertson: Was it the Minister’s expectation that the first families who would move into KiwiBuild homes would be the subject of a disgraceful cyberbullying campaign, and would he expect anyone who did that to apologise?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I would. This young couple did nothing more than take advantage of—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The first part of the question was the Minister’s responsibility; the second part wasn’t. He can answer the first part only. Don’t start answering the second again.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I never expected that the first KiwiBuild homebuyers would be the subject of a disgraceful online bullying—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s answered the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table the UN list of countries and associated countries, which tells the world that there aren’t 204 countries on this planet.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member: is it a publicly available document?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, apparently not. We’ve got a member of Parliament who thinks there are 204 countries.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to put it. I’m working on the basis, from the lack of direct reply, that it is publicly available.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: In dollar terms and as a percentage, how much more tax, including levies, does he expect to collect in the 2020 financial year, as compared with the 2018 financial year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Core Crown tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is forecast to remain stable at around 27.5 percent, similar to the levels recorded by the previous Government in its final term. In dollar terms, total taxation revenue for the year to 30 June 2018 was $79.596 billion. In 2020, the latest forecasts show this to be $88.187 billion—a difference of $8.591 billion, or 10.8 percent. Including ACC, fire, and Earthquake Commission levies between 2018 and 2020, the answer is $9.323 billion, or 11.2 percent. These forecasts do not include tax or levy changes since the published forecasts. These will be incorporated into the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he sure that he needs every single extra dollar of that $8.5 billion?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m confident that we will be investing that money very, very wisely indeed.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he expect that New Zealand wage earners’ incomes will rise as quickly as his tax revenues, particularly for those in the squeezed middle?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t speculate on that at the moment, but I presume that between 2015 and 2017, when total taxation revenue increased by 13.5 percent, the previous Government had the same thought process.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he says in relation to a potential capital gains tax that one of the options is that it be revenue-neutral, isn’t it true that he’s more likely to go with the other option, which is that it will be an additional tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, those decisions are yet to be made, and I would not rate his ability to read my mind.

Question No. 8—Energy and Resources

8. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent action has the Government taken to promote alternative energy sources?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last week, I signed a memorandum of cooperation with Japan’s economy, trade, and industry Minister on the development of hydrogen technology. The memorandum, which is the first of its kind with Japan in the world, signalled New Zealand’s interests in working with Japan on developing hydrogen. This Government sees great potential in alternative energy sources such as hydrogen—in particular, green hydrogen generation from renewable energy—as we transition away from a reliance on fossil fuels and towards a low-emissions renewable future.

Dr Deborah Russell: What developments have been made in New Zealand to advance the production and use of hydrogen?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Last week, Tararaki-based Hiringa Energy signed a memorandum of understanding with major freight company TIL Logistics Group to develop hydrogen fuel cell technology transport solutions. This is an exciting development and follows the commencement of a project in Taupō between the Tuarōpaki Trust and the Japanese company Obayashi Corporation to pilot the commercial production of hydrogen using renewable geothermal energy.

Dr Deborah Russell: What is the role that green hydrogen could play in our energy system?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Green hydrogen could play an important role in New Zealand’s security of supply and energy future by supporting electricity generation during dry weather. Obviously, it also has transport applications, for instance, by enabling the conversion of New Zealand’s heavy vehicle fleet away from fossil fuel reliance, and there are also potential uses in shipping and rail. Focusing on green hydrogen is important because it’s made using renewable energy and, in the future, could demand a premium or have a lower cost to generate. That’s why this Government is taking the opportunity seriously.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether she is aware of the recent decision by the Government for the continuation of electrification in KiwiRail and not the diesel replacements, which was a decision by the previous Government?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I certainly am aware of that excellent decision by this Government. This is a Government that is committed to the decarbonisation of our transport system and that is an important step in it. I also point the member to my answer that indicated that hydrogen could also be part of that future.

Question No. 9—ACC

9. Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all of his answers to Oral Questions on 24 and 25 October, including his answer that he will “neither rule in or out any proposed increases to ACC levies”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Yes, including the clarification that I made on 25 October.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Why did the Minister claim that ACC needs to increase motor vehicle levies, further raising petrol taxes, when the 2017 annual report upon which levy adjustments were proposed in the consultation process confirms that revenue from that source was above 110 percent, and a further result above 110 percent is revealed in the 2018 annual report, while ACC’s funding position target in both of those reports is only 105 percent?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because, contrary to what the member just said, it’s not that the revenue is 110 percent; it’s that the assets are 110 percent of the total liabilities. That asset to liability ratio actually maxed out at 115.7 percent under the previous Government. It has been dropping since then, and in order to maintain a steady progress towards 105 percent—the mid-point of the 100 to 110 percent—we have to make sure that levies are set at an appropriate level. That decision is ultimately, of course, a decision for Cabinet. Cabinet is yet to make that decision.

Hon Tim Macindoe: If, as the Minister said last week, ACC’s accounts need to be brought back to being more sensibly funded and that Cabinet will take that into account when it makes a decision about future ACC levies, isn’t this proposal, which would see a further increase in petrol tax when New Zealanders are already feeling considerable pain at the pump, a long way from being “very convincing”?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member makes a good point that, ultimately, I and Cabinet have to be convinced by the case that ACC makes. ACC is yet to make that case. But I would also point out—this is important for the member to know if he wishes to be an effective Opposition spokesperson—that the funding policy that ACC is legislated to work under requires it to give effect to the target band of 100 to 110 percent, and that if the asset to liability ratio is outside of that target band, it must set levies at a rate that will allow it to achieve that band over a 10-year horizon. That is the funding policy statement that was put in place by the Hon Nikki Kaye.

Hon Tim Macindoe: So, in light of that answer, will he now rule out a 12.1 percent increase in motor vehicle levies and commensurate increase in petrol tax, given that ACC has reported results well above its own funding position target for the motor vehicle account in each of the last three financial years?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I reiterate that although I have said that ACC will need to make a very convincing case, they have only just completed their consultation. They have yet to make a recommendation to me, and I am yet to make a recommendation to Cabinet. What I will do is take into account not only the rate at which ACC can return its accounts to the appropriate level of funding but also matters such as the cost of living and costs that are faced by middle-income New Zealanders. That is the decision that Cabinet will make.

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.

Jonathan Young: Considering a transition to a hydrogen-based energy system would take several decades, according to local experts—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to get the member to start with a question word.

Jonathan Young: Does the Minister consider that despite a transition to a hydrogen-based energy system taking several decades, the current price rises in electricity of 400 to 500 percent due to gas shortages should require her to ensure that gas supply in New Zealand is consistent and strong?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think that question demonstrated just how confused that member is about the future of the energy system in New Zealand. I want to address one part of that. Hydrogen will not take several decades to develop. It is operational in other parts of the world now. In fact, Tokyo is intent on making the Tokyo Olympics in 2020 the “Hydrogen Olympics”. In terms of the cost of production, I point that member to the fact that, actually, renewables are the cheapest form of electricity that we produce in this country, and if we want to lower electricity costs for New Zealand consumers, we need to do what this Government is doing, and that is produce more renewable electricity.

Jonathan Young: So what research does the Minister have to back up her statement that the offshore exploration ban will in fact reduce greenhouse gases?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is common knowledge around the development of the Chinese emissions trading scheme (ETS). I encourage that member to look at the International Energy Agency’s report on the Chinese ETS. The International Energy Agency were involved in the development of the Chinese ETS. So when that member trots out last century’s arguments that New Zealand’s ceasing the use of fossil fuels will result in a transference, I ask him to just read a little.

Jonathan Young: Has the Minister read the articles from Carbon Brief, a highly reputable organisation with many awards in the UK, that state that methanol could not be manufactured from coal in China without displacing the other emissions—as she has constantly said—when China’s ETS doesn’t cover methanol production?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I encourage that member to look at is the continual development of the Chinese ETS. There are currently seven systems on trial in China at the moment and the International Energy Agency is involved in all of them. If that member cares to read a little, he will find out that, actually, the involvement of those industries in the Chinese ETS is imminent. In fact, there are individual cities in China that are ruling out more coal production.

Question No. 11—Regional Economic Development

11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Given that these are weighty matters, my answer might be slightly longer than usual. Yesterday, a sum of $19 million was announced to meet the expansion of Light Detection and Ranging, a technology, a mapping system that will vastly improve the ability of local and central government businesses and NGOs to understand the challenges of how to respond to matters such as flood resilience and climate change impacts. I also took the first step to create 150 new jobs in Kawerau, with the announcement of $2 million for the first stage of the Kawerau Pūtauaki Industrial Development.

Mark Patterson: How have our regions reacted to the latest Provincial Growth Fund announcements?

Hon SHANE JONES: Perhaps the best regional reaction could be described in the following way: prior to my announcement in Kawerau, the local mountain otherwise known as Mount Pūtauaki was covered in fog, and the mist and the fog cleared as a consequence of the announcement, and there was a blaze of certainty and clarity.

Mark Patterson: Which regions will be next to benefit from the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: These are not matters of torpor or sluggishness. Prior to Christmas, Te Tai Poutini, the West Coast, Manawatū, Whanganui, and Eastern Bay of Plenty will all enjoy the presence of the first champion and citizen of the provinces with substantial announcements, with the full backing of the Jacinda - Winston Peters - led Government.

SPEAKER: I’m sure the member will get it right next time.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What progress, if any, has he made regarding changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill as reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ve had very constructive discussions with my Government colleagues, and I am confident that the bill will pass with a parliamentary majority before the end of this year.

Hon Scott Simpson: Is he considering making changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill regarding opt-in and opt-out provisions relating to union membership?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with section 17 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which declares that everyone has the right to freedom of association?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Hon Scott Simpson: Does he support the concept of voluntary unionism?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Substantive provisions

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to stand for what will be a number of calls on this Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I want to focus my efforts in the first part of this legislation and put on record a few of the myths that the Government have been spreading around this particular part of the legislation.

The first myth is that this will do anything to alleviate the pressure on renters, because it absolutely has zero guarantee of doing that. In effect, the RIS, or the regulatory impact statement, that was prepared in association with this bill clearly states that one of the risks of this particular legislation—in that a letting fee will be prohibited—is that the equivalent of the letting fee, which in some cases might be a week’s rent, will be spread out over the term of the tenancy and could be up to or around $10 a week additional rent that the tenant will now have to pay. So it is concerning that—you know, it’s the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, and the intent of it might be acceptable but this legislation will not deliver on any policy promise to take financial pressure off tenants.

The other thing that I wanted to address, given that we only had the second reading of this piece of legislation last week, is the incredibly compressed time frame in which landlords will have to adjust to changes proposed by this legislation. If I look at Part 1 specifically, a letting fee is “any fee or charge … in respect of services rendered by the letting agent”. So, basically, what it means is if a landlord engages a professional property manager—and we do know that the vast majority of landlords in New Zealand are what we call mum and dad investors and they might have one or two rental properties. So, actually, in many cases, it’s a good idea for the landlord to engage professional services of a property management company or a property manager as an individual who can help them navigate what is actually quite a challenging piece of legislation to ensure they comply with it.

I haven’t met any landlords, any investors, that don’t want to ensure that they comply with the legislation, but we’re seeing a series of changes to the residential tenancies legislation, and this is another one. Their ability to engage a property manager and then the property manager charge a letting fee at the start of a tenancy to get new tenants in the property—that’s the bit that’s going to be prohibited. So if a landlord still wants to have a property manager deliver that service—and I’m hopeful that many will, because it does add some comfort to the tenants as well as the landlord—their ability to recover the costs of that then get spread over the term of the tenancy. So if that’s a tenancy for one year, it might end up being the same amount of cost, but if the tenancy is three or four or five years, that extra $10 a week will be exorbitantly more than the letting fee would have been originally. So I just want to be clear in this Part 1 of what seems to be a straightforward piece of legislation but does have a significant impact. The reality is, for those who are going to be captured by this legislation, there’s an incredibly short time frame for them to adjust to it.

One of the examples that was provided through the process that the Social Services and Community Committee considered was the fact that this has been done in Scotland, but, actually, other parts of the UK have decided not to take this step because of the wide-ranging concerns about the increase in rents. I believe Statistics New Zealand have just put out the household incomes report which has said incomes have gone up 41 percent since 2008, housing costs have gone up 43 percent. So there is a continued pressure on households for housing costs. I would have thought any measure that leads to the risk of an increase in rent is something that this Government would want to run a mile from.

To be fair, to give credit where credit’s due, the Government is undertaking a significant review of the Residential Tenancies Act—one of the many working groups that the Government has under way. So it’s somewhat puzzling that the Government decided to do this piece of legislation in isolation. What it might mean is that you’ve got this piece of legislation that is out there and has an impact on removing the ability—or a disincentive for landlords to engage a letting agent—to engage in professional services that support them in setting up their tenancy and getting the right tenant in the first place, and adds costs. On the other hand, this more wide-ranging review of residential tenancies might work in a completely opposite direction.

So for the matter of a couple of months, because I think the tenancy—and the Minister, hopefully, will be able to answer this when he answers—question is: why was this not brought into the broader piece of review that the Minister is undertaking? So I do specifically want the Minister to address the timing of it, and the fact that it is coming in on 12 December, which is a very short period of time for landlords to adjust. As I said, the majority of landlords in New Zealand are not what the Government might suggest from time to time as being fat cat landlords that are out to milk their tenants. That is not the majority of landlords. Yep, there might be one or two that don’t look after their tenants in the way they should, and, absolutely, the Government should take steps to crack down on them. But the majority of landlords in New Zealand are mum and dad investors with one, possibly two, properties, and to navigate the residential tenancies legislation to ensure that they are providing a warm, dry rental property for their tenants—and, of course, there’s been recent changes that have also had a big impact on them—it is really important to make sure that they do have the ability of, in terms of this particular legislation, a fee or charge that is now not able to be charged by a letting agent passed on to a tenant at the start of the tenancy. But, instead, what the landlord is likely to do is to recover the cost of the property manager’s professional services over the term of the tenancy.

One of the other comparisons is regarding countries in Europe. I think Germany was one of the ones that was referred to, where the average tenancy in Germany is 14 years. Now, I’m not sure if the Minister is able to answer a question in terms of the average length of tenancies in New Zealand and what this $10 a week added cost will mean over the lifetime of a tenancy, but I think that’s an important element of it.

One of the aspects in the regulatory impact statement was that there was insufficient time for adequate consultation to be undertaken. Now, this, unfortunately, is a bit of a similarity that is appearing in much of the Government’s legislation. The oil and gas ban that is also going through committee at this stage is exactly the same, which means insufficient scrutiny, insufficient consultation, and insufficient ability for any unintended consequences to be thought through and resolved. Instead, we have a situation like this where, in Part 1 of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, the unintended consequences, as stated in the regulatory impact statement, are likely to be an increase in rent for the very people that the Government purports to want to support in this legislation. So the Government can’t have it both ways.

So I am looking forward to the Minister answering the specific questions that I have asked so far. As I said, it’s a small bill but not an insignificant one, and that’s why it deserves the full scrutiny of the House, particularly when it will be implemented very quickly, with very little time for those affected to adjust. We argued strongly in Opposition to have a later implementation date, but the Government has proceeded anyway.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 1 of this bill is so typical of the smoke and mirrors that we get from the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford. What the Minister would have the committee believe and what he’s told tenants up and down New Zealand is that if he bans letting fees, there’s going to be a big saving for tenants. So my question for the Minister is in terms of consistency. When I sat in the Minister’s chair, I introduced a bill requiring, in a tenancy change, that all homes have smoke alarms.

Hon Shane Jones: Talking about himself—always talks about himself.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right, Mr Jones intervenes. We passed a bill that required all tenanted properties to have smoke alarms to save lives. I don’t apologise for that. I’ve checked the Minister’s record; he said that bill would add to the costs, and he’s right. That is, if you impose a regulatory cost on the landlord, that will be passed on to the tenant. National introduced our tenancy amendment bill requiring all homes to be insulated by 1 July 2009—something the Minister in the chair never mentions these days. He would have us believe that all the heavy lifting around improving the insulation of homes was done by the current Government, and he overlooks the huge amount of work that our Government did. But, in the same instance, the Minister in the chair argued, quite rightly, that if you impose a cost on landlords to insulate homes, that’s a cost that falls on the landlord sector. That is a cost that will be borne by tenants.

So the very simple, straightforward question is around removing the capacity for the real costs when a property is re-tenanted. There is a real cost of writing out the tenancy agreement, of advertising the property, of checking out the credentials of the new tenant, and of letting the various tenants have access to the property. They are real costs, and the pretence by the Minister in the chair and the Government that somehow that cost will magically disappear if we pass this bill is a fraud. It is a real cost. It is a cost that will fall on the sector, and the only question is: who meets the administration, advertising, and interviewing costs of entering into new tenancy agreements? All we’re going to do is shift that cost from a transparent charge that’s made at the time you enter into a new tenancy agreement, and include it in the rental.

We’ve seen very sharp rises in rentals under the first year of this Government, despite all the rhetoric that we heard from them in Opposition, and our argument on this provision is that all you’re going to do is shift that letting cost, which currently falls quite transparently in the tenancy agreement, into the general rent increases that will be faced by tenants. This is just the basic disagreement that there is between the Government and the Opposition on this bill. The Government keeps pretending that you can impose costs, whether it be on supermarkets, whether it be on small businesses, whether it be on landlords, and somehow that magically does not affect consumers or, in this case, tenants. Our argument is very simple, and that is that every cost you impose on a sector—whether it be on landlords, whether it be on supermarkets, whether it be on any other area—ends up being paid by the consumer. It is misleading, it is smoke and mirrors, and it is a fraud for the Minister to be going around the country and saying that this bill is going to be saving millions of dollars for tenants, when it will not. It will simply transfer the costs, from the time of the tenancy agreement to the general rental.

Here’s the next question, and it’s the proper question for Parliament: is the real cost of finding new tenants and entering into new tenancy agreements most fairly allocated each time a new tenancy agreement is reached, or is it more fairly to be distributed into the general rental costs? The consumer pays either way. The question for Parliament is not whether this cost falls on tenants; it’s how it most fairly falls on tenants. And here’s the pitch: if you have a tenant that has a large number of turnovers—some people have lots of short-term tenancies; and I’ve had nine different flats while in Parliament and each time paid a letting fee—should the person who turns over their tenancies a lot more often have to pay for that, or should that cost be spread over the general rental?

Let’s be up front as to how these costs will switch. The interesting thing is, higher-income earners tend to have more regular transfers of their tenancy arrangements than do lower-income earners. That is, if you pass this law, what is going to occur is that the costs associated with letting fees for the costs of transferring tenants are going to be spread into the general rental, so the winners of this are going to be people that are in short-term tenancy arrangements.

So, for instance, sometimes you’ll get a construction company that will enter into a large number of short-term tenancies to be able to accommodate a group of workers for a short period. Those in the short-term tenancies will tend to benefit from this provision. Those that have their tenancies for a long period are going to be disadvantaged because it will be included in their rental and, effectively, it will be a cross-subsidy to those in short-term tenancy arrangements.

I just challenge members opposite: what is the logic of that? Why would we not let costs lie where they fall? Shouldn’t those people that change tenancy a large number of times actually transparently face the cost of the advertising and of the work that’s involved in letting agents doing that, rather than, effectively, Parliament regulating and saying, “No, you cannot charge in that transparent way. You must include that within the cost of your weekly rental.”? That is the essential question that members of the Government need to argue if they are going to argue that Part 1 of this bill is in the public interest.

Now, if we look at what these costs are, what you are going to see is them passed on in the actual charge of the rental, or do the Minister and the members opposite live in this fairy tale world where if you don’t enable the recovery of the letting agent’s fee, somehow that, magically, isn’t going to be paid by anybody?

Dan Bidois: It’s a fantasy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’m sorry—yes, it is fantasyland stuff.

It really goes to the heart of so much of this Government’s policy that is misleading. For instance, they put up the increased costs on petrol and they say, “Oh, that won’t be coming out of consumers’ pockets. That will come out of the cost.” The very Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, is responsible for increasing the tax on excise, but he somehow argues, “Oh, but that will come out of the margin of the petrol company.” No, it doesn’t. It goes on to the cost of the consumer. They are now paying more for their petrol, and it’s exactly the same with this provision. If you are going to pass a law that bans letting fees, be in no doubt that tenants will continue to pay—as do all consumers—for costs that are being imposed.

I want to challenge the Minister on the advice that he’s received from officials. The advice from officials was very plain: “If you’re going to ban letting fees, you’re going to put the rents up.” So will the Minister in the chair accept responsibility for the inevitable rise in rents that are going to flow on from this bill? We know that rents in the last year have increased quite significantly. Does he accept the advice from his Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials that Part 1 of this bill will see an increase in rents, and why doesn’t he just be open and honest with New Zealand tenants—that is, actually, you’re not getting rid of letting fees. It’s not a free lunch. All that’s going to happen is that rather than paying that cost up front, it’s going to be spread in longer rentals. Actually, people who are in stable, long-term tenancies are going to end up paying more, and people who are in shorter-term tenancies will end up paying less. Is that really the right incentive?

I come from a perspective that says, actually, there are broader society benefits from having longer-term tenanting arrangements. I think that’s a better arrangement for landlords. I think that’s a better arrangement for tenants. When you allow letting fees and costs to lie where they fall, you’re, effectively, providing a financial incentive for longer-term tenancies, and that’s in the public interest.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We are hearing a consistent theme here, and that is that right across this side of the House, the lack of consultation, the lack of engagement with the sector has been of real concern to many in the sector, both landlords and also tenants and others that have been sharing this concern to us through the submission process. For a party that declares the fact that it’s about the people and that it wants to listen to the people, hear their concerns, and work with them—with over 165 advisory groups and inquiries that are there—why, on this bill, was the same consideration not made?

If we were to read into the regulatory impact statement, this is what it declares. The regulatory impact statement “does not fully meet the standard because no consultation has taken place, and the time constraints have meant the analysis is somewhat repetitive. Clarity would be improved if time were available to address this.” That speaks to the heart of the concern that we have on this side, which is that not enough opportunity was given to be able to do this. But why the rush when we know that there currently is a review of the Residential Tenancies Act?

In fact, there is a review at the moment. There’s a consultation that’s currently taking place. It’s called the reform of the Residential Tenancies Act of 1986. Why the rush, when that should have been part of the whole of the review? Why the rush when the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act of 2017—again, another Act yet to come in, with a raft of changes to the tenancy law—is still yet to be tabled in the House? This would also have been able to cover these very issues. So why the rush? One can only say it’s for the political expedience of the so-called 100 days, to let the people know we’re doing something—something small and, in reality, not something that truly makes a significant difference to the lives of the people that they have of concern.

If one reads in the Residential Tenancies Act—in the cover sheet here—one of the important aspects that is, supposedly, the intent of this bill is that by removing letting fees, it’s intended to reduce some of the financial stress faced by tenants in securing a rental property. That’s not shared by those who are in the sector. So in the submissions and also those who have written through, we’ve got the voices of the stakeholders. From the Property Institute, the Chief Executive Officer, Ashley Church, said this: “the move would provide some relief to tenants struggling with increasing rents but appears to have been made for political purposes and won’t make a huge difference in the long-term [to this bill].”

So it’s a concern to us that when we’re talking about the Residential Tenancies Act and the prohibiting of letting fees, we again are hearing from the sector that those concerns are not being addressed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think we are experiencing a substantial earthquake, and we should take the civil defence advice.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re interrupting your speech just for a moment. I just think we might be best to suspend the sitting for a few moments while we take some civil defence advice. It is obviously a substantial earthquake. I ask people to clear the gallery and seek shelter upstairs and take advice from the officials up there and for members to go back to their offices and ensure that their staff are safe. So I declare the House suspended until further notice.

Sitting suspended from 3.14 p.m. to 3.43 p.m.

Ministerial Statements

Earthquake—Update

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement, given the disruption to the House by the earthquake about 15 minutes ago.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I am appreciative that the committee was suspended momentarily because of an earthquake about half an hour ago. I can tell the committee that I’ve spoken to Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management officials in the time since it occurred and can confirm that it was, according to GNS Science, a quake of 6.2 at a depth of 207 kilometres, near Taumarunui. Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management staff have been in touch with the Manawatū-Whanganui civil defence and emergency management (CDEM) group and, at this stage, there are no reports of damage. It was, obviously, felt widely across the central North Island.

It’s just a timely reminder, given the ShakeOut was not so long ago, for parliamentarians and also for those listening to remember that they should expect some aftershocks after a decent-sized quake. So be aware of that, and just remember to drop, cover, and hold. Civil Defence staff are keeping in touch with that CDEM group, and as more information comes to hand, hoping everything is all right up there, we’ll update Parliament as necessary.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you very much. We can be very grateful that there is no substantial damage.

Now, when we were talking last on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, on Part 1, the Hon Alfred Ngaro was speaking, and he has one minute and 20 seconds left. I’m a bit hesitant! Ha, ha!

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Substantive provisions (continued)

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Madam Chair, after that event my colleagues did say to me that it’s one way to rock the House and bring the House down. But it’s an honour to continue to speak on this bill. I was concerned, because I looked across and then I felt that maybe my speech wasn’t relevant, maybe I was on the wrong part—I don’t know what it was. You were both just looking—and I was stunned, but I realised it wasn’t that at all. So, obviously, there is an opportunity to continue on.

In light of the quake that we’ve just had—and at the march that was outside, they were actually talking about a Māori proverb and a whakataukī that comes from Psalm 127, which is actually appropriate right now. It declares this: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it:”—excuse the pun. But it just seems that the fact that this is there—what we are doing here, in one sense, in this Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill is it does feels like we’re labouring in vain, in a sense. Are we making a difference, that is, to the cost and the burden of that cost for those who are currently in a tenancy agreement arrangement? We believe that that won’t; that the conditions that are there—it’s already been stated.

It’s quite clear here. In order to be able to give some substance to those points that I’ve made, if I was to read through the Act, the current national average, as far as weekly rentals are, is $452. When it was worked out in regards to the cost that was spread over a period of time, in regards to the average letting fee for a tenant, it’d be roughly around about $10 to $12 if that was added on. The concern, though, is that while that may be added on—and tenants have said in their submissions, “Look, this would be good. It spreads the burden of the cost over a longer period of time.” However, once that has been set in place, there is no provision there in the bill—and the Minister of Housing and Urban Development may want to respond to this—to remove that current increase for the letting fee itself.

So, in actual fact, once a landlord has decided they’re going to increase the letting fee by an extra $10 to $12, that can be for perpetuity, for as long as the landlord decides to do that. So therefore, it’s an increase—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are you advocating for rent control?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —I know there’s a bit of noise on the other side—that is going to be happening that’s $10 to $12. Now, for average people who are out there paying $450, that’s now $462 added extra on to their costs. What that is telling us is the fact that this is already not going to work.

Now, let’s hear from some of the people actually out there who are working with those to provide tenants. We know their security of tenure is critically important as well. So we think about the New Zealand Property Investors Federation—most people out there in the public may not know that almost 60 to 75 percent of those who actually own a rental property are mum and dad investors. These are people who are good people, genuine people, who have bought this on the premise of being able to provide for some form of super, some form of security, in their later days and when they retire, and so, therefore, these are not the so-called landlords that are out there that are not doing their part to ensure they provide a decent form of accommodation that’s warm and dry.

The New Zealand Property Investors Federation chief executive officer, Andrew King, said the law change was unnecessary and could have reignited rental auctions, where tenants try to outbid each other by offering higher rents to secure places—prohibiting letting fees was removing choice from those tenants prepared to pay and get a step ahead of some other tenants.

It’s quite clear, again, that these are those who work at the coalface, who are wanting to make a difference. What they are saying is that, number one, the costs will be shifted on, and, number two, it removes the opportunity for choice where, in actual fact, when you have property managers who work hard to ensure that actually they have the appropriate place of residence for a tenant, for a family, that are looking for residency—that’s the role of the property manager, as well.

I also, too, again, want to talk about some other comments that came up as we were listening to the submissions that were coming through. “By paying the letting fee, they have a wider choice of property and less competition from tenants unwilling or unable to pay”—these are some of the comments, and I’m reading them, from those who made submissions.

So I’ll be keen to hear from the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford. My number one question is in regards to the lack of consultation and why there wasn’t a broader perspective and opportunity for that. Why was it not, then, held over to the two previous bills that we talked about at the moment which the Minister and his ministry is conducting—in other words, a reform to the Residential Tenancies Act itself? Then at the same time, question two, in regards to the concerns that were raised by those with property management roles of responsibility and for those that are tenanting—the concern that this will increase their current rates in the average rental market, and then at that time put an extra burden upon those people as well.

So I put those questions to the Minister. I hope that he will be able to respond to them in the appropriate way. That’s important for us, and we look forward to more debate through this committee stage.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a privilege to rise and speak after a relatively long line of National Party property owners, which we obviously know as a result of the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament, which is a public document. And the reason that I—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just caution the member—there is a Standing Order that actually deals with this, so just be careful where you go with that.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: All right, Madam Chair. I’ll leave that point being made and say that this is obviously a House of Representatives. There are five individuals in this House, in that most recent register, who don’t own properties, and I am one of them. To that point, I would like to speak to the experience of renters, because this piece of legislation is delivering for 50 percent of New Zealanders, who rent. Letting fees are a barrier to entry. I think that’s important to note, because the point was made by Dr Nick Smith about the fact that costs should lie where they fall. In response to that, I can only say that surely it makes sense, following that line of logic, that people who are engaging in contracts with property managers or leasing agencies should be paying those fees. It is an anomaly in the law that allows for those leasing agencies to charge renters. So, surely, we want to correct that anomaly. Where else in the law are two contracting parties allowed to impose a cost on a third party who is not privy to that contract?

To the point around market competition—surely there would be greater market competition for the costs of leasing, should landlords need to shop around for those leasing agencies, as opposed to imposing those costs on renters. If I may, I’d like to make the point that if you own a rental property, you own at least one more property than your rental tenant. As my dad so frequently says, when you’re renting you’re paying somebody else’s mortgage.

The previous speaker, the Hon Louise Upston, spoke to prohibitive costs for landlords with regards to leasing, should they not be allowed to charge these letting fees. To that point, I would note the Reserve Bank’s advice that rents are driven primarily by supply and demand, not by landlord costs, which raises the important point that if it is becoming prohibitive for certain people to be landlords, then perhaps they should be selling those properties, therefore increasing supply in the housing market and allowing and enabling young people, prospective buyers of properties, to purchase their first home.

Secondly, I would like to point to the kind of statements around the landlord sector and the calls from the Hon Dr Nick Smith for transparent charges on rents. I’d agree with him on that point. I think it is really important that we have transparency and accountability about how rents are being calculated. So I’m really disappointed that, in 2016, the National Party, whilst in Government, voted down Metiria Turei’s Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill, which would have provided greater security and greater transparency and accountability for renters.

Finally, I’d like to point to the 60 percent of submissions that were in favour of this piece of legislation, because, as has been noted time and again, this is about delivering for the 50 percent of New Zealanders who rent.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just briefly respond to a number of points that have been made in the debate so far. Let me start off by addressing the point raised by the member Louise Upston and, in fact, by her National colleagues Nick Smith and Alfred Ngaro as well, that the risk—or the likelihood, as they suggested—is that as a result of the changes in this bill, costs will be passed on to the tenant. Nick Smith, notably, said that we should stop pretending, that at the moment it’s a transparent charge, and that all this bill will have the effect of is to shift that charge from letting fees into the rental costs.

Our view about this issue all the way along has been that the problem with the current system with letting fees is that, as the member Chlöe Swarbrick just pointed out, at the moment there’s a contractual and commercial relationship between the landlord and the property manager. The custom of letting fees that has arisen in recent years has seen those two parties in a contractual relationship charge a third party who is outside that contractual relationship. The property manager is working for the landlord but charging the tenant. Now, that is the opposite of transparency.

It’s obvious to anybody, I think, that property managers—engaged by landlords to help them run their businesses and manage the tenancies—provide a service, and of course property managers should be properly recompensed for that service. Our argument, and the view that underpins this bill, is that the real costs of that service should be accommodated within the landlord’s business model—not simply charged at the equivalent of one week’s rent to the hapless tenant, when, in fact, the real costs of the services that are provided by the property manager may bear no resemblance whatsoever to the equivalent of one week’s rent.

So it’s a much sounder economic and financial proposition, from the point of view of the Government, that the real costs of the property manager’s services are incorporated into the landlord’s business model. Of course they will be, to some extent, passed on to the tenant, but, as we know in this House, rents are set by supply and demand, and it was only the Reserve Bank in New Zealand who most recently published argument and commentary on this point of view. So any attempt by landlords to pass on those costs to tenants will be mediated by supply and demand. A landlord can’t just randomly add a whole lot of extra costs to the rent and think that the tenants will be able to pay that. It comes down to supply and demand.

I want to respond to Louise Upston and Alfred Ngaro’s comments about the very compressed time frame associated with this bill. They argued that it provided too short a time for the sector to respond and that there was a lack of consultation. They also raised the question about why this bill isn’t being dealt with as part of the wider review of the Residential Tenancies Act. So, to address that first question, the answer is that the current overhaul of the Residential Tenancies Act is a large, ambitious, and complex undertaking, and we’re currently doing a public consultation exercise with landlords, with tenants, up and down the country. As a result of that consultation exercise and the feedback that we get from landlords and tenants about the range of proposals that we put on the table, we will then draft legislation, and we will take that legislation through a full parliamentary process because it is a serious and complex undertaking. So that will take us probably all of next year to take that bill through the House.

Now, the reason that we split off the measures to deal with letting fees is that we believe that dealing with letting fees is a relatively simple undertaking. We don’t believe there’s any justifiable moral or financial rationale for the current way that letting fees are dealt with. It’s a relatively simple undertaking. The bill is a relatively simple bill. We want to ensure that in this summer season, when so many tenancies turn over—we want to lighten the load on renters, and there are millions and millions of dollars that are spent every year on letting fees. That’s money that we can, in the short term, spare tenants.

I want to come back to the argument that Opposition members made before that all we’re doing is transferring the cost of letting fees from letting fees into the rents. The other reason why it’s much better for renters if these figures are incorporated in rents, to the extent that they may or may not be, is that letting fees come at exactly the worst time for renters. They come when renters are having to find four weeks’ rent in bond, rent in advance, all the costs of moving house, and then they have to find letting fees on top of that. That is a terrible impost on renters at the time they can least afford it.

Louise Upston asked about other parts of the UK and why they haven’t followed Scotland. The member may be interested to know that England has followed Scotland and has introduced legislation to ban letting fees. Alongside rent and deposits, agents and landlords will only be able to charge tenants fees associated with the change or early termination of a tenancy. Wales has also started to follow Scotland’s lead with the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, which was introduced on 11 June 2018. Also, in the state of Victoria in Australia, there are moves under way to prohibit letting fees.

There was one thing that the member Louise Upston said that I agreed with, and that is that bad landlords are not a majority. I disagree with her assertion that the Government characterises bad landlords as being the norm—quite to the contrary. A great number of the landlords are good, decent New Zealanders trying to provide a service, trying to save for their retirement, and trying to do the right thing. This Government is not in the habit of demonising landlords. Our goal with this legislation and with the review of the Residential Tenancies Act is to reset the mix of balances of rights and responsibilities that landlords and tenants share, to modernise this relationship, because we know that no matter how successful we are at turning around the declining rate of homeownership, a lot of Kiwis for the foreseeable future will be renters.

I want to comment on one of Nick Smith’s arguments that he made. He tried to say that the winners of this move will be short-term tenants because they are incurring extra costs through a rapid turnover of tenancies and they will end up under this law subsidising long-term tenants who don’t incur so many costs associated with the turnover of tenancies. With respect, I think the member is not seeing the wood for the trees. The way that letting fees currently operate are a burden, a financial burden, on renters. Actually, the effect that they have is to incentivise short-term tenancies. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, particularly here in Wellington, where the revenue stream for property managers from letting fees encourages and incentivises them to promote short-term fixed tenancies, which lock in the very insecurity of tenure that we are trying to avoid.

Finally, the point I want to make is to address the point made by Louise Upston and Alfred Ngaro about the lack of consultation. I want to point out that submissions were received by the Social Services and Community Committee—187 of them. That is a pretty fulsome response by the community, and the majority of those submitters supported the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was just hiding under my desk in my office, working away for the constituents of Epsom electorate, and I heard Chlöe Swarbrick’s speech. I was moved to come down to the House and put a few things straight, because Chlöe Swarbrick’s speech demonstrated everything that is wrong with the world today, especially the standards of political discourse. She went to great pains to point out that she’s one of five people in the pecuniary interests register who does not own a house and therefore had some greater authority to speak on this bill than people who might own a home.

Well, this is the problem: we have a political debate that is not based on any sort of reason or logic or a discourse about what might get better results for the welfare of New Zealanders going forward but rather this idea that we each have intrinsic values which can’t be challenged or we might be hurt, that we can’t have the debate; that somehow it’s identity that matters in politics more than the actual facts, such as whether clause 4 in Part 1 of this bill corresponds with the intention of the House when the bill passed its second reading and, before that, when the House sent this bill away to the select committee.

We actually do need to have robust debate about whether or not this bill will make things better or worse for New Zealanders. Chlöe Swarbrick’s speech simply did not do that. I think it is worth noting that it is an example of the way that the quality of political discourse has collapsed, not only in New Zealand but around the world, as a victim of identity politics. But it is also a fact that we need to recognise that this whole bill actually—and particularly the idea that clause 4, by banning the types of fees or the format of revenue collection that a landlord can use to cover their costs, is going to solve a real problem—is pantomime politics. The idea that simply saying that a fee or charge cannot be levied for the grant, continuance, extension, variation, or renewal of any tenancy agreement, and that this is somehow going to solve a problem in the real world, rubs up against the fact that Governments may well be able to shift costs but Governments cannot avoid costs.

There’s an old economist, Thomas Sowell, who says that good economics is really just about relentlessly asking the question: what happens next? So after this bill, what happens next? Do the considerable costs of recovering the time and the effort used to search for and vet tenants—do those costs disappear once this legislation goes in place? Or are they shifted? My contention is that the costs will be shifted, and they’ll be recovered in one of two ways by landlords. Either landlords will charge more in rent over time to cover the costs they can’t cover with letting fees, or they will be covered by tenants spending more time queueing and searching because there are not agents available to cover that search process for them.

So when you have a price control, one of two things happens. Either the money gets recovered somewhere else, in higher fees elsewhere, or people spend more time queueing because you actually won’t to be able to pay somebody to do the searching and the very hard work that people have to do when arranging tenancies.

But going back to Chlöe Swarbrick’s speech, it was, in a way, appropriate for this bill, because the real problem in New Zealand is that we still build half as many homes per capita as the baby boomers built in their peak of the 1970s. That’s why there’s a shortage, that’s why people feel that rents are high, and that’s why tenants are hard up.

This bill represents an age of superficial politics where simply trying to pass a law to try and shift the cost is seen as doing something, when, really, it is not. It is a substitute for the real action that the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, very well knows is necessary, with infrastructure, with land use planning—none of which he’s actually managed to do despite all the promises he made when he came into this position. It’s a shame to stand here in this Parliament and be debating laws that will make no difference other than cosmetic—actually, they’ll make things worse.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I do want to ask a few questions of the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, but before I do, I want to respond to some of the contributions that have been made this afternoon.

I want to start with the contribution by the Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick. In her speech, she said that she was one of five renters in this House and suggested that, perhaps, because of that, she has more of a moral right to speak on this legislation than those of us who do own our own home. If that’s the case, I have to ask the Green Party: what about dairy farmers in mid-Canterbury, what about truck drivers in South Canterbury, and what about drainlayers in my electorate of Rangitata? Is she suggesting to them that they’re the only ones that can speak on legislation that affects them, because that’s, essentially, what she’s saying in the House today by saying that only renters should be able to have a view on this bill.

The second point she made which I thought was even more disappointing—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I didn’t call the previous speaker to order, but just because a previous speaker has spoken about a particular item which is not relevant to the bill does not give subsequent speakers the opportunity to—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course it does.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, it doesn’t—Speakers’ ruling 45/1. So I would encourage you to come back to the bill. Thank you.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair, I strongly reject and contest your assertion that my speech was not relevant to the bill. I was very careful to tie my contribution precisely to the sections of the bill being debated.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I wasn’t suggesting that your whole speech wasn’t relevant; I was suggesting that the portion where you referred to the previous speaker’s contribution was not in line with the bill. Thank you very much for your contribution.

ANDREW FALLOON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As luck would have it, I was just coming round to Part 1 of the bill, which refers to the substantial provisions of the bill. I want to ask some questions of the Minister, who has been making some contributions this afternoon, and I thank him for that. In the bill, it defines a letting fee as “any fee or charge”, and I ask the Minister how that would relate to an additional fee on top of rent—if a letting fee was not payable, how that would relate if an additional fee was put on to the rent for perhaps the first year of a rental agreement.

I say that because I was a renter up until just a few years ago, I’ll have Chlöe Swarbrick know, and as part of my 12-month fixed-term tenancy we had an agreement that a higher fee be charged at the start of our tenancy rather than at the end. The reason for that is because we had a number of university students in the flat who were working during the university year. So we had an agreement as part of our tenancy agreement to have a higher fee at the start of the year than at the end of the year. So I ask the Minister, if that was to be the case, if, for example, in lieu of a $300 letting fee, it would be permissible under this legislation to have a $10 a week additional charge for the first 30 weeks of the tenancy—because this legislation, I don’t think, at the moment, is very clear on that at all when it refers to “any fee or charge”.

The second question I have around that is it refers to any “letting agent or any other person”. In his contribution, the Minister earlier suggested that a property manager works for the landlord, and I don’t think there’d be too many people in this House who’d disagree with that. But the question then comes: if that fee is to be shifted from a relationship between the property manager and the tenant to the property manager and the landlord, that fee would have to be recouped somehow, and the fee would be recouped by the property manager charging the landlord. So I ask the Minister, if that was to be the case, that landlord would have to recoup that fee from the tenant? In fact, the Minister did allude to that fact in his contribution. He admitted, I think for the first time that I’ve heard him say it—he said that it’d be better for the tenant if it was incorporated within the rent. I found that quite interesting, because up until this point, the Government have suggested that it wouldn’t lead to an increase in rent, and now they’re saying that it perhaps will.

So I ask the Minister to perhaps rethink his comments he made about Nick Smith’s comment, which was that it would incentivise short-term rentals rather than longer-term rentals. I’ll come back to my $10 a week example: if a fee is to be recouped by $10 a week, of course that would punish longer-term tenants—

Hon Member: Forty bucks a month.

ANDREW FALLOON: —because they’re being paid, as my colleague says, an additional $40 a month for a far longer period of time than they are if they’re a short-term tenant. So I ask the Minister to rethink those comments, because I don’t think he’s quite understood what Nick Smith has had to say. Of course it will incentivise shorter-term rentals rather than longer-term rentals if someone is charged $10 a week for a longer period of time.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I want to disclose, certainly, that I am a renter and therefore, according to the contribution by Chlöe Swarbrick, I must have greater moral authority than any other member of this House to speak on this bill. If the contribution from Chlöe Swarbrick has indicated anything to us, it is that the Green Party will certainly not, at any stage, be given the responsibility over the economy or housing, because that contribution, quite frankly, had no substance at all.

But I do want to talk about some aspects of this bill that I feel quite passionately about. We’ve had a debate around the letting fee and the structure of the letting fees, and, quite frankly, I don’t think that this is a good bill. To paraphrase my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, it’s a smoke-and-mirrors bill. In fact, you could call it a fake news bill, where the Government thinks that they’re going to take letting fees off and that’s going to save tenants money, but, in fact, they haven’t thought through the unintended consequences of this bill, and that is that it’s going to add to rents, which will significantly affect long-term tenants.

I want to, in fact, get to some of the submissions, because I think that through the submission process a lot of good ideas came through that I would like the Minister in the chair, Phil Twyford, to respond to. A lot of these ideas were not about banning the letting fee structure but about improving the market for letting fees, improving the transparency of letting fees. I hear the Minister say that, in fact, the current system is not transparent and that is why we have the bill that we’ve got before us today. But I put it to the Minister that there are ways to improve the transparency of the current letting fee market without a straight-up ban. So I would like to know from the Minister why he did not look at alternative ways to improve the letting fee market without a straight-up ban.

Other ideas that came up through the letting fees submission process were around splitting the fees between tenants and landlords. What we’ve heard from the opposite side of the House for the last few months is that the benefits and the value of letting fees are much more accrued, or significantly accrued, to the landlords. But what we heard from the submission process is that in fact there is value in tenants using the services of the property managers in terms of helping them to get vetted quickly, in terms of giving them insurance over the property that they’re about to rent, and in terms of giving them some certainty even past the point at which they have moved into the house.

I certainly, in my instance, am able to go back to my property manager at any time and say, “Well, can I have this done or that done to my property?” And so it goes that the relationship between the tenant and the property manager lasts far beyond the short-term viewing of the contract which has been under discussion.

A third aspect that I’d like the Minister to certainly answer is around what we call a code of conduct and the amount of property managers that came to us during the select committee process and said, “Yes, there are some rogue operators out there, but let’s not punish the 95 percent of those hard-working property managers that are genuinely trying to provide value for both the tenant and the property owner.” And so why don’t we have a code of conduct for property managers? I’d like the Minister to answer that. And this code of conduct would set the standards for property managers in the sector, which we currently lack. It would also outline what they can charge on to consumers, in terms of the transparency, and it would also outline, particularly, a process for becoming licensed as a property manager. And the Minister needs to explain—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s fantastic to continue this discussion because I really want the Minister to respond to the issues from the select committee, because I believe that the select committee submitters deserve a right to hear why this Government hasn’t taken their ideas seriously.

But now let’s come to the bill. Now, the bill in Part 1 looks at the unlawful act of charging a fee. And I have serious reservations about this part of the bill. We know that property managers incur time and effort, for a letting fee. We know that because they’ve told us in the select committee that it takes anywhere from 12 to 20 hours to rent out a property. We also know from the select committee process that tenants benefit from the services that property managers provide.

So the idea is that this is actually going to be an unlawful act, when it is a free exchange in a market society where one actor in a society has a service to provide and another has a willingness to purchase that service. Why are we getting in the way of that economic relationship? And if that relationship is, in fact, broken down, why doesn’t the Minister consider ways to improve that market rather than just a straight-off ban?

I do want to say that I echo the sentiment of my colleagues that have expressed a deep dissatisfaction that this bill will significantly affect long-term tenancies. Let’s just say, for example’s sake, that tenant rentals increase by a measly $2 a week by this bill. Now, under supply and demand we know that that’s in fact consistent with the arguments that this Government’s been making, which is supply and demand’s been driving the market. But $2? That’s not much. But $2 over a year—what does that add up to? That’s $700 a year. If you were in a long-term tenancy over several years, times that $700 by the amount of years that you’ve been there, and that is the impact, the unintended consequence, of this bill on a whole range of long-term tenants, of which I am currently one.

And I just don’t think that this Government has thought through the wider implications of this bill on the rental market. They should be focused on building homes and increasing the supply, and I’m not talking about 18 or 20 houses. This Government promised 10,000 houses a year. And what are they doing? They’ve just opened their first KiwiBuild home over the weekend—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I bring the member back to the bill please?

DAN BIDOIS: —and quite frankly—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Back to the bill.

DAN BIDOIS: OK, back to the bill. Let’s get some empirical evidence. We heard, during the select committee process, the Scottish example that proves that rental prices are likely to rise. And even in the regulatory impact statement it says that rental prices will likely rise, and that’s going to affect a significant amount of tenants over time, particularly long-term tenants. And I would like to hear from the Minister, in respect of the concerns I have raised on behalf of those that have submitted in the select committee process, about how to improve the transparency, the effectiveness, of the market, rather than just a straight-out ban, because, quite frankly, it looks like this Government has reached a conclusion that they want to ban, no matter what, for the sake of ideology, rather than work to improve the regulations through a code of conduct, through increasing the transparency of the market, and through increasing the licensing of rogue operators to ensure that this market works effectively.

So I would like the Minister to answer that, and I say on behalf of those submitters that they deserve a right to an answer. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank the Minister for taking a call, and there are a couple of issues that I want to just come back to—in the earlier contribution I made—because I don’t believe they were adequately addressed, or perhaps they were misunderstood.

But before I come to that, I want to just address two comments by speakers in this debate. One was Chlöe Swarbrick, and the view, which I iterated in my initial comments, around the disdain for landlords, which I find entirely offensive. If members come to this House to assess the ability of landlords based on a small number of the population that happen to work in this building, I think it shows how completely out of touch they are with ordinary New Zealanders. The very hard-working New Zealanders—and this is coming to a comment that the Minister made as well. There are approximately 270,000 landlords in New Zealand. There are no corporate or institutional residential landlords. And of those 270,000 residential landlords, there are approximately 546,000 properties. So it backs up what I said in my contribution on Part 1 of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, that by far and away the majority of landlords are mum and dad investors who have one, perhaps two, properties.

And the Minister, in answering some of the questions, referred to the landlord’s “business”. Well, thousands and thousands of landlords don’t consider that they’re in business. They don’t consider they’re in the business of being a landlord. Yes, there are regulations and obligations that they have to comply with, but those mum and dad investors aren’t in the business of investing. They might be teachers, they might be nurses, or they might be truck drivers that have worked incredibly hard to save up for a rental property which will be their retirement fund, and so for them to have the ability to purchase expert assistance in getting a tenant for their property—which is the intention in Part 1. Section 2of the principal Act is amended in Part 1, and when it refers to the letting fee, we’re not talking about big businesses. We’re not talking about big-business people or fat cats, as the Green Party seems to think landlords are. The majority of them are hard-working New Zealanders who have scrimped and saved to put money into an investment—not a business, an investment—that they will use for their retirement. So I just want to make that very, very clear. So this particular impact means that those landlords won’t be able to have a property manager who then collects a letting fee for that service.

Now, the Minister, in attempting to answer my question about process, misinterpreted a key point. The two rushed parts of the process were before the bill was introduced and in its implementation. So the first part, the part that the regulatory impact statement clearly indicates, is there was insufficient time for Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials to consult with the sector before the legislation was even drafted. That is the poor process that I refer to in this House. That is a process that should not be repeated by this Government, and it’s happening over and over and over again. In terms of the select committee process, that was one of the ones that wasn’t truncated. I think that’s a bit of an exception in this House at the moment. We did hear from a good number of submitters—some for, some against—and I want to thank my colleague Dan Bidois for going through some of the comments, specifically, that the submitters raised.

But I want to come back to the second part of the process that was absolutely rushed, and that’s what happens after this point. So we’re in the committee stage; there’s yet to be a third reading, of which we don’t know the date, and yet this is going to be implemented on 12 December. So the very landlords that I am talking about in this particular debate might have a week, they might have two weeks, to implement this legislation. That is an outrageous process. That is deeply unfair to the—and let me quote that number again—270,000 landlords in New Zealand. Now, of the properties—546,000 properties—not all of them have property managers. About 50 percent do. So we’re not talking about every single property that this could apply to, but that’s still a very large number—270,000 properties. Given that we don’t know when the third reading will be or when the bill will be given the Royal assent by the Governor-General, potentially they’ll have a week to implement it, which is grossly unfair.

I come to my third point in response to the Minister’s comment, and this is around the international experience; the country that was quoted a lot is Scotland, and they banned letting fees in November 2012. Unfortunately, the evidence showed both sides in terms of the impact on rent. The study by LSL Property Services and UK Tenant Data said that one immediate effect of the fees ban was that the rents increased from January 2013 to the following year, January 2014, by 4.3 percent, when they had been static in the year prior—4.3 percent. I am sure the Minister doesn’t want to see a 4.3 percent increase in rents this year. That was a risk that was clearly identified in the regulatory impact statement, so I’d be very keen to hear the Minister’s response on that. He clearly quoted Scotland. This is another part of the evidence in terms of the implementation from Scotland that I would like the Minister to comment on.

He also referred to the UK and Wales. Wales was looking at what Scotland did, as Ireland was, but instead they decided the problem was around disclosure. The Minister mentioned transparency in his comments, so I do want to come back to that, because it appears that some of the problem that the Minister wants to solve is around transparency and disclosure of the letting fee—what it covers, who it covers, when it should apply, etc. So Ireland and Wales, instead of banning letting fees, actually introduced greater transparency and had a requirement that the letting fees be disclosed by the property managers. The UK put a similar requirement in to make sure that tenants are well-informed. So it is important in this House that when international examples are quoted, they are quoted accurately.

The final point that I do want to make comes back to this wider reform. I want to reiterate the risk. When legislation like this is put in piecemeal when there is a bigger piece of work, then the policy intent of this does harm. So in the interests of legislation being concluded next year, which is what the Minister indicated around the broader residential tenancies reforms, it would make sense for this issue—and whether it’s the problem of increased rent or upfront rent. At the end of the day, someone still pays the increase, whether it’s an upfront fee or whether it’s an increase every week—4.3 percent is what happened in Scotland—or is it the issue of transparency of the letting fee itself?

The other thing that’s important on the international comparisons is to look at the type of property owners and landlords here in New Zealand compared to other jurisdictions. I would say that in some of those countries, the profile is quite different because of the very issue that these are not people in business. They are not in the business of owning property. The majority of them might have one or two properties, and the fact that they want to engage professionals to provide support that helps tenants who are looking for properties—and at the moment it’s a particularly tight market—is a service to them as well as the landlord.

I think it is important that National’s opposition to this piece of legislation is well understood, because the reality is that this will have a further increase on rents for the very New Zealanders that the Government supports, or purports to support.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution to this bill. The regulatory impact statement talks about the uncertainty on landlord behaviour of removing letting fees, and I want to talk to an area not previously covered and build an argument. You see, it’s quite plausible that having letting fees may, in some sense, increase the level of social responsibility, and even the actions, of a landlord, and I’ll testify to that as a previous landlord myself. But the opposite may also be true, that removing the letting fee may decrease the sense of social responsibility and actions of the landlord, and I’ll actually prove that in this contribution.

Now, the regulatory impact statement agrees that there’s uncertainty of what the impact of this bill will be on landlord behaviour. To quote here, “Nor is there sufficient information or time available”—again, the Minister Phil Twyford mentioned time—“to fully consider the impacts of prohibiting letting fees or what, if any, impacts it may have”. It continues through, saying much of the same thing: “The specific behavioural response of landlords is difficult to forecast as time”—time, again—“for consultation has been limited”. So we have this uncertainty of landlord behaviour as we remove the letting fees. Here’s what I believe: first of all, the letting fee, if it’s removed, will be passed through to the tenants; secondly, I do think that removing the letting fee decreases the responsibility of the landlord, and I’ll get to that; and, thirdly, I think that having a letting fee—as a previous landlord myself, I was aware that the tenant was paying it and I did try and make some accommodations.

Let’s go back to that situation and the argument I’m making that reducing the letting fee may reduce the responsibility and behaviours, if you like, of the landlord. Here’s how I want to prove it: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) is a landlord. They have 22 houses in Whangarei. LINZ tenants do not pay letting fees. Eugenie Sage is the landlord for those LINZ houses. She is an appalling landlord—appalling. It takes TV ONE’s 6 p.m. news to turn up to show the mouldy walls, the mouldy ceilings, before that landlord would act. Yet the day after TV ONE news, teams of maintenance people miraculously appear. There’s no letting fee in that situation—LINZ don’t—but all 22 LINZ houses, as of 31 October, are mysteriously now going to be examined by a maintenance person from Land Information New Zealand. The connection here is they pay no letting fee, but the landlord is still appalling—absolutely appalling. Again, what I’m saying here is that maybe not having a letting fee decreases social responsibility of the landlord, and, in this example, Green MP Eugenie Sage. We heard Chlöe Swarbrick talk about Metiria Turei and their warrant of fitness and how wonderful they are as landlords. Sorry, not this MP, not this Minister, not this party, not these landlords—appalling.

The argument I’m making here is that with a letting fee—again, that uncertainty of behaviour at what we can see in the regulatory impact statement. I believe, just to reiterate, that the letting fees will be passed through to tenants if we remove this. That’s not a good thing. We’re all wanting to improve the tenant experience, so I think that’s not a good thing. Secondly, I do believe, as a landlord myself, being aware that tenants have paid a letting fee, I have tried to make accommodations at times. I understand their circumstance. Thirdly, removing the letting fee in some senses decreases the responsibility of the landlord, and I’ve given you the example of Eugenie Sage, landlord for LINZ and the 22 Whangarei houses where she is an appalling landlord. Thank you.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a short call—I won’t go the full five minutes. So who pays? Who pays? Does the tooth fairy pay? Because don’t pretend that renters won’t pay. I’m just wondering how many people across the House have actually run businesses and know about costs and in-goings and outgoings, because I heard Chlöe Swarbrick talk, and she was saying that she was one of five that are only renting and that us, across the other side of the Chamber, according to the pecuniary register, are homeowners. Well, most of us bought our houses before we became politicians, except for maybe Nick Smith, because I can’t imagine that when he joined politics he was a house owner.

She’s 23, so it’s acceptable for her to be a renter, but I’ve been a landlord and I’ve been a tenant. As recently as this year, I was a tenant. I had to find a rental property, and I fully expected to have to pay a tenancy fee because I understand that people that run agencies that have to pay their own bills and run businesses and that do screening and fill out paperwork have got to pay their bills. How are they going to cover their costs? Well, of course they’re going to charge a fee, so it’s expected. So I can’t understand the thinking behind saying “OK, we’ll just ban that fee.”, because someone will pay.

I ran a Honda business, selling motorbikes and lawnmowers—that sort of thing—and I remember that my priority was paying my workers’ wages. That’s the first thing. Of course, you paid the rent, then you paid the payroll, and only after that did I come out of it with whatever was left over, which is what I got. I always used to tell—quite often, at the end of every month—my workers that they took home more money than I did as the business owner, and they wouldn’t believe that, because they’d see a shop full of hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of equipment. But, in actual fact, that was all on tick. That was all on finance. So that’s the situation. You have to pay. You have to pay—someone pays.

So Labour—their specialty is rising costs. Under their reign in the last 12 months, rents have gone up $25 a head—$25 a head. What we’ve got to look at is we’ve got to understand what accumulates to make those costs, and, obviously, the more costs you lay on landlords, they’ll pass it on to the tenant, and the tenant will pay. So Labour—what do they do? They hammer the risk-taker, the property owner—that’s myself; I’ve been a landlord myself.

They’re rushing this legislation through Parliament. They’re rushing it through. The regulatory impact statement tells us this. So, for me, this is politics and spin, rather than substance. Just banning a fee and expecting that no one’s going to pay it just doesn’t make sense.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 stand part.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment 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.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Further provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, we turn now to the debate on clauses 9 and 10 and the schedule—Part 2.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I stand and rise to take a speech on Part 2 and, in particular, clause 10, where it indicates that schedule 1A be amended: “In Schedule 1A, after the item relating to section 17, insert: ‘Section 17A (Requiring let fee)’ ”. In particular, the penalty cost of $1,000 is what it indicates there. In my speech in the debate, I’d like to indicate the fact of the cost and the burden that will have on those that are actually inside this sector and, in particular, those of the property management sector.

The reports to us have indicated that in 2017, there were 175,081 bonds lodged, with 53 percent of those from property managers, so we know that the burden already is actually on those property managers. Their role of responsibility is to both the tenant and also the landlord. In particular, it’s around ensuring that both have the responsibilities before them to be a good tenant and a good landlord—in this case, the burden of that cost in regards to Part 2, which is the requirement of the letting fee in regards to that $1,000 and the burden that that could cost. But it’s the impact that I think has not been talked about, and I want to add something extra to the debates that have been happening in the House in regards to this Residential Tenancies Act.

Some of the comments in the submissions that relate to that part are from a Wellington property management company that says “If Labour’s changes go ahead it’s unfortunate, but inevitable, that some owners will exit the rental market [therefore] reducing the number of homes available for rent,” which will then see a rent increase for all of those that are there. I’ve met many of those that are in our communities—even in west Auckland, in Te Atatū—who have said they’re now putting their properties on the market. They’re afraid of where the direction of this current Government is going, not only in regards to the prohibition of letting fees and the burden of costs to that but also to, potentially, the new Tax Working Group—the capital gains tax that could be there. So this burden is being felt now. When I have spoken to those in Harcourts and even those in Ray White, they’re now saying that the auction houses are starting to fill and, in particular, they are with those landlords who have a real concern about the direction that this Government is taking.

To add to their point, and to give some substance and weight to that, a lot has been made by the ministry and the Minister in the example of Scotland, who banned the letting fees in November of 2012. My colleague the Hon Louise Upston talked about this, but I want to add another component to this debate in regards to that. Tony Williams, the managing director of referencing firm UK Tenant Data said, “The loss of fees has had a profound effect on the rental sector in Scotland.” So, while they’ve removed these fees and while this has been looked at as an exemplar of an approach that can be taken by the current Government, initially the ban hit agency revenue, resulting in increased fees to landlords and in rents rising to mitigate some of these costs. But what’s really interesting is that what is happening years down—now, this is post the ban, nearly five years down the track or nearly six years, we’re all aware of the obvious fallout in terms of lost jobs, increased rents, and so on. But what hasn’t been factored in and what is now being realised is the level of which there are a number of properties that are being withdrawn from the property market.

So my contribution on Part 2 and to this debate is on the impact that this will have in the long term. We’re talking about an exemplar that is being used by the current Government of Scotland, and of Shelter and their approach, which is to remove the letting fees, and yet the impact is quite clear. What they’ve indicated is the loss of jobs and the increase in rental prices but, more importantly now, the removal of those homes that had been available inside the property market.

I think it’s important that we need to be cognisant of that. These are the impacts that they are having and that they will continue to have in this sector, and we feel that it’s been something that hasn’t really been debated. I want to add this extra contribution to this debate because I think it’s significantly important, because the approach that the Minister has often talked about is that we should have a balanced approach. We should be ensuring that there’s a security of tenure for those residents, those tenants, and, at the same time too, we should be ensuring that there isn’t an added burden of cost on to landlords in their situation of providing the warm, dry, safe residential properties that are there.

So I add these contributions to the Part 2 debate in the committee. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I want to take just a brief call in this second part of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I just bring the House’s attention to the penalty of $1,000 and come back to the point I made earlier around the very tight time frames in which this legislation is being passed and how I think it’s a terrible process for those who are affected by this—property managers as well as property owners or landlords

Let’s say, for example, this legislation doesn’t pass in this sitting of the House. Potentially, it doesn’t pass until late November - early December. It gets the assent by the Governor-General, and the implementation date is 12 December 2018. Nowhere—nowhere—is there the ability for the penalty to be waived in the instance where there is such a ridiculously short implementation date. I think that’s grossly unfair. For all of the landlords out there, this is absolutely outrageous.

As I said before, the majority of landlords don’t see them owning a rental property as a business. So these are not, you know, 270,000 business people sitting out there watching Parliament, getting legal updates on everything that affects their business. These are mum and dad investors who have worked hard and might have one property—two, if they’re lucky—and, all of a sudden, we’re talking about significant penalties in Part 2 of this legislation and a ridiculously short implementation date. I want to pick up the comments the Hon Alfred Ngaro spoke about around the number of these mum and dad investors who don’t treat their owning a rental property as a business who are now exiting or considering exiting the market.

So when we talk about the market, this is the person who has a rental property. Chlöe Swarbrick, in her contribution in an earlier part, considered that was a good thing—considered it was a good thing that landlords exit the rental housing market. Well, I think that’s a bad thing for tenants, because if they think currently the pool of houses available to them to rent is small, guess what—guess what. This Government is making it harder for people to own properties that they make available to others to rent. If it is that much more difficult, they will exit—so there’ll be even fewer properties available for people to rent.

So this particular piece of legislation, although, you know, it sounds good—prohibiting letting fees sounds good, and, in terms of the submitters that appeared before us, there’s no denying, from the side of the House, that there are some challenges, there are some problems, with some of the letting fees. The Minister himself said in an earlier contribution that greater transparency of the letting fee is something that could have been resolved through this particular piece of legislation. But no; instead, the simpler option, which has unintended consequences, was just to ban them—to outright ban them.

So, instead, it means those individuals who have worked hard and own an additional property in addition to their own that in most cases is their retirement savings fund—as opposed to a business entity—will be punished. They will be punished by legislation that has a ridiculously short commencement date of 12 December this year. It could have easily have been next year. Had the Minister been insistent on 12 December, why didn’t the Minister put a Supplementary Order Paper to enable or to ensure that people who were adjusting to this change weren’t ridiculously punished with the $1,000 fine purely because of the short time frame of the implementation?

So I do want the Minister to respond to that. My question is, very specifically, why did he not consider the need for a transition when this is a ridiculously short time frame, 12 December—either having had a later implementation date or allowing for a transition to ensure that New Zealanders are able to comply?

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended 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.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to the schedule be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment 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.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule as amended 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.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 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.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 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.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Domestic Violence Act 1955

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled in my name as the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Would the Minister care to come to the Table?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I need to be in that chair, ideally, but I’m happy to speak anywhere.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That would be great, thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I was saying before we had the little musical chairs number, what SOP 116 that has been tabled in my name in relation to the bill does is consolidate where the bill got to as a consequence of the select committee process but also reflects some changes that the new Government wanted to have in the bill.

I acknowledge the work done by the previous Minister of Justice under the previous Government, the Hon Amy Adams, who worked with all parties in Parliament to bring the legislation to the House, but as a consequence of the select committee process and, indeed, of policies of the new Government, we wish to see some changes in it.

Those changes can be summarised as follows. Firstly, there is a change of name to the legislation so it would now become the Family Violence Act, as opposed to the Family and Whānau Violence Act. It is about the violence in the family, and recognises that, of course, violence in the family—that there is a public interest in ensuring that we do everything we can to minimise that form of violence and recognises that it is seldom ever an isolated act or a short-term problem inside families, but it’s an issue that requires ongoing and sometimes intensive attention.

The second change is to acknowledge coercive and controlling behaviour as a form of family violence, and that is reflected in definitions and some of the aspects around, for example, dowry abuse—that it is not just yelling and physical violence.

The third change is to reflect the fact that a relationship in which family violence can take place includes the relationship between a carer and the person being cared for in the home. Sometimes, a carer relationship between the carer and the person being cared for, when it happens in the home, can be an employment relationship, effectively, but, actually, the carer has intimate knowledge and intimate connection with the person being cared for, and, usually, the relationship is akin to the kind of relationship you’d expect with a family member. So that is reflected in the legislation so that abuse by a carer can be seen as an act of domestic violence.

Then, finally, there is the ability for codes of practice to be released by the Governor-General on advice from the Minister of Justice to assist those in the field of dealing with domestic or family violence issues.

So those are the principal changes in the main SOP. There is another amendment, also in my name, that deals with some drafting issues, and that is there as well. It is totally technical; there is no policy change in the other amendment. So, on that basis, I look forward to the debate from the committee.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Chair, and it is a real pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. Firstly, can I acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams, who did put an extraordinary amount of work into this bill in the last term. I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, because we’ve had several meetings and I’ve certainly indicated to him that should he bring what we feel is good legislation around the reforms that he wants to achieve, then we would look at those, and if we felt they were good for the country, we would support them and there’d be a bipartisan approach to that. I think that he has applied that rule in bringing this Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill to the House, because this was, in fact, in large part a National Party bill that was developed under the leadership of the Hon Amy Adams. So could I acknowledge him in bringing this bill to the House and making sure that he continues to steward it through.

We did have some consultation around the changes. I did go back last week after a meeting with our caucus to see whether or not we could break them out into the 11 separate amendments just so that we could debate them. Most of them we do in principle actually support. A few of them we oppose, and we’ve had a discussion around that. I guess there were a couple there that we were a bit uncomfortable with.

One was the extension of the police safety order from five days to 10 days. I know that when the Minister discussed this at length with advisers, the advice that she got was that even five days, we thought, was an extraordinarily big power to give the police when, effectively, they can apply it. They can go into a home where there’s been some family violence. If there’s not actually enough evidence there to progress towards charges being laid, then they can apply the police safety order. It’s very, very good in principle. What it does is it removes the offending party and it gives the other party the ability to be able to have some time and space, and also, if they want to go to the courts and apply for a protection order or something like that, then they can do that.

We did some stakeholder engagement. Largely, stakeholders were in support of it. It allows a little bit more time. We’ll be watching it closely, because it is a big power and to extend it—to double it from five to 10 days—we felt was a big step, and we will be watching closely to make sure that it’s not abused. We’ve got a high level of confidence that it won’t be, but removing someone arbitrarily from their home without any formal charges actually being laid, in our mind, is a big power and a very big step. There was a lot of debate around that and we’re still quite cautious. We’d like to see how that works.

The other one was around the fact that that relationship was going to change between a carer in the care industry, and the person they care for. This is around the people that will often go and stay the night, or might even stay a week, at the home of someone who might be suffering from dementia or cancer or some type of illness. In our meeting it became apparent that there’d actually been no stakeholder engagement. We were concerned about this and we worried about this because, fundamentally, we were concerned that there could be a second or third order effect. There could be an unintended consequence in the terms of the fact that we are changing that relationship. There may be some carers that actually want to have a very professional relationship with an arm’s length status attached to that, and what we’re, effectively, saying is that now they can be treated and seen as a family member. What does that actually mean for them? If we could get some clarity around that, it would be good.

Fundamentally, we of course support the bill. We think that it is a very important one, and so I’m going to take only a short call, but maybe in a later call I might just address very quickly the change in the name, because although that may seem insignificant, there was actually a lot of consultation that went on between the National Party and the Māori Party in terms of the development of this bill, and there’s actually quite a bit of meaning that sits behind the title of it as well. But I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, as it will become known, noting, of course, that change to the name, as alluded to previously by the Hon Mark Mitchell and, indeed, the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, as well.

Mr Mitchell has alluded to the fact that we do support the intent and, indeed, overall, the bill itself. There are a couple of different items he’s raised that we’ve made something of a subject of discussion. I think it’s worth looking at the various substantive changes that have been highlighted in the new Act, as it will become, and just giving some context to those for anyone who’s watching and is interested, as no doubt many will be in this very important aspect of our lawmaking.

It probably goes without saying that in this country, we can and should, and no doubt all do, abhor domestic violence—or family and whānau violence, as it’s variously known. None the less, a sensible approach to lawmaking is required such that we have pragmatic and realistic provisions in that legislation and seek balance at all times.

First looking at that aspect that the Minister touched upon in relation to behaviour that might seem minor or trivial when it’s viewed in isolation but that none the less can form a pattern of behaviour that constitutes violence—the cumulative effect of that being a significant thing and, indeed, the new test under the Act. That seems to me an act of policy making that’s grounded very much upon the real experience of people who are suffering this type of violence and those advocates in the area who have pointed that out to the Parliament and, indeed, the Ministers, plural—from Amy Adams, who led it initially, and then, again, as I say, Andrew Little—and that’s the advice that they provided, that domestic violence should be viewed in that holistic way, so to speak. So that seems a positive and a useful way to include that perspective in the way that we will deal with what we consider to be violence going forward.

So too the approach of considering coercive or controlling behaviour as family violence—again, it seems to us appropriate that we would have a scenario where behaviour that might not be overtly violent in the traditional, physical way of conceiving that concept, but none the less, it is very much adverse in its consequences and no less so than those other modes of violence.

I’d like to touch on the time frame of the orders that Mark Mitchell has referred to recently: increasing a police safety order from a duration of five to 10 days is a serious step. It’s one that we have considered carefully on this side of the House. No doubt others have considered it carefully, too—I wouldn’t suggest otherwise—but I think, if anything, it highlights the fact that we need to be very vigilant about other aspects of the justice process, such that if we are going to, effectively, detain and keep separate those who are accused of perpetrating domestic violence, we have perhaps an even higher duty than before to ensure that that case—that scenario—is worked through, whether that’s in front of the courts or by some other means, so that the situation is not left unresolved.

The issue of delays and a lack of timeliness in our court system is one that has been with this country for some time now, and I just take a moment to reiterate the fact that in relation to other legislation that will come before this House during the term, on this side of the House, we’ll work constructively to do what we can, along with the Government, to improve the situation as far as that is concerned as well.

Touching briefly, in my remaining time, I’d just like to note further to those comments about the abuse situations, that it’s particularly by setting out quite detailed definitions in Part 1 of the bill, the meaning of “abuse”, for example, and the meaning of “psychological abuse”—setting out that that’s actually a separate but related phenomenon in itself seems to me a pretty useful feature of this legislation. So for that and other reasons that I’ve outlined and that Mr Mitchell has outlined as well, we’re pleased to support the broad intent and, indeed, the bill itself, notwithstanding that caution is, I think, needed on all parts just to check those unintended consequences.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this very important piece of legislation that National, of course, did a lot of the grunt work on in Government. Sadly, we were defeated, but it’s good to see—

Kieran McAnulty: Woohay!

CHRIS BISHOP: “Woohay!”, he says, my breakfast club partner Kieran McAnulty. You’ll keep, my friend! And it’s good to see the new Government—well, we say “new”, but we’re a year in, so I don’t think they’re new any more—

Chris Penk: We’re getting over it.

CHRIS BISHOP: —so let’s say “the Government”—yeah, “We’re getting over it.”, says Chris Penk. It’s good to see the Labour-led Government continuing it.

Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 116 that the Minister has laid before the House is an interesting one, and I’ve got to say that I have some concern around the change to extend the maximum duration of public safety orders from five days to 10 days—

Hon Andrew Little: Police.

CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, police safety orders. What did I say—“public”? I meant “police”, sorry. These are orders that are quite rights-limiting and they are quite a wide-ranging power, allowing the police to enforce orders against people without warrants or without charge, and I think we just need to be pretty cautious in our democracy that we give the police those powers. Five days to 10 days is a doubling of the time that they’re allowed to be issued for, and I just want to place on the record, I suppose, my uncomfortableness. I realise and recognise absolutely that they are very useful and can provide a real mechanism of breaking the cycle of offending, but I think it would be remiss of me not to place on the House’s record my sense of caution or scepticism that the five days’ to 10 days’ extension is justified. I’m prepared to hear arguments one way or the other. So that’s one very important change we need to note.

The other change that I want to note, which I think is a good idea, is also within the Government SOP that has been issued, which is around including dowry-related violence in the definition of “family violence”. Now, it would be fair to say that awareness of dowry abuse is very low, but I think it is very important that we signal to decision makers and the public that dowry abuse is a form of family violence. We did hear some submissions during the select committee process—particularly from our Indian community—that the bill wasn’t explicit enough that dowry-related violence was covered. The select committee that I sat on decided not to recommend a specific change in that regard. Perhaps we were remiss as a committee in doing so, but that’s the way that the select committee process went.

I think it’d be fair to say that this is a good change—arguably, unnecessary—but this is such a tricky issue we’re dealing with and something that is really important, actually, as well as that you can certainly mount a case to say that some clarificatory definitional changes can be included. So this is a very important piece of legislation.

Just in the closing amount of time, I do want to place on the record my view that the SOP should have been sent back to the select committee to consider. This is quite a substantive SOP. Some of the changes are minor—we’ve talked about the dowry-related change—but some of them are quite substantive. I think the police safety order extension of time from five to 10 days is quite large. It is really important that we get this bill right. The National Party is supportive of the bill, but I think it wouldn’t have hurt the Justice Committee to have another go round on it for a month or two.

I know we are a very, very busy committee, and perhaps that’s why Minister Little’s nodding. Perhaps that’s why the Minister didn’t support sending the SOP back to the committee. But—[Bell rung] I’ll just briefly finish off. Perhaps that’s why the Minister didn’t support sending it back. We’re an extremely busy committee with the End of Life Choice Bill, which seems to be interminably going on, and also other related legislation. I see we’re now going to get the Criminal Cases Review Commission as well. That’s undoubtedly going to be sent to us as well.

Tim van de Molen: A very hard-working committee.

CHRIS BISHOP: But yes, my colleague says, “A very hard-working committee.” I think it’s fair to say we’ve gone beyond the bounds of hard-working, which is the usual kind of clichéd epithet approximated to select committees in the Parliament. We’ve gone beyond hard-working; we are extremely hard-working. But that’s OK, because justice matters are very important. But maybe that’s why the Minister didn’t do that. But I do just want to place on the record that I think it is poor process. There are quite large changes in this SOP that the select committee and submitters to the select committee have not had a chance to consider. But, overall, we do support it.

Just finally—it is interesting—we had a discussion in the second reading debate around the name of the bill, and I won’t traverse the arguments that were mounted then around the name: do you include “Whānau”; do you include “Family and Whānau”? But I just want to place on the record that I am supportive of the removal of the phrase “Domestic Violence”, and we’re now going to have the Family Violence Act, for the reason that I outlined previously, which is domestic violence is redolent of the idea that abuse that occurs in the home is something that is only limited to the domestic sphere and is something that is off limits to the criminal law or, indeed, neighbours and wider society.

The idea of referring to arguments or abuse or violence between a husband and wife or family members as a “domestic” and something that could just be ignored is wrong, and I think replacing the Domestic Violence Act with Family Violence Act better captures not only the sort of behaviour that we want to condemn but also the behaviour we want to sort out to make sure it never happens again. So I’m very supportive of that change. Thank you, Mr Chair.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:

in new clause 8, in paragraph (a) of the definition of dwellinghouse, replace “section 121A of the Land Transfer Act 1952” with “section 122 of the Land Transfer Act 2017”;

in new clause 45(1), replace “43(3)” with “43(2)”; and

in new clause 249(d)(i), before “the Senior Courts Act 2016”, insert “of”.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in his name to schedule 2 be agreed to:

delete the item relating to the Land Transfer Act 1952; and

delete the items relating to Schedule 2 of the Land Transfer Act 2017.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clause 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 as amended agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The committee divided the bill into the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 23 October.

Part 1 Amendments to definitions and amendments related to copper fixed line access services (continued)

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): This is an important piece of legislation that supports the ongoing development of our communications infrastructure here in New Zealand, which has done so well over a number of years in terms of the ultra-fast broadband roll out through the country that’s seen New Zealand being one of the top countries in the world, in fact.

This is a very important piece of legislation, as I said. The consultation around this development of the new regulatory framework was a consultation process that was undertaken between 2015 and 2017. Essentially, it’s about the transition between the copper network and the ultra-fast broadband or the fibre network. Its intention is to remove the regulation of copper lines where fibre is available and to streamline regulatory processes to enable a rapid response to competition issues and problems, particularly in the mobile communications market. That market, of course, is moving so quickly.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee reported back with the bill, and then on 16 October we received a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118 from the honourable Minister, Kris Faafoi, which we are also taking into consideration. Part 1, of course, is informed by this new Supplementary Order Paper. There are many aspects to consider in this. For example, in Part 1, clause 4A, this clause replaces section 6 with a new section clarifying how publication of public notice on the Commerce Commission website and in the New Zealand Gazette should take place. Effectively, the new section would make it so that a summary of the matter required to be published needs to be included in the New Zealand Gazette rather than the whole document. That’s a good question that perhaps the Minister could consider: why does the Minister, or perhaps his officials, feel that only a summary of public notice issues under the Telecommunications Act 2001 should be published in the New Zealand Gazette rather than the whole documentation? Certainly it’s not a matter of saving trees. It’s a matter of information being available to people.

Will such a summary of a public notice, issued under the Telecommunications Act 2001, include a web address to where the full documentation can be located in hard copy and not just via the internet? Certainly I think that is something which people would be interested to know. People do want full documentation. These documentations, of course, are very technical and very detailed. They mean a tremendous amount, and rather than just the headline sections, people want to have access to the finer points. As people always say, the devil is in the detail, so having access to that detail is incredibly important.

I know we live in a society where we just go from headline to headline these days, but when it comes to telecommunications and regulation—especially around the areas of competition—it’s very, very important for people to understand the detail. Perhaps the Minister can illuminate us more clearly on the rationale and the reasons why these decisions have been made.

So in regards to the proposed subsection 6(3), if a public notice is dated and issued solely on the Commerce Commission website and not in the Gazette, will the Government consider this the relevant date of public notice? If not, we’d like to have a really good explanation from the Minister.

So here we have, in this bill, a really important piece of legislation that will put in place a balance of incentives so that ongoing investment by the network providers will continue to be encouraged, while consumers will continue to have services that are affordable delivered to them. Of course, seeking the balance between affordability of service and a return on investment—especially in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic situation—is the work of the Commerce Commission that we want to see continue in a very effective way.

This work is supported by National. It was begun by National during the last Parliament—[Time expired]

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill—just a quick call, really, about new section 232A, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 118. When I took the first call on this bill under the previous Parliament and drew the Parliament’s attention to the removal of any obligation by Chorus in the unbundling of the bitstream access and the unbundling of the copper low-frequency service—so the removal of the requirement for them to meet their obligations specified in the telecommunications service obligation (TSO) instructions. At that time, there was no other description of what the TSO instruments were. So I went away to have a look inside another piece of legislation, which highlighted the fact, and I made the point, that the TSO is primarily a consumer protection mechanism that ensures the availability and affordability of basic communications services in New Zealand, and one of those is the Kiwi share or the 111 calling ability.

Now, when we decide to—and we have; we’ve moved on. It is a new time, a new day, and we’re basically moving away from the copper network. What this does is, of course, make certain of our citizens vulnerable to having a lack of communication available to them to call 111 emergency services, should there be a power outage. I understand it was discussed by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but no amendment was made to the original piece of legislation.

So I want to commend Minister Faafoi and thank him very much for, in Supplementary Order Paper 118, that he has on the Table there, inserting new section 232A into clause 33—

Hon Mark Mitchell: You should be in Cabinet.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —“to require the Commission to make”—this was in the previous Parliament, sir, so I wasn’t in that Cabinet; you were—“a Commission 111 contact code (the code). The purpose of the code is to ensure that in the event of a power failure, vulnerable consumers have reasonable access to a means to contact the 111 emergency services.”

So, as I say, we’re particularly pleased that the Minister in the chair has picked up on this very important issue for what, particularly in my area—I know I’ve been contacted by local residents, particularly in the elderly area, who don’t always have a mobile phone or credit, etc. The select committee decided that the cost of this change could be passed on to the consumer. That wasn’t appropriate, from a New Zealand First perspective, so we worked collegially and constructively with the Minister in the chair to make sure that there has been this section where there is a responsibility on the telecommunications companies to identify vulnerable consumers and to supply them “with an appropriate means for contacting the 111 emergency services that can be operated for a specified minimum period in the event of a power failure.” We think that this now addresses the concerns that we raised, and we want to acknowledge the Minister for doing so.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will see if I can actually get to five minutes, plus one, considering the fact that I think I had one minute left in the previous session when we started discussing the issue. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, and now that he’s actually there he may possibly be able to answer some of the questions that I did pose in relation to the concerns that were raised by the local fibre companies (LFCs) in terms of the definition about access points. If I could remind the Minister, the concern was that although the bill doesn’t actually change the contractual obligation with the Crown, they believe that perhaps the regulatory regime as set up in 2011, relative to the contractual scope with the Crown, has actually changed by adding the words “access point”—so if the Minister could possibly explain that. In terms of the consultation process that perhaps went on in relation to the concern that the LFCs have, it would be very good if the Minister could explain that.

Just in terms of the comment that the previous speaker made in regards to the commission 111 contact code—nobody, I don’t think, in this Chamber, would not be actually concerned about vulnerable customers, vulnerable people in our society, if they’re not able to contact 111 for emergencies and whatever. I think we are all concerned about people, and I think we would want to make sure that vulnerable customers are looked after.

Having said that, I’m wondering if I could ask the Minister what consultation the Minister or his officials actually undertook with industry stakeholders regarding the feasibility of the proposed commission 111 contact code as outlined in new section 232A, in new Part 7—inserted by clause 33—as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118. I guess one of the reasons is that although Ms Tracey Martin mentioned about the copper withdrawal and how vulnerable people are concerned that it is, in fact, the copper—well, actually, it’s not the copper or fibre. It’s not the issue of fibre that is actually of concern; it’s the electronics in our new telecommunications devices. Most people say, “Well, without copper we can’t have a landline.” Well, actually, you do. You have a landline; it’s just that modern electronics means that often these telephones rely on power and battery.

By the Minister adding this particular bit in relation to the 111 code and perhaps putting an extra burden on the supplier, I’m just wondering what kind of reaction he might have had from the industry, because it would mean that the industry is actually burdened with the cost of providing, perhaps, a different method of electronics for telephones or battery chargers or whatever it is. But I’m just wondering why we are legislating for something that—it’s not the legislation that is actually changing the issue for these people. I mean, you know, there are people who are concerned, and we have actually had, in the select committee, submissions from concerned people who said that the copper withdrawal actually means that they have health concerns. The mobile cell towers—they have health concerns. But we have allayed their concerns by getting advice from the Ministry of Health, suggesting that they don’t have to worry about that. But if the Minister could possibly answer some of these questions it would be really good.

Also, what indicative costs for the telecommunications industry have been given to the Minister in regard to the administration of the code proposed in the new part? I believe it would be quite a lot, and what definition does he have for “vulnerable people”? Who are these vulnerable people, and how many people are we actually talking about, and how much is it actually going to cost these telcos, and what does it actually mean in terms of the costs that they would probably recover from customers who use these services? I think these are some of the issues that we probably will need to get some explanation for.

In regards to the 111 thing, the contact code, it also says it will require the providers of those services to supply vulnerable customers at no cost to the consumer. As I said earlier, there will be a cost. It will be a cost to telcos, and, ultimately, telcos are not going to do it for nothing. It would probably mean that the customers will eventually have to pay, and I would like to hear the Minister’s rationale in actually putting this to the committee for us to debate today.

Obviously, there are other clauses in Part 1 that I’d like to discuss as well—[Bell rung]—but maybe I might give some other members an opportunity to speak. Nobody is actually standing up, so maybe I’ll continue if the—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): If you want another call. Are you seeking another call?

MELISSA LEE: Yes I would, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Melissa Lee.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you very much. My learned colleague on my right, Jonathan Young, actually talked about—

Hon Scott Simpson: Very learned.

MELISSA LEE: Ha, ha! He’s very good at what he does. He’s a great chair. He talked about some of the issues. Clause 4A, in Part 1, replaces section 6 with a new section clarifying how publication of public notices on the Commerce Commission website and in the New Zealand Gazette should actually take place. I mean, that is also slightly concerning. I thought the Gazette was actually something to let the public know what we’ve actually decided and that it actually lists everything that we’ve done, and the full detail should be listed and gazetted. But it seems that what this new section actually does is, effectively, make it so that only a summary of the matter required to be published needs to be included in the New Zealand Gazette rather than the whole document.

I’m just a little bit baffled. I mean, is this the new way? Is this the new style of things that are gazetted? I’m not so sure. I haven’t really paid too much attention to this, but perhaps the Minister could actually explain why the Minister and his officials feel that only a summary of a public notice issued under the Telecommunications Act of 2001 should be published in the New Zealand Gazette rather than the whole document. Yes, as I said, I’m a little bit baffled. Will such a summary of the public notice issued under the Telecommunications Act 2001 include an address to where the full document can be located in hard copy, not just via the internet? If not, why not?

In regard to the proposed new section 6(3), if a public notice is actually dated and issued solely on the Commerce Commission website and not in the Gazette, will the Government consider this the relevant date of public notice? If not, why not? Perhaps they could actually answer that as well.

There is also, in clause 7, an amendment to allow for the operation of fibre fixed line access services and, a new phrase: specified fibre service. There is actually a whole raft of things. I guess one of the biggest questions I have is that often in this House we work collaboratively together, and when I came into the Chamber to debate this particular bill in the committee stage, that’s when I noticed the huge Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118, which actually impacts on virtually all our clauses. It was the next day that the actual SOP was delivered to my office. I wonder what kind of consultation the Minister has actually had terms of the SOP, because it seems that some of the stakeholders were rather surprised at some of the issues that the new SOP creates for them; whether it’s actually the local fibre companies or the telcos.

But considering the fact that we are supporting the bill and the fact that the industry is rather eager to get on with this, I’m not interested in delaying this a long time. Having said that, there are issues that I have actually raised during this debate, and I’m sure that there will be other members who will actually raise some of their concerns and it will be much appreciated if the Minister could actually answer some of the questions.

Also, in terms of the suggestion regarding the 111, which I raised earlier, what specific class of persons have officials indicated to the Minister that they consider a vulnerable person? I was looking for the definition. I know that in the SOP it actually says they might have a potential to be vulnerable. What does that actually mean? Does that mean that if a certain person is older than us, they physically have to have a medical condition to be classed as a vulnerable person under this part? Or does it mean that just because I run the risk of—

Hon Scott Simpson: Who knows?

MELISSA LEE: Who knows. I’m just a little bit baffled. Some clarification would be much appreciated, sir.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I thank the member for some excellent questions during her contribution, and also the Hon Tracey Martin. I think I’ll start with new section 232A in clause 33, which goes to the 111 provisions in Part 1.

For those who might be listening at home, as the roll-out of fibre extends out to New Zealand—I think we’re at about 73 percent of New Zealand now has access to fibre—the old copper network that we relied on for our phones is becoming increasingly redundant, and in some cases that copper network might go. So, as Melissa Lee pointed out, phone lines that have relied on the copper network in the past and have worked even when there was a power outage—if they are taken away and the only ability that you have for your phone connection is your fibre connection and there is a power outage, in plain English, your phone will not work. In instances where people might be vulnerable consumers, ensuring that they have the ability to call 111 in emergencies is extremely important, which is why we saw fit to include this provision in this bill in Part 1, ensuring that vulnerable consumers are looked after.

Directly to the question that Melissa Lee posed, she can find the answer to her question about some guidance as to who a vulnerable consumer is on page 7 of the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 118, where it is described as someone who “is at a particular risk of requiring the 111 emergency service (for example, due to a known medical condition); and does not have the means for contacting the 111 emergency service that can be operated for the specified minimum period in the event of a power failure.”

I think the most obvious example of this might have been 10 or 15 or even 20 years ago when I think there was Mrs Muliaga in South Auckland, when her power was cut off and her ability to use some pretty critical equipment for her to keep her healthy, obviously, no longer was able to operate. Officials have told us that in an electricity sense, there are 20,000 vulnerable consumers who would put themselves in that group. That would obviously be different for those who might not have the ability to have a calling capability, if they only had a fibre connection at home and therefore in a power outage would have no phone.

We think it’s extremely important to ensure that they do have the capability to call 111 if they are vulnerable. If there is an emergency, it’d be a pretty awful day if that kind of story hit the headlines. We need to make sure we look after those vulnerable consumers. So within the piece of legislation, there is a responsibility on the telcos to ensure that in the event of a power outage, there is a battery backup capability to ensure that the phone service will work and also, possibly, a mobile phone.

I will talk directly to the member who asked a question about reaction from the telcos to that. I would think it would be fairly classified as mixed. Obviously, there’s going to be costs for them. There’s a range in terms of what the officials think that may cost, from the hundred thousands to low millions. But there were some companies that, I think, responded responsibly and knew that making sure that there was a 111 service available to all consumers, especially vulnerable consumers, was something that they could obviously see the benefit of, to make sure they could call the emergency services if need be. So, as has been pointed out, there is a new part in clause 33 which requires the Commerce Commission to ensure there is a code in and around the transfer to a fibre-only situation.

So that 111 service will be provided by the telcos. It will be via either a battery backup or a mobile phone at this stage. There could be other creative ways that the telcos could do that in the future. I think that is a good change to ensure those vulnerable consumers, who might have a fibre-only situation and no access to a copper phone—which, again, works when there is a power outage—can call those 111 emergency services.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments related to fibre fixed line access services

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to take the call on Part 2 in the committee stage of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. Just before I get into the issues I wanted to talk about, it occurs to me that if we were a more populated country with much more friendly terrain, we wouldn’t need this kind of complicated legislation to ensure that those of us who live off the line can, in fact, access some of the modern conveniences of the world.

I’m one of those people who’s in the privileged position—and the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, just a minute ago was talking about it. I’m sure it was in Part 1, but he was talking about people just like me who can’t access 111, and I hope people never have to access 111. But for a while I couldn’t, because I actually lived in one of those places that had no communication like that. It is a challenge for us in New Zealand, and so, consequently, we need these pieces of—and, I guess, deregulation of the industry in the early days caused the need for this type of activity to be undertaken and this type of legislation to be passed, to protect those people who do have challenges accessing services. The copper network’s another thing, of course, but we won’t go into that here.

One of the things that interests me about this type of legislation—and it is quite complicated—is that it was put in place as a result of a whole lot of understanding of the costs of the industry and how those services are then provided as a result of that cost. It puts in place a whole lot, using all sorts of things like input methodologies, basically, to give us a better understanding of where the costs lie and how those services can then be accessed by those people who provide us with services from phone lines to all the modern telecommunications—you can even run the television set off those services, nowadays—and that, of course, to large parts of New Zealand, is very important.

The other really interesting thing about this type of legislation is that it enables people in a country like New Zealand to operate from all sorts of parts of New Zealand that historically you never would’ve considered running a business from, and that’s because technology has taken such huge advances, I suppose, and it has taken over a lot of what we historically either wouldn’t have been able to do in parts of New Zealand, or wouldn’t have thought of being able to do in parts of New Zealand. So I think that legislation like this becomes really important in diversifying our economy and enabling us to do things in parts of New Zealand that we otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do. The farming community, of course, it’s very important to that community because nowadays you can run some sorts of modern industries—in fact, you could run one sitting right here, Mr Chair. We could sit right here and run a business from here, using technology—everything from turning on irrigators to heaters to whatever.

So it’s really important that we have these Acts of Parliament that then manage those networks, and the electricity network is exactly the same—or not exactly the same, but it’s equally as important that it’s regulated and legislated for too, because otherwise we would never get services provided to some parts of New Zealand that are very important to us. It’s really interesting, when you look at the diversity of New Zealand’s population and the places that we now live in and do business in, where 15 or 20 years ago, it wouldn’t have been considered, and that’s because of these enabling bits of legislation that then encourage the provision of services into those areas that are very important.

So these sorts of things, whilst they are quite complicated, I think they are necessary, and I think that across the Parliament, we all recognise the necessity of these pieces of legislation like the Telecommunications Act. I certainly think it’s worth supporting. I think that Ministers from both of the last two Governments have done a pretty good job of getting this to the post, and I hope that it successfully moves its way through Parliament in the next day or two. That’s my lot, Mr Chair.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair—just trying to get my notes in order. Talking of Part 2, particularly of clause 23—I have actually spoken about this in Part 1, in the definition, but in clause 23 it actually talks about the access point, so if the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, could possibly address the issue that I’ve raised in terms of the access point.

For those people who are wondering what that actually means, I guess the local fibre companies are rather worried that in terms of—you know, when a local fibre company connects, for example, a community of 50 houses, they are responsible for connecting fibre to those 50 houses, and their concern is that if the definition of access point is actually included in the bill, they are literally having to connect the cell towers, which then, possibly, make it possible for, instead of the local fibre company, another competitor to connect those 50 houses wirelessly, for example. That is their concern and if that means that they can only do it in a fixed cost and at a regulated price, it would actually mean that instead of connecting 50 houses—and they could potentially have a business case and actually make a profit on that, for example—they’re literally only connecting one cell tower, possibly a competitor in terms of providing internet connection to those 50 houses, and it would mean that the competitor potentially could take over the business of those 50 houses. That is one concern that was raised to me, and I’ve actually mentioned that in the definitions section of Part 1.

In Part 2, one of the most, I guess, highly debated parts of this section is the issue of anchor services, anchor product. I guess, when—

Mark Patterson: Butter.

MELISSA LEE: Sorry?

Mark Patterson: Butter—“anchor” products. Butter. Sorry—don’t worry. Carry on.

MELISSA LEE: Oh, sorry. I’m guessing you’re a farmer and you wanted to actually—but you might need to speak up a little bit, because maybe I’m like Mr Speaker—

Hon Scott Simpson: New Zealand First word association games.

MELISSA LEE: Perhaps—I didn’t quite hear what he actually said. Sorry, I digress. One of the things that was actually hotly debated was—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

MELISSA LEE: Before the dinner break, I was talking about Part 2, clause 23, and I was hoping that the Minister of communications would be in the chair to actually explain some of the questions that were actually asked during the debate process, but I will actually put it on record.

So in terms of this Part 2, one of the concerns that we’ve actually had is: why did the Minister decide not to support the requests of the local fibre contractors (LFCs) to have the phrase “access point” deleted from proposed sections 197 and 199 contained within new Part 6, in clause 23—maybe that’s not quite right. But I guess—and the wordings were actually changed in the Supplementary Order Paper that was actually tabled last week as well, which actually adds the words “building, or other access point”. Do those subtle changes in fact change the definition in the bill? That is something I’d like to ask the Minister.

And the other is: what is the added value to the bill by retaining the phrase “access point” in these sections? And also, what are the justifications for the Government’s policy that “point-to-point fibre services to access point cell towers which are provided to wireless competitors should be regulated or subject to the threat of regulation”? That particular quotation comes from a written question that I had in fact asked of the Minister, and that was part of the reply that he had in fact given. His answer was “point-to-point fibre services to access point cell towers which are provided to wireless competitors should be regulated or subject to the threat of regulation”. And does that actually raise any kind of concern to the Minister that, in fact, that is one of the reasons why the LFCs are rather concerned when they actually look at the definition in terms of the point that they make regarding the access point?

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak this evening on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill. I was on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this bill. We did so over quite a number of weeks, under the able chairmanship of Jonathan Young, and with a number of subject matter experts, I’d say, including the likes of Gareth Hughes from the Green Party, who was able to impart a lot of wisdom into our discussions, and I appreciate his input into that.

I was fully intending to stand up tonight and talk about how I guess peace had broken out on this bill, because it is a very good bill—the telecommunications bill. Most of the work on the bill was done by the previous National Government under Ministers like Amy Adams, and so at its heart it is a very good piece of legislation. But I, unfortunately, can’t, and the reason for that is—I wouldn’t say it was quite the eleventh hour, but near the eleventh hour, we received Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118. The Supplementary Order Paper—and for the people watching at home, I’m not sure if you can see—is actually larger than the bill. The bill itself is 77 pages. The SOP is 95 pages, so it’s a very substantial SOP that’s been put forward by the Government.

The concern I have around that is process, because we received 257 submissions on the bill. All were very well considered. We received submissions from a range of organisations like the telecommunications industry, a number of law firms, and also interested individuals, and at no point have they been able to provide feedback on this 95-page Supplementary Order Paper that’s been put forward. Now, it’s fair to say that some of the issues that those submitters raised have been brought up in this SOP, but nowhere is there now the opportunity for them to provide feedback on this SOP at all. So it’s my contention that this bill should actually be returned back to the select committee to allow us to go through the SOP and consider the amendments that the Government’s put forward, because at the moment there is no democratic oversight—apart from a short, truncated process in this committee—for those to be considered.

There are some quite substantial changes that the Government’s recommended. I want to refer to some changes referred to in inserting a new section 232A into clause 33, which refers to a “Commission 111 contact code”, and it outlines a number of new requirements around a 111 emergency service. My colleague Ian McKelvie has spoken about this earlier in the debate, and I thought it was a very worthwhile contribution from a rural MP. I myself have got a large number of rural constituents as well. I think it’s fair to say that they’d like the opportunity to have some feedback on this provision as well, because we’re all concerned in this House to ensure that there is the availability of the 111 system and emergency services to people in rural areas, but the problem with this is that it’s been brought forward at the eleventh hour with no possibility for people to contribute on it.

It’s fair to say that we did grapple with this issue during the select committee process. It was raised by a number of submitters, and their concern was that they’d be, essentially, cut off with the new technologies that do emerge. It’s fair to say that we should be embracing innovation where possible and making sure that we do make use of new technologies as they come along, but this was a fundamental concern that submitters did have that people in rural areas would be cut off from the service. So, in some sense, it’s good to see that the Government’s listened to that and brought forward an SOP to make those changes, but, again, there is no possibility for members of the people to submit.

The other aspect which came up quite a lot during the select committee process was around health issues, and this was something, again, that the committee grappled with. We brought the Ministry of Health in to discuss it, because there was concern from people—again, particularly in rural areas—that with the rise of ultra-fast broadband and radio waves, their health would be impacted by that. So those issues haven’t really been addressed in this SOP, but nor did we expect them to be. We did ask for some advice from the Ministry of Health and we had them come in. We felt we were satisfied by the advice that they gave us that there were no additional concerns that they had in relation to the increased radio waves and the effect on health from that. But, it’s fair to say, we do have our concerns with the process.

We do support the bill overall. The SOP does make some worthwhile changes, but there are some things that the select committee should have been able to consider. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to do that. It’s been introduced at a very late stage in the process. It’s much longer than the bill itself, and I think that, unfortunately, leaves a real democratic hole when it comes to this bill and the opportunity for this House and our Parliament to consider it.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I just support the previous speakers in their comments. Yes, indeed, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 118 is certainly a very substantive SOP. It’s probably the biggest SOP I’ve seen introduced in this Parliament—95 pages. In fact, it would be just about the same length—no. In fact, it’s longer than the bill that went through the select committee. So, obviously, there’s been a lot of discussion, talking, and to-ing and fro-ing between the Minister and his officials since we reported it back to the House.

Just to echo my colleague Andrew Falloon’s comments, certainly, when there are such substantive changes, perhaps it would have been wiser for the Minister to return the SOP to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee just to be updated, at least, and to have some input into those various other amendments that came. Perhaps the Minister in the chair tonight could explain to us some of those changes over those 95 pages. That would be very interesting.

I want to just touch on—as the previous speaker did speak regarding it—the 111 Commission contact code. There were quite a number of submitters who were very concerned that as they move away from copper, a system which they have some safety and security and certainly confidence in, to a purely digital form of communication—when there are, at times, power blackouts, as occurs on occasion throughout the country for various different reasons, they were concerned that they could have the assurance that they would be able to contact the emergency services, as the case may need at different times. So I would think some of the questions to the Minister are what suggestions have been proposed to the Minister by officials regarding options for the practical implementation of the Commission 111 contact code’s objective to “require the providers of those services to supply vulnerable consumers, at no cost to the consumers, with an appropriate means for contacting the 111 emergency service that can be operated for the minimum period in the event of a power failure;”, as proposed in the proposed new section 232A(3)(d) to be inserted in Part 7 in clause 33?

I guess those are, indeed, questions which people—particularly the elderly amongst our communities, who often have mobility challenges and issues—who want to be able to, if necessary, contact 111 have. That might be not for a fire, but it may actually be because they have fallen over in their house and they are unable to put themselves back on their feet. They need to have the confidence that if there was a power outage, they could have some sort of contact with an emergency service.

We would also want to know what specific class of persons—I’ve just mentioned one; that’s the elderly and perhaps those less mobile—have been indicated to the Minister by officials that would be considered as vulnerable people or persons under the Commission 111 contact code, and did the Minister and his officials engage with the emergency services of New Zealand? Did they get some feedback and did they seek some advice? Do they know how often somebody who might be a vulnerable person would contact an emergency service, so that, in fact, we do have a strong factual base on which these decisions can enable the Minister and the officials to, obviously, make recommendations, as they have in this SOP 118? Did the Minister and his officials engage not just with the emergency services but also New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Minister of Police about the suggested code as proposed, as well?

The Police Association, civil defence—there are multiple services and sectors where this information could be accessible. Certainly, for the sake of those people in our community who do consider themselves vulnerable, we want to ensure that we have a regulation that’s not just forward-looking but also takes into account their situations that they face and live in every day of their lives. That, to me, would express what a caring community is.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments related to consumer matters, consequential amendments, and other miscellaneous amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 3, which is the debate on clauses 24 to 37, about amendments related to consumer matters, consequential amendments, and other miscellaneous amendments, and schedules 4, 5, and new schedule 6.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to schedule 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

New schedule 6

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to insert new schedule 6 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill with amendment, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill with amendment, and that the committee had divided it into two bills, and the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Courts Matters Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Courts Security Act 1999

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): The Courts Matters Bill is an omnibus bill that makes relatively small but important amendments. This bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill form an integrated package of reforms to the courts and tribunals system. The Courts Matters Bill is in four parts and amends 16 Acts, governing court security, fine enforcement, and court procedures. These amendments will improve people’s experience of the courts, reduce the time that it takes to hear and resolve matters, and enable greater use of modern technology.

I will highlight the principal amendments as we examine each part of the bill. Before turning to Part 1, I note that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 134 inserts a new Subpart 9A in Part 4 which amends the Senior Courts Act 2016 to restore the ability of a single Court of Appeal judge to decide minor contested matters in civil cases, instead of three judges having to decide these applications. It also makes minor amendments, corrects drafting errors, and adjusts commencement dates.

Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Courts Security Act, which governs the provision of security services in specified courts and tribunals. These amendments will help people feel safer in court and tribunal buildings. They will align the Courts Security Act with developments in comparable security legislation in New Zealand and other jurisdictions. This is the first time the Courts Security Act has been reviewed since it was passed in 1999.

Part 1 will give court security officers greater powers to deal with disruptive people whose behaviour is causing distress to other people. In future, court security officers will be able to deny entry to or to remove people who are acting threateningly or abusively. They will also be able to prevent people bringing alcohol into court buildings. At present, court security officers can only deny entry to or remove a person who has refused to cooperate with security screening processes.

Part 1 will also authorise court security officers to detain people who commit minor crimes such as disorderly behaviour, wilful damage, or who are in possession of illegal drugs. People will continue to be detained until the police arrive. Court security officers are currently only authorised to detain people who have committed very serious offences.

Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill will assist court security officers to provide the safe, secure, and orderly court environment that court users are entitled to, and I trust this outline will assist members in their examination of Part 1.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, the Courts Matters Bill—one of those odd ones with a double “s”—is an important piece of legislation. It was introduced by the last Government, and it’s good to see the new Government—or I hesitate to use the word “new”, actually, because we’re sort of a year in and—

Hon Maggie Barry: It’s been a long year.

CHRIS BISHOP: “It’s been a long year.”, says my colleague Maggie Barry. The Labour-led Government—it’s good to see that they are progressing this very important piece of legislation. I was on the Justice Committee, that had the privilege of considering the Courts Matters Bill and the cognate piece of legislation that comes with it, which is the tribunal legislation. We did a very thorough job of considering it and we’re very supportive of it proceeding.

I just want to highlight a couple of changes that the bill makes that I think are very important. One of them is in Part 1, to do with the Courts Security Act. It is allowing drug paraphernalia from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to be on the list of offences that allow the court security officers to act. We actually had a bit of a debate in the select committee as to whether or not this was already allowed through the Courts Security Act, and in the end, we agreed with the recommendation of the officials that drug paraphernalia be added to the list of things that court security officers were entitled to search for.

It’s one of those tidy-up piece of legislation, as well—one of those pieces of legislation that the Parliament has to pass from time to time in order to just tidy a few things up. It’s not quite a statutes amendment bill—that’s the very definition of a tidy-up—but it’s verging towards that. For example, in Part 1 of the bill, it expands the definition of “court” to include any space between the building and the road. Now, one would have thought that when you use the word “court” through the Act—the Courts Security Act, in this particular instance—that would include both the courthouse but also the bit outside the courthouse before the road, which might be a local body authority road. We heard some evidence from a variety of different sources during the select committee process that that was potentially in dispute and that that could potentially be defined as not falling within the jurisdiction of a court, and I think it’s particularly relevant, from memory—and don’t quote me on this, Madam Chair—that it’s to do with the power of court officers to search, and security officers. So there’s a clarificatory piece of, not legislation, but a clarificatory clause around defining “court” to include any space between the building and the road—so, a parking lot or the path that people walk through to get to the court.

There’s also clarification that court security officers can exercise powers when directed by the current judge, even if that’s inconsistent with an earlier judge, or when the person is in other custody, and the officers may also use their discretion—so, again, very important clarifications. There are amendments in Part 2 to the Criminal Procedure Act that I know others in the House have previously expressed support for and that are very important. In particular—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re on Part 1.

CHRIS BISHOP: I know. I’m just saying that Part 2, to do with the Criminal Procedure Act, I know other colleagues may wish to highlight.

I want to also highlight for the committee this issue around regulation rather than Gazette notice. We did have a bit of a debate in the select committee around upon what circumstances the Government would be able to add additional courts and tribunals to be subject to the various measures in the bill—whether or not that should be done by regulation or Gazette notice. It is, arguably, a finely balanced point, but we decided in the end to retain the power to do it via regulation. It’s a slightly more formalistic process that the Government goes through when passing a regulation. It goes through Cabinet rather than Gazette notices, which go through a different process.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the Courts Matters Bill, which seems to me to be an eminently sensible piece of legislation. I would say that, because the former National-led Government made a number of reforms to the justice system in its tenure, which was all about making the system easier for people to understand and about accessibility. People need to really, I suppose, feel that the court system is going to be flexible and responsive, and the transparency of the court system is something that National has always believed is a very important element of our democracy.

So when we look at the Courts Matters Bill and, in particular, at Part 1, which is before us at the moment and amends the Courts Security Act 1999, I think that the extension of the powers of court security officers to deny entry and to remove or detain people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or accusingly—it is a surprise to me that these measures have not been in place earlier, because they are eminently sensible. When you look at the overall thrust of this bill, which amends 14 Acts which govern all sorts of things around court security, criminal procedure, fines enforcement, and other court processes that are dealt with in other parts, I think there would be widespread agreement through this committee, and certainly on this side of the Chamber, to the legislation, that really brings the courts up to speed with 21st century practice.

So, you know, things do lag behind. My colleague Chris Bishop has already outlined some of the more unusual ways that you define a “court”, which is going to be tidied up by this bill. I also think that the definition of a “Judge”, which has been one of the things that’s in clause 5 of this bill—to amend the definition of “tribunal” and “Judge”. So the new definition of “Judge” is going to include the Chief High Court Judge, Employment Court judges, and members of bodies declared to be courts and tribunals. So I think all of this makes perfect sense.

I think, as well, when we look at one of the things that has been common practice, it has been tightened up a little in this regard. There has been, through the select committee process, the deleting of an amendment that would allow community magistrates to hear prosecutors of obstruction to a court security officer (CSO), as they cannot impose prison sentences, while that particular offence would carry with it three months imprisonment. So it does seem to me to be very sensible to delete that amendment to allow community magistrates to hear that sort of evidence.

So, clearly, through the select committee process, which I was not a part of—although I’m on the Justice Committee, much of this evidence was heard before I sat on the committee. I think that the select committee process, the engine room of the House and of legislation, has refined further some of the commonsensible moves. I think that when you look at, for example, court security officers, who are currently authorised to detain only people who have committed very serious offences, it is important to ensure, for public safety, for the ability of people to give testimony and to be heard properly, that they are able to feel safe doing that. I think that courts can be very intimidating places, so that Part 1 amendment with the Courts Security Act 1999 is something that I think absolutely needs to be done.

So when I looked at the judge’s definition, I think the amendments were put in considering it unnecessary to list all the judges and members of each court and tribunal, because this is an Act that will do away with the need to be that specific. It’s an Act that in its very sensible overview is intended to cover the courts and the tribunals which are listed in section 3(5), which I don’t have time to go into. But we do recommend, and I support that recommendation within the bill, replacing that definition of the judge with a more generic definition. I think that on this side of the House we are very keen on the idea of common-sense practices.

I think that, as Chris Bishop has said, expanding the definition of courts, court premises, removal or disposal of alcohol, the powers for the CSO to detain people—all of these make perfect sense—and, I think, the power to seize items as well and to use reasonable force, and that is defined in this bill. I think that that will make it very much easier for the justice system and the court system to work in the way it was always intended, which is to work smoothly and without ridiculous barriers that are put up. These barriers that are being removed by this Courts Matters Bill have, I think, been long overdue for change, and the idea that possession of controlled drugs as an offence—they were allowed to be in the courtroom and so forth and people didn’t have the powers to get rid of them. Change is long overdue to happen. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this, the Courts Matters Bill, at the committee stage, concentrating on Part 1, of course, of that legislation. Just as a general remark that does pertain to Part 1, courts of law in our system of justice are very important places. They are places where procedures are important.

Dr Duncan Webb: Ha!

CHRIS PENK: It’s important for the administration of justice—Dr Duncan Webb credits me with a pun that I did not actually intend to make, I think, in relation to procedures, or perhaps even proceedings—but the detail is important. The devil is in the detail and in the way that justice is administered and done, and must be seen to be done, too. Security aspects are important, and it’s the Courts Security Act that Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill will amend.

You will have heard already colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that we continue to support this bill. I say “continue” because previous readings, and, indeed, the formulation of the legislation in the first place, did come from this side of the House. So we’re happy to continue with that, including that in relation to Part 1, improving security procedures for our courts is a very worthwhile task indeed.

I’m struck, looking at the names of the different clauses within Part 1, by how important the issues are that we are considering before us. So they are not to be taken lightly but are also important to clarify so that justice can be administered as described. The meaning of “court” and “courtroom” has been dealt with very elegantly already in the debate so far, and I’ll return to that only if time allows at the end. But looking to the importance of the issues that we’re discussing, words such as “removal”, “disposal”, “seize”, “detain”, “pursue”, “force”, and “police” all give helpful indication, I think, of the sorts of issues that we are considering here in the administration of justice in relation to security. So, for example, new section 15A relates to the “Removal or disposal of alcohol”, section 16 is replaced—talking about the ability to seize detected items—and so on.

More particularly, in Part 1, which is, as I say, amending the Courts Security Act 1999, the power of court security officers is extended such that entry can be denied, and we can have the removal and detention of people who possess illegal drugs, or who act threateningly or abusively or commit minor crimes on court premises. This, of course, goes to the significance of that definition of what it is to have a court or a courtroom, and that can actually include not only the building in which the court services themselves are carried out or provided but also the surrounding areas that it might be relevant for a pursuit to take place, perhaps, if a person is in the court with some sort of nefarious intent or illegal possessions, and so forth.

I wasn’t privileged enough to be on the Justice Committee, that considered this bill and has now reported it back, but I do understand from reading submissions that some interesting commentary was provided on this issue by the various submitters, including the Auckland District Law Society and the Law Society of New Zealand as a whole. Various issues were discussed around how tightly or how clearly that should be defined—what a court is, exactly, for the purposes of the court security officers having jurisdiction to apprehend those who would do harm and interfere with the criminal justice system, or, in fact the justice system in general, and not necessarily the criminal jurisdiction.

Similarly, as to the geographical influence of the officers, so too the time after the proceedings. So the time of court proceedings includes not only what we would think of as the proceedings proper but also some time shortly thereafter. Admittedly, that is not as clear as, for example, having exactly one hour as the definition, as I think the Auckland District Law Society proposed, but the Justice Committee thought in its wisdom that it would be best to allow some measure of flexibility so that all the situations where that’s appropriate to apply could enjoy the benefit of that provision. I think that’s sensible. On the side of the House, we think that’s sensible too, and, accordingly, we continue to support Part 1 and, indeed, all of this legislation.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 2, debate on clauses 25 to 42A and schedule 2A.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): Madam Chair, I’ll just spend a few minutes introducing this part. Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Act, which governs the operations of the criminal courts. These amendments will improve efficiency and timeliness. Most of the amendments are minor and technical in nature, and I will highlight a few of the more significant changes.

The Criminal Procedure Act sets out the procedure for the conduct of criminal proceedings. It divides offences into four categories based on maximum penalty and prescribes different procedures for each category. Category 1 comprises the most minor offences and has the least procedural requirements. Category 4 comprises the most serious offences and has the most rigorous procedural requirements.

Part 2 reclassifies offences with a maximum penalty of a community-based sentence as category 1 offences. These offences are currently category 2 offences. This change will enable defendants to submit their plea in writing instead of having to appear in court. This better reflects the low-level nature of offences with a maximum penalty of a community-based sentence, such as graffiti.

Part 2 broadens the power to issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and to bring them to court. This amendment is limited to offences with a maximum penalty of imprisonment and where serving a summons to appear in court is unnecessary or impractical. These circumstances include where the police are seeking to extradite the defendant from overseas for prosecution in New Zealand, or where the police do not know where the defendant is. Part 2 of the Courts Matters Bill will improve the efficiency and timeliness of criminal courts, and I trust this outline will assist members in the examination of Part 2.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Summary Proceedings Act 1957

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 3—debate on clauses 43 to 84, and schedules 1 and 2.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): I really appreciate the committee accepting the explanations given and, likewise, I’ll just spend a few minutes introducing Part 3. The Courts Matters Bill amends the Summary Proceedings Act, which governs the issuing of infringement notices and the enforcement of fines and reparation that have not been voluntarily paid. Part 3 will improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of fines enforcement. More fines and reparation will be collected sooner, and the credibility of these penalties will be enhanced. Part 3 will authorise the use of automated decision-making for arrangements to pay fines and reparation in affordable instalments. Most fines are paid in instalments.

In future, the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice will be able to approve automated rules for imposing attachment orders, which collect fines and reparations through mandatory deductions from wages or benefits; approve online offers to voluntarily pay fines and reparations in instalments over a longer period of time; and add further overdue fines and reparations to existing pay arrangements so that these will also be paid in instalments over a period of time. People will be able to ask for a staff member to review the automated decisions.

Part 3 will also authorise court registrars to immediately and unilaterally cancel voluntary time-to-pay arrangements in three circumstances. These circumstances are: the arrangement was entered into to enable the person to leave or enter New Zealand without being stopped at the airport; false or misleading financial information was provided when the arrangement was entered into; the person’s financial position has improved significantly since the arrangement was entered into and they can now afford to pay their fines and reparations sooner.

Voluntary arrangements are only entered into when the person cannot afford to pay their fines by the due date. This process relies heavily on people’s honesty. A prompt and effective response is needed when it is discovered that a person has not been honest. At present, court registrars are required to give 10-day notices before an arrangement is unilaterally cancelled. A small but apparently growing number of people are using this period to delay or evade resolution of their fines and reparation. This undermines the credibility of these penalties.

Part 3 simplifies the procedures for putting charges on land to encourage payment by people who owe fines or reparation of $5,000 or more. The procedures for selling land owned by people with overdue fines or reparation of $50,000 or more have also been simplified. These procedures will be able to be used more often to secure payment from people who can afford to pay their fines and reparation, but their homes will not be able to be sold. Part 3 of the Courts Matters Bill will enable fines and reparation to be collected sooner and enhance the credibility of these penalties. I trust that will help members in the debate.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 4—debate on clauses 85 to 149, and schedules 3 and 4.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): Part 4 of the Courts Matters Bill comprises 13 subparts that amend 13 of the Acts governing the operation of the criminal courts and Family Courts. These amendments will improve users’ experiences of the courts, and the efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness of court proceedings. Again, most of these amendments are minor and technical in nature, and I’ll highlight a few of the significant amendments.

Part 4 amends the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act to reverse the order of the two judicial inquiries that the Act prescribes for assessing if a defendant is fit to stand trial in a criminal court. These two inquiries are called the involvement inquiry and the fitness inquiry. Part 4 will require a judge to first undertake the fitness inquiry, which assesses the defendant’s fitness to stand trial. If the defendant is found to be fit to stand trial, the criminal trial continues. Most defendants are found to be fit to stand trial. The involvement inquiry will only be held if the person is found to be unfit to stand trial. The involvement inquiry assesses if the defendant was involved in the offending. If a judge is satisfied that the defendant probably participated in the offending, the judge will be able to impose the order specified in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. Once the bill is enacted, victims and witnesses will only have to give evidence at either the involvement inquiry or the criminal trial. At present, victims and witnesses can suffer unnecessary distress giving evidence at both the involvement inquiry and the criminal trial.

Part 4 amends the Courts (Remote Participation) Act to enable judicial officers and court registrars to allow any participant in a criminal procedure hearing to appear via audio-visual link technology—or AVL, as it’s commonly known. If AVL is available and its use is not contrary to the interests of justice, this will enable participants such as counsel or witnesses to appear via AVL during criminal procedural hearings. Currently, only defendants who are in custody can appear in criminal procedural hearings via AVL if it’s available. AVL can also be used in criminal sentencing, hearings, and in civil proceedings.

Part 4 also amends the Juries Act to authorise court registrars to defer jury service for potential jurors who are not confident of their understanding of the English language. This will provide a much simpler and quicker process. At present, these jurors have to make an application to a judge, often in open court, for their jury service to be deferred.

Part 4 has restricted the release of psychological report writers’ materials under the Care of Children Act so that people can only seek the release of information about themselves. The court will also be able to impose appropriate conditions on the release of these reports. Members may recall that the Justice Committee has recommended this committee consider further changes during this debate to prohibit entirely the release of psychologists’ notes and other materials. The Minister of Justice is leading a review of the 2014 family justice system reforms. We have discussed this matter and are in agreement that this is an important issue and it is better dealt with in the review. This will enable consultation with the Family Court judiciary, the report writers, and the Law Society to ensure that changes made are the right ones.

Part 4 of the Courts Matters Bill will improve users’ experiences of criminal courts and Family Courts by improving their efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness. I trust that will assist members in the debate.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 2A agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Acts

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): Madam Chair, I appreciate the committee’s indulgence. I want to spend a bit of time introducing Part 1 of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. It is an omnibus bill in two parts that makes relatively small but important amendments to the Acts governing 21 tribunals administered by the Ministry of Justice. This bill and the Courts Matters Bill form an integrated package of reforms of the courts and tribunals system.

Tribunals are expert forums for hearing and resolving disputes dealing with occupational discipline and regulation, and for reviewing decisions of Government agencies. The 21 tribunals affected by this bill provide low-cost, timely, and specialist forums for a very broad range of matters. The Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill will improve users’ experience of these 21 tribunals by simplifying and standardising statutory powers and procedures to improve efficiency and timeliness, and by providing better consumer protection and redress and greater access to justice.

I want to highlight the principal amendments as we examine each part of the bill. Before turning to Part 1, I note that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 133 adds a new Subpart 20A, which transfers the amendments to the 1964 Social Security Act to the recently enacted 2018 Social Security Act without making any policy changes. It deletes the amendments to the current Social Security Act because that is to be repealed soon. It also deletes the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996, which was repealed recently. These amendments have also been transferred to the new Customs and Excise Act 2018. The Supplementary Order Paper makes further amendments to better implement the policies of the bill as well as to correct errors of omission.

Part 1 of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill comprises 24 subparts and makes up almost all of the bill. Part 1 contains the amendment this Government has added to the bill to address the backlog of cases that has developed in the Human Rights Review Tribunal since 2016. These amendments include authorising the appointment of one or more deputy chairpersons instead of a second chairperson, and authorising the chairperson or a deputy chairperson alone to consider appropriate matters on the papers. This will help to reduce the backlog because much of this tribunal’s work has to be undertaken by the chairpersons. In future, the deputy chairpersons will be able to perform the same functions as the chairperson.

Part 1 also provides the 21 tribunals administered by the Ministry of Justice with the powers and procedures they need to resolve matters sooner. Members will have noticed that the same amendments are repeated across several subparts. Tribunal users will benefit from the standard provisions that authorise tribunals to consider more matters on the papers and to use audiovisual link technology more often. Many tribunals have been given contempt powers to enable disruptive people to be removed during hearings. These tribunals will also have broader powers to strike out meritless proceedings and to decide matters in a party’s absence in appropriate circumstances.

Part 1 clarifies that retiring tribunal members can complete any cases that have commenced. This will ensure proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged or delayed when changes are made to a tribunal’s membership. Part 1 will also enable tribunals to provide greater access to justice by providing a simpler, quicker, and cheaper alternative to a court case.

The disputes tribunal monetary threshold will be increased from $15,000—or $20,000, if all parties agree—to $30,000. The disputes tribunals provide a quicker, simpler, and cheaper forum than a court for resolving lower-value disputes.

The Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal will be able to award monetary compensation of up to $100,000 for financial losses arising from a real estate agent’s unsatisfactory conduct. The tribunal sanctions poor behaviour by real estate agents.

The Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority will be able to discipline unsatisfactory conduct as well as misconduct. This will allow the authority to appropriately address concerning behaviour—such as bullying by private security personnel and private investigators—that might not meet the higher threshold of misconduct.

Part 1 also addresses several anomalies in the legislation of these 21 tribunals. For example, Part 1 clarifies that monetary orders such as fines, fee refunds, and compensation ordered by the Legal Complaints Review Officer can be enforced in the District Court if they are not voluntarily paid. The Legal Complaints Review Officer sanctions poor behaviour by lawyers and conveyancers.

Part 1 also authorises insurance companies to be represented at disputes tribunal hearings by agents as well as by employees or officers. Insurance companies are parties in around one-third of all disputes tribunal cases. This change will align better with the way that insurance companies operate.

Finally, Part 1 will disestablish two rarely used tribunals: the Health Boards of Appeal and the Maritime Appeal Authority. These tribunals have not received any new cases for several years, and any future cases will be heard in the District Court instead.

I hope that helps members in the debate on the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. As with the bill that we considered a little while ago—the Courts Matters Bill, which amended 14 Acts—this one is also all about standardising and modernising legislation to make it better and more fit for public purpose. It modernises the legislation for 21 tribunals—so, improving productivity and efficiency, amending powers and procedures—to improve users’ experience of tribunals, to make these procedures easier for the public to understand, and to reduce the length of time it takes to hear and to resolve matters. It is very difficult indeed to argue with the spirit of the intention of what this bill is doing.

The Justice Committee has heard a number of submissions on it. It has made some recommendation for changes and, in my call tonight, I intend to look at aspects of the Real Estate Agents Act, under Part 1, and also the amendments to the Human Rights Act 1993, also in Part 1. I commend the work of Hon Aupito William Sio, the Associate Minister of Justice, and he has outlined some of the changes in Part 1. I think that some of the things that he outlined, which I feel will be particularly popular with the public, are particularly around the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal. It will be able to award compensation of up to $100,000, and that’s for financial losses arising from a real estate agent’s unsatisfactory conduct. That’s a very specific thing, and I think that, really, the public appetite for badly behaved real estate agents is very minimal.

I think that the processes for the somewhat unfortunate acronym of CACs, the complaints assessment committees, are going to be more clearly defined. So CACs, when the breach is minor or technical, don’t need to send it on to another slightly odd acronym, READT, the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal. So overturning a CACs assessment of a breach as not qualifying for a referral is not going to be happening. I think that for members of the public and others who are interested in the way that these things can be delayed—and justice delayed is justice denied—I think that the speeding up and the clarifying of the strikeout powers that have been inserted into 13 Acts can now only be applied if the party was not present or represented at a hearing in which they were required to be.

So that makes it very straightforward, and I think the better consumer protection and redress for people with the tribunals makes it much simpler and faster and, of course, a cheaper alternative to a court case. I think that the use of tribunals—using them in a better and more appropriate and intelligent way—is a better process. Omnibus bills in two parts, as this one is, I think make a series of particularly good observations, and the standard appointment terms are part of that. I think in the past it was all a little bit ad hoc. People could be appointed, for example, to tribunals for terms of three, five, or seven years. No one particularly knew who was going to be there. When the time was up, they went. But now the provisions—eminently sensible, in my view—have standardised the appointment term of up to five years. There are multiple terms for reappointment, but I think it will be very important to make that standard provision to be inserted into 16 different Acts.

I think also, when we look at the Human Rights Act 1993, the Human Rights Review Tribunal—anyone who has tried to take a case before it, or who follows some of the high profile cases, is very well aware of the large workload of the tribunal. The provisions that have been mooted here as the changes, which have been approved through the select committee process, mean that at the moment two chairpersons can be appointed to the tribunal, and they’re responsible for dealing with almost all of the tribunal’s workload, which is why they have become so overburdened. The change to address concerns about that workload is to change many different aspects of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act, the Privacy Act, and the Human Rights Act to have a much more sensible provision so that we can have other individuals there—chairpersons or deputy chairpersons—for training purposes. That will allow those chairpersons or deputy chairpersons to consider alone, as opposed to just the standard procedures. So all of these are major improvements that the public will, I am sure, welcome.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, for my opportunity to contribute to the Tribunal Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. We are, of course, speaking to Part 1 of that in this, the committee stage. I’d like to follow on from the comments that Minister Sio has made and also my learned colleague the Hon Maggie Barry, who focused on a couple of the different tribunals that are amended by this legislation, and I’ll talk about amendments that are made to a couple of other bodies. But as she did, I would like to first consider some of the overarching purposes of the bill in so far as they will now enable us to assess the validity and the worthwhileness of those particular provisions in Part 1.

So, first, the aim to create—or rather update—our system such that it is a modern, efficient, and effective tribunal system, as well as the court system, fitted within the judicial branch of Government. Having an easier-to-use system and keeping pace with people’s expectations are worthwhile aims in themselves, and so while some might be tempted to consider the content of these bills that we’re looking at tonight, the Courts Matters Bill and now the Tribunal Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, as perhaps somewhat dry in nature—one might say unkindly—in fact, they’re very important for those who would bring disputes before them.

So looking first, then, at the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988—that’s a piece of legislation that’s going to be amended by Part 1 of this bill. It includes such gems as rostering and training of referees—so, for example, a gap in the system currently, if I might describe it as that, whereby the principal disputes referee will become responsible for rostering and training referees. The recommendation of the Justice Committee—having considered the first stage, or the bill as it had been passed by way of the first reading—recommended amending a couple of clauses such that it would be the Chief District Court Judge who would be wholly responsible if the principal disputes referee position was vacant or that person was unable to perform the function. So that seems to me a useful manner of achieving a backup, essentially, in the event that that principal officer is unable to perform his or her duties for whatever reason.

Similarly, some extra thoughts have been provided by the select committee in relation to dismissing and striking out claims—a couple of section numbers, which I won’t trouble you with, Madam Chair. But, essentially, the select committee wanted the ability for the disputes tribunal, in fulfilling its functions, to be able not only to prevent the refiling of an amended claim, but also to replace the dismissal provision with the standard strike out provision. Again, there’s no reason that we can see, on this side of the committee, not to include that.

In my remaining time I will focus on the Lawyers and Conveyances Act 2006, or the part of that that’s going to be amended by Part 1 of this bill—in particular, the Legal Complaints Review Officer. And for any of those who have practiced law, the very name strikes fear into the hearts.

Chris Bishop: That’s right. Ha, ha!

CHRIS PENK: That’s right. I’d like to say that I’m not familiar at all with its workings, but I will move on in the interests of not straining the power of parliamentary privilege any further.

So the powers of the Legal Complaints Review Officer, particularly what we’re considering here—we’re clarifying a number of their duties and functions, including that they are able to withhold evidence or the name of any witness. So whereas the publication of materials deriving from a complaint that’s been made is in itself a good thing, there are situations that the bill contemplates and that the legislation being amended also contemplates in which suppression orders, as we might describe them, would be a valid and worthwhile. So that’s recognised, and, again, that is a change that we believe is worth supporting.

Similarly—well, similar in the sense that it’s also a procedural change—this one is actually quite a major one in numerical terms, such that orders for enforcing costs which have been awarded or fines and refunds and so forth—currently $12,000 would be heard up to the District Court and beyond that the High Court. In fact, the change will be that, actually, up to $350,000 can be heard by the District Court, so that’s in alignment with other aspects of our justice system as far as that is concerned.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, we considered the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill alongside the Courts Matters Bill at the Justice Committee in the last Parliament and also into the new Parliament. It’s good to see the Labour-led Government continuing with it. It’s a bit more substantive, actually, than the Courts Matters Bill, because it makes a whole, quite substantive, series of changes to the way in which our tribunals work. Members, I think, will have some appreciation of just how many disputes in New Zealand are dealt with outside the sort of ordinary court process of the District Court, High Court, and above. There’s increasing use of tribunals, as well, and so it’s very important to get this legislation right.

There are a couple of things that I want to point to that I think are very important and I praise. The first is the doubling of the monetary limit for the disputes tribunal from $15,000 to $30,000, and I’ll just make a side note here: I think it would be good if the power to increase the maximum limit for claims in the disputes tribunal could be given to the Minister or given to the Governor-General in regulation. I’ve got to say, it seems a little bit silly that we have to legislate in order to increase the monetary limit. That seems to me to be a power that could be within the Governor-General’s—so, in other words, the Cabinet’s—ambit. It’s a bit of a personal bugbear of mine that a lot of change to things like thresholds, limits, maximums, minimums, and things like that is actually in primary legislation. I think it could be perfectly well catered for in regulation. The classic, of course, is the Income Tax Act. Our colleague Michael Wood is shaking his head in despair—but the Income Tax Act’s a classic. Parliament every year has to legislate to add, say, the “Himalayan Trust Board” to the list of charities that are entitled to a tax rebate. Well, I mean, frankly, I think there are better uses of the time than, you know, the “Mount Roskill Residents Association No 2 Incorporated”—I mean, I’m sure they’d do very good work, but I don’t really think we need to waste Parliament’s time legislating. Anyway, that’s more of a side point.

The actual increase in the disputes tribunal maximum is a really important one, because over the last 10 to 15 years, of course, inflation has increased 1.5 or 2 percent a year, and more and more claims—and this was the evidence before the committee—found themselves outside the ambit of the disputes tribunal because the claims were, for example, somebody having a dispute with somebody over 20,000 bucks worth of property or $21,000 for a car; you know, a dispute there, or whatever. Basically, because of the Act, they were outside the ambit of the Act, and the law doesn’t intend for that to happen, so we’ve now increased it to $30,000.

There’s some interesting other little changes here. The Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner, the Health Boards of Appeal, and the Maritime Appeal Authority are disestablished. The Health Boards of Appeal was seldom used, apparently, and given that I’d never heard of them until we started to consider this bill in the select committee, I suspect that is true.

Just a quick note on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the Government. I think the changes advanced by the Minister, Aupito William Sio, are very sensible. The particular change in clause 51(5), which is related to the increasing of the general limit of the disputes tribunal to $30,000—the Supplementary Order Paper advanced by the Minister brings all those changes into force at the same time. There was going to be a staggered introduction of that $30,000 limit across the disputes tribunal and the various other tribunals. That’s now going to be done all at the same time, and I think that makes sense. I’ve had a look through the Supplementary Order Paper of the Minister—I think it does make sense, and National does support the bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 1 be agreed to:

Subpart 3 heading

delete the subpart 3 heading (page 24, line 30).

Clause 37

after clause 37(1) (page 32, after line 23), insert:

(1A) In section 2, definition of work order, replace “specified in the order.” with “specified in the order”.

Clause 163

in clause 163(8), replace “clause 9C” with “clause 9D” (page 81, line 34).

Subpart 20 heading

delete the subpart 20 heading (page 122, line 18).

Clause 306

in the heading to clause 306,replace “25A to 25C” with “25A and 25B” (page 133, line 8).

Clause 307

in the heading to clause 307, replace “sections 25D and 25E inserted” with “section 25D inserted (Online publication of information about procedures, time frames, and progress of decisions)” (page 134, line 4).

Clause 320

in clause 320(1), new section 117(ca), replace “electronically:” with “electronically; or” (page 138, line 11).

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Repeal, revocation, and amendment of enactments

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister for Courts): Part 2 is very short. It consists of three clauses and one schedule. Part 2 will repeal the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Act 1993. This Act, which Mr Bishop sort of jumped the gun on, authorised the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner to divide the land at Birdlings Flat on the Banks Peninsula into separate land titles. This Act is no longer needed because the subdivision was completed in 2000. Part 2 also makes consequential amendments to Acts and regulations to align with the changes made in Part 1. I recommend this to the committee.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1AA

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 1AA be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1AA as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 2A

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 2A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2A as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2B

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 2B be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2B as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to schedule 5 be agreed to:

in new regulation 3(2)(ba) of Part 3, item relating to the Human Rights Regulations 1993, replace “electronically:” with “electronically; or”.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair, it’s a pleasure to take a call this evening on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It will be just a brief call today, but I want to explain our rationale on the National Party side for supporting this bill through its current stage, through to its eventual passing later on. This is a very important bill. The purpose of this bill is pretty clear. It’s first and foremost about flexibility. It’s also about fairness, and it’s about giving locals who live in the Realm who are New Zealand citizens the opportunity to go back and contribute to their local economies and, at the same time, fulfil the requirements to access their superannuation.

I just wanted to describe a little bit about the bill—I mean, certainly why I support it. Essentially, it allows any person from the Realm—that is, from Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands—to live here and contribute to New Zealand’s economy and then, after they turn 50, as long as they complete five years in the Realm of where they come from—they can move to the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau—they will, essentially, qualify for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension. I believe that’s a really important step to make. Of course, as the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, will know, our relationship with these countries is very strong and it goes back a long way in terms of our history, our economic relationship in terms of remittances, and also our political relationship as well. I think that this bill is, essentially, really important to enable people from the Realm to get their superannuation entitlements and, at the same time, go back to their country and contribute to their local economy.

Just going through the bill, since we are in the committee stage, looking at the amendments in Part 1—I’m certainly very supportive of those clauses. In terms of what the policy problem is that I see we are trying to solve, essentially it is giving people the opportunity to fulfil their 10-year residency requirement—plus five over 50, as we know—and also allowing them the opportunity to go back to their countries from the Realm and to contribute to the local economy, and also fulfil their requirements for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension.

We were on the select committee as part of this process and we heard a total of seven submissions. Seven of those were written and two of them were submitted orally. Essentially, there were three arguments that were made around the bill that would prevent this bill from going forward. I just want to highlight them. I don’t agree with them but I want to outline the issues that were raised in the submissions and why I don’t think we need to address them in this instance.

Firstly, there was an issue from one of the submitters that this bill, essentially, discriminates. What I want to assure the person who made the submission is that this bill is open to any overseas person that comes to New Zealand that can fulfil the requirements to get their pension and then also wants to move to any of the Islands in the Realm—whether it be Tokelau, the Cook Islands, or Niue. They are able to move to those islands and also fulfil the residency requirements.

There was also an issue that was raised in the select committee process around the fact that this might actually harm some of the economic contribution to these nations. I would argue that it actually does the opposite. Through giving people the opportunity to work in these countries, to go back to these countries, and also to fulfil the requirements of the pension, it also, essentially, is going to be a contributor to that.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First. It’s a long time coming. Great to see it here; great to see that it is this Government moving it forward very quickly.

I do acknowledge the speaker who just resumed his seat, Dan Bidois. It was in 2015 that an amendment was originally put forward by the previous administration. That is true. Unfortunately, it didn’t do what was promised to the Cook Islands, Niuean, and Tokelauan community, which was the five years over 50. One of the reasons why this is so important is because, obviously, as well as being proud Cook Islanders, Rarotongans, Niueans, or Tokelauans, the people from these islands are New Zealanders. So it seemed an anomaly that they couldn’t access their superannuation and be able to have the superannuation that they were entitled to under the rules and regulations, and be able to also take their skills and their superannuation and go to the Islands.

In a way this is part of the way that New Zealand supports the Realm nations. It’s the way that we have worked with their Governments to ensure that we are able not just to encourage Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans to go home, to take their skills home, to build their communities, to actually create a level of skill there, but also to allow New Zealanders, any New Zealander, to go there and to participate and start to build what is the fabric of the cultures on the Islands. It’s just an extension of the greater relationship that we have with our Realm nations.

So I just really want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, and the speed with which she has been able to address what is an anomaly in the 2015 legislation that went through. I was in the House at that time. I remember listening to that piece of legislation going through, and thinking this was actually not what the conversation was between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of our colleagues in the Realm nations. So it’s really nice to be part of a Government that is putting this right, which is making sure that we honour the commitment that was originally made.

I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been an advocate for this. I know the Prime Minister has been an advocate for this. I know that they want to do, and provide through this legislation, what was originally agreed between the New Zealand Government and the Governments of the Realm nations. So, again, I just take a very quick call on my part to acknowledge the Minister in the chair and to acknowledge the Government. We want to move this forward because this is something to the benefit of our friends in the Islands and also to the New Zealanders that will make the Islands home and take their skills there to help, as I say, build what is the capacity of those communities to deal with the issues that are coming. Kia ora.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the remainder of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill to be debated as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears not to be.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I’m pleased to be able to take a call in this committee stage of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. This, of course, is a piece of legislation that this side of the House supports. When Bill English, as Prime Minister, was visiting the Pacific last June, this was a commitment that was made at that time. So we are pleased to see that the new Government is delivering that undertaking.

Of course, these changes seem quite small and straightforward, but, for the people that are impacted by them, it’s not just life changing for them but also for their countries. So it makes a much fairer system for the residents of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, and in terms of the submissions that we heard on the Social Services and Community Committee, there were only a small number of submissions and there really wasn’t too much disagreement. So this piece of legislation is welcomed by the National members. We appreciated the opportunity to hear from a small number of submitters in the select committee process, and so we are pleased that the Government is addressing this legislation with haste, which is why we don’t have questions for the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni.

The committee didn’t propose any changes from the bill as introduced, which I think just recognises that there is a significant impact in this legislation. The ability in terms of the residency requirements after the age of 50 making eligibility much easier, and the ability for those to be able to return to their home countries of the Cooks, Niue, and Tokelau, is a really critical component of those local economies and provides a lot more flexibility and recognises the very special status we have with those countries. So I’m pleased to support this and the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill in this committee stage.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Can I just say, as the Minister for Social Development, that I’m really glad that we have been able to progress this policy, this piece of legislation, as quickly as we have. And can I say that it was a privilege to be alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Cook Islands earlier this year, where were had the opportunity to make the announcement that we would be moving forward with this.

I’m really pleased that this bill has support across the House. The Hon Louise Upston mentioned that her Government had already committed to it in June last year. I would disagree with that. There was no commitment made, and, in fact, there was disappointment from our Realm nation leaders because of the fact that the previous Government were so slow to commit to this particular measure. But, tonight, the fact that they are continuing to support this piece of legislation I think does make up for that. It is a common-sense thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do.

One of the issues that is raised quite regularly with all of us when we travel to the Cook Islands or Niue—probably less likely to travel on a regular basis to Tokelau, but when we do meet with our neighbouring leaders from those countries—is the impact that depopulation has had on those particular countries and the role that New Zealand has played in that depopulation.

So there seems to be a bit of mixed feeling in terms of the opportunities that New Zealand has provided but also the opportunities that maybe New Zealand has had a role in removing because of depopulation as well. So by doing this, it is a huge gesture in saying that, actually, we support those that come to New Zealand to contribute from the Realm nations to be able to go back and to be able to contribute to their island nations as well. So, as has been stated tonight, the biggest part of what we’re discussing here is that we are removing the requirement for those from the Realm nations to spend the five years after 50 in New Zealand to secure access to superannuation. The requirement to still do the 10 years prior to the age of 50 still exists, but that five years can actually be lived and served in the Realm nations.

Many of the leaders—not just political leaders but business leaders and community leaders—in those Realm nations have pointed out the massive contribution that returning Cook Islanders, Niueans, and Tokelauans are able to make in that age range and have made in that age range. I’ve actually met a number of people who, because of their choice to go back and contribute to their home island nation, have actually been deprived access to superannuation despite having served, quite often, more than 10 years prior to 50 in New Zealand. So this fixes that. I’m really proud of the fact that we’ve been able to do that. It really fits alongside the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ push for a Pacific reset. This is about ensuring that we have a genuine partnership with the Pacific, that we not only value the contribution that Pacific people make here but that we support Pacific people to be able to make a contribution in their own Pacific countries as well, and that we listen to the requests of our Pacific neighbours with regards to what is important to them.

As has been stated, in some ways this could be perceived as a small step, but I certainly know that when Prime Minister Henry Puna sat here on the night that we had the first reading of this particular bill, in his mind, and in the minds of many of the Cook Islands people that accompanied him on that night, this is not a small win. They see this as a huge gesture of good faith and really indicative of this Government’s commitment to the Pacific in ensuring that we do have a true partnership with our Pacific Island countries. So, yes, I’m very proud of the fact that we’ve been able to bring this bill to the House as quickly as we have, and I’m also very grateful that we have support across the House for this particular bill.

Part 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Courts Matters Bill with amendment, the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill with amendment, and the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, it gives me pleasure to speak. This is one of those bills that, when it is looked at in its entirety, it makes sense—that when a death occurs all cultural sensitivity be applied—but I think it’s very important that we understand just why this is not always such a straightforward process. Of course, the main role of the coroner when there is a death, and the main role of the involvement of the authorities—inevitably, the police—is to ensure, essentially, that there has been no foul play, to ensure that the coroner can be satisfied as to what the cause of death is. So, of course, if the death is in any way suspicious, then it is extremely important that all those facts be established, and, of course, what we don’t want to do—can’t afford to do—is lose any evidence if in fact the death is suspicious.

That is where the conflict often arises, because you have those representing authority—as I say, normally the police—in the event that there is not a certificate as to cause of death. I can say that every police officer who attends one of these deaths—the wonderful news that a doctor will issue a certificate as to cause, thus meaning that there is no longer a requirement for the involvement of police, other than for logistics until the funeral director takes over. But, in many cases, that’s not the case. The cause of death is unknown, and it behoves the police in particular to ensure, firstly, that death has occurred. It may seem rather obvious, in many cases, but it is still necessary to get a certificate as to the cause of death and then, of course, to start the procedure of a police 47, which, essentially, goes through the circumstances of a death to report back to the coroner so the coroner, with some confidence, can actually make a determination of what the cause of death actually was.

My own experience has been particularly where there’s been a death, where there’s a lot of emotion involved, family, particularly a lot of whānau, and, of course, the expectation and the inclination is to actually begin the process of grieving there and then. This is where, actually, we do get to the nub of this bill. I have to say, over my years as a police officer, we did get much better at this, in recognising the cultural dimension and the absolute necessity to take into account the cultural requirements, but, as I say, achieving that balance while at the same time ensuring that we can, with authority, know what actually caused that death.

I give the example—just some cases I was involved in myself—of having been called to a case where a naked body was found in a river in the Wairarapa. It looked extremely suspicious, looked like there could be no logical explanation for it, until we were able to recreate what had actually happened, which was that a gentleman and his two children were actually crossing a stream when they were hit by a flash flood, and the force of the flood was such that it actually removed their clothing. So it was only through good investigation in that case that we were actually able to establish that there were no suspicious circumstances from what, on the surface of it—in that case the family obviously were very keen to get quick access to the body, and it was quite a disturbing event having to keep them away until we established that.

So I won’t go further other than to ensure that people do understand that while cultural sensitivity is an absolute necessity, and as this bill says, the purpose of the bill is to strengthen the Act’s focus on cultural considerations, amending section 26 of the Act to provide an explicit requirement that coroners must consider tikanga Māori with the expectations of other cultures and their spiritual beliefs when determining who can view, touch, or remain with or near a body—balancing that with the need to ensure that the death and true cause of death can be established, unhindered and that vital evidence is not lost at the scene. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This legislation before us is another step in reforming the coronial system, and National supports this next iteration in making the coronial services to New Zealand more humane. The speaker who has just resumed his seat, Greg O’Connor, very ably pointed out the need for coroners to have good access to the circumstances surrounding a death so that they can determine the cause of death, but balance that with the increasing understanding that the families of the deceased also have needs that need to be met.

I’m very mindful of a piece of work that this Parliament dealt with—with your indulgence, Mr Assistant Speaker—maybe three or four years ago under the Coroners Amendment Bill. In the Justice Committee, which I chaired at the time, we heard submissions and a very powerful submission from the family of a young person who died in a ballooning tragedy in the Wairarapa, and about the anguish of that family who submitted to our committee. There will be members in the House who will recall the anguish of that family at knowing their very loved child was lying in the field, but with no access to that child. It prevented them from ever finding peace and closure, because once the body of that child was released to them, it was too late for them to physically say goodbye.

Just as that anguish was expressed to us and catered for in the Coroners Amendment Bill—probably in about 2015-16, maybe—so does this bill before us today acknowledge access and management of tūpāpaku and how very important that is in tikanga Māori, and I hope I do justice to this. But that was an aspect of the coronial amendment bill back several years ago that we were mindful of, and it’s so good to see it being singled out as an issue that is now going to be legislated for. I do hope that in the future, it brings peace and comfort to those families who are dealing with the very dreadful situation of having a coronial inquiry and a police involvement in a bereavement. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’ll rise and take a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. I remember when this bill came through the New Zealand First caucus, and I want to acknowledge both the speakers before me, Jacqui Dean and Greg O’Connor, and the sensible and real contribution that we’re making here. This is a very serious issue. And I do think that my colleague Greg O’Connor outlined very carefully and very clearly why it is that coroners need to have our loved ones with them at some times, and why we can’t be with them, so that, if we need to make sure that justice can be served, we have all that is required to make sure that in those circumstances where—and Mr O’Connor outlined a situation where there was no foul play—there is foul play, the coroner has been given the opportunity, along with the police, to make sure that they have what they need to, at times, hold others to account.

But I do think that this is just a move forward. I remember the conversation inside my own caucus, because this has been particularly raised, I suppose, in a New Zealand context. Often we talk about whānau and we talk about tikanga Māori and so on and so forth, but in my own family—which is a combination of Māori and Pākehā in this country—we also bring our dead home. We don’t leave them alone. There is this very short period of time. They should never be on their own until the time when they are going to the final place of their resting.

So for myself, I guess, when I look at the words inside the legislation we’re looking at that says “and the expectations of other cultures”, I hope that, because of the colour of my skin, somebody doesn’t assume that I don’t have a culture also, and that it doesn’t also mean mine. I suppose, even if I was to go back six generations to my Irish and Scottish ancestors, they too had wakes—they too did not leave their dead alone. So I think this is just a move as a nation that we’re taking that we can do what we need to do with an enormous amount of respect for the loved ones of the individual with whom we must take some certain actions. Again, it is because there is the need for justice downstream more often than not, but we can do it with a kindness and with a realism that there are people that are grieving and that there is real loss, and do it by explaining what is the situation that is going through, and, at the earliest possible time, we will make sure that their loved ones will be reunited with them.

So, with that said, there is nothing more to say. I think that across the House we agree that this is a good thing that we are doing. It’s a moving-forward for our nation. I appreciate that the coroners have been doing this, really, without legislation in the majority of cases, and that this is just really formalising what we hope to see normalised across New Zealand going forward. Kia ora.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I think it is very important to start with the understanding that we should respect everyone’s culture. And if there are any challenges and there are any loopholes, they should be fixed as soon as possible.

This bill is an outcome from the 51st Parliament’s inquiry by the Māori Affairs Committee, which recommended eight things to the Government, out of which, I think, six have been taken as part of this bill, and I hope that this will satisfy the cultural aspect where there was a lacking point. It makes sense to update the coroners legislation to improve cultural considerations. As has been mentioned by all the previous speakers today, it is very important. Even the police have got their role to play, but we should respect the cultural aspect of everybody in this country.

The Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill implements a recommendation from the Māori Affairs Committee of the 51st Parliament to improve the cultural consideration in the coronial system. It results from the committee’s inquiry into whānau access to the management of tūpāpaku—the body of the dead person. The Māori Affairs Committee of the 52nd Parliament in its report issued on 10 October 2018 commends the work of the previous Māori Affairs Committee that led to this change in legislation. It recommends that the bill may be passed without amendment.

It is important that we take care of the issues which have been raised. As we know, 31,000 people die each year, most of which are the result of a natural cause. However, 20 percent of the deaths are referred to the coroner for investigation. Most of the issues discussed in the report regard the access to the management of tūpāpakus during and after this referral process.

When considering whether to conduct a post-mortem, the coroner must have regard to the criteria set out in section 32. This includes whether the cultural beliefs require the tūpāpaku to be made available as soon as possible after the death, or where post-mortems are considered offensive. As the Hon Tracey Martin mentioned, culturally there are requirements sometimes where the deceased person is to be brought back to the family so that the body can be with their loved ones and they can take care of the body. So I think it is important that we should take care of the cultural aspect, and this bill does the same, and I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and, especially on behalf of the Green Party, to celebrate the work that’s been done by our previous co-leader, Metiria Turei, who advocated for the inquiry of the Māori Affairs Committee that eventually led to this bill and was carried forward, again, as she sat on the Māori Affairs Committee this term—Marama Davidson, as well. I congratulate the Minister the Hon Andrew Little for carrying forward some of the recommendations of that inquiry, which included a review of the coronial services and practices, as well as police and the justice system, to include not only tikanga Māori but, of course, in this bill, as we’ve seen reflected, also the cultural practices of all cultures.

As we know, sudden death—the kind of death that leads to an inquiry by the coroner—can be the most traumatic loss to family and whānau. At that moment, to be denied the appropriate cultural processes and grieving can not only be traumatic but make a situation that’s probably the worst that that family is going to face far more traumatic, unnecessarily traumatic. Not only that, we see this bill as being part of our nation’s way of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding constitutional document, which I think we’ve all come to a point of acknowledging can’t kind of just be settled but has to be honoured in a way that’s ongoing, which includes our inclusion of tikanga Māori in all policy areas in an ongoing way. So it’s important to advocate for those practices to be not only acknowledged but actively included and to form the basis of law and policy, especially in this really important area.

We know that the recommendations of the inquiry went beyond this, and so I hope that this standardised way of incorporating tikanga will go beyond this and will be incorporated in other areas of our justice system, in particular where there’s been a death like this—a sudden death. But for today, we do celebrate that the work of that inquiry not only has come to fruition but also now forms the basis of this law that will actually standardise coroners’ practices, that have included tikanga in the past but will ensure that they will do so, will ensure that family members can stay with the remains of their loved ones, can mourn and can conduct other types of bereavement practices as we move towards being a nation that not only honours the Treaty of Waitangi but is actively a multicultural society. So I do commend the bill to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tōku mihi e Te Mana Whakawā, e huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[My greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, all around this House, greetings to you all.]

I’m privileged to stand to speak in the second reading of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill, because as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, it was our committee that created the impetus for this bill through its 2016 report Inquiry into whānau access to and management of tūpāpaku, which was instigated by the honourable Metiria Turei. But also I’d like to acknowledge former MPs of that committee who are not here today, and particularly tonight: Pita Paraone and also Marama Fox, who were part of that.

This bill implements the recommendations from the report that actually require legislative change. There is nothing more tapu—as you know, e Te Mana Whakawā—in Te Ao Māori than the tūpāpaku and the associated tangi. The customs and practices that many Māori engage with concerning our deceased are very ancient. The process of death and the associated practices are time-honoured and integral in the expression of our Māori culture.

The process of tangi begins at the moment of death. For those whānau fortunate enough to be present at the time of their loved one’s death, the process of mourning starts. That process, of course, begins with the act of tangi: the wailing, the maringi, ōna roimata, me ngā hupe, [the flowing, its tears, and the mucus] the touching of the body—all of this constitutes an integral part of our process of grieving the loss of a loved one. For many Māori, we have a custom of not leaving the side of our loved one until the tūpāpaku has been buried. That is why we sleep next to our deceased loved one, and that is why we never leave the tūpāpaku, or the body, unattended. Even in the act of transporting and dressing the tūpāpaku by the undertaker, we still have whānau that will actually be present or will actually do the dressing of our tūpāpaku. Indeed, in my iwi, the dressing and the preparation of tūpāpaku has always been undertaken by our wāhine. That is also why we are reluctant to let our loved one be passed across to a coroner where we can no longer be present alongside our loved one.

Yet there must be processes for the coroner to do their mahi through the Coroners Act 2006, which regulates the coronial system in New Zealand. For example, an unexpected death that could reveal a hereditary heart defect a whānau was not aware of can mean a life for a whānau of the deceased, a sudden death that can be attributed to a communicable disease can mean safety for a community, and the discovery of a homicide can mean justice for a society. All of these constitute a valid reason for the coroner to be able to do their mahi, but there must be a balancing act, and this is what we’re attempting to achieve with this bill.

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 core purposes of the Coroners Act 2006 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 [a whānau] and of others” close to the deceased person. While the Coroners Act 2006 responds fairly well—as we noted in our Māori Affairs Committee report of 2016, it actually does address in some ways the cultural needs of whānau during the coronial processes—the report from 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. I say that because it’s not just Māori that we were looking at when we were doing this particular inquiry; we actually tried to hear the submissions of as many ethnicities here that we have in New Zealand.

So, in doing that, that is why this bill has been brought to this House—to actually address tikaka Māori but also other ethnicities and other cultures. The Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill will ensure that all cultural beliefs, including tikaka Māori, will be recognised and supported within our New Zealand coronial services. In most cases, this already happens, and it is included in the guidance procedures for coroners. However, it is not a legislative requirement, and that was made plain in our inquiry, as well.

This bill will ensure that the 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 tikaka Māori and the expectations of other cultures when determining who can view, touch, or remain near the tūpāpaku. It is important to note that this bill does not seek to change the current practice of coroners. What this bill does is to ensure this practice of taking cultural considerations into account is more visible and tangible for those who are dealing with the loss of a loved one.

I am pleased that this bill is widely supported across the House, and I hope that it can swiftly pass through the remaining stages to become law. I have no hesitation to commend this bill to the House.

Āpiti hono tātai hono, rātou ki te hunga mate, ki te hunga mate ki a rātou. Āpiti hono tātai hono, tātou ki te hunga ora, ki te hunga ora ki a tātou, e mihi atu ki a tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[Let the connections be made, the deceased remain with the deceased. Let the connections be made, the living remain with the living, greetings to us all.]

Thank you.

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

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In this House and in many other forums, we don’t talk about death very often, and it’s because we find it a difficult and often uncomfortable topic. Perhaps we should, in fact, do so more often than we do, because it is one of the universal human experiences.

In the case of this bill, we are dealing with the matter of death in circumstances which are often particularly troubling and difficult for whānau and loved ones of the deceased because they are cases in which, for some reason, there has been a referral to the coroner, and, by definition, that creates a sense of separation. By definition, that means that there may have been something in the course of that person’s death which was beyond the normal. So can I say on that note that the way in which this bill has come together and the House has conducted itself is, I think, very pleasing, because it has taken this issue very seriously and with an appropriate degree of sensitivity.

Can I acknowledge in that vein the people whose work has got us to this point. I understand that this issue was originally brought to the House’s attention by former member Metiria Turei, the co-leader of the Greens. I acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee across both parliaments in progressing the matter, and, of course, those people who gave submissions on the bill. I read through those and they are very intelligent, sensitive, and, I’m sure, helpful to the work of the select committee.

The main comment I want to make is that I think that this bill in its construction is a very elegant bill in the way that it deals with this issue, and I say that for two reasons. The first is the actual mechanism that the bill uses. We simply pick up the existing Coroners Act 2006 and use the existing provisions within section 25, which do allow the coroner to allow a person to remain with a body, and then we simply insert into the Act, in the next section, matters which the coroner must consider. It is worth just touching on those—these being “the ethnic origins, social attitudes or customs, or spiritual beliefs of the person who is, or of a person who is suspected to be, the dead person, or of an immediate family member of that person, that customarily require viewing, touching, or remaining with or near the body”.

So there’s quite a wide ambit there that the coroner can apply. The bill isn’t overbearing in respect of telling the coroner what they have to do and putting burdensome processes in the way of the coroner. It simply affirms that there is that requirement to take those considerations on board. As we’ve heard from the previous speaker, Nuk Korako, and others, that is the practice, but it is appropriate that that is reflected in the legislation, and it will no doubt give families and loved ones a degree of comfort.

Building off that, the bill is elegant because what it takes is an existing public policy process which is done in quite an official and bureaucratic way and makes sure that that is responsive to cultural and spiritual concerns, and that’s not necessarily always easy to do in the way that we create laws. So, again, I say that I think the crafting of this bill is quite elegant in the way that it brings those two world views together.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the work of our coroners, who do an outstanding job, it is generally acknowledged, and all of the people who are involved with these processes. This bill will be of comfort to families and New Zealanders, and it will assist in the important work of our coroners. I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Chris Penk—five minutes.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I appreciate the comments made by other colleagues on both sides of the House in support of this bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the House and, again, others, I am pleased to be able to support the intent of this bill. I think the member Michael Wood’s comments about the way in which it’s been put together are well made, and I would endorse those.

I too would like to thank those who are involved in these sensitive matters on the ground, so to speak: coroners and police officers alike, who inevitably deal with difficult situations by the inevitable nature of the matters being considered by this bill. So it’s appropriate to give them the tools that they need to be able to handle these situations in an appropriate manner. I think it is appropriate that the criterion of cultural considerations is one that the coroner is required to consider, but it doesn’t say in the bill that that is necessarily a determinative matter in any individual case.

Other aspects of the bill may be worth touching on briefly, but I will be brief because other colleagues have said, I think, probably just about all that needs to be said. I was taken with the comments of Tracey Martin, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, and Nuk Korako, among others, about the fact that it is a scenario that can apply across different ethnicities, races, cultures, and so forth, and religious beliefs—sometimes aligned to those—as well as, of course, tangata whenua, from whom the impetus came to make this, in the form of Metiria Turei and her fellow members of that 51st Parliament’s Māori Affairs Committee. So I commend her, those members, and, indeed, the present committee for their actions.

I think the only thing that I find objectionable in the bill is the split infinitive in the second word of the general policy statement requiring the coroner “to also consider cultural considerations”, but I think that would make me a “grammatical Grinch” if I were to, sort of, highlight that and emphasise that any more than I already have.

So, moving on, I simply join others in commending this bill to the House and say that I think it’s a very worthwhile piece of legislation and look forward to it passing in due course.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m pleased to stand in support of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Persons) Amendment Bill. Can I first start by acknowledging the hard work of the coroner’s office at a sometimes very sad time for many whānau. Having said that, my experience as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti has often been on the other side of constituents. There is a sense of unfairness when constituents are dealing with the coroner’s office, simply because it requires them to be disengaged from their loved ones, and this bill is attempting to address that in the introduction of tikanga Māori.

For those members, tikanga: two words there, tika and nga—tika meaning correct, things that are right and positive; and nga, the plural, meaning always correct and positive. So I view that this introduction of tikanga Māori in this particular bill conjures up the principles of fairness, of inclusiveness, and of making sure it’s relevant, and therefore it’s appropriate that we are having this introduced into this bill, for the very reason that for many of our people, or the people I represent, their experience with the coroner’s office, like I said, has always been a challenging one. It’s challenging in the sense that often there’s no word of when they’re going to get their loved ones back. Like I said, so often the body is taken away. I’ve had examples where coroner’s offices have been closed over the long weekend, so I’m often getting called to see how we can intervene. When there is an autopsy, there is tikanga around the removal of body parts and how that is actually returned to the whānau. So this bill goes some way in addressing those really critical issues for the people that I represent, and therefore I think it’s great that the Minister has brought the bill to the House. I too want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committees of the 51st and the 52nd Parliaments for bringing it to this House. I want to acknowledge the Minister’s acceptance of most of the recommendations from the Māori Affairs Committee.

My closing point, really, is his response to the Minister of Justice working on the code of best practice and, obviously, involving the Chief Coroner—I would just offer that Māori are involved in the design of those best practices—and also the further work around communicating from the first respondents, involving, again, the Ministry of Justice and police. Are we going to ensure a standard approach across this particular bill, that Māori are also part and parcel of the code of best practice as well as the way we communicate with whānau?

It is a clause that’s applicable to all cultures. That’s why I’m really supportive of that. It’s timely that we are introducing tikanga Māori concepts into our legislation. This is one of, hopefully, more to come. I commend this bill and look forward to its third and final reading. Kia ora tātou.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, sir. I too stand tonight in support of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill, and it seems to me like a spooky coincidence that we are discussing this on the day before Halloween.

In New Zealand, we have about 31,000 deaths a year, and so this bill is appropriate to about 7,750 of those deaths that are referred to the coroner. The result of the inquiry during the 51st Government by the Māori Affairs Committee into this issue resulted in several recommendations coming out of that committee. Of those recommendations, most have been accepted or acknowledged by the Government. One was rejected, and, actually, when I did read it, I felt that it was probably out of scope—that was the co-sleeping arrangements and the decision-making around whether police prosecute or not.

But, really, the crux of this bill is the recommendation around section 26 of the Coroners Act 2006. It simply takes the discretion out of the coroner’s ability around the tikanga Māori and makes it a requirement. That’s a very simple adjustment that this bill makes. I have very little more to say on it. I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee under the 51st Parliament for initiating the inquiry which has led us to this legislative amendment which we are speaking to this evening.

I do want to acknowledge Tutehounuku Korako, the chair of that committee, and all the members that took part in that inquiry, which was instigated at the suggestion of Metiria Turei. There was one other member, I believe, of that committee, who’s no longer in this House—the Hon Chester Borrows—who made a valuable input into that inquiry with his vast experience as a police officer. I know that he took great interest and contributed greatly to the inquiry.

I think this bill is a very good example of how effective committees can be in initiating inquiries and in looking for recommendations—whether it might be Government practices or whether legislative change might be required. While it’s noted that practically all but one of the recommendations of that committee were accepted by the Government, only one did require legislative amendment, and I’m pleased that we are implementing that change through this bill.

The amendment that we’re making to section 26, set out in clause 4, as has been canvassed quite comprehensively, is to ensure that when exercising discretion, the coroner—whether a family member or someone close to the deceased is able to have access to be with the body. Section 26 now makes it explicit, so it’s providing an express provision within that section of the matters which the coroner must take into account. So I commend the work of this Parliament in ensuring that that recommendation, which came through the parliamentary inquiry, was accepted by the Government and has now been implemented into the legislation through this bill. Now, even though there has been a practice note, which the Chief Coroner did issue, which, effectively, said that that is the practice, nevertheless we are going a step further as a Parliament to ensure that that duty is expressly followed by the coroner by putting it in section 26, subsection—I’ve lost the number there, but it’s in section 26, which we are amending here this evening.

So this is a very good example of an effective inquiry process and a very positive outcome to come from the inquiry. I commend all of those that have been involved. As the current chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, there wasn’t really much for us to do. There were only a few—eight—submissions that we received. A lot of the submissions that we received were outside the scope of the actual bill in question. Nevertheless, they were very helpful and practical suggestions of matters which I believe the coroner’s office are taking into account, in terms of the practical considerations. But in terms of the bill at hand, I do support the work that’s been done.

I just want to read it one more time—because I think one particular aspect I do support is the use of the example that we have put in the subsection. So, reading new section 26(2)(ea), inserted by clause 4, the end of it says, “(for example, the customary requirement that immediate family members be able to view, touch, or remain with or near the body according to tikanga Māori)”. That’s just one example that we’re using, but of course the wording of the actual paragraph in itself is very broad to take into account all cultures, ethnic origins, social attitudes or customs, and spiritual beliefs of the person or persons. So it is very broad. It’s intended to be broad to cover all of the many cultures that are impacted by death. But we’ve very elegantly put a very helpful example in there by using tikanga Māori. So with that, I commend the work by all involved, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): I move, That the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during every evening on a day where there is a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area.

This bill proposes to introduce a research and development tax credit to incentivise businesses to perform more research and development within New Zealand. This Government has a vision to build a better New Zealand for all our people, and we see an incredible opportunity ahead of us to do this. This means a country with affordable, healthy homes; an environment we can be proud to leave to future generations; and a diverse, sustainable, and productive economy that delivers for all of our people. This vision cannot be delivered with the same old approaches. We need new ideas, new innovations, and new ways of looking at the world, and that is where research, science, and innovation can play an important role. This is where we see innovators, our scientists, our entrepreneurs, and our visionaries building a better New Zealand.

Introducing an R & D tax incentive was always a high priority for this Government, which is why we allocated over $1 billion in Budget 2018 for this initiative. We know that it will help in transforming our economy, bringing us in line with other OECD countries. It is a key lever to deliver on our coalition agreement with New Zealand First to increase R & D expenditure to 2 percent of GDP over 10 years.

In designing the tax incentive, we ran through a consultation process and, as a result, we have made significant changes to the tax incentive originally proposed. We listened to the business community. The rate will be higher, the threshold lower, and the definition more inclusive. The most significant change we’ve made is to increase the rate from the proposed 12.5 percent up to 15 percent. A 15 percent credit rate is likely to introduce a greater amount of additional R & D than the 12.5 percent rate initially considered in preparing the design. The rate is more favourable than the current growth grant: 15 percent compared to the net rate of 14.4 percent for businesses in profit. A 15 percent credit rate is also more internationally competitive, putting us in the top half of the OECD’s B index, a measure that indicates the generosity of tax incentives. A higher credit rate combined with a mechanism to exceed the eligible R & D expenditure cap is likely to attract more international companies to relocate their R & D activity to New Zealand than would have otherwise been the case.

Currently, New Zealand’s gross expenditure on research and development is very low compared to the OECD average of 2.38 percent. Business expenditure on R & D has been steadily rising, but at 0.64 percent of GDP, it is low compared to other small advanced economies, and it is well below the OECD average of 1.65 percent. As I’ve already mentioned, we have committed to increasing R & D expenditure to 2 percent of GDP over the coming decade. Growing R & D expenditure has benefits for all New Zealanders. For businesses, R & D is recognised as a key indicator of innovation, which enhances their ability to succeed in changing markets. More broadly, R & D enables the diversification of the economy by encouraging new industries and companies, new jobs, and new ways of doing business. Some of these industries will build on our traditional strengths; others will develop in new areas. Increasing R & D support is part of how we’ll keep Kiwi firms moving further up the value chain and delivering higher wages.

More R & D will ensure we are living up to New Zealand’s international reputation as a place of daring and innovation. Achieving this ambitious R & D target will require a step change in New Zealand’s approach to innovation. Sustained increases in Government investment are important, and we are committed to playing an active role in investing in research, science, and innovation to ensure we make a real and noticeable difference. But we also need to see an increasing contribution from the private sector if we stand any chance of hitting our 2 percent target. That is why we are introducing this tax incentive as a further addition to the system of Government support for New Zealand’s innovation framework.

Over time we intend to grow this package, including targeted support for R & D performers, start-ups, and innovative firms. The R & D tax incentive will be one lever amongst many. The R & D tax incentive will have a broad reach across our economy. A wider and more diverse range of firms will be able to access the tax incentive, which will assist and encourage businesses of all sizes and scales to undertake R & D. Tax incentives allow firms to decide what R & D they should do and offer a greater element of certainty to all businesses. The process has been designed to cater for all types of businesses, opening access to those who have either struggled to get support or who have been shut out of the process in the past. We want to establish a system of support that will stand the test of time and give businesses the consistency and confidence they need to succeed.

Obviously, there needs to be a very careful approach to distributing tax incentives. We have learned from what happens overseas and from what we’ve experienced in New Zealand to ensure a high level of trust and confidence in New Zealand’s tax system, and the credit is used to support genuine R & D activity. The bill makes amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Tax Administration Act 1994 to give effect to the policy and for the provisions to apply from a business’ 2019-20 income year. This nests the R & D tax incentive within our current tax system.

The legislation performs two functions: it sets out who is eligible for the R & D tax incentive and how they will claim it, and it also sets out what is eligible and ineligible for the R & D tax incentive. These boundaries are necessary in order to provide as much certainty as possible both for firms undertaking R & D and for the Inland Revenue Department in its administration of the scheme.

The key features of the R & D tax incentive include a credit rate of 15 percent; a $120 million cap on eligible expenditure; a minimum R & D expenditure threshold of just $50,000 per year; the inclusion of State-owned enterprises, industry research cooperatives, levy bodies, and minority-owned more easily across all sectors, including the technology and IT sectors.

Additionally, in the first year, refunds of the tax credit are targeted to research-intensive small and medium enterprises. This will mirror the R & D tax loss cash-out scheme run by Inland Revenue. By the second year of the scheme, we will have a more comprehensive policy in place, but the feedback we have received was that it was important to have some form of refunds in place for year one, particularly for loss-making and pre-profit businesses.

Our modelling shows there is sufficient funding available to meet the forecast cost of the scheme at the 15 percent rate through to the 2021-22 year once growth grants funding is re-prioritised, as grants are phased out by April 2021. This is because a business will not be able to claim for both a growth grant and an R & D tax incentive.

I am pleased that the design that we have proposed in this bill has been well received from stakeholders, following a thorough consultation. We’ve listened to feedback, and we have provided a user-friendly, fit for purpose scheme that will support businesses, from start-ups to established businesses, to undertake more R & D. The R & D tax incentive is a significant addition and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is, That the motion be agreed to. With about 10 seconds remaining, I’m—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Sorry, what was the question, Mr Assistant Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is, That the motion be agreed to. And—

Hon Member: Those of that opinion?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Ha, ha! I don’t think we’ll put the next member through about 10 seconds of a speech. It is now 10 p.m., so this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.