Wednesday, 31 October 2018

WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 31 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—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (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 JACINDA ARDERN: In the same way that this Government is not looking at or considering reintroducing the death penalty, this Government never considered spreading a regional fuel tax. No decision was required, because we never intended to expand it beyond Auckland.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why, then, did Winston Peters confirm yesterday that the decision was made on Wednesday last week—Shane Jones has confirmed it was made then; Phil Twyford has confirmed it was made then; and Michael Wood said it was made then as well?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In, roughly, December, I believe, of last year, in conversation we were discussing the fact that in law we would be ruling out the ability to spread the regional fuel tax. We discussed the intention in my view that it would not go beyond Auckland. I simply made public something that had already been discussed as a Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was Phil Twyford wrong to say on Thursday last week that he knew about “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 … that it would be better to just rule out future regional fuel taxes.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: He also made reference to the conversation the previous year where we discussed that this would not be extended beyond Auckland. Let’s come back to the reason we’re even having this discussion: that member spread false information—false information—around this Government’s plans, and in order to put a line in the sand to point that he was utterly wrong, we made sure that there was no question left in anyone’s mind beyond this term because he was spreading false information.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she really saying that Phil Twyford hadn’t been talking to the mayor and the council at Wellington City Council?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am really saying that we were not and will not spread a regional fuel tax beyond Auckland.

Hon Simon Bridges: Was her Associate Minister of Transport Shane Jones wrong to say that he only found out about the stopping of the regional fuel taxes “When the Prime Minister stood up.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have already said, last year we were having this conversation, and, again, it’s there for all to see in the fact that we put it in law that, for this term of Government, it would not happen. I have simply confirmed that that will be in perpetuity as long as I am Prime Minister.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, what was the Cabinet committee that supposedly this was talked at, and how come no one else can remember the conversation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I come back to the original reason we are even having this discussion. Somehow the member thinks the fact that we put in law that this wouldn’t be happening for three years, now the fact that I’m saying it won’t happen for, say, between nine and 12 years or for however long I am Prime Minister—this is not groundbreaking news. We had already put it in law.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did her Government grant residency to Karel Sroubek?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, to correctly categorise the decision that was made, my understanding is that he already had residency, albeit in an incorrect name.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked why, and that wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the question was certainly answered. It was corrected, but answered.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is her response to the Dominion Post this morning, which said, “So yes, prime minister, we have read between the lines. Our reading of it suggests that Sroubek is a person of poor character, a criminal who cannot be trusted, who arrived here under false pretences. He should be deported. You have got this wrong.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as that member should know, given that when he was in office there were roughly 100 deportations cancelled, from time to time to time Ministers do have information put in front of them that makes for very difficult decisions. I have seen information that would suggest, from the information reports, that they have been in very similar circumstances.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it clear that her Government has prioritised a dangerous criminal’s welfare over public safety, contrary to her statement that any further offending actions by Karel Sroubek “sits with this individual … anything further is off the minister’s conscience and it’s on theirs.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is being made absolutely clear by the Minister. He has put into writing that anything further would mean that he would automatically be deported. On the face of it, of course, it looks like an obvious decision, which demonstrates that from time to time, Ministers in this position do receive additional information. What we have to make sure is that that information that the Minister makes the decision on is consistent and clear, and that’s for officials to ensure that they have provided that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister been told why National let this man in?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have not been privy to any information in that regard.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it the case that since the early 2000s, Karel Sroubek has been back to the Czech Republic, and doesn’t that make any decision by Iain Lees-Galloway ridiculous?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister made the decision based on the information he had at the time, and he is no different to any other Minister of any political persuasion. They have to deal with the information provided to them by officials. If there is information that contradicts the basis on which the Minister made the decision, then that would be for him to go back to the officials and seek further advice. I would have an expectation that he would do that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she and the Minister not know he had been to the Czech Republic since the early 2000s, and is she going to fess up they just got this clearly, badly wrong?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Every Minister does rely on the advice that they are provided by officials, and the Minister is no different in that regard to the last Minister, who overturned 108 deportations. We are all, as Ministers, reliant on the information we are provided. Again, if there is anything that contradicts the information that’s been provided, it is for the Minister to go back to officials, and it would be my expectation he would do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the basis of Mr Bridges’ question, how many times did National let this man back into New Zealand?

Hon Member: It’s out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, no, the question of him coming and going was raised by Mr Bridges.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not have—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was in relation to the National Party. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the National Party.

SPEAKER: Yes, but the—I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question.

Hon Members: Oh!

SPEAKER: Right, who—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the—

SPEAKER: No, no—sit down, please. I want to deal with whoever interjected then.

Rt Hon David Carter: I did. Point of order. I did, Mr Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, I did, as well.

SPEAKER: All right—

Rt Hon David Carter: Because it’s not your job—

SPEAKER: That’s six. Any more?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, OK. It’s worth it.

SPEAKER: That’s 10 supplementary questions that will be taken from the National Party today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the basis of information being given to this House in good faith, has the Prime Minister been appraised of the number of times this man came back into the country, and who was the Government at the time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, members will draw their inference from the fact that we have only been in Government for 12 months. Again, though, I reiterate that a Minister would make a decision based on the information in front of him, and we would all have a fair expectation that if there is information to contradict that, we would expect the Minister to go back to his officials.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: What is New Zealand’s process for extraditing Czech nationals to the Czech Republic, and what stage is the application for extradition of Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik, at?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Czech Republic is able to make an application for extradition of one of their citizens, and any application is made under the Extradition Act 1996. There is a process that usually starts with an application being made through diplomatic channels. It goes to the Minister of Justice in New Zealand. It is an application ultimately determined by the District Court on the grounds of eligibility, and then the final decision on whether or not an extradition is made is made by the Minister of Justice of the day. On the second part of the question, despite the Czech Republic indicating to the New Zealand Government in 2015 that it had an interest in Mr Sroubek, no formal application for extradition has been made.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Parole Board aware of an extradition request?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not responsible for the determinations of the Parole Board.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister speak with the immigration Minister ahead of the Minister approving residency for Karel Sroubek?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for immigration matters. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, I will ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister aware of any controversy around Karel Sroubek before the Minister of Immigration granted residency?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, and there’d be no reason for me to have been so.

Hon Mark Mitchell: If officials advise there is sufficient evidence to support an extradition request, will he extradite Karel Sroubek back to the Czech Republic?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member will be well aware that it would be entirely inappropriate and not in the public interest for me to comment on any case that may be the subject of an extradition application.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What actions, if any, has the Government taken to ensure the sustainability of New Zealand Superannuation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The coalition Government restarted Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in December last year, after nine years of the previous Government refusing to acknowledge future generations by freezing those contributions. Today, in Wellington, there will be a celebration of the super fund turning 15. This is an excellent opportunity to thank those who had the vision to create the fund—in particular, former finance Minister Michael Cullen. The coalition Government recognises the importance of the rationale for the super fund, which is to ensure future generations are not unfairly burdened, by smoothing the cost of an ageing population across generations.

Willow-Jean Prime: How has the New Zealand super fund performed over its 15 years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The super fund has delivered an annualised return of 10.44 percent over the last 15 years. These returns are well ahead of the fund’s reference portfolio benchmark, meaning the fund’s independent managers have been making sound investment decisions for the future benefit of all New Zealanders. The outperformance of the super fund has generated approximately $7.9 billion of additional value to the Crown beyond what would have been earned in the reference portfolio. This shows that the decision to not make contributions to the fund over the last nine years was misguided and is a decision that cost future taxpayers $24.1 billion.

Willow-Jean Prime: How much is the coalition Government investing in the super fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister and I hit the button to resume contributions in December last year. The coalition Government plans to invest $7.7 billion in the super fund between the last financial year and 2021-22. These are important intergenerational investments, which look out beyond 30 years and beyond the electoral cycle. By resuming Government contributions to the super fund, we are helping to protect the Government’s ability to keep the super age at 65 and showing that we care about future generations. The super fund—the Cullen fund—is a great legacy to New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he believe he has considered all relevant factors in deciding to grant residency to Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Shortly before question time today, I became aware that information may exist that appears, on the face of it, to directly contradict information that I used and relied upon to make that decision. I am now taking advice on my options and need to consider the veracity of the new information that has been made available to me.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did all of those factors include submissions from Czech Republic officials about any statements Mr Sroubek had made relevant to them, and, if not, will he be also asking the Czech officials to provide submissions?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given the potential new information that I have just become aware of, I do not intend to make any further comment on the information that I was provided. I need to take advice, and I need to carefully consider the way forward from here.

Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does Housing New Zealand own or lease any rental houses in the entire McLennan development, where the first of 18 KiwiBuild houses have been built; if so, how many?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The previous Government limited State houses to 15 percent of the total number of houses in Housing New Zealand’s McLennan development. This meant that when private developers couldn’t get finance to build market homes in the third stage of the development, Housing New Zealand was left unable to build more State houses and so was stuck with empty land. Fortunately, KiwiBuild enabled Housing New Zealand to build affordable homes and sell them to first-home buyers such as the lovely families that the Prime Minister and I met on Saturday. There are 28 State houses in the McLennan development, with a further 48 State homes to be built, and, in keeping with Housing New Zealand’s new design philosophy, they are visually indistinguishable from the KiwiBuild and market homes.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was put down on notice. I asked for the entire McLennan development, which I understand has around 600 homes, and I’d like the Minister to please address the question, which was how many of those homes are owned or leased by the State.

SPEAKER: Well, he did. He said 28.

Hon Judith Collins: No, he said 28 out of 40 homes—or something; 28 homes entirely. There are 600 homes in that development. He hasn’t answered the question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member said that there were 28 State homes.

Hon Judith Collins: In the entire 600—OK. Is the Minister aware of any security complaints that have been made by Housing New Zealand tenants in McLennan?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it acceptable that Housing New Zealand has refused to allow a tenant in the McLennan development to have her locksmith of choice replace outdoor locks on her property after her home has been burgled three times in two weeks, with the latest burglary defined by police as “aggravated burglary with intent to rape”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That is an operational matter for Housing New Zealand, but I’m very happy to receive the details of that case either from the member’s constituent or the member herself, and I’ll happily look into it.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Minister aware that, following the burglary with intent to rape, Housing New Zealand have still advised the tenant that if she replaces the locking system on her house, Housing New Zealand will not pay for it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Marja Lubeck: What have been the recent trends in Housing New Zealand - owned or leased homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The number of Housing New Zealand homes reduced by more than 6,000 over the last nine years. In fact, public housing declined from 4 percent of the entire national housing stock down to 3.4 percent in 2017, at a time when the general population ballooned and the housing crisis was created. We’ve turned this around. We’ve ended the mass sell-off of State housing that took place under the Government—

SPEAKER: Order! I was waiting for some slightly relevant area that wasn’t an attack on the Opposition and out of order. It appears we’re not going to get one.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What urgent auditing of failing locking systems in the McLennan development has been undertaken by Housing New Zealand since Housing New Zealand was alerted of the fault two weeks ago?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m happy to find out, and I’ll let the member know.

Marja Lubeck: Why is the Government building KiwiBuild homes at McLennan?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we are building KiwiBuild homes at McLennan because a generation of young New Zealanders with good jobs are priced out of homeownership because of the housing crisis that we inherited. The families at McLennan represent many of the areas of the workforce, including nurses, warehouse workers, concrete workers, a medical student, administration workers, engineers, designers, and stay-at-home mums. KiwiBuild aims to increase homeownership, to increase the number of homes that are being built at an affordable price point, and to use Government procurement to drive down build costs. Only 5 percent—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough. Thank you.

Marja Lubeck: Why does the Government need to build both State homes and KiwiBuild?

SPEAKER: Without being retrospective.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The answer is that we need to build both State and KiwiBuild homes to build our way out of the national housing crisis. There are more than 1,200 more public housing tenancies than there were a year ago—1,200 more—and 451 more over the September quarter alone. Budget 2018 funded more than 6,400 additional public houses over four years, and Housing New Zealand is investing $4 billion to build these homes and make sure that the existing State houses are warm and dry.

Question No. 6—Earthquake Commission

6. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Crown guarantee for EQC?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): On Monday, I announced that tomorrow the Earthquake Commission (EQC) will receive $50 million under the Crown guarantee, the first time this has been needed in the 74 years the guarantee has been in place. The Government has long expected the Crown guarantee would be needed and have planned for this, but we have needed to make the payment earlier than originally forecast. The payment to EQC is an operating grant and provides additional financial support to EQC alongside the Natural Disaster Fund and EQC’s reinsurance programme and provides the buffer so that EQC can continue to pay claimants.

Dr Duncan Webb: What has been the cause of the earlier than expected payment under the Crown guarantee?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The key cause is that EQC is now making improved progress to fast-track the settlement of claims, currently resolving a thousand claims per month. In Canterbury, this means people who have been living in damaged homes for almost eight years can move on with their lives. Of the claims that EQC had on hand at 10 May, when I received the report from my independent ministerial adviser, 54 percent have now been resolved.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why is the Crown guarantee important for New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Crown guarantee means that New Zealanders know the Crown is standing behind the EQC’s Natural Disaster Fund and that they can have confidence there is money to settle their claims. Having this level of backing helps keep insurance premiums more affordable for New Zealanders, giving us one of the highest rates of residential insurance in the world, which yesterday’s events remind us that we need.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s policies, statements, and actions in relation to the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and taken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he take responsibility for the prolonged slump in business confidence as demonstrated once more by today’s ANZ own activity index?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a long-run historical trend to the perception survey that the member refers to, and I think he should focus more on real data in the economy—for instance, the words this week of ASB: “So far we have yet to see a smoking gun that would point to actual activity slowing. Indeed quite the opposite has been true.”

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he understand that the consequences of low business confidence take time to flow through to GDP figures, and is he saying that low business confidence will be without consequences?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I look to historical evidence in this regard. When the Labour Party was last at the core of a Government, business pessimism was in place for 82 of 99 months, and across that period there was an average annual growth of 3.2 percent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he considering additional taxes from the Tax Working Group when tax revenue is already forecast to grow by $9.3 billion, or 11 percent, over the next two years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Tax Working Group has been given the task of looking at the overall balance and fairness of the New Zealand tax system. We haven’t made any final decisions on its basis at all. What I would say to the member is that the growth in tax revenue that’s forecast for the next two years is, of course, in fact, lower than it was in the years 2015 to 2017, under the last Government’s watch.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Because growth is lower, I suppose—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paul Goldsmith: My apologies.

SPEAKER: The member is very lucky.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why are good-looking race horses the only ones deserving of tax cuts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we are focused on a better-balanced, fairer tax system, and I note that the member doesn’t mention the $1 billion research and development tax incentive that is going to grow the economy and innovate and provide more productive businesses—something his Government didn’t think was important at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On this issue of perpetual gloom, what did David Hisco, the ANZ chief executive, put down to the success of the ANZ current profit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What he said—I happen to have that with me—was that the continued strength of the economy is down to strong exports, a tourism sector, continued demand for housing, and growth in household incomes. And he said the Government’s investment in major infrastructure across the country and trade achievements are providing jobs and fuelling consumer spending and saving.

Question No. 8—Education

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement regarding discussions on next year’s Budget that “Actually, many of those things we have been talking about through the Budget process address the concerns that teachers have been raising”, and will he commit to delivering on all of his education promises?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, and as I’ve said before in the House to the member repeatedly, I am absolutely committed to delivering on the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne, the coalition agreement, and the confidence and supply agreement.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he confirm that the $6 billion promised over four years for education by the Prime Minister will be delivered, and that it will include special education coordinators to help prevent strikes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member will have to wait and see.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Was the last year of National’s pay increases for secondary teachers 2.7 percent, and if so, why has the Government offered less than 0.5 percent more, despite having billions of dollars in surplus?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The previous Government chose to prioritise tax cuts over pay increases for teachers. The pay increase the member suggests is, from my recollection, correct, in terms of the most recent settlement the National Government reached, which, of course, is better than the 0.6 percent they gave to teachers in at least one of the years that they settled. I can confirm that the percentage increase on offer under this Government is worth more in percentage terms than the increases in all three settlements reached under the previous Government.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with previous reports that say teachers’ low wages are at the centre of shortages; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do agree with that—I was the one that said it—and I was very concerned with the low level of settlement reached under the previous Government. That is one of the reasons why in this Government’s first contract negotiation round, we have put on the table an offer to teachers that is worth more in percentage terms than all of the settlements they reached under the previous Government put together.

Question No. 9—Trade and Export Growth

9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade and export growth?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Today, New Zealand, as the official depository under the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), received notification from Australia, the sixth country to ratify CPTPP. This means the agreement will come into force on 30 December. From day one, our exporters will have greatly improved market access into three of the world’s largest economies: Japan, Canada, and Mexico. The benefits of the agreement will be felt across the entire economy, from north to south and from factory floor to business owner. It’s a momentous day not just for New Zealand but, actually, for world trade. It’s the result of a decade’s work of officials and Ministers on both sides of the House, but I would especially like to thank the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their strong leadership in getting this across the line.

Jamie Strange: Why is the CPTPP important for New Zealand’s economy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The CPTPP has taken on added importance in recent times because the World Trade Organization (WTO) is under threat. As a small exporting nation, New Zealand relies upon the rules-based system for fair trade. In Ottawa last week, we put forward options to address legitimate concerns of the United States and other economies about how the WTO operates. However, New Zealand must also be prepared if it’s weakened, and although our first preference is for a functional and effective WTO, there’s no doubt that CPTPP is relatively more important than it was, and we look forward to its expansion over time to better protect New Zealand’s interests.

Jamie Strange: What else is the Government doing to grow exports?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re progressing important trade negotiations in many parts of the world—with the EU, the UK, the Pacific Alliance, South and Central America, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in Asia, as well as upgrades with China and Singapore. But free-trade agreements aren’t the only key to export growth; New Zealand needs to grow new points of comparative advantage to broaden our export offering to the world and grow productivity. Here it’s our R & D tax credits, the Provincial Growth Fund, the tax review—key elements of the Government’s ambition to grow exports, create jobs, and raise incomes as we move New Zealand’s economy from volume to value.

Point of Order—Supplementary Questions

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Recognising that it is completely at the discretion of the Speaker as to how many supplementary questions might be offered to the Opposition parties in their scrutiny of the Government on any given day—mindful also that we are having a meeting at 4.30 today to try and get some agreement about an orderly process for next week in the House—I’m seeking advice on whether or not it is possible for me to seek leave for there to be three supplementaries granted on questions 10 and 12 today.

SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. I am prepared to allow the unusual arrangement of the National Party using three of their supplementaries from tomorrow, today, if they wish to do that, but I do also want to warn the member that the implicit threat in his request—the implicit threat in his request—meant that I wouldn’t put his original leave.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked was it within the power of Parliament to grant leave for such a request.

SPEAKER: And the answer is it would be, yes, but it’s not going to be granted, because there will be an objection. Right. Does the member want to seek leave in terms of taking three from tomorrow?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.

SPEAKER: No, you don’t. OK, question number—

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve just been sitting contemplating this matter, Mr Speaker. I fully understand why you took the supplementaries from the Opposition, and it is absolutely at your discretion and I certainly wouldn’t wish to challenge that. I do think that it’s challenging—having sat on that side of the House for nine years, it is challenging when the Opposition loses a significant number of supplementary questions for them to do the job which they do have to do, which is to hold the Government to account. Ministers spend time preparing to come down to answer questions. It’s disappointing for us when we don’t get a chance to answer the Opposition’s questions, and I wonder whether we might be able to consider some alternative sanctions, if you like, than taking away the Opposition’s supplementary questions in cases like that, because I’m not sure that the broader public interest of the Opposition doing their job to hold the Government to account is served well when question time, effectively, gets significantly truncated.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m willing to consider, at some stage, suggestions as to alternative methods, but I do recall the last comment made by Mr Brownlee, which resulted in the last set of questions being withdrawn, and that was that as far as he was concerned, it was worth it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may help the House, in light of what has been said by Mr Hipkins—if the motion was put it would not be opposed. That’s my belief. So Mr Brownlee should be invited to do that. After all, I haven’t had a question for seven weeks.

Hon Simon Bridges: Cos you’re doing nothing.

SPEAKER: Order! That doesn’t help either, Mr Bridges. I think I’ve made it clear originally that in fact if leave was sought it would be opposed, Mr Peters, by me. Thank you.

Question No. 10—Social Development

SPEAKER: I will warn that I’ve been informed that it will be a longer than normal answer to this.

10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What minimum wage jobs, if any, are not suitable for the 129,643 people currently on the Jobseeker Support benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Firstly, can I acknowledge that this Government recognises the importance of having a minimum wage, and moved quickly to lift that minimum wage within the first 100 days in office to $16.50 per hour. In reference to jobseeker beneficiaries, when a person’s skill level, work and life experience, amongst other things, align with a minimum wage job on offer, then it is absolutely appropriate for the person to be supported into that relevant job. If people find a job that they like or love that pays minimum wage, then that’s great. What needs to be noted is that job seekers come with varying levels of skills, qualifications, and experience. Each person needs to be supported to find work that is appropriate to their skill level and expertise—into work that is meaningful to them. There are numerous examples of where this didn’t happen under the previous Government’s target to reduce long-term welfare dependency, including where a former female deputy principal was being encouraged via a Ministry of Social Development contracted service to take up work in a fast-food restaurant. This case was covered by Stuff. It is an example where the minimum wage job was not suitable for the job seeker. This Government is committed to maximising people’s potential and supporting people into sustainable and meaningful employment, not just pushing people off benefit with no regard for whether they are better off.

Question No. 11—Biosecurity

11. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made on work to improve the country’s animal tracing system?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Yesterday, I announced that we’re ramping up work to strengthen New Zealand’s animal tracing system, National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT), which plays a vital part in protecting our economic base and unique way of life. Yesterday, at a meeting of farming leaders and industry stakeholders, the Ministry for Primary Industries launched a public consultation that asks farmers who use NAIT every day to tell us what will make the system both good for business and effective for biosecurity. We want to improve the use of data, tighten rules around the handling of untagged animals, and align penalties with our other Acts to reflect the seriousness of non-compliance with NAIT.

Kieran McAnulty: How does this latest effort to fix NAIT fit alongside other work the Minister is overseeing to improve the animal tracing system?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Operational changes have been made to NAIT by management agency Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand after I demanded the release of a year-overdue report on the NAIT system. Urgent law changes to fix the NAIT Act of 2012 have been introduced to bring its search and inspection powers in line with other Acts, such as the wine and fisheries Acts, to ensure compliance officers can do their job. Hundreds of warning letters have been sent to those not meeting the rules, and thousands of farmers are also upping their game and treating their NAIT obligations with the respect they deserve. We took action and we are seeing the results.

Kieran McAnulty: Why has he made this latest announcement now?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We are currently on track to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. We now have more properties back farming than are infected. Manawatū and Wairarapa are free of Mycoplasma bovis once again. We said that when we had a handle on the disease we would look to fix the NAIT system. This is what we are doing.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: When was he first made aware of the communications blind spot at the Te Korowai unit in Upper Hutt, where violent criminals and sex offenders are placed?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I was made aware at the outset. Corrections have always been aware of the black spot, and that is why we’ve never relied on GPS monitoring for inside that facility. At Te Korowai we provide physical onsite staffing with 24/7 line-of-sight monitoring by security staff, corrections staff, and CCTV cameras. When offenders leave, they are tracked by their ankle bracelets and, at times, accompanied by an officer. To be clear, the GPS black spot is contained to the residence; it does not affect the ability of corrections to monitor them when they leave the gates.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could the Minister please clarify what “outset” means. Does that mean beginning, does it mean—what date that was, perhaps?

SPEAKER: It would be useful for the Minister to—

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The first two residents were received on Monday, 20 August, and consultation with the community began on 14 August. It was around that time that I was first made aware.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that there is only one entrance and exit from the facility, and that it is staffed?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That’s correct. During the day there are three staff members inside the facility and one around the perimeter. There is only one entry and exit point.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for: the second reading of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill; the third reading of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill; the third readings of the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill; and the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Another week in this Government, and another shambles.

Hon Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, he laughs. Last week, it was the regional fuel tax flip-flop. We’ve still got no idea what’s happened. Was it last week? Was it some other week? We’ve got no idea, and Phil Twyford doesn’t either.

This week: “How about we grant a gangster, fraudster, drug-peddling crook residency in this country? And then, to top it off, why don’t we flip-flop on it?”, because that’s what we’ve seen from the Government today. I’ll tell you what really gets me—[Interruption] Oh, they’re angry; they know they’ve got it wrong. That’s why Iain Lees-Galloway was hiding behind a pillar from the media this afternoon. That’s why he was hiding. What really gets me about this decision is that there are thousands of great people throughout this country, families from early childhood education through teaching through the trades—thousands of them—who work hard, who pay their taxes, and who love their families, and they’re not getting residency from Iain Lees-Galloway. They’re working. They’re not smuggling drugs, they’re not hanging out with Hell’s Angels, and there’s nothing for them, and yet this guy who’s done all that—Iain Lees-Galloway inexplicably granted them residency. I’ve got a question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why’d you let him in?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: You’ll get your turn, and I hope, Mr Peters, that you speak about Karel Sroubek. I hope you give us five minutes on him. He knows how embarrassing this is. He knows how wrong this decision is, how shabby what his Government has done is. But I’ve got a question for the Prime Minister, and it’s simply this: how on earth did this happen? Iain Lees-Galloway, I think I know—he didn’t do the work. He did not do the work. It was an incompetent and naive decision from this Government, like so many we’ve seen before.

Here’s what we know: his basic view is that, well, he might be harmed when he goes back to the Czech Republic. Well, that’s preposterous given the state of the Czech Republic today: a First World, civilized country under the rule of law. But it’s worse than that: he did go back. He went back to the Czech Republic. He was so scared about what happened that he went back.

Hon Phil Twyford: They’ve given up.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, Phil Twyford says “No, no, no—we still got it right.” Is that what he’s saying? He thinks they got it right? Then why’d Iain Lees-Galloway look so bad? He looked like he’d had some online bullying from Phil Twyford. That’s what I think happened, because they know how incompetent and naive that decision was.

And there are no excuses. Iain Lees-Galloway should have known. He should’ve had as his priority New Zealanders being safe. It’s pretty simple, actually. Nothing’s changed. He should’ve had all the facts. He’s made a terrible decision. Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister: Ministers make and have to make big calls in areas like this, but they also have to dot the i’s, they have to cross the t’s, they have to look officials in the eyes, and they have to ask the hard questions. The reality is Iain Lees-Galloway got a briefing, he spent precisely eight minutes on it, and he signed it, and in doing so, he made New Zealanders less safe.

I say to Chris Hipkins, who’s barracking over there—who’s gone quiet now because he knows, actually, how shameful the decision is that Iain Lees-Galloway’s made. I say to him: you stick up for those civil servants who provided advice. Don’t you let Jacinda Ardern or Iain Lees-Galloway throw the civil servants under the bus for an incompetent, naive decision from Iain Lees-Galloway.

On this side of the House, we’re ready to govern. We’re experienced, we know what we’re doing, and unlike that side of the House, who’s laughing while a drug-dealing gangster is out on the streets, we’ll keep New Zealanders safe.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I want to talk about a year in Government in which we have built the foundations of fixing the housing crisis that the National Party created and denied at the same time. I am proud to be in a Government that has built the very first KiwiBuild homes, and the first-home buyers moved into those homes on the weekend. I’m proud that after a decade of declining rates of homeownership under the former National Government, 44,000 New Zealanders have hope again and have registered on the KiwiBuild website so that they can have a crack at homeownership. I’m proud that we’re now building—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to ask staff to have a look at the member’s mike, but in the interim I’ll just ask him to swap places with the Hon Chris Hipkins just in case there was a mike failure. I’ve got to admit not noticing that the member’s mike was off, but some members up the back are having trouble hearing him.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: OK. I might have broken the mike, Mr Speaker, so—

SPEAKER: And, no, you can’t start again.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m proud of the fact that this Government is now building over 9,000 KiwiBuild homes on Government-owned land. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve rescued and sped up dozens of developments that weren’t happening under the old policy settings and now they are. I’m proud of the fact that there are 1,200 extra families who have a public housing tenancy in a year in Government—451 more families in the last quarter alone—and we’re building 6,400 extra State and community houses over the next four years. Compare that to nine years of denial and no action, of falling homeownership rates, and a Government under whom sleeping in your car became a mainstream way of life. Nine years in which the housing crisis was created and denied.

While we’ve been building houses, the foundations of Simon Bridges’ leadership have been crumbling. He hasn’t been able to rein in Judith Collins. First, with Judith Collins, it was that France was changing their laws on paedophilia. She called on the Prime Minister to denounce something that hadn’t even happened, and when she was called out about this, she doubled down. And we saw the same thing yesterday where Judith Collins incited right-wing trolls on Twitter to harass and victimise a young Kiwi couple who had done nothing more than buy their first home—absolutely outrageous. You know what I’ve noticed—you know what I’ve noticed? Judith Collins sets the policy line for the National Party on Twitter before Simon Bridges has even had advice from David Farrar’s focus groups. He can’t criticise her; he won’t criticise her, because he’s terrified that she wants his job. That’s the truth.

I want to talk about a year in which the coalition Government brought compassion back to housing in New Zealand. We’ve set out on the road to fix the national housing crisis. Now, KiwiBuild is ramping up. I want to be very clear about what KiwiBuild is and what it’s not. It’s a homeownership scheme. It’s about promoting homeownership and giving an opportunity to middle New Zealand, who were squeezed intolerably under the policies of the last National Government. Housing became incredibly unaffordable in our country’s biggest city—

Hon Maggie Barry: Oh, this is boring.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Maggie Barry finds this boring. She finds it boring that middle-class families in New Zealand cannot afford a chance at homeownership. Yeah, that’s very boring, Maggie! It’s very boring—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —for people like you, but for middle New Zealand and young people all over this country, they just are desperately wanting a Government who will give them a chance. Under National’s policies, families who earned between $80,000 and $180,000 suffered the biggest drop in homeownership over 10 years. That is middle New Zealand. Those are the people that members on that side of the House want to victimise. They don’t think they deserve a break.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): For my seven years in this Parliament, this is the first week that I’ve seen the country truly become unified behind an issue.

Kieran McAnulty: Behind Simon Bridges.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: If the members opposite are going to make comments, I’m quite happy to put them on the Hansard today. This is in relation to Karel Sroubek. When I say the country became unified, I was shocked and surprised when I put out my first press release in relation to this with my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse. We had a huge response from the general public. We had retired immigration officers, we had retired police officers that were involved in the case that were very familiar with the case, and we had people that were very close to both court cases that this guy was involved with. Every single Kiwi that touched this case, without exception, said that they didn’t accept the sob story that was put up about the fact that he was in danger if he returned to the Czech Republic. They thought that his integrity and his character was in serious question, and we had a Parole Board finding, recently, saying that he is manifestly untruthful, that he uses long-winded answers, and that, actually, he’s not safe to be returned to the community.

So when we raised this issue and we came to the Minister of Immigration and we said “How did you come to this decision?”, this is the answer we got: “Nothing to see here. We’ll not be coming in front of the New Zealand public. We’ll not be explaining why we made this decision.”

Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, “Read between the lines.”, it was.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Then we had from the Prime Minister “Read between the lines.” That was the response back to the country: “Read between the lines.”

There appear to be only three people in New Zealand—and maybe there’s someone else in the Government; I would be very happy to hear from you if you support the decision that the immigration Minister has made—that accepted Karel Sroubek’s explanation that he wasn’t safe back in the Czech Republic. The three people were the judge that heard the hearing around him stealing someone’s identity and a false passport to actually get into New Zealand and get his original visa, and for some reason—we don’t know why—he gave him a very, very light sentence and gave him another chance. The only other two people that accept his story appear to be the Minister of Immigration and the Prime Minister. Every single person that has touched this case that has had anything to do with Karel Sroubek has not accepted his lies, has said that he’s been untruthful, and has not accepted his story in terms of is he unsafe being returned to the Czech Republic. Actually, when he comes out of jail, this is the first real chance that the Minister has had to deport him. He should just go back to the Czech Republic.

I want to debunk one of the issues that it seems they’ve been trying to get up through the media, and that is that he’s some type of police informant—that he’s somehow helping law enforcement agencies. I can tell you right now from my own experience in my own policing career—and before I went into the dog section, I was involved in the undercover programme. I was trained in electronic monitoring. In fact, my best friend that I went through Police College with ran the undercover programme in Auckland. I can tell you now that we would never in a million years, as a country, trade our New Zealand residency for any information that might be passed to assist an investigation. I can tell you right now and be 100 percent confident that this guy’s never helped in any police investigation. He’s never been an informant, and so I want to debunk and put that rumour to bed right now.

This is a guy that’s been involved in criminal activity and criminal gangs in the Czech Republic. He’s stolen an identity to get away from there because he has been committing crimes—and of course the police are after him. This is a world-class police service. It’s not a Russian gulag, third-country status; this is a country that’s part of the OECD, part of the EU, and is a NATO country.

They’re wealthier than us. They’ve got a world-class justice system and police service. He stole an identity to get away because he is wanted by the police because he’s committing crimes. He decided to come to New Zealand, where he’s become associated with gang members, and he’s embarked again on organised crime—importing drugs into this country. I don’t know how long he’s been doing that. It appears he’s had a supply chain open for 10 years. He’s been importing drugs from the Czech Republic.

He’s about to come out and can be deported, and the Minister—and he still hasn’t backed down, although he’s indicated, now, he’s got new information. Of course he has—it was obvious. He was naive in his decision making. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to contribute to the general debate. I would like to acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, the Hon Phil Twyford, and commend him on the tremendous amount of work that he has put into the area of housing.

We came into Government 12 months ago. We were faced with many challenges, and housing is one of those challenges that we faced. We were faced, on the lower end, with the highest rate of homelessness when compared to other OECD countries, and when we came in, in terms of the housing portfolio, the honourable Minister of housing has several things that he’s doing.

One of the things that the right honourable Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the Minister of housing announced in May of this year was an additional $100 million to house those who are homeless, to ensure that there are more housing places for those who are needing emergency housing and transitional housing, and for those who are needing to be housed in what we call Housing First. There are so many of our folks who are homeless who also have mental health issues or addiction issues, and they need to be housed first and to have all the other social services surrounding them.

One of the things also that we’re facing is we’re told by a report by Counties Manukau District Health Board that in South Auckland alone, in the area that they serve, there are over 110,000 people who are living in overcrowded conditions. Now, the housing crisis was one that took nine years to develop, and it was not developed under our Government. It took more than nine years to develop—the housing crisis—and it will definitely take more than 12 months to address.

One of the things that I’m really proud of over the weekend, which is historic for our coalition Government, was when we went to Papakura and we were seeing some of the first families go into a KiwiBuild home, because when we’re addressing housing, not only are we looking at addressing homelessness but we’re also ensuring that we are assisting families to get into affordable housing. When you see families who, say, only 10 or 20 years ago would have been able to afford a mortgage, families who are IT workers, IT developers, teachers, those who are—one of the ladies, who is a doctor with a partner who is in marketing, told us that they only have a hope of owning a home now because they feel like they’ve won the lottery with KiwiBuild. Now, what is wrong with that picture?

The fact is that in Aotearoa, over just a short period of time, we have professional families who are not able to get into homeownership. That is absolutely wrong. We have the largest city, Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—where homeownership is over a million dollars.

What I can’t understand is the fact that as a Government, we’ve come in, whereas the Opposition now, the previous National Government—when they were in Government and we were in Opposition, we were making speeches from that side of the House saying that there is a national housing crisis. So many of the folk that were on this side of the House denied, denied, and denied that a housing crisis even existed. Let’s not forget that for so long, who was in Government over those last nine years and denied that there was even a housing crisis?

I go back to around about April or May of 2016, where in South Auckland and Ōtara, we were covering families that were living in cars and living in garages at the time—families that we are seeing right across Aotearoa New Zealand now. Even then, when we showed families who were living in their cars, and when we went to parks and there were half of those people who were living in cars and in parks who were working full-time, the people that were on this side of the House at that time still denied that we had an issue with housing.

We’ve come in as a Government and we’re saying that we’ll build more houses. Yes, we’re building more State houses because when we do not have enough houses, we build houses to make sure that people are housed. The National Government, when they were in Government, they sold off State houses—sold off over 6,000 State houses. We are building 6,400 State houses because we need to house our families who need to be housed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m a firm believer that the first and foremost duty of a Government is to protect the people. Now, we can muck up the small things, we can have 160-odd working groups, but, fundamentally and foremost, we protect them from tyranny, from enemies, and from harm, and in that fundamental duty, the Government, and its Minister of Immigration, Iain Lees-Galloway, have manifestly failed in that duty by allowing a fraudster, a gangster, and a convicted drug dealer to remain in New Zealand.

Now, let’s just remind ourselves of the track record of this person. This is a person who has admitted to identity theft, who was found guilty of immigration fraud, who was charged with aggravated robbery and got off on a technicality, who is known to associate with Hell’s Angels, who was convicted of drug importation—Ecstasy—and jailed for six years, subject to police forfeiture applications, and who was refused parole for another year because of his behaviour in jail. And what is the consequence of that? In consequence of that, Iain Lees-Galloway allows this fellow to stay for ever. He tells us that that he does so under “strict conditions”—that the “Do not commit a crime.” condition is, somehow, something strict. That’s what we expect of everybody.

In fact, the conditions laid out by the Minister of Immigration in his letter of 19 September are weaker conditions, not stronger conditions, than every other new resident. Here’s why. He has made a decision which is—and I quote the letter—to “then grant you a resident visa under section 72(3) of the Act”. That is, essentially, the first day on which this fellow will be legitimately resident in New Zealand and the Immigration Act requires him not to commit any serious crimes for 10 years from that date, and yet the conditions the Minister lays out say he doesn’t have to do that for longer than five years from the date of his release from prison, so you could say six is a maximum. He’s actually reduced the obligation, not increased it, and we ask why.

Please explain, Minister, because there are plenty of facts on the public record. The fact that the individual has committed serious offences is on the public record. The fact that he was rendered liable for deportation—it’s a matter of record. The fact that the Minister has cancelled that deportation liability is a matter of record. The widespread public concern is a matter of public record. So what’s not in the public record is why the Minister made the decision he made.

He refers to “longstanding conventions” that somehow the privacy of this individual trumps the public’s right to be safe and to know why he made that decision, and that is a scandalous action or inaction on the part of this Minister—who in Opposition was a lion. Remember, he said of other cases, “That’s the problem with the use of ministerial discretion. It’s not transparent.” He then said, “I think every news outlet wants nothing more than for the Government rep to front up. There’s a wall of silence.” He was a lion in Opposition; now he has the opportunity to show leadership in a matter of great public concern, and he folds and goes quiet and hides behind pillars and equivocates—an outrageous response to a very important public issue.

What makes us so angry about this is the fact that right now there has been a massive drop under this Government in the number of visas being granted for residence. From June 2017 to June 2018, there was a drop of nearly a quarter—despite increasing demand for skills—for partnership visas. The parent category visa is closed—and let me tell you there’ll be another speech next week on this case and the parent category visa. Stand by for that. And yet this guy somehow is worthy of the Government’s largesse, their generosity.

Every single one of my colleagues on the side of the House, and probably most on the other, are dealing with cases where they want to get people temporary or permanent residence in order to be able to contribute meaningfully to New Zealand. Harrie and Pawan Chander down on the Taieri Plains—a great farming family; she’s a registered nurse. The Minister hasn’t even changed the policy to allow them to stay that the previous Cabinet had approved. There are hundreds—thousands—around the country, and the public and this House have a right to know why this man’s rights trump their right to stay and our right to know. I say this: somebody’s got to go. It’s either Mr Sroubek or it’s Mr Lees-Galloway.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. First, if the House would indulge me, I want to say happy birthday to my father, who would have turned 65 today had he still been alive. I think that’s rather timely, given today we celebrate 15 years of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, a particular fund that would see the future security of our country and those retirees of the future supported in whatever they might choose to do. I just wanted to acknowledge that today.

I also wanted to acknowledge that next week will mark the 100-year commemoration of the vision Rātana had with the spirit, which led to the Rātana movement. We, on this side of the House in particular, know that the strength of the relationship between the Rātana movement and the Labour Party has been strong over many years, and I’m sure as people across this country descend upon the pā of Rātana next week, I want to wish them all safe travels, enjoy the commemorations of Rātana’s vision with the spirit, and I say to them all that I hope to see them next week.

Can I also mention the earthquake yesterday. While Mr Ngaro might think it was him who brought down the House, I want to acknowledge all of the people out there who were affected by the earthquake, and also the good work of the Minister of Civil Defence, the Hon Kris Faafoi, to make sure that members of this House, and indeed the general public, are well-equipped for whatever might happen in the circumstances of a natural disaster. The earthquake did shake various parts and many parts of this particular country, and I know that the Minister, the Hon Kris Faafoi, is working really hard—

Chris Bishop: Yeah, great Minister.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —to make sure that we have a civil defence system—

Chris Bishop: Should be in the Cabinet.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —that will be there to support our people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Chris Bishop: Should be in the Cabinet.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Tedious repetition.

Hon PEENI HENARE: I’m often thinking of The Three Little Pigs, and while it might be apparent—and that’s not because I like pork—that the National house is, clearly, built on sand, it’s clear from the speeches from this side of the House today that the KiwiBuild programme is solidly built on rock. We are setting the country up for success into the future.

Now, we’ve had to swallow some dead rats. One is acknowledging that there is a housing crisis in this country. Some of the unintended consequences of a housing crisis in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, in particular, are a teacher shortage, a shortage of health professionals to serve the communities of Tāmaki Makaurau, and a shortage of workers in Tāmaki Makaurau, who are forced out of the city because they simply can’t afford to live there because of high rents. They can’t afford to purchase a house there to raise their families. These are the unintended consequences of a housing crisis—a housing crisis that this Government inherited.

Well, I’m proud. I’m proud that in the past few days, this side of the House has got on with it. The announcement of KiwiBuild homes to families in Tāmaki Makaurau and Papakura is monumental.

I can say I’ve spoken to the young couple who, sadly, have been mistreated by a member on the other side of the House. They have been mistreated and—I’ll say the word—cyber-bullied, and I think that behaviour is disgusting. I’ve spoken to the couple. While they are hurt, they are still extremely happy. They are extremely happy because they have the opportunity to own a home—extremely happy because they have the opportunity to raise a family in Tāmaki Makaurau in a warm, dry, safe home—and I’m happy for them, too. I am also excited, not just for that family but for the many families in Tāmaki Makaurau and, indeed, across the country who will have the opportunity to tap in to the KiwiBuild programme, a strong programme that will set this country up well into the future.

At the beginning of this speech, I talked about 15 years of the Superannuation Fund. I want to acknowledge the good work of Sir Michael Cullen in establishing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and, of course, this Government for reinstating contributions to the Superannuation Fund to secure the security of future retirees in this country. I want to acknowledge all of the people who made sure that the Superannuation Fund is what it is today: a strong contributor and a strong leader in this country on economic standing to make sure that one and all and, in particular, my generation, as we get a little bit older—although I will say that I am far from retiring. But when we grow up and when we get older, we can look forward to a safe and secure retirement.

In a time when our Prime Minister talks about a different way of Government, one who serves with love and empathy, I want to put on the record my disgust at the member opposite who has belittled the family who received a KiwiBuild home.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): The last time I spoke in the House, the House did rock and it did shake. It came also too from a passionate speech that I made outside to a rally to which a number of people came along to talk about the foundation of this place—that was on 26 May 1854. The very first debate in this House was about whether Parliament should start off with a prayer. I won’t go into deliberating that, but I wanted to say that for the 2,500 people who were out there, they were chanting and they were also too wanting to ensure that their voice was heard in this place as well.

My debate, and my speech, takes me back to 1982. One of my favourite singers at that time was actually George Benson, and he wrote a song, a love ballad, called “The Greatest Love of All”. But, as good as George Benson was both on the guitar and in song, actually it was Whitney Houston who made the song very famous. It simply said this in the lyrics of the song:

I believe the children are our future.

Teach them well and let them lead the way.

We’ve had the Hon Tracey Martin, who got up at a conference actually just yesterday. I need to commend her because as she stood, she said this: “Part of the vision and the desire of this current coalition Government”—this Labour-led Government—“is to ensure that the Government will reform and transform the care and support of children of Oranga Tamariki in New Zealand.” I think I’m paraphrasing a bit, but the intent was right. That’s actually the intent of what was talked about. But I want to say this: the word “Oranga” means “well-being”. “Tamariki” actually means not just “children” but is to remind us of the descendancy of the greatness in which children come from. I know that that’s the intent.

But one has to say this: when one thinks about those words—when we say we believe the children are our future—why is it that a 12-year-old boy from Hastings who was last month charged with aggravated assault escaped the agency’s care three times in one week? If we say that we believe the children are our future, why is it that a 14-year-old boy with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder was left to roam Dunedin whilst staying in a hotel and was not given the conditions of medication or care, to the point where he ended up sleeping in a picture theatre? If we turn around in this place, saying “Oranga Tamariki, the children are our future.”, then why is it that a care agency that is now commissioned to play a role to transform and care for children is not doing its job?

Now, one will turn around and say, from the opposite side, “Well, actually, it was the previous Government.” There’s an old saying that says “Now the shoe is on the other foot”. Now, we know what that means—in other words, it’s the reverse effect. I’m not going to leave it here, because part of our culture means I won’t do that—just to show and to make the point. In other words, it’s been one year now since that Government has been in power. What it means is this: now the shoe is on the other foot, we don’t want to hear their excuses of saying “What we inherited” or “What we are planning to do”; we want to know what you are doing. Therefore, here’s the reality: if you’re going to turn up and tell the community that the children are our future, then put your actions into words that make a difference.

Here’s what the community is saying: when we have got a mother who turns around and wants to read the Oranga Tamariki vision statement that’s here—and I’ll read it out so she can hear it back at home—this is what Oranga Tamariki says: “We put tamariki first. We will challenge when things aren’t right for the child.”, then why is it that this mother of the 12-year-old child went to Oranga Tamariki and asked them for help, and here’s what they said to her: “By the way, your child is not sad enough, not bad enough, or not mad enough.” What sort of care is that for the whānau? What sort of support is that to wrap around this child?

When we say that children are our future, why is it that of the 6,350 children in care, the health report from the Ministry of Health has indicated that almost 50 percent of them will have some form, over a spectrum, of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder? So if that’s the concern, then we know through the Official Information Act that the Minister actually had that report submitted to her for consideration. I know and I’m sure she’s probably going to take the opportunity to speak to that—and I hope she does—to answer these questions. In the report that was actually before the Minister in February of this year, it talked about these very issues. It talked about the concerns in which there are gaps in the system. There is a combination of health needs that makes these children vulnerable to poor outcomes.

I have to say this: now the responsibility—the shoe—is on the other foot. I want to encourage this community. I actually very much respect the Minister, but as the Minister knows, what I’m putting forward here is what the community are saying. This is not politicising; this is about being an advocate for the things that are important. When mothers, when care professionals, when counsellors, and when social workers turn around and say “Put your money where your mouth is if you believe that children are our future.”, then show it with your actions, not just your words.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to talk about the elephant in the room. Often, it’s not really an elephant. It can feel like a black dog that follows one around, sucking the oxygen out of the air, slowing down time or fast-forwarding the clock at such a pace that everything feels like it is going at lightning speed around your ears, blurring shapes and out of grasp. It can bring paralysis, self-doubt, and cold sweats. You can feel it in your head, but you cannot easily lift the lid and show it to other people, let alone find the words.

In this House, we don’t often talk about the breadth and depth and human face of mental health. We talk about statistics and we talk about data. Mental ill health, however, disproportionately affects our poorest, our most vulnerable, and our young people. But it directly or indirectly touches all of our lives—everybody in this country, everybody in this room. We don’t really talk about it, though. We don’t talk about the messy complexity and nuance. It makes us uncomfortable. We don’t tackle it head on, because we don’t have all of the answers. No one does. We don’t like to talk about it because it reminds us that the structures organising our society and, indeed, our economy are hurting our people, and radical change is required to fix things. And that’s scary too.

This week we’ve received media reports of a devastating loss of six lives in Porirua. My love and deepest sympathies go out to the whānau, friends, community, the people of Porirua and across Aotearoa New Zealand whose hearts are breaking. Today, we have also heard that there has been a 25 percent increase in tertiary students accessing university counselling services in the past two years. One in four adults in New Zealand will be diagnosed with a mental health issue in their lives, but many more will struggle with it and never receive a formal diagnosis. These are the people and communities whose suffering is unconscionable—people and communities who need our support.

These people are not broken. It is our systems and the society of those systems that govern us that are. It’s not empty political rhetoric. That’s what the mounting literature and studies tell us—that the causes of mental illness are from the same thing. The majority of mental health issues are triggered by environmental causes, and even those with pre-existing conditions, with chemical imbalances, have those conditions exacerbated by environmental factors, and, surprisingly, those environmental factors are not as complicated as we sometimes may like to think. We know who gets sick: people who are isolated; those who are under financial pressure, in insecure employment, and abusive relationships; those who are living in transient or substandard housing; and people without a home; people who feel displaced, who grapple for identity, or who cannot see a safe and secure future in their grasp. These are the people who are most likely to experience mental illness.

I said earlier that we don’t often talk about mental illness in this House, but the things that we do talk about—housing, the economy, drugs, healthcare, crime, welfare, education, the corrections system—all are conversations about mental health, because these are the fundamental drivers of mental ill health and the epidemic in our community. The conditions for the epidemics and the anxiety and depression have been manufactured here inside this political system because political decisions have made that environment, but we don’t easily acknowledge that. Usually, we talk about individual resilience. Our education system removes difficult children from their classrooms. Our health system is primed to medicalise. This makes us more comfortable than confronting decades of decline in State services and community and the rise of competition and isolation and inequality.

Mental illness is messy and complex. There are no simple solutions. Words cannot do justice for those who’ve lost a loved one. Words alone will never do justice. Action is necessary, and it is urgent. In November this year, this House will receive recommendations from a wide-ranging mental health and addiction inquiry. That will present us with a road map. I am calling out to colleagues across this House to work together to implement those findings to improve New Zealanders’ well-being. It’s our job.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a big happy Halloween to you and to the House, all right? Nobody’s mentioned that so far. The kids around the country will be getting all dressed up. Some of you lot don’t have to get dressed up; you’re already scary enough, all right. Mr Speaker, you’re well-dressed up, sir, and you do look a little bit scary in that outfit, I have to say. We have had a little bit of Halloween over the last nine years of the previous Government, in actual fact—nine years of trick or treating but without the treating, just trickery. In fact, the last 12 months have been quite refreshing because we have had a lot of treating, and I’m going to talk about that as part of my contribution.

There’s a lot of doom and gloom over that side, but we are quite buoyant on the direction that we’re taking, this Government. The trickery I talk of is the previous Government talking about their strong economic leadership. Well, what absolute trickery that is, because in the nine years that they were in Government, they only managed one—just one—Budget surplus. How appalling is that for people that actually say that they can actually deliver strong economic outcomes?

They talk about looking after New Zealanders, but in their term of Government they managed to give the top 10 percent, the very wealthy in our country, a $440 million payback. It worked out to be about $440 million that the former Government gave back to their rich mates—not looking after the most vulnerable. I’ll talk about what we have got that we’re working on, that we’re actually implementing, and that we’ve got well and truly under way.

That’s not to mention the $24 million that that previous Government wasted on a flag referendum that was a vanity project for their leader, that the entire country railed against and didn’t want to take any part of. What about the $11 million that that previous Government threw to Saudi sheep farmers to build an abattoir so we could send all of our livestock over there, creating jobs in the Middle East and taking away opportunities for our Kiwis to get real jobs? That’s the trickery that we saw for nine years.

But wait—but wait, there’s more. I actually think they’ve given up. I think the people over there have given up. They want to go home. Last night, we were in the House and we had three bills on the Order Paper, and it was the committee stage for three of those bills, which would normally take up enough time. Now, we went through nearly 18.5 hours’ worth of committee stage in 4½ hours flat, because they didn’t want to take calls. Their lips were down, their heads were down—I’ve never seen such a sorry sight in all my life.

Chris Bishop: Where were you, Clayton?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Oh, the man down the back, Mr Bishop, pipes up. What was it—it was “tedious repetition”, I think, that you were just referred to as, by the Speaker. I just about commended you, sir. I wanted to take a point of order just to thank you for that, because I’d been thinking the very same thing: tedious.

SPEAKER: Order! No. I’m going to take it off the member’s time. I just want to warn people that it is a five-minute speech. I hit the wrong button on the clock, so those people who think it’s been a long time, or it’s going to be a long time—it’s not going to be that much longer. But the member will not refer to my rulings after they’ve been made.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take that on board, but I don’t know what time I’ve got left. Can you give me some indication?

SPEAKER: The member just did it again.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I was just looking at the time. Sir, thank you. So in the time that I have got left, I’ll talk about the wins that we’ve had, because time is going fast and the people in New Zealand want to know what sorts of things we’ve done. We’ve given free GP visits for under-14-year-olds—thank you very much, New Zealand. Thank you very much—you’re welcome. We’ve increased research and development to $1 billion, and we’ve taken it from 12.5 percent to 15 percent—that’s right. What about the $1 billion for our Provincial Growth Fund in the last 12 months that we’re extending to $3 billion over three years.

All this and a lot more, and we’ve still got a surplus in our first 12 months. So people back home are absolutely, outstandingly pleased that we’ve got 1,800 new police on their way, coming up; we’ve got a billion-tree programme on its way—

Hon Peeni Henare: One billion trees.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: One billion trees, that’s right. We’ve got a commitment to increase police numbers, which I’ve talked about. We’ve got $1 billion going into foreign affairs to open up new embassies and to help out those countries and to develop trade and create wealth opportunities for our Government and for this country moving forward. We’re cracking down—there’s a $34 million funding boost into Immigration New Zealand, and we’ve doubled the Limited Service Volunteers from 800 to 1,600.

I can keep going on. It goes on and on. We’re enhancing defence force capabilities with our great Minister Ron Mark down here in front of me—$367.7 million over four years, and $42.3 million in capital funding for modernisation. Not to mention the time that I spent in Opposition battling just to get some extra dollars and funding from the Hon Maggie Barry over here, who underfunded—[Time expired]

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to be the 10th speaker today. I want to begin my contribution today—I’m not going to sing the waiata, but I’m going say the waiata, because that is what I believe this coalition Government is all about. It’s:

Te aroha,

Te whakapono,

Me te rangimārie,

Tātou tātou e.

[It’s the love, the faith, and the peace, all of us united.]

Love, hope, and peace for us all.

On 16 September, I was at the Auckland University of Technology facility in Auckland, where the Prime Minister spoke about our plan for New Zealand as a coalition Government. What I took from that was her statement, and I’m going to quote it because my contribution is based on that. She stated—and I quote—“We decided that there was a place in Government for concepts like compassion and kindness.” How do we measure that? So then you say, how do we measure compassion? How do we measure caring? How do we measure that? Well, she also followed up in her speech with the values of New Zealand. Everybody in this House spoke about the enduring values of New Zealand. So what are those values, you ask. My question today is: how do we measure compassion, and what are New Zealand’s enduring values?

Can I remind the House that one of those values was to live in a country that entitles people to respect and dignity—all are entitled to live meaningful lives; all are entitled to care and compassion. So how do we measure that? It is through our actions. So what did we find through our actions in response to the previous Government that was in for nine years? In response, what did we find? We found people that were homeless, and I’ll speak about housing. I’ll speak about the enduring value of having a roof over our heads. We built houses instead of selling off State houses. In our plans, we have provided for not just hundreds; we have provided for those who cannot buy their own homes, rental accommodation—over 6,000 community and State-owned rental accommodation for those who are unable to purchase their house.

Last weekend, we provided for those middle New Zealanders who could not afford their first home. We provided for them. Last weekend, we heard the story of the couple—and I want to reiterate how someone who lives in South Auckland, in Māngere, who is of Māori descent and Samoan descent, a young couple, can actually afford to buy their first home. That is what compassion is all about. It is about listening to New Zealanders. They can’t afford to buy their first home on a decent income—couldn’t do that—so what did this Government do? With compassion, KiwiBuild came about and did that.

How do we measure kindness? We talk about enduring values of having food, a roof over your head—I just spoke about that—and a table to put your food on. How do we measure that? Through the Families Package. It was one of the things that I got feedback on. I received it from people when I was on my travels throughout New Zealand, and what they said was—and I quote—“Anahila, could you tell Jacinda thank you for the winter energy payment? Thank you from my father.”—she said to me, this person—“He can turn that heater on. We can turn that heater on.” That is how we measure compassion when people are saying, “We are cold. We cannot afford the electricity.”—that’s what this was about. That is how you measure compassion. How do you measure compassion? You can do that.

I’m looking at my time. You have a roof over your head and food on your table—what next? Your health. We heard New Zealanders say that they couldn’t go and see a doctor because they couldn’t afford to. So what did we do? We provided provisions for people to go and see the general practitioner by reducing the fees from as little as $20—$20 to $30—enabling them to look after their health.

I go back to the waiata that I started my contribution with, “Te Aroha”. If we want peace, we’ve got to be proud of where we live. We’ve got to be happy about that. This is a country where we’re happy and we’re going to be—and I quote—“the best place to be a child”: this country, Aotearoa New Zealand. Tēnā koutou katoa. I’m done; thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Three thousand, two hundred stolen user names and passwords—that’s what David Clark has kept quiet. David Clark has quite simply put out the welcome mat to hackers and said, “Come on in. The door is open.” When they come in, what are they going to do? They’re going to destroy our health system and they’re going to take patient data. I need to tell this story, but first, let’s set the background. It’s a background, with this Minister, of decreasing cyber-competence and increasing cyber-risk.

Earlier this year, I revealed that Lakes District Health Board had been under cyber-attack 2 million times per day and poor Bay of Plenty District Health Board had been under cyber-attack 1 million times per day from Russia and the Ukraine. This Minister knew nothing about this. He simply doesn’t care about cyber-security. So that’s 3,200 stolen user names and passwords associated with 60 New Zealand health organisations—why didn’t the Minister tell us this? Well, on 19 December last year, on his watch, he received a memo from the Ministry of Health, and the purpose to this memo was “to brief you on the possibility that up to 60 organisations within the New Zealand health and disability sector may have been, or may still be, at risk due to the exposure of leaked credentials on the internet.”

So what happened? Well, at the end of last year, 1.4 billion stolen user names and passwords were put on the dark web. The Ministry of Health became aware of this and made a search through it to look at what New Zealand organisations might be involved, particularly in the health space. They determined that there were 3,200 New Zealand user names and passwords belonging to 60 health organisations in New Zealand.

Denise Lee: That’s a lot.

Dr SHANE RETI: That’s a big number, I agree. They quantified the risk and they said this: “Within this context, the primary risks facing the ministry are a malicious actor accessing online services and impersonating a member of the MOH staff.” They talked about mitigating the risk. They said, “For a large amount of what we do, it’s OK, because we have two-factor authentication. However, there are four national programmes that we have that are public facing that do not have two-factor authentication.” That includes the Pay Equity web portal and the In-Between Travel web portal, to name some of them.

The risk here is obvious. Two-factor authentication is something you have and something you know. It’s a standard security measure. Something you have: you have a cellphone; something you know: a password—a very important security measure. In fact, this month, in Cyber Smart Week, the Government very correctly said that there are four important cyber-measures, and one of them is two-factor authentication.

So here we are—last year we had these four Ministry of Health servers that do not have two-factor authentication. They are at risk with these stolen credentials. Let’s jump forward a year. Have they been fixed, because we’d sort of hope, having pointed them out, that they’d be fixed. Well, I asked the Minister these questions, and, in fact, there is no evidence at all that any of those four servers have been fixed. It’s actually worse than that. There are actually 10 times more systems now—a year later—under David Clark, that do not have two-factor authentication. A written question asked him “Minister Clark. How many sector and internet facing IT services does the Ministry of Health operate that do not require two-factor authentication?” What he said was “I am advised that the Ministry of Health operates 39 IT Services that do not require two-factor authentication.” A year later, he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get that we can be attacked by air, land, sea, and cyber, and he’s putting New Zealand data at risk.

Why are there nearly 10 times more publicly facing IT programmes that are not controlled? How many of the stolen credentials were used to hack New Zealanders’ data? I think these are reasonable questions for the ministry to ask. And why does the Government-recommended two-factor authentication not apply to David Clark? Why does it not apply to the Ministry of Health? It applies to the rest of us; why does it not apply to him?

Here are the actions we need: we need him to fix two-factor authentication on those 39 public-facing programmes, we need him to reassure Pay Equity users and In-Between Travel users that their data has not been hacked, and we urgently need to review cyber security across the health sector, and David Clark and his ministry are not the people to do it, quite clearly. CERT NZ are well-qualified. They should take this task up. Shame on you, David Clark. You’re getting worse and not better. You’re putting us at risk. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. I want to talk about the priorities of this Government in investing in the long-term future of New Zealand, and I do so from a position of understanding that our prioritisation has been around ensuring that people have the opportunity to own their own homes. So I want to congratulate the Hon Phil Twyford for our KiwiBuild homes becoming available to New Zealanders. It’s a huge achievement and something we’re incredibly proud of. I also want to focus on the fact that our Families Package has empowered our families to ensure that they can pay their power bills—how about that? And what about putting food on the table? So we are very clear about what investing in the future looks like, and I want to take a particular aspect now of that investment, in terms of the review of the criminal justice system.

The review of the criminal justice system is about rethinking justice. I want to congratulate Minister Little, his associate Jan Logie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice with regard to family and sexual violence issues, along with Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash—and, particularly, the appointment of the Hon Chester Borrows, who will chair the criminal justice reform advisory group. The intention of that group is to be smarter than we have been before and to say that, actually, we need new ways to work with offenders to navigate and to mitigate the causes of crime, because the reality for our country is we have over 10,000 people in prison and our recidivism rates are shameful. So I want to agree with the Hon Chester Borrows and his stand in opposition to tough-on-crime policies like three strikes, like longer sentences, and like stricter bail rules.

Actually, I’ll quote from him: “Political parties’ self-interest in staying in power have driven those particular pieces of legislation.” So it’s time that we get smart, and I think this smart aspect of the reform is actually about investment. How are we going to invest in these captured audiences, to some degree—how are we going to help transform the lives of the people who are in our prisons, and what does a good life for people mean? From my perspective, it means that people are actually being happy. Happiness is something that’s underestimated. To be happy, you have to be satisfied, you have to be content, you have to have a feeling of joy, and you actually have to have a sense of meaning in your life, and herein lies the whole issue about investing in the future, because spending $100,000 per prisoner per annum is not an investment if, after five years, 80 percent of them are back in prison. That is a terrible waste of money.

So, for us, what does that look like? It actually looks like a programme that a woman called Whiti Timutimu, who is the Māori responsiveness adviser with the New Zealand Police, has been working on with the Department of Corrections. So on Monday, with my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri, with Prue Kapua, the president of the Māori Women’s Welfare League, with Whaea Mamae from our Waikato-Tainui rōpū, and with Jenny-May Clarkson, we went into the South Auckland women’s correctional facility. What did we do? We actually had a whakawhanaungatanga event. They have what’s called a mana wahine programme. Within that facility, they’ve created a mirimiri te aroha group, and it’s actually based on cultural identity. So what they’ve taught these women to do is to be proficient in Te Reo and to be proficient in kapa haka, with the goal that when they leave that prison, they have the resilience to never return.

So I see a transformation already within the criminal justice system because—guess why? We were actually allowed to go in. It’s not about punishment; it’s actually about investing in the women and men who are incarcerated in our correctional facilities and investing in their ability—as I outlined before—to be happy. So I want to commend corrections—Lyn O’Connor is the manager of that facility—I want to commend the police, and, actually, I want to commend our iwi, because I know that Ngati Porou and I know that Tainui are putting up their hands and saying, “We want our women to come home. We want to support them. We want to ensure we break the cycle.”

That’s what investing in New Zealanders looks like, and I’m incredibly proud to belong to a Government that does that. Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I move, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m delighted to present this bill for its third reading, and I’m really excited that it strongly complements the wonderful work that this Government is doing in prioritising the rebuilding of the New Zealand education system. The statement of National Education and Learning Priorities—otherwise known as NELPs—sets the high priorities to guide the planning for the early childhood and compulsory education sectors.

The NELPs are our guiding statements in the education sector. The NELPs were first introduced not so long ago. They were part of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill, which gained Royal assent only a year ago, on 15 May. So it’s not that far removed that it is a good time to actually look and see how we can make the NELPs a lot better than they are.

When the National Education and Learning Priorities were first introduced, there were 286 submissions that were made to the then Education and Science Committee. While there was general agreement in principle about the value of the NELPs and how good these NELPs were, there was widespread concern around the wording of the NELPs and how, at the time, they didn’t actually align to the New Zealand Curriculum, and also concern about the lack of an explicit approach to the consultation. To the sector, and in those 238 submissions, there seemed to be that there was a little bit of uncertainty around consultation, and, generally, people at the time wanted that to be tidied up.

Originally, this particular, current amendment bill sought to amend the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. The amendments proposed in the bill aimed to align both the NELPS and the New Zealand Curriculum together. They aimed at an alignment between the two, which, as I’ve already said, was really seen to be really important. But I outlined in the second reading of this bill why I suggested that we didn’t actually progress that particular part of the amendment bill.

The changes to the objectives need to—and should—take account of the findings of the Government’s Education Conversation / Kōrero Mātauranga. That is really important. This is high-level work that this Government is carrying out in the education space. It is an ambitious work plan, and I’m really excited about some of the work that’s coming out of it. I’ve actually been invited to some sessions in that particular conversation, and I am excited to hear what the sector have to say, so it is only right, then, that if there are changes to be made, the enduring objectives take account of what comes out of that particular consultation, but where we can, we should make changes around the consultation and formalising the consultation around the NELPs.

When original submissions were heard on the NELPs, the overwhelming majority of submitters were concerned about the consultation process. They wanted surety around that process. They wanted to know that there was going to be a partnership between Government and stakeholders in determining the NELPs. They were unsure, with the way that it was written at the time, that that would happen and—unlike what the Opposition have been saying throughout this particular bill’s journey—it is important to the sector, and at that time they told us that it was important to them. We’ve also heard throughout this journey that maybe we, as a Government, are taking account too much of what education unions are telling us, but I reiterate that our unions are actually a big part of the sector because they are our teachers.

But it wasn’t just the unions back when the NELPs were introduced that told us this; it was places like the Education Council. It was places like the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, who are not only highly regarded in New Zealand but are also internationally highly regarded. At the time, this is what they had to say: “We see the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities as being crucial to the motivation of educators to keep improving their practice, to parents to really engage with their child’s learning, and to the achievement of national strategic goals to improve education and learner outcomes. This priority setting process provides an opportunity for the education system in Aotearoa New Zealand to become the agile ‘learning system’ that is needed in our complex and swiftly changing world. However, it requires strong working partnerships between the government and its agencies, the education sector, iwi and key community stakeholders. The work in forming these priorities and the measures that will relate to them must be based on solid evidence and analysis. The nature of the consultation process for developing the priorities is therefore very important and we think [this bill] needs to be explicit about the consultation approach.”

Even though there were strong submissions like that at the time that suggested that we needed to formalise that consultation approach, sadly, changes weren’t made, and this bill is about to fix that. The changes in this bill will ensure that the Minister will consult widely on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities, and they identify a wide range of groups that the Minister must consult with. Submitters on this bill welcomed the direction of consultation, especially with children and young people in this process.

There was general agreement that it is heartening to see children and young people as the first group the Minister must consult with in the development of the NELPs. One of our strongest submitters, the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew Becroft, stated that there had been a previous reluctance to hear from children, and that future and similar provisions should become the norm. He stated, “Hearing from, and incorporating the views of, children and young people delivers better and more robust decisions.” and “We support the intention to create a more equitable system, that supports children to develop to their full potential, and that ensures our children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions.”

Other submitters endorsed these sentiments, stating that the voices of young people are essential when developing law, and, as an educator of nearly 30 years, I know the power of children and young people’s voices. If we as adults can be brave enough to listen, they will make a difference. Well, today, we say that we are brave enough and we will listen.

A number of submitters requested that new representative organisations be added to the list in the bill, but there is a fear that if you name absolute organisations, there will be some that miss out. So this is why the list of those who must be consulted are not specific organisations, but are generic descriptions.

Not only does this bill ensure consultation with children and young people; it also ensures consultation with sector groups to ensure their voices are highly valued when determining the National Education and Learning Priorities—the voice of teachers, principals, governing bodies of schools, early childhood services, parents, the disability community, support staff, Māori, Pacific, and proprietors of State integrated schools and character schools. It is important that a wide voice has to be heard, so that we are truly showing that we are working in partnership.

Rather than seeing this as a trivial change—as the Opposition have stated through this bill’s journey—we are today saying to those groups that their voices matter and that it is important that we work together in partnership during the priority-setting process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Education and Workforce Committee, but especially the members from the Government benches, who have understood the whole way through the enormity of the changes that this bill makes.

I started my formal journey as an educator over 30 years ago, and then spent 30 years as a primary school teacher and principal. During that time, I wanted to know that my expertise was valued and that my voice mattered, and sometimes, unfortunately, that never seemed to be the case. But today, I am so proud to see this bill through its third reading. That acknowledges the expertise and voice of my colleagues. It acknowledges that it takes a village to raise a child and that we are prepared to talk and listen to that village, and I am also proud to confirm that we will hear and we will incorporate the views of our children and young people, who are at the heart of our education system, so that they can realise their dreams and be the best that they can be. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me just start by acknowledging Jan Tinetti, who is the proponent of this bill, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, and congratulate her as a member of this House pursuing a member’s bill through Parliament and bringing it this far, through to the third reading. I also want to acknowledge her as the deputy chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and the work that she does there as someone who has a lot of experience in the teaching profession.

I’d like to make a few comments in my short speech on this bill. National is opposed to this bill for a number of reasons, but, ultimately, because this bill, essentially, does very little—does next to nothing. I think if members were to look at the bill and to look at its progress through the House—when it started this bill had quite ambitious goals. It was going to change the purpose of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) quite substantially. But through the process it has been drawn back to really just doing one thing, which is changing how the Minister must consult.

Initially the bill was going to replace the sentence in the Education Act to focus on helping. The purpose of the NELPs was “to focus on helping each child and young person to attain educational achievement to the best of his or her potential;”, and the bill replaced it with “to provide learning experiences that support children and young people to reach their potential and a system that aims to achieve equitable outcomes for all;”. That’s quite a reasonably dramatic change that was proposed, and then a number of other changes through the Act were going to make a substantial change to the National Education and Learning Priorities in the Education Act.

However, during the select committee stage, I believe it was the Post Primary Teachers’ Association turned up and said, “Hey, we’re having 13 reviews. We’ve got the national Education Conversation taking place. Surely we should be waiting to actually listen to teachers, to educators, to principals, to a range of other interested parties in the education sector, before we actually make any changes to the NELPs parts of the Education Act.” And to the member’s credit, she did withdraw those provisions from her bill. However, the irony of it is that in doing so she accepted that there needed to be a wider conversation. But that’s exactly all that this bill does, which now, essentially, means that the Minister must consult with a wider group of people before changing the National Education and Learning Priorities.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Do they need a law change for that?

SIMEON BROWN: And really I think—Mr Macindoe asked the question: “Do we actually need a law change to allow this to happen?” And the answer is no. The provision is already there in the Education Act so that the Minister should consult with a wide group of people when developing the National Education and Learning Priorities. That’s exactly what Ministers do. They consult with wide groups of people—wide parts of the sector—to ensure that what they’re doing is in the best interests of the people that they’re there to serve.

And so what we’ve got left is, essentially, a list of people which this bill says the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. I would argue that that’s a weaker way of saying it than what it already is in the Act. It’s weaker than what it was before. It now says, “The Minister must make reasonable efforts”. The member in charge of the bill, Jan Tinetti, was a little more brave when she first put the bill forward, because it said, “The Minister must include consultation”. I think that’s even stronger, but it’s been watered down to say, “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult”, and we’re still not sure what a reasonable effort is.

Then we see a list of people that the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult with, but there’s one group of people who are missing, and that’s parents. Parents are missing from the list. Parents have an incredible and important role in the education of their children, and they are missing from this list of people who the Minister must make reasonable efforts to consult. Yes, members on the other side might say, “Well, it includes national bodies representing the interests of parents.”, but that’s not consulting directly with parents. If the member in charge of this bill wanted to be consulting widely, the member would be saying, “Let’s consult directly with parents.” It says, “Let’s consult directly with children and young people.” but fails to say “consult directly with parents”.

I believe they’re one of the most important parts of the education of our children and of our young people, and they are missing from this legislation. So I think this bill is, unfortunately—while it has good intentions, I think it makes very minor changes and misses out on one of the most crucial parts of the education sector: parents.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I wasn’t going to speak on this bill, or I was going to make my contribution reasonably short, but after that particular contribution, there is so much material in there that I just can’t quite help myself. We had a contribution from that member, Simeon Brown, who said, “This bill is not necessary. We don’t need to list down who we should be consulting.” and then proceeded to complain that the list was not exhaustive enough. So I’m not entirely sure that he was being consistent even within his speech, let alone within the positions that he’s taken in the House more generally. That is the member who devoted a good 10 minutes in the House to arguing the difference between the word “may” and the word “must” when it came to consultation. He wanted us to be much more specific in legislation about consultation—so it couldn’t be “may consult”; it had to be “must consult”—and now he’s saying that, actually, this quite specific provision, quite detailed provision and quite thoughtful provision, that my colleague Jan Tinetti has suggested should be introduced into legislation is a waste of time.

I would suggest to the member that one day, if anybody troubles themselves to read his Hansard—and I suspect that the only person doing that will be himself, but if anybody else troubles themselves to read his Hansard, they will find themselves inherently troubled by the contradictions, if they bother at all to read it or if they bother to be troubled by the member, because there is no consistency in his argument. There is no consistency in his argument whatsoever.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Move on—move on.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: But OK, I’ll move on—fair enough. Fair enough—I’ll move on.

I do want to compliment Jan Tinetti on this bill. I was involved in the select committee hearings on the original Education Update Amendment Bill that inserted these new provisions in the Act, that are now being amended by this bill, and I was concerned at the time that the consultation provisions in them were pretty flimsy. So I think that Jan Tinetti has done a really good job of beefing them out and making them more specific.

The statement of National Education and Learning Priorities is a really significant document, or will be a really significant document when it’s been created. It was an idea of the previous Government and one that I supported, and one that I think we should work pretty hard to try and craft a degree of consensus around. This is, ultimately, going to set out not just the Government’s priorities but the priorities for the entire education system, and so it’s only right that all of those with an interest in that are consulted and have a say in it. Yes, parents are important and so they should be consulted, and so they are included, but, actually, the voices of children and young people are often the voices that we don’t hear about when we’re making decisions about education in this country.

The Children’s Commissioner recently did a really, really good exercise where the Children’s Commissioner went out and asked young people about their views about education. You might think OK, well, you know, what do young people know, or are they mature enough? There are all these arguments that come about around whether we should consult young people, whether young people are informed enough to know and to have a meaningful say on the future of the education system. But what became really apparent to me in reading the feedback from that, and also in reading a lot of the research that sits around underachievement in our education system, is that, very clearly, culture and identity matter. Culture and identity matter an enormous amount in the education system to individual children’s success in education, and if we’re saying at a governmental level that we don’t value that, that we don’t value the voice of young people, then, implicitly, we’re sending that message down through the whole education system.

So, actually, by saying at the highest level that we want young people to have voice and that we want that voice to be heard in the way we set our priorities, we’re actually strengthening all the way through the education system the agency of the learner, of the young person concerned, and that’s actually something that we should take incredibly seriously. So I think it is something that should be guaranteed and protected in legislation, and that is what this bill does.

The other thing that we heard really clearly when I sat through the first select committee process on these provisions—I didn’t sit through the most recent ones, and my colleagues behind me, I’m sure, will speak in more depth about that. But the other thing that we heard very clearly from the teaching community was that they felt the legislation previously did not ensure that their professional voice was going to be heard in the process of setting our national priorities around education. That is actually really important. Teachers repeatedly have said that they feel their profession is undervalued, that their expertise, their wisdom, and their experience is not being drawn on when it comes to bigger decisions about education, and as Minister of Education, I can say that’s something that I take incredibly seriously. Teachers should be empowered by the Government to be the best they can be and to do the best job they can do, and, as such, we should hear their voice when it comes to establishing our priorities.

Now, teachers have got a few priorities at the moment that they’ve made quite clear to the Government, and we will do our best to meet those priorities over time, as financial resources allow, but I want to be clear that when it comes to questions around what gets taught and how it gets taught, why would we not guarantee that the people whose expertise we rely on to deliver it have a voice in making those decisions? So I think this is a very useful provision.

The disability community in New Zealand has a phrase: “Nothing about us without us”. So I think it’s really important that we embrace that as a Parliament, as a Government, and that our legislation reflects that. So this bill ensures that the disability community will be actively involved in setting out our National Education and Learning Priorities, and they should be, because there is every reason, and every piece of evidence that exists at the moment suggests that we are not doing well enough in our education system when it comes to supporting those people who have disabilities.

School support staff and those people who work in schools and early childhood services should be consulted. That’s absolutely right. Māori education organisations should be consulted, and I’d like to know from the members opposite why it is that they think that Māori education organisations should not be consulted on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities. I haven’t heard anything from them about why these people shouldn’t be consulted.

Now, if the Opposition think that, actually, this bill is relatively inconsequential, why are they opposing it? That’s the really interesting thing. If they think that it’s not going to make that big a difference, why are they opposing it, other than the notion that one day, if they were in Government again, they would not want to consult these people? That would be the only rationale for opposing it, because if they think, “Oh, it’s no big deal. Of course the Government would consult those people.”, what’s wrong with putting it in legislation? Why do they think it is such an affront to put it in the legislation if they actually don’t have any objection to consulting these people about the National Education and Learning Priorities? I think that that’s something that all of the groups and all of the people represented in this list would like to hear an answer on.

This bill has been through a pretty rigorous select committee examination. As has been mentioned, it has been changed by the Education and Workforce Committee. It did have some provisions in it previously that would’ve changed the principles as set out in the Act, and Jan Tinetti has made the decision to defer further consideration of those until we have had further opportunity to fully consider the national Education Conversation that is happening right now, and I think that that’s a sensible decision. But I think the bill as it stands now, even without those provisions, still has significant merit. And I think that it’s only right that we should support it so that we can hear from those people who are concerned.

Now, I’m the Minister that will have to implement this. I can tell you now that I would be consulting all of these groups anyway. It was one of the points made by the Opposition. But legislation is enduring. Legislation goes beyond the Minister of the day, and, actually, one of the criticisms of the Minister that introduced this legislation in the first place—the Hon Hekia Parata—was that she didn’t consult and she didn’t listen. And, actually, many people in the education system would be concerned that a future change of Government—and admittedly that’s looking less and less likely by the day—would return to the approach of the last Government, the level of arrogance of the last Government, in refusing to listen to parents. Bearing in mind that these are the people who wanted to increase class sizes and now say they want to decrease them. But they didn’t listen to the parent community. They didn’t listen to teachers when things like national standards were being introduced. Actually, if they had, they might have been able to introduce national standards in a way that they were actually enduring and that actually contributed to some good educational outcomes. They didn’t. They stuffed it up, and, as a result, I’m very proud to say we’ve removed them.

So it is important, when making education decisions, that you do that in a way that’s inclusive, that’s open, and that’s collaborative. So I think that the provisions being put forward by Jan Tinetti here are very valid, are worthy of inclusion in the Education Act, and therefore I fully support the bill.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I don’t want to delay things too long, unlike the previous speaker, Chris Hipkins. I know that we’re very much looking forward to the debate on my colleague Simeon Brown’s Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

First, I just want to say that I’m very surprised that this bill has reached its third reading, and will be passed no doubt in a few speeches’ time. This is one of the Government’s ballot-stuffing bills that wasn’t quite good enough for the Minister to get through on the Government Order Paper. The few changes that it did propose back at the beginning were interesting to say the least, and focused on the National Education and Learning Priorities statement.

So it did things like—this is back at the beginning of this bill—replacing the phrase “good social skills and the ability to form good relationships” with “strong social skills and the ability to form positive relationships with others”.

Erica Stanford: Revolutionary!

DENISE LEE: Absolutely revolutionary! So the slight rewording of a couple of paragraphs that explain the objective of the education system is not, in our opinion, a valuable use of Parliament’s time. We’ve had a massive workload as the Education and Workforce Committee this past year—quite unparalleled, I think. We’ve had employment relations, pay equity bills, Accident Compensation Corporation. We’ve had two education amendment bills—scrapping national standards, scrapping partnership schools, scrapping communities of online learning. A massive workload. And the amount of time that we’ve had to dedicate to this bill, which has been severely gutted over the course of the passage of it, has meant that we’re just not focusing on the important issues of the day.

Every clause of substance in this bill that we started with has now been removed, and we’re left with what is, essentially, a skeleton situation. In fact, the only things left in this bill—and it’s interesting that the Minister referred to this—are clauses that enshrine union consultation. It’s interesting that he asked the question about why we think these people shouldn’t be consulted—that’s not at all where we’re coming from. They already should be consulted in current law. The current law requires the Minister to consult with any stakeholders they see necessary. What we object to is this specific listing, and taking up Parliament’s time when we’ve got other far more pressing matters that we need to discuss. Now I’ll just repeat again: it’s already in law that the Minister must consult with any stakeholders that they see necessary.

I’ll just contrast a couple of bills, and then I’m going to finish up. The Government members’ bills so far on education have been this one, which has been gutted and removes all substance, and the other is the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill, and what happened to that? Gone; removed; zipped; hey presto, totally out of this Parliament. So that’s all that we’ve been given from the other side when it comes to education members’ bills.

On this side: Erica Stanford’s bill on replacing the decile system with a risk index—an incredibly detailed, massive piece of work. And then now we’ve got Nikki Kaye introducing multiple languages to schools. Contrast their Government members’ bills with ours and you can see what you make of that.

Jan Tinetti, the sponsor of this bill, said in the Bay of Plenty Times that this bill will start to return mana to the teaching profession of New Zealand. I wonder if she still stands by that statement on the bill in its current form, and I would say that the Government needs to learn a valuable lesson around being careful with what you stuff in the ballot box.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I must say just before I start that it’s a little rich being lectured on ballot stuffing by the party that came up with that pearler of a bill, the “lost luggage bill”. And I think that shows the contrast in our Government. If this is a ballot stuffing bill—a bill that sets out to create a much better education system—then I’ll be on this side of the House any day.

It is a privilege to stand and support, on behalf of New Zealand First, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Of course, we know that that amends the Education Act of 1989. I would like to take the opportunity to commend Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill forward, and, at a time when there has been some debate about the prevalence of professional politicians coming into this House, I note Jan Tinetti and her 30 years as a professional educator. The value that she has given our select committee both as the deputy chair and as the sponsor of this bill has been invaluable. She will make a significant contribution to this Parliament in terms of advancing our education programme. And what an education programme it is.

We are here, of course, in the third reading of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) bill, but we have a wide suite of educational policies that we are bringing forward to rebuild our public education system. And, of course, we in New Zealand First are very proud of the work that our very own Associate Minister Tracey Martin is playing in this space, and we know that she’s done a lot of work on this over the years. It’s great to see her in a position of influence so she can help this rebuilding of our public education system.

It has been 30 years since the Education Act of 1989. It was Tomorrow’s Schools, but they are now yesterday’s schools. And we have done a lot in terms of consultation with the industry—of course, the hui that was undertaken earlier on by the Minister—bringing everyone in to have a root-and-branch look at our education system. And look at what we’ve already done prior to that—national standards: taking that system out.

I’d just go to the NELPs bill and a lot of the things that the NELPs bill is looking to address: resilience, determination, confidence, creative and critical thinking, good social skills, the ability to form good relationships, participation in community life, fulfilment of civic and social responsibilities, and preparedness to work. None of those things—none of those things—were captured by national standards in their very narrow focus on education. So that shows what we are trying to do on this side of the House in broadening the scope of our education system for the 21st century.

Of course, we’ve taken the charter schools—the partnerships schools—out of the system and brought them under the umbrella of the public system, which they should never have left. Of course, there’s a lot of work we’re doing with tertiary fees and making tertiary education more affordable. What has not been widely recognised is that most of that, the majority of that funding, is going to people in vocations: our plumbers—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Apprenticeships.

MARK PATTERSON: —apprenticeships—our builders, and the people who really need it as we have this economy humming along.

The theme of this bill is consultation. We’ve heard from the Minister about how important this is, and we’ve heard from the member, when she spoke as a professional educator, of how she felt disconnected from the system and that her voice was not being heard. This bill obliges the Minister to consult widely—children and young people.

Of course, the Minister referenced the words of Judge Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner, and some of the work that he’s doing in talking to children about the education system and seeing how valued that voice is—teachers, principals, and schools themselves. During the committee process, I actually asked the member about rural schools because, as a member of the board of a rural area school, often our issues are different. We’ve got isolation and we don’t have the numbers, maybe, to provide all the services that, maybe, the bigger schools have. Those area schools will now have a voice that the Minister is obliged to hear, and they will be knocking at his door, I’m sure—the Lawrence Area School will be, anyway.

Early childhood: I will acknowledge Jo Luxton on our select committee as well, who has a background in the early childhood sector, and the depth of talent that we have on our side of the bench.

Disability support staff are a really undervalued part of our education system, and what a vital role they play.

Māori and Pasifika: we know that the statistics do not flatter those sectors of our community, and we must do better. The Minister will need to consult widely with Māori and Pasifika under this bill.

State and integrated schools: I think it’s worthy, from the select committee submissions, to quote once again the Children’s Commissioner, the aforementioned Judge Andrew Becroft, when he said, “Hearing from, … incorporating the views of, children and young people deliver better and more robust decisions … We support the intention to create a more equitable system, that supports children to develop to their full potential, and that ensures children and young people have a say in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities.”

There was this quote from speech and language therapist Dr Shannon Hennig: “family and [children] voices are essential [in] developing effective educational policy [into] law.”, and that is the voice that the Minister will have to hear.

In the NZEI, they “welcome this because it gives students [a] voice and agency in the process, and recognises the critical contribution [and] knowledge … expertise of the teaching profession will make [in] the priority-setting process.”, and I know how important that is. In fact, my sister and her husband are long-standing teachers—35 years; even longer than Jan Tinetti—in the education system. I know how frustrated they too feel with those provisions and the fact that the Government often doesn’t appear to be hearing their voice. From now on in, they will.

There were 20 submissions, and they were broadly supportive—I think almost all supportive—which is a sign that this Government is on the right track with this bill, and it enjoys wide support from the wider teaching and education community.

As I said at the start, this is about another brick in the wall—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Ha, ha!

Hon Tim Macindoe: He don’t need no education!

MARK PATTERSON: —of rebuilding our public education system. I knew you’d like that one. You’re a bit of a Pink Floyd man I’m sure, Mr Mitchell. But it’s an important piece of work for this Government. It is a priority that we set. I know our select committee, as Denise Lee referred to before, does have a busy programme of work, and that is reflective of the importance that we see this sector having, and of the need to rebuild it. Some of that goes back to that 1989 Act—30 years since we’ve had a good root-and-branch look at our education system.

Of course, may I say that Labour Governments have always had a flavour of educators and teachers coming through who strongly influence—and those Governments, supported here, of course, by New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partner, the Greens, are fully supportive of that. So the education system is in really, really good hands with this Government as we forge on to 2020, and what a story we will have to tell the people of New Zealand about education and the priority that we have put on it, and we will be starting to see the outcomes by then.

So New Zealand First—

Hon Members: Ten, nine, eight.

MARK PATTERSON: —takes absolute pleasure in commending—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

MARK PATTERSON: —this bill to the House, and it commends particularly the member Jan Tinetti for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. [Applause]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I know this is light-hearted, but the Speaker, in previous decisions, said applause like that, interrupting the flow of the debate, is not acceptable. Also, a countdown is not acceptable. Let’s just return to debating the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker—e Te Mana Whakawā. I think it was the final countdown. Weren’t there some delicious ironies in that wonderful speech by Mark Patterson? We were sitting over here thinking, “Well, here’s Banjo Paterson giving us his best shot.”, but, in fact, what he really delivered was the fact that deep down, he is really Pink Floyd, and he was reminding us that in the New Zealand First Party, the motto is, “We don’t need no education.” Well, Mr Patterson, I have to say that was actually a noble effort to give us 10 minutes of meaningless twaddle of no substance whatsoever—

Erica Stanford: Like the bill—just like the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —but, sadly—yes, as Ms Stanford says, like the bill—probably to be remembered as one of Mr Patterson’s better contributions.

I do just want to remind Mr Patterson—because he made some disparaging remarks about national standards and a former Minister in his speech—that at the time that national standards were introduced and legislated for in this House, he was a very enthusiastic paid-up member of the National Party. I don’t recall him speaking out about national standards at any time when they were in contemplation. In fact, I believe he was probably still a paid-up member of the National Party when Mr Korako’s fine bill was introduced—was it “lost luggage” or “left luggage”? What was the name of the bill? I don’t recall him speaking out against that one either, but he found it convenient at a later date to defect from the National Party, and he has now turned up in the New Zealand First Party and is having to deliver 10-minute speeches of that type, which completely waste the time of the House.

I want to say that I do agree with the Prime Minister on one point, and that is that there is a place for kindness in politics. So let me begin my analysis of this particular bill with a compliment to the member who is in charge of it, Jan Tinetti. I can’t make that compliment in relation to the bill itself, because that would be very difficult to do, but I do want to note that she chaired the Education and Workforce Committee meeting this morning, in the absence of the permanent chair, very fairly and competently. I thank you for that. And she did so with a smile on her face, so that needs to be noted. But I regret that I cannot speak so charitably about this pointless bill, that has already wasted considerable time in this House and which deserves to be thrown out without further thought, and yet it seems inexplicably destined to pass into the law of this land on the passage of its third reading this afternoon.

It is the ultimate stocking-filler. It’s that present that disappoints its recipient and embarrasses its giver on Christmas morning. I have to admit, I’ve been guilty of one or two of those over the years, but it’s only been members of my immediate family who have had to feign gratitude while feeling disdain at my gifting ineptitude. In this instance, Ms Tinetti’s useless gift is being inflicted upon an entire mystified and ungrateful nation. It’s a considerable embarrassment to the member and her Government, not least because her bill, as my colleague the member for Maungakiekie noted so eloquently in her contribution a short time ago, has been so dismembered throughout its passage through the House that it’s reached a point that there’s almost nothing left of it, and that which is left should be thrown out, as well. So there is really nothing left that even justifies having this debate this afternoon.

But I say that as kindly as I can, because I understand that Ms Tinetti inherited this nonsense from a former colleague, and I’m sure she’s having to put a brave face on her discomfort as she takes one for her team. Well, no wonder the bill’s original author cut and ran at the earliest opportunity. What a shame she didn’t drop the bill in the shredder on her way out the door. So I won’t add any more to Ms Tinetti’s discomfort, and I will finish, again, in the spirit of kindness in wishing her much greater luck in producing something of substance, with a purpose, and that will actually achieve something, when she has an opportunity to produce a bill on an issue of her own choosing.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is an absolute privilege, as almost always after a piece of education legislation is before the House, to rise after one Tim Macindoe and that very eloquent contribution, which I, of course, will oppose in its entire substance in my support for this fantastic piece of legislation. What we are debating today, of course, is the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of one Jan Tinetti, who I would like to acknowledge, as other members have, as a fantastic deputy chair of our Education and Workforce Committee and, obviously, a former principal and teacher prior to coming into this House, with many decades of experience, which I think that she’s really channelled into this piece of legislation by obviously taking into account the importance of—again, to borrow a term from the vernacular of the National Party—the very consumers of education.

So to get back to basics in this third and final reading of this piece of legislation, I think it’s worthwhile for viewers in the gallery and at home but also perhaps for members throughout the Chamber who may not be so familiar with the NELPs to explain exactly what the NELPs are. The NELPs are, of course, the National Education and Learning Priorities, which were instituted as a part of the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017, which was, obviously, passed under the former National Government. Its purpose is to guide strategic direction in the early childhood education and compulsory sectors.

We heard Tim Macindoe speaking before me, asking what the point of this amendment here is—as was, indeed, heckled by a number of members from the National Opposition. Tim Macindoe also asked, “Do we need this legislation?”, saying that it was pointless and useless, which I think is somewhat contrary to the arguments raised by his colleague Simeon Brown with regard to some people who he thought may be missing from those who must be consulted with.

So let’s flip those arguments and that rationale on its head, because the fact is that this legislation is before the House. If we were to not pass this legislation, if we were to reject it, we would be saying that we don’t want to hear the voices of young people and children or from national bodies representing the interests of teachers, principals, governing bodies of schools, early childhood services, parents—which Simeon Brown noted, for some reason, were actually missing from this piece of legislation—from the disability community, from support staff in schools and early childhood services, from Māori education organisations, from Pacific education organisations, from State integrated schools, and, indeed, from designated character schools. All of these demographics, all of these bodies, and all of these organisations are critical voices in the education system, because so many of them are directly at the coalface.

So, to directly challenge the notion put forward by Simeon Brown stating—and I quote—that “One group of people is missing, and that’s parents.”, parents are directly in here. They’re listed. They are, as he noted, listed within national bodies, but, literally, the only demographic that is not listed within its national bodies is the voice of children and young people. I think that’s an important point to make because there, currently, really doesn’t exist a peak body or organisation or NGO that is run or governed by young people—that’s the point of this legislation. It is to ensure that we are making an active effort as a Government and that the Minister of Education is actively going out of their way and consulting with those children and those young people, because those children and those young people do not have a vote. They are one of the only groups—they are actually the only group that is listed among the other demographics that must be consulted with who it would make common sense to presume are not able to exercise their right to vote and, therefore, their ability to have an impact on the political system.

I also want to speak to the point raised by my colleague in New Zealand First, Mark Patterson, who is, of course, a fantastic contributor as well to our Education and Workforce Committee. He quoted Pink Floyd. I’m not sure if he did so intentionally, but he so did none the less, about not being “Another Brick in the Wall”, and I think that my dad would be quite happy that I’ve managed to get that on to the Hansard and to say that that’s exactly the point of this legislation, as well. It really cuts to the heart of it. What we are doing is recognising that young people and kids are not homogenous, by any means, and, therefore, their voices are critical in helping to formulate and inform the system that they are the major consumer, the only sole consumer, of—the primary consumer.

I also want to speak to the point raised about how this was a useless piece of legislation—as I alluded to earlier—and, again, to flip it on its head and to ask members of the Opposition, if they wanted to see more demographics listed who must be consulted with, why they didn’t put that forward at the committee of the whole House stage. But if they want to see more demographics listed as necessary to consult with, why don’t they move ahead and vote for this piece of legislation, and later add more demographics who must be consulted with? I’m simply not following the line of logic.

The whole purpose of the National Education and Learning Priorities, as I spoke to at the beginning of this contribution, is to create the high-level direction for the education sector, and that is something where I hope that we can have cross-party and cross-parliamentary buy-in, as we have, as a Government, attempted to facilitate throughout the education conversation. We would hope that members of the Opposition would like to participate in the creation of the National Education and Learning Priorities and, therefore, recognise the importance of them as enduring and as the foundation for a sustainable vision moving forward in our education system.

It is a privilege to be standing on behalf of the Green Party as our education spokesperson this evening and acknowledging Jan Tinetti as the sponsoring member of this fantastic piece of legislation—one of the only ones, I believe, that puts children’s voices at its heart—and to state that we are incredibly proud to tautoko and support this bill. Kia ora.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, and I want to start by acknowledging Jan Tinetti and, in particular, acknowledging her former role as a principal at Merivale School, a role that I understand she did well in for her community. It is particularly because of that experience and background that I’m a little bit disappointed in Ms Tinetti today, and the reason I am disappointed is that she is someone who has worked as a principal in a school.

A principal, more than just about anyone else in a school, should be aware of the context in which this legislation is being progressed, because if you were to look at this legislation and say, “This is the great priority for this Parliament today, according to school principals.”, then you would think that we are living in a time of great educational achievement and that we are living in a time when there is equality of outcome, when people are leaving school with good qualifications, and where people are getting what they need out of the school system.

But is that the case? Unfortunately, no, that is not the case because this is, in fact, a bill that tinkers at the edges of things and does nothing to go to the substantive problems that we, in fact, have in New Zealand’s education system today.

We are in the midst of early childhood education teacher shortages, primary teacher shortages, a secondary teacher shortage.

Hon Clare Curran: And why is that?

NICOLA WILLIS: We have just had a new global report come out, Clare Curran, and you should be concerned about this, that ranks New Zealand 33 out of 38 countries for inequality in our classrooms. And what is Labour’s answer to that report? Their answer is a bill that lists 11 new national bodies that must be consulted when the Minister of Education publishes his National Education and Learning Priorities. And what I would suggest to members opposite is that if they think consultation with 11 additional national bodies will make a jot of difference to a single child underachieving in our school system today, then they need to get real.

When it comes to making a difference to the learning and achievement of children in our schools we don’t start by adding new layers of bureaucracy. We don’t start by ensuring that people have to tick this consultation box, tick that consultation box, write some nice reports, and smile at each other. That is not where we start. Where we start is in the classroom, and it is disappointing to me today that members opposite who know what’s going on in our classrooms, who know what’s going on in our schools, choose to take the time of this House to present a bill like this.

I want to draw your attention to the orange bits I’ve highlighted. The orange bits I’ve highlighted in this bill are all of the bits that Jan Tinetti had in her original legislation that were struck out at select committee, because it was agreed that, in fact, this bill was going too far ahead of the consultation process that was happening throughout the education system. So what we’re left with is the pink bits, and the pink bits describe, as I said, the 11 national bodies that must now be consulted by the Minister.

To make it even more farcical, we had the Minister of Education in the first reading of this very bill say to us that he thought he would not be doing his job if he didn’t consult with these groups, which rather begs the question, Minister, of why we need this bill at all. Does Jan Tinetti not trust the Minister when he says that he doesn’t think he’d be doing his job unless he consulted with them? So why is the bill needed at all if this is just what the Minister would do anyway?

I expect grander ambition at a time when children are not doing well enough in our schools. I expect more from a Government that says it wants to do better for those in poverty. I expect more from a Government who says that they’re going to be doing more for the education system. It is time for new ideas. We have great challenges before us. We have great opportunities before us. We are in a time of digital revolution. The world of work is changing. Get some interesting education policy together for the good of New Zealand’s children. This is not good enough. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran—five minutes.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think some leeway needs to be given to the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, as she hasn’t been in the House very long, and she perhaps hasn’t had a chance to get around all of the schools in the area for which she is not the electorate MP to actually talk to the schools, talk to them to understand what the issues are at the coalface.

I have 33 schools in my electorate, and there are four issues that are usually pretty much the main issues that are raised with me whenever I go to visit them. They are the needs of special-needs children and the resources that are needed and the lack of support workers; the enormous weight of administration that schools were put under and teachers were put under when national standards were introduced; the despair that a lot of teachers and principals felt about the inability to focus on what was really important, which was the national curriculum; and the lack of listening by the previous Government to what teachers, to what schools, to what principals were trying to say. And those things are absolutely critical.

Here we have a member who has literally come from the coalface of education—a principal, a teacher, an educationalist who understands what those issues are and what they mean. And while that bill that the previous speaker just trashed actually had parts of it that were removed because there is a much bigger piece of work going on around the education conversation and how the national curriculum and the National Education and Learning Priorities are actually expressed, one of those critical issues—in fact, several of those critical issues that I just mentioned—is touched on in this bill, and that is the listening. The listening to the teachers, the listening to the principals, the listening to the schools, the listening to the children is all reflected in that incredibly important consultation, which the member dismissed as being an extra layer of bureaucracy. Well, if listening to children is described as a layer of bureaucracy, then goodness knows what kind of discussions go on over that side of the House in terms of what is actually really important in this country.

They’re listening to support workers. They’re listening to the disability community. Those are the things that have been added into this bill in the select committee, and they are incredibly important. And those were backed up by submissions, submissions from the Children’s Commissioner, which pleaded, and pleaded with the previous Government, to listen to the voices of children and young people—absolutely pleaded. Well, this Government is listening to the voices of the support workers and the disability community. Those are the three things that I really want to focus on today in this bill and to really commend Jan Tinetti for the work that she’s done and is just beginning in a member’s bill which is obviously reflective of a wider Government agenda.

This bill obviously fits into a wider agenda, but this is her work, it comes from the coalface, and it’s about listening to the voices of young people, because as the Children’s Commissioner has said over and over again, if you don’t listen to those voices, then you’re not providing an education system that reflects what those young people need and want and will respond to. Also, listening to those support workers who work with children, particularly children with disabilities, is important. Don’t diminish it—don’t diminish it. You know, I respect that member, but don’t diminish listening to the voices of the communities.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to make a contribution on this bill. Minister Hipkins came down to the House today and he said that he wasn’t prepared to take a call but he couldn’t help himself, that he really needed to have his say—and I’m glad that he did. I’m really pleased that he did because it gives us now the chance to compare and contrast his speech at the first reading to his speech at the third reading. They are very different speeches and the reason for that is most of what he said in the first speech is completely redundant, and the reason for that is the bill has been completely gutted. It’s a shell of its former self. In fact, most of the comments made at first reading, and indeed at second reading, are completely redundant at this point, because the bill is, as my colleague Nicola Willis said, really just a few short phrases. Most of the bill has actually been thrown out.

Minister Hipkins went on to say that many of those things that have been taken out of the bill will be deferred. The question then remains: why are we not deferring the whole bill? Why are we not having this conversation in 12 to 18 months, when all of the education conversations have been had and decisions have been made? That’s the question. We are arguing that we are wasting our time at select committee, we’re wasting this House’s time, because the issue is timing. There may have been some good things in this bill. In fact, there may be some very good things that we need to change in the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) in 12 to 18 months.

I’ll tell this House why we’re not getting rid of this bill, why we’re not tossing it out. It’s because they already had to do that with the Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill. How embarrassing would it be to then have to throw this one out as well? Because they’re too embarrassed to have two of their members’ bills in the education space withdrawn because they are, frankly, appalling, we are now in a position where we have to debate this shell of a bill.

It all comes down to timing, and I have to say—and my other colleagues have done this at this stage of the speech—congratulations to the proponent of the bill and what a wonderful job she’s done. But, actually, do you know what? I feel a little bit sorry for her. Having this bill drawn at this particular time must have been actually really gutting, because that member well knew, and knows, that this couldn’t have been worse timing. We’ve got 16 reviews under way—millions of dollars being spent—and she knew that it was a terrible time because she had to gut four of the seven clauses, which is more than 50 percent of the bill—cross it out and throw it away, leaving just a few points about consultation, which are already enshrined and don’t need to be there.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing, and what I would say to this Government is just let it go—let it go. We can do this again in 12 to 18 months, after the conversations have been had, after things have been changed, when, actually, we can have a really good, grunty conversation around our overarching education vision document. But this, frankly, is an appalling piece of legislation that really is inconsequential and doesn’t do anything, as much as the members across the House like to try and say that it does. But I would say today: let it go; let’s do this all again in 12 to 18 months when we can actually make some decent changes. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I, for one, am very, very pleased to rise in support of this bill, the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague Jan Tinetti, and I congratulate you, Jan Tinetti. You are the first of our “class of ’17” to shepherd a bill right through the House, and how appropriate that it is Jan Tinetti who has forwarded this bill through the House—Jan Tinetti, who is passionate about education and passionate about children achieving in education; Jan, who has many years of teaching and being a principal, and this has been invaluable in seeing this bill go through the House. In fact, we have heard that she has been working at the coalface as a teacher and principal for over 30 years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She must know a few things.

JO LUXTON: We heard that earlier today. Yes, you are right, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni; she certainly does know a few things.

I would like to touch on something that a previous speaker, Simeon Brown, mentioned earlier, about this bill not really achieving much. One thing it achieves is changing how the Minister must consult. And we had Nicola Willis talking about something quite similar. Well, actually, I find that quite disheartening. But, you know, I’m not surprised that it comes from members opposite, who actually have no respect for the teaching profession and do not understand how a bill like this is important and affects teachers and the teaching profession.

We have heard that there are already provisions within legislation for the Minister to consult. Well, actually, when I think back to when the Hon Hekia Parata was Minister of Education, I don’t recall much consultation happening at all, actually. So that is a null and void point, actually. And when I’ve spoken to school principals about different pieces of legislation that we’re putting through the House, they’ve talked about the fact that, quite frankly, they didn’t feel that they were respected and they certainly said that they felt really bullied by that previous Minister. So, actually, I think this bill is going to go a long way to lifting the teaching profession.

I want to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that’s gone into this bill. I would also like to thank the submitters, and we had 20 submitters come and submit to the select committee, and they were very, very favourable of this bill.

This bill amends the Education Act 1989 to enable statements about the diversity of education provision to be included in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). This bill is part of a wider, 360 approach that this Government has, to sit alongside the biggest reform that education will see in 30 years. It puts children back at the centre of learning. And I’ve sat back and I’ve reflected on the last 12 months of this Government, and one of the things that I’m particularly proud of is that we are putting children at the heart of a lot of policy that we are putting in place. And, quite frankly, it’s about time.

It requires the Minister to make reasonable efforts to consult with various stakeholders in the development of NELPs. They include many different groups: teachers, parents, Māori education groups, Pasifika education groups, disability groups. But, at the moment, the minimum that the Minister must consult with is stakeholders with the early childhood education (ECE) sector and compulsory school sector, and that gives just two perspectives. I’m not belittling those perspectives in any way, but the fact that he must consult with these other groups now is going to provide a much fuller and better ability to put together NELPs.

So we have all these different groups that are going to be consulted with, and they all have different experiences and knowledge and are able to contribute in a positive and meaningful way with this legislation. So these groups actually represent different and important communities and, actually, pockets of society who are often forgotten about and not heard from. They have knowledge of their own sectors and what is important and what is needed in their sectors. And it underlines the collaborative approach that we are taking to reform education in New Zealand. Consulting with these groups will ensure and help to ensure, actually, that there are no unintended consequences further down the track, and sometimes that can be what happens when consultation doesn’t happen properly—unintended consequences.

It’s important that people have their say because this is a democracy, and when people have their say, then they become invested, and we see that no one voice in this consultation process will be more important than another. So it’s an equitable opportunity for people. For example, when I think about the disability sector, it’s vitally important that they’re consulted with if we are to support their learners with disabilities to participate confidently in our education sector. With respect to Pasifika education organisations, we have a hugely fast-growing Pasifika community and population, so we must provide opportunities for consultation with them. And if Pasifika communities are to be reflected in NELPs over the next five to 10 years or long term, given the growing demographic, New Zealand will see the benefits of that consultation.

It is important to Government to consult, because we value the teaching profession and education sector and their knowledge. We want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity for input, and when I think about giving everyone the opportunity to input, I reflect on early childhood centres when you have a teacher who has a specific philosophy and several others within that team who have their own individual teaching philosophies. When you come together and you sit around and consult with each other, you create a centred philosophy, and that creates a very rich work environment that’s conducive to a fabulous curriculum, good relationships with parents, and good relationships with the children. So that’s just one example of how consultation can work really well.

We’re committed to ensuring that we have a future-focused, enduring, strong, world-leading education system. We are collaborative, and this legislation shows that we are collaborative and inclusive as well, and we value the input from communities and stakeholders. When we heard from, as I said before, around 20 submitters, the majority were in favour of this bill.

I was actually reassured when I heard from these submitters, not only as a member of the select committee but as a member of Government, that we are on the right track. I want to, if I may, refer to a submission from NZEI. They said, “[They] welcome this because it gives students voice and agency in the process, and recognises the critical contribution the knowledge and expertise the teaching profession will make to the priority-setting process.” “Recognise” and “expertise of the teaching profession” are vital words here, as far as I am concerned. We value teachers. We value their contribution. We trust them. This bill is about giving them the mana that they deserve.

Jan Tinetti mentioned in her contribution earlier about the disconnect that she felt when she was in the teaching profession, which is also something that I can relate to as an ECE teacher. And, prior to coming into Parliament, I was in the ECE sector for over 20 years, so I can relate to that. Gone are the days of children being seen and not heard. And it’s really simple. I want to give a really simple example of the kinds of outcomes that can be achieved if we listened to children and their voice. We often used to sit with children and ask them about the things they would like to learn at preschool, and they would come up with some weird and wonderful ideas. But I want to give you a really basic example of a child that wanted to do baking.

When you do baking with children they learn about hygiene, turn taking, socialising, language skills, critical thinking, maths, science, sharing prior knowledge, making connections between home and centre, and healthy eating. Now, that is a very simple example, but it shows just how rich the curriculum can be when children are consulted on how they want to learn and what they want to learn about.

In New Zealand it’s important we have a strong, equitable education system. This is fundamental to our children achieving success throughout their schooling life and beyond. And I just want to again congratulate you, Jan, and I highly recommend this bill to the House.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): National opposes this legislation, and, from my perspective, nothing sums up this Government more than this piece of legislation: superficial, lack of depth, and putting things in the ballot that delay the larger policy discussions in education. National believes in a strong vision for our education system, whether that is through the previous National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs), which have been mandated in law and already have the ability to consult with a wide range of people, or whether it is a vision to ensure that we have equity, to ensure that young people are lifelong learners, to ensure that they get 21st century skills, and to ensure that they have basic knowledge. We support these goals, and it is our strong view that it was the last National Government that should be recognised for bringing NELPs into law. But let’s be absolutely clear about what this bill does: pretty much nothing.

The reality is it was a ballot-stuffer by Jan Tinetti. I do want to acknowledge her as a very hardworking member of Parliament, but no one expected this bill to be drawn out, and we know that. The reason we know that is that in the Education and Workforce Committee the bill was completely gutted. Not only was it superficial and lacking an amount of depth but also it was completely gutted in select committee, which, in my view, demonstrates that it was not a significant piece of work that was worthwhile enough even for members opposite to support it back to the House. So that’s the first point.

The second point that I want to make is that people pleaded—now, this was not a bunch of people that necessarily, traditionally, would be seen to support the National Party—to halt this bill. I want to read from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) submission. They said, look, even if you believe that there needs to be some tweaks around the NELPs, which already requires consultation with a range of different groups, even if you really strongly believe in this, how about you wait for the more than 15 reviews that are under way, of which two are directly relevant to this piece of legislation? One of them is the Education Conversations of which part of that discussion—Jan Tinetti is a member of the Government and is helping to lead discussion—is around the common view of our education system and the vision around that.

Again, the Minister of Education talks about cross-party agreement, but instead of getting to the table and having these conversations so that the sector doesn’t have the ping-pong that they had before around education policy, this Government proceeds to push through a bill that would give Labour’s view of the world around our vision of our education system, and I do think—I want to say it in this House—that’s pretty arrogant, actually. And it’s not just me who’s argued for the deferral of this bill. It’s actually the PPTA who have said, and I want to quote their submission, “More importantly, however, there is currently underway a significant and comprehensive consultation about the ‘purpose and direction’ of education in … New Zealand over the next thirty years. … If it is the government’s intent to change this legislation, surely waiting until [the] thirty year plan has [been] reported would be the perfect time to introduce new ‘enduring objectives’ to the Act.”

That is from the PPTA themselves. They go on further to talk about the Tomorrow’s Schools review, which is a potentially wide-ranging, fundamental reform. Again, the issue that is raised here is: why is a Government that has all of these reviews under way—reviews that cut to the heart of that core vision around education—enabling a piece of legislation to be pushed through? Even the PPTA are arguing to wait for the Education Conversations and the 30-year plan to come back, and also to wait for Tomorrow’s Schools to come back, at the very least. So members on this side have not only questioned the substance of the bill, we’ve questioned the very heart of the education vision of the bill, but also we are alongside other submitters like the PPTA that have seriously questioned the timing of this bill.

The other point we want to make—and, again, it was made by a range of submitters—is around this need to be hugely prescriptive around who needs to be consulted around our education system. I want to make this point: actually, there are some major stakeholders, in my view, that have been left out of education policy consultation for far too long and they are called the thousands of parents out there that want to have a strong say in our education system. And yes, we do believe absolutely that there is a very important role for all of the stakeholder organisations, and I see that this legislation, of course, has put in national representative bodies—that’s great. They have a role. We don’t need to prescribe that in legislation. But what about the parents? What about their role in policy? Why are they left out of important conversations like this?

So National has a very simplistic view, which is that we believe the timing is wrong, we believe that this is a ballot-stuffer, and that, actually, they have just proceeded because they need to waste time—and that is symptomatic of a wider issue around the Government’s education agenda being stuck in a moment of time where principals and teachers are saying to me, “We are drowning in reviews.” When we have some core critical issues, like teacher shortages to deal with, like the collective bargaining, the Minister isn’t fronting up on these issues, and this bill is, again, symptomatic of a Government that is interested in too much hui and not enough dooey, from our perspective. But even if you are going to proceed and you are going to it ram through and accept that you won’t have the reviews of Tomorrow’s Schools and the Education Conversations back, then why would you need to prescribe every possible group in legislation who has to be consulted?

It’s this simple reason: it is that lack of trust of the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education—that is why you’d need to do this. I want to tell members opposite what actually happens. There’s a key stakeholder list. There’s a key stakeholder list and whether it’s Tomorrow Schools or whether it’s the NELPs, a group of people get consulted as part of that. I don’t see why we need to prescribe in law every single possible eventuality. There is an amount of trust that you should have in the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education.

So, finally, I just want to end with these comments around this legislation. We do believe that Jan Tinetti is a hard-working member, but the comment by Jo Luxton—that somehow this was an amazing day in the history of New Zealand, in terms of education—is totally and utterly false. I would argue that this bill is absolutely symptomatic of a superficial Government that is focused on reviews rather than depth of education policy, and that it wants to do everything possible to delay the hard-core conversations around things like teacher shortages and special education support. So it’s ballot-stuffing with Jan Tinetti’s bill that this Parliament is spending time on.

It’s not just me who believes this. There are a range of other stakeholders who are saying this to National members across the country. When we go in and out of schools, when we meet with boards of trustees, people are saying that this is symptomatic of a Government that is stuck in a process of reviews and is not dealing with the hard-core issues. So this bill was already a ballot-stuffer, but we’ve managed to water it down even more and ignore fundamental stakeholders—and this is the irony. Groups like the PPTA have come along to the Education and Workforce Committee and said, “Please defer this for the other bits of work that you have in train”, like Tomorrow’s Schools and Education Conversations. The irony is that they are writing many of these organisations to be consulted with into law but they’re ignoring them through the select committee process.

So our party believes in a depth of education policy and a work programme right now that addresses issues like teacher shortages. Our party is on the ground talking to teachers and principals and boards of trustees. Our party opposed this bill because it is a complete waste of Parliament’s time, and our party opposed this bill because of the arrogance of this Government to be pushing it through at a time when a range of stakeholders are saying this is the worst possible time. We support a vision for education that means that there is equity, that means that young people are life-long learners, and that means that they have access to core skills and knowledge. This will do nothing to help those children to improve in the future.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s a privilege to take the final call on this third reading of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill. Now, I am confused, because it sounds to me like I must have been on a completely different select committee from some of the speakers on that side of the House, because what I heard from the submitters was not what they heard. But, before I go any further, I would like to commend the other side of the House on their colouring skills. We have seen from both Denise Lee and Nicola Willis a wonderfully coloured-in bill with yellow and orange highlighting. I suggest kindly that maybe instead of colouring the bills, they do some reading. When they do reading of the bills instead of colouring, they might actually discover that there’s a lot of good stuff in these bills, and I would like to talk a little bit about that today.

I did speak in the second reading of this bill, and the last time I spoke was when my colleague Jan Tinetti was in the chair during the committee of the whole House stage, when she was very eloquently answering some of the questions that were remaining on this member’s bill. I think it’s also important to point out that this is a member’s bill, and there seems to be a little bit more confusion from the other side of the House with regards to a member’s bill versus a bill that the Government brings to the House. This is a member’s bill, not a Government bill, and it’s been done by someone, as has been mentioned, who has been at the coalface for, I’ve heard, three decades—obviously, she started when she was 10 years old! Jan Tinetti has done a great job shepherding this bill through the House. She is a very passionate and staunch advocate for the education sector. As has been mentioned, we are tremendously proud of her. She is the very first of our wonderful class of 2017 members of Parliament, and for her to bring this through all stages into law is just a really wonderful moment, so I’d like to take a moment to say congratulations to Jan Tinetti.

So, as we have heard, this bill requires the Minister to widely consult on the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). So that I don’t run out of time to speak about this bill, I will from now on refer to this particular bill as the NELPs bill. It puts children back to the centre of learning, and it’s giving them a say on the education that they deserve. This is where I get confused. So the other side of the House has been saying to us, “Look, we’ve heard from submitters. Push this bill back. You shouldn’t be doing this yet.” Well, actually, there was not one submitter that begged and pleaded with us to put this bill back. The Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) made some suggestions that I’ll come back to, but there was no pleading involved at all.

Actually, when you consider the fact that the Opposition is asking us to just put this on ice and wait for another 12 or 18 months to consider this again, they’re basically saying that the voice of children and young people doesn’t matter. They’re basically saying, “Forget about the input of young people. Let’s just forget about this bill, and we’ll come back on this later.” That is really, really harsh, because what this bill—clause 4 of this bill—does is it changes the current situation from where it is, where the Minister at the moment can consult with maybe some of the teachers or some of the parents, as is currently happening. But what we heard from our submitters—and 17 out of 20 submitters actually supported this—was that it’s important that there’s a much wider consultation requirement with stakeholders.

So that’s what this bill does: it sets out an extensive list of stakeholders that the Minister must consult with to get their views on the priorities of education. I’m catching Mr Simeon Brown’s eye, so I will explain a little bit to you. So “consulting widely” in the bill means that—if the member would read the bill, he would see that the bill actually says “consulting widely, including” and then the bill lists about 11 stakeholders in that process. “Including” doesn’t mean it’s an exhaustive list, and, in fact, parents are already consulted with now, so I think there has been some misunderstanding, unfortunately, by that member about this bill.

One of the other bodies that presented on this particular bill was the IHC, and they made it very clear in their submission that they believed that this bill needed to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. They particularly requested of us that any statement is developed in consultation with and actively involves persons with disability, including children with disabilities, through their respective organisations. So as a result of that feedback in particular, this line was inserted into new section 1A(4A) in clause 4(5): to consult with “(g) national bodies representing the interests of the disability community”. That is just one example of why it is so important that we add stakeholders in the process of this consultation. As I said, again, it was important to the majority of the submitters to this bill—we had 17 out of 20 supporters and, in particular, as has been mentioned already, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and Judge Andrew Becroft. He outlined very clearly to us that it’s so important to get the voices of the children and the young people heard to ensure that in the process of the NELPs, they get all of the opportunities to reach their full potential.

Also, the National Council of Women, Te Kaunihera Wāhine o Aotearoa, told us that members have often expressed their support for better consultation. They had expressed their disappointment at the lack of authentic consultation. That is in line with what other members have touched on already: the fact that when these NELPs were first brought into law, comments of inadequate consultation were disregarded by the previous Government, and the then Education and Science Committee had been told that the direction of the New Zealand curriculum was being undermined and people weren’t being consulted on it. I’ll come back to that a bit later.

Now, coming back to that PPTA, both Simeon Brown and Nikki Kaye mentioned that they had asked us to defer this legislation. Well, it wasn’t as dramatic as that at all. The PPTA, in fact, completely supported this legislation. What they actually said is that they had a view—and this is verbatim—that the bill could be delayed. So nothing so dramatic, because they were talking, of course, about the significant review and the national conversations that are currently taking place.

In fact, the Children’s Commissioner—and this is what the members on the other side on our select committee obviously have missed in that process—responded to that particular question that was put to them by the Opposition, and the Children’s Commissioner said that he would proceed with the bill because the wording is wide enough to accommodate any changes. Also, looking at what the officials recommended—they said we shouldn’t delay the commencement, because they believe the first NELPs can be developed to inform new planning and reporting processes, taking into account the additional consultation requirements in the bill. So, on all accounts, everybody was agreeing that we should continue with this bill.

Now, we have several times heard the Opposition say that this bill has been slashed, that it does nothing, there’s nothing left, it’s just tinkering around the edges, and one has to really question the fact that they are opposing a bill that they believe isn’t really making much change. It really, to me, shows that they’re very confused, and Jan Tinetti already spoke about that before—that when they first introduced the NELPs they left a whole heap of gaps in that consultation process that we are tidying up in this bill. This bill is in fact fixing the errors from the Opposition.

So what I would like to put to you is that this Opposition, by their stance and by voting down this bill, is not supporting the children’s voices. They’re letting children down, because it is the children, of course, that would benefit from this particular legislation. And it seems really strange to me that in a process where you’re making decisions around education, where it is all about children, the National Party doesn’t want these children to have a voice in the decisions. It mystifies me absolutely.

So I’d like to add that what we’re doing with this bill in giving the children a voice in the process is absolutely in line with this Government’s commitment to improving the well-being of New Zealanders and their families. It is also consistent with the words of our brilliant leader, Jacinda Ardern, to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. Obviously, the Opposition is not agreeing with that. The bill is also in line with the overdue investment into education—completely consistent with the Government’s positive plan. Lastly, I have to admit I did also use my highlighter for a message to the Opposition, and that is “Cheer up”.

At the end of it I would like to say I commend this bill to the House. It is wonderful legislation. Thank you, Jan Tinetti, thank you to the select committee, the Minister, and everybody involved with this legislation. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

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

In Committee

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one with the part and all preliminary clauses.

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

Clauses 1 to 6

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Who would have ever thought, some 18 months later, that we would be speaking in the final committee stage of this masterful piece of legislation. I want to congratulate the member in the chair, Gareth Hughes, for actually picking up something that was quite an array of excitement, I suppose, and putting it into some form. In fact, when this bill entered the House, you could have been forgiven for using one of Sir Walter Scott’s sayings, which was “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When we first practise to”—and I change the “deceive” to “conceive”, because I wouldn’t accuse Steffan of deceiving. But he did get this conceived, and I think it’s pretty fascinating that we’ve got to the point with this bill—which was a member’s bill with good intent and actually had a large degree of support.

The problem with this bill is it was hugely complex to instigate in the form it was designed. The interesting thing about it is that it’s turned up as a one-pager at the end of it—or a two-pager, to be fair to the proponents of the bill and also to the Primary Production Committee, because they did an awful lot of work over the last 18 months. In fact, I would have thought this was one of the most complex pieces of stuff that’s gone through a select committee and come out in such a simple form. I think it’s really quite interesting, so congratulations to all of them on the work they did in getting it to this point.

There are some interesting factors in this bill, and a number of the issues that I was kind of interested in were particularly around pork, because how you get a piece of cured pork that turns out as a single-ingredient food takes some imagination. In fact, when you read the recipes for curing pork or whatever, you can find them with almost twice the amount of ingredients put into the curing process as there is actual pork in the process. So that’s an interesting sort of a challenge for—well, I guess—the Minister, at the end of the day, to establish where that gets to.

I think the other thing that many of you will know, and I don’t want to take the pork industry in vain at all, but when you pop a piece of bacon in the frying pan, quite often you end up with something coming out about a third of the size it went in. So that, for a single ingredient bit of product, is sort of interesting.

But I think, on the whole, this type of legislation around the world is probably interesting. It’s probably necessary. I wouldn’t say it is necessary, but it certainly gives consumers the ability to understand where things come from. I think it’s really important. You can go to numerous countries around the world where products are sold by country of origin, basically, rather than you might go into a supermarket and you will find numerous countries of origin. Take a vegetable, for example. In some parts of Asia, you might find they come from five or six different countries and they’ll be sold on racks according to country. So it is a pretty important thing for those people who are interested in the origins of their food.

I think that for the select committee to have worked through the process and got from a point where the original proponent of the bill was very keen to put it into Parliament as a separate bill and in its own entity—it’s now been picked up under the Fair Trading Act, and I think that’s a very appropriate place for it. It’s got a whole lot of products listed. The Minister has the opportunity to, from time to time, add to that and extend the list of products that come under the rules of the country-of-origin labelling, which I think is hugely appropriate. I think, on the whole, this process has really worked out pretty well. For those who sat on the select committee for the first 12 months that this bill was in the House, you would never have imagined it would get to the point that it’s got to now, so I think that’s a great credit to all those people involved in it.

Of course, the bill itself was put in process initially, I think, around the idea of market places, of farmers markets—all those sorts of processes—or little markets that were selling food. It’s now been standardised and it’s much easier to follow how it should work, and it won’t apply to little country fairs, to school gala days, and things like that necessarily. There is an opportunity for that to happen if it wants to, and people who sell things of course are always able to list their own product and the country of origin it comes from. So I think it’s a pretty good solution.

I think that the way this legislation is managed, I suppose, from a penalty point of view will be interesting, because the policing of all of this stuff takes some time and is a bit of a challenge. But I want to congratulate the member who introduced it—Steffan Browning—and I also want to congratulate Gareth Hughes on getting this bill through the process. I think it’s very well done and, for the select committee, they’ve done a great job with it too. So that’s my little contribution.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is a great pleasure to stand here in the committee of the whole House stage in support of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Just like my colleague Ian McKelvie, I’d like to congratulate—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): His full name, please.

KIERAN McANULTY: I thought I did say his full name, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Sorry, I thought you just said the surname.

KIERAN McANULTY: No, no. But you’re dead right, Madam Chair. He is a gentleman and should be known as Mr Ian McKelvie, such is the esteem that he is held in in this House—on this side anyway.

The member who sponsored this bill after taking it on from Steffan Browning, Gareth Hughes, has done a marvellous job. It is a difficult issue—this—around ensuring that consumers do have the right to know the country of origin of single-product food. Of course, it did create some issues, coming to the Primary Production Committee, around where we draw the line. It was a good process. I just want to say, fundamentally, right from the outset, that the Labour Party does agree with this. We have supported a mandatory labelling system of food for quite some time. But where that line is drawn took up a lot of the time at the select committee stage, in particular around how we might go about this.

I note that we focused on the Fair Trading Act and how this bill might be able to enable the Minister in charge—at the moment that of course is the Hon Kris Faafoi—who will be able to, over time, review what other foods could be included under this regime. The issue around cured pork has been mentioned. There are a vast number of other foods that consumers in this country would benefit from knowing the source of those products. And so it is a great pleasure to stand here and speak in support of this.

The member in charge might be able to assist the committee in adding further context and detail into a few particular things. There is a definition here around what food applies. I mean, there’s a few—vegetables and fruit, obviously, meat, seafood, nuts, grain, seeds, and oil. What other foods, those other foods that have been excluded at this point—I’d be interested to know what actually could indeed come under future inclusion under the regulations that this enables the Minister to be able to do.

Also, I’m interested in the fines. This bill, essentially, creates offences for false and misleading labelling on packaged food or displays. Of course, that is a relevant issue. Whenever you’re bringing in a mandatory system that requires people to label something, there is potentially the chance that they may avoid that in order to declare to consumers where the original source of this food product is. I note that the fines are up to $10,000 for individuals and $50,000 for organisations. I think it would benefit the committee if the member was to provide a wee bit more context on that, as to how those figures were come by and where they link to other similar offences.

Of course, looking at what the Minister in charge, under the Fair Trading Act, can do, particularly in order to enable and assist the New Zealand pork industry—this is a particularly important bill for them. They are an industry that has struggled over time because of cheap importing of similar products. I think New Zealand consumers on the whole would be quite surprised to know that their bacon and ham is often made from products that are imported from overseas. They might be processed here. They might be processed in New Zealand, but the original source of that product comes particularly from places like Canada, North America, and the Scandinavian countries as well. It’s certainly not suggesting that those products are inferior, but what this bill does is it ensures that the consumers know exactly where their products are coming from, not just where they might be manufactured.

It is of great importance not just to the pork industry but also the fishing industry as well. I note that when fish can easily be caught all around the world, perhaps processed here, it’s still only right that consumers know where that product comes from.

So, just a brief introductory comment there. I probably will take a few calls on this, such is the importance of the bill.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

KIERAN McANULTY: That’s right. I’m delighted to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber are looking forward towards those contributions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Well, it’s quite interesting that the Government members have found their voices in the committee of the whole House. It’s quite unusual; so they won’t be quite used to that.

This Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill is a very important bill, and I have sent a text to Steffan Browning, and I hope he’s at home listening. He never gives up. He said, “Maybe we should put an SOP in for grains and nuts and oils to be included.”

Kieran McAnulty: It’s not too late.

STUART SMITH: Well, it’s not too late, but I’m not going to put one in.

On the Primary Production Committee, as has been said, we spent a lot of time going through this, and as Mr McKelvie said, the bill is significantly different from where we started. It was really interesting working with the officials to see how things changed as we went through this process. It’s quite simple, you would think, to say “Look, we want all the food on the shelves that we buy to have their country of origin.” But once you start to get down and try and get a legal definition of what a country of origin is, when you start adding things, when the food is processed in some way or has other products added to it—salt, for example; did the salt actually come from the same country that the base food did?—that’s where the real rub came, in terms of drafting the legislation. We seemed to spend quite a bit of time going in circles trying to find a way through this.

Eventually, of course, we went for a fairly simple single-ingredient food option in the bill, but we included bacon in it. So there are some tough areas to deal with along the way. But, of course, we’ve found out very late in the piece that the Minister could do this by regulation and therefore we didn’t need to knock ourselves out trying to draft the perfect bill, particularly given that it was a member’s bill and the member didn’t have the backup of a cast of thousands of officials to help draft the bill. It was very complicated for quite a simple process.

The bill is in Gareth Hughes’ name, and he’s done a fine job taking over from Steffan. I know Steffan’s a great supporter of home-grown foods and particularly a great supporter of the local farmers’ markets, and I think that is where all the consumers who will be interested in this—it will spread out much wider than that, of course. But if you went along to a farmers’ market, people are there because they want to buy and connect with the grower of that food. They want to know that that food has been grown carefully in their region somewhere nearby, that they can look the person in the eye that has dealt with that food and know and have some confidence that there has been a lot of hard effort gone into that and that they are not being sold something that won’t meet their expectations in terms of quality and provenance.

I think that has been forgotten a lot in our fast-moving consumer goods world. I think the supermarkets, while they’ve been such a massive change in the way that we consume—you go back from when they were first introduced, I think it was in the 1970s in New Zealand. It was a massive change from the local greengrocer and butcher and so on. Now we tend to buy most of our food from one outlet, but there is a massive move for people to get back to buying food locally and to having that connection with the consumer.

This is another extension to allow food to be labelled with the country of origin, and it’s not a foreign thing. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, it’s of course par for the course in terms of the wine industry—so Burgundy and Bordeaux and Champagne, I gave as examples. They’re quite famous names in the wine industry, which are all regions in France. Champagne, of course, is what you would associate with sparkling wine. We call it sparkling wine because we’re not allowed to call it champagne. That’s the law. It’s the law to sell wine into the EU. It has to have, if you want to give it an origin, the region it’s grown in as well as the country that it’s grown in. So it’s well known. It hasn’t done the wine industry any harm.

We can think of gouda cheese, for example. There are others cheeses like Saint-Marcellin, Livarot, and other cheeses which all go back to the particular region that they are grown in. So this bill builds on that. It has a great history for it. I think well done to Steffan for introducing it, well done to Gareth Hughes for taking it over. It’s with pleasure that I commend it.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to speak at the committee stage of this bill. I, too, would like to acknowledge Mr Hughes for shepherding this bill through our Primary Production Committee and now through the remaining stages, and, likewise, I acknowledge Mr Browning, who originally introduced this bill.

The key to this bill—and it has been elegantly drafted, I must say. We received some excellent advice from the advisers in our consideration of this bill, but I am pleased to say that I’m quite proud of the work that the committee has achieved through finding an elegant solution which is not overly prescriptive, which provides flexibility through the promulgation of regulations but ultimately achieves the outcome which we want to achieve through this bill, which is to inform consumers of the country of origin of the food products they will be purchasing. The crux of this legislation is that the detail will be created by regulation, as I’ve said, and that will be done by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs recommending “the making of regulations … prescribing”—and this is the key term—“a consumer information standard for the disclosure of a regulated food’s country or place of origin.”

I just have a question to the member in the chair, Gareth Hughes, and that’s in relation to—I’ve been thinking about the bill, and the intent is to inform the consumer of the country or place of origin. It will be interesting, when the regulations are being drafted, how they will be able to require enough information which is informative to the consumer and not actually redundant, I guess. How do you differentiate between a country or place, because if a place is used, well, unless you know intimately the geography of the actual country which is the source of the food, it will be very, very difficult to actually know the actual place? So I don’t actually see much merit, necessarily, in the actual use of a place name. A country of origin, definitely, I think, will be able to better inform the consumer.

However, I think there may be an issue, for instance, when—I’m thinking of an example when, say, a fish product is caught in international waters. So it’s actually not part of any country of origin, but the place in which it is caught, as well, is quite ill-defined. It could be a seamount somewhere out in the ocean. How would that food be described? What would be the consumer information standard for that particular food product? So I think these are all quite technical but necessary questions that will need to be closely considered by the Minister and his ministry in the development of the regulations to ensure that—yes, we want to ensure that there is enough information available to the consumer, but we want to make sure that that information is actually meaningful to the consumer, as well. So those are just some initial thoughts around country and place.

The other matter that I had was how we are going to disclose the country of origin of food. It is deliberately broad. It’s not actually a label now; it’s actually what is appropriate, I guess, for the food product in question. But in thinking about that, yes, it may be—I believe a big sign would be sufficient for a big bin of apples or whatever fruit it is—grapes—to adequately meet the relevant regulation requirement. But there may be instances where—is it a positive obligation that, for instance, if that signage was not prominent enough, would that lead to a conviction of a person, a retailer, perhaps, if there is no labelling on the product and the actual generic signage or whatever is imposed by the regulations is not sufficient to adequately inform the consumer? Thank you.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This bill is a start. It’s not where I would’ve liked to have seen things go, but it is a start. I grew up, actually—you come home from school, you drink a pint of milk, you have a sandwich with Eta peanut butter on it, and you go out and play. Eta peanut butter, right? Made in New Zealand, isn’t it—isn’t it? Eta peanut butter is made in China. Who knew it was made in China—a staple brand of New Zealand is made in China. Sanitarium peanut butter—where’s that made?

Kieran McAnulty: That’s New Zealand, surely.

Hon STUART NASH: No—well, it could be made in the Chinese factory or it could be made in the Australian factory. Sanitarium—isn’t that a great New Zealand brand? No, it isn’t.

Hon Phil Twyford: What about Pic’s?

Hon STUART NASH: Pic’s is made in New Zealand. Now, how do we know that? Because it has got “Made in New Zealand” on it. If it’s not made in New Zealand, often it doesn’t have “Made in New Zealand”, because we make an assumption. Now, the assumption’s often wrong—the assumption is often wrong—and this is what our global brand stands for. This is what we go to the market with: a brand that has strength, that has efficacy, and that is worth a hell of a lot of money, and yet in our own country—in our own country—until now, we have not required brands to say where they’re coming from, and I think that is really bad. I think it’s a little—I won’t say dishonest; I think it’s disingenuous, because I think there are a number of foodstuffs that have purported to be from New Zealand, that have led us to believe they’re from New Zealand so we purchase them, and then we find out that Eta peanut butter is made in China, that Sanitarium peanut butter is made in China. We go, “Goodness me! Why didn’t I know this?” Why didn’t we know this? Well, the reason we didn’t know it is because it’s not mandatory to have that labelling on that jar of peanut butter.

But with this bill, I don’t actually see that that is going to change, and that really concerns me. It says here—and I quote—“The regulated food must include food that … is no more than minimally processed”. Why have we stopped at “no more than minimally processed”, and what does “minimally processed” mean? Does it mean that fish—filleted, you’ve got to have it on, but if it’s battered or crumbed, you don’t have to have the country labelling on? We should’ve gone a lot further. My understanding is Steffan wanted to go a lot further than this, but, in fact, the National Opposition, in the Primary Production Committee, blocked taking this bill a whole lot further. We need to be a lot further for two reasons—first of all, Brand New Zealand. I buy stuff because it’s from New Zealand because I want to support New Zealand industry. If I’m buying stuff thinking it’s from New Zealand, if I buy fish—it’s fresh; sure, it’s from New Zealand—and then I find out it’s from Indonesia or somewhere else, I don’t think that is honest. I think, in all our supermarkets, in all our retail stores, wherever we buy fresh fish, fresh food, or frozen, or wherever, it should be mandatory all the way down the chain.

When it says here that the Minister can actually have an exception to this if it is unduly onerous, what does that mean? What does “unduly onerous” mean? I would’ve thought that, you know, if it’s an apple, you put a little “Made in New Zealand” sign on it—or from China or California or Australia or wherever. Let’s be honest. Let’s allow the consumers to make the choices about where the food they are eating is coming from. If you want to buy only New Zealand made, then at least give us the option to do that. If you want to buy peanut butter from China, fine—no one’s stopping you buying peanut butter from China—but at least tell Kiwis where that peanut butter is from, and don’t let them believe it is from New Zealand.

Angie Warren-Clark: What about Marmite?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, Marmite is made in New Zealand, actually. Vegemite’s made in Australia; everyone knows that. But the thing is, let’s be honest about our food and let’s not just stop at food that is minimally processed, because that does not let consumers make the full choice when they are filling their trolley on their weekly or daily or whenever shopping excursion.

Take it all the way forward. Make sure we label food that is processed from China or India or America or Australia. Let’s just be honest about this. There’s one thing I will say, and that is that I think as consumers become more educated, more engaged, they want to know where their food is coming from. They want to know that it is from a country that believes in the ethical raising of animals. They want to know that the food is not processed by countries using child labour. Label all food with country of origin.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to get up and speak at this committee stage of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. New Zealand First has been a strong supporter of this bill right the way through. Although, just picking up from the previous speaker, the Hon Stuart Nash, we also were one of the handbrakes on expanding this bill wider. So it wasn’t just the National Party, as much as we like to throw them under the bus as much as possible.

But, in this case, I had very clear direction from our caucus to keep it simple, because, as we saw through the select committee process, it does get complex very quickly. Going to your Marmite example: it may be manufactured in New Zealand but where were those components—goodness knows what’s in Marmite actually, but where were those components? So it does get quite complex, but that is the intent of where we’re seeking to go. I think the member in the chair, Gareth Hughes, might like to allude to that further.

But we’re well behind the game here. In 2005, Australia brought their country of origin food labelling in. Fifty-five countries throughout the world have these standards already; their consumers know where their food comes from. But we took the view in New Zealand First that this is very much foundation legislation. It gives the single-component foods in the first instance so we can keep it simple, get the systems up and running, and, as we can prove it fit for purpose and get our systems going, then we can expand on that and bring in the Marmites and the like. And I think we would all like to go there.

Consumers have expressed a very strong interest for this. I think it was Horticulture New Zealand that did a survey: 71 percent of consumers said that they wanted country of origin labelling on their food. And it’s already mandatory on things like footwear and clothing and the like, so surely it should be for food that we’re putting in our bodies. Only 9 percent, I think, in that survey said that they weren’t interested. We certainly, at home, always buy New Zealand made where we can, but who knows?

Just going to the pork carve-out that we got and we debated greatly through the select committee process—60 percent of pork is imported. But also with the cured products—which was the carve-out to allow bacon and ham to come in—80 percent of bacon and ham is imported. And, Mr McKelvie, that is probably why it’s shrinking in the pan. You’ve got some of that foreign stuff. You’ll be able to know where the New Zealand stuff is shortly and be able to consume accordingly.

Importantly, actually, within that—and I’d be interested in the member’s view on this—85 percent of the 60 percent, so roughly half of all the pork coming in, is from countries that do not meet our animal welfare standards. And I note the member Mr Hughes is the great champion now of the pork industry, having got that carve-out through. He’s probably the only vegetarian in the world who has been championing the pork industry, but it shows the overall concept is bigger than individual taste. So that 85 percent—and we did ask some questions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when they came in: can we—and I know the answer is no now, with the trade deals that we have; as an exporting country we have to be very careful of the legislation that we pass in this House, that it doesn’t come across as a non-tariff barrier. But we are talking now about modern trade deals, and I just wonder whether it is something that we should be looking to in our modern trade deals that are coming up—the EU, the UK—to have those animal welfare standards incorporated in that, because I think that’s something that consumers also really want to know.

We’re putting more and more regulation on our farmers and producers and growers. We should know, as consumers, actually, that (a) we want confidence in our New Zealand producers but also, if we are going to consume an imported product, it would be handy to know that. So maybe our trade deals can upgrade to reflect that in the future.

So we look forward to progressing this through the committee stage. There are a number of details that I think we need to delve into at further stages but, at this point, we’re very happy to have this piece of legislation in the House. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, ngā mihi nui kia koutou, kia ora. I thank all members for their contributions in the Chamber. It’s my birthday today, so it’s the best present I could get, with all the kind words and, more importantly, the votes.

If you’ll indulge me, I’ll use a birthday cake analogy in terms of this legislation. When it came out of the oven—the original bill of Steffan Browning—it was kind of like the cakes that I bake for my kids. They need to be patched up a bit; they need a bit of icing to cover the cracks. And this is what we’ve done. I remember when David Bennett approached me when we’d agreed to work on this bill at his committee, which he ably chaired, it needed a bit of panel-beating, and it kind of needed that icing and a bit of covering.

So I think it has been improved. What we eventually got out of the committee was something more flexible, more pragmatic, and I think also more inclusive in terms of the ingredients. So, in terms of the flexibility, it’s kind of like instead of building a whole new kitchen to bake a cake, milling the grain yourself and growing all the ingredients, we had an existing kitchen, existing recipe, existing regime under the Fair Trading Act. So instead of building a bespoke country of origin food-labelling regime, the officials—whom I’d like to take this opportunity to commend—recommended that we use the existing section 27 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. Now, this makes a lot of sense.

I heard a question from a member around why the fines were set at that level: $10,000 for an individual, $50,000 for an organisation. The benefit of incorporating the Fair Trading Act regime means that they can be consistent and use the existing enforcement and offences regime. It’s more pragmatic, the way that it’s come out of the committee, because takeaways, for example, are explicitly excluded. It deals with issues such as online retailing.

In terms of the inclusion, this is something the member Stuart Nash touched on, and I really want to highlight the work of Mark Patterson on the committee. It has been panel-beaten; it has been improved. Why the line was drawn where it was, and the line had to be drawn somewhere, was that the committee—and I guess I’d like to acknowledge the fact that it was a committee which was a split committee between Government and Opposition members—had to reach consensus to progress it, to improve it, to panel-beat it. They wanted something which was the simplest to implement, with the least cost, to avoid confusion around definitions.

This is why I was so glad to get pork in, because here was a clear case of where there was a consumer expectation, given the high-profile nature and the widespread confusion. I recall being on telly and taking a whole bunch of different pork brands into the studio and not being able to work out which pork brand actually came from New Zealand. And we know, as Mark Patterson talked about, the vast majority of pork that comes into New Zealand is from countries with lower animal welfare standards. So getting that at the eleventh-hour—that’s where I’d like to acknowledge the National Party members. It was their support that was instrumental in getting pork back in.

To Stuart Nash’s point that he would have liked to have gone further, I wish I’d had a chance to talk to him about that earlier, because we wanted it to go further. Originally, Steffan’s bill dealt with all single-component foods. But I guess, kind of like a recipe, kind of like a soup, what we do have is a great base. Those peanut butter examples, for example: take Pic’s in New Zealand, a great high-quality brand that trades on the New Zealand nature of it. There’s nothing stopping them from promoting the fact, but the line had to be drawn somewhere. And what the committee wanted was something which was easily understandable.

So, sure, questions might be asked about why tomatoes are in but tinned tomatoes out. Why is fruit in but nuts are out? Why are cucumbers in but pickles are out? It’s because of the different ingredients that go into it. Take pickles: the oil and the spices. In the future, I think New Zealand will get closer to the Australian regime, which is a lot more comprehensive. There they, literally, have speedo indicator lines that indicate the percentage to 76 percent of Australian-grown ingredients. So I cede to the member Stuart Nash, this is like a base recipe. It’s the great foundation that empowers a robust system where the Minister in future Governments can make regulations and build upon it.

Ultimately, it’s something which is more flexible, more pragmatic, more inclusive, but most importantly, Kiwi consumers are getting the same rights that 55 other nations have, which Kiwis currently have when it comes to footwear, under our footwear and clothing regulations of 1992. Kiwis will get the right to know where their food comes from so they can be informed consumers and actually exercise their consumer choice. I’d like to thank members for their support.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): As we’ve been sort of starting to talk about this bill, I’ve been reflecting—I mean, obviously on the food to which this bill is supposed to apply, but also reflecting on the different sites at which food is sold, actually, in my own electorate of New Lynn. In particular, I’ve thought of three different types of sites. I mean, there are obviously the supermarkets. There are—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I’m sorry. It’s time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, the committee has resumed. Prior to the dinner break, we were debating the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, and Dr Deborah Russell had the call and has four minutes and 33 seconds remaining should she wish to take it.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to take every second available to me. Before the dinner break, I was reflecting on the different places in my electorate of New Lynn where you could buy food, where people could buy food.

Angie Warren-Clark: You were hungry?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah, there’s the obvious—perhaps I was hungry. The obvious places are the supermarkets. There are several fine supermarkets in the electorate. But then I was thinking about the Titirangi markets—the Sunday markets that run on Titirangi once a month—and the Avondale markets, which run every Sunday. Now, the Titirangi markets really don’t have fruit and vege there, but they do have cheese, locally produced cheese. It’s a craft market and a farmers market. As is the usual thing with the farmers market rules, or craft market rules in this particular market, the person who is selling the product must be the person who has actually made it in the first place. So there’s not too much of a worry about where the food that’s sold at the Titirangi market comes from; it’s fairly clearly made in New Zealand.

But the Avondale markets are a different matter. They are run at the racecourse on Sundays, and they are huge—possibly not as huge as some of the markets out in South Auckland, but they are huge. There are many, many vendors there, and lots and lots of fruit and vege vendors, and often pretty hard-working immigrant families who come in, grow food, and sell it. At that market, I think people would be safe in assuming that the food had come from New Zealand, perhaps, but I’m not entirely sure about that. For example, from time to time there are pineapples for sale there. Now, to my knowledge, we don’t grow pineapples in New Zealand. So I was thinking about the labelling requirements for what is, essentially, a growers’ market, or perhaps the vendors at the market go and buy stuff from wholesalers and then they sell it the next day. They are often on-selling slightly less fresh food. Often it’s grown in their own market gardens and it’s kind of the excess, the stuff that couldn’t be sold to supermarkets because it’s not good enough, but it’s perfectly good food.

So I’m wondering about the labelling requirements at the Avondale markets as opposed to a supermarket. I see there is a clause that food can be excluded from being a regulated food if requiring the food to comply with the standard would be unduly onerous or wouldn’t help consumers to make informed decisions about purchasing the food. That’s in clause 5(4). So that’s interesting there, but this is not really to do with the food itself per se; it’s to do with where it’s being sold and the type of market it’s being sold at. To my mind, it’s not going to be quite as easy for the vendors, for the sellers at the Avondale markets, to label the food, to be able to display where it has come from, in quite the same way that it would be, I think, comparatively easy for the vendor at a supermarket to be able to label the fresh fruit and vege that’s being sold there, and, of course, in the Titirangi markets, given the nature of the farmers market, that makes a difference.

Now, look, I see that in some of the discussion around this bill, there was some consideration given to roadside vendors, people who have stall on the side of the road—you know, lemons for sale, with an honesty box perhaps—

Dr Duncan Webb: Free-range eggs.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —free-range eggs for sale, those sorts of things which are just there. Of course, as you are driving by and you stop at one of these roadside stalls to buy—or perhaps cycling, walking, scootering by, whatever happens to be the way that you’re choosing to transport yourself. That’s quite easy to make the assumption that that is where, in fact, the food was produced, but somehow the possible disconnection between the food produced on farmland but sold at the Avondale markets—that’s exercising my mind. I’m rather hoping that I can get some clarification, perhaps some report-back from what the Primary Production Committee discussed on this point—because I’m sure the committee would have discussed it; it’s quite an interesting point around food production and sale—and what resolution they came to with it. That would help me to understand, in particular, how it’s going to affect people in my electorate who sell food. It’s something I very much want to know about.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Chair, I appreciate being able to take a call this evening on this bill, the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. Before I commence my remarks, I want to wish the member Gareth Hughes happy birthday, and I hope that this is a fantastic birthday present for you.

This evening, I really only want to traverse four questions. I think, look, if we take the members’ bill that was introduced by Steffan Browning—and there have been a range of quite substantive amendments from that bill. Whilst I’m now a member on the Primary Production Committee, I wasn’t there for some of the previous discussions that you had had since this parliamentary term commenced and since the member picked this bill up, so I’ve got a couple of questions across a range of different issues.

If we turn to clause 5(3), there’s a discussion there that “regulated foods must include”—and the question I have is around the frozen foods. I know that there is an exception. There are a couple of questions I had about frozen foods. So, one, they are included in the regulated foods, but I saw that they are not going to be included until 18 months after the commencement. I guess I’m just wanting to understand the rationale there and why the delay. Two, in the original, when this bill was introduced by the member Steffan Browning, there was a whole range of single-component foods that were intended to be included—fruit, vegetable, meat, seafood, nut, grain, seed, oil, and others—and I know that not all of these foods have been included. It would be helpful to understand why, because you’ve obviously received some advice or there have been some issues flagged with them, but particularly around things such as seeds, and, actually, the honourable member Stuart Nash earlier raised some questions around nuts. Yeah, it would be really useful just to understand the policy rationale for not including those specific foods in the definition of the regulated foods.

I think it is—where is it—in clause 5(4). It’s an oddly worded provision perhaps—and I appreciate the work that has gone in by the officials to help us understand these particular provisions—but it says here: “However, the consumer information standard may exclude any food from being a regulated food if the Minister considers that requiring the food to comply with the standard— (a) would be unduly onerous; or (b) …” wouldn’t be helpful, basically, to consumers. I’m interested in the threshold for “unduly onerous” and what would be considered “unhelpful”.

In the commentary on the bill, I saw that there was a reference to, sort of, roadside stalls. If that’s an example, I would be interested in others. My question there would be: why don’t we just have an express exemption? It does seem that these are relatively undefined terms. “Unduly onerous”—is that for the small stallholder or others? Yeah, it would be good to understand a little bit further there if, particularly, this issue ever did get down to the courts where they were considering imposing a penalty of between $10,000 to $50,000 and it turned on the articulation in that provision, “unduly onerous”. It would be good to understand what the intent of Parliament was for those that are seeking to interpret it.

In clause 8—oh yeah, right, sorry—I think I covered that off. That was around the nuts and other foods and why they haven’t been included at this—sorry, not nuts. It’s seeds, isn’t it—seeds? Yeah, the range of foods I’ve already mentioned. I won’t get into that.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I want to pick up on some of the points we’ve heard in the debate, and I want to start with the last comment by Kiritapu Allan, which was around the courts and how some of these tricky questions of definition—where the line is drawn, what’s in and what’s out—are dealt with. Now, this goes back to the original point, which is why it’s such a pragmatic step to use the Fair Trading Act as the model or the template and using the existing infrastructure, offences, and regulation-making powers, rather than a bespoke system. This is something that was proposed in the original bill, and you would have had to decide the specific exemptions, a specific regime, and how you’d deal with those different issues.

The member Dr Deborah Russell talked about the Avondale market, and my message to those people who go to the Avondale market is that this bill isn’t going to require each fruit and each food product sold at that market to have an individual label. What we worked through with the officials was that, as quite commonly frequently happens—say you’ve got a big crate full of fruit sold at the market. You can just put on the side of the crate “Product of Gisborne, New Zealand.”, for example, for mandarins or oranges. So that would be sufficient to provide greater certainty.

This is where clause 5(4) comes in, around trying to make it a pragmatic, workable regime that isn’t onerous, because what we don’t want to do is put a whole bunch of costs on to retailers or food providers which ultimately, of course, are simply going to flow through to consumers. So we’ve canvassed the very specific example of a roadside stall. It’s pretty apparent where the food’s coming from when you see the farm or the orchard literally as you pull up in the car and buy the food.

I would point out a protection, though, which is that if that vendor is fraudulently selling produce from other countries and pretending that it’s from New Zealand, existing complaint provisions under the Fair Trading Act could apply. Another example where foods may be considered more onerous is coffee. Here, you regularly see beans from multiple countries imported in New Zealand, dried together, and sold as a product. They’re medium or dark roast, for example, and it’s not actually listed as to whether they’re from Mexico or Ghana or Nicaragua. This was a very clear example that was canvassed in the select committee and that I imagine the Minister would make in regulations; one of those foods which is excluded.

Now, why it’s important to have foods in, of course, is that consumers at the Avondale market might want to know why they’re buying products. It could be for worker rules in that country, or because of their genetic engineering policy. It could be because of their policy on antibiotics or the environment. There are multiple reasons why consumers need that information. At a roadside stall, less so, but if you’re talking about the Avondale market or if you’re talking about a Countdown or a Foodstuffs, it’s quite important that consumers can actually have the power and the information so that they can exercise it.

We heard a question from the member Kieran McAnulty about frozen foods—why is there a differential time? Now, why the committee agreed for a greater length of period for frozen foods to come into this regime—18 months—is because of the packaging rules. It simply takes a lot longer to change the packaging on frozen foods, which can sit in a supermarket or other store freezer for an awfully long time. We wanted to find a pragmatic, workable solution that gave them more than enough time to work with this regime.

This touches on the issue of cost, which I know some National members on the committee were concerned about. Now, we had two rounds of submissions, and on the second round we specifically asked some retailers about the issue of costs of foods. What we heard was actually two very divergent estimates from some of our largest retailers in New Zealand. On one side, there was the argument that large IT infrastructure costs would flow through in the order of millions of dollars, and on the other side, there was virtually zero cost, because with existing IT infrastructure and labelling rules in supermarkets—noting that many supermarkets already do try and encourage country-of-origin labelling as much as possible—there would be zero cost at all.

Even at that greatest cost estimate, which I think was—well, I know the member Stuart Smith on the committee picked this up, with his background with wine and other food retailing. It was probably a little bit on the overgenerous side. Still, in terms of the average consumer in New Zealand, we’re talking literally cents on the impact. What they gain, of course, is the consumer power to exercise that power, which they couldn’t have if they didn’t have the information. So that’s the answer as to why frozen food has a differential time period—we were trying to make it more workable.

Thirdly, when it comes to the issue of nuts, grains, and seeds, this is something that would have been covered under Steffan Browning’s original proposal as a clearly single-component food, but, actually, it’s a lot more complicated than that because, obviously, nuts are roasted, they’re blanched, and often seasonings or other products are put on nuts. So the question is—and National members didn’t want to see this included in the bill, because the Minister, through regulation-making powers under section 27 of the Fair Trading Act, can actually have a much more involved consultation with food providers or retailers than was possible for a member and the Primary Production Committee.

So we may see nuts in this regime. The issue, of course, with, say, wheat—which is another example very similar—is that often wheats grown in various countries are milled together, so it’s very difficult to find the actual origin for it. So if we simply exclude it at this point, it doesn’t exclude it at the end product, but it does give the country more time to consult and actually hear from people so that we can find this workable regime.

Pork, though, was the key standout, and I’m very pleased that all parties supported its inclusion back in. Here was a clear case where consumers were demanding information. We—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I’m kosher, so it’s irrelevant to me.

GARETH HUGHES: Ah, we have a kosher member in the committee, but do you know where your pork comes from, the Hon Chris Finlayson, because when I look at the label—

Rt Hon David Carter: It’s probably come from a pig.

GARETH HUGHES: “From a pig”, David Carter says. But you wouldn’t know if that pig came from Mexico or Scandinavia or the Wairarapa, and for those consumers that want to know where their pig products came from, they will actually get that choice. So thank you very much for the questions. I’m glad I was able to talk about them.

I did touch on penalties in an earlier call, but for clarification’s sake, the penalties—$10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a corporate offence—are similar to the existing Fair Trading Act provisions. What we didn’t want was something far out of whack with the existing rules. This way, all consumers and all retailers can have certainty that a fair regime will apply to them. I’m not anticipating we’re going to see great offences. I think we have a very honest retailing sector in New Zealand. But where we do see egregious breaches—and I hope we don’t see them—we do have a clear penalty, a clear offence, that can make sure that this regime actually has teeth.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It’s with, obviously, some trepidation that I stand up to speak on a food bill. But this is important stuff, and as someone who’s treated his body as a temple—a very large temple, with a lot of space to fill over the years—it’s something that I do have some degree of concern about, and I quite seriously do believe that this bill is something that consumers want.

But I am a little perplexed. In fact, I had a numbing moment when the member Gareth Hughes was speaking before, as many in the Chamber did, when I looked around, and it suddenly struck me, when you were talking about the difficulty of frozen foods and various other things like that—so I’ve got a very simple question for the member in the chair: has he got an organic recipe for an ink that will dry on the frozen food package and not smudge as it defrosts?

The problem is that people open those plastic packets—firstly, should they be plastic? Should they be plastic? As they open those packets, you end up with that ink smudge all over your fingers. It doesn’t matter how many times you run off to the hand sanitiser and the paper towel, when you come back to try and get the product out—they might be your peas, right? If they were green peas one minute, next minute they’re black peas, because of the ink that’s got all over them. So I think that’s an aspect of this bill that could be enhanced, and I would hope that the member has thought about this and has some Supplementary Order Paper that would mean that you have to have a stable—a stable—organic ink on the frozen food package, particularly when you’re putting date stamps on, and things like that, as the member was mentioning before.

I commend him, though, for the bill. I hope that he’s not going to prolong its passing, because there are thousands of consumers, tens of thousands of consumers, hundreds of thousands of consumers out there who are waiting for the surety that they can get as a result of this bill passing through the House, knowing that their food will actually have reasonable labelling on it. That part I’m very, very serious about, but I am equally concerned about the poisons that are being put into the freezer in that small little bit of ink that causes such a problem for so many people.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just ask the honourable member to maybe take 20 spaces into the next hall where there’s quite literally tonight a demonstration of all the sustainable alternatives to plastics and oils we have in this country, so he won’t get ink on his hands in the future.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to stand tonight and have a few questions of the member Gareth Hughes. Now I just would like to wish you happy birthday. Did I say Gareth Hughes? I did say “Gareth Hughes”. Happy birthday. Now that was not my best start; anyway we will continue onwards.

I’m really delighted to talk tonight. I’m not on Primary Production Committee, but however I am on the Health Committee and the Environment Committee and this bill really segues nicely—really segues nicely—into the two areas that I sit on. In particular, in the Environment Committee we are initiating a briefing on food rescue and one of the things that—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I do just want to bring the member—we’ve traversed this bill for some time now, so can we come to the specifics of the bill.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: It was just around the labelling, sorry. So the reality is that with our labelling of our food what is going to happen, particularly with our international food—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Inky fingers.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK:—yes, and sticky fingers—is that we are actually going to know where it comes from, and then, at that point, this food may not be as popular as the food that is from country of origin. So I just raise that point.

And on that note, I want to specifically talk to clause 5(3) which says regulated food must include food that “(a) is either—(i) only 1 type of fruit, vegetable, meat, fish, or seafood that—(A) is fresh (even if previously frozen) or frozen”—and this is the point that I want to ask the member about. It excludes food that is, for example, dried, cured, or pickled. So I’m really interested in the fact—because when we look at food that is dried, or cured, or pickled, generally speaking, you know, it’s more than 50 percent, which the bill makes reference to. So I’m a little bit confused about how that works and I’d like an explanation please.

And then I’d also like to know—the further part to that is “(B) is no more than minimally processed (for example, by being cut, minced, filleted, or surface treated);”. So I’m just confused around the two definitions. One is cured; one is pickled. One is filleted, minced, or surface treated—not quite sure what that is; I didn’t get a chance to google that. So what is surface treated food? And I noticed the carve-out and I’d like the member’s comment around the carve-out of pork. I noticed that and I have seen quite a bit in the—

Dr Duncan Webb: Well scored.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Yes, I thought it was quite witty. So I have noted that. But in particular, we have cured included elsewhere but, of course, cured pork—are we actually referring to bacon? Is this what we are referring to—bacon? So I’d like that clarified.

Finally, I’d like to talk about clause 5(3)(c)(i), which talks about food “for immediate consumption: a restaurant, cafeteria, takeaway shop, canteen, or similar place, or a caterer;”. They don’t need to record this and I do understand the fact that that’s because there’s lots of ingredients. But what I was interested in is at a fundraising event. So the fundraising event was excluded. Now, we all get the jar of pickles for sale, right? But why is—say if I wanted to sell a pile of lemons at a fundraising event, why would that be excluded or would it not be excluded? So it’s just a question in regards to that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Would the member buy lemons because the pickles weren’t sour enough for her?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh, how mean!

So really, it was really some questions specifically about those: how you got to those words and also, finally, just to reply to Rino Tirikatene’s question around fish and country of origin. My understanding is country of origin is the boat that it was caught on and I wanted to just confirm with the member that that was a case—so fish that might be caught in our international waters but caught on, for example, you know a Korean boat or something, that fish becomes the product of Korea.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We might take one more.

Dr Duncan Webb: It must be my turn, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Dr Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. For a moment there, I thought I was invisible, but I thank you for seeing me there.

I have a question for the member in respect of clause 6. My colleagues here have been entertaining us or enlightening us with some questions about food, but mine’s much more technical. It’s around the repeal of the Act, because it’s quite unusual. It’s quite an unusual clause, member Hughes, that you’ve got there—that the Act is repealed 18 months after its commencement. I wonder if advice was taken on this because the effect of repeal on delegated legislation is something we need to think very carefully about, and it doesn’t actually provide in this bill that any delegated legislation made in pursuance of it remains in effect notwithstanding the repeal of what appears to be empowering legislation. So that’s my first point.

I do have a related point because the options are either it remains in place, but traditionally when the empowering legislation disappears, that’s the foundation upon which the delegated legislation is built and the rest of it all crumbles away. Now, I am aware that this is a slightly unusual piece of legislation because in a sense it’s saying: here’s the obligation to make this delegated legislation but it’s to be made under section 27 of the Fair Trading Act—and that’s clause 5(1). So you’ve got this unusual situation where you’ve got section 6 repealing the Act, but it may or may not be called empowering legislation.

In that sense, in, say, clause 5(1), my concern is that whilst it directs the Minister to make a recommendation, there’s a danger in there, isn’t there, member, that the Minister may change his mind that the recommendation—

Hon Member: Or her.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —or her. At the current time I think it’s Mr Faafoi, but the Minister may make that recommendation and then may either change that recommendation, revoke that recommendation, or even, once the regulations are in place, could simply say—and I’m sure the current Minister wouldn’t do this, but a future one might—“Oh that was a bad idea. I’ve decided that for whatever reason such and such goods which we’ve got in this bill, you know, dried fruit, cured pork are going to be excluded from it,” and it seems to be absolutely no fetter on the Minister having a change of heart in that regard.

So I’m wondering, member, if any thought was given to that, because whilst it’s a good direction to the Minister to make that recommendation, it seems to be somewhat weak in its future enforcement of it. So really my questions are about the way this works both in terms of the regulations themselves, which are of course regulations, which as member Brownlee will know, will go before the Regulations Review Committee and may be disallowed, for whatever reason, but, also, what happens on repeal and what will be the case if the Minister changes his mind. Clearly, it would be a real concern, but it strikes me that there’s no ability for this House to use any powers under this piece of legislation to revisit it.

So the member might want to think about amending clause 6 to make it clear that the regulations survive any repeal, and, secondly, give this House some power to take, essentially, an enforcement action against a Minister who doesn’t make the recommendation or who changes their mind on the recommendation or who, in fact, having made a recommendation and the regulations having been passed, then changes the regulations in a way that would have been inconsistent with this legislation. Of course, the legislation may then have been repealed, which leads us into another conundrum.

Having said that, Mr Hughes, I do absolutely congratulate you on this piece of legislation. It’s a huge leap forward, and much needed, a piece of legislation that we’ve all been waiting for, and you’ve shown the patience of a saint in working through it, seeing the massive changes and negotiating your way through a very difficult piece of legislation. So I congratulate you on that.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the members for their, I think, very thoughtful and reasonable questions—except the one who said “Can the member explain dried, cured, and pickled?” You’re asking a vegetarian! I’m the last person in this House who should answer, but I do know that those processes involve adding additional materials in the process of drying or curing or pickling—for example, oil with pickles. So there was the line that was drawn by the Primary Production Committee, by all parties, which was that it didn’t have to have additional ingredients. Now, other ways that the line could have been drawn was “Does the primary product constitute 50 percent of the final product?”—say, you know, a bag of frozen vegetables, for example. Would that be included if it was a three-way mix of carrots, corn, and peas? So the committee thought that the most practical, workable, and least costly or cheapest alternative was simply to have those products—so meat that has been cut and sliced but then crumbed wouldn’t be in.

The issue of surface treatment is quite an interesting one and shows how modified our food actually is. Often, modern foods are surface treated—this is adding either a liquid or a powder on to the food. Probably the best example I can give is grated cheese. Here you’ve got a material—a powder, I understand—for anti-caking, which is applied to the shredded or grated cheese to stop it sticking together and easier to disperse. So that’s why surface treatment was listed.

When it comes to the issue of trade barriers, this was a previous concern of different Governments of both colours, in previous years, over the debates around country of food origin being raised. Some submitters, such as Beef and Lamb New Zealand, did raise concern around barriers. It was very useful to have Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials come and advise the committee that it was possible to design this bill in such a way and that it was possible to implement it in such a way that it wouldn’t be breaching the technical barriers for trade under the World Trade Organization—basically, because this legislation enshrines principles of non-discrimination. Now, I believe it would be a breach of international trade rules if we only required, let’s say, hypothetical country X to label their products but no other country, or a whole bunch of countries but not New Zealand. This legislation will apply evenly to food provided in all countries. So it was reassuring to get that advice. It has been a red herring that has been used by different public commentators for many, many years as a barrier. The thing that I point out, of course, is that 55 other countries around the world have this exact rule to greater or lesser degrees, and in most countries to greater degrees, so it clearly hasn’t been a barrier to trade in other countries.

When it comes to clause 6, though, I guess you could call it a suicide clause, Dr Webb, which is the idea that this legislation—this bill—actually won’t exist in the future. Now, this is simply because the committee decided the most workable solution was using the existing legislation, not creating standalone legislation. The hypothetical scenario was posed that what if a Minister in the future decides to weaken our labelling laws. Now, I don’t have any concerns on that. Here we see Parliament passing and, I hope, continuing it unanimously, and what we see around the world is a greater desire by consumers and a greater responsibility provided by Governments to those consumers to provide labelling information. So, in Australia, I’ve talked about the much more comprehensive regime they have presently. I think we’re only going in one direction—that’s towards greater labelling information.

My vision of the future is of course that consumers can have much more information on the history of their products: the provision of where the product was grown or raised. That’s where the issue of fish comes in. Now, this is an issue where we have to do much more detailed work with Government officials and the regulation-making powers. Different jurisdictions apply different rules. In Europe, I understand, it’s where the fish was caught, for example. In New Zealand, we’ve lost a lot of our fish-processing capability and we do see a great deal of fish actually processed offshore. So the question of whether a fish is caught in, say, international waters, processed in the territorial sea but landed in New Zealand and sold here—how would that apply? We really do need to do more detailed work because of the complexities involved with the modern global economy.

I think this will be my last call. I’ve tried to respond to all questions. I think we’ve seen a very good debate. What we do see, ultimately, though, is legislation which is giving consumers more power and more information. It is going to be a workable system, as we talked about with Stuart Nash’s contribution earlier. I also believe it’s a foundation that we can build on and move closer to the Australian regime, but I do thank all members for their well wishes and their support.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

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

In Committee

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. That leave is not granted.

Clause 1 Title

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Clause 1 relates to the title of the bill. Before we get too far in, I want to acknowledge that this is a sensitive and live issue. We’ve learnt not very long ago of another death that is provisionally attributed to psychoactive substances, in Napier, and I want to extend my sympathies and concern to the family and friends of the person who has died. And I’m sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I extend those sympathies. People come from many different views to debate this bill, but I think what unites the House is a genuine concern for those people who are dying from these products. So I do want to acknowledge that death and pay respect to those who are affected by it.

The title of this bill is currently the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I want to put forward an argument that the title itself is a misnomer and should indeed be changed, because I believe the suggestion is that increasing the penalty will affect supply and distribution. That is implicit in the title of the bill as it is currently worded, and I find that to be implausible. I do not think there is any evidence—there is certainly no credible evidence—that suggests that increasing a penalty will actually affect supply and distribution as a deterrent, and we heard in the select committee submissions from the Police Association, who said they knew of no evidence that increasing penalties would interrupt supply, that it would have an effect as a deterrent, because they’ve seen no evidence. The Police Association have not seen evidence that convinces them that increasing a penalty would have any effect on supply and distribution. So that’s the argument I want to lay out.

I want to say that the title of the bill is currently a misnomer and should be changed. I would rather that it said “Psychoactive Substances”—and I’ll ask the member who’s responsible for the bill; I am hesitant because I suspect he may not agree with me; he’s outlined a different point of view in the debate. So I’ll hesitantly suggest my title; he may have another one. Perhaps the title might better read “Psychoactive Substances (Incarcerating for Longer) Amendment Bill”. That is the effect of this bill—that, and that alone, is likely to be the effect of this bill. Those who are picked up and incarcerated will be incarcerated for longer, including those who are caught up as users who are peddling to support their habit rather than necessarily the big surprise that we know are the ones that we need to interrupt if we want to make this a health issue rather than merely an issue that criminalises more New Zealanders who are caught up with addictions.

So changing the title of the bill, therefore, to “Psychoactive Substances (Increased Length of Incarceration) Amendment Bill” or similar would be a more accurate title. I put that forward for the member’s consideration and for the consideration of other members in the committee, because I think it’s important as a Parliament that the bills that we pass in this Parliament are in plain English, that they can be engaged with by the public, and that people can understand the purpose of them. I think the way that the bill is worded at the moment, as I suggest, is a little bit misleading. It’s a misnomer to suggest that that will have any effect on supply and distribution.

We’ve also heard from groups like Ngāti Whātua, who also say that this bill will disproportionately affect Māori, because many of those caught up in addictions, and, certainly, caught up in the criminal justice system and incarcerated for these kinds of crimes, are Māori. So as a second potential amendment to the title, we might want to also somehow label the negative effect that iwi have noted in their submissions on Māori that will come as a consequence of this bill.

That will be the end of my first contribution, because I wanted to ask that question. I have some other questions to ask, but I will save them for further contributions.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to stand and take a call on this, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. Can I please acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Simeon Brown, who brought this bill to the House. Because he has had representations made to him by his constituents, because he supported a family that has faced and suffered a tragedy through the use of these psychoactive substances, he is deeply passionate about this. He worked very hard on it. He identified what he thought was a bill that could come to this House and would go some way towards helping around the distribution of what we, sadly, see is taking a heavy toll on our communities daily. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Health and share in his comments. My condolences and my thoughts are with the family of that person who died recently in Hawke’s Bay.

I was in Christchurch about four weeks ago and I met with John Price, the police area commander. At that time, they had 14 people in intensive care who had had a very bad reaction to a bad batch of psychoactive substances. I have to say, though, that I am disappointed that the Labour Party, in particular, is not supporting this bill. I have to say also that it seems to be very convenient for them—and I want to refer to some of the comments that the Minister made around the evidence-based legislation being brought to this House.

It seems to me that, when the Government brings legislation to this House, for example, the massive and negative impact they’ve made on the oil and gas sector—that was done without any evidence. If there was evidence, then we’d like to see it. They made a massive decision—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, just seeking your guidance. My understanding is that we are presently debating the title clause within this legislation, and may I hesitate to suggest that it appears as though the member is going outside of that ambit.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member for the intervention. It is entirely up to the Chair to rule on relevance. This is only the second call, but you are right. I will ask members not to stray past the title part of the bill, considering the committee has deemed it that this is a clause by clause debate rather than it being taken as one question.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. All I’m doing is addressing the issues that the Minister has raised. So I will come back to the title, and I’d like to raise the point—and maybe a caller from the Government can respond to this—that the Minister said they had no evidence that would indicate or show that having tougher penalties in relation to people who are dealing—

Hon Dr David Clark: It’s the Police Association’s claim.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —these drugs. Well, so all the Minister is going off is the Police Association’s claim.

Hon Dr David Clark: No. No. I’ve referred to others. There’s no evidence I’ve seen. But I agree. I agree.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So what was the correction? There’s no evidence?

Hon Dr David Clark: No evidence that I’ve seen that’s credible.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK. So he said that there’s no evidence—he’s just correcting the record, and I’ll put it on Hansard. There’s no evidence that he said or has presented to the House that is credible, and I assume—

Hon Dr David Clark: That shows a deterrent effect.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s showing that it has a deterrent effect? OK. So that’s what I want to speak about. And that’s why I find it very surprising that the Labour Government—and their coalition partner, New Zealand First, is supporting this; they can see value in it. I just don’t understand why the Labour Government isn’t taking a strong position in terms of supporting this bill when the Minister himself just stood in the committee and said that we’ve just lost another life. There is a family suffering right now in Hawke’s Bay because they’ve just lost one of their loved ones.

This will make a difference, because what it means—

Marja Lubeck: This isn’t going to solve it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, did a member over there say something? I’ll put that on the Hansard as well.

What this bill does do is it provides a deterrent in the sense of someone that is dealing drugs now, before they take that step to actually start dealing these psychoactive substances, they are going to have to look very carefully at what that means in terms of imprisonment and the type of sentence that they will be facing.

Let’s flip it the other way and say that the Police Association comes out and says there is no evidence to say this will make a difference. So if you’re applying that logic, does it mean that we should actually be going back and reducing sentences—that that would make no difference in terms of offending? Because I actually—

Marja Lubeck: It doesn’t even make any sense to make that leap.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the member seems very keen to make comments. Please make them so I can hear them, so I can repeat them and put them on the Hansard.

Marja Lubeck: I said that leap doesn’t make any sense.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, what was that?

Kiritapu Allan: It doesn’t make any sense.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What do you mean “It doesn’t make any sense.”? You’re putting an argument to us—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Not me.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —in this committee tonight that penalties—sorry, Madam Chair. So your argument is—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. No.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —simply this: that penalties don’t matter—that penalties don’t matter. So the member is trying to put the argument to us in New Zealand now that penalties do not matter—that they cannot be a deterrent to offending. If that’s what you believe, the next speaker should take a call and explain to us that position.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’re debating the title of this bill. The title is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. Let’s start with “Amendment Bill”. What an amendment to any bill is supposed to do is actually make that bill better. It’s taking a bill that hasn’t worked, or for some reason there was a legislative anomaly, or when the bill was considered they got something wrong, and they’ve looked at all the evidence, they bring an amendment bill in, and the amendment bill is supposed to improve the initial bill. This does not improve the initial bill, so let’s start with that premise.

The second point is that this is about psychoactive substances. The psychoactive substances legislation was actually brought in to regulate legal highs. That is why it exists. It is to regulate highs that society or science deems are OK for society to take. Psychoactive substances—

Nicola Willis: 50 deaths.

Hon STUART NASH: You are dead right: 50 deaths—50 deaths; it was said by that member. That is what we are facing, including one today in my home town. Synthetic cannabinoids are not something that should come under the psychoactive substance legislation, because in no way, shape, or form could you ever consider that they are a legal high or they should be regulated or policed under a bill designed to regulate legal substances. They have caused more deaths in the last 12 months than any other drug put together, except, maybe, alcohol.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Soft on crime.

Hon STUART NASH: Soft on crime, Mr Brownlee? Soft on crime? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The second thing in the title is “(Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution)”. What I suggest is that increasing penalties for supply and distribution is actually political posturing. Let’s be brutally honest about this. This is about political posturing. What I would say, and I would say this to Simeon Brown—and he’s been offered this before. If he is absolutely serious, if he wants to make this a crusade about psychoactive substances or about synthetic cannabis, which is, in essence, what this is about if I’m not wrong, Mr Brown—it’s about synthetic cannabinoids—then we will work very closely with you to make sure we get this right.

I can promise you that at the moment Dr Clark, myself, the Minister of Customs, and the Minister of Justice are working really hard on this to make sure we deal with this in a way that is going to make a difference. Playing politics with the lives of Kiwis is wrong. [Interruption] If Mr Brownlee doesn’t know that—Mr Brownlee is a member of Parliament in a city that has had over 40 deaths from synthetic cannabis, and he stands up here and says this is the right way to deal with it. If Mr Brownlee thinks this is the right way to deal with synthetic cannabinoids, then he is not over the issue in any way, shape, or form. I suggest what he does is get a briefing from someone who knows. The Police Association themselves and the police themselves have said this is not the right approach—the police and the Police Association. Mr Bishop knows this, because he has requested under the Official Information Act every single paper I have had on synthetic cannabinoids. I know he is going to stand up and say this is the wrong bill because that is what the police say. That is what the police say, that is what the health officials say, that is what Customs says, that’s what Justice says—in fact, about the only person in this Parliament who thinks that this is the right thing to do is Mr Brown.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are debating clause 1, which is the title. Government members have insisted in their bills, when we’re debating the title, that it is a very narrowly focused debate about the words of the title. I’ve heard two Government members speak of them. None have made any mention of either the title of the bill or an alternative title, and I simply ask—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That’s not entirely correct, Dr Smith.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I simply ask that a consistent approach, that’s been taken on Government bills, where they are in the other position, is applied by the Chair in respect of the title.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I agree, and I will caution members again. The committee has deemed this to be a clause by clause debate, and it is very strictly about the title.

Hon STUART NASH: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair, I completely agree with the member, but my understanding is that I am allowed to respond to interjections if, in fact, they’re relevant. So I started off—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And relevance is determined by the Chair.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I continue my—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes—that was a point of order.

Hon STUART NASH: So back to my original point in the first half of my speech. First of all, this is about psychoactive substances, and this is the wrong bill to address this issue. Secondly, increasing the penalty for supply and distribution—this is not about that. That will not make a difference. This is about political posturing, and my personal view and the view of this Government is that this is the wrong issue to play politics on. We could work together on this to really make a difference.

The second thing is that, as an amendment bill, this is actually making this piece of legislation worse. This is not improving a piece of legislation which was set up to regulate legal highs. There is nothing legal about synthetic cannabinoids. We have a massive problem in our community. Mr Brown, if you are serious about this, then reach out to us. We will brief you on what we are doing, and we would welcome your input, because I think the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill is the wrong one.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As we’re debating this bill clause by clause, I want to address some of the questions which have been raised in regard to my bill, which is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

My comments are brief. The bill is entitled with exactly what it does. What it does is in the title: it increases the penalty for supply and distribution. That’s exactly what it does, in terms of amending section 70, which has offences relating to psychoactive substances that are not approved products. These include “(1) A person commits an offence if the person, without reasonable excuse,—(a) sells or supplies a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product … (b) offers to sell or supply a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product … (c) possesses a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product with the intent to sell …”. So the title of the bill is exactly what the bill does, by changing the maximum sentence which can be given to someone who is found guilty of supplying a synthetic drug.

So I reject the claims that this is, in fact, something which is undermining the purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Act. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the “Purpose” section of the Psychoactive Substances Act—or the principles, in section 4, which include, in section 4(d): “a psychoactive [product] that poses more than a low risk of harm to individuals who use the product should be prohibited:”. So the Psychoactive Substances Act does two things. Yes, it creates a regulated market for those who can prove that their drugs are of low risk and, secondly, what it does is it says that all other psychoactive substances which are not proved to be of low risk should be prohibited.

So I reject what the Ministers, both the Hon David Clark and the Hon Stuart Nash, have suggested, because this bill is doing two things. My bill is simply addressing those who are found guilty of supplying synthetic drugs in the community and increasing the penalty, because we have seen the increased harm—both Ministers have spoken about it. The Hon Mark Mitchell has spoken about the increased harm that we are seeing in the community.

And the reality is that we have a mismatch here: we have a maximum two-year sentence for supplying drugs which are causing huge amounts of deaths in New Zealand; and what we have is, if you go to the Misuse of Drugs Act, a class C drug is attributed with eight years. So there is a clear mismatch which needs to be done here.

The Government has already indicated that they’re seeking to increase the penalty for some of these substances to potentially class A drugs, which attribute a 20-year maximum sentence. So I think the question here is how do we want to address this? My bill catches all of these non-approved drugs and says let’s put in place a penalty regime which then allows the courts to determine what the penalty should be in the individual instances, rather than letting the Minister have to go through a process of constantly scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is a year-long process, to do that. So the title’s very clear. The bill does exactly what the title says, and I commend the title to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I just would seek the Chair’s guidance on the advisers that appear to be present. I’m not sure if they’re from the ministry or from Mr Brown’s office. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair, I understand. But I have just seen about advisers under Speaker’s ruling—what have we got here?—8/2. Ministers are entitled to have advisers, but members perhaps not. So I’d seek the Chair’s guidance on whether they are, in fact, advisers, and whether they’re ministerial advisers.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s entirely at my discretion who is in the Chamber, and it’s perfectly fine for the member’s advisers to be there.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I move, That the question be now put.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Madam Chair, thank you. I just wanted to question a few of the arguments that were put forward by the member in charge of this bill, which is, of course, Simeon Brown. I want to acknowledge him for his luck in having his member’s bill drawn and, obviously, progressed to the committee of the whole House stage.

So this clause that we’re debating at the moment is in regard to the title of this piece of proposed legislation, which is, of course, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I wanted to speak to the points that the member raised with regard to the purpose. So the purpose, in Part 1, Subpart 1 of the original Act which this member’s bill seeks to amend—that purpose is, and I quote, “The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of, and minimise harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances.” The clauses that were quoted by the member previously were, of course, within the principles framework, that being section 4 of the original Act.

The reason that I cite this is because, as has been mentioned by a number of members prior to myself, the very purpose of the original Act which this member’s bill seeks to amend is to regulate—is to create a regulated drug market. My question to the member, as pertaining to the title of this legislation, is: is the member aware of how wide-ranging the changes that are being proposed with regard to increasing penalties will be, in that is the member aware that there may be a better approach, for example in amending the Misuse of Drugs Act such as to contain the two particular chemicals that have been implicated in all of the deaths with regard to the use of synthetics?

So my question to the member is around how wide-ranging this increase in penalties will be—i.e., how many substances or potential substances or variables of substances or chemical cocktails will be captured, but also whether the member is aware that it is those two substances, those two chemical compounds of synthetic cannabinoids, that have been implicated in those 50 deaths around the country?

I also want to point to the fact that this Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill title refers solely to increasing penalty for supply and distribution. But is the member aware that in section 70, which this piece of legislation seeks to amend in clause 4, there would in fact be captured, per section 70(1)(c) of the original Psychoactive Substances Act, those who possess a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product with the intent to sell or supply the psychoactive substance to any person? On that point, I would like to ask the member in charge of this piece of legislation whether he is aware who that would capture and what threshold is required—as in, what qualifies for the intent to sell or supply?

To that point, perhaps a better name or title for this member’s bill is the “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution or Intent to Supply or Sell) Amendment Bill. I would ask the member to answer all of those questions as addressed.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for those additional questions in regard to the intent of the bill. Yes, Chlöe Swarbrick correctly points out that the purpose section says that “The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of, and minimise harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances.” Under “Principles” it also includes “(d) a psychoactive product that poses more than a low risk of harm to individuals who use the product should be prohibited:”. So part of the intention of this Act is that some of these products will be prohibited. So that is part of how the Act is set up, and therefore under section 70, if people are selling and supplying those products which aren’t approved, they are considered to be prohibited and they are illegal.

Answering the second question of how many substances does that capture, well, it captures all substances which are not approved. So therefore, going to her point around “Well, there could be a couple of products which we do know are causing a huge amount of deaths”, they could be scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but, if this bill does not go through, we will leave an incentive for those to change the concoction of chemicals which they use. They will change the mix of chemicals that they will use and they will find another chemical compound which they will then switch to, and the Minister of Health will be left in a situation where he has to then try and reschedule something different and something new.

So the reality is this is a catch-all, and this is something which says we recognise the harm and we are going to catch all of those people who are selling or supplying synthetic drugs which are not approved, and we will be prohibiting it and then giving the courts the discretion and the ability to be able to apportion the appropriate penalty, as has been put forward in the guidelines from Justice Brewer in the High Court case of Moore v R [2015], which outlines the three categories broadly speaking as to the guidelines on which the court will then apply the sentence depending on the level of offending which is evidenced.

So the final question there was around section 70. I think it was section 70(1)(c)—which I will just turn to—which is possessing a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product. I think that takes into account those who could be manufacturing the product and a range of other things.

Hon Dr David Clark: What’s the threshold?

SIMEON BROWN: So I think the threshold is something which will be determined by the courts, and that’s something which the courts have already provided guidelines as to what will constitute that.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call a member, I just want to caution that we’re not straying into a clause 3 debate.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I thank the member in the chair for his intervention just now, which has been very helpful, because I think what he does is illustrate the point that this bill represents, which is it is less about the specifics of psychoactive substances, even though that’s in the title of the bill, but it goes to an underlying kind of policy presumption about penalties for drug possession and drug peddling. It is for this reason that I think the title of the bill is totally misnamed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This very member was one who insisted on the clause by clause argument being very narrowly defined around the short title. I think the Minister is straying way beyond that. The sole issue for the committee on this clause is whether this is the appropriate title for the bill.

Clayton Mitchell: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): If you must.

Clayton Mitchell: Yeah, I must. I think that has been a very clear articulation by the Minister, talking about the title of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, sit. [Interruption] No, that’s not a point of order. We will continue with this call, but I give one for further warning. This is about clause 1—[Interruption] Order! I’m ruling.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think in order to make the point about the proposed changes to the title that I am suggesting, it is necessary to make the case about why this is avoiding the real issue, why this is a cop-out, and that’s why I think that as this committee debates the title of the bill, we should understand that actually the title of the bill does not achieve the objectives set out for it. There is nothing more important, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, than sitting in this Chamber and being part of an important debate that is going to affect the lives, or potentially affect the lives, of many, many young people, most importantly their families—so many families in distress looking for an answer to this very real social problem.

Psychoactive substances and what we do about them is one of the major social, moral, and legal challenges that we face. Getting the legislation on this right, and having a title on legislation that is honest about what we’re trying to achieve is just as important.

Saying that increasing the penalty for supply and distribution is somehow an answer to this insidious social problem is just avoiding the real issue and is copping out. That is why I say the title of this bill is poorly directed. It is poorly named. It does not say what actually this will do. This will avoid the issue for another generation to come. That’s why it is important, when we consider these issues, that we actually start to talk about the real issues that underpin this insidious problem that we have right across New Zealand.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am actually considering accepting a closure motion unless I have—one more chance at doing this correctly and sticking to the title clause.

Clayton Mitchell: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I haven’t called you, Clayton Mitchell.

Clayton Mitchell: I know, but I’m thanking you in advance.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will call Clayton Mitchell, but I’m warning the member: I will sit you down if this is not a relevant contribution.—

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Madam Chair, thank you very much for this call. This is the first opportunity that we’ve had to stand up to talk to this bill in this very important part, which is the naming of this bill. I just want to acknowledge the member in the chair for his contributions, standing up and answering some of those questions. This is a bill that is clearly about division by multiplication. New Zealand First certainly does support this where it sits at the moment.

The title of the bill, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill, I think actually hits to the heart of the problem that this country is facing right now. Although all members of this committee understand the insidious nature of psychoactive substances and the terrible role they play within our society to break down the very core of our existence, the naming of this bill is very important. The naming of this bill—very, very clean; not like a lot of other bills, I have to say, that can be a little bit ambiguous—gets to the core very, very quickly.

If there was to be a name change—and I’m not suggesting that we’re going to be putting through an amendment to change the name of this bill—you might want to put in there the “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply, Distribution, and Manufacturing) Amendment Bill”. I think the actual point here is the people that get hooked on these drugs—the people that actually become dependent upon the use of these drugs that are forced on them and that have the absolute access to them—are being penalised, under the current regime.

This bill here is actually getting to the core of the problem, and the title of this bill is actually calling the problem out, that it is in the manufacturing—although it’s not in the title, but I did suggest perhaps you might want to reconsider the “Manufacturing” part. It’s about the distribution and it’s about the supply of these insidious drugs that, by the member’s own definition, under the current legislation can be easily changed with a new drug or a new additive or a new chemical compound, to change just the slightest part of the drug to turn it into a new drug which is then not captured.

When we’re talking about supply, distribution, and manufacturing, we’re actually getting to stopping this terrible drug going into our communities. It’s caused so many deaths; it’s caused so much destruction. There’s not a single person—as I’ve already said before here tonight—that doesn’t want to see something done. And right now this is affirmative action from the member. We’d like to see it probably go further—a little bit wider. We’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which I won’t talk about now but will talk about a little bit later on, that we would like to see introduced to increase those penalties. Because until some real changes come about, until we as a society point the finger at the very people—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’ve been listening to the speaker very carefully. I’ve been watching the clock. For over a minute he has made no mention at all of the short title. There is no amendment before the committee on the short title. If the member wants to debate an SOP for a later clause, I would suggest that we get on and debate that clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you—[Interruption] I haven’t called the member yet. I do agree with the member, and I have been traversing this for all of the call. I’m going to allow the member to continue, but I’ll give you one final warning.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member opposite for soaking up my precious time with his comment—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I have been very generous.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your generosity this evening. It is, after all, members’ day and a great opportunity for us to debate very, very meaningful legislation, particularly the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

I mean, I’m looking across at the member here—it might actually even be worth putting an SOP in now, at such short notice, to see if we can get that through, because I think manufacturing does need to be part of this conversation. I think it’s something that needs to be considered strongly by this committee. As I’ve said before, this is something that this country takes very seriously, and the naming of a bill is very important to make sure that people, when they read the title of the bill—that it doesn’t leave anything to their imagination and takes away any ambiguity. This bill, the way it’s titled right now, I believe is clear. It could be a little bit clearer with the word “Manufacturing” put in there, and perhaps Simeon Brown might like to answer that question of whether he would consider changing the name of the bill when he takes another call on this very important part in clause 1 of the naming of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to the amendment that the member Chlöe Swarbrick put forward. In my contribution, I spoke about changing the name to specify that it was simply about increasing incarceration time, rather than the implication which came from the title in brackets that somehow the supply and distribution would be affected by increasing the penalty. But I actually think the member—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me a minute—can I just interrupt the member. Are you referring to an actual amendment? I don’t seem to have a copy of it.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m happy to put one forward, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no. You referred to an amendment from Chlöe Swarbrick.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry, there’s been an amendment debated—sorry. Yes, I’m using a technical term, Madam Chair. Forgive me. It’s the suggestion put forward by the member.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right, OK. Continue.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Apologies, Madam Chair. The suggestion put forward by the member—and it’s important to clarify for the committee—was changing the title to be “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalties for Supply and Distribution and Increasing Penalty for Intent to Supply and Distribute) Amendment Bill”. The point that the member made was that by adding that additional phrase, we actually got to the nub of the matter in terms of the bill, because she then asked the member Simeon Brown what the threshold would be for intent and he was unable to clarify that. I think that that is significant if we are to have a plain English title that actually speaks to the fact that this is a bill that will capture users and those who are peddling minor misdemeanours to support an addiction they have not been able to shake.

This bill, rather than getting to increasing penalty for supply and distribution, also catches within its net those who would be deemed to be supplying and distributing through some deemed intent that has not been specified by the member. And it appears, from his response to that suggested change in title, that he has not considered what that threshold for intent should be. That is, and should be, of concern to many of us here, because the issue that all of us agree on is the issue that those who supply and distribute—this pertains to the title, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s the title we’re debating.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The issue captured in the title, that we all agree on, is that those who intend to supply and distribute at a big, high level need to be punished, because that is part of a health response. The bit we don’t agree on is that those who are actually users—those who are peddling and who would be captured by this longer title, which is actually a more accurate description of the bill—should be criminalised for dealing small-time to support a habit that they have not been able to shake because they have not had the necessary support along the way for their addiction.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I’m sorry—can you stop the clock. The House actually decided to debate this clause by clause. That means it is a very tight debate.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m debating the title.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, you’re not debating the title; you’re debating a whole lot of other issues and trying to relate them to a title that has been suggested by another member. So I ask the member to come to this very tight debate on the title in front of us, or I will have to curtail your speech.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Madam Chair, my argument is that this title is not accurate and needs to be replaced with a different title—that is what I’m arguing. One that is more accurate—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): As long as you argue that and not stray off into other areas.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, Madam Chair. So the proposed title that I think is more accurate is to add those extra words in after “and Distribution”—“and Increased Penalty for Intent to Supply and Distribute Without Specified Threshold for Intent”—because that gets to the nub of the issue. I will rest my case there because I believe I have made the case for changing that title, because it is an issue that we should all be concerned about.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my good fortune to speak on the commencement clause, which I think should be delayed, and I would suggest, instead of the words “This Act comes into force”—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has assumed we’re debating the commencement clause. We’re not debating the commencement clause; we are still debating the short title, and the Minister should be held to giving the speech consistent with the title.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My apologies—my apologies. I wasn’t listening properly. We are still on clause 1.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’ve made my case for the change of title. I’ll allow another member to speak—my mistake, on this occasion.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): As has been well canvassed, I believe, I have one last question remaining for the member in charge of this bill, Simeon Brown, with regard to, in particular, the point that I made earlier as to perhaps a better title being “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution and Possession with Intention to Supply or Distribute) Amendment Bill”. The question that I want to ask is is the member aware what the demographic is of the average or regular supplier of psychoactive substances, as far as the evidence shows? If so—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry, but that—

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The reason—Madam Chair, if I may clarify—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to relate it to the title.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that I am relating it to the title—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair, we have had three warnings to come to the title clause, followed by two final warnings to talk to the title clause, prior to you resuming the Chair. We’ve now had an additional warning to return to the clause. I suggest the members have strayed too far from this, and that we get on with the debate on what they clearly want to be debating.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order—

Hon Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I don’t need any help, thank you very much. I have just assumed the Chair. The member is asking a question; I am asking the member to relate that to the title. If she can do that, then she is in order.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Had I been able to speak for 10 more seconds, I would’ve been able to address exactly that. So my point was that the title of this legislation as proposed is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. My point was that the way that this bill is drafted will impact those who are using. That is why I’m directing my question to the member in charge of this legislation: what evidence does the member have about the profiling demographic of producers of these psychoactive drugs?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, that’s all very well but it does not relate to the title. I repeat, by the committee deciding to debate clause by clause then the debate is absolutely tightly focused on what the title is. The question the member is asking is the justification for the bill, not the title.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If I may explain, Madam Chair, otherwise—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I would like you to speak to clause 1, which is the title. Otherwise, I will have to curtail the speech.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: All right, final question: would the member consider changing the title of this proposed bill to the “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution and Use of Psychoactive Substances) Amendment Bill”?

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to support strongly the work of Simeon Brown, and specifically clause 2, in ensuring this becomes the law of New Zealand as quickly as is possible. I want to draw to the committee’s attention the work of the coroner that said that in the last year, 45 New Zealanders have lost their lives from psychoactive substances as compared with just two in the previous year. That is a reminder to this House of how quickly these psychoactive substances are wreaking havoc in our communities and why it is so critical that this bill commences as quickly as possible.

This bill comes down to a very simple issue, and that is that the penalty for those people that peddle the stuff that is killing fellow New Zealanders comes into effect with that increasing maximum penalty being available to the courts. I challenge members that are filibustering, I challenge members opposite that oppose the immediate commencement of this bill to think about the New Zealander a week that is dying as a consequence of these psychoactive substances. Who in this Parliament wants to see another Calum Jones die because we in this Parliament are playing political games—

Hon Stuart Nash: You are. So you think this fixes the problem?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —over the commencement of penalties. I say to the Minister of Police, he’s been the Minister of Police for a year—45 New Zealanders, mainly young people, have died on his watch. I give full credit to the member in the chair, Simeon Brown, who’s appropriately brought this bill to this House so that this issue can be taken seriously, and I plead with this committee to stop the games, to support clause 2, and to enable this to become—

Hon Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take absolute offence at the implication by that member over there that a Minister is somehow responsible for 45 deaths.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, you may take offence, but in the Standing Orders you cannot take it on someone else’s behalf. It is not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A new, fresh point of order: I’d just like to correct the record—please excuse me if I’m incorrect, as a new member, but there were actually 25 deaths in the past year.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, that’s not a point of order either. That’s a debating point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It would be good if that member had bothered to turn up at the select committee that heard the evidence. The coroner was very clear on the number of people that are dying and why it is so urgent that we get this law on to the books of New Zealand and give the courts—

Hon Andrew Little: Then you do something serious. Why don’t you do something serious?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I just simply say to the Minister of Justice—

Hon Andrew Little: Why don’t you do something serious?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me—excuse me. I really just ask members to calm down. I appreciate that there are some strong feelings, but, actually, that is unacceptable bullying. Please, we’ll have an end to that.

Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is, as the member has already pointed out, a very serious issue that I think every member in this House takes seriously. The member who was on his feet just then made inflammatory remarks that your ruling was—it was within the Standing Orders. When that happens, then it must be expected that members will interject in a way that calls other members to account.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, that is incorrect. I did not. I pointed out that the point of order that the member took was not a correct point of order. You cannot take offence on behalf of someone else. That is the point of order. Had the member—

Hon Clare Curran: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am speaking, thank you. What I objected to was your response to that, Minister, and I think that that is unacceptable.

Hon Clare Curran: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is this a fresh point of order or are we—

Hon Clare Curran: Fresh point of order, Madam Chair—or speaking to the point of order of the previous—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No that wasn’t a point of order.

Hon Clare Curran: All right, a fresh point of order, Madam Chair. If there is to be order in this Chamber tonight, then it is incumbent on the Chair, actually, to ensure that members speaking are not making inflammatory points that are—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sit down. Now, members know that they cannot throw aspersions on the Chair. The point of order that the member raised was not a point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It’s very clear that Government members are very sensitive about this issue. And so they should be, because actually having 45 people die, having 30 to 40 people admitted by St John Ambulance every single week, highlights how urgent it is that this legislation—

Hon Andrew Little: Dirty, grubby member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Little is the Minister of Justice. Mr Nash is the Minister of Police—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come to the clause please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and what I’m arguing is that the urgent commencement of the provisions in this bill are absolutely required when the coroner is telling us that there’s been 45 deaths from psychoactive substances in New Zealand in the last year, and when St John Ambulance, a respected organisation—and I know members don’t want to hear the facts, when St John Ambulance tells this Parliament, our select committee, that there are between 30 and 40 cases every single week—every single week—that we need to get on and put this law on the books.

I say to the Minister of Justice, and I say to the Minister of Police that they have had their ministerial warrants for a whole year, and they have not lifted a finger about this issue. That’s why I’m backing Simeon Brown, this bill, and its commencement as provided for in clause 2 as soon as it receives the Royal assent. It’s very simple: do we want to give the courts the power of a maximum sentence of eight years coming into effect as quickly as possible?

Any member who sat on that select committee and heard the submissions, the pleas from the parents, the pleas from the people in places like St John’s and our accident and emergency departments—they are asking for urgent action, not the sitting on the hands that we’re seeing from Government Ministers. That is why I say to members opposite: back this bill. Stop the filibuster. Get this on the law books, because we need to take seriously the issue of psychoactive substances that are wreaking havoc, and urgently.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’re debating clause 2, the commencement date, which says the date “comes into force the day after the date in which it receives Royal assent.” Well, I hope like hell, then, that this bill never receives Royal assent.

It seems, listening to Dr Nick Smith, the only solution is to build more prisons and lock people up. Well, Dr Smith, we came into Government with 4,000 people on remand, and the only plan that the previous Government—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 2—clause 2.

Hon STUART NASH: —had to deal with it was to build more prisons. If the solution to this problem that we are dealing with at the moment, that Mr Brown wants to lock more people up, is in fact jail—if that’s what the solution—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you speak to clause 2, please, which is the commencement date.

Hon STUART NASH: I am, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. We’re not talking about jail or what the Government’s intentions are. It’s about the commencement date: clause 2. It’s very tight.

Hon STUART NASH: Madam Chair, I hear what you’re saying. My point is that the moment this bill gains Royal assent, the unintended consequences are that our courts will become full. The unintended consequences—it doesn’t matter when this comes in. It doesn’t matter when this comes in, because what Mr Brown wants to do, whether it’s December or whether it’s July next year—the consequences when this bill receives Royal assent is that our courts will be full. We are going to start spending more money on courts.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I’m sorry to interrupt the member again, but the clause is very narrow. It’s either that date or another date, not what happens after the date, OK? It’s very narrow.

Hon STUART NASH: OK, Madam Chair. Well, I then propose that this bill never sees the light of day. In fact, what we do—[Interruption] No, no, what we do is we—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If you put that as an amendment, it would be out of order.

Hon STUART NASH: —ensure that the commencement date of this bill—that we delay the commencement date of this bill for 10 years. Now, why do I suggest that? Why do I suggest that? The reason I suggest that we delay the commencement date of this bill to 2030 is because that will in fact give us time to put a whole lot of different interventions in place. And in 10 years’ time, if the health interventions haven’t worked, if nothing has worked, like what this Government is putting in place, then perhaps I will concede that Mr Smith was right and, in fact, locking people up is the way forward. But I don’t buy that. I don’t buy the fact that doing this without trying all the other options—without taking a health approach as opposed to a punitive approach—is the right way to do it. So I recommend that the—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member’s straying again now into a health topic. Members on that side of the Chamber made it very clear they objected to me seeking leave to have all provisions taken as one part in this debate, and yet, clearly, they are doing exactly that throughout this—prolonging it in a manner that is unbecoming of them as Government members—and I would suggest that we get on this debate through other clauses.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you. That is a valid point of order, but the member speaking is just within scope of clause 2—just by the skin of his teeth.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you, Madam Chair. So my suggestion, my recommendation to the member in the chair, is I would ask him to consider, if in fact, what we’ll do—we’ll put this bill forward, but we have a commencement date of 2030. So we’ll put an amendment forward for 2030. The reason I say that, I’d just like to reiterate—and I would have made this point and probably sat down by now if the Opposition acting whip hadn’t interrupted me. The reason I suggest this is because I don’t believe that giving this bill implementation the moment it receives Royal assent does justice to the issue we’re facing. However, if it received Royal assent in 2030, then what would actually happen is we can trial a whole lot of different interventions to see if in fact there is not a better way of dealing with this issue, except just locking people up—building prisons and locking people up.

Let’s say this bill receives Royal assent in, let’s say—I don’t know—January 2019 versus 2030. So let’s say it comes in 2019, and let’s say the first person is locked up for the maximum period of time, so that’s $110,000 a year. If we left it—and that’s just one person for one year, and let’s make an assumption that 10 people are going to be locked up every year for five years—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, come back to the commencement date.

Hon STUART NASH: —but if we move it forward to 2030, I reckon that would be about $500 million. So let’s see if in fact we can spend that $500 million in a way that makes a difference.

I challenge the member to come up with something a little more innovative and give it a chance, and see if the money that would be spent by locking people up immediately, as opposed to in 2030, might not provide the solution that he’s looking for. Thank you very much.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the commencement date, as other members have already done—they’ve traversed the subject matter very thoroughly, so I think there’s probably not much point in me saying an awful lot on that.

It does occur to me that the key point about the commencement date is that it provides the maximum urgency, and I would be interested if the member in charge of the bill, Simeon Brown, has a view on the need for urgency—in particular, in relation to those who are supplying and also using, for the benefit of both those categories of persons. If he can perhaps take a call and explain why that’s urgent—to have the bill come into force as soon as possible for the benefit of both those groups—I would be most grateful.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I just want to take a very, very short call. This commencement clause is a very narrow and very particular clause in the bill. It says that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent.

This is an issue which is causing huge havoc up and down our country. We can see the harm. We can see that there are people making money from people’s misery, who are making money out of selling these drugs on our streets, and we need to crack down on them. Parliament cannot sit on its hands and do nothing, and that’s why this bill needs to come into force as soon as possible.

It’s a very narrow clause. Let’s vote on it and get it through.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go to clause 2 here, which is the commencement clause, which provides that the bill comes into force the day after it receives Royal assent. The timing of this is absolutely critical. I would like to say in this space, in relation to the timing, that the comments that were made by the Hon Nick Smith in relation to the 45 deaths—I think you will find that was in 2016, because, in fact, in 2017, last year, there were 25 deaths. One death is too many, 45 is an exceptionally large number, and 25 is an exceptionally large number—my point being, though, that the timing of this bill is so critical.

We all feel so passionate about this subject, but in nine years we had nothing done in the previous Government. They’ve left it up to Simeon Brown to put his member’s bill through, left it to chance, in the lap of the gods, to have his number pulled out of the tin and to debate now the timing and the release of this bill, which relates to the fact that for nine years you did nothing, and now you’re making a big song and dance out of it.

New Zealand First is supporting this bill through the House. There’s work that needs to be done. There’s some urgent attention that needs to be focused on it by all parliamentarians. I lament some of the comments that have been made that it will clog up some of our prisons, but if it saves lives by implementing this as soon as practicably possible—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are debating clause 2, which is solely the issue of commencement, and the member has been well outside that for over a minute.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But that is at the discretion of the Chair, and he keeps coming back into it, so I am allowing him to continue. I will remind him.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate that, and we are getting a bit tedious with the interjections from across the Chamber to stop us from our flow. We heard for five minutes the speaker—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Will you come to the commencement, please.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —before, Nick Smith, talk about all the things that I’ve just spoken about. I’ve just given him reflection on every comment that he made about the 45 deaths—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m asking you not to reflect and to focus on the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, if the member could be a little bit more cooperative across the Chamber, it would be much easier for us to get on with the task at hand.

The fact is that the bill here is looking for a commencement date after it receives the Royal assent. It has been steadily moved through the Justice Committee. We have listened to submitters. This has been created with some sense of urgency. The fact that it is a member’s bill—Simeon Brown, I do commend you on having the fortitude to bring this forward. But the reality is that as soon as we can get past the third reading, the sooner we can get this bill implemented and start saving lives. That’s the sort of thing that we need to be doing as a House—showing collegiality and bipartisanship. I also understand that the timing—I can keep going on that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Commencement.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —is absolutely essential, and the time in this Chamber that we’re taking to debate this is also essential to the timing of this bill. It is a very narrow clause. We certainly do support the clause 2 part and getting it to Royal assent, and we look forward to seeing this progress speedily through the House and getting implemented. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are some very important points to be said about this commencement clause, clause 2, and it’s not jumping up and down and screaming about how horrible the psychoactive substances are in our community, because we all accept that. We all want the action to start now, but the fact of the matter is that this legislation radically changes the nature of the Psychoactive Substances Act. Because of that, we need to defer the commencement date. What we have is a highly regulatory piece of licensing legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK. Let me read to you out of Speakers’ Rulings—just stop the time. I’ll refer you to Speakers’ ruling 115/2: “An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. An amendment that relies on an indeterminate event is not in order.” OK? So if you’re talking about the commencement date and you’re making any suggestions about it, it has to provide certainty and you have to be talking about the commencement date, not anything else—OK? So we’ll start the clock and we’ll give you another chance.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Madam Chair. In 51 seconds—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I also just seek your clarification about the scope of the debate if an amendment has not been put on the Table. This is a technical process, and both the Hon Stuart Nash and Mr Webb have referred to amendments they intend to make but, as far as I can tell, those have not yet been made. Would it not be in order for that amendment first to be tabled so that the rest of the committee can examine it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In fairness, members have talked about suggestions. They can offer, during the debate, alternate commencement dates—that’s a practice that I understand has been regularly used—as long as they are providing a certain date. So I think an earlier member tried to suggest that it never come into effect. That would be totally out of order, but to suggest another time for the commencement of the bill would be entirely within the Standing Orders.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps my error was not making clear my suggestion and then speaking to it, because I’ve got one suggestion and two reasons for it. My suggestion is that the commencement date be deferred for two years from the date of Royal assent. The reason for that is that it radically changes the nature of the legislation. What was a regulatory regime, which was a licensing regime for people to apply to have substances approved, becomes, essentially, a criminal framework. Now, whilst there was a regulatory offence—a serious regulatory offence—under the old Act, this would substantially change that and move it into an entirely different dimension. So that is the first reason why I suggest that the commencement date be deferred for two years from the date of the Royal assent.

The second reason—and there’s two aspects to this reason—is that a review is being undertaken of the operation of this legislation. Now, the Ministry of Health is obliged under the principal Act to review—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is not actually—I mean, I understand you’re giving your reasons. You know, it’s a very, very narrow debate, and you still have to be talking about the clause itself and the commencement date, and not straying into the wider implications of the bill and all the bits and pieces. It’s difficult.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, there’s two reasons why the two years is an appropriate extension in respect of the review. One is because once the review is conducted, it will be able to inform the ministry and the Minister on any amendment to the principal Act. So rather than leaping into this right now, it may well be that within that two-year window, the Minister, having taken the advice from the ministry, has sufficient time within that two-year window to make suitable amendments to the regulatory regime, to the criminal regime, or to the wider legislative framework that deals with illicit substances. So that is the first reason. The second reason is it gives us an opportunity to take a much more appropriate response to this scourge, which isn’t incarcerating people but is absolutely addressing—as the Drug Foundation suggests and the Ministry of Heath suggests—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, no. Come back to the commencement date. I don’t want to hear what the Drug Foundation is saying. Let’s keep talking about the commencement date.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The two-year commencement date gives the Government and the Minister time to adjust any regulatory or legislative settings. In respect of the new regulatory regime, it allows people who might be legitimately seeking to work within the existing regime sufficient time to adjust their practices, because it is, fundamentally, a licensing regime, and that, with Mr Simeon Brown’s amendment, will be thrown out of the window. People need time, at least two years—I think two years may even be conservative, is my suggestion, but at least two years—to adjust their business practices, to adjust any licensing applications they may have made, so that they can properly put their affairs in order within that two-year period.

It is almost retrospectively taking away from people who may have been looking at this. They may have indeed—certainly, they were at the time of the original Act—invested time and energy. They need to unwind those frameworks within that two-year commencement period so that they can properly and not suddenly—not catastrophically—have to readjust their time.

So, in terms of that clause 2, “Commencement”, having it come into force on the day it receives Royal assent would radically and surprisingly change the regime. It would upset any plans that the Minister may have in terms of the review, it would deprive the Minister of the benefit of the advice, and it would be entirely inappropriate. A two-year period is a much more appropriate period. Thank you, Madam Chair.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a very interesting debate tonight. It is passionate, as it should be. We as a House are here to discuss and pass legislation on important matters of the day, and something that has caused so many deaths in recent times—we probably won’t discuss anything that is that important, which brings me to the commencement date.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good.

GREG O’CONNOR: The Hon Nick Smith spoke very passionately about the need to get this legislation through as quickly as possible. What I fear—and just focusing purely on that as a commencement date, because so much focus has been put on that—is that all of a sudden, it’s going to be some sort of a sinecure. It’s going to be some sort of a cure-all where we could probably get that through by Christmas. We’ll all go off to the Christmas break and we’ll think “Wow, we’ve done this, everything’s fixed, and we’ll come back in the new year and the problem will be fixed.”, and we’ll focus back on that commencement date as the day that the world changed and we’ve fixed it overnight. The world is not that simple. What I do fear is that if this legislation passes, and the commencement date—we get that legislation passed and it sees its Royal assent before Christmas—we will actually blithely go on and ignore the real issue.

The deaths will continue. In my experience—if you could just indulge me for a moment, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, there’s no indulgence.

GREG O’CONNOR: A small indulgence—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—no indulgence.

GREG O’CONNOR: —one paper-thin little indulgence—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—no.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will go back to the commencement date because, again, this is so much of the focus of the debate, and I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has brought it to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s because that’s the clause we’re on.

GREG O’CONNOR: I am referring to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who spent five minutes talking about the commencement date. Again, he built a full picture that this was going to be the moment—this was going to be the time that the world would change and that it would be fixed—and I think that would be a mistake.

Look, I respect that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has been around a long time. He’s seen a lot of legislation come through this House that probably has attracted similar passionate speeches that it was going to cure all, but I think that same experience will tell you that it didn’t.

So, coming back to the commencement—and, again, the commencement is the focus of this debate, because we cannot really go past it, because everything—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, we can’t.

GREG O’CONNOR: It is inherent—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Not until we vote on it.

GREG O’CONNOR: In fact, I don’t want to turn it—it is too serious an issue to actually be in any way amusing about it, because the reality of it is that we must do something about this very serious issue. Again, I go back to the passionate speech by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, but that passion in that speech will not make an iota of difference, any more than the passing of this legislation on this date—on this commencement date—which, of course, to remind anyone, means it will come into force on the date on which it receives the Royal assent, and that’s a very important part, that Royal assent.

So coming back, again, to the mistake we would ever make in the commencement date, commencement date, commencement date—I’ve got to mention it because, again, the focus of the whole discussion has been about it—we cannot allow ourselves to be solely focused on that as being the cure-all and that that is going to be the time, the moment, that this issue was fixed. So there’s been some excellent suggestions from some of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber about what we could actually do about that commencement date and whether we actually do, perhaps, the two years.

Again, as those of us were explaining, I think perhaps the two-year period as a new commencement date—in fact, two years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent may actually be the best time, because that will give us the time to address and make sure we’re not distracted, because I think this commencement date could actually become an unnecessary, an unfortunate, and possibly a tragic distraction from what we really must do as a House. As a House and as members who come here, we actually must focus on the issue, not on the date. [Interruption] So, again, I hear that I’m not talking about the commencement date, but it’s the issue which is the most important.

So the commencement—I’ll come back to the commencement date, not that I believe I’ve actually been that far from it. But, again, I do apologise, Madam Chair, that levity may have come into some of this, but it’s unfortunate because I would like to finish this by just saying could we please not focus on the commencement date, but focus on the issue? Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I will call Kieran McAnulty, but it just goes to show, members, you need to think very clearly when you do not support putting all the clauses and debating them as one. That’s why we’re focused on the date, because we are debating it clause by clause. I know it’s frustrating, but that’s what the House decided.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the remaining debate to be on all clauses, as was originally intended.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is. OK—in which case I’m going to be very tough.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I appreciate that, Madam Chair, because I have been waiting all evening to speak specifically on the commencement date of this bill, which is, of course, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. We have had three suggestions for the commencement date thus far in this debate. As is written down in this bill, it will come into force immediately upon receiving the Royal assent. My colleague the Hon Stuart Nash suggested 30 years, and my learned colleague Dr Duncan Webb suggested two years.

I do not support the suggestion of the Hon Stuart Nash of 30 years. I suggest that that may have been tongue-in-cheek. However, the suggestion from Dr Duncan Webb of two years is a serious suggestion and one that I wish to support, because we shouldn’t look upon this issue just as simply one that needs to come into force on the suggested commencement date.

There are some issues that need to be considered when reflecting on the date on which this bill would commence. One of those is potential education programmes that could be in place between the time that this bill progresses through the House and when it comes into effect, because, of course, if this commences too early, given the controversial nature of this bill, there may well be unintended consequences. I absolutely agree that these substances are a scourge on our community. However, when considering the commencement date, if we do not take a wider approach to this issue and simply focus on increasing penalties, we may miss out on opportunities to stop the demand for these products.

So I speak in support of a commencement date two years after, because if we were to address things such as education or, indeed, the price, or perhaps inequalities in the system that are causing people to go towards these substances in the first place, then we do miss out on a chance to actually address the need, which I do acknowledge that the member that sponsors this bill is trying to achieve.

This is not the night for politics. This is an opportunity to do something right, and that’s why I speak in support of a commencement date of two years later than is suggested in this bill. Of course, addiction support services, as have been reviewed currently in the mental health and addiction review of the Government, are something that should be considered by this Parliament, and I fear that if the commencement date continues as is currently proposed, then we will miss that opportunity to actually focus on the demand side of things as opposed to a punitive approach, to simply increasing the sentences as part of this.

Of course, the other reason why I’m proposing a commencement date of two years’ time is to look at drugs as a particular health issue as opposed to a crime issue. Those are the factors that I would like to hear a response about from the member in charge of the bill. This is a serious suggestion of a commencement date of two years later than is currently proposed within this bill.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.

Noes 55

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Madam Chair, thank you. So clause 3 of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill concerns the principal Act, stating that “This Act means Psychoactive Substances Act 2013”. I’m pleased to stand and take a call on this clause in particular, because I want to point out how what is being proposed here is incredibly sloppy lawmaking. The reason for that is if you look at the way that drug legislation in New Zealand is created and drafted, the centrepiece is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That piece of legislation speaks to any use of any of those classified drugs being a misuse. That is where we prohibit the use—and, indeed, the misuse, as we so characterise it—of drugs.

If the intention here is to increase penalties for supply and distribution and, indeed, possession with intent to supply or distribute drugs, and the intention is that those drugs are prohibited—particularly when the member who is sitting in the chair and in charge of this bill is aware that the substances that have been responsible for 45 deaths in the past year and 25 deaths the year prior—the best approach would be to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 instead of going about taking this catch-all approach, because it is indeed shoddy lawmaking.

When I previously put this question to the member on clause 1, he spoke to the fact that what we’re going to see if we don’t provide this catch-all is that those who operate in the criminal underground are going to move to create more and more chemicals such that it’s important that we have a catch-all within the psychoactive substances for those chemicals that we have not yet regulated for. But I would implore members opposite, and indeed the member in the chair, to look at the chronology of events that led us to the situation that we are in now. Prior to the passage—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, not the chronology; you must talk to the Act.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I’m speaking to the psychoactive substances legislation and the purpose inherent in the Psychoactive Substances Act and speaking to why it is a shoddy piece of legislation to amend the Psychoactive Substances Act and not the Misuse of Drugs 1975.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to follow that through—absolutely spot on.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely, Madam Chair, and please do let me know if I’m not.

So the reason that I am speaking to this is because the Misuse of Drugs 1975 is a scheduled listing of prohibited drugs, and what I am saying is that the member who is in charge of this piece of legislation is aware of two chemicals—two chemicals—that are responsible for these 45 deaths and 25 deaths in the year prior: 45 deaths this year and 25 the year prior. With that knowledge, the member has the ability to have created a better-drafted piece of legislation to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’ll just invent another chemical.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Instead what we’re going to get, and to address the point raised by Nick Smith that there will just be another chemical created—and this is my original point with regard to the purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Act was to regulate substances—

Hon Member: It was.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: It was. It was to regulate substances, and we had an interim licensing scheme in the original Psychoactive Substances Act in 2013, which was revoked in 2014 in response to moral panic because the issue became prevalent.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was a disaster.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Why was it a disaster, Dr Nick Smith?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because of the amount of harm that turned up—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Hang on, hang on—no. You’re either speaking or you’re yielding.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Sorry, Madam Chair. OK, well, the rhetorical question: because of the harm that was caused. We actually, to my knowledge, saw no recorded deaths as a result of those drugs that were listed within the regulatory scheme in the original interim licensing scheme within the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. But what we saw, after we pushed this problem underground and revoked that interim licensing scheme, was that there was the creation, innovation, and invention of these new, more harmful dangerous chemicals. So what I am asking for is for the Psychoactive Substances Act to be used as was intended: to regulate to reduce harm. It is incredibly shoddy lawmaking to be approaching with a broad brush-stroke this piece of legislation.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.

Noes 55

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 70 amended

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill, and also would like to start by commending the member Simeon Brown on bringing this bill forward and seeing an anomaly within our current laws and looking to amend them. I also would like to speak more broadly on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 23 brought forward by my colleague Darroch Ball, and I will get to that shortly.

The issue here is that these are hideous substances. These are doing great harm. They are causing death and mayhem on our streets, and we need to act and act swiftly. I hear both sides of this debate, and on this side of the Chamber, the argument is that it’s a health issue. Many of those arguments hold true; they are absolutely correct. This is not an either/or; this is a “both”. This is how New Zealand First sees this. This is a “both”.

The work that this Government is doing around the health side of things, dealing with addiction services—50,000 people last year accessed addiction services. It’s a massive issue for us as a country, but we also have to deal with the supply, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that two years is the maximum penalty for people who are peddling substances that are causing deaths at this scale. New Zealand First will not stand by and allow this to happen. We are going to bring the full force of the law towards those people who are peddling these substances.

Let’s be clear: in my colleague Darroch Ball’s SOP, he talks about our wanting this to go to 14 years, maximum, to bring it into line with class B substances—and that is a maximum sentence. So the argument that, somehow, people who have got caught up in using this and are peddling a little bit to fund their habit—those people aren’t going to get locked up for 14 years. Hopefully, they will be brought into our health services. They’ll be treated with some leniency in the first instance, but when we get these purveyors of poison who are peddling this stuff that is killing our citizens, we need to come down on them and we need to come down on them hard. New Zealand First is calling for tougher penalties, and we are calling, in this SOP under my colleague Darroch Ball’s name, for the maximum sentence to be 14 years, in line with what it is for class B drugs.

We will not stand and see this mayhem on our streets, but we will also engage constructively with our colleagues on this side of the House because we know they are looking to address exactly the same issues from another angle—the health side of it—and getting alongside the people who have been caught up with these insidious substances. We know, through the debate that we’ve had so far, that the substances get changed around by the chemists so that they evade detection. Those are the issues that we will be looking at on this side of the House with the health stuff that Dr Clark is leading, and we will support that.

New Zealand First absolutely supports that intent, and we will listen to good argument—the arguments that the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick bring up, and she leads some very important thinking in this House for a new generation coming through. It’s absolutely valid, the points that she is raising, but they’re dealing with only one side. We also need to deal with supply, and New Zealand First firmly believe that we can only deal with supply if we come down tough. Two years is a ridiculously short time, and that’s why I commend Simeon Brown. Even though we have not totally landed on the same length of maximum sentence, we absolutely respect and support the intent, because two years is ridiculous. This is a substance that can kill people, and two years is just unacceptable.

So we contend, under Darroch Ball’s SOP, that it should be a 14-year maximum sentence in line with other similar class B - type drugs and that is how we’ll be voting on this bill, and our support will be conditional on that SOP being voted by majority. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on clause 4, which is the clause that is really the guts of this amendment bill, which addresses the penalty for suppliers of synthetic drugs.

Currently, we have a mismatch in the legislation. If someone is found guilty of supplying synthetic drugs—drugs that are killing dozens of people up and down our country—the maximum sentence that they can get is two years’ imprisonment. That means someone can be supplying drugs at a commercial level—these drugs at a commercial level—and the maximum sentence they can get is two years in jail. If they’re supplying cannabis, the maximum they can get is eight years. There is a complete mismatch in the legislation, and that is one of the reasons why this legislation is so important to address that mismatch from a law and order approach to give our police and law enforcement agencies the ability to address the harm by cracking down on those people who make money from people’s misery. They make money from people’s addictions.

I understand the arguments that have been put forward in this committee, and I’ve addressed the arguments that have been put forward in the House in the first and second readings about the need for more support to address those who are suffering from addiction. Let me be very clear: this bill does not target people who are users—that is section 71 of the principal Act. If the Ministers and the members in the committee wanted to address those who are the users of these substances, they would address section 71 of the Psychoactive Substances Act. I’m not touching section 71 of the Act. My bill is addressing section 70 of the Act.

I’d like to address the point made by Mark Patterson, which is that New Zealand First has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 23, in the name of Darroch Ball, which is to increase the sentence to 14 years, which is a further increase, aligning it with class B drugs. When I first put this bill in the ballot, which was earlier this year, we knew that there was severe harm caused by these drugs. We could see that there were people dying from these drugs and we put it in the ballot as a class C, and since then we’ve seen the coroner’s report—45 deaths from synthetic drugs over the past 12 months, and more and more happening every single week. Parliament needs to send a very clear message that if you are going to supply or distribute or—sorry, Madam Chair. If people are going to supply and manufacture and distribute these substances, then they will face the full force of the law, and Parliament will take this issue very seriously.

So we as the National Party have decided that we will support the Supplementary Order Paper, because these substances are worse than marijuana. They are substantial, significant problems, and they need to be addressed, because the seriousness is very clear, and we see it every day in the community. So we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper, which will increase it to 14 years.

I think it’s important to point out to the committee that this is a catch-all provision. This means that every type of synthetic drug or every concoction that synthetic drug dealers dream up, or the chemical combinations that they might change it to, are captured. So it doesn’t mean that the Minister of Justice has to go through a year-long process to go under the Misuse of Drugs Act and classify a drug. This puts in place legislation to say that from the time this legislation comes into effect, the law enforcement agencies will be able to crack down on those people who are supplying synthetic drugs and will be able to ensure that they are targeted and that they are put in prison, if that is what the courts enforce as part of their sentencing.

So we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Darroch Ball. We do take this issue seriously. We will not stand by as more people die. We will ensure that New Zealanders know that Parliament will take this issue incredibly seriously, and we will progress this bill through the House. Thank you very much.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the member in the chair, Simeon Brown, makes a very good point, which is that he considers that his party, at least, by passing this bill, is not standing by while people die. In fact, by passing this bill, that is exactly what this House is doing. It is standing by, doing more of the same, and achieving the same hopeless result. The inflammatory member the Hon Dr Nick Smith, opposite, who sits there chirping away, saying that everybody over here has got blood on their hands and they are standing by watching people dying—but, actually, it was his Government that passed the last legislation that has been an absolutely dismal failure, and now they want to do more. And so they sit there beating their chests, using the dreadful old rhetoric and the silly, hackneyed old rhetoric of “tough on crime, soft on crime.”, and that is the disappointing thing.

That is where they are letting New Zealanders down, right there, because New Zealanders expect better. What New Zealanders expect is that when they see people dying because of the consumption of substances that are so dangerous and so toxic, actually, we will do something serious about it.

The member in the chair, and, indeed, Mr Patterson, when he spoke, said, “Right, that’s it. We’re going to catch all these people.” Well, if we’ve had 25 or 45 people who died under the last Government’s watch using these substances, the so-called suppliers have not been convicted in relation to those deaths, because they simply are not caught. The reality is that if administering a toxic substance like this is causing death, then that, actually, is prima facie an allegation of manslaughter. If people are having administered to them stupefying substances, there is a crime related to that. We can charge people for those sorts of crimes right now, even without this legislation. There is recourse that we’ve got in our criminal statutes that allows us to deal with it, in event that we catch somebody peddling the stuff.

What it comes down to is this—and I don’t expect members opposite to understand, because they live in an ivory tower. They live in a comfortable middle-class world. They don’t support middle New Zealand—we know that. They don’t want them to get their own houses. They live in this comfortable, blinkered world. They don’t know what is going on in large parts of New Zealand, but in large parts of New Zealand, there are young people who are totally disengaged—some who’ve been kicked out of home—who resort to these substances and die as a result. And, yes, their parents get passionate about it. There’s a lot more going on than that. But young people who are disengaged, marginalised, have given up hope, resorting to these substances—there’s a number of other things going on, which is why anybody with experience and expertise who has looked at this issue and looked at this bill has been very consistent in saying that threatening longer penalties isn’t going to change people’s behaviour. You’ve got to have the means to let people who need help get help. There’s not a lot of distinction between those peddling the stuff and those using it. They are actually, largely, one and the same people, with the same problems and the same challenges.

Hon Maggie Barry: What about Sroubek? Answer that one.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I know members opposite like Maggie Barry don’t care about people who don’t live in the kind of comfortable middle-class world that she’s grown up in and lives in. She doesn’t care about those people. The National Party never has. They don’t care about them. Their only response to people who do it tough and do it hard and find themselves resorting to these substances and killing themselves is to beat their chests and say, “Let’s get tough on crime. Let’s lock them up for longer.”

We’ve done that before. We’ve done it in other instances. We’ve done it in other cases, and it doesn’t work. When you’ve got people who are so desperate they resort to substances like this, they don’t care what they’re consuming. They are reckless about what they are doing to themselves. There’s something else going on. If this House is serious, and members in this House are serious about their moral duty to every New Zealander to make our communities safe and safer, we wouldn’t be wasting our time on silly gestures like this. We’d be focusing on what the real problems are and where the real solutions lie. The real solutions lie, in a problem like this, in making sure that those whose lives are so desperate get the help that they need—those who have been kicked out of home get the help that they need—and not silly threats, and they get good help and information.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The member in the chair, Simeon Brown, is far closer to the real world of psychoactive substances than that appalling speech from the Minister of Justice, which just reinforced everything in this Government, including the decision today on Karel Sroubek—that this Government is soft on drugs.

Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You made a number of rulings about the tightness of this debate, and although clause 4 goes to the heart of what this bill is all about and there’s got to be some scope to talk about the underlying policy issues, this is nothing to do with a person who is currently in prison on matters completely unrelated to psychoactive substances. The member who’s just now been speaking—on his feet—should be called to order as a result.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can’t cast reflections on the Chair. I agree with the member, but he actually only uttered a couple of words. If he had gone on further—you are quite right—I would have pulled him up, but I give a great more latitude to members on this side.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This clause has a very simple question for Parliament: should the people—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt. The time has come for me to report this bill.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill without amendment, and progress on the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2018

(continued on Thursday, 1 November 2018)

Bills

Child Poverty Reduction Bill

Second Reading

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): I move, That the Child Poverty Reduction Bill be now read a second time.

I am extremely pleased to be able to stand here today as our commitment to lifting children out of poverty and improving the lives of children across New Zealand takes another significant step forward, with the Child Poverty Reduction Bill being reported back to the House with unanimous select committee support. I’d like to thank all the members of the Social Services and Community Committee, and particularly the chair, Gareth Hughes, for their thorough consideration of this bill.

The Children’s Commissioner has said of the cross-party support that this “is a giant step forward in addressing child poverty” and “It is truly gratifying to see our leaders … rising above political differences to advance such a critically important piece of legislation.” I’m delighted that we have achieved this. The next step is for members in this House to continue to support the passage of the bill and commit to its intent to achieve significant and sustained reductions in child poverty. This is simply a first step.

Reducing child poverty, as I’ve said many a time in this place and outside of it, is one of the reasons I entered politics, and this bill has been one of the highest priorities of this Government. Alongside programmes like the Families Package, the bill is a key instrument to drive change to once again make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child and to be a young person.

The essence of this bill is to build enduring political accountability, consensus, and action on reducing child poverty. It provides a framework for measuring and targeting child poverty, and it creates a commitment to action on the part of the Government to address the well-being of all tamariki and rangatahi. To help achieve this, it sets in law a range of widely accepted measures for reporting on child poverty: a requirement for successive Governments to set short- and long-term child poverty reduction targets, a requirement for annual reports relating to child poverty to be produced and published independently of Ministers, a requirement that the Minister of Finance must, at every Budget, report on child poverty reduction—a huge step change in the way that we deliver Budgets in Aotearoa New Zealand—and a requirement to produce a strategy for improving the well-being of all children, with a particular focus on the well-being of children with greater needs, children of interest and concern to Oranga Tamariki, and reducing and mitigating the impacts of child poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage. That is where the action will be.

The bill aims to develop a framework that’s flexible enough to accommodate Governments with different approaches and different priorities. Targets themselves are deliberately not included in the bill for this reason, and this underscores the idea and notion of political neutrality in our attempt to ensure that successive Governments commit to the well-being of children.

The select committee received over 600 submissions on the bill, with the vast majority overwhelmingly supportive of the bill and its intent. Some comments from submitters talked about it being game-changing, describing it as having the “potential to transform the lives and well-being of our children”, as being a “landmark piece of legislation—transformative, historic”, and as “a fundamentally necessary conversation for our communities”. I want to thank all the individuals and groups who submitted on the bill for their passionate and thoughtful contributions. They have been extremely valuable and have helped to further strengthen the bill in a number of areas. I just want to briefly outline these main areas of change.

In response to submitters calling for reporting and outcomes on population groups to be made explicit in the bill, the bill now requires the Government Statistician’s annual report on child poverty to also report on particular population groups of interest, including Māori and, if the data is adequate to do so, other groups such as Pacific children, disabled children, and children with a disabled parent, guardian, or caregiver. As we announced in the Budget, we’ve funded Statistics New Zealand to significantly expand the sample size of the household economic survey from about 3,500 households to about 20,000 households. This will help us improve the accuracy of the Government Statistician’s reports on specific populations and to provide a more accurate picture of child well-being and low income.

The bill now also specifies that the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy is intended to assist New Zealand in meeting its international obligations relating to children and explicitly refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as examples. This addition has been viewed very positively by the children’s advocacy community. The bill now explicitly also requires that when developing the strategy, the Minister must have regard, in particular, to principles related to children, including their intrinsic value, their inherent dignity, and their rights, including those derived from conventions. The Minister must also have regard to the principle that children should be viewed in the context of their family, their whānau, their hapū, their iwi, and their wider family group, because, of course, when we talk of child poverty, we are talking about whānau and family poverty as well.

The bill now includes specific requirements relating to consultation on the strategy and reporting on outcomes for Māori children to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi. In terms of outcomes, the bill now requires that the Minister’s annual progress report on achieving the strategy’s outcomes also include an analysis of specific identified populations, including Māori children and any other groups of children that the Minister deems appropriate.

The committee also agreed to some supporting amendments in response to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). The proposed amendments require the responsible Minister to include and report annually on one or more additional child poverty - related indicators, such as employment, housing, education, health and disability, or any other related area. I do think that this is a useful addition to the bill. Such indicators were also recommended in a number of submissions and were originally addressed in my 2012 member’s bill—just a reference to how long it feels like it’s taken to get to this auspicious occasion.

A further change in response to the SOPs is the inclusion of policy-related principles in the bill. This means that, before adopting or changing the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, the responsible Minister must have regard to principles such as early intervention and evidence-informed policy, and steps the Government has taken to evaluate the effectiveness of such policy—good practice, I’m sure we’ll all agree. But I do want to acknowledge the Hon Alfred Ngaro for his contribution to the bill.

These are important enhancements overall. The committee’s findings confirm the overall framework of the bill is sound and that the approach is the right one, and public consultation has made the bill even stronger, as has the contribution of the officials who have worked on this bill, and I thank them for that work. There are very few things as important as reducing child poverty. It is therefore vital to the long-term welfare of our children that the framework measures and requirement for action required in this bill are able to gain the support of successive Governments. Alongside the unwavering support of New Zealand First and the Green Party, I acknowledge everyone in this House who will support the bill today, including the National Party.

There are some things that we can take the politics out of some of the time, and I think this is one of those occasions. But the next steps are the important ones, and this coalition Government is absolutely committed to putting in place the fundamental changes that are needed to build, first and foremost, an inclusive and sustainable economy, one that delivers greater prosperity to all its people, including the tamariki and rangatahi of this country. We are committed to continuing our ambition to make the kind of change that you see in a generation that will allow us to be able to stand proudly and say New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. Can I acknowledge the Prime Minister. As she has said in her statement—and it’s a statement that goes to the core, when people say, “What is it that we are called to this place for? What is it that we were elected for and what are our core responsibilities?” Prime Minister, I want to acknowledge your words. As you said, when you came to this place some years ago, you had made a declaration that the basis of your calling was to ensure that children and young people in New Zealand, in Aotearoa, lived a long, happy, and well life. So I want to acknowledge that, because that also challenges us to ask that question: what are we here for, what’s our purpose, what’s our sense of direction, and what will we do to the best of our efforts? I want to acknowledge the fact that your call and your acknowledgment of that have asked us that same question: what is it that we are called to this place for?

I want to acknowledge your leadership in being able to say that this Child Poverty Reduction Bill is something that will raise the issue of poverty above the politics. So in my words that I will share today, I will be calling it our bill—this is our intent. I would hope that when we talk about this bill that this is Parliament’s bill and not just a Government bill, because if we’re calling on the best of who we are to the intent of this bill, which is to do the best that we can for the outcomes of all of our tamariki, then it’s something we should do that’s never been done before. Could we call this Parliament’s bill and not just a Government bill of the day? So that’s the first thing that I would say. That would be my reflection, and, again, I want to acknowledge and thank the Prime Minister for her words, as well.

When I think about this, this issue of poverty is nothing new. In fact, in ancient words, in the Book of Deuteronomy 15:11, it says this: “For the poor will always be with us, so I command you to be open-handed.” In other words, it calls on us to do the best that we can and to be open, to be caring, and to be sharing in the best ways possible. So the issues of poverty are nothing new, but what it does command on every single generation every time is: what will we do about this? So, as the Government of the day and as parliamentarians of the day, this is our responsibility as well, and so I thank Parliament and I thank the Prime Minister and others for us being able to talk about this bill—about our bill.

When I think about those that are listening out there today to hear the comments about this bill—this bill is about reducing child poverty. This bill is meaning that not only just those of us in the roles of responsibility, whether it be by governing, whether it be by advocacy as members of Parliament, or whether it be by those who are the officials—I want to acknowledge the officials that have worked through this as well, who have given us the best of their ability. We have challenged and we have changed things in order to get this to a point where we believe it has, at this time, for this day, the right pathway to address this issue in regards to poverty.

But there are a few things that I have to say that we have been challenged with, and in my speech I want to talk about those challenges which, again, we have had. One of the first things that was indicated in regards to the first draft of the bill—and in the submissions, we were reminded of it—was why was the Treaty of Waitangi left out of the bill? It was left out of the bill because sometimes in the system and in our consciousness, though we know it’s the right thing to do, we forget it and we forget the performance of the place of it. So we, with the officials, ensured that it was in pride of place, and the first component of this bill was where the Treaty of Waitangi was in there.

But here’s the other challenge to the system, and I say that we must challenge the system. When we had that initiated back into the bill itself, and then it talked about the roles of responsibility in that, it declared the fact that under the Treaty of Waitangi, under our obligations, we would consult and report. Now, while it seems like that’s normal and we’ve done this before, I want to challenge that, because if we are going to do better—if Māori are factored in there, in some of the statistics that we are talking about in regards to child poverty—then I believe the fact is that we could and should do better.

So what does “do better” look like? Well, on the bill, we also talked about our obligations to the United Nations SDGs—which are Sustainable Development Goals—about halving poverty. We signed it and we took up our responsibility around that, but then it talked about the responsibilities for us as a country to those SDGs. We talked about judicial obligations. Now, I had to challenge the system then, because it was almost as if we gave more weight to the United Nations’ obligations than we did to the Treaty of Waitangi. This is not a criticism, but this is about challenging the system—we are challenging the system.

So I want to again acknowledge the fact that our Māori colleagues on the other side now have the opportunity to influence this. I want to ask you to do this: keep challenging the system, so that when we say that they are our obligations under the Treaty, they are more than just to consult and to report, and yet, under the UN obligations, we have judicial obligations. We can do better, we should do better, and if we are going to make a difference, we will do better than that.

So if that’s the case, and we are saying that we are going to lift poverty above the politics—and if we are talking about it in this regard, the Treaty of Waitangi, for Māori—then can I challenge also New Zealand First and others that are out there. When we think about Whānau Ora—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Peeni Henare and the role and responsibility that he has—if this is the best of us putting that forward, and if it is to deal with the issues for Māori that are situated in this bill, then why is it that we are playing politics with Whānau Ora?

I believe the fact is that Whānau Ora is putting power in the hands of the people where, actually, they can decide. I would hope that this would elevate it to the point that a decision would be made to empower Whānau Ora to do the role that it was destined to play, which is that Māori have the ability through their commissioning agents to decide for themselves how they can partake in that, through navigators and through others in their roles to be able to ensure that they can make a difference for Māori in our country and, in this case, for Māori children. So I would put that challenge out there. Let’s lift that above the politics. Let’s allow Whānau Ora to do its work for Māori in particular. I think that’s critically important for us, as well.

The other areas that I think are important for us—and, again, these are putting the best of us forward to do this—are around social investment. I know that at the moment, it’s something that the current Government is taking on board, but I would encourage you with this. The best of us that we would put forward—and I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, who talked about the fact of how could we challenge the system. If we’re going to challenge the system so that it changes, then social investment is actually doing that. In other words, for every dollar that we invest into the system, how do we know that it’s making a difference? So what we would like to do is this. We would like to challenge the system—I’m challenging the system; I’m not challenging the people—by asking: can the system do better? I believe it can do better.

We on this side believe it can do better, and so, therefore, the challenge to the system is: how can we hold the system accountable? We believe that social investment was a way of being able to do that, hence the reason why the measures and the targets were our push towards that. I believe that we’ve reached a point where we can agree, but I would still advocate for the position that social investment, in its principles and in its ideals, is to challenge the system and to hold that system to account. If it can do better, why should it not do better?

The targets that we had actually put forward, the measures, were, again, about the system, because if the system is treating people like people, and not just like numbers—what we actually did on this side of the House, when we were on that side of the House, was to make sure that it would do that. So we do not backtrack from setting those measures and from setting those targets, because we think that they’re critically important as well.

We know inside of this that the child poverty indicators are critically important. We thank the Prime Minister and also the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet too, and the staff that worked with us to get to a point where we can have some targets, some measures that we could hold ourselves to account on. I want to acknowledge the fact that now we’re going to have that from a fiscal perspective, where, actually, the Minister of Finance, in every Budget, will have to indicate how those measures have made a difference. So I want to actually acknowledge that piece of work. I think it’s important. I think that work will actually be an indicator to the rest of New Zealand that we’re putting our money where our mouths are. In other words, we’re putting the treasures that we think are really important—in this case, children—where we think it is important that our dollars are spent in a way that will make a difference, and I want to acknowledge the work around that as well.

I finish my last comments in the minute that I have left with the words from 1980 of Bob Marley. In 1980, he finally realised that, actually, he had cancer, and so he wrote a song that he had never written before, and it was called the “Redemption Song”. And in that “Redemption Song”, this is what he said—

Hon Members: Sing it!

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Oh, well, no.

Old pirates, yes, they rob I,

[Sent] I from the merchant ships

Anyway, I won’t go on about that, but here is what he said in the second verse of the song: that if we are to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery, “None but ourselves can [change] our minds”. One of the challenges to this issue of child poverty: poverty is by choice or by circumstance. And our role is not to judge those who are in there, it is to support them and help them, but challenge them at times. But I would say this: that out in our communities, the change to poverty is not by what we do here in this place as Parliament, but also the changes will happen from our communities, from our people, from our whānau who will stand up and declare that they too want to be part of the change, that they will take up their responsibility to do that.

This is an important day. This is a day that we would say that this bill, the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, is a bill that is Parliament’s bill to declare to the nation that we want to change the issues of poverty that affect our children. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I apologise in advance because I will not be singing any Bob Marley lyrics in the House today. But I do want to start by acknowledging the Prime Minister for leading the work on this bill and for being a champion for children. Her goal is that New Zealand will be the best place in the world to be a child. We on this side of the House all share this goal, and I truly believe that this Government can make that happen.

Child poverty is one of the most emotional and heart-wrenching issues of our time, and I absolutely believe that no one in this House wants to see children experience hardship. This legislation is a commitment to doing better for children. It is an agreement that we will put children at the heart of all we do and make progressing their rights and upholding their well-being an absolute focus of this Government. I know the previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, wants us to state that this is an all-of-Parliament bill; we could if there was one more person in this House that was supporting it. But I do acknowledge not only Labour but also New Zealand First, the Greens, and National for supporting this piece of legislation.

Child poverty has a huge emotional, physical, social, and economic cost. There is robust evidence that growing up in poverty can harm children in multiple, predictable, substantial, and often sustained ways. We consider current levels of child poverty to be unacceptably high, and have made reducing child poverty a priority. As part of this, we have created a new ministerial portfolio for child poverty reduction, held by none other than the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern herself. We want to make sure we look after our children so they can have the best childhood here in New Zealand, and we know that if we provide that, then we will enable them to reach their potential. And that has to be good for New Zealand.

This bill will establish an enduring legislative framework for Government action on child poverty and ensure transparency and accountability for progress in reducing it. As we know, there is no one measure of poverty. This bill will put in place a measurement framework for child poverty and establish four primary and six supplementary measures of child poverty. The bill requires the Government to set 10-year targets on a defined set of measures of child poverty and periodically set and publish three-year targets. It will also require Governments to report each Budget day on progress made in reducing child poverty and how measures in the Budget will affect child poverty.

We know that some groups such as Māori, Pasifika peoples, and disabled people are overrepresented amongst those in poverty. In fact, Pacific people, Māori, and disabled people tend to be overrepresented in a range of statistics in New Zealand. It’s clear that while we are making progress towards addressing pay inequality, gender inequality, and disparities in educational achievement, and so on, progress for Māori, Pacific, and disabled peoples is not being made at the same pace.

With my Associate Minister for Pacific Peoples hat on, it’s important to note that this bill, in particular, is hugely important for the Pacific population in New Zealand because we have such a young population. In 2013, over one-third, 35.7 percent, of Pacific peoples in New Zealand were children aged zero to 14 years, and, according to median projections, Pacific people are projected to make up almost one-fifth of all New Zealand children by 2038, and a similar story can be told for Māori.

As the Minister for Disability Issues, I want to acknowledge that families of children with disabilities often face increased financial hardship due to high and fluctuating costs of services and supports. This is something raised throughout the select committee process. For our children with disabilities or health issues, having access to the right supports and feeling like part of the community is so important. Children with disabilities will be an important focus within the child well-being strategy which is currently being developed. This will set out the Government’s vision for the well-being of all children, and, as New Zealand’s first child well-being strategy, it is an opportunity to harness collective goodwill, knowledge, and resources to create positive change.

The interests and needs of children with disabilities and of children of disabled parents will be a key part of improving well-being for children. As the Minister for Social Development, I know I have an opportunity, as well, to really make a difference in the lives of some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable children. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has an important role to play in upholding and uplifting the well-being of children. This is one of the key drivers behind this Government’s decision to overhaul the welfare system to ensure that it is fair, accessible, and maximises the potential of anyone and everyone who uses it, including our young ones. We want to make sure people have an adequate income and standard of living, are treated with respect, can live in dignity, and are able to participate meaningfully in their communities.

This year, I established the Welfare Expert Advisory Group to support this work. The group will review the welfare system and provide advice to the Government. Professor Cindy Kiro has been appointed as the chair of the group. Her focus on building on the potential in people reflects the principles of this Government. As a former Children’s Commissioner, she brings an important set of skills and knowledge to the role. The group also includes people like Professor Innes Asher, a paediatrician with vast experience of children and families interacting with the welfare system and the broader determinants of well-being of children and families. While I look forward to the work of this group, we’ve already started making progress towards changes at MSD, including improving service culture, making it easier for people to know their entitlements, and providing more support through the Families Package to low and middle income families.

This is just some of the work currently going on, and I know across Ministers and ministries there is much more. What I really want to emphasise by pointing that out is that improving the well-being of children requires all of us to make changes, requires all of us to be engaged and focused on making that a priority. It requires us to look at how we can make positive changes in the lives of children across this Government but outside of this Government as well, across our communities, across Aotearoa—how we do that together.

I’m excited to be here at the second reading of this bill and to get one step further to implementing what really is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that is being put in place for the good of our tamariki—effectively, for the good of New Zealand. Can I just state, to end, that all of us on this side of the House truly do believe that New Zealand absolutely can be the best country in the world to be a child, and we here in this Parliament have the privilege and the responsibility to make that happen. Fa‘afetai lava.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is indeed a privilege to speak in the second reading of this very important bill, and it’s on one of these occasions where the House does show what is possible with good policy development and good collegiality across parties. We will always differ on the path to a destination, but I think we do have a shared understanding and commitment to what that goal is—that is, a New Zealand where every individual aspires and achieves to the best of their ability, socially, culturally, and economically—and, philosophically, we will disagree with the way we get there.

The simple difference between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome will drive sometimes quite robust discussions on the solutions to what sometimes feel to be overwhelming, almost intractable problems that have emerged in modern New Zealand, but I don’t know anybody in this House that doesn’t have an absolute passion and commitment to work tirelessly to that end. We owe it to each other. We owe it to the people who sent us to this place.

I was part of the social services caucus group in the National Party in February, as social housing spokesperson, when this bill had its first reading. Of course, changes since then meant that I wasn’t part of the Social Services and Community Committee, and so I’m not going to speak to the specifics of what the committee heard, but I do want to reiterate some of the things that occurred very soon after the bill was introduced.

The social services caucus committee of the National Party resolved very quickly to work collegially with the Government in supporting this legislation, and it’s a credit to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Development, and, particularly, the Hon Alfred Ngaro and the Hon Louise Upston to enable that to occur. Even before the bill had its first reading, that group were meeting with stakeholders and experts in the social services sector, academics—Professor Boston, I remember, provided some excellent contributions to our thinking about how the bill could be made better—and I think Mr Ngaro, in his normal, self-deprecating style, has actually understated the role that he and the Hon Louise Upston have played in making the changes to the bill that are in his name. But I also want to acknowledge and credit the Prime Minister with the enabling environment in which that took place.

Now, in the first reading, we did do something that I’m glad we’re not doing today—and haven’t done for some months—and that’s a bit of the old “my statistic is better than your statistic” game. We did, as we came out of the 2017 election, I think, reflect on the previous Government’s progress towards eliminating child poverty: the 85,000 children that were lifted out of poverty and the targets that were being set by the respective leaders during the election campaign. I think it’s actually quite helpful—well, it’s not unhelpful—to not focus too much on that. But, in saying that, I do want to reflect on what I described in the first reading as something of a road to Damascus experience that the Prime Minister had had about the importance of a single or a small, concentrated set of poverty targets, and they may have set by UNICEF or some other international body.

Actually, what this bill—sensibly—does is not constrain the Government today, or in the future, to a rigid set of targets, and I think that’s an important feature of the bill. But I would also add this: a target is simply that. This is the framework within which we will have conversations about “how”, and those conversations will continue to be extremely robust, I have no doubt. But, in the same way that the scoreboard doesn’t determine the quality of the game being played on the field, the targets and our approach to them will be a very poor proxy if, indeed, the targets are not then met with sensible policies that will enable us to achieve progress towards eliminating or reducing child poverty.

So, as we continue the progress through the House of this bill, I caution not putting too much stock in the ability to set a target if we can’t then resource and think and collaborate on what the issues are and the solutions to them, because I do think we had a framework for working within that in both the social investment model and Whānau Ora. I have gone from being ambivalent to being wildly enthusiastic about Whānau Ora, to the degree that I think the navigational process and the support process that underpins the ethos of Whānau Ora means that that could be applied across a broad number of sectors and areas—including in the health sector—that I hope the Government will continue to explore. We have paused a little on that and on social investment, and I make no judgment about that because it’s actually notoriously complex to get one’s head around it. As a member of Cabinet with a Minister of Finance and then a Prime Minister that championed this for four or five years, it did take some time for us to understand and appreciate what the opportunities were, and I do hope that the Government will keep an open mind on whatever phase two of social investment might look like and sound like, because I do believe that we were on the right track—we are on the right track—to improving the outcomes for some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders through that model.

I would also conclude, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but only partly, in the context of the inconsistency that I perceive with the high value that’s being placed on the setting of a target—in this case, a child poverty reduction target—with the behaviour and actions of the Government in other areas. I note that national health targets are no longer being reported on. The Minister of Health has indicated that he intends to refresh them, but there’s sort of tumbleweed on that issue.

The Better Public Services targets focused our public servants on what were, I think, quite stretched targets and quite challenging targets for them, but in terms of things like reoffending, youth reoffending, incarceration rates, and so on, we have been making very good progress, and at least because we had set the target, we were able to then quickly understand and identify when we were deviating away from that trend. So there has been something of a road to Damascus experience on targets in respect of child poverty.

I encourage the Government to continue to look at targets for other parts of our Public Service. But I don’t want to detract from what is I think a very important day: another milestone along the road of ensuring that every single New Zealander of any age, stage, place, and race has the best opportunity to be the best Kiwi that they can be.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. The level of energy in the room belies the passion, I think, that is being expressed around this piece of legislation. We are political animals, whether we like it or not. I want to acknowledge the Hon Alfred Ngaro—three minutes and 27 seconds to get to a political statement. But can I acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse—seven minutes, 15 seconds. Look, we are political animals. That was not to detract; that was to say that that is actually what we are. That is what this place is, and we’re all here to make a difference.

Dan Bidois: And it’s taken you 30 seconds.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Absolutely. I own it, Mr Bidois. Thirty seconds. I’m there.

Can I also say, though, to the Hon Michael Woodhouse that he made a statement—he said that we differ on the path. Can I just correct him with regard to Oranga Tamariki and the work that the previous Government did and the work that the Hon Anne Tolley did setting that pathway—we do not differ. She absolutely—the Government absolutely made the right decisions and set up the right framework with regard to Oranga Tamariki. I hope with the decisions that are going to be made and announced in the next couple of weeks that not only will she see but that the members that were in that previous Cabinet and previous caucus will see that I have done them justice with the pathway that they envisaged and that they were on with regard to the children that Oranga Tamariki must commit itself to. So while often there is politics in this place—it is a political place—we don’t always disagree on the pathway, just to make that acknowledgment.

I do rise to speak on the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. I do want to start by thanking all the New Zealanders, the individuals and the groups, that participated and submitted on the bill. There were 632 submissions, and 49 submitters gave oral evidence. I want to acknowledge the members of the Social Services and Community Committee. I want to acknowledge those, as has been mentioned earlier, members across the Parliament that came together outside the select committee and inside the select committee to work to make this bill a Parliament’s bill. As we have noted, we hope that David Seymour will come down. The people of Epsom care about children just as much as everybody else. I’m sure Mr Seymour does. If Mr Seymour would come down and cast his vote in favour of this bill, then we will have a Parliament’s bill.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I beg your pardon. I do beg your pardon. So let’s hope that that might eventuate. We’ve said before, and it’s been said again today, that children shouldn’t be a political tool. This is an example today of where the majority of us have actually decided that we will honour that statement.

Can I just make a little comment about Whānau Ora. I’m not sure whether people—they may not—remember, but, actually, the Rt Hon Winston Peters implemented, when he was Minister of Māori Affairs, I believe, a programme called Ka Awatea. Ka Awatea, if you go and have a look at it, was the precursor to Whānau Ora. So I’m not quite sure what people are concerned about—what the Hon Alfred Ngaro is concerned about—but the Hon Peeni Henare is doing a review of Whānau Ora to ensure that those who need the benefits of Whānau Ora are receiving them. There is certainly no intention by any member of this Government to stop what we believe is vital and important work happening that is being delivered by the Whānau Ora navigators and by Whānau Ora providers. But, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse said and the Hon Alfred Ngaro said, when you are talking about taxpayers’ dollars, when you are talking about spending a dollar to make sure that it affects the child in a positive way, one must, every now and then, go back and make sure that that is happening. So that’s all that this Government is doing. I think there needs to be no fear in that place.

The other thing, I think, that’s really important—for me, anyway—about this day is the fact that this is actually a reset moment for our nation. This will be the second reset moment in my lifetime. The first for me was back in the 1980s when—regardless of one’s belief in reasons why or that things had to change—there was a massive change in the way that Government operated back in the 1980s, and it had an incredible downstream flow-on effect to all of our citizens. I would say that what we are doing here today is trying to turn back some of the effects of what happened in the 1980s. So this is a reset moment. This is us, as, mostly, a Parliament, saying things have happened in our nation that we no longer accept.

I am the Minister for Children and I’ve been working with the Prime Minister—we are both joint Ministers on the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy—and I try to explain it in this way to people that I go and talk to: the vision for me, and the vision that we are trying to attain, is that this is a line that we will not allow our people to fall below. Children do not live in isolation; they live inside a whānau, family, iwi, or hapū. They live with others who care for them. But if this is the line that we will not allow our people to fall below, when one of our children is below it, we need to do whatever we must do to bring them at least to the line. This is the start of that reset. This is the start of a different way of thinking. This is not about stigmatising those who may be below the line. This is saying that as a nation we will take responsibility and we will lift you up.

New Zealand First is thrilled to see a statement around the practical commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, and it is because it is those words “practical commitment”. For us, it has always been about this: a relationship upon which a nation was built. This is a relationship between two parties, and others have joined us, but there were two parties that signed that Treaty to treat each other respectfully and care for each other. So we are thrilled to see a practical commitment to the Treaty. It must not be tokenism; it must be real. That is why, with Oranga Tamariki, they must—under new section 7AA inside legislation put in by the previous Minister, and even over the year that they have been setting themselves up—create those better working relationships, true co-design relationships, with iwi and with Māori, for Māori children. Because, regardless of a Treaty, the majority of the children that Oranga Tamariki have that need our support are Māori. So if we focus on what is the need, then we will provide. That is what I hope we are establishing here today. That is what I believe we are establishing here today.

My ultimate goal is if I can leave this a place where every Minister, regardless of their stripes, asks themselves this question before they make a decision: how will this decision affect the well-being of children? Then we will have succeeded in shifting the conversation of this nation. But I’d like it to go beyond these doors. I would like every corporate, every power company, every bank, and everybody else, when you are going to make a decision, ask yourself—before you turn off the power, before you send in a bailiff—how will this decision affect the well-being of children? If we ask ourselves that question around every decision, what would the difference be to the decisions we make? This is not about free rides. This is not about anybody getting something for nothing. This is about us deciding as a nation that we will care. We will lift up people. We will take people with us, and, if you are in need, we will stand for you and we will come and support you.

So I didn’t use any of the notes that I actually brought, so I do apologise for that. Perhaps I can use them again in another speech some other time. This is a moment—this is a moment—and I want to honour everybody that is going to stand and speak on it and everybody that is in this House, because, regardless of who sits on which side of this House, this is going to set us on a pathway that will be better for our nation. So to honour you all and all those that are here in this moment, we commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: Just before I call Denise Lee, I am going to do something quite unusual and compliment the member for staying within the Standing Orders and speaking to notes, or very slightly to notes, in a way which I think enhances the mana of the House, because members speaking from their hearts does make a difference.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Mr Speaker. He taonga ngā tamariki katoa.

[Our children are our gift.]

I want to knowledge all those who have spoken before me, all those on the Social Services and Community Committee, the Prime Minister, and all sides of the House that joined hands here together this morning and increased the passage of this bill, which is so incredibly important. It’s one that we all feel very much deep in our hearts, for the issue of child poverty is a persistent concern for our country and for our nation, and one that we take seriously—we all take seriously.

I would like to point out the work that my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro has done over the course of this year and how he has worked incredibly hard behind the scenes. That’s part of what we see incorporated into this bill now, but I know of the conversations that take place outside of select committee and outside of the debate here in the House, in partnering with all parties here in the House this morning.

The first Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that Sir Alfred—ha! Sir Alfred—the Hon Alfred Ngaro—

SPEAKER: That’s a bit premature.

DENISE LEE: I just elevated you, Alfred.

Hon Member: It was the Bob Marley that did it.

DENISE LEE: Yeah, it was Bob Marley that did it. The singing of Bob Marley—that’s pretty legendary.

So, back in March, the Hon Alfred Ngaro lodged SOP 20, and it was related to a clause setting targets on a selected number of child poverty - related indicators—CPRIs, as I will refer to them throughout my speech. They included conditions such as housing, education, and health. So several submitters during the course of the select committee process submitted in support of CPRIs. Failing that, what existed in the bill was too narrow, and they expressed concern that what existed in the bill didn’t fully address issues in child poverty such as health and housing, as I said earlier. They thought it would be beneficial to introduce CPRIs. Those proposed amendments, clauses 36A through to 36J, require the Minister to annually report on CPRIs—and the Minister, of course, would have the ability to choose which areas to monitor. I’m really happy to say, and we all are, that the select committee adopted those principles.

The second improvement was in relation to SOP 22, back in the day, which, like the other, was incorporated into the principles of this bill, and that was the social investment approach. It’s recognised that some of the principles of social investment, such as early intervention and evidence-related information—evidence-informed policy—is useful when creating policy here in the House and, of course, for this country, and when you’re developing strategy.

Now, the reason why the Hon Alfred Ngaro and those of us on this side of the House really pushed so hard for these two principles—and this is for all of us; not just for those of us on this side of the House—is that, when used together, they represent the best way to not only reduce child poverty but, more importantly, more fundamentally, to prevent it, and that’s where we need to lead to.

The CPRIs make sure that we’re not going in blind. We need to know that the interventions that we are looking at will actually be effective and change children’s lives. So we need to know that what we’re dealing with is a range of indicators that actually allow us to address the root causes of poverty. So it is not enough to know just the relative household incomes that a family or child has; we need to know whether the child is achieving at school, whether they’ve got family issues or a broken home, whether there are health complications that prevent the family or the child reaching their full potential. These indicators give us the depth of knowledge and personal context so we can truly understand the massive and the major issue that we have around child poverty. Meanwhile, principles of that early investment or social investment just, basically, are making sure that we’ve got the right tools in the tool kit, and there’s been agreement on that. We want to make sure that we’re getting the right levers pulled at the right time.

During his valedictory speech, the Rt Hon Sir Bill English pointed out that too much of our system is set up to simply service the misery. So where we find ourselves here now this morning is with an acknowledgement that it’s not enough just enough to measure a percentage of the population, but we need to make sure that we’re intervening early and focusing on education and health and social well-being of these children, empowering them to become productive and fulfilled in their young lives and on into their adult lives.

Now, being bipartisan on this issue just means that all the measures that we’re talking about today will be sustainable and will last. Why do we do this? Why do we join hands? It’s because we need to assure the public of New Zealand, the residents of New Zealand, and the families, whānau, of New Zealand that we want to do our best to get it right. It’s a simple statement, but that’s exactly what we need to do and it is what we’re doing here. Governments have a responsibility to act for those who are most vulnerable.

So, with that, I do congratulate the select committee, the Prime Minister, all parties here involved for their political acumen and courage to get to this point. Our country, Aotearoa, is better for it. And, finally, to our tamariki, to our children, in the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, who once graced these halls: E tipu e rea mō ngā rā o tō ao. Ko tō wairua ki te atua, nāna nei ngā mea katoa.

[Grow up and thrive for the days destined to you. Your soul to your God, to whom all things belong.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ata mārie tātou katoa. It appears that we are in agreement at least at a high level today in this House with the passage of this, the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. I am absolutely pleased, relieved, and hopeful about this, in fact. I know, and it has been acknowledged already by many members, that we may not always agree to the pathway on how we actually get enduring, sustainable, long-lasting solutions to child poverty. I want to be very clear that child poverty is whānau and community poverty, and that is one of the strong points that the Greens have always understood, that we cannot separate tamariki from whānau.

I want to acknowledge the systemic and environmental causes of poverty, and I think my starting point therefore—and possibly it is political—is that poverty is not an accident. It’s also not a personal choice, and there have been utterances today of the opposite. But I’m going to be very clear that poverty is created, in actual fact, by the decisions that have been made in this House, by the decisions made over long successive political actions in this House, by people who are not in poverty. So I do welcome this bill. I do welcome us working together as a Parliament to ensure that we are going to measure, be accountable for, and have political will and commitment to remove poverty from our communities.

The Greens do not accept—we do not accept—that any measure of poverty is inevitable. We know that this has, in fact, been a status quo narrative that we have been held hostage to for ever, for far too long—that that is going to simply be the case in our communities. Well, certainly not the case to the extent that it appears today, and I certainly will continue to say, and know, that there is no excuse, actually, in this beautiful Aotearoa of ours for anyone to not be living in dignity and with all their social, economic, and spiritual needs met in this beautiful country of ours. So I am very pleased about the passage of this bill—the clear commitment that it’s going to require from all of us, not just to work together but to work with our communities.

But I will, if the House doesn’t mind, maintain some reservation about how we are going to get there. That has already been put on the floor by several members as part of the not always consensus around the pathways. There’s also not always consensus about how we got here, I have to say. And I too, like Minister Martin, will be blatant enough to own—poverty is political. We cannot separate property from politics. And if it is far too political of me to say, then it is not always with ease that I sit and receive particularly Opposition members’ flagging that we must do all we can to negate poverty in our country, when some of the actions of that Opposition’s Government absolutely made it worse.

Nicola Willis: Shame—shame on you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: That’s why I’m pleased to see this bill will consider the ecosystem of poverty, which will require that we have to understand how our housing decisions in this House impact—how selling off and reducing the quota of public and social housing absolutely has a part to play in the increase of poverty on children. So I am glad to see that, and I’ll go into submissions now. And I’m not ashamed for putting that on the floor—not at all.

I’ll go through the submissions now. Many—most—were very clear that we have to be aware of the systemic and ecosystem dynamics of poverty and that poverty does not sit in a vacuum. Again, this is what the bill is hoping to pick up, and the accountability of the bill to that systemic dynamic of poverty will be really crucial for our work, going forward.

I want to acknowledge, for example, Te Pou Matakana, the commissioning agency for Whānau Ora, who insisted, as many others did, that we report on poverty by age, gender, and ethnic group to make sure that we are picking up—because poverty doesn’t impact on all groups in the same way. We know that here and it’s very, very clear. I echo what Minister Sepuloni highlighted about the different impacts on Māori, Pacific, and people and children with a disability. Mothers and children also are more likely to be impacted on by the decisions that we make in this House over housing, health, education, justice—all of the areas will impact on whether or not families live with dignity and above the poverty line. So I welcome those many submissions who highlighted that the reporting, if we’re going to do it properly, needs to be very clear.

I really want to pick up on the submission of Hāpai Te Hauora, who put into words in a far better way what I have always wanted to be articulating as a responsibility of my role in this House. Absolutely, many of the submitters came through with the importance of Te Tiriti and an understanding that in fact it is a breach of Te Tiriti that tamariki are not being protected when they are so overly disproportionately represented in poverty, and that we understand the impacts of colonisation and the systemic racist structures that can absolutely impact on children who are Māori and Pacific, and that that has to be taken into account in our solutions. In fact, addressing poverty for all families, and including Māori families, is about enhancing the sovereignty of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the well-being of children is relative to us understanding mokopuna as our taonga. The structural barriers to well-being relate back to the original loss of land, language, and place in our country. So I want to acknowledge the many submissions that came through, identifying some of those structural causes of inequality, of poverty, for whānau and communities.

That is why, as others already have done in here, there are always going to be political points that actually have to be made in this conversation. That doesn’t detract from the collaborative work that we have to do together in this House, but I think it would be remiss to dismiss the many submitters who came through who are on the ground every day dealing with the systemic barriers, and if we do not address them, then this bill is worth nothing.

I wanted to raise a particular point from the submission from Hāpai te Hauora, who wanted to talk about a single statistician—you know, I do acknowledge my colleague James Shaw as Minister—reminding us that data translation is never impartial; never ever. So making sure that we understand that the collection and translation of data needs to be independent and accountable, and we need to be accountable for it. So I was again pleased to see in the Social Services and Community Committee’s report an understanding of a wider call and collection for data, particularly by gender, age, and ethnicity again.

Most of all, many submissions came through outlining that poverty is not a statistic and that we keep the lived experiences, the narratives, the actual real human stories of the experiences always at the forefront of the work that we do. For example, Kaipara Māori Women’s Welfare League insisted that—and, again, I agree with this—the most enduring solutions require Government to actively partner with Māori to resolve the systemic issues that have caused poverty in the first place, and that we cannot keep plastering over the wounds of racism and institutionalised frameworks that haven’t worked over consistent political Parliaments.

So I am very pleased to lift the voice of those submissions that came through. I’m very pleased to highlight this day of the second reading of a bill that absolutely has all of the support in this House. I am not at all shy of upholding the political points that are inevitable, and I know that that won’t detract from us continuing to work together. Kia ora.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. I must say, it’s not the first time that I’ve had to follow on from the dribble and the negativity of Marama Davidson, from a speech that lacks substance or factual accuracy.

But let me come to the bill, which we are clearly supporting in the House today. I would like to acknowledge Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for raising what is an important topic for us to discuss and debate in this House, and a topic that we can all agree on as members of Parliament who want the best outcomes for our people and also to improve the chances for a better life. So I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister for bringing this bill to the House. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Social Services and Community Committee, and in particular the chair, Gareth Hughes, for your guidance through this submission process, and also the officials for looking after the submissions and giving us good advice in this process.

It is a pleasure to speak on this bill. It’s something that I think we can all agree on, in terms of the high-level framework, but more needs to be done—rather than intent. More needs to be done on the action front if we’re going to actually achieve a substantial reduction. So just to go through the purpose of the bill, it’s quite simple: to help achieve a sustained and significant reduction in child poverty. The key message that I want to make today is that we on this side of the House support the intent. We support the framework for child poverty reduction, although we differ on the pathway to get us to a reduction in child poverty.

So why do we support this bill? We support the targets, the aspirations that we have to reduce child poverty. We support, of course, the range of new measures for the way to measure child poverty in New Zealand. As Peter Drucker, a management guru, once said, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. And so I think that this bill reflects the desire of the House to in fact start measuring so that we can achieve a sustained reduction. The intent around having Oranga Tamariki action plans is something that this side of the House supports, along with the coordination between ministries, which we know is often lacking in many instances, in order to achieve what are going to be great outcomes for reduction in child poverty in the future.

But I want to tell the House very clearly that you can’t legislate for poverty reduction in itself. For example, out of all of the global poverty reduction—in 1981, 42 percent of the world’s population was in extreme poverty according to the World Bank data. With the latest data that we have, from 2013, that number is down to 10.7 percent. That’s a $1 billion reduction. Where does that one billion—not one billion dollars; 1 billion people, I should say—come from? Of that one billion reduction in poverty, 500 million comes from China, so let’s look at what China did in that time to understand what it takes to actually reduce poverty in the world. As we know, under President Deng Xiaoping, China went through a massive array of economic reforms, encouraging private sector growth, and, through that, reduced their poverty by 500 million people to 2013.

We can talk about New Zealand in that case, and I would refute the argument by Marama Davidson that the previous Government in fact increased child poverty. From the last five years, the poverty figures—we had a substantial reduction of 85,000 in the last five years. And so this idea that you can just put out a bill and that the Prime Minister can go to Europe and say, “What a game-changer this is for child poverty in New Zealand.”—that is a load of nonsense. The only way to reduce child poverty—as we know from the China example, as we know from so many countless examples—is to focus on a strong economy, private sector growth, and getting people into work. That is what this side of the House believes. We believe in focusing on jobs, a strong economy, higher productivity, and incomes.

My worry for this bill, even though we are supportive of it, is that that side of the House has no plan to grow the economy, grow jobs, or increase incomes. Let’s see what they have. Let me go through what this Government is doing that will not reduce child poverty. Banning oil and gas exploration, overturning tax cuts that would have made—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! This is a second reading speech.

DAN BIDOIS: OK, Madam Assistant Speaker. Let me come back to the report of the select committee, because I believe that while the intent of this bill is good and that we are supportive of this bill, so much more needs to be done, and we’re not seeing that from this Government at the moment.

But, as I said, we had over 600 people in the select committee from this prospect, and, you know, there are a range of changes that we’ve made, including from one of my colleagues, Sir Alfred—no, sorry, not Sir Alfred Ngaro; the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who submitted a bill—

Nicola Willis: We’re getting a consensus on that.

DAN BIDOIS: We’re getting a consensus. We had a Supplementary Order Paper in his name around improving the data and making sure that the Ministers are required to report on child poverty measures in New Zealand. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Inside voices, please.

DAN BIDOIS: I want to talk about a visit that the Social Services Committee had to Australia recently, where, during that trip, we went to the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, which is otherwise known as ARACY. What amazed me about that visit is that they did a survey of children, and they asked children to indicate what matters to them. It was quite a large, robust survey, and as the members from the opposite side will recall, the two top factors that came out from this visit were that love and the safety of your home were the most important two factors in a child’s well-being. So I would caution the public of New Zealand to think that this is going to solve poverty. What I think that we need to focus on—and judging from the ARACY example in Australia—is communities, and focus on making sure that children feel safe, but also to focus on law and order, because that, no doubt, is an extreme example of how, in fact, poverty can be reduced in New Zealand.

So I would like to just conclude some of my remarks by saying that we are supportive of the bill that we’ve got before the House today. I would like to commend the Prime Minister for raising this. I’d like to commend, of course, the Social Services and Community Committee for their work, and also Alfred Ngaro for his contribution throughout the time for this. But I would caution that so much more needs to be done in order to achieve what we all want to achieve in this House, which is: are people better off, leaving happier healthier lives? We’re not going to get that from this bill. So this side of the House will be making sure that we hold that side accountable for delivering on these targets, because, quite frankly, actions speak louder than words. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—five minutes, the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi e tika ana ki te maumahara i te rangatira Ngātata, nō reira e te matua, maumahara tō mahi ki te tautoko Te Ao Māori i ngā wā katoa nō reira e te matua, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Firstly, it is right to remember the leader Ngātata; therefore sir, remembering your efforts to support the Māori world at all times, rest in peace.]

First of all, I pay tribute to one of our rangatira, who we had a memorial for last Sunday. Sir Ngātata Love made a huge contribution to Te Ao Māori and this country, and I pay tribute to everyone in this House who has remembered him. I bring him up particularly today because he was an advocate for this type of kaupapa we’re talking about today, and I don’t think we’ve paid tribute to someone who gave his life to Te Ao Māori and this country. So I mihi to him and his whānau.

It’s a pleasure to stand here today to hear, mostly, the House together advocating in terms of this kaupapa. I congratulate all those who’ve made a contribution: the Greens, the Hon Alfred Ngaro over there. Well done to the member, who—he and I have clashed a number of times over the last 12 months or 18 months. But I mihi to you for your work, Alfred—fantastic that we put our swords down when it comes to this sort of kaupapa, and he well knows about the poverty in his community and the child poverty that abounds in the West Aucklands and in the South Aucklands.

We have to put our children right at the forefront here, because they are the future of our economy, and we have to make an investment—there has to be an investment in terms of child poverty. That’s what our Prime Minister spoke about this morning. For too long—again, as our members know, the Green members, National members, Labour members—too much has come on communities to carry this: community organisations, who have small pūtea, who have small budgets. It has to be a whole-of-Government concern and a whole-of-Parliament concern.

So that’s why I’m pleased with the way this kaupapa is rolling out. I’m pleased with the contributions. There’s no good doing too much politicking over this sort of stuff, because our children are a concern for everyone: for this Parliament and for this Government. So I mihi to everyone in the House who makes a contribution and wants to advance this kaupapa, and I give a commitment that I’ll work alongside you too, if it means advancing our children.

What I’m particularly pleased about, of course, is that Ministers are going to be found a bit more accountable and we’re going to have a framework in terms of reducing the targets and the process going forward. And I’m also pleased that there’s been some acknowledgment—as I heard it earlier from the Hon Alfred Ngaro—about the Treaty of Waitangi and that partnership, about what it means today. What does it mean in terms of going forward? So I’m pleased that, through this bill, we are seeing an emphasis on the Treaty and whānau, hapū, and iwi. What does that mean in a practical sense? That’s a challenge for this Parliament and the challenge for this Government. It can’t mean that we have the tragic history of kids being taken from their whānau, of kids being put into State care at the drop of a hat, with no acknowledgement and no concession in terms of where they’re from, how they’ve been brought up, are they part of intergenerational unemployment, are they part of intergenerational drug use? There’s got to be more thought and process going into that, and there’s enough experts around to say “Let’s emphasise the whānau and the hapū and the wider family.”

So I’m really pleased that there’s an emphasis in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and that relationship and that partnership with Māori going forward, given that the high child poverty stats are very much in Te Ao Māori. As Minister of Employment, I will be trying to make my contribution in terms of implementing whānau and rangatahi programmes. We’ve already made a start in terms of He Poutama Rangatahi and Mana in Mahi. We need to upskill whānau. We need to create employment. I’ll be working on that—again, with anyone who wants to contribute; it doesn’t matter what party they’re in.

As Minister of Employment, I’m absolutely committed to developing employment policy and programmes that invest in our whānau, that invest in families, so that our children can have respectable and healthy lives. I welcome this bill today. I think it signals real change—transformational change—and I want a future where all our children have the ability to succeed past the circumstances that they have been born into. I congratulate everyone in the House who has made a contribution today. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou katoa.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): It is my great honour to rise to speak on the second reading of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill. And it is my privilege to be speaking on a piece of legislation that marks parliamentary consensus, that marks the coming together of parties across this House to craft a bill that will make a difference for children for generations to come.

I think what we have today is a meeting of intention: an agreement that, whether you sit there or here or there, when you come to this House, you share an intention that you will make a difference to the lives of others and that you will make a difference to the generations of New Zealanders that are yet to come. Our debate in this Parliament is not about whether that is a good intention; our debate is about what will make the biggest and most enduring difference for those future generations. What we share is a shared abhorrence of child poverty, and it is to be a denigration of us all if we are to pretend that some people dislike child poverty more than others. What we all believe is that every child deserves a good start in life. They deserve to be happy and healthy, and to have the ability to fulfil their potential. They deserve access to a strong public health and education system. They deserve a good family and home life. What we all acknowledge is that here in New Zealand the Kiwi way is that everyone has hope and opportunity, and that when that happens, the whole society benefits. And so today we acknowledge that in order to advance these shared objectives, a programme of transparent reporting on poverty targets, a programme of public accountability, is called for.

I want to pay particular acknowledgment to the Social Services and Community Committee, who have worked very hard to make this a much, much better bill than it might have been. In particular, I want to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro, who said that what we measure in this bill is important. We have to measure housing conditions. We have to measure education and health outcomes. He said that this must not just be a Government strategy; this must be a strategy that brings in churches, iwi, non-government organisations—all in our society who have the ability to impact on our children. He said that this policy will only work if it brings in the principles of social investment, if it looks at early intervention, and if it looks at the evidence-based policy. He ensured that this bill is much better than it would have been. And I do want to acknowledge the Prime Minister for accepting those great changes from National and making this a better piece of legislation than it could have been.

But, most importantly, I want to, today, acknowledge Bill English. I want to acknowledge him as the grandfather of the social investment policy that I believe will be the enduring thing that makes a difference to child poverty in this country. I want to acknowledge the good work he did in the past five years of the National Government. Against a backdrop of a global financial crisis and major catastrophic earthquakes, he managed a fiscal strategy that ensured 85,000 children were lifted out of material hardship, and he was able to do that because he understood that the foundation on which equality of opportunity is built is a strong economy, because with economic growth we can have better jobs for parents, we can have better incomes, and we can have a better ability for all families to juggle their responsibilities and support the aspirations of their children.

He also understood—to quote his valedictory speech—“the dangerous complacency of good intentions.” He understood that strengthening families and the lives they are able to provide their children is not just about family incomes. It is about breaking the cycles of dependence and dysfunction that impact too many of our whānau, and we have the tools to do it. We have the data. We understand the evidence. It is our responsibility to use those things, and that is what social investment is about.

How will we be judged when New Zealanders look back on this bill? I put to you that we will not be judged by the adjectives we have used to describe its good intentions. We will not be judged by whether it was historic, landmark, or transformative in its description. We will be judged by how many lives it changed. Together, we commit to that work in this House, but let the great debate continue about how we achieve that. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Priyanca Radhakrishnan, you have five minutes.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is indeed with great excitement and a sense of honour that I rise to speak in support of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and it is a privilege to be on the select committee that considered this bill, as well. This is, as many members in this House have acknowledged today, an aspirational bill. It is transformational. The majority, if not all, of the submitters who came and presented to the Social Services and Community Committee expressed a strong sense of relief that such a bill is actually finally before us, given that the sector has waited so long for this House to take sustainable action on reducing child poverty.

At the heart of this bill is fairness. It’s human rights. It’s about lifting so many out of the abject poverty that they face day in, day out so that they can thrive. At the heart of this bill, as well, is political accountability and the fact that it enables the public to hold us in this House and to hold the Government to account.

The bill will also require the responsible Minister to adopt, publish, and review a child well-being strategy, and that’s where the action lies. That’s where the detail is in terms of the lives that will ultimately be transformed as a result of this process today.

I’ll focus my speech on the submissions that came to the Social Services and Community Committee and the changes to the bill. This was an excellent bill that the process has made even stronger, and I want to begin by thanking the 632 submitters, many of whom came and presented to the committee as well. These are people who have been, for so long, passionate about the work that they do day in, day out to ensure child well-being in New Zealand, and I want to thank them not just for their submissions to this bill but for the work that they continue to do to the benefit of our society as well.

Apart from the substantial changes to the bill, one of the points that was made time and again by submitters was that they wanted this to be a cross-party piece of legislation—that they wanted both sides of the House to work constructively to make this bill better. That’s what has been done, and I thank my colleagues on the select committee for their contribution as well.

There have been a few substantial changes to this bill, and many that were tweaks to it as well. One of them, of course, was ensuring that we actually have an analysis of specific identified populations who are disproportionately affected by poverty, and that includes Māori children. This is in recognition of the fact that if we are to get this right, we have to get it right for those who are most affected by it.

A quick point on the social investment model, because it’s been mentioned by members opposite: that was a model that was about limiting liability. That was a model about saving costs. This brings in some aspects of that model, which were about early intervention and which were about evidence-based policy, but not all of it, for good reason.

I want to touch quickly on the child-related principles that will be included in this when developing the strategy. It’s about acknowledging children’s intrinsic value and inherent dignity, that children’s rights in New Zealand law are respected and upheld, and that children should be viewed in the context of their families, whānau, hapū, and iwi and other culturally recognised family groups and communities, and this stems from the recognition that children don’t exist in isolation and neither does child poverty.

There were many other changes, as well, that have been recommended by the select committee that strengthen this bill, one of which also is about consultation and who is to be consulted, and includes the fact that there is a requirement for the Children’s Commissioner and the Minister of the Crown who’s responsible for the Ministry of Māori Development to be included in consultation as well, which recognises and demonstrates practical commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I want to end by thanking again submitters, select committee members, officials who contributed to this, and, of course, the right honourable Prime Minister, whose bill it is. There’s a Japanese proverb that says, “Vision without action is a daydream; action without vision is nightmare.” With vision and action together, we can change the world. I thank the Prime Minister for her leadership, action, and vision. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party as the sole member of this House opposing this bill—something that seems to have become a bit of a trend recently, after the National Party voted to stipulate country-of-origin labelling on all food, something that I’ll never understand. But, in any case, this particular bill is ostensibly directed at a very real problem.

The problem that we have in New Zealand, one of the wealthiest societies ever to exist, is children who are having surgery because their teeth are so rotten from their parents putting Coca-Cola in their sipper bottles. We have, in this country, children showing up at school almost impossible to teach, either because their parents took P when they were in utero, or because they haven’t fed them since, because they’re still taking P. We have children in this country growing up in housing that is so substandard that their health will be irrevocably damaged before they reach adulthood, and we’ve got about one in six kids coming out of the education system without anything like the skills required to succeed in the 21st century, which will be one of the most skills-based centuries in human history.

This bill, despite all of the hand-wringing intentions of the Prime Minister and despite its title, will do nothing to solve those problems. If income was all that was lacking to solve child poverty, then productivity and GDP per capita quadrupling over the last 80 years would have eradicated poverty. If more money was the solution, then the Government spending tens of billions of dollars a year in benefits and Working for Families and accommodation supplements would have solved poverty by now. All this bill is going to do is tell us how many households are within 60 percent or 40 percent or 50 percent of the median income. It is not a measure of child poverty. It’s not even a measure of the incomes that houses have. It is a measure of how many households have incomes similar to how many other households. That’s the first problem with this bill—that it doesn’t actually solve the problem of child neglect.

But the second problem and the much greater sin of this bill is that not only does it fail to solve the problem it promises to solve, but it distracts from it, because what this bill does is it makes it very clear to any future Government—or this one, for that matter—what has to be done to make poverty go away. Under this definition, all that Governments have to do is tax off one group of people and bring their incomes down, and give to another group of people and bring their incomes up. That’s how you make sure that there are fewer households with less than 40 or 50 or 60 percent of income.

I think it’s a real disappointment that my friends in the National Party have decided to jump on this bandwagon simply because of the addition of clause 36A. And here’s what clause 36A says—well, we don’t need to find it, it’s pretty simple. Clause 36A says that if one measure of child poverty—if the Minister adds one measure, which can be any measure, could be income, could be housing, could be anything—is added to the bill, then the National Party are suddenly happy with Jacinda Ardern’s initiative.

We in this House have an obligation to give New Zealanders a better tomorrow through better public policy. We had the opportunity to measure the real outcomes, the real hardship, the real neglect that children in New Zealand face, and instead we have put in place legislation whose only conclusion is that we should do more of what’s already failed: taxing and spending and ignoring the role of personal responsibility completely. It’s a sad day for this Parliament, but I’m proud to stand in opposition to this legislation. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I also stand today in support of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill in its second reading. Now, there’s no question that most of us across this House actually do support this bill, but more than just this bill, actually: the philosophy around the reduction of child poverty in New Zealand. And I will speak later to my colleague from ACT and the points that he has raised.

But what this bill actually does is it sets a direction of travel that the previous National Government was already on, and that was setting a target of reducing child poverty. Now, there has been a very, very collaborative approach across this House to the development of this bill since its introduction. And I do acknowledge the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, PM, and our leader, the Hon Simon Bridges, who have negotiated behind the scenes some of the details that are now in this bill, and which the Social Services and Community Committee has debated even further, and that we speak to today.

Now, the issue of child poverty is one that most of us here agree transcends politics. And we are very supportive of the move to enshrine the goals into legislation and the measures that this bill will set in place so that it does have continuity and longevity across Governments well into the future.

At the core of this bill are our tamariki, the children of Aotearoa, the most vulnerable in our society. And if we’re going to build a nation of successful and independent people, then we have to start with ensuring that our children are able to function and that they’re able to function without the stresses that poverty brings with it. Now, lifting a child out of poverty is not simply about achieving a one-off target; it’s about ensuring that the reduction of poverty is sustained. We need to hold ourselves up alongside other countries that also have low rates of child poverty, such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.

This bill sets a legislative framework for lifting our children out of poverty, and it requires the Government Statistician to report every year on the four primary measures and six supplementary measures that are embedded in this bill. Even at the select committee process there were some concerns around the statisticians’ capacity, and there is an acknowledgement that there will be some capacity-building required for the extra work that this is going to generate. So the four primary measures, as David Seymour has pointed out, are around the measures of incomes versus housing costs: 50 percent, 60 percent, or 40 percent. But there are also six supplementary measures about income before and after housing costs. Number five of those six supplementaries is around severe material hardship, and number six is both the income and material hardship measure.

Now, these are all aspirational. However, there are some things that can’t be measured, and one of those which is dear to me is the measure of happiness. And I’ve used the example in the House before of my grandparents, who were a working class, single-income, low-income family, with 13 children and a very humble home. Now, they never had a lot of money while they were bringing up all these children, but what they did have was happiness. They were poor but happy.

So we have to be careful that the wider solutions to tackling poverty are also addressed. Now, this bill sets in place a 10-year target for the measurement of child poverty, but it also requires the Government of the day, whatever Government that is, to publish three-year intermediate targets. Now, the bill also goes on to require the Government to publish and review a strategy for improving the well-being of all children, and it must include the children most at risk. Now, this is where the rubber will hit the road in this strategy.

So that’s why the previous National-led Government had Better Public Services targets, because we saw the need to ensure that the Public Service was able to be measured in performing and dealing with that hard-core social dysfunction that has these families and children living in poverty. And that sat alongside the previous Government’s target of having 100,000 children being lifted out of poverty. Here today all parties are aligned. But there are no targets. During the select committee process, it was argued strongly that the imposition of targets would simply encourage a tick-box exercise, and that we would miss the point and maybe some of the manoeuvrability that was required in addressing child poverty.

In support of the words of Alfred Ngaro earlier, this bill is not just a Government bill; this is a bill of this Parliament. And I’m very proud to be a part of this Parliament introducing this bill. But it’s not, however, the end. In fact, this is only the end of the beginning. Now, the real commitment and the real work to lift the gain for the children of New Zealand starts after the passage of this bill. This bill simply sets the measures of poverty. Now, we have to deal with the contributing factors. We all must work towards building an economy that creates the jobs—and the good-paying jobs—that get families off long-term welfare dependency.

We must support individuals who find themselves in this spiral of recidivist criminal offending. We must support those in our country who struggle with either health challenges or disability, or both. We must ensure that children and their families are well connected to their communities and can easily participate in community activities. Actually, that was one of the points that came up in the discussion in the select committee: that the connectivity was so important. It was all about connectivity, not just in terms of Wi-Fi or broadband, but it was how well they connected with children who connected with sports clubs, with volunteer organisations, and with their school and their wider community.

Now, we must also acknowledge that it’s not all about Government simply throwing more and more money at the issue. We have to deal with those other aspects of our community, and, for me, the foundation to all of that is creating the economy and the jobs that we need so that people can participate in a productive workforce.

I just want to pay tribute to the contribution earlier in this discussion from the Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, and acknowledge her recognition of the value of the social investment approach. I was fortunate to hear the Minister speak at a conference a couple of days ago where she reinforced the value of social investment and the importance that plays in lifting our children out of poverty.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Gareth Hughes, and his conciliatory and diplomatic approach to the committee. There were some challenging times, and the debate was robust at times, as it should be, but I acknowledge our chair and the other members of the committee who contributed over the many weeks that we listened to submissions from all over the country.

There is no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children. This Parliament is taking a historic step forward today, and I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker,

Tō aroha he karere ki te ao,

Puritia ko ngā kaupapa kia mau

Ngā tamariki toa, kei te rangi e

E hāereere ana e, taukuri e.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ko ahau te kaikōrero whakamutunga o te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire. Nō reira he tino hōnore tēnei mōku te tū ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire. I au e whakaaro ake ana, ā, me pēhea rā taku kōrero, ka toko ake te whakaaro a tēnei waiata i roto i a au, ā, i hiahia au te tīmata taku kōrero i tēnei waiata.

Tuatahi me mihi au ka tika ki te Pirimia, nāna tēnei pire i kawe mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Nāna tēnei whakaaro i kawe mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. Koia nei tētahi o ngā take i haere mai ia, i uru mai ia ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata. Ko tōna hiahia, tōna whāinga matua, ko tēnei te wāhi, tēnei te motu, puta noa i te ao, te wāhi pai kia tipu ake hei tamariki.

He tuatahitanga tēnei. Āe, i tēnei wā, he hītori. E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki tērā taha o Te Whare, nā te mea kua tautoko i tēnei pire. Te nuinga o ngā pāti i roto i Te Whare. E ngau kino nei tēnei take i roto i Te Tai Tokerau. Āe, ko te pēpi e inu ana i te pātara, te wai, i te huka. He aha ai? Nā te pōhara o te whānau ki te hoko i te miraka mō te pēpi. E kai ana i te rohi me te wai noa iho, hei whakakī i te puku o te tamaiti.

Ko te tamaiti e haere ana ki te kura, horekau he kai. Ko ngā taitamariki i kōrero mai e taku tāne, he kura māhita, e ngaro āna tamariki i te mutunga o te tau, he kai tahi te kaupapa. Ka pātai atu ia ki tētahi o ngā tama, he aha te take kāhore koe i haere mai ki te kura i taua rā. Hei ko tāna, matua, nā te mea horekau he rima tāra hei koha mō te kai mutunga o te tau. Ka tangi hotuhotu tana ngākau. Ināianei, māna e hoko ngā kai hei kai tahi mō te mutunga o te tau.

Mō ngā kōtiro, ngā tamāhine, kāhore e ngaro ana i te kura, nā te mea horekau te whānau e taea ana ki te hoko ngā kōre, ngā puru, ngā kapu rānei i te wā e heke ana te toto o ngā kōtiro. E ngaro ana i te kura.

Mō ngā tamariki, ngā taitamariki, kāhore e whiwhi ana te raihana mō te taraiwa motokā. He aha te take mehemea ka pātai, nā te mea horekau he moni hei utu i te nama kia whiwhi i tana raihana. Horekau he motokā tō te whānau, horekau he penehīni, he warrant, rego, aha rānei.

Mō ngā tamariki e mōhio ana ahau, e noho ana, e moe ana i roto i ngā tēneti, ngā karāti, ngā whare makariri, mākū anō hoki. Tētahi tamaiti i whiwhi i te karahipi mō te haere ki te whare wānanga, engari horekau he moni kia utu i te tīkiti kia rere atu ia ki te whare wānanga. Koirā te pōharatanga. Koirā ngā kino o tēnei mea te noho pōhara.

Whakamau ko taku titiro

Te rerenga o te rā

Tau ana te ahuru e

Ki te manawa

Ko tēnei pire, ko ngā painga, ka hanga i ngā whāinga kia whakaheke i te noho rawakore. Ia te tau, ia te tau, ka rīpoata ā-tau te kāwanatanga he aha ngā mahi kia whakaheke i te noho rawakore. Te Minita mō te Pūtea, ia tau, ia tahua pūtea, me, um, me tuki me pēhea rā te whakaheke i te noho rawakore o ngā tamariki. He rautaki anō hoki mō te oranga o ngā tamariki. Koirā ngā kaupapa nui kei roto i tēnei pire.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki te neke atu i te ono rau o ngā tāngata i tono mai ō rātou whakaaro mō tēnei pire. Ka nui te mihi ki a rātou ka whai wā ki te tono mai ō rātou whakaaro. Te nuinga i tautoko. E hiahia hoki ana ahau ki te mihi ki a rātou, ā, i roto i ngā hapori e mahi kaha nei ki te tiaki i ngā tamariki i roto i ō rātou ake hapori.

Hei kōrero whakamutunga māku, e whakaaro ana ahau i tētahi whakataukī. Ko ngā tamariki he taonga tuku iho. Ko tētahi whakataukī mō te tamariki, mō te tamaiti. Ko te piko o te māhuri tērā te tipu o te rākau. Mehemea e hiahia ana tātou kia tipu kaha, kia tipu tika wā tātou tamariki, kia tū tangata ai rātou i roto i tēnei ao, he mea nui te whakaruruhau. Te whāngai, te ngaki, te tiaki, kia puāwai.

Horahia e matariki,

Ki te whenua,

Hei māramatanga mō te motu e,

Kia tipu he puāwai hōnore,

Mō te pani, mō te rawakore e!

Tēnā tātou katoa. Ka whakairihia tēnei pire ki Te Whare.

[Your love is the gospel to the world,

Adhere to the commandments,

The missioners, to heaven,

Are now long gone, alas!

Madam Assistant Speaker, I am the final speaker for the second reading of this bill. Therefore it is a great honour for me to stand and speak about this bill. When I was considering how my speech should go, the thought of this song came to me, and I wanted to start my address with this song.

Firstly, I should rightly acknowledge the Prime Minister, who brought this bill to the House. She brought this idea to Parliament. This is one of the reasons she came here, entered Parliament. Her desire, her main aim, was that this country be the best, the best of all around the world, for children to grow up in.

This is a first. Yes, at this time, it’s history-making. I want to acknowledge the Opposition for supporting this bill, as do most of the parties in this House. This issue is hard-hitting in Te Tai Tokerau. Yes, babies are drinking, from bottles, water and sugar. Why? Because of the poverty-stricken families, unable to buy milk for the baby. They’re eating only bread and water, to fill the child’s stomach.

The child who is going to school has no food. The children spoken of by my husband, a school teacher, were absent at the end of the year, on the occasion of a shared meal. He asked one of the boys, “Why didn’t you come to school on that day?” He responded, “Sir, because I didn’t have $5 to contribute for the year-end meal.” His heart was sobbing. Now he buys the food to be eaten together for the end of the year.

Regarding the girls, the daughters, they are absent from school because the family isn’t able to buy pads, tampons, or cups when the girls are menstruating. They are absent from school.

Regarding the children, youth, not getting their licence to drive cars, what is the reason? It is because there is no money to pay the cost to get their licence. The family has no car, no petrol, no warrant, no rego, or anything else.

Children are living and sleeping in tents, in garages, in cold and damp houses. One child received a scholarship for going to university, but there was no money to pay the ticket so they could fly to the university. That is poverty. These are the evils of living in poverty.

My gaze is transfixed,

To where the sun rises,

Subdued

Is the palpitating heart.

This bill, its attributes, create goals to reduce living destitute. Every year, the Government reports on what can be done to reduce living in poverty. The Minister of Finance, every year, every Budget, should address how to reduce the impoverished living of children. Another strategy, too, for the well-being of children. They are the main initiatives in this bill.

I want to thank the over 600 people who sent in their thoughts about this bill. Many thanks to those who had time to send in their thoughts. Most were in support. I also want to acknowledge those in the communities working tirelessly to look after the children in their own communities.

As my last utterance, I am thinking of a proverb. Children are a treasure passed down to us. The unfurling tip of the sapling is the growth of the tree. If we want our children to grow strongly and correctly, and to stand tall as people in this world, protection is important. Feeding, cultivating, caring, so they blossom.

Spread your light oh Matariki,

On to the earth,

As a guiding light for this land,

May the seed became an honoured bloom,

For the poor, for the needy.

Thank you all. I commend this bill to the House.]

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Poverty Reduction Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 118

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development) on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: I move, That the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Around half of New Zealanders are renters. This Government is committed to making life better for our renters, and this proposed legislation is a down payment on a commitment that the Government has made. Banning letting fees will save renters an estimated $47 million a year.

I’d like to first of all acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee for its consideration of this legislation and for them considering the 187 or so submissions that they received. I’d also like to thank those 187 submitters, whose feedback and comments helped the committee to shape the views on this legislation. These came from a number of interested parties, and they included tenants, community groups, students, property managers, and, indeed, landlords.

Letting fees are not fair. This might be one of many reasons why about 60 percent of the submitters supported the general intent of the bill to prohibit the charging of letting fees to our tenants. A letting fee is supposed to cover the costs of conducting open homes, vetting potential tenants, and advertising a property, but these are services that are provided to the landlord. The contractual relationship is between the landlord and the letting agency, but somehow the existing law allows the fees for those services to be charged to a third party, the tenant. Now, this is unfair, and in what other area of law are there two parties contracting with each other for an exchange of services then allowed to charge a third party? It is an anomaly in the law that is being addressed by this proposed legislation. There is no relationship between the fee and the cost of the services that are provided.

It’s pretty standard for a letting fee to be set at the equivalent of a week’s rent plus GST. Now, rent varies for different suburbs and different cities, and for different kinds of houses. However, letting fees are set regardless of the costs of the services that the letting agency is providing for the benefit of the landlord. There is no market competition on the amount that is payable.

This ban will mean that the costs of letting a property will be borne by the party who chooses the property manager. So the costs of letting the property should lie with the person that benefits from the service. This bill means that landlords can shop around for the most cost-efficient manager, and it will probably bring some competition to the property management sector. I am not aware of an area of law that allows people to contract for services and then charge a third party for those services.

Now, some submissions expressed some concerns during the committee stage that this bill may result in rent increases across the country. However, we do not expect there to be an impact on rents. Scotland, when they banned letting fees—they actually showed no evidence that it led to an increase in rents. Also, the Reserve Bank in our country noted that rents are driven primarily by supply and demand, not landlord costs. Treasury has also concluded that the experience in other countries shows that there’s no clear evidence that banning letting fees will indeed lead to increased rents. The UK Conservative Government has also introduced a similar ban to ban letting fees, and their reports agreed that there was no evidence that it led to an increase in rents. Other supply, demand, and financing factors contribute more to the amount of rent than the costs that are associated with tenanting a property, and the Government has a plan to deal with those.

If we accept, for argument’s sake, that landlords will try to pass the cost on that is currently being handed to tenants through these letting fees, and if landlords try to recoup those costs, we expect that rent might go up by a few dollars a week. Now, even if that were to be the case—and we don’t expect that it will be—that would surely be better than tenants being whacked with a letting fee that’s equivalent to an entire week’s rent all at once, up front, at the very moment that they can least afford it—when they’re having to fork out for removal fees, for bond, and for rent in advance. Landlords, and letting agents on their behalf, will retain the ability under the Residential Tenancies Act to seek reimbursement from tenants for expenses reasonably incurred as a result of signing a tenancy agreement, subletting, or parting with possession of the tenant’s interest in the tenancy.

The Social Services and Community Committee recommended a couple of changes. The first change is to separate the bill into two parts. This will allow the bill to be considered part by part under Standing Order 303(2). The change reorders the bill so that it would allow the substantive provisions in clauses 4 to 8 to come under Part 1 and allow further amendments in clauses 9 and 10 to come under Part 2. The second change is to the commencement provision in clause 2 of the bill. The bill will now come into force on 12 December 2018. This is because tenancy turnover is usually the highest between the months of November to February of every year. Tenants are more likely to move house in summer. It is the start of the new university year, and the fact is that the new year often accompanies a change in people’s circumstances. Implementing the bill during this period will maximise a reduction in costs for tenants who are signing up for new tenancies over this peak period of time.

The Government has committed to a review of the Residential Tenancies Act. This will advance a range of changes to make life better for our renters, and it will include consideration of limiting rent increases to just once per year. It will also contain other initiatives to improve their security of tenure and to better allow tenants to make their house a home. This review is expected to result in legislation being introduced into this House of Parliament next year.

Ultimately, the best way to put tenants in a better situation is to increase the supply of housing and end the shortage that is driving rents up. The Government’s KiwiBuild policy and urban growth reforms are designed to increase supply. Homeownership rates have declined, from around 74 percent in 1991 to around 63 percent in 2017. Approximately 576,000 households are currently renting in Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, based on the 2013 census data, 60 percent of renters moved within three years, while only 30 percent of owner-occupied homes moved within five years.

We know that Māori and Pacific are overrepresented in renting statistics. Since 1986, the proportion of Māori living in private rentals has increased by 88.3 percent, whereas across the total population, renting increased by 42.7 percent. Over the same period, the proportion of Pacific and Māori children living in rental properties increased from around 50 percent to around 61 percent for Māori and increased to 71 percent for Pacific children.

I’d like to again reiterate my thanks to the members of the committee and submitters, as well as our officials, for their contribution to the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I urge the members—especially across on the other side of the House—to vote for this bill so that we can start reducing the costs that many families face, support a more consistent experience for New Zealanders, and make some meaningful changes to the lives of renters in Aotearoa New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, what a pathetic excuse for a bill—pathetic, virtue-signalling nonsense. Now, the member who’s resumed her seat, the Hon Jenny Salesa, has read out a very nice speech that dealt a little bit with this bill and an awful lot with other bills and policies and other things that might be coming up, so I presume, given the tremendous amount of leeway given to her on this bill in her speech, I’ll get the same.

So let’s just have a look at this. She said, “This bill will make life better for renters.”, and I wrote that down as a quote. Will it make life better for renters? Well, I don’t think it will. What it will do is it will make life more difficult for landlords, which means that they will put up rents or they will exit the market. Now, it’s all very well for the Minister, who is representing Housing New Zealand, which is the biggest rental company in New Zealand. It has, according to its website, 63,000 homes. It is the biggest, it says, residential property owner in New Zealand. So we would expect, I think, in the House, that if we’re going to get lectured about what’s going to make a better life for tenants, we might be having a lecture from a Government that is actually going to keep people safe in their own rental homes. Instead, we have in my electorate, and no doubt in other people’s electorates, tenants who are living in fear because Housing New Zealand and their brand new homes—that we have all paid for; their brand new homes, opened this year—have locking systems that do not keep people safe.

I raised this issue in Parliament yesterday with Phil Twyford.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don’t believe Housing New Zealand homes have a letting fee.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Excuse me. I raise a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker. The member who has resumed her seat, the Minister, talked about KiwiBuild. She talked about the Government’s other priorities and other legislation coming through. None of that was about letting fees, Madam Assistant Speaker. She was allowed a tremendous amount of leeway.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m just cautioning the member.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I appreciate your assistance.

One of the things I want to talk about here is what makes a better—better—life for renters, as the Minister has referred to in her speech. She said letting fees are not fair. Well, actually, not having a safe home is not fair either. So if someone is, for instance, a landlord and they have to pay the letting fee themselves and a tenant says, “Oh, by the way, this lock on the outdoor locks that we have can be easily popped open with a screwdriver and we need a whole new door system put in.”, I would expect a good landlord would not say “I tell you what, we’ll send round the locksmith to give you a different lock.” when the entire system needs to be changed—not like Housing New Zealand does.

I would expect that a Minister representing a Government that says it wants to make life better for renters might have a commitment to safety in the home. I would expect a Minister who said “This is unfair.” about letting fees to say it is unfair when the country’s biggest landlord does not care enough to put in a locking system to protect a woman and her young family from burglars and, in the latest case, an attempted rape. I would have thought that the biggest landlord in the country—and represented by this Government’s Ministers—would not be lecturing—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Could the member please make a passing reference to the bill.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That would be useful. Then perhaps make a contribution as a third reading speech.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: So when we look at this particular bill, what is so unfair? Well, what’s unfair is that now tenants who are staying in houses for a long time are going to be paying more rent—more rent—even though they are not shifting around tenancies. Long-term tenancies and long-term tenants will no doubt now be actually paying more. We’ve heard the Minister say this: that rents might go up by a few dollars a week. That’s another direct quote, because I wrote that one down too—another direct quote. So I would have thought she might also like to say, “Well, maybe we could have a bill making life fairer for renters—a bill that addresses security as well.” So I would have thought it would’ve been a good opportunity when we’re prohibiting letting fees to have looked at the issue of prohibiting dodgy locks on doors put in by landlords because it’s cheap, and then taking the cheapest option open to the landlord to actually say to the tenant, “Oh, we’ll just go and change the key in it.”

So that’s the sort of thing that could have been in this bill. That’s the sort of thing that could have made life a bit easier and a little bit fairer for tenants. I would have thought when the Minister is referring to this bill making life better for renters that she could also have said, “Well, actually, another thing that could make life better for renters”—and could have been in this bill but clearly is not—“is an obligation for a landlord to treat a renter as though they too have something useful to do in their lives every day.” One would have thought this bill, dealing with letting fees to apparently make life better for renters, would, in fact, mean that a landlord would contact a tenant before sending a workman to their house, particularly when they’ve been broken into several times; that they would, in fact, check that that was some time when the tenant was home from work to be there. Those could have been things that could have made life better. Perhaps the letting fees that are now going to be prohibited could actually be included in that idea. I think that would make life better for tenants.

So I would have thought that a Government so concerned with making life better for tenants—or renters, as we’ve been told by this Minister—would actually be saying, “Well, maybe instead of”—as the Minister said, in her words—“a tenant being whacked by a rental fee of an entire week’s rent, perhaps, in fact, that rental fee could go towards improving the security on the home.” That might be a good idea. I think that could have been included in this bill but, unfortunately, it is not.

We’ve heard from the Minister today that KiwiBuild is to increase demand. Well, all I can see in this bill is nothing to do with KiwiBuild other than that it’s certainly going to be securing some really good outcomes for some quite wealthy people, but it’s certainly not going to deal with the average rental person or tenant who’s going to be concerned with this bill and the rental fees.

I think, though, that what it will do is that it will, in fact, hopefully, highlight the fact that more people now are going to have to rent, and more people are going to be very concerned about the fact that they’re going to have to pay more rent because of this bill. I think it does nothing to make life better for renters. What would be better is, actually, if landlords were encouraged and incentivised and congratulated for doing the right thing by their tenants—you know, landlords who actually care about the security of tenants in their homes, those sorts of landlords. Instead, what we see here is a bill that knocks around landlords, that yet again pits landlords against tenants, that sees landlords as the problem.

Housing New Zealand and the Government are already landlords to 63,000 properties. In my opinion, and in my experience as a lawyer but also as a constituency MP, Housing New Zealand is the worst landlord in the country. Housing New Zealand does not charge letting fees. Not charging letting fees does not make a landlord a good landlord. Housing New Zealand has now a waiting list of almost 10,000 families waiting for a Housing New Zealand house. That increase has gone up 1,000 this year, even though there are no letting fees to be banned when one tries to get a Housing New Zealand house.

Greg O’Connor: Someone didn’t build enough houses.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That contribution from Mr Greg O’Connor, who once was important—once was important; no longer is. He’s forgotten that the increases all happened under his Government—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I need to be able to hear the speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In fact, the increases all happened under his Government. The waiting list under National went down; under Labour it’s gone up. And that’s going to continue, because this Government hates private landlords, hates people providing a service that they think they should do. They are people who think they are the only ones who can serve the people, and they are the worst at it. Thank you.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to be able to get this slot, to speak on my favourite topic, which is housing. I said to Minister Henare, “Can I have your 10?” and he said, “Absolutely”, and that’s why I’m here. I’m excited. I wish the member for Papakura wasn’t leaving, because—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

PAUL EAGLE: —she made me even more excited.

Hon Members: You can’t say that.

PAUL EAGLE: Kia ora. Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you, members, for helping me with that. Carry on.

PAUL EAGLE: Look, can I get down to business before the clock ticks down before I can get anything out. The only thing that was pathetic was that speech, because the most pathetic effort was that in nine long years they did nothing—absolutely nothing—in housing, and they’ve come here today saying that this bill is pathetic. This bill is described by a constituent—I’m proud to be a constituency MP, myself. Letting fees—goodbye and good riddance, and I need to say no more.

But I want to respond, because Minister Twyford and Minister Salesa are quite right. This is all about making life a whole lot better for renters. They say landlords will put up the rents. They say landlords will sell off their properties and exit the market. They say there are safety and security concerns. They say—appallingly—that the public service department Housing New Zealand Corporation is incompetent. I don’t want to put words into their mouths, but, look, that’s untenable. It’s absolutely untenable. “Let’s look at putting up rents!”—there’s no evidence of this. There’s nothing—nothing. There’s no evidence. This is typical of an Opposition who had nine long years to put together a housing programme, but all we have seen are nasty texts, stones thrown, and words that are just absolutely cheap.

This is a Government that is serious, serious, and serious about fixing housing in New Zealand. It’s a continuum. When we look at anything from homelessness through to social and public housing, affordable housing, be it for first-time buyers, to those who own their own homes, down to those who want to add on to their property portfolio, this is a Government that’s got a comprehensive approach, and this is one small part of that.

The sad thing for me and members of the public is really that this is just another case of a real victimisation of the vulnerable. Those who haven’t got much—in this case, a home—like Māori, Pacific, and ethnic people who are at the absolute bottom, who come to my office in Newtown and tell me—I’ve had nearly 1,000. When I was privileged to be able to speak this morning, I had a quick count-up. I talked to the electorate office secretary and asked, “How many inquiries have we had about the Residential Tenancies Act, the letting fees, and the other piece of work that Minister Twyford is doing?” Nearly 1,000. And that’s 1,000 too many. When I looked through them, I said, “How many relate to letting fees?” Nearly all of them. That’s too many. That’s far too many.

Look, let’s go to what they say. I want to refer to a young chap—and where’s the evidence? There’s nothing like a bit of evidence here. I want to talk about Ben Crawford, who is a renter in my electorate. “It feels like there’s nothing you can do, because if you kick up a fuss, there’s always tonnes more people out there who need a place desperately, so you can easily miss out.”—and that’s the crux of the issue. This is a total disgrace, and I’m glad that we’ve finally put in place something to fix it.

Can I say that this can’t come fast enough. Once this is banned, once this is got rid of, then we can focus and get back on track with building houses. [Interruption] There’s confusion over the other side as to what building houses actually means, who they’re actually for, and why we’re doing it. You would have thought, after nine years, there would have been some—the market would have responded—but they didn’t. Then what do you do? You don’t want to intervene, because you can’t tell your mates that they can’t build their houses. I don’t know. It seems chaotic over there.

On this side of the House, we’ve got a plan for housing. We’re organised. This is just one very small but very important part of fixing the crisis that that side put on the nation of Kiwis. God, what a sad day when we have to continually spend this time fixing all these issues, when really we just want to provide good, decent Kiwis decent homes. It’s such a stress. It’s such a stress, when you have to step back to move forward. Look, everything we do is “fix this; fix that”—oh! Madam Assistant Speaker, say no more. I’m really proud to commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, I must say, I used to watch the House from my television about six years ago, and I used to ask myself “Do these people know what they’re talking about? Do they actually read the bills that are being debated?”, and Paul Eagle, right there, has convinced me that they do not, in fact, read the bills that are being debated, because, quite frankly, what a drivel of a speech that was from the member. I want to say to Ben in Paul Eagle’s electorate that the issue at hand is about supply, and that supply is greater than demand. So if that is the crux of the issue that the member opposite has raised, then surely the solution to that problem is to build more homes. I’m not talking about 18 homes or 24 homes, but I’m talking about massively increasing the supply, which this Government clearly is not doing.

But today, and at this moment, it is a very sad day to be in this House. It’s a sad day because it’s a day where this Government chooses to ban something outright rather than improve the market and improve the efficiency and the transparency. It’s a sad day when 95 percent of the property managers out there in New Zealand—the good property managers—are disadvantaged just because of the small, rogue operators that are operating in this market.

This is a bad bill. I’ve said this to you before and I’ll say to you again: it will not make the life of tenants any easier. As my colleague the Hon Judith Collins said, it’s about whether this bill is going to make it better for the lives of others, and she as well as I concluded that it will not, in fact, do that. It will make people in long-term tenancies worse off under this bill than before the change happened, and there are so many other ways that they could have improved this bill through the process of this Parliament. But, instead, they chose to continue with the ideology of banning rather than improving.

Let me tell you about some of the improvements that we had in the submissions process, and countless numbers of submitters gave productive ideas on how they could improve this bill—how they could improve the objective that this bill sought to adhere to—but that wasn’t taken up in the committee of the whole House. The first was around improving the transparency of fees. We’ve talked a lot about it, and we had it in our minority view that this House could have improved the legislation around the transparency of fees so that tenants know what they’re paying for up front. We also had an idea from the submission process around splitting the fees, because, as we’ve heard, it is not only landlords that benefit from the service but also tenants.

The third idea that came up in the submissions process is around a code of conduct for property managers in the market. Now, this is something that I think we should have considered, and I feel very passionate about it. It is around having a code of conduct for all property managers—including those 2 to 3 percent rogue operators—which should set the standards for letting fees, which would outline what they could charge, and which would have put some standards in place for the code of conduct of rogue operators. We presented this in the committee of the whole House and, again, it was not taken up by the Minister or the Government side of the House.

There were a lot of other ideas, but I just want to say, of course, that in the bill itself, which Paul Eagle has to read—you should read the bill, because it states it’s actually an unlawful act to charge a fee. Fundamentally, we on this side of the House believe that if there is an agent that is willing to provide a service and if there is somebody willing to pay for that service, where is the role in Government in that service? We should be allowing that economic relationship to take place.

We’ve all been there. I’m a renter myself, and I’ve paid a letting fee over six times in the last 10 years. I just think that that side of the House should have considered the fact that they didn’t need to intervene in the market place as it stood. But—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Settle, members.

DAN BIDOIS: We have heard loud and clear about the effects of this bill and the unintended consequences of this bill on the public of New Zealand. Let’s run through it very clearly: long-term tenants will pay far more over the lifetime of their tenancy because of increased rents, we will have landlords and property managers who will find workarounds and find ways to vet tenants to make sure that they get the right tenants in place—and we heard that throughout the submissions process—and we will not solve the crisis that Paul Eagle’s constituent desires to be solved, which is around the supply of houses in the market.

We also heard about a Scottish example where they banned letting fees, and the report found that there was no clear evidence that banning letting fees led to rent increases. But just because there was no clear evidence, it doesn’t mean that that was conclusive. We all know that it’s hard to apportion rises in rents to supply and demand or to market changes versus, in fact, changes in letting fees. We heard very clearly from property managers in the sector how they will change their behaviour—and how property managers and owners will change their behaviour—through the cost increase from the bill, and that is simple: they will charge their landlords, and the landlords will pass it on to tenants. So that is very clear, and on this side of the House, we stand firmly opposed to a bill that is a straight-up ban.

Quite frankly, this Government—rather than improving markets and improving outcomes and improving the transparency, they are ideologically in favour of banning things. We saw that with the oil and gas exploration ban. That’s going to have massive unintended consequences on the New Zealand economy.

I just want to say that I will be opposing this bill in the House in the third reading. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, actually, I was about to make this probably one of the shortest calls in history, because I think we’ve debated this issue at the first reading. I heard the arguments from the Opposition—none of it very convincing at that stage. We debated it again at the second reading, and here we are at the third reading, and I’m hearing boring repetition—

Andrew Bayly: Come on, Ronnie. Do the work.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Even interjections must include a member’s full and proper title. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

So we’re at the point where we’re hearing boring repetition, but then every now and then something different does pop up. The notion of a code of conduct being proffered by the National Party as a means of the market regulating itself—I actually think I heard the same speeches, probably, to be fair, coming out of the mouths of Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble in the 1980s: two people who have been dismissed into the political ether because of their theories, along with Ruth Richardson’s views and Bill Birch’s views on trickle-down. Isn’t it ironic how probably one of the main reasons that we have this wonderful coalition Government made up of New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens is because of the public’s final conclusion that trickle-down doesn’t work—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m afraid I have to call the member to order. We are straying.

Hon RON MARK: —nor does the belief that the market will regulate itself in the way that the honourable member was just suggesting it might. The National Party minority report—

Dan Bidois: What’s the bill called?

Hon RON MARK: You’re a silly boy: the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. So what you’re talking about is in the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill, introducing instead of this legislation, Mr Bidois, in line with the right-wing thinking of that party—the ultra-right-wing thinking, looking after its business mates—it would advocate that we dismiss this bill today and we introduce instead a code of conduct. Well, boy, hasn’t that worked so far! When we were in Opposition last year, we suggested many times that that was what was required to get landlords to comply with the basic requirements of their tenants, like making sure that the gutters were replaced when they were rusted out, and like making sure that the House was insulated, but that was rejected by the National Party. So to have the National Party now suggesting that a code of conduct inflicted upon the real estate industry would work, having just told us last term that a code of conduct wouldn’t work, is silly—just silly.

Dan Bidois: Come to the bill, mate.

Hon RON MARK: I am speaking to the member’s comments on the bill and specifically the member’s own referrals to their minority view on the bill. So, I’m simply—

Dan Bidois: We didn’t mention it in the minority report.

Hon RON MARK: So I am simply saying, Mr Bidois—the wonderful thing about these young guys coming to Parliament in their first year and first term: they know a lot. They tell you they know a lot. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon RON MARK: I would say to that member that we would reject—

Hon Member: You used to know something once, Ron.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! There have been lots of references to the Speaker throughout the course of this debate. It will now stop. Thank you.

Hon RON MARK: Thank you. We would reject any notion that a code of conduct being run by the industry itself would resolve this issue. We would agree with others who believe that there are some anomalies in the way in which this fee is charged, like, for example, Housing New Zealand. Housing New Zealand doesn’t charge such a fee, and yet Housing New Zealand is still able to manage the large number of applicants for houses that it has in an environment where demand exceeds supply.

Alastair Scott: That’s why they don’t need the letting fee.

Hon RON MARK: What stands out to us, Mr Scott, is that this is a wonderfully convenient filter put in place to ensure that the types of tenants that these landlords and these agents don’t want to have to deal with are eliminated from that housing market. That is why we end up with people living in vans during a National term of Government.

Alastair Scott: More under your Government.

Hon RON MARK: Mr Scott, that is why we ended up with people living under bridges, and that is why, fundamentally, we disagree. It’s not hard to disagree, because whenever we raised this issue in the last term and we talked about there being a housing crisis, that Government—Mr Scott’s Government—said there was no housing crisis. It wasn’t a crisis to have people who were locked out of the housing market, who couldn’t buy a home because they’d become unaffordable. Through various mechanisms such as this, designed to filter those low-income families—filter those possibly not-so-acceptable families, to certain people—out of their market, they would introduce a fee such as this.

Not based on actual costs of leasing the property, not based on an analysis of the expenses incurred—just a carte blanche one week’s rent regardless of whether the home was in West Auckland, South Auckland, Pakuranga. You know, regardless of where it was, it was just one week’s rent. That flies absolutely in the face of all of the assurances that I ever hear from business people that they are analytical about their charges, that they have pre-set margins that they adhere to, and that they trade fairly. What this just smacks of is a rort; (1) a rort, and (2) a deliberate filter put in place to eliminate people they didn’t want in their houses. Well, that is not how one cares for the well-being of the people of this nation.

I’m proud of the fact that this Government has a housing policy. It has got KiwiBuild running. It has set its goal on building more community homes, catering for the homeless, catering for the people who have been locked out of the Auckland market through rampant property sales to offshore investors where they’ve driven the prices up through the roof and made it impossible for families who have a collective income of $160,000 a year to buy a house. Well, we have overcome that now, and we’re on track to put right that which was so badly run for the last nine years. New Zealand First is very proud of this.

Andrew Bayly: Well, we’ll be watching you.

Hon RON MARK: We support this. Well, I only hope, sir, that you are watching—not the Assistant Speaker—for a very, very long time from that seat over there. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand in opposition to this Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I would like to start my comments by saying that this bill is going to put a lot of pressure on the tenants, and definitely it is going to affect some of the people in the business.

Mark Patterson: Really?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, you can listen to my logic too.

My understanding is there is no free lunch anywhere in the world. So if you are going to stop having this letting fee being paid to the property agents, they are going to get this money from somewhere else, and obviously they will ask for landlords to pay the letting fee so that they can continue on with the business.

The Minister the Hon Jenny Salesa mentioned that it is only the landlords who get the benefit of the letting fee being charged from the tenants, but the benefit goes to the landlords. I totally disagree with that, because the reason is those agents get the properties from the landlords, which they put up in the market and then the tenants can get into those properties and have their houses. So it is totally wrong to say that the tenants don’t get any benefit out of this.

As I said, there’s nothing like a free lunch, and definitely when landlords will have to pay this kind of money to the agents, definitely they are going to increase the rents. So it is going to affect, again, the tenants, and we have already seen in the past 12 months that there has been an increase of almost 6 percent in the rents, from $400 to $425, which is almost a $25 a week increase in the rent. I can assure you that I have discussed this issue with some of the very experienced people in this industry, and everyone says that it is not going to make any difference. There is no evidence that this will help the tenants in any manner.

If we take the average of about $600 rent, which is prevailing in Auckland, it means they will have to pay almost $10 to $15 extra every week as their rent to the landlords, because the letting fee will be passed on to the landlords and they will be ultimately passing it on back to the tenants, and that is going to hurt their back pocket.

The previous speaker, the Hon Ron Mark, mentioned about the minority view by National. I totally agree that there are more ways that we can help the tenants rather than this. The Hon Ron Mark also mentioned that we did not do anything, but I would like to remind him that during the last term we brought in legislation that was going to ensure that all the landlords would have to ensure that their houses were insulated so that the people living in those houses could have the benefit of good health. So that was part of our legislative programme last term where—I can’t remember, but definitely New Zealand First must have opposed that legislation.

Before I conclude, I want to give an assurance to this House that this side, the Opposition, is very cooperative. As you must have seen earlier today, we supported a good bill on child poverty. So wherever there is good legislation, this Opposition will support it. Wherever there is bad legislation, we will oppose it. With these words, I conclude my contribution.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I mean, it’s just the Opposition going over and over and over the same tired, tired, tired arguments—or the excuse, at least—for why they are voting against this Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill to prohibit letting fees, saying that it will not benefit the renters. As if they actually care about people who rent! In saying that, they have put up nothing to suggest how we actually readjust and fix the power imbalance which is currently absolutely the case for people who rent in this country. So that’s why I stand, thinking you cannot—sorry; not you Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition’s arguments are so weak and flimsy that it’s actually not about adjusting the power imbalance that is currently in place that is having incredibly harmful impacts on people who rent, which is going to increase more and more. It’s over half of all New Zealanders, but of course for Pacific, for Māori, for people with a disability, it is far more of those populations who currently rent. So I cannot at all take seriously any of the hackneyed arguments that are coming from the Opposition as to why they are opposing this residential tenancies amendment to make it unlawful for a letting fee to be required to be paid.

Again, this bill on its own is one part of an overall programme to change the way we think about renting in New Zealand, in Aotearoa. Renting needs to be seen as a dignified option. Some people don’t have any other option—far too many—so we need to change how we see renting as a culture in this country, that it is not a second-class citizen approach, that people who rent have as much right to be able to live with dignity and security and put down roots in their community whether you rent or own. That is actually what is at the core of this bill to remove the letting fee requirement.

And, yes, it is harrowing for most people to have to gather all of that cash upfront just to be able to try and find a place. I mean, that’s aside from all the other structural discriminations that happen in the renting process. That’s aside from all of that—just trying to gather together all the resources that are required to even think about looking for a warm, safe secure home to live in, to raise whānau in, to be able to be part of a community in. So this is absolutely essential that we keep removing the barriers, including letting fees. We cannot go forward. We cannot go ahead with transforming how we see renting in this country without this pertinent, vital step. So I’ll be very clear about that, and the Green Party are particularly pleased to see this, because in 2014 it was one of our election priorities as part of our overall “Every house is a home” announcement. In that was the removal of the obligation on tenants to pay letting fees.

Again, in 2016, Metiria Turei’s member’s bill made it to the floor in here—the Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill, which offered a raft of changes to improve renting situations, including, again, to remove letting fees. So we are absolutely clear that this is an essential part of ensuring that people who rent are given a fair deal, and many landlords are also clear about the positive outcomes of ensuring that tenants get a fair go. Those landlords will continue to be great under this legislation. What we are simply doing is just trying to correct it a little bit—just trying to understand that people don’t need an extra challenge. They really don’t. They don’t need extra hardship.

This needs to be seen alongside a whole raft of other necessary changes, which, again, this Government is picking up and running with. So I go to the side a little bit, Madam Deputy Speaker, but only to address the debates from the members on other side of the House who are saying this on its own isn’t enough. This isn’t on its own—that’s because this isn’t on its own. It’s going to sit alongside healthy homes conversations and changes, and of course the Greens have been very clear that we would insist on a warrant of fitness. This bill is going to sit alongside the residential tenancies review, and particularly look at how we give secure tenancies for families, for people to rent. Of course the Greens have also been very clear we’d like to see rent controls which, in part, would help to address the very reason that the Opposition are saying they will not support this bill.

I just have to say I do take issue with the ongoing arguments coming from the Opposition as if they genuinely care, when in actual fact they are putting up no real solutions to address the power imbalance—that would have an impact on their investors and their speculators, who they’re quite happy, and have always shown, to want to protect. So they are using people who rent as an excuse for their debate. But I see right through that, and will continue to call that out.

So, yes, we do need overall changes, alongside removing letting fees, to ensure even though there is no clear evidence that it will actually increase rents—this removing letting fees—even though there is no clear evidence, and if there is any evidence it is minimal—

Louisa Wall: 2 percent.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: 2 percent, Ms Wall. But that is why we also need to continue with the work to sit alongside this to ensure that we are getting prosperity for more than just the wealthy few. That’s our responsibility in this House.

And so it was, I thought, a relatively short contribution that I was going to make, and I think that it’s incumbent on us to remember that this work is part of a long, enduring change that we want to see.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The third reading is a summing up of the bill. I know you can refer to other matters, but not at length.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I agree with this. We’re very pleased to see this. Removing letting fees is something that we have long called for, and we will continue to do the work to make this bill part of those overall measures. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thanks very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand here today in opposition to the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill in its final reading.

We’ve heard some very interesting contributions from the Labour-led Government today about the banning of letting fees, and, in her speech, Minister Jenny Salesa for the first time admitted that there could be an increase in rentals. This has been argued continuously across the process—that the banning of letting fees would not increase rents. Well, the Minister actually admitted it today—that there could be a few dollars’ increase in rents as a consequence of this bill. Now, it may not sound much to have a few dollars, but even if that’s, say, $5 a week, those tenants who are the best tenants, who settle into long-term rentals of maybe over two years—they’re the ones that are going to be penalised the worst, because at $5 a week, or probably $500 over their tenancy, it is going to be an added cost to them. It may not have been the upfront cost, but it’s certainly going to add to the cost over the term of their tenancy.

The Hon Judith Collins made a valuable contribution to this debate earlier this morning, and she referred to the standard of rental properties. There is a cause and effect with every decision that is made, and what is going to happen here is we’re going to take the margin for the landlord off the rental properties. Now, of course, the landlord is then going to have to find ways of cutting costs. I am almost going to guarantee that what we will see is the downward slide in standards in rental properties, and we heard it today from the Hon Judith Collins. We start to get budget equipment installed into properties, like the ill-working locks that anyone can push their way into in a Housing New Zealand home. So those increased costs reduce the profit margin for a landlord.

We heard from submitters, and even the real estate people, that if you buy a rental property in one of the main areas in this country—say, Auckland, Wellington, or maybe Christchurch would also have been at one point. But if you buy in those main areas—in those high-pressure rental areas—then you are not likely to cover your costs—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me—not me.

MAUREEN PUGH: —oh, excuse me—then the landlord is unlikely to cover his costs simply from the rental that he attracts for that property. So there is a real risk in owning rentals.

Now, we heard through the process that 90 percent of rentals are owned by mum and dad investors, and we have also heard from other speakers from the Government benches today about the impact that having more housing stock will have on the market. Well, we have been waiting. We were promised last year that there would be 10,000 homes a year built to take the pressure off the rental market, but, actually, getting 18 off a developer is not giving any comfort to the sector.

Now, these mum and dad investors who employ the property managers to let their properties, they are the ones who are being spooked by all of the regulation that is coming down the pipeline at them. We’ve got this ad hoc prohibiting of letting fees—now, I’m not sure whether they’re simply trying to find work to do on the Government benches, or whether they’re just simply making ad hoc decisions and wasting this House’s time—but we’ve got a huge review of the Residential Tenancies Act coming down the pipeline, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, which is going to add more pressure to landlords, and then there is the risk of having the capital gains tax.

I think that this is a very poorly thought through bill. I think the unintended consequences are going to become obvious very quickly, and I do not support this bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. This is a very specific bill with some great outcomes for the people of my electorate in Tāmaki Makaurau. We’ve heard in this House how we can leave things to the market. Well, I often leave a lot of my opinion to the market—that’s the Ōtara market, the Manurewa market, the Māngere market—and the voices are very clear there that this bill will help the people of Tāmaki Makaurau, the very cohorts in our community that the member Marama Davidson has spoken about. This bill is very specific, and I take great pride in recommending it to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to take a call in this split call on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill that’s before the House. The House already knows that we are opposing this bill. The reason why we’re opposing this bill—I know the Hon Peeni Henare in his speech talked about the fact that this is a great day for his electorate. I’m not so sure that this bill will do greatness. It may do some good things, but I’m not sure if it will do the great things that it’s been intended to do.

The reason I preface that comment is because in all the submissions that we had, the discussions were around the issue around the impact of the letting fee. The example that was given was actually from out in Scotland. There’s an organisation called Shelter, in which they actually remove letting fees from their current situations of residual tendencies and a security of tenure of homes over in Scotland. But what’s been proven, when that happened, is that over the last five years the impact on the sector has been the lack of residential properties available for those, which has meant that there’s been an increase in rent rises. So to use that as an example, I think there’ll be—

Louisa Wall: England and Wales are going to do the same thing.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Wales—they haggled over it, but what they did is they actually set a cap. So they’ve set a cap on that. So transparency was one of the issues, and I know that Louisa Wall is talking about that—other examples have been set there. So it’s not the silver bullet. It’s not the issue that I think will bring greatness to the residential tenancy market; it may bring some good things, it may bring some relief for a certain period of time.

I suppose the concern on this side was this: why is it that this was introduced now when it’s only a small portion of an amendment to a change to the Act, when there currently is, through consultation, a total reform of the Residential Tenancies Act as it is? Why was it not left until the point of time in which, through the whole of the Act, there could be the conversation so that this small proportion could be included in the whole? So we can only surmise on this side that it is because it’s been part of the 100 days in which they could have a tick-box to say that “We’ve done this.”

So while we say that we oppose this, it’s on the principled basis that, actually, there could have been a better job that could have been done by the current Government of the day. However, it is what it is. We oppose this bill. We don’t believe it will achieve the great things that they are talking about. It will achieve some relief, but in the long term, I think it will have some unintended consequences for the whole sector. I commend my views to the House, but oppose this bill on behalf of us as a party.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I stand very much in support of this bill. It’s been interesting listening to the debate today, because so many of the issues that we come here to fix are around housing. We talk about health and we talk about so many of the other issues that exist in our society, but so many of them come back to housing—to making sure people have somewhere to call home.

Now, the new Opposition MP Dan Bidois talked about the fact that he’s paid his letting fees six times in the last several years—I think he said three years. If that’s not evidence of just how unfair this is, I don’t know what is.

Just the unfairness of this: just take the situation where there are two properties for let, and that’s likely today because of the shortage of properties—and I won’t go into that. We had the member from Papakura absolutely taking the opportunity that she seems to on every occasion to rubbish KiwiBuild and to try and sort of build a case against it—as if anyone over there or anywhere could build a case against a programme which is designed to put more houses on the market—and that’s what this is about. Of course, I realise—coming back to the bill—that it means that the more houses we have, the more there will be to rent, and this is the whole point.

So, going back to the situation where you have two people lining up and probably a hundred people looking for flats, one of those flats is being rented privately, and the person who is successful there—who will, no doubt, be the best tenant—will not have to pay this fee, but the person who is going to where the property is being rented through an agency will have to pay this fee. So what we’re actually doing is punishing the best tenants, in this particular situation. They are the ones that are going to end up having to pay. The best tenants are the ones that are going to end up having to pay more, and I presume my acquaintance Mr Bidois is one of those good tenants. He has had to pay that much more money than if he had gone private. So that’s the unfairness around us.

The other thing too is, of course, we’re going to now get a generation of renters. I mean, the reality of it is that we, through KiwiBuild, will be doing our best to ensure—we have seen evidence just this week of people who are earning and who are out of the market. Unbelievable, isn’t it? People who actually have two good incomes still can’t get into the market—and I’m sure those who are shaking their heads across the House, they go to the market. Already, we’ve talked about how they go out meeting their constituents. They will know this to be a fact. They will know that they have people on two good incomes, often with a good deposit, who are locked out of the market, and these are the very people we’re going to bring back in.

Coming back to the point of the bill, they are the people who even with that will, no doubt, be a generation that are going to have to rent, and what we have to do is ensure that we look after the rights of those people. We have to be flexible as a Parliament. We have to be flexible, as legislators, to make sure we’re making laws now that are going to be relevant for the future.

I’m reminded of a friend of mine who lived in a mountain village in Switzerland, who had rented. Her mother had rented. They had rights. There was an expectation that they would be able to remain in this house till the day she died—which was, in fact, the case—because most of the people in that village rented. Again, this situation had existed and they had made sure that they took into account the rights of those people, and this is what we’ve got to make sure we do here. So, going back to the bill, certainly, we have to be careful—we know that there are poor tenants and we know there are going to be problem tenants, but we’ve got to make sure that our legislation is not punishing the good tenants, and that’s exactly what is going to end up happening if we continue this.

One of the points brought up was why we don’t wait to do a full review of the Residential Tenancies Act. Well, if we wait till we do a full review, that will be another two or three years—again, depending on how long it takes, and certainly the for legislation that will go with it—before we actually get this situation rectified. We are in a situation where the majority of younger people hitting the market are going to be renting. They have no more rights now than they had 15, 20, or 30 years ago, and yet the situation—the rental market; the whole housing situation they’ll be going to—has changed completely. So, as legislators, we owe it to them to make sure we’re creating an environment that takes into account that a new Generation Rent is coming on stream.

So I stand here proudly to recommend this bill to the House. Again, it’s not going to be an instant quick fix, but it’s going to be one of those trends that is going to ensure that we are adapting to the new market which we are in now, which, sadly, is Generation Rent. While we, as this Government, will build cheaper and while KiwiBuild will succeed—I saw the final-term member for the Wairarapa there, yelling across the House that KiwiBuild hasn’t achieved anything. All I’ll say is to watch this space, because I’m proud to stand here and I know that while Rome wasn’t built in a day, we are still admiring—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but we’re not talking about KiwiBuild.

GREG O’CONNOR: —some very fine buildings called the Colosseum. So I recommend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call at the third reading of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. It’s a short and straightforward bill. As we all know, it amends the Residential Tenancies Act to remove the ability for landlords and agents to charge letting fees.

I’m only going to take a quick call on this, but I would like to point out that, in my view, this bill perfectly sums up the Government’s level of competency and capability. They don’t like something—well, just get rid of it. If we just ban it, put it over there—poof! It’s gone. Don’t worry about it anymore. It reminds me of playing that game with a baby where you put their hands in front of their eyes, and everything disappears and it’s all gone and it’ll all be fine if we just get rid of it. They’re incapable of coming up with a nuanced approach and actually understanding all of the issues, because what they tend to do, and have done in so much other legislation that’s come before this House, is rush it. They don’t do any proper consultation. In fact, I think in this case, the regulatory impact statement actually said that there hadn’t been proper consultation, and the full extent of the impacts could not be identified. And it’s done in so many other bills, and it’s done here again. That’s why we don’t have a nuanced approach. We have this approach of if we just ban it, then everything will be fixed and everything will be fine.

The point is that they can’t understand that, actually, there are always implications when you do this kind of thing. They can’t understand that maybe there will be some unintended consequences. We were at pains to point this out through this whole process, as were the submitters. Basically, they said that there is a reason for these costs. There are costs associated with the renting out and renewing of tenancies, and those costs must be borne.

As the National Party, being a completely capable party, we did come up with some suggestions in our minority view, where we said that a sensible alternative measure would be to make these letting fees more transparent, to ensure that they can be reasonably charged, that renters would understand what and why they were being charged, and that there would be a reasonable cost charged, rather than just banning them outright. But instead of allowing landlords to charge these letting fees upfront, renters will now most likely be—as we’ve pointed out and as submitters have pointed out—paying higher rents throughout their tenancy. So, in fact, what we end up with is a position of unintended consequences where renters will, over the lifetime of their tenancy, be paying far more than they would have with this upfront cost. As my colleagues have mentioned, we’ve already seen a $25 per week increase in rent since this Labour-led Government came into power. It’s happening, and it’s going to continue to happen.

One of the other things that we pointed out was the fact that we don’t understand why the Minister has forged ahead with this badly designed bill instead of wrapping it up with the Government’s sweeping residential tenancies review—review number 52 of 170, I should point out. They’re rushing it through with a commencement date of 12 December, which is some sort of poorly planned Christmas present to tenants, which will actually make them worse off in the long run.

As I said earlier, this bill reminds me so much of other bills that we’re dealing with—airy-fairy, feel-good, put it out there, it sounds really great—like the oil and gas ban. But the reality is the Government haven’t done their work. The regulatory impact statement pointed that out in this case, like it did in the oil and gas case as well. They are incapable of putting together a nuanced approach that actually looks at the potential outcomes in coming up with a much better policy rather than just banning it and pretending like everything is going to be OK, and that is why we are opposing this bill. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. This is the third reading of the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. It was heard by the Social Services and Community Committee. They received 187 submissions and heard 27 oral submissions.

I’m not a member of that committee, but it’s been interesting preparing for this third reading debate today. What I’ve discerned is that the Tenancy Services actually hold 425,000 bonds. And this is really interesting—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It might be, but is it to do with the bill?

LOUISA WALL: Of 425,000 bonds, 164,000 of those are in the name of a property management company or a landlord. Under the legislation, private landlords who do not use a letting agent—and I’ll repeat that: private landlords who do not use a letting agent—cannot charge letting fees. So, currently, for 60 percent of the properties where bonds are held by Tenancy Services, letting fees are not charged. So, essentially, all we’re doing is making sure the other 40 percent—or the 164,000 properties—that have property managers who are also letting agents can now not charge a letting fee. So, in essence, what this bill is saying is that a landlord is a landlord is a landlord. It’s their property, it’s their right and responsibility if they want to let that property, and, as such, it’s their responsibility to pay letting fees.

I want to highlight some of the research and evidence that was presented to the select committee about why that is a fair thing. It was presented by people like Kate Day from Renters United, who said that the letting fee practice was unfair, onerous, and not a tenant’s responsibility. That’s what this bill actually reinforces 100 percent: it’s not a tenant’s responsibility; it’s a landlord’s responsibility.

So I want to tautoko Minister Twyford for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. I do want to acknowledge, however, that there is a review of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the select committee made some recommendations regarding that, but this was a priority for us. I also noted that the select committee don’t want a three-month commencement date; they want it to start on 12 December 2018 in recognition that most of the tenancies happen over this Christmas period: November to March. So there is a rationale behind this piece of legislation.

The Opposition have tried to paint this as a waste of time and that we don’t have any rationale for it. Well, can I say that, actually, it’s an absolutely responsive piece of legislation, and the Minister, in doing so, has said that if a property owner—somebody who has an asset—wants to advertise their property, wants to have open homes, wants to have someone review applications, wants to prepare tenancy agreements, and wants to have a property inspection, then, in fact, that is not the responsibility of the renter; it is the responsibility of the landlord. That’s what this piece of legislation makes crystal clear.

We have followed Scotland, who did this in 2012, and I must say that, for the UK Parliament, this will also ensure letting fees cannot be charged in England and Wales. And why? Because of the comprehensive evidence about how unfair and unjust this is, from organisations like the University of Otago—their Housing and Health Research Programme: letting fees make tenants stay in unhealthy homes for longer because it would cost them to move. From The New Zealand Rental Sector, which was a Massey University SHORE & Whariki Research Centre / University of Otago study: upfront, those who can least afford letting fees are likely to have to pay more. They were really clear that renters should only have to pay rent and bond.

This whole letting fee practice has been borne by the renter, and what this piece of legislation says is that, actually, it was never their responsibility, just as is contained in the legislation, where private landlords who do not use letting agents cannot charge letting fees. So what that will mean is that of the 425,000 bonds that are now held by Tenancy Services—which we presume are 425,000 homes servicing 425,000 families—now those renters, those families, those people who are living in those houses do not have to pay letting fees. I support that 100 percent and commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Family Violence Bill

Family Violence (Amendments) Bill

Third Readings

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

Today marks a significant day for New Zealand. It’s a day where this House will pass two bills that say of family violence, “Enough is enough.” These are bills that say family violence has no place in our society. The Family Violence Bill and Family Violence (Amendments) Bill mark a major step in reducing this country’s horrific rate of family violence.

The statistics paint a picture of people from all walks of life being subject to family violence. This horrendous issue in our society knows no bounds, but let’s not forget also that this is mainly about violence against women. Let’s not forget that this violence leads to women and children dying each year. People in our society are suffering, and we need to do all we can to keep our mokopuna and their whānau safe. Dealing with family violence is complex, but we as a Government are committed to providing the sector, communities, and families with the support they need to address it.

As Minister of Justice, I often receive letters from people detailing their accounts of how family violence has affected their lives. These accounts are taonga and they drive me—and I know they also drive my officials and others in this House—to want to make change. These accounts provide a guiding light for our mahi, alongside the memory of those who have died, and for those who are with us but who have been or continue to be affected by family violence. One of the key things that we as a Government can do is make sure that we have an effective system to prevent, detect, and address family violence. These bills provide the foundation for that system and will drive the change we need.

These bills will collectively do three things. The first thing the bills will do is support a more integrated system. We need a system that provides tautoko for those in the sector, a system that empowers those who are best placed to make the decisions they need to to keep victims safe and address perpetrators’ behaviour, and a system that works collectively to address this issue, knowing that it is bigger than one individual or one organisation. To do so, one of the things that these bills do is enable family violence agencies, including specific Government agencies and social services practitioners, to share information when it is safe and appropriate to do so.

Sharing information can assist the sector to work together to build a more complete picture of the situation they’re faced with when making decisions and providing support for a family being affected by violence. Ensuring the right people have the right information to make decisions and plans will, ultimately, help increase the safety of victims. The bill also reflects our modern understanding of family violence. Family violence can occur between anyone in a family relationship, not just between those in an intimate partner relationship. It can be between parents and their children, or between people in a close personal relationship. Family violence can be individual behaviours that may appear minor or trivial in isolation but, over time, accumulate to form a wider pattern of behaviour. Often a feature of these patterns is that they involve coercive or controlling behaviour. The bill also clarifies that dowry-related violence is and will be treated as family violence.

The principles and definitions in the Family Violence Bill reflects this contemporary understanding of the nature and impact of family violence. These principles and definitions will foster a shared understanding of family violence and support consistent decision-making and ways of working in the sector. Consistency will also be supported through the new ability to issue codes of practice. Codes will be used to guide coordinated and consistent service delivery, which will ensure the sector can work collectively to the same set of rules and provide further clarity where needed.

The second key thing that these bills do is improve civil orders to better support victims. Protection orders can be an effective tool to support victims and keep them safe from further violence, but there are currently barriers to applying for an order. One of the things the Family Violence Bill does is make the application process easier. Sometimes people may not be able to apply for a protection order because they are particularly vulnerable and afraid. Following the passing of these bills, approved organisations will be able to apply on behalf of people who cannot apply for themselves because of incapacity, fear, or any other sufficient cause.

The bill also makes it easier for a young person to apply for a protection order. A child who is older than 16 years will be able to apply for an order on their own behalf, without a representative. The bill also acknowledges the importance of early intervention and the need to identify and manage risks before they escalate to cause serious harm. Early intervention helps disrupt what we now know is a pattern of behaviour in family relationships. It also helps prevent this pattern of behaviour being replicated by children, who can carry this trauma through their lives and across generations.

The bill now enables a person issued with a police safety order to be directed to a risk and needs assessment. When a police safety order is issued, it can be the first time a potentially violent relationship is registered with the police. This provides an important opportunity to assess the risks and needs of the situation and determine what support is required for both the victim and the perpetrator. We know it’s important that victims have the opportunity to access the support they need and put in place appropriate safety arrangements. A police safety order gives the victim the time and space to do this, with the perpetrator being required to leave the home. However, sometimes five days—which is the current period of time for a police safety order—is not long enough. A victim may need time to come to terms with the conflict that has occurred before putting safety arrangements in place, or they may have to work, or they may have other commitments to deal with.

The Family Violence Bill now enables police safety orders to be in place for a maximum duration of 10 days rather than five. This will provide victims with more time to receive the support they need and secure safety arrangements to help prevent further harm from occurring when the order ends. And I know, and it was right for members of the Opposition during the committee of the whole House stage to raise the cautious view about supporting 10-day police safety orders. That is right because that is an extraordinary constraint on the liberty of some, but in the end, when members on this side of the House considered it, we came down on the side of extending those police safety orders to 10 days, to come down on the side of the need to put the safety of victims first. But let us see how they work.

The final key change these bills will make is to ensure better recognition of family violence in the criminal justice system. Firstly, the bill introduces modern criminal offences to reflect the dynamics of family violence offending. One of the new offences is strangulation or suffocation. Non-fatal strangulation is a major indicator or risk of homicide. Evidence shows it is used as a tool of abusive, coercive behaviour. The new offence will allow the courts to better identify and acknowledge the seriousness of this behaviour and distinguish it from other violent behaviours.

The bills also prioritise the safety of victims of family violence. We know that victims of family violence are subject to a substantial risk of re-victimisation given the family relationship with the perpetrator. The Family Violence (Amendments) Bill amends the Bail Act to make the safety of victims and the safety of those in a family relationship with a victim the primary consideration in bail decisions for family violence cases. It also enables the courts to impose any bail conditions it considers necessary to protect victims and their family. This sends a very strong message to the community that victim safety is a priority in family violence cases.

I want to conclude by thanking everybody who has put their time and effort and energy into this. I want to particularly thank the Hon Amy Adams, who started the journey on this legislation, and started it by reaching across the aisle in the last term of the previous Government and getting all members on board and this House on board to support this legislation. I want to also particularly acknowledge the work of the under-secretary Jan Logie, for whom this has been her life’s work and has reached the culmination of this legislation. She’s dedicated to making a real change for New Zealand in this and in other work that she does as well. I want to thank everybody who has given their feedback to make this bill and bring it here. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is also a pleasure for me to stand in the House today and take a call on this, the family violence legislation. Can I start by acknowledging the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, and also the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Jan Logie, because I have been working quite closely with them over the last 12 months and they have taken a bipartisan approach in terms of recognising the work the Hon Amy Adams put into this bill. Fundamentally, it’s very important for Kiwis, and so I want to acknowledge the engagement and work that we have done.

I have to admit that when the 11 amendments came in as Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 116, I had a conversation with Minister. I read through them and I said “Would it be fair to say that these are the parliamentary under-secretary’s amendments?”, and he said, “Yes they are.” They came out of the Green Party minority view. The great thing about our democracy is now you have a chance to actually implement those, and some of them we can see great value in.

With some of them, as the Minister referred to—the police safety orders—we have had a debate around that. I personally have had some stakeholder engagement, and we accept the fact that we can watch it and make sure that it’s not used incorrectly, but, fundamentally, it may provide some more breathing space for victims to get orders in place.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams because not only did she put an enormous amount of work into this bill—and her officials and her advisers—but she was deeply passionate about it. I think, Minister Little, that when you talked about a woman having hands put around her throat, you’re absolutely right that that is a first indicator that, actually, she could end up dead. I remember having that conversation with Amy, and it became apparent to me very early on, as her associate, just how passionate she was about this legislation and how important she felt that it was. So it’s great to see it in the House and coming through today. Can I acknowledge both of you—thank you.

I would just like to put on the record some of the work that has been done and to encourage Minister Andrew Little—and I hope that he will; I’m sure that he will—to pick up some of this work. If you will bear with me, I’d just like to run through it quickly, and that is that in 2016, we put in a package of $132 million worth of reforms which overhauled the family violence laws and the way the system prevents and responds to family violence. In Budget 2017, we invested a further $37.2 million into targeted family violence services, including the Integrated Safety Response (ISR) pilot and the Gang Action Plan pilot.

Can I just say, I visited the ISR in Christchurch about a month ago, and I spent the morning actually sitting in there while they processed the cases. Can I just say that across all agencies, everyone involved in that sees huge value in it. It appears to be working, and I’d appeal to the Minister that you continue to support and fund and actually grow that programme, because it’s delivering great results back to our community.

The 2017 investment fund for mental health saw $4 million go to a pilot programme around a culturally responsive therapy service for children aged 5 to 12 years who have experienced or have been exposed to family and/or sexual violence. You know, this is an enormously important programme in terms of when we look at that social investment model and actually making the investment in our young people much earlier to try and make sure we get them on the right track so that they have better outcomes as they grow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the member that the third reading is a summary of a bill, and whilst you can bring in other issues, they can’t be discussed for a long period of time. So I would ask the member to come back to the bills in front of the House, if you can.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I’ll take your advice. I guess why I’ve raised these issues is because a lot of the investment that I’m talking about here relates directly to what is contained in the bills and what we’re going to see implemented after the passing of the bills. So there’s a direct correlation in relation to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You just need to make that correlation in your speech.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—thank you. So if I come back to that in terms of the bills and the investment that went into a new, 24/7 national sexual violence helpline, this was to provide nationally accessible information and support to people affected in any way by sexual harm.

I’d just like to say that in my own experience, I was lucky enough to have a 14-year policing career here in New Zealand, which I’m very proud of, and I spent 10 years overseas working in communities in countries that were living with deprivation and exposed to terrible violence, and, you know, the situations are always very complicated. When you walk into a household where there’s been some domestic violence, there can be a number of reasons. One can be as simple as the people don’t know how to communicate their feelings and frustrations arise, and all of a sudden you find yourself with violence. Or it can be financial, or it can be aggravated through drug use or alcohol use. There’s lots of complicating factors that we have to try and deal with and unpick, but, first and foremost, the justice system has to be there to react and to protect the victims that are created in that moment.

We increased the penalty for breaching protection orders, and I think that’s very important when we talk about what’s contained in the SOP around a police safety order. They don’t really mean much if they’re not actually backed up with some action if they’re breached, so we recognised that whilst we were in Government and took firm action around increasing the penalties and sending a clear message around the breach of protection orders.

We kept up to a thousand victims of family violence safe each year in their own homes with the National Home Safety Service. If I could again encourage the Minister and the parliamentary under-secretary to remain heavily focused in this area, because one thing that I found very difficult personally was going to a domestic violence situation and often having to remove the mum and the kids from the family home when, actually, when you think about it, that doesn’t really make sense—taking them to a refuge. We are making big steps in this direction, but it actually makes more sense to leave mum and, especially, the children, because you think about the disruption and the trauma in their life. They’ve already seen some violence taking place. They’ve probably already witnessed that, and now we’re actually removing them from their place of security, where they feel secure, and taking them to a strange place with a whole bunch of strangers, and that actually has a negative impact on them. So I would encourage you to please remain focused on that.

Because I’ve only got a couple of minutes left, I just wanted to talk—this is a little bit philosophical, so I ask for your lenience on this one, Madam Deputy Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, just relate it to the bill, and we’ll be fine.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s definitely related to the bill in terms of—I saw some comments made in the media, about I think it was whānau, by the deputy leader of the Labour Party, whom I have a lot of respect for and who brings a lot of passion to this House in terms of what he’s trying to achieve. But the one thing that struck me about that was that he was deeply upset by the fact that the street that he grew up in in Kawakawa, Leonard Street—a lot of the families and a lot of the mates and a lot of the people that he’d grown up with had not been able to access and embrace the opportunities that this country of ours presents. The only point that I would make there, and I felt really strongly—and this relates back to having spent 10 years overseas actually seeing what abject poverty looks like, seeing what insecurity looks like, and having to deal with violence every day—is that a lot of those people would’ve given everything that they owned to have a house on Leonard Street in Kawakawa and to have access to the opportunities that exist for us here in New Zealand.

I think that too quickly, instead of looking at the good things and at the opportunities and at exploring ways of accessing those, we almost fall into a psychology of victimhood where, actually, we can’t see a way through. We don’t actually appreciate what we have in front of us. We don’t actually look for ways of being able to unlock that and pursue that. With hand on heart, I’m just saying that I’ve come across and dealt with hundreds, if not thousands, of people overseas that would give anything to have a house on Leonard Street in Kawakawa and to have the opportunities that this country would offer them. I think sometimes we just need to switch our thinking up and we actually need to look at things through a different prism and say, “Let’s embrace the opportunities that we have as a country. Let’s go for it, rather than sit back and wait for it to happen.” In my view, in my experience, not much will happen if you sit back and wait for it to happen. You have to go out and make it happen for yourself.

So that’s a little bit philosophical, but it does relate to this, because this relates to family violence and getting trapped in a cycle where you can’t see a way out. If this Government works hard and carries on with the work, then maybe a way out will become apparent to them. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, and I will do my best to stick to the bill. Today, we take a huge step to address a critical problem facing Aotearoa New Zealand. As the Minister of Justice has said, in passing these two bills today we are demonstrating our commitment to doing what we need to do as a Parliament, as a Government, and as a country to, ultimately, end family violence in New Zealand.

We’re all too familiar with New Zealand’s horrific rates of family violence. In 2017 alone, police attended 122,000 family violence incidents—one every five minutes. Statistics suggest about 76 percent of family violence incidents go unreported, and between 2009 and 2015 there were 194 family violence deaths in this country, an average of 28 a year—28 people killed by a member of their family, most of them women killed by their partner.

We cannot underestimate the impact of family violence. It doesn’t just affect victims; it affects their whānau, communities, businesses, and our entire society. It has a lasting impact on people’s psychological and physical well-being—those that survive. It poses significant threats to children’s development. Research shows that children and young people living with violence in their families are at greater risk of experiencing physical or sexual abuse. Preventing and responding to family and sexual violence represents one of our best opportunities to improve the well-being of everyone, and it’s really pleasing that, today, Parliament is united in this endeavour. And I love the energy of trying to up each other in terms of how much we care. I want to encourage that in the future.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for getting this work on the table and for engaging members of the House, communities, NGOs, and people working in the sector. Her initial work has paved the way for where we are today, and I also, of course, acknowledge the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, for his absolute commitment to addressing family violence and for bringing these bills to their third and final reading. I also want to acknowledge the officials who have lost sleep along the way to getting us to this point. They really have put their hearts and souls into this work as well.

This family violence legislation provides much clearer direction on the nature of, and appropriate response to, family violence. It clarifies that many forms of family violence conform to a pattern of coercion and control rather than acting as isolated incidents, and it clearly states the risk of lasting harm to the future well-being of children, and it directs decision makers to, where appropriate, intervene early and ensure appropriate sanctions and services for perpetrators as well as services for victims.

These changes, as well as elevating these factors to the level of principle in the legislation, provide clear direction based on concerns from the community that decisions were not consistently or adequately safeguarding victims. We need to get better at recognising and developing appropriate responses for all victims and the specific dynamics they experience. Organisations like Shakti have long raised issues like forced under-age marriage, coercion to marry, and dowry abuse as dynamics of family violence that they were concerned often went unrecognised by mainstream services and the State. These bills now include dowry abuse as an example of family violence and create a new offence of coercion to marry. The intent is that this will help ensure we all recognise and respond appropriately to protect the victims from these abusive practices.

I also want to mention that disability groups and people representing older New Zealanders have also been working hard to educate us about the disproportionate risk of violence faced by these communities, and the failure, again, of mainstream services and the State to protect them. This legislation adds a new principle that acknowledges that people with disabilities and the elderly are particularly vulnerable, and so they should, for example, have access to targeted services; it clarifies that withholding aid, care, medication, or other support that might affect their quality of life is also a form of family violence; and it states clearly that the caregiver-client relationships can be covered by this legislation if it is a close personal relationship, because we’d heard that that was unclear for people, so we needed that to be clear.

While we’ve renamed the bill to remove “whānau” from the title, and we’ve shifted from domestic violence to family violence—and we’ve removed whānau because we don’t want to support a stigmatising narrative—I do want to specifically address the definition of “family relationship”, because there was some concern that the change in title might limit protection to those in what we traditionally understand as a family relationship. It does not. It offers protection to whānau, flatmates, people in dating relationships, and people with an ongoing care relationship, as well as partners and child-parent relationships.

Strengthening protection for victims is at the heart of this relationship. This is why we have enabled police safety orders to be used for up to 10 days to allow police to require a risk assessment when they issue the order, and police can now arrest and issue a police safety order, which means that if a case falls over and isn’t able to make it to trial, there’s still an opportunity to intervene for the safety of victims. This provides us with a real opportunity for earlier intervention, that we lacked before.

The bill also includes provisions to promote child and victim safety and parenting arrangements. It requires judges to take the existence of a protection order into account when assessing a child’s safety and care of children proceedings, and empowers judges considering care of children cases to make temporary protection orders and to impose protective conditions for handover arrangements. This is all to strengthen the direction already in the legislation that the use of family violence against a partner poses a profound and potentially lifelong risk to children.

Putting the safety of children first requires us all to demonstrate to children that their safety is paramount to us and no violence is acceptable, and we will work to protect them from it. The Family Violence Bill enables everyone involved in the family violence sector to work together to get people the help that they need. As we hold the people who choose to use violence accountable for their actions, and as we support them to recognise and change their behaviour, we must still bring the voices and lives of victims and survivors to the centre of everything we do.

On that matter of coordination, we all know there’s a real need for behaviour change so that people both inside and outside of Government are working together more effectively as part of an integrated, responsive system. There is so much we need to do, and this bill enables codes of practice to be able to get us all on the same page and address the concerns raised by the Family Violence Death Review Committee that all too often practice and understanding is unsafe and is not adequately protecting our victims and children.

So I look forward to working with my colleagues in Government, with my parliamentary colleagues, and with the community to ensure the effective implementation of this legislation, because we need to maximise this opportunity to address family violence in order to start transforming our system, making a difference for everyone in the society, but primarily to work towards the end of this violence in our communities. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I didn’t interrupt the member who’s just resumed her seat, but she is an experienced member and she read the entire speech. I refer her to Speaker’s rulings 46/5 and 6 in particular, which were placed on record by the current Speaker, and probably 47/2, which says a Minister, by convention, is normally able to read a third reading but that’s the only member who can. OK?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to talk to this piece of legislation, which has been a long time coming. It’s a very rare piece of legislation, in my view, in this House, because from the time that National was in Government in the last Parliament, and into this Government, there has been a level of cooperation and sharing between the parties, and also between the ministries, which I think has informed a piece of legislation like this, which we can trust and have confidence in, and which will protect our vulnerable in a way that is more meaningful, more efficient, and more effective than it ever has been.

I will confine my remarks, pretty much, in the call I’m taking today, to the effect that it has on our older and more vulnerable and disabled people in New Zealand. Other colleagues have dealt with a broader range of domestic and family violence, all of which are very good points, but as a former Minister for Senior Citizens, with responsibilities now in that area, I feel that one of the silent issues which was emerging in the last Parliament around the formation of this legislation—the discussion papers and the community engagement have meant that those silent voices of particularly elder abuse are more able now to be talked about. Unless they are talked about openly, they will continue to proliferate behind the scenes, because elder abuse remains one of the more difficult challenges.

This bill, I think, addresses many of the aspects that we’ve been working on to try and break down the silos between not only the ministries but also the various agencies that are involved with trying to protect people and trying to react and have mechanisms in place that are sensible and commonsensible and will allow them to intervene in a meaningful way and to protect vulnerable people from the risk of being re-offended against. I think that in terms of the measures in this bill, the general principle is that New Zealand has a very bad track record in this area. We need to address it, and I think this bill really goes a long way to doing that.

I would like to commend Amy Adams, who began this legislation and brought together something like 16 ministries—in itself, I would suggest, a miracle. I would also like to commend the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Anne Tolley. In her former capacity as the Minister for Social Development, she worked in partnership with the Hon Amy Adams to ensure that the various agencies came together. Heads were knocked together where appropriate—never violently, of course; I use that term metaphorically. But people were required by a firm hand to ensure that they listened and rid themselves of their desire to keep their own territory safe. So safety, co-operation, and intelligent, reasoned, compassionate discussion is what we saw with the 16 portfolios over many, many months leading up to this legislation.

This is the biggest overhaul of our family violence laws in 20 years, so it is utterly appropriate that so many people for so long have laboured so hard on this. The Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence have proposed changes, which have then been added to in a very meaningful way by other members in this House who have spoken, and others who will come next, to discuss the various aspects. Earlier and more effective intervention to change perpetrator behaviour is at the heart of this. Unless we can engage the people who are perpetrating the violence, it is going to be very difficult to change the behaviour. Making the property orders more effective and keeping victims in their homes, and keeping children and all adult victims safe after separation—these are the kinds of things that will make an enormous difference.

It is a particularly shameful secret in New Zealand that so many of our older, vulnerable seniors are predated upon—often by members of their own family, in three-quarters of the cases. Getting data, which is another element of this legislation, is a very important part of what we do, because it dictates how we operate and where our priorities are when it comes to elder abuse. The financial abuse is as real and as devastating, and, absolutely, it brings people to the point where they don’t want to live any longer, and I can’t say it more firmly than that.

I have personally, in my capacity as a Minister and now as a spokesperson, heard far too many cases where people have not known where to go or who to turn to to help them through the financial abuse. The mechanisms and the changes that have been put in place will, I think, be significant for them. There also needs to be, I think, hand in hand with this legislation, comprehensive public education to ensure that people know what they can do to avail themselves of it.

As legislators, we need to know what is happening, and this bill does allow for data to be collected. At the level of bail and sentencing, to enable police and others to build the case, I think it is very important that we have guidelines and that we are able to do as much as possible. I think that in terms of protection orders, the mechanisms in this case will enable them to be better tailored towards vulnerable New Zealanders, who are often isolated and at home and don’t know what their rights are. For people with disabilities and people who are financially constrained, we need to be able to intervene earlier, and the earlier and more effective interventions that are laid out within this legislation will enable that to happen.

Perpetrators need to change their behaviours. The intergenerational cycles also need to change. The tendency to blame, point the finger, or incarcerate—these are blunt instruments. The nuanced approach that the various measures within this legislation take will, I think, make meaningful changes and big differences. Intervening earlier is also essential, and being more effective in helping perpetrators change those behaviours is all about trying to get them at an age and stage where they are able to do things before they harm people too much. The bill makes property orders more effective. These are the kinds of things that are spelt out in this legislation, and all the relevant agencies being able to work together and being held to account puts the focus where it needs to be, which is at the heart of where the vulnerable people are.

To me, this legislation is long overdue. It’s now here in its third reading. I won’t take up the time of the House any longer to ensure that it has safe and swift passage, because it needs to go through, to be enacted, and to be available to the vulnerable people in New Zealand to stop the scourge of family violence as soon as possible.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like many of my colleagues, I’d like to acknowledge those who started the process: the Hon Amy Adams and the previous Government who called together those across the House to actually start to pick up on this issue. It’s good to see that that collegiality has continued, because obviously this is an issue that’s too big to us to make politics of. So I just acknowledge those who started it and have continued that on.

I want to talk a little bit about the 10-day police safety order. That was a point of concern for New Zealand First—it was part of a conversation that we had. We understand why there was that increase around police safety orders. The concern we expressed was to make sure that there were places available when, predominantly, men are removed from their homes. We wanted to make sure that there were places for them to go to.

During my time in Opposition I visited Gandhi Nivas, the initiative that started in one place in Auckland and has now spread to become three or four. I think there are other models throughout the country. When the police remove an individual under a safety order, they take that individual to a Gandhi Nivas house so that they—as I say, they are mostly men—have somewhere to sleep, they have somewhere to be, and they get access to services. You know, without being flippant, there are two sides to this, and we must make sure that we keep the balance. We have to support the victim, absolutely, and any children inside the house that witness domestic violence or are victims themselves, but we also have to make sure that we go to that preventative side, to that early intervention side, to that intensive intervention side, where we make sure that those who perpetrate are well supported to understand that there are other ways to manage this. Again, I acknowledge Gandhi Nivas house and the work they have done and the success they have had in that particular area.

I agree with the Hon Maggie Barry on elder abuse. It is good to see that that conversation is getting wider and that we are recognising it, and, as the current Minister for Seniors, it’s something that’s very important to me. I want to concentrate mostly, though, on some new parts—from the Supplementary Order Paper—that were included and are now parts of the main bill. I’m really focusing, I suppose, on coercive control. I have brought down to the House the fact that it was a piece of work that I was doing for New Zealand First prior to the election. The United Kingdom put it into legislation on 29 December, 2015. They were the first nation, I believe, to put coercive control into legislation so that it could be a crime. That was the first time we really saw it recognised. Many times, coercive control is the start of a pathway to much greater violence, and we need to stop that. If we’re talking about prevention and early intervention, we must focus on coercive control.

I want to clearly describe what coercive control is, and I want to do so not for members of the House but for those listening or watching this so that they can hear what they need to keep their eye out for, either in themselves, in others, or in their lives. The term “coercive control” spans a broad range of actions that are intended to intimidate, restrict, and control a partner’s behaviour. This can include restricting access to money, refusing to socialise with family or friends, threatening to release intimate details or pictures, monitoring e-mail and social media accounts, and even tracking somebody’s movements through smartphone software. Now, if you’re happy, each of you, for another to know where you are at every moment of the day, that’s not a problem at all. But if somebody requires you to download an app on to your phone and actually activate an app so they know where you are every minute of the day, then you might like to consider that that’s a problem.

The only other thing I do want to say here, though, is that if anybody out there recognises that behaviour in somebody they know, please don’t rush off and go and take action in your own right. Certainly create an environment where you can talk to the person that you are concerned about and support them, but please don’t rush off and take action without, first of all, making sure that you have spoken to that individual about what they want to do. Because, at the end of the day, with the best will in the world, we can put people we care about in danger if we decide that we know better. We must empower those who find themselves in circumstances not of their own making to know that we will support them, that there are services out there, and that we will help them as we can but we will not take further power from them by making that decision on their behalf. So, while I want people to recognise what that looks like, I don’t want people to decide that they know better for somebody else’s life, but, please, just to support them.

I think what’s really interesting—and I looked up how many people have been charged under coercive control since 2015—is that of 35 police forces in the UK in the first six months, 798 people were arrested and 130 were charged; if we go to 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2017, 3,937 arrests were made and 666 charges were laid. Now, that might be only 16 percent of those that were arrested but the point is it became something that was watched for. The areas, as Associate Minister of Education, I have responsibility for are healthy relationships, student well-being, anti-bullying programmes, and so on and so forth, inside of our schools, and coercive control is an area where I believe we can do greater work to educate our young people to recognise the behaviours in themselves and in others.

Now, before I sit down, though, I want to ensure that we don’t think that this is just about men or, on the other side of it, just about women, because I don’t want our young men to, firstly, not recognise the behaviours in themselves, but also not recognise when those behaviours are being used against them. And when I was just looking up how the UK model was going, on 16 April 2018 the first woman was actually convicted under that law. “The university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under the new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him, and keeping food from him.” Interestingly enough, this young man was actually disabled. So it goes to what we’re talking about. We can’t make assumptions about who this population is. We can’t make assumptions about whether it’s a social demographic over here or an ethnic background over there. We must not make these assumptions, because assumptions lead to judgment.

But what we must do is be aware. What we must do is educate the next generation, so that we can turn the tap off at the same time as we are making sure that the population that we have at the moment we are holding to account but also supporting to find other ways. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a good bill and it’s been through a thorough process. I do want to start by talking about the process. It started off with a good process. I have to say, the last year or so has been appalling. This came out of the cross-party, or cross-ministerial, group in the previous Government. The Hon Amy Adams, as Minister of Justice, led that—Madam Deputy Speaker, you’ll be well familiar with that work as well in your previous role—and the discussion document was issued, I think early or mid-May 2015. There was a series of public meetings around the country led by the Minister, led by officials, and a huge amount of engagement from people involved in the sector: non-Government organisations, charities, Government agencies, as well. I hosted a meeting in Lower Hutt and about 150 people turned up. Probably the best thing about the meeting was actually just the consciousness raising in the community along with some good ideas. From that publication of the discussion document, we had that public discussion and then the feedback went into the ministry and a bill was fashioned. It was then called the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. It came into the House and was then sent off to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

So that very thorough process—that’s exactly how bills, particularly where you’re aiming for cross-party consensus, should be developed, with public discussion in advance of the bill being created. Frankly, I think in New Zealand we don’t do that enough. That is the status quo in other countries like Australia; a lot of pre-consultation done. It needs to happen more in New Zealand; too often it doesn’t happen, but it did happen in this case.

Where I do want to throw a brickbat at the Government is in the last year, where we have been waiting for this bill to progress. I mean, the Government has now been in place for a year. Nothing has happened. It turned out we were waiting for the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which is largely the Green Party’s minority view. OK, that’s fair enough, the Government can put SOPs on the Table, but I am surprised it took a year, and I’m surprised that it’s taken a year to pass this very important piece of legislation.

The other thing I do want to comment on from a process point of view is it is disgraceful that that SOP, a very large Supplementary Order Paper, was dropped on the committee of the whole House stage and the Minister rejected the Opposition’s pleas for that SOP to be sent back to the select committee for further consideration, given we basically waited a year for the bill to come back for the second reading, committee of the whole House, and the third reading. One doesn’t think it would be too much to ask to send it back to the Justice Committee for a month or so to consider their Supplementary Order Paper. The Greens are usually the paragons of virtue when it comes to process, and the dropping of Supplementary Order Papers at the committee of the whole House stage—so it’s very disappointing that wasn’t agreed to. It was very important that it was considered properly, because there’s quite a large expansion of the power of police safety orders, from five to 10 days in that process, and it was just dropped into the committee of the whole House stage. The Government and the Opposition are both supportive of it, but I’ve got to say we do have some misgivings over the process. That’s the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that this is just one part of the solution. I don’t think anyone pretends that the Family Violence Bill, which will soon become an Act, is going to overnight solve the scourge that is family violence in our communities. Legislation can only do so much. As former Prime Ministers and Ministers and MPs have noted, we need a cultural shift, we need a cultural change, we need Government agencies to work together more co-operatively, work in the community more co-operatively. There’s a lot of great stuff happening. My colleague Mark Mitchell talked about the integrated safety response pilot as just one example of good things happening in the community; innovative solutions to old problems. We need more of that. We need new fresh thinking—legislation can only do so much. And that’s the second point.

The third thing I want to mention before I wrap it up before the lunch adjournment is just some really good things that are happening in this legislation. The first is the name. I’ve talked previously in the House around removing the phrase “domestic violence” from the legislation and calling it “family violence”. That sounds like a small thing. Actually, it’s quite an important symbolic change. Domestic violence is redolent of the idea that what happens in the family home should remain in the family home and it’s not the concern of the criminal law or not the concern of Government or not the concern of everybody else—that people are just having “a domestic”, and therefore they can be left alone. It’s very important we send the message that things that happen in the family home can be illegal, should be illegal, and are rightly the concern of neighbours, other whānau, friends, and the wider society. So the first thing is the name change.

Updating the definition of family violence is good. Other members have talked about expanding it to psychological control and other things. Increasing the effectiveness of protection orders, intervening earlier in order to try and change behaviour, so expanding the tools that can be used when it comes to protection orders. Those are very good.

One thing that hasn’t really been mentioned that I think is very good is greater powers for the courts to consider family violence when it comes to child safety and Care of Children Act proceedings when it comes to custody disputes. That is a very, very significant and important change. Better flagging of family violence in the system, both virtually and physically. Our courts have got a long way to go, I’ve got to say, when it comes to technology and it comes to the way in which things are tracked and flagged within the system. And other members have talked about the significant increase in penalties for non-fatal strangulation, and members previously have talked in the House about—and I’ll sit down as we commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)