Thursday, 8 November 2018
Volume 734
Sitting date: 8 November 2018
THURSDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2018
THURSDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2018
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia
Karakia
SPEAKER: In order to commemorate a culturally significant event in our nation’s history, Te Waru o Noema—the hundredth anniversary of the Rātana faith—I have asked Kiritapu Allan to commemorate this event through this dedication.
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): E te Māngai, e ngā Anahera Toru, e te Tokotoru Tapu. Ka tuku whakamoimiti atu mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga ki ā mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou whāinga whaiaro katoa. Ki te taha ka mihi mātou ki te Kuini me te īnoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ā mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai, tā mātou whakahaere. E ngā take o Te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa, ko te Māngai hei tautoko mai? Āianei, ake nei, āe.
[To you the Mouthpiece, the Faithful Angels, and the Holy Trinity. I hereby offer my gratitude for the prayers that have been delivered for us. We cast aside all of our personal ambitions. We also pay our gratitude to the Queen and ask her for guidance for our tasks ahead. Let us consider these matters carefully and with humility. As to the matters before the House, to bring peace, prosperity and happiness to New Zealand. May the Divine Mouthpiece confirm this prayer. Now and for ever, yes.]
Visitors
Republic of Indonesia—Speaker of the House of Representatives
SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in welcoming the Rt Hon Bambang Soesatyo Prijono, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery, and accord the Speaker a seat to the left of the Chair. [Applause]
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House adjourns until Tuesday, 27 November. During the first week of the final sitting block of the year, the legislation to be considered by the House will include the committee stage of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill and the second readings of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill. Wednesday, 28 November will be a members’ day.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder if the Leader of the House would be able to indicate whether or not it is the Government’s intention to take extended hours sittings, as was previously suggested.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That’s currently still the Government’s intention, although I note that legislation is moving very quickly at the moment, so we will keep that under review.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and I take particular pride from one frequent commentator’s conclusion this morning: “Government can take praise for full steam ahead economy”. I don’t often agree with Mike Hosking, but in this case he hit the nail on the head.
Hon Paula Bennett: In light of the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday that the National Party is responsible for the debacle of Karel Sroubek, can the Prime Minister confirm that answers to written questions show that Karel Sroubek was granted a visitor permit in September 2003 and granted New Zealand residency in June 2008, and that both of these dates were under a previous Labour Government?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I haven’t seen that information.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has the Prime Minister seen answers to written questions which show there was no consideration of the deportation of Karel Sroubek between 2003 and 2017?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not clear whether the Prime Minister has seen that information or not.
Hon Amy Adams: Well you shouldn’t make allegations without having your facts.
SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Hon Amy Adams: The Minister shouldn’t make allegations.
SPEAKER: Well, Amy Adams is a senior member and this is a serious matter and she should just take more care.
Hon Amy Adams: The Minister shouldn’t make allegations—
SPEAKER: No, she should just be quiet now.
Hon Paula Bennett: Do police or Immigration New Zealand have a record of threats made via a phone call from Karel Sroubek in prison to his estranged wife on 3 May, and are they considering that as part of their investigation?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The investigation will look at all of the information that the Minister of Immigration was presented with when he made his decision, and whether that was complete, and it will consider whether—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the new information?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Brownlee, the Minister is trying to get the whole of the answer out.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was helping.
SPEAKER: Well, you’re not, because you’re prejudicing it by your bellowing.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: And it will consider any contradictory information that the Minister potentially should have been aware of when he made his decision.
Hon Paula Bennett: When the Prime Minister said the decision to grant residency to Karel Sroubek was a mistake, does she believe she has jeopardised the investigation or pre-empted the findings it may make?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That comment was made by the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister, and I’d encourage the member to consider that comment in the full context of the quote, not taking a selective part from it.
Hon Paula Bennett: Was the granting of residency recently to Karel Sroubek a mistake?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Prime Minister will be reserving judgment on that until the investigation is complete.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Government putting the interests of and privacy of Karel Sroubek ahead of what is obviously in the public’s interest to know the facts of this case?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.
Question No. 2—Immigration
2. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Did he meet with officials on 19 September 2018 to discuss the deportation liability of Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik; if so, at what time?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes, at 4.30 p.m.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm he first considered Karel Sroubek’s case on 19 September 2018, as indicated in his answer to written question 27289?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm he wrote to Karel Sroubek’s lawyer confirming his decision to grant residency that same day?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I understand that the letter was post-dated to that day, but I am advised that it was sent on the 21st.
SPEAKER: Backdated, I think the member means.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he therefore confirm it took him less than an hour to make his decision to grant residency?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As the decision maker, it’s important that I base my decision on accurate and robust information. Immigration New Zealand prepared a comprehensive file, detailed information, which I used to make that decision, following exactly the same process that that member used when I made that decision. I made that decision on that day.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A helpful elucidation of the process which did not address the question, which was “Can he confirm he took less than an hour to make that decision?”
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll ask the Minister to have another go at it. I mean, days don’t finish at half past five, but carry on.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I made the decision on that day using the information that I had available to me.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why was this decision, one which the Prime Minister has said he gave “careful consideration to” and was “a very difficult decision”, decided just minutes or hours after being presented to him?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because I used the comprehensive file that was prepared by Immigration New Zealand and presented to me. As a decision maker, it is important that I base my decision on accurate and robust information. Publicly available information may be wrong or unfairly prejudicial. That’s why it is important to have a robust process to prepare the information for my consideration.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it common practice for him to consider cases to, in his words, “weigh matters of public safety and the criminal behaviour of the individual involved” just minutes or hours after being presented to him?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I used the same process that the member used when he was Minister.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know it is your practice to often have a look at question exchanges that occur in the House and to consider what rulings might need to be made as a result of those exchanges. Yesterday, we had Mr Lees-Galloway exercising the right that a Minister has not to answer a question in the public interest. He did that repeatedly. Yet, minutes after the House finished question time, the Acting Prime Minister was on the tiles, answering those very same questions. It raises the question, I think, about whether it is reasonable for a Minister to tell the House that it’s not in the public interest to give a Government perspective on a question that’s legitimately asked in the House, yet another Minister in the same Government is able to do so, away from House, to the news media. I think it cheapens the whole exercise and purpose of question time, and I’d ask you to have a look at it to see whether or not, in this case, given the answers that were given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway was reasonable in calling on that particular provision in the Standing Orders.
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think I do need to look at anything further. If that was the case, it does cheapen the House.
Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to that point of order, I just wasn’t clear which Standing Order it was that the Hon Gerry Brownlee was raising against, but he does continuously make debating points under the guise—
SPEAKER: No, in this particular case, there have been a series of Speakers’ rulings around the fact that judgment as to what is in the public interest for reporting to this House is a matter for an individual Minister. I am very strong on collective ministerial responsibility. All Ministers speak for other Ministers, no matter what the shape of a Government, and in this particular case, if we have one part of the Government saying it’s not in the public interest and shouldn’t be answered, and another part of the Government, effectively, saying that it is in the public interest, then it means that this House is not getting good service.
Question No. 3—Transport
3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Transport: Has he seen reports that 41 percent of households with incomes below the average level are now spending less on essential items like food and power because of higher petrol prices, and if so, will he reconsider the two further petrol tax increases planned this term?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, and no.
Hon Amy Adams: Why is he going to continue to increase petrol taxes when 40 percent of low-income families are having to go without essentials like food and power because of those high petrol prices?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This Government is taking action on petrol prices and forcing the petrol companies to expose their margins. We’re getting the evidence that we need to sort this out, because no one wants to see Kiwis paying more at the pump than they need to. But, despite the member’s consistent scaremongering, it’s still true that most of the increase, by a country mile, in petrol prices has come from increases in international crude prices, a falling dollar, and importer margins rather than taxes.
Hon Amy Adams: Does he think it’s scaremongering to suggest that petrol taxes are regressive and disproportionately hurt lower-income households the most?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the lack of a decent transport system and the crippling infrastructure deficit that we inherited after nine years of that Government is highly regressive and punishes poor people. This Government’s committed to reversing that deficit and investing in the infrastructure that our towns and cities need to be liveable and to support the economic growth that that party allowed to wither on the vine for nine years.
Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with Treasury, who advised him clearly that increasing petrol taxes has, and I quote, “a negative impact … on the welfare of low income households.”?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, and I also agree with Treasury’s analysis of the effects of the Families Package, which put $75 a week on average into the household budgets of 384,000 low and middle income families. Alongside that, we’re investing in modern transport systems to give people real choice, particularly in our cities.
Hon Amy Adams: Well, is he aware that that survey that showed 40 percent of low-income households now having to go without essentials because of higher petrol prices and taxes came after the Family Incomes Package, which hasn’t stopped them having to give up on food and energy and other essentials because of the taxes imposed by that Government?
Hon Phil Twyford: Well, the Colmar Brunton report had some excellent information in it. It also included information that the Labour Party had overtaken the National Party in terms of the party vote, that New Zealand First and the Greens are doing exceptionally well, and that the Government’s on 57 percent.
Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Yes, I think I missed the relevance of the reply. Is that—
Hon Amy Adams: Well, if you’re asking me whether I think the Minister addressed the question, I don’t think he came anywhere near to it.
SPEAKER: Nor do I. Ask it again, and we’ll have a sensible reply.
Hon Amy Adams: Mr Speaker, thank you. I will. Is he aware, then, that the survey quoted in the primary question, that showed 40 percent of low-income households are now going without essentials like food and power because of higher petrol taxes, was taken after the full impact of the Family Incomes Package and that despite that package, those low-income households are still going without essentials because of higher petrol prices and taxes?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I don’t know why the member says “despite that package,”. That package delivered $75 a week into the pockets of 384,000 low and middle income families. She can’t just wave that away by saying “despite that”. The best analysis on the effects of fuel tax increases was done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and MBIE calculated that, on average, those fuel taxes increases would by no more than an average of $5 a week increase in fuel prices. Most of the increase in the cost of fuel consumption has been caused by a falling dollar, oil prices, and importer margins. This Government’s doing something about fuel importer margins. That Government talked about it but did nothing.
Hon James Shaw: What would have been the impact on low-income households of international oil prices and the exchange rate if the Government had kept the previous Government’s tax cut policies in place and not put in place the family support package?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think it’s pretty clear that that combination of circumstances—if we had lived to see—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How on earth can this Minister make a comment on that, given that it is a totally hypothetical question and has been pointed out as such every time we’ve raised that issue on this side of the House?
SPEAKER: Hypothetical questions can be asked. They don’t have to be answered.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I think it would have been a disaster for low and middle income families to have had the former National Government’s tax cuts that went disproportionately to well-off households, instead of the Families Package, and then an array of fuel tax increases that Simon Bridges was considering as transport Minister at the time of the last election.
Question No. 4—Transport
4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all of the Government’s policies on State highways?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes.
Todd Muller: Why didn’t construction of the Tauranga Northern Link, which would have seen four lanes of safe and modern highway stretch from Tauranga to Ōmokoroa, commence as scheduled last month?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has re-evaluated that project to make sure that we save lives, prevent serious injuries on that road, and deliver transport improvements that were neglected for nine years on that stretch of road and are still desperately needed, and we’re going to deliver them.
Hon Louise Upston: What do you say to the principal of Karapiro School—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please start your question properly. The member is a very experienced member and Minister. She knows how to ask a question.
Hon Louise Upston: What does the Minister say to the principal of Karapiro School, who is concerned about the safety of students, families, and teachers if the Cambridge to Piarere section of the Hamilton to Tauranga expressway is cancelled?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I would say to that school principal that he should have confidence that this coalition Government is committed—
Hon Louise Upston: She. She wrote to you.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —to her—to a transport policy that doesn’t hand pick gold-plated expressways that consume billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money providing safety improvements to a small section of the State highway network, instead of investing in safety improvements across the entire State highway network to save hundreds of lives.
Dr Shane Reti: How many more deaths need to occur before he reinstates the four lanes from Whangarei to Marsden, a section of highway which he identifies in written question No. 22400 as being the deadliest hotspot road in New Zealand?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think that the member understands that NZTA’s re-evaluation of the State highway along that section includes the addition of two extra lanes built to modern standards, with passing lanes, shoulder widening, intersection upgrades, median barriers, and side barriers. That is a vital safety improvement that will save lives on that stretch of State highway that should have been done years ago, but instead the former Government offered a cargo-cult promise of four-laning the entire State highway from Warkworth to Whangarei that would have cost $5 billion and carries only 13,000 cars a day.
Hon James Shaw: Are median barriers better or worse for public safety than multiple lanes of traffic?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, you have to answer that question in the context of how we invest precious taxpayer dollars right across the entire transport network. Our Government understands that we can invest hundreds of millions of dollars across thousands of kilometres of the State highway network and save more lives than the old roads of National Party significance that spent 40 percent of the transport budget.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat.
Andrew Falloon: Why has the Government proposed to only install a median barrier on the existing narrow, two-lane Ashburton to Christchurch highway, when traffic volumes have doubled since 1997, resulting in 56 fatal and serious crashes in the last five years, making the highway the second-most dangerous in the country?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I can assure that member that the New Zealand Transport Agency will be making the most economically rational and best safety decisions, investing in our transport system but not handpicking expressway projects and politicking and pork-barrelling $4 billion of transport spending every year, like that party did when it was in Government.
Matt Doocey: Is he concerned that by blocking me as a local electorate MP from visiting the northern corridor motorway project under construction in Waimakariri, or from even discussing the safety improvement programme with NZTA that replaces the cancelled Woodend bypass, he will be seen as politicising the NZTA?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I urge the member to use the normal provisions that are available for Opposition members to get information about what’s going on, because his colleagues are pretty good at it. If he invests a bit of energy, I’m sure he can be too.
Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I’m going to warn the member that disagreeing with an answer is not a point of order. If the member has a point of order, he’s going to point to the Standing Order and he’s going to tell me what it’s about.
Matt Doocey: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office instructing me not to meet with NZTA representatives to discuss the safety improvement programme, dated 20 June 2018.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Matt Doocey: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office declining my request to visit the northern corridor motorway currently under construction, dated 7 May 2018.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Have we many more?
Matt Doocey: One more.
SPEAKER: One more—OK.
Matt Doocey: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office under the Official Information Act instructing the NZTA to meet with six Labour MPs for an update on a motorway currently under construction, dated 20 April 2018.
SPEAKER: Right, all members who interjected during that point of order will stand up. All right, take your seats. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development
5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress, if any, has been made towards tackling the national housing crisis?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): There’s still a lot of work to do to build our way out of the national housing crisis, but we’re getting on with it. Over the last week, the Prime Minister announced $1.5 billion to build 2,900 new State houses and up to 2,000 affordable KiwiBuild and market homes in Porirua—the first KiwiBuild homes announced in the Wellington region. I released the latest quarterly update on public housing, which shows that there are now more than 1,300 additional families in public housing than there were a year ago.
Paul Eagle: What reports has he seen on the Porirua announcement?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Porirua regeneration announcement was welcomed by many, including Mayor Mike Tana, who said, “This is a sea-change moment for our city.”, and Ngāti Toa chairperson Dr Taku Pārai, who said, “As tangata whenua of this rohe we look forward to participating in the revitalisation [of] the wider Porirua community.”
Paul Eagle: What other announcements has he seen that will help tackle the national housing crisis?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The KiwiBuild unit have made two announcements in Auckland over the last week—a city badly affected by the national housing crisis. They announced that they have opened the ballot for five two-storey terraced houses at McLennan and opened the ballot for 10 two-bedroom apartments in Ōtāhuhu. KiwiBuild is giving thousands of young families who have been locked out of homeownership in Auckland and across the country a chance to buy their own affordable starter home.
Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development
6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Can he confirm that a purchaser of a KiwiBuild house can sell that same house within three years and keep 70 percent of any capital profit that may arise?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): No.
Andrew Bayly: Why do documents on the KiwiBuild website say, “you will need to sign a deed enforceable by the Crown which states that you [shall] undertake to pay the Crown 30 percent of: any capital gain if you sell your KiwiBuild [property] within three years of signing the sales and purchase agreement without KiwiBuild’s prior consent”?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because that’s what the rule says.
Andrew Bayly: OK. What Government objectives are achieved by selling houses through a ballot and allowing the winners to sell them shortly thereafter and keep a good chunk of the profit?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government objective that’s being pursued here is supplying a generation of young Kiwi families with the opportunity to own their own home. We’re also balancing the community’s rightful expectation that KiwiBuild homes will go to those people who need them: young families who, 10 years ago, would have been able to buy their own home. But life’s complicated, and sometimes people have a change of circumstances—a marriage might break up, people might have to go and care for an elderly parent. So we understand that there needs to be flexibility built into the system, and that’s why we require people to live in that home for three years unless they have the express permission of the KiwiBuild unit to do otherwise.
Kieran McAnulty: Has he seen any reports of any other affordable homeownership schemes stopping the new owners from selling homes?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have seen a programme whereby modest starter homes were built. First-home buyers entered into a ballot, the homes were sold at a fixed price, and buyers agreed to live in the home for two years—with no requirement to pay capital gains. That’s the previous Government’s Axis Series affordable housing programme. The main difference between that programme and ours: they built dozens of houses; we’re building thousands.
Andrew Bayly: Why is it not a subsidy if KiwiBuild agrees to sell a house to a purchaser and that purchaser subsequently on-sells that house and receives an immediate profit?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The house is not subsidised because it’s sold by the Crown, through KiwiBuild, to the first-home buyer at the market price for that house.
Question No. 7—Police
7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he have confidence in Deputy Commissioner of Police Wally Haumaha?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): As I said in a response to an identical question by that member on 9 August—and I quote—“There is an inquiry under way which will determine the process under which the senior State servant was appointed, and I think we need to … play [that] out.” That inquiry has not yet publicly reported.
Chris Bishop: Does he accept that the Prime Minister has the power to stand Mr Haumaha down, given that the Police Commissioner told the Justice Committee this morning that he had taken “extensive legal advice” about this question, which concluded that he does not have the power to stand him down?
SPEAKER: Order! I’m trying to get the link. Is the member trying to say that he’s responsible for the advice that the commissioner gives to a select committee, or he’s responsible for the Prime Minister—neither of which, I think, are this Minister’s responsibility. Have another go at trying to get it in line.
Chris Bishop: Does he agree that the Prime Minister has the power to stand Mr Haumaha down, given that the Police Commissioner told the Justice Committee this morning that he had taken extensive legal advice about the question, which concluded that he does not have the power to stand him down?
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member appears to be asking the Minister for a legal opinion.
SPEAKER: No—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, can I deal with the first one first? I think Ministers should all be across the appointment methods of their senior staff. As well as a matter of law, it’s a matter of policy, and I think he should be across that. So, I’m going to rule that point of order out, but Mr Brownlee had another one?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, that’s all right.
Hon STUART NASH: I wasn’t at the select committee this morning, therefore I’m not too sure what the commissioner actually said to that committee.
Chris Bishop: Who has the power to stand Mr Haumaha down: the Prime Minister or the Police Commissioner?
Hon STUART NASH: The Police Commissioner does not have the power to stand Wally Haumaha down. Mr Haumaha is a warranted officer who is there by “the pleasure of the Governor-General”.
Chris Bishop: Does he agree with comments by then Prime Minister Helen Clark as to why she refused to promote Mr Clint Rickards to Deputy Commissioner, namely, “I have to take into account I am making a recommendation for one of the highest statutory positions in the land and that if there are going to be anonymous allegations and innuendo around a person in such position that doesn’t help the New Zealand police.”, and does he think the same problems arise with Mr Haumaha?
Hon STUART NASH: She was a very wise woman, was the former Prime Minister Helen Clark, and I agree with the comments.
Chris Bishop: Is he comfortable having a statutorily appointed Deputy Commissioner of Police who has received extensive publicity for having reportedly described Louise Nicholas’ allegations as “a nonsense”, “Nothing really happened.”, and “We have to stick together.”?
Hon STUART NASH: Can I just make one thing clear: under the State Sector Act 1988 all matters relating to individual employees are the responsibility of the chief executive, who must act independently of the Minister. My role is limited to expressing confidence in the chief executive. In this case, that is the Commissioner of Police, who has my utmost support. The Commissioner of Police has constitutional responsibilities for his employees and under the Policing Act for constabulary officers. I am precluded under that Act from any staffing matters, and I do expect the Commissioner of Police to maintain oversight of his workforce and to assign duties as appropriate.
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two responsibilities in the police that are appointed by the Government—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member cannot argue an answer to a question by way of a point of order.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you’re going to take that line, then surely it was appropriate for the Minister to say he just wanted to make one thing clear when the one thing that he was trying to make clear was not related to the question he was asked and, in fact, was in contradiction to an answer he had previously given.
SPEAKER: I’m not about the latter—I’d have to go back and look at it—but it was certainly in relation to the question that was asked.
Question No. 8—Police
8. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: How is the Government tracking towards its commitment to strive towards adding 1,800 new police officers?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Off the back of the single-biggest investment ever in our police service through Budget 2018, I’m pleased to report that 862 constables have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College since we took office. Next week, we are expecting an additional 80 recruits to graduate. That takes our total number to 942 new constables. This is the most ever achieved by New Zealand Police. This Government has achieved a 325 full-time equivalent growth in the last year of a service that was underfunded and under-resourced. For the first time in our nation’s history, there are now over 9,000 sworn officers out there keeping our community safe and preventing crime.
Greg O’Connor: What is the Minister doing to address any concerns about the standard and diversity of recruits?
Hon STUART NASH: In the last year, and based on the current rate of application, the police would have received around 6,000 applications. The process to get into the Royal New Zealand Police College is vigorous and the training is challenging, so not all of these applicants will meet the threshold, but the standard is not dropping. During 2017-18, 231 women graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College, making up 36 percent of all graduates. This was the best year of female recruitment in both numbers and proportion that police have ever achieved, and the representation of Māori, Pasifika, and Asian ethnicities in the constabulary workforce is continuing to grow and better reflect New Zealand communities.
Greg O’Connor: What innovative recruitment methods is the Government supporting to help add 1,800 new police officers?
Hon STUART NASH: I congratulate the police on their ongoing effort to find innovative ways to attract more people into the New Zealand Police service. For example, they have been trialling an NCEA police studies programme in Rotorua high schools and are holding a Māori-focused recruitment drive at Tūrangawaewae Marae in a few months’ time. Statistics from the latest recruitment video show that the video has been viewed in excess of a million times, but if you add other media outlets, police estimate it to be 2 million worldwide. Also, in just under two weeks, over 1,300 people started the application process to become an officer in the New Zealand Police service.
Question No. 9—Energy and Resources
9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the energy and resources portfolio?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.
Jonathan Young: Is the Minister aware that 6 terawatts of energy is enough to power 60 billion 100-watt bulbs at the same time—over five times as many lightbulbs as are in use on the whole planet—and does she still stand by her statement yesterday that New Zealand produces 6 terawatts of surplus energy every summer?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What the member fails to understand is the capacity that we have in this country—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! No. I’ve just had enough of quite a number of members on this side of the House shouting down Ministers at the same time as some of them are trying to convince me that there is an issue in this area.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I said yesterday was that the capacity that we overproduce in the summer months, we actually have the technology coming on stream to store, and what the member needs to understand is that the amount that we need to produce by 2050 to meet the energy needs of this country is absolutely achievable for us. Transpower tells us that the nearly doubling of the generation of electricity that we need can largely be produced through hydro and wind and geothermal—80 percent of it—and we know that the storage technologies that are coming on stream such as hydrogen and batteries are more than up to the task of storing the overproduction in the times of surplus.
Jonathan Young: Can the Minister point to anywhere in the world where capacity exists to store 6 terawatts of generated power, and, if not, how soon does she think this will be available in New Zealand?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The capacity to store our overcapacity is something that Transpower, in its recent report, said is certainly within our purview. So if we look at the generation scenarios that Transpower put out in its Energy Futures report, it talked about coal generation of electricity in 2015 being 6 percent, zero percent by 2030, and, by 2050, zero percent, and, likewise, a similar downturn for gas, but what it does show is a rapid rise in renewables and storage being a part of that. It is in our purview to do this, and that member should have some confidence in our ability as a country to do it.
Jonathan Young: So when the Minister said to me yesterday “I invite that member to join the 21st century.”, given that not a single large-scale or credible commercial molten salt or hydrogen energy storage facility is yet in existence, was she speaking to me from the 22nd century?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If that member wants to have a serious conversation about something that is vitally important to this country, that member should well be aware—and is aware, I am sure—that this month we are seeing a sod turning on a hydrogen plant in the central North Island. This is happening, and I invite that member to ask for a briefing on this, and I’ll get my officials to give it.
Jonathan Young: When the Minister referred yesterday to Transpower saying we need to double generation to make the transition to a low-carbon energy system and said “that equates to 4.5 wind farms per year equivalency”, how many megawatts of installed capacity would each of those 4.5 wind farms need to be?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Transpower report says we need to double capacity by 2050. What it says is that that equates to the equivalency of 4.5 wind farms from 2025. What the report also notes is that changing technologies means you cannot pin it down in the way that the member is asking. What it does say is that 80 percent of those requirements through to 2050 will be able to be delivered by hydro, solar, and wind technologies, and there will need to be storage facilities to make up the gap there. It also points to the fact that it needs Government to back research and development in the area, which, of course, is what this Government is doing with over $1 billion investment behind businesses that want to do that kind of research and development throughout our R & D tax credit.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, for a Minister to say on the one hand that we need 4.5 new wind farms a year and then not be able to say what capacity those wind farms would have, I think is not answering the question. While it might be convenient for the Minister to run to some of the more flowery paragraphs contained in the Transpower report, this specific point would be: what is the capacity of the 4.5 wind farms that this country requires each year, out to 2050?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Speaking to the point of order, if that member would like me to read through the pluses and minuses through to the 2050s, I’m happy to do it or pass it on.
SPEAKER: I have read the report. The member has read us far too much of it already.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can’t give us a number. Hopeless.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Brownlee, look, the member’s had a fair go today. There’s been a degree of tolerance to him this week. I am now going to ask him to settle down for the rest of it.
Jonathan Young: Sir, I support the point of order, and you have not made a decision.
SPEAKER: No, there is no point or order. I have ruled that there’s not.
Jonathan Young: Sir, so there is no requirement for the Minister, when she makes a very specific statement the day before, to quantify that the following day?
SPEAKER: Unless the member has the wit to put it down as a primary question, there is no requirement.
Question No. 10—Employment
10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent reports has he seen regarding the state of employment in New Zealand?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I’ve got great news to share with the House. Yesterday, we saw the latest household labour force survey (HLFS), which showed a record employment rate of 68.3 percent, matched by the lowest unemployment rate in over a decade of 3.9 percent. This is the highest rate of employment in New Zealand for over 30 years.
Jo Luxton: What else does the household labour force survey, released yesterday, indicate about the state of employment?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for the question. Every single indicator released yesterday as part of the survey tells us several things—far too many to list, but I’ll highlight a few to the House. It was incredibly pleasing to see that the employment increase wasn’t just limited to Auckland and Wellington. We also saw strong employment growth in Waikato, Otago, Gisborne, and Hawke’s Bay, and I’m particularly pleased to see that 4,300 more people are now in employment in Jonathan Young’s Taranaki.
Jo Luxton: What did the household labour force survey indicate about the state of unemployment for Māori?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for the question. Yesterday, the HLFS release shows that unemployment for Māori has reached 10-year lows, at 8.5 percent. I’m on record as saying we need to do more to bring the rates of Māori employment closer to those enjoyed by the general population. While I’m thrilled to see the results from yesterday, the work does not stop there. I’ll continue to ensure that all New Zealanders have equal access to real jobs with real incomes. Programmes such as Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi are vital to achieving this goal.
Jo Luxton: Why was yesterday’s household labour force survey significant?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What is significant about yesterday’s announcement is that across the board we have seen really positive indicators, with more than 29,000 New Zealanders now in employment. There are over 2.66 million people in paid employment. We’re focusing on increasing the participation rates in employment for Māori, Pasifika, women, and people with disabilities, and we’re making great headway in all of those areas. But significantly, in our drive to lift children out of poverty, employment is a key factor to that success, and yesterday’s survey release is a really positive start.
Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety
11. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How many people and what sectors of the economy have been on strike in the past 12 months?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advises me that so far in 2018 there have been 7,485 employees reported to have gone on strike. The sectors where there is industrial action include education, health, and the Public Service—sectors that were chronically under-funded by the National-led Government for nine long years.
Hon Scott Simpson: Is he aware that there have been more people going on strike this year than in any year since the 1980s, and why does he think that after years of a stable industrial relations environment, there has suddenly been such a surge in strikes across almost every sector of the economy?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I cannot speak to the veracity of that information—I never can with that member—but I would say this: I think the reason why we’re seeing such a large amount of industrial action at this point in time—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow that as a reasonable statement from a Minister who’s answering a question under the scrutiny of the House about his actions as a Minister?
SPEAKER: What is the particular objection the member has?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m not going to explain it.
SPEAKER: Well, if the member’s worried about the word “veracity”, the word “veracity” is not outlawed in this House. It’s a question of veracity and knowledge—if someone’s deliberately misleading the House, that is a problem. If someone makes a mistake and their veracity is challenged, that is not a problem. It’s a question of—I’m not the lawyer, and I hesitate to get myself charged $500 for five minutes’ advice, but if the member on your left gave you some advice, he could tell you about mens rea. People have to know what they’re doing.
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: In answer to the second part of the question, I believe the reason for the level of industrial action that we’re seeing is twofold. One, a large number of public sector collective agreements expired during the last 12 months, and we’re seeing a lot of collective negotiation happening at this point in time. But secondly, it’s because those people have felt their wages have been suppressed for the last nine years, and they think it’s their time to get their fair share.
Hon Scott Simpson: Can he confirm that strikes by nurses, midwives, primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, principals, IRD workers, MBIE workers, Lyttelton Port workers, Auckland bus drivers, Hamilton bus drivers, Wellington bus drivers, ACC workers, Burger King workers, Wellington rail workers, Silver Fern Farms workers, Hurunui District Council workers, Ministry of Justice workers, Premier Bacon workers, have all occurred in the last 12 months—and have I missed any?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I can confirm that. That has all occurred under the legislation we inherited from the previous Government.
Hon Scott Simpson: What changes has the Government agreed to make in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, and which Ministers requested those changes?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The second reading of that bill will occur during the next session of Parliament—or, at least, I’m advised by the Leader of the House that that is likely to occur. Any changes to the legislation will become apparent at that time.
Question No. 12—Social Development
12. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Why is the percentage of working-age people on the jobseeker benefit rising, according to MSD, when the unemployment rate according to Statistics New Zealand is falling?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. These are two different measurement systems that capture different things. The household labour force survey is a survey that is a measure of the broader labour market. Ministry of Social Development (MSD) figures capture the actual number of people in receipt of the jobseeker benefit.
Hon Louise Upston: If, according to Statistics New Zealand, the NEETS rate is falling, why are there 10 percent more young people aged 18 to 24 now receiving a jobseeker benefit?
Hon PEENI HENARE: This side of the House and this Government, as mentioned by the Hon Willie Jackson, are here to support our young people. According to the statistics I have in front of me, the actual NEETS rates are down and we are quite proud of that fact. We are working with our young people to make sure they’re able to transition into work and give them the support that they need.
Hon Louise Upston: Is the difference explained by the 2012 data-matching study by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that some people say one thing to Statistics New Zealand and another thing to MSD; if not, why not?
Hon PEENI HENARE: I haven’t seen such a report from 2012. I can’t answer that question, I’m sorry.
Hon Louise Upston: Best you read it then.
SPEAKER: Order! Louise Upston will stand, withdraw and apologise.
Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.
Urgent Debates Declined
Retail Electricity Market, Withdrawal—Payless Energy
Industrial Action—Ministry of Justice, Staff
SPEAKER: I have received two letters from David Seymour seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, Payless Energy’s intention to withdraw from the retail electricity market, and the industrial action being taken by the Ministry of Justice staff.
In the first case, Speaker Smith ruled that in order to hold an urgent debate, “There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case which it is sought to debate.” That’s Speaker’s ruling 191/3. The Minister has no responsibility for an electricity retailer. It is not sufficient that a Minister has overall responsibility for a sector. In the second case, the decision by the Employment Court confirming current law does not meet the criteria for a particular case of recent occurrence. Therefore, both applications are declined. I call on Government order of the day No. 1.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the ruling that you’ve just made on the first application by the honourable David Seymour, but I would point out, and I think it’s worth your considering, the extent to which there is ministerial responsibility in an environment where the overwhelming amount of generated capacity that can be offered into the market is offered by the generators that are substantially owned by the New Zealand Government. The question is: have those generators been exercising market power in a way that has forced a discount retailer to exit the market? That is a very serious point. It goes to the heart of concerns about the rising cost of living for New Zealanders, and, in particular, it relates to the security of supply not only in the industry but to the very households, which is a prime responsibility of the Minister of Energy and Resources. You have multiple Ministers who could have been called on that particular issue.
SPEAKER: I want to thank the member for his comments. Quite obviously, the letter was not framed in those terms—one could tell from the way that I ruled it out—but even if it had been, I think it would be a very big call for this House to have a debate because some people had to change their electricity retailer. I call on Government order of the day No. 1.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, no—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m not challenging you.
SPEAKER: No, you are challenging me.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I’m defending myself.
SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. I have ruled on those applications. I have called Government order of the day No. 1 and we will proceed now.
Bills
Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): I move, That the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the House’s sitting programme for 2018 be varied by the addition of sitting days on 18 and 19 December 2018; that, at the conclusion of the sitting held on Wednesday, 19 December 2018, the House adjourn until 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 12 February 2019; and that the sitting programme for 2019 be as follows:
February 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21;
March 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21;
April 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 30;
May 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30;
June 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27;
July 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31;
August 1, 6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29;
September 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26;
October 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 24;
November 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21;
December 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 19.
The motion that I’m putting forward today does exactly what it says on the tin: it sets out the sitting programme for next year—the days on which the House is intended to sit—and it also extends the House’s sitting programme by one more week for this year.
The sitting programme for next year is recommended to the House by the Business Committee in a report to the House. This year, that report was made on 20 September. I note that that was a month earlier than it has previously been made, I hope enabling not just members but everybody to plan a little better for the 2019 year.
As for the shape of the new year, I have listened to the feedback that I’ve received about the sitting programme this year. Some members, apparently, don’t like sitting for four weeks in a row on a regular basis, and so we have listened to that feedback and reverted to a regular pattern of two- and three-week sitting blocks, separated by one-week adjournments, with two-week breaks during the school holidays.
It is important to note that select committees may still meet when the House is not sitting, and, in fact, I encourage them to do so.
Three weeks in the middle of the year, around July, have been set aside as a non-sitting period in order to accommodate the Youth Parliament, when many members will be here with their Youth MPs as well. In total, the House is scheduled to sit for 90 days next year, in line with the requirements of the Standing Orders.
This motion also extends this year’s sitting programme by an extra week, meaning the House will now rise—not quite another week but another couple of days—on Wednesday, 19 December, allowing extra time for the Government’s very ambitious and transformative programme of legislation for the first year to be completed.
There’s plenty more to come in 2019, which will be a busy and exciting year for the Government and for the Parliament, and I thank the parties on both sides of the House for supporting this motion setting out the sitting programme.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): This motion has been widely debated by the Business Committee—actually, that’s the wrong term; not widely debated but properly considered by the Business Committee. And I thank the Leader of the House for following in the footsteps of his predecessor in that role in engaging with the Business Committee early in the piece to ensure that the best programme can be put together for the year. That gives opportunity both for the Government to advance its programme and for the Opposition to speak about how that programme could be substantially enhanced.
What does interest me is the fact that the Government is claiming a very busy and transformative programme, which we have not seen to date. So I do look forward to next year, when the Order Paper finally clears away all the excellent legislation that was brought into this House by the previous Government—legislation willingly embraced and voted for by the current Government—and we see some of the programme that has been promised for over 12 months in the form of the transformative bids that we’re expecting.
I am a little confused by the need, still, to put in the extra two days at the end of the year. We’ve got no trouble being here; we have no problem with the House sitting right up till that time. Most New Zealanders will be working right up until Christmas Eve, so that’s not unusual, nor is it in any way a problem. But what I do find odd is that the Government seems unable to organise its programme in a way that would not require this extra time. I note that we’ve now had several extended sittings where the House has only taken about an hour on an extra day to do the business that the Government thought was going to take many, many hours.
Hon Kris Faafoi: Ha, ha!
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question I’ve got is—and Mr Faafoi laughs over there, simply because he’s been saying that to the Leader of the House for weeks. He’s been in the Leader of the House’s office saying he’s unhappy about the way the House is being conducted, and he’s finally laughing with a great deal of joy that others are prepared to speak publicly where he, of course, has the muzzle of being part of the executive.
We had, this week, extra hours set down, but the House only sat for an extra hour and a half. We could have sat for five. We’ve got—
Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s because we’ve got such a lazy Opposition.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, there you are, you see, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House calls out and says we’ve got a lazy Opposition. Well, when the Order Paper is chocker full of the previous Government’s legislation, why on earth would we want to stop it? It’s good legislation, so why would we want to stop that?
These extra two or three days this year will be filled up with bumf and rubbish because the Government is a little bit embarrassed about not coming back in the new year until 12 February. Well, I tell you what: he might want to use that term “lazy” for us because we support our own legislation and have no trouble getting it through the House, but what will the public say about a Government that wants to wait six weeks into the year before it comes back to work?
With that, can we say we’re quite happy for the Government to take that opprobrium and, naturally, we’ll be supporting this motion.
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It falls on me, in my newly found status of chief whip of New Zealand First, to respond to the motion that’s been put forward. In terms of the pre-Christmas—
SPEAKER: I hope the member’s getting the pay.
MARK PATTERSON: No, I’m not—we’re going to have to discuss that. But in terms of the pre-Christmas sitting days, New Zealand First totally supports the extension. You will not find a plumber or a builder or a shearer or a nurse out in New Zealand that will shed a single crocodile tear that we should be coming here and expected to fulfil our duties and responsibilities that they elected us to do.
In terms of the sitting programme going through a bit and the extended hours and the ability of this Government to push through legislation at record pace, it is very hard, I might say, to push back against such a weak and dispirited Opposition, who are disarrayed. We are trying to give them time to properly execute their position as Her Majesty’s Opposition and to challenge our legislation that’s coming through, and we are seeing debates folded left, right, and centre. We are ready, on this side of the House—you bring it on.
In terms of the length of the break that was mentioned by Gerry Brownlee, the previous speaker, I think it is actually really important that we have a good, proper break over this sitting block. There is a lot of pressure on members in this House—particularly, I would say, our executive. It’s a really relentless position, and I think that we need—everyone’s only human, and we need to have some space to get away with family and friends and to reboot so that we can come back and make good decisions on behalf of the people of New Zealand.
In terms of the sitting arrangements for next year, or the proposed programme, we totally support that. Of course, as a new member of the House—and for those of us that have come into the House post the 2017 election, that’s all we’ve ever known, so we just get on and do it, but, of course, those that have been here longer have been whingeing and moaning quite a bit about the schedule. Maybe they should consider their motivations. But the new members will acquiesce, I’m sure, to those wishes. The total quantum of the sitting blocks is still the same. We’re just slicing it and dicing it a different way, and if it can be done in a more user-friendly fashion, then New Zealand First is more than happy to endorse that. So, thank you, Mr Speaker.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Just adding my voice in support to this motion—I think it’s relatively non-controversial and think that it’ll be fantastic for us to experience, particularly as first-time members in this House, a new format around the weeks and the recesses. I tautoko the point made by Mark Patterson previously and am enjoying rising to speak in my unprecedented new position as chief whip of the Greens. Gareth will be back next week.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I want to join with other parties, on behalf of ACT, in commending the Leader of the House for this wise and inspired sitting programme. And I want to invite him to ask me for advice more often, because I could have actually told him that while it was mathematically beautiful to go four, two, four, two, four, two, knowing that that would fit with the school holiday programme of 10, two, 10, two, 10, two—it must’ve seemed like a beautiful idea, but it wasn’t a wise one, because it meant that a Government that might’ve got itself into a little bit of trouble had nowhere to hide, potentially for a whole month. I think the Government could be in a lot of trouble next year, and that’s why they have presented a calendar with a lot more hiding places.
I say this to the Government too—
Fletcher Tabuteau: You just said it was your idea.
DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s the idea I would have given to this Government, Mr Tabuteau, because I know they’re going to be in a lot of trouble next year. The other thing I’d say to the Leader of the House is there’s an old maxim that a socialist is somebody who sits and thinks but mostly sits. I put it to him that this Government has done far too much sitting and not enough thinking. That’s why there’s been so much time spent going into extra time—or an extended sitting as it’s called here in Parliament—because they hadn’t thought it through beforehand.
They might take a bit of advice from Martin Luther King Jr, who said, “I have lots to do today so I must pray for an extra hour.” I’d say to the Government, I’d say to the Leader of the House, maybe the way to get more done is to think it through a bit more before he brings bad legislation to the House and gets into trouble.
I’d say one last thing to the Leader of the House and to members. There’s this place outside Parliament, there’s this place outside Wellington: it’s called New Zealand. I actually don’t think it’s a bad thing that members are going to take six weeks, or maybe even longer, and talk to New Zealanders. This is a House of Representatives, and it’s hard to represent without actually going and talking to people.
You know, in the great state of Texas—one of the most prosperous in the United States—their House sits for only three months a year. This means that the property rights of Texans are safe for nine months a year. I think it would be a wonderful thing for New Zealand if this House sat a bit less and the property rights of New Zealanders were safe for a greater portion of the year.
Nevertheless, this is the sitting programme that the Leader of the Opposition has put up—sorry, the Leader of the House; if he put it up, we’d probably be here a lot less. The Leader of the House has given us a sitting programme which is wiser than the one that he gave us. I just encourage him to reflect on legislating a little bit more wisely next year so he doesn’t have to spend so much time in extended sittings, making up for all the mistakes of his fellow Ministers. Nevertheless, I’m still happy to support the motion and the programme. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Orders
Sessional
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to amend the motion as set down on the Order Paper by replacing, in paragraph 2, “In a week” with “In any week” and to replace “to be Estimates week,” with “to be an Estimates week,”. That’s in accordance with the conversations that I’ve had with the other side.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. The motion is so amended.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That—
(1) The main Appropriation Bill may be introduced after the announcement of the introduction of bills on any sitting day previously notified to the House by the Government, despite Standing Order 333(1).
(2) In any week that is determined by the Business Committee to be an Estimates week, any select committee may meet for the purpose of examining the Estimates during a sitting of the House (except during oral questions), during an evening (after 6 pm) on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on the Friday of that week, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
(3) Select committees must, within 10 weeks of the delivery of the Budget, report to the House on all of their examinations of the Estimates, and on the fiscal strategy report and the economic and fiscal update, despite Standing Orders 336(2) and 338(2).
(4) The debate on the question for the third reading of the main Appropriation Bill must be completed within four months of the delivery of the Budget, despite Standing Order 341(1).
This motion, if agreed, will become a sessional order that makes changes to how the Budget process is handled by the House and through select committees. There are four elements to the motion, and I will quickly go through each of them. Currently, Standing Order 333 dictates that the Budget must be delivered on a Thursday. This has not always been the case, and there really isn’t a good reason to say that it must be done on a Thursday. The first section of the motion sets out that it could be a Tuesday, a Wednesday, or a Thursday for the Budget. This means that if there’s legislation resulting from the Budget to be passed under urgency, as there often is, it might make sense to do it during the working week rather than extending Parliament into the weekend, as has often been the case in the past. It doesn’t say to the Government—any Government—that that is what must happen; it gives the Government of the day that opportunity. The Budget date for 2019 has not yet been set—that’s a matter for the Minister of Finance.
The consideration of the Estimates by a select committee is a very important part of the House’s scrutiny of the Government’s spending plans, with Ministers appearing before select committees being a core part of that process. For the last couple of years, Estimates and Estimates week have been identified with the idea of focusing Estimates hearings in a week—or around a week and a half, I think it roughly worked out to be this year. The success of this initiative, of course, has been limited by the fact that the time earmarked by the Business Committee has been a non-sitting period. So paragraph 2 of this motion allows for the Business Committee to identify a sitting week—or now sitting weeks—where the select committees might meet to examine Estimates referred to them by the House, including when the House is sitting. This is important because that would not normally be permitted under the Standing Orders. This will make it easier for the select committees to arrange their programme and to ensure the availability of Ministers to attend to that. I can give the House an assurance that as long as I am the Leader of the House, I will endeavour, during any week to be identified as Estimates week, to schedule business that is of the least controversial nature and more low-key, so that members, during that time, can focus on the very important task of scrutinising the Estimates as fully as possible.
The amendment that I sought leave for at the start of this debate clarifies that the Business Committee could nominate more than one week to be Estimates week. Currently, Standing Orders give select committees two months to report on the Estimates that are referred to them. In practice, this period is reduced by the time taken by the Office of the Auditor-General to produce the briefings for the committees and for their reports to be written and considered. So paragraph 3 extends the period by which select committees must report to the House to 10 weeks after Budget day. It’s a small amount of extra time, but it does give select committees more space to do their job thoroughly, and ensures that the examination of the Estimates is effective.
Currently, the third reading of the main Estimates bill has to take place within three months of Budget day. The Estimates debate by the committee of the whole House normally takes place after the select committees report. It occupies 11 hours of the House’s time, and then the third reading takes a further three hours. Therefore, an extension of time given to select committees also needs to be matched by an extension of time for the final stages of the House’s consideration, which is what paragraph 4 of the motion does, by requiring the third reading to be completed by four months after the delivery of the Budget.
These are relatively small changes to the Budget process, but collectively—together—I think they offer significant enhancements to the ability of the House and of members to perform the very important scrutiny function that the House has. I’d like to thank the Business Committee for facilitating these changes and for supporting this debate.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The Leader of the House finished by thanking the Business Committee for the consideration that’s gone into the preparation of this particular motion. The good orderly practice of parliamentary democracy does require that there is quite an agreement about the way that the processes of the House are run. We may, of course, find that some of those processes are slightly derailed by some interesting rulings and decisions that are made on a daily basis, but, in general, there is an effort made—and I’ve certainly found that to be the case in my time as Leader of the House—by all parties to try and work towards results that give a sound and well-understood process for the operation of the House.
The first part of this motion today—as has been outlined by the Leader of the House—allows for the Budget to be delivered on any sitting day that is previously notified to the House. The practice used to be that the Budget process was quite tightly held. It still is to some extent; crucial numbers are generally not known until the Budget is delivered. But many of the aspects are now notified to the public even months ahead of time. So there was a time, for example, when people would hear the Budget read at around 7 o’clock in the evening and they would then work out whether or not they were going to be paying more for their cigarettes, their petrol, their various other consumer items—even milk and postage were part of it—that would have a new price on them by midnight. And you’d often see people rushing to the petrol stations, particularly, to fill up. Nowadays, of course, that sort of price increase appears to be happening on almost a 24 hour basis. So the need to wait annually for the Budget for the urgent fill-up has been removed, but none the less the pain of having to do so remains.
The point is that if you look at almost all of the aspects that were once pretty new and novel in the announcement of a Budget, they are now generally well-known to the public. It’s largely bigger programmes that the Government might be about to embark on that are laid out in the Budget, and, most often, they will not have a commencement date—given it’s a May Budget—probably until the October or the following April. So the need to have that drama of the Thursday night Budget, or, as has been the case since about 1985, I think, the 2 o’clock in the afternoon Budget on a Thursday at the end of the week, is now somewhat mitigated.
So my hope would be that we actually see a Budget delivered on a Tuesday, and that while the full contingent of the media scrutiny is here, that Budget is discussed by the House in the days that come immediately after, without the pressure for urgent legislation, because while that can come out of a Budget, the trend in recent years has been for there to be less urgent legislation than was once the case. So we see a simple change to the Standing Orders that accommodates what actually happens now.
Look, the only other point I’d like to make here is that the change to the Estimates week is still subject to the Business Committee’s decision. It simply enables the Business Committee to take particular actions. I think it’s worked well in the last few years, and I hope that what it means is that there is a greater scrutiny in the future, during that week, or those weeks, by media, on the key aspects of any ministry that is, effectively, being examined and questioned about the taxpayer money that they’re going to spend in the coming year. This has been a process that has seen the Business Committee consider this. All of it has been on the table for quite some time, and I think it’s a good thing to see it all come together in this particular way.
The extension of the time by which the Budget has to be reported back to the House—the three months, as it once was, now out to four months—also reflects the changing times that we live in, and the fact that most of the information that might previously have come out of those debates is now generally in the public arena well and truly ahead of that time. We will be supporting this motion.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take this call on behalf of New Zealand First in support of some common-sense changes to what we do in this House in terms of how the Budget’s set out and the timing around it. As the honourable member Gerry Brownlee previously enunciated to the House—and quite eloquently, if I do say so myself—we now have a sensible option where the House has the ability now to introduce the appropriations bill on the Budget any sitting day of the week. We support that. I think that flexibility, as noted, does offer opportunity.
Then I think I would simply add to the conversation by noting that the extension of time for which select committees can examine the Budget is fundamental to good democracy, and I congratulate the Business Committee for the way that they have worked together on this. I think New Zealand First sees this as simply an opportunity for more transparency, more accountability, and a move towards a sensible, common-sense approach in terms of the Budget in New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I rise to take another short call, on this motion, and state that the Green Party will of course be supporting it as it was well fleshed out at Business Committee. I think that the details of what is being proposed have been well established by the speakers much more experienced than I am who have risen so far. The Green Party supports this motion.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too will make a short call in support of this motion, just pointing out a couple of the features of it that I think are pertinent to Parliament’s consideration of it.
My father was a tobacconist. He was a barber, and he’d sell pipe tobacco and cigarettes. He would sit very keenly listening to—
Hon Chris Hipkins: Muldoon?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mostly Muldoon, actually, in the mid-1970s, who was also Minister of Finance, at 7 o’clock on what I’m pretty sure was a Tuesday night. As Mr Brownlee has indicated, very little had been released. We would rush to the service station, but Alan would—my father would know how grumpy his customers would be the following morning as he changed the price of cigarettes and tobacco. Of course, we’re well past that, but I think the principle of holding the Budget earlier in the week, probably on a Tuesday, is a sensible one. It certainly gives the House and its members and the media and public a great deal of time through that peak of the week to examine the Government’s intentions in that regard, and I support it.
I just want to touch quickly on the second part of the motion, and that is an Estimates week, which was attempted this year, actually. As a member of the Standing Orders Committee of the 51st Parliament, we did discuss the question—indeed, the report talked about the increasing expectation that select committees should meet more often in a recess week. Now, for various reasons which I understand, that hasn’t been quite so successful, except, I note, for what was, effectively, a notion of Estimates week this year. I’m not even sure if it was called as such, and, indeed, some Ministers weren’t able to be present because they were overseas or otherwise committed, and that’s understandable. But I think that while paragraph 2 of the motion does indicate that the Estimates week can be held in a sitting week, I would be interested to see how that discussion in the Business Committee goes, because I don’t think it absolutely needs to be. Indeed, it might give select committees more of an opportunity to scrutinise the vote. But I also note my understanding that the Leader of the House has made a commitment that if it is in a sitting week, there be no controversial legislation that would require the House members to be split between a careful examination of the Budget and the robust examination of bills which they don’t support.
In saying those comments, I’m very happy to add my support to this sensible motion.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 7 November.
TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First of all, I’m very pleased to be taking a very short call on this one, the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. It’s come through our Finance and Expenditure Committee, and we’ve had the pleasure of poring over it. When it first came to us, it was brought with good intentions—let’s just say that.
The Earthquake Commission have a big job to do whenever nature strikes and the earth shakes, or the rivers rise or they create flooding—such as in that beautiful little place that we have in common called Edgecumbe, Madam Deputy Speaker, and also, as well, earlier this year in Rotorua, there were significant floods. We had a very significant amount of rain, all in 24 hours. It was unprecedented, and the community really had to rally around.
The Earthquake Commission play a very important role in the lives of New Zealanders. At the end of the day, we’re an island at the bottom of the world, and we’re very prone to extreme weather events, and more so in recent times. So when this came before us, there were a few very simple tasks, and I want to take this moment to thank not just the members on the select committee but also all of the submitters that travelled in from around the country to submit on this particular bill. They came with four things to talk about, which are the changes that we’re putting through in this bill subsequently.
First of all, we are increasing the cap of earthquake building cover insurance, from $100,000 to $150,000. That $100,000 figure was first put in place in 1994 and it hasn’t been revised since. It was decided that we did need to adjust the cover, and that has been taken up to $150,000, which is also recognising the price of rising building costs, actually. So the cap hadn’t been adjusted. We’re adjusting it right now. It’s going up to $150,000—full stop.
Secondly, there were the conversations that were had around the removal of earthquake cover for personal property—home contents. It was revealed that, actually, when these extreme weather events strike and we’re subject to rescue and then recovery, one of the things that holds everybody up is the officials working through personal property—people’s home contents and items like that. So we had a good old robust discussion about whether or not this should be included or whether or not it shouldn’t be. After conversations with some private insurers, it was decided that, actually, they were happy to look after that part while the Earthquake Commission could focus on their main business, which is looking after people, managing their resources properly in that very crucial time, and increasing their ability to be able to cope with the said disasters. So through this bill, we are going to remove the cover for personal property and, obviously, work with insurance companies to make sure that they’re catching the fall.
Through this bill, we’re also looking to lengthen Earthquake Commission claim notification time limits. From now, there will be two time limits. One will be three months—so people will be expected to lodge their claims within three months of the disaster happening—but that window is going to stay open for two years after the incident occurs. That is just a recognition of some of the things that happen—for example, in Christchurch, when the earthquakes happened, it wasn’t just one disaster, but, in fact, it was compounded by subsequent aftershocks, and sometimes that took a wee while to settle down. So it was decided that although the majority of people do manage to lodge their claims within that three-month time frame, we should actually leave the window open just a little bit longer to make sure that people that don’t manage to get their claims in, for whatever reason, are able to do that. So through this amendment to the bill, we are also going to be lengthening that time limit to be able to lodge a claim.
The final amendment is around the Earthquake Commission’s authority to be able to share and publish information. Now, this was a very interesting part of the discussions that we had in the select committee. People submitted on it, as well—just worried and very concerned about whether or not that was in the interests of the public. That was something that was talked about. We reached the conclusion that, actually, it was. The Earthquake Commission’s ability to share information is actually very specific. If it’s going to be able to help with the recovery post one of our natural disasters and help the Earthquake Commission to be able to do their job, then, actually, we’re going to allow for that, and we shared some pretty robust discussion on that but still reached that outcome.
It’s gone through the select committee process. The submitters from around the country have put in their five cents’ worth on it, and we’ve come up with a bill that I support and the Government supports. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.
Amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.
I’m pleased to speak to the introduction of this bill because it paves the way for some important improvements to the framework for drinking-water safety in New Zealand. This is the legislative groundwork we need to put in place ahead of tackling the big changes recommended by the Havelock North inquiry. You will recall the gastroenteritis outbreak that affected Havelock North in August 2016. This event was the worst outbreak of water-borne illness in New Zealand’s recent history and one which this Government is determined will not be repeated.
A Government inquiry was convened, and this reported in two stages. Stage one reported in May 2017. In essence, this found that contamination from sheep faeces made its way into groundwater that was used, untreated, to supply drinking water to the people of Havelock North. The stage two report included detailed recommendations to reduce the likelihood of a similar event and to rebuild public confidence in our framework for water safety. These recommendations included immediate changes to improve drinking-water safety and recommendations that called for significant reform to the way drinking water is managed and regulated in New Zealand.
Most of the inquiry’s urgent recommendations have already been implemented or have been incorporated into ongoing activity. In response to the outbreak, water suppliers, district health boards, and the Ministry of Health have implemented a number of wide-ranging measures to improve the quality of drinking water and the systems that underpin it. Let me say at this point that for my part, I have confidence that the ministry and district health board staff have redoubled their efforts to ensure that drinking water is as safe as it can be.
I’m also pleased to see that a number of water suppliers, both large and small, have moved to treat their water. I would particularly like to commend Napier City Council, Dunedin City Council in respect of its Mosgiel supplies, and Christchurch City Council for their actions in this regard.
Though there are several common ways of treating drinking water, chlorination remains the most popular across the Western World due to its low cost and acknowledged effectiveness. Thus, chlorine has been used around the world for more than 100 years to disinfect drinking-water supplies and remains the most common disinfectant for this purpose. The widespread use of chlorination has been a major factor in reducing illnesses and deaths due to water-borne diseases, both internationally and in New Zealand.
Other methods for disinfecting water are used in Western countries, including ultraviolet light and ozone. They’re perhaps less popular because they’re more expensive and lack the residual effect of chlorine. They’re nonetheless effective at point of treatment.
The stage two inquiry report also recommended some urgent amendments be made to the existing legislation. These changes have widespread agreement across local government, central government, and water suppliers. They represent relatively straightforward improvements that should be made as soon as possible. Based on 10 years of experience with Part 2A of the Health Act, the bill also includes some minor provisions to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Act’s drinking-water provisions, as recommended by the Ministry of Health.
Some of the inquiry’s recommendations call for very significant changes to the way drinking water is managed and regulated. We should not be surprised at this, given that they also found that up to 100,000 people in New Zealand, every year, may be getting sick in a way that is preventable if we diligently, thoughtfully, and purposefully update our drinking-water approach and infrastructure.
The Government has directed officials to prepare detailed advice on the best way forward. This work has been jointly undertaken in the context of the Government’s cross-agency Three Waters Review, which is looking at the broader arrangements for drinking water, waste water, and stormwater. The changes that are the subject of this bill now before the House will not pre-empt future decisions on the reform of drinking-water regulation in New Zealand.
The Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill will make a series of technical amendments to Part 2A of the Health Act 1956. This part of the Health Act governs the safety of drinking water provided by network and tanker suppliers. The most significant component of the bill will be to repeal specified time frames for consultation and notice periods for the commencement of standards for drinking water, as currently provided for in the Health Act. These amendments are needed to allow for changes to the standards to be developed and implemented in a responsive manner and were explicitly recommended by the stage two report of the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry.
While the specified periods will be removed, the Act will retain strong process safeguards for drinking-water suppliers. In particular, the amendments will leave unchanged the existing obligation on the Minister of Health to be satisfied that there has been “adequate consultation” before issuing new or amended standards. This, in conjunction with the regulations review process already provided for under section 69O, will help to ensure that consultation is robust and proportionate to the nature of any standards issued or amended, while still allowing for more timely amendments to such standards.
The bill will make a number of other changes, as well. These include, first, clarification that those water suppliers required to prepare water safety plans must give effect to the implementation timetables provided for in those plans, as recommended by the inquiry. Second, the bill streamlines processes for the appointment of drinking-water assessors. These officers undertake compliance verification and were also the subject of specific recommendations by the inquiry. Third, the bill removes unnecessary or duplicate provisions, such as the definition of “medical officer of health”, the provisions relating to designated ports and airports, and examples of activities that may constitute taking reasonable steps to contribute towards the protection of sources of raw water. These amendments will, in combination, help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing legislative framework for drinking-water supply.
I am well aware New Zealanders have—and quite rightly—high expectations about the safety of drinking water provided by network suppliers. I share those same expectations and I’m confident that suppliers do as well. This bill will help to deliver on those expectations. For these reasons, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): If one looks through the history of public health initiatives in New Zealand, one can see a quite clear pattern of change from what would have been traditional 19th century public health initiatives around the control of disease, effectively keeping the public safe from those deadly diseases like chickenpox, smallpox, cholera, and so on. And often the vectors for those diseases are water—either foul water or drinking water. Then in the 20th century we kind of moved away from that as the attention and the focus of public health, largely because we had our sanitation systems and policies pretty much nailed down. So our attention turns to things like occupational health and environmental health. And in a 21st century context we are looking more at personal well-being—things like smoking cessation, healthy diets, and mental health.
But the events of August 2016 in Havelock North shook us out of our complacency and back to a recognition that the core public health responsibilities of maintaining excellent sanitation, clean drinking-water, and preventing these communicable diseases was well and truly highlighted, because 5,000 of the 14,000 residents of that town—an infection rate, effectively, of more than a third; between 35 percent and 40 percent of that population—were affected. And that’s a very important marker of how quickly these communicable diseases can spread through the vector of water. As the Minister said in his first reading speech, 100,000 people have been affected by contaminated water in the last year or so.
So it is really important—and I believe the previous Government acted extremely quickly, as did the local council, and clearly the inquiry into the Havelock North outbreak has many, many recommendations, which the previous Government had accepted and, certainly, the current Government is going to continue to oversee the implementation of, but it is a wake-up call to ensure that we do have the right sanitary practices and water systems that prevent these types of diseases from breaking out.
Now, this bill is a very important first step—and the National Party will be supporting it—in a much broader body of work, some of which is going to be controversial. If the reaction of the member for Ilam is anything to go by, that is a reflection of some of the concern and anger that communities that have traditionally relied on pristine, artesian water have to undertake what they see as a form of contamination of that pure water. Now, that’s going to be a difficult conversation for all members of this House to have, because if there’s one thing that the Minister of Health and I know, it’s that that issue doesn’t run along party lines. So we’re going to have to reconcile that because, as he said, in Mosgiel and also in other parts of the country, there are beautiful, beautiful spring waters and artesian waters that may not need this sort of treatment. As a former hospital manager, I used the water treatment process the Minister referenced—the UV process—and, as he said, it is very expensive, but when people are immunocompromised and weakened by their health conditions that require their admission to hospital, it’s absolutely vital that not only one system for prevention is in place but two or three layers of protection and prevention are in place.
So this is a good start. This will tidy up some of those regulatory barriers to making changes more quickly, and we support it. But, in saying that, I do also point out that we will be watching very closely the work that the Minister of Health is doing—and the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—on a broader reform of three waters management and governance and oversight, because we know that good governance is crucial to good management of the water supply, and we look forward, actually, to the Government’s announcements about their intentions in that regard.
But in the meantime, we look forward to seeing this at the Health Committee. We will support it. We look forward to the submissions, and I commend it.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the previous speakers alluded to, we have just had over the last century massive improvements in our public health infrastructure. As a country, we’ve started to take our drinking water and our waste-water systems for granted, and so it’s not until things go wrong, and when things go horribly wrong, that we actually start to pay attention. With the case of Havelock North, things did go horribly wrong, because in August 2016, we had that outbreak of campylobacter, and it affected about 5,500 of the 14,000 residents in that town. That is a massive public health outbreak by any standards. That would have kept the public health unit busy for a very, very long time. What they saw was about 45 people admitted to hospital and maybe four cases where the outbreak may have contributed to deaths, so it was a very, very significant public health event.
So it wasn’t surprising that the Government of the time very quickly instituted an inquiry into what was happening. What they did was they instituted that in two stages. In the first stage, they actually looked at what immediately had happened in that situation and what were the actions of those who were responsible for providing safe drinking-water. As has been discussed, what they found was that agricultural runoff which was contaminated by sheep faeces after a rain event had entered an aquifer, and that had got taken into the bore that had entered the water supply of the town. So there were multiple system failures there. But what they also found was that there were multiple system failures for those who were then responsible for ensuring a safe drinking supply.
They then looked at stage two, and stage two of that inquiry looked at that broader regulatory framework but also at what you would need to do to ensure that this wouldn’t happen again. What that inquiry found was that this wasn’t isolated to Havelock North but that this was happening all around the country, and we needed a bigger systems approach to think about how we address safe drinking-water.
So what this bill does is it puts in place some immediate changes to Part 2A of the Health Act to actually allow for urgent changes to happen to protect public safety. But it’s only, actually, a holding pattern, in a way, because what we’re looking at is that broader Three Waters Review, because we’ve got ongoing infrastructure issues all around the country. So three waters—for those not familiar—is our drinking water, our stormwater, and our waste water.
Where I live in Invercargill, we’ve got big issues, not so much with our drinking water, but we’ve got an ageing system in terms of our other water infrastructure. So what happens is that we’ve got common trenches that have ageing old cracked pipes, and if you’re running a stormwater system at the same time as your sewerage system—what happens if you get big events or overflows? One can run into the other. So what we often have after rain events is raw sewage in our stormwater, which is going out into our estuary, and many of our local whānau like to use the estuary for kai moana or access it to go floundering. The problem we’ve got is that we’ve got significant water quality issues, but the infrastructure costs are so significant that we are going to have that broader conversation about where we go in that three waters space, and that’s going to involve significant changes and significant public investment.
But, getting back to this bill, this bill just puts in place some immediate changes so that we can improve our drinking-water quality and ensure those immediate public safety issues—as the Minister mentioned, many have already been put in place. But what this bill does is it shortens the time period quite significantly that the Minister and the ministry need to consult before they make measures to improve drinking-water standards. At the moment, the current Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that adequate consultation has happened over three years before changes can be made, and so what this bill does is it still says you have to have adequate consultation, but it just removes that three-year requirement.
Then the other thing is that currently most drinking-water standards have to be published in the Gazette for at least two years before they can come into force. So what this bill does is it reduces the requirement down to 28 days of notification in the Gazette. So potentially the five long years before we could move to improve our drinking-water standards is now reduced down quite considerably, which allows us to be much more nimble in terms of moving on how we improve our drinking-water quality.
Some other minor changes that happened: one of the things identified in those inquiries is that some of those agencies responsible for looking after our drinking-water quality—there were compliance issues in terms of complying with those regulatory frameworks. What this requires is that those who have drinking-water suppliers who have got water safety plans in place, which they are required to do, must take all reasonable steps to ensure that they comply with the timetables of those plans. It means they’ve got to get on and act in a timely manner.
Another issue that was identified in the inquiry was the way that drinking-water assessors were enforcing things. What this bill does is it streamlines the processes for the appointment of drinking-water assessors. It means we can get more assessors in place in a timely manner, because at the moment there are quite a lot of workforce issues that need to be sorted out, and we need to be able to get more of that workforce out there, making sure that we’ve got decent water quality.
So just summing up, I think the Havelock North inquiry raised significant concerns about the way our drinking-water systems are managed around the country, and a lot of those changes that we really need to grapple with are going to need to await that Three Waters Review. This bill puts in place some immediate measures. It makes sure that drinking-water standards can be improved in a timely manner; it makes sure water suppliers implement their water safety plans in accordance with the time lines that they’ve agreed to; and it makes sure that we can streamline the recruitment of drinking-water assessors so that we’ve got that workforce in place right now when we need it. So I therefore commend this bill to the House.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill, which we will be supporting to select committee. This bill has a long history. If we look at the drinking-water standards in New Zealand, the core of this bill makes amendments to the 1956 Health Act, which clearly is quite old. It was re-amended in 2007 as the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act, and then in the 2013 Health Amendment Act. As we’ve heard, the Havelock North inquiry has been the hastener of this bill, particularly for Part 2, which talks to the policy settings. The bill itself has four main provisions.
The first provision is the mechanism by which the Ministry of Health makes changes to the drinking-water standards. As we’ve heard, the before and after situation is before there was three years’ consultation required; that will come down to just “adequate consultation”. And gazetting for two years will come down to 28 days, clearly needing to be more responsive but also acknowledging technological advances whereby we can assess water as compared to the 1956 Act.
The second of the four provisions is the water safety plans—requiring a timeliness of them. Now, a water safety plan was initially known, actually, as a public health risk management plan for drinking-water supplies, and it was amended in 2013 to become the water safety plans. I’m sure we’ll hear more about this in select committee, but a water safety plan has three main parts to it. It talks about the source, it talks about treatment, and it talks about distribution. Of the source part, it primarily focuses on groundwater and roof. The treatment process part, part two, is quite extensive. It talks about pre-treatment, treatment, filtration, disinfection, fluoridation, and transmission—so we’ll have a lot of discussion, I’m sure, in select committee around that. As I mentioned, the third part is distribution.
The third main provision that this bill enables is the appointment of drinking-water assessors. And again, I expect to know more about that from select committee, but they have three fundamental processes—a water assessor—that is, to assess the performance of drinking-water suppliers and their compliance with the water safety plan; secondly, to notify appropriate officials of any issues; and, thirdly, to assess the competence of the people who are actually analysing the drinking water.
The fourth and last provision to this bill is removing redundant notifications of designated ports and airports. As I look back through the old Act, it wasn’t clear why it was there in the first place. It was sort of lumped together with bulk suppliers, network suppliers, water carriers, and designated ports and airports, and so this is primarily an administrative task, labelling everything henceforth as “water carriers”.
I’m looking forward to this bill coming to select committee, and I commend it to the House here now.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s an interesting time, actually, to be speaking to this piece of legislation, because, I guess, down the track, the Government’s already signalled that we’ll be looking at legislation around three waters and considering both issues. It does take me back to my time when I was Mayor of Carterton, and drinking-water standards was always one of those discussions that we had, very often with an eye to cost and what it was going to cost the ratepayers and the appetite of ratepayers for large increases in their rates to meet modifications, upgrading of plants and services.
Of course, drinking-water standards is always a debatable issue, and I know for many of our people in rural provincial New Zealand who obtain their drinking water from the rooftops, who run their own filtration systems, who have their own bores, who may actually be drawing down directly from open springs—some of us wonder what all the fuss and bother is about. Very often I’ve heard debates and discussions between metropolitan citizens of New Zealand and rural citizens of New Zealand where one is demanding ultra-high standards but not wanting to pay the cost of that, and others are scratching their heads, saying, “Well, you know, actually, sometimes a little bit of contamination might actually be good for your stomach and good for your gut and good for developing immunities, and maybe that explains why some of you folk are always sick, because you actually don’t have the level of immunity that you should have.” I’ve heard those discussions time and time again.
Alastair Scott: Nothing like a bit of E. coli.
Hon RON MARK: I think that one of the things that stands out—well, actually, you know, we did have a problem at our home when Chris and I bought our home in Carterton. Within months of being there, Chris went down crook and we had to get people in to have a look. It turned out that the filtration system for our water supply, which was going from the rooftop, was not sufficient. We installed a $2,500 filtration system, complete with UV. But, of course, we didn’t have the benefit of town supply, where we are. We just crack on and provide for ourselves, and I guess we learn lessons along the way as to what we need to do to ensure that our health—the health of ourselves and any guests and family that we have staying at our place—is taken care of. We’re very mindful of that.
I’ve got to say, generally speaking, as the Mayor of Carterton, we had very, very few, if any, reports of serious illness out in the rural community. The area that was always a challenge was in urban centres. One of the challenges was that when you forecast that you were going to install UV and upgraded membranes, people always looked at the bottom line and what it was going to mean to their rates, and most times people would object—object to excessive expenditure by the council—and question the need for such measures. I’d have to say that there were times when councils probably made decisions that reflected more the resistance in the community to expenditure than they reflected a desire to get the water quality to a standard that they felt it needed to be at.
I guess what’s been tragically useful from the Havelock North situation—and I really felt for Lawrence Yule when he went through that, as a mayoral colleague, because that was a very, very difficult time, and, of course, people died. So that has been a timely jogger for everybody—an appropriate jogger for everybody—to look at water standards and water quality.
This bill isn’t the end of the matter. It takes care of those urgent amendments that the inquiry identified as being necessary. I have to say that the requirement to consult for three years and then publish and notify in the Gazette for another two years always appeared to me to be overly heavy, in terms of the time and the consultation process. People sometimes don’t realise the costs of those public consultations, and what that impacts on. It’s a bit ironic, actually, because sometimes the consultative processes that local government has to go through are very, very costly, and they cost the ratepayers directly.
There may well be people and stakeholders out there who might have reservations about the removal of these consultation periods, the specifying of a specific period of consultation being three years. But, I think, we’re sitting here, as the Government, saying that we have catered for that. Consultation will still occur, and where major or substantive changes are being proposed, that will be consulted on, but it’s just removing that time line and enabling things to move a little more quickly than has previously been the case.
I know, from being in local government, that there are people who watch local government like hawks, and they seek to make representations on each and every little thing that the council wants to do. There are others who pick the issues that they might be concerned about. I think it would be fair to say that within the Carterton District, we had those who watched our expenditure across the board, and they didn’t normally make serious objections to waste-water treatment plants being upgraded or water reticulation systems, or town supply systems being upgraded. What they tended to be more antsy about was what they considered to be the frittering away of their rates on projects that they didn’t think were deserving of attention. Sometimes that might have been a park, and sometimes it might have been grants of money to social organisations and social service providers—generally those were the complaints made by businesses. Then there were the others who complained about grants being made to businesses, in terms of economic development. It was always a balanced argument, I felt, looking at that line.
But in this space, in general, people do, when they are informed about the problems that the council faces, tend to listen. They do tend to rationalise well. Their concerns are always, first and foremost, around—in this case—the water that their children are cleaning their teeth with first thing in the morning and that it is safe. There will always be that contest about the level—how high up we’re going to push the quality of water on the scale of things, because I know it’s one of those exponential curves. You can push for water quality to a point and the costs will be marginal, minimal, acceptable, bearable. But the more one pushes that water quality right up to the pinnacle of absolute purity—the costs skyrocket. We saw that when we were upgrading our facilities in Carterton, and I know it’s occurred in other places.
Mark Patterson: Prudent mayor.
Hon RON MARK: A prudent mayor—very prudent.
But I just think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that those conversations about how pure should pure water be will continue. The people like those of us in rural communities who provide our own water probably—as this legislation goes through, it may give cause to reflect on our own bores, our own water tanks, and run the ruler across just to be sure that things are OK, and I know that councils themselves will be paying attention to those outlying areas as well. You’ve got to remember that 45 percent of the houses in Carterton district actually provide their own water—45 percent. The rest is provided by the town supply.
But it’s a good piece of legislation—timely, brought into the House for the right purposes—and so New Zealand First will be supporting it through and looking forward to the report back from the select committee as to what adjustments may or may not be needed. Thank you.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take a call to rise in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in the first reading. Like that last speaker, the Hon Ron Mark, I too am very much looking forward to the submissions process. I think it will be very interesting to hear the submissions. It would be very easy to think of this bill as a highly technical bill, which it is, but, equally, we know when we are talking about water that it can be highly emotive, and it will be very interesting to hear the submissions that will speak to this bill.
Can I also take a quick opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark for taking the time out to attend the Waimakariri on the weekend to open the new Rangiora RSA. I know the veterans there were very happy that the Minister had taken time out to officially open that facility. I know for him it’s a bit like “Welcome home” to come back to Waimakariri as well.
I did feel like potentially maybe wearing a pair of gumboots and a black singlet for this speech. It reminds me of Fred Dagg, “We Don’t Know How Lucky We Are”. I think, like many young New Zealanders who take off on their OE around the world, we quickly realise that—water, I think, for New Zealanders we have been fairly complacent about and to a point we are still very complacent about it. I think what the Havelock North inquiry did and the issues there that drove the course of events shook us somewhat out of that complacency. To hear the Minister of Health today say quite genuinely that potentially 100,000 New Zealanders might be getting sick from water every year is concerning. I think the role of Government in this space of working with local government and iwi and other stakeholders is to provide some leadership and to work through the issues—yes, it will be very emotive, but actually to show some leadership, to work through what are very serious issues, potentially, focused on water supply.
I’d be very interested to hear from submitters the variance of views—I know in my electorate of Waimakariri, a full broad spectrum. We have the highest number of lifestylers in New Zealand, ranging from alpaca farmers to olive growers right through to high growth urban areas like Kaiapoi and Rangiora. So a full spectrum of some people drawing from their own bores right through to using reticulated metropolitan systems.
I think all those groups are going to have very distinct views, and I’d welcome them making a submission. I’m very much looking forward to how this adds a small bit—because, as we’ve heard from previous submitters, the Three Waters review will be a significant piece of work, but quite rightly these technical amendments should work complementary towards that. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to speak in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, which the Green Party is supporting. Of course, as others have noted, it does arise out of the Havelock North inquiry. That inquiry had about 51 recommendations, and this bill is implementing some of the most urgent of those. It is a significant step towards improving the safety of our drinking water.
Because those 5,000 people got ill in Havelock North with gastroenteritis and the outbreak there was associated with at least four deaths, this has really highlighted, as Mr Doocey noted, that we can no longer be complacent about drinking water in New Zealand. I think anyone who’s done a bit of reading around this topic would understand that New Zealand has got one of the highest rates of gastroenteritis in the developed world from food and water-borne illnesses. Back in 2007, the Ministry for the Environment estimated that that really high rate of water-borne diseases was costing New Zealand $25 million annually, and I’m sure it’s increased quite significantly since then.
So the bill, in removing the requirements for those long periods of consultation—three to five years—and prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards, is highlighting that if those changes are needed, they should be able to happen much more quickly. It also implements another of the inquiry’s recommendations, about clarifying that suppliers who are required to prepare water safety plans must include timetables to implement the measures in those plans, to mitigate the risks to drinking water associated with that supply. It also streamlines the process for appointing drinking-water assessors.
While the Havelock North inquiry noted that the water supply had been contaminated by sheep faeces that had been washed into a bore after heavy rain, it didn’t deal, to any comprehensive extent, with the whole issue of how we can better protect the sources of our drinking water. That’s another piece of work that this Government, under Minister Parker’s leadership, is embarking on.
Under the last Labour Government back in 2007, there was the development of our National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water. There was a users’ guide produced that went along with those national environmental standards, but that has been in draft. It was in draft for much of the last decade, and for me the fact that it was never finalised by the Ministry for the Environment highlighted that the Government was not giving enough attention to protecting drinking-water sources by ensuring that regional councils controlled land uses, like agricultural intensification, which had the potential to contaminate water sources and the sources of the supply.
We saw in Carterton—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s very interesting, but can you actually focus on the bill and what’s in the bill.
Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So that piece of work is also happening. That work has been accelerated, and that relates to the wider work that we need as well as this small bill. I’m sure that the select committee, when it gets to consider submissions on the bill, will hear submissions that don’t relate just to these specific points but to the wider context of how we protect the sources of our drinking-water supply, because water is a bigger issue. We have cities overseas which protect their supply by protecting the activities that happen in the catchment.
So this is a small bill, but by making sure that we are progressing some of the most urgent of the Havelock North inquiry recommendations, it is a step towards reducing our really severe rates of gastroenteritis, and ensuring that our populations are healthier and that they can have more confidence in the provision of water supply by local authorities. The Havelock North outbreak really undermined public confidence, with people buying bottled water because they didn’t believe that what was being delivered through the pipes at the time was safe, and it wasn’t. But as others have noted, there is a lot of other work being done around the Three Waters, and I suspect that the select committee will end up getting views on that. But I congratulate the Minister of Health for progressing this bill. Thank you.
Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. New Zealand has plenty of clean fresh water, but because the flow of our rivers varies naturally over time and because different water bodies use it in different ways, water is not always where we need it when we want it. But Kiwis, quite rightly, expect to be able to have clean, fresh drinking-water available in their homes and available in their communities, and this bill is a first step towards improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A, the drinking water section of the Health Act 1956. It’s only a small step. It’s really an administrative bill—a bit of housekeeping.
It came, as we’ve heard, in response to the Havelock North drinking-water contamination incident in August 2016. That was a significant contamination incident affecting more than 5,000 people. Forty-five of them were hospitalised, and we believe that for three or four people, it contributed to their deaths. So it was an important significant contamination outbreak, and we’re responding to that. National, of course, was the Government at the time and we initiated an inquiry into that outbreak, and this bill incorporates some of the more straightforward, simple administration recommendations that came from that report.
As we’ve heard, it’s about streamlining the consultation process around water-quality issues so that can be done more quickly when decisions are made. It’s about clarifying water safety plans and putting an implementation date with them—which, of course, is important—and it tidies up the appointment process for drinking-water assessors.
As I’ve said, I think the bill can be described as general housekeeping in preparation for major legislative changes which are coming through after we have the Three Waters Review—the three waters being drinking water, waste water, and stormwater—and that review is presently under way. So the next step—the major part of this legislation—will be far more controversial than this one because it includes discussions about requiring all water supplies to be treated with disinfectant, and it’s about establishing a dedicated drinking-water regulator and dedicated water suppliers.
I would like to take this opportunity to put on record that the people of Christchurch are extremely proud of our pure artesian water. We enjoy being able to drink some of the best-quality water in the world from our taps. We do not want that to change, and we are resolutely opposed to mandatory water treatment.
But, fortunately, that is an issue for another bill, and this is but the first step. So I commend this bill to the House.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s a privilege to stand here in order to contribute to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a split call—five minutes.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Five minutes, yes. In New Zealand, we take it for granted that we turn the tap on and we expect water to flow and we drink it—and we are also very privileged to even flush that drinking water.
I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister. We’ve heard from the Minister, the Hon David Clark, that this bill was as a result of following the Government’s inquiry. With any inquiry, there will always be changes, and can I just seek the patience of the House while I read some of the provisions of this bill.
So, really, the amendment is proposing—as a result of the inquiry, as alluded to by the Minister and all the other speakers before me—minor improvements to Part 2A of the Act. And if I can read out those provisions in this bill, what it means is that it will “remove requirements for the Ministry of Health to consult for 3 years and gazette changes for 2 years prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards:”. It clarifies that “water safety plans must include timetables to implement measures that mitigate risks to drinking water:”. It “streamlines processes for the appointment of drinking-water assessors:” and it removes “unnecessary references to designated ports and airports.”
I did some brief research as I sat here, and most of us human beings can last for four days at most without water. So what this bill really is is significant to all our lives. It has significance to all New Zealanders, and when Māori refer to water as a taonga, it reminds me of what people on the other side from Havelock North—the people of Taranaki—say when they speak and acknowledge themselves. They refer to this whakataukī: E rere kau mai te awa nui nei, mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.
[The river flows, from the mountains to the sea, I am the river, and the river is me.]
In English, it refers to the river flowing from the mountains to the sea—I am the river and the river is me. What it’s saying is that, in terms of indigenous knowledge and indigenous caring for the land, we are all connected; everything, from the top of the mountain, to the water, to the land—we’re all connected—and those of us who live on it. So I want to ask all New Zealanders to contribute in terms of submissions to the select committee. It’s a pity I’m no longer on the Health Committee but I want to urge all New Zealanders to make a submission to the select committee because it is important. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take just a very short call on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. This is a short but important bill which, in essence, allows substantial changes recommended by the Government inquiry into the Havelock North drinking water to be set in motion. It makes some small but technical amendments to the Health Act to improve the efficiency of our drinking-water safety regime.
The bill, primarily, removes the requirement for the Ministry of Health to consult and notify five years prior to making any changes to drinking-water standards. This will allow the inquiry’s proposed changes to improve drinking-water safety to be implemented efficiently while ensuring that adequate consultation by the Minister is still required when making any changes to drinking-water standards. The bill also clarifies and simplifies the processes for water safety plans, which drinking-water suppliers are required to prepare, being developed and drinking-water assessors being appointed.
The work of the Government inquiry and the wider Three Waters Review is critically important in developing higher safety standards to prevent any repeats of the Havelock North contamination and ensure New Zealanders can access safe drinking water. This is a serious and important bill, and we are very pleased to support it. I commend it to the House.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to stand as a member of the Health Committee to talk to this, as the House has mentioned, very important but somewhat non - fascinating or controversial issue, the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. What is serious about this matter, though, however, is the Havelock North situation, and what happened, I think, fundamentally undermined our views and opinions of the safety aspects of drinking water.
As many members have said in the House today, we as a community were shocked by the nature and the effects of Havelock North, the deaths that occurred, and the 5,000 out of the 13,000 people in that community who were affected. It was a shock to me, and I reflected myself on what I would do in a community if I couldn’t turn on the tap for clean drinking-water. I believe that this is the crux of what this bill goes to. It’s around moving forward on that inquiry to immediately fix some quite significant parts of the bill which will then feed in to the Three Waters Review.
When I grew up, I lived in a small rural community of Utakura. In Utakura we had a tank. We weren’t on town supply, as we call it. When it came to times like drought etc., it was somewhat common to find at the bottom of our tank dead rats and/or possums and things like that. I think, as a younger person at the time, we were quite robust, and I don’t recall becoming sick. Now, as an adult woman, I know—and having looked at what gastroenteritis is and actually looking at the fact that we have 100,000 people affected by this—it’s a horrible thing. It’s diarrhoea and vomiting and low-grade fevers. And when our people are health-compromised, this is a real issue—so our little people and our elder people are the ones who are most affected. But it’s a pretty damn miserable thing to experience. So I’m very happy that we’re actually going to be looking at this.
Now, the bill does intend, as I said, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A, which refers to drinking water, of the principal Act, the Health Act 1956. But the key here is that it isn’t materially going to affect any party or impose new or additional costs. So this is just—
SPEAKER: I’m just going to warn the member that I have an expectation that most members will have read the explanatory note and don’t need it read to them again.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! Thank you, sir. I will continue.
So the reality here is that this bill is quite limited in what it does, but it’s also far reaching. In fact, by changing the time frames for notification, we’re actually going to find a much more streamlined process.
Finally, just in conclusion, I am looking forward to sitting on the select committee and hearing from the community, and I also would like to note the good work that is happening in the three waters area—that’s drinking, waste, and stormwater. I think that they are going to be the comprehensive aspects that we will look at in the future, and whether or not that comes to our select committee—I’m not sure that will happen. But, really, in conclusion, New Zealanders want and, in fact, deserve a higher assurance for the safety of drinking water, and I think this is the first step to do so. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir. Few things can be more important to any community than having access to a safe and potable water supply. My parents-in-law have lived in Havelock North for many, many years. My wife and I were married there, and we still regularly visit that town. So we followed the distressing experience of that beautiful town’s residents in 2016 with heightened concern and real interest. In fact, everybody who has a connection with Havelock North knows people who suffered considerably during that period.
I was staggered by the findings of the independent inquiry following that outbreak of gastroenteritis in 2016, which included an estimate that up to 100,000 New Zealanders were getting sick from their drinking-water supply every year. I literally couldn’t believe it when I heard that. Water-borne diseases are a very serious matter for those who contract them and, obviously, a very significant public health challenge given that statistic. So it is important for politicians to ensure that we respond promptly and appropriately, and I welcome the bipartisan support for this bill that has been evident during this first reading debate. I think we’ve had very intelligent contributions from members on all sides of the House—
Hon Ruth Dyson: Including this speech.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you to the senior whip. I appreciate that.
I’m not a member of the Health Committee—I am a member of the National Party’s health caucus, and I won’t therefore be on the select committee—but I do wish all of my colleagues who are on that committee wisdom and an equally collegial approach to their work as they sit on that committee and hear the submissions and do further work on this bill, and I sincerely hope that their success will ensure that the bill’s main purposes and aims are successful.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): As the rain falls outside, we are reminded of the importance of water. The fact is that on our planet, we have a certain amount of water, and that as the population grows on this planet, it becomes more and more difficult to ensure that there’s equal and fair access to drinking water. But also I’d just like to acknowledge that yesterday, for the first time in the history of the Parliament, a select committee held a meeting in Gore, and that was a local—
Hon Members: “Gorre”.
JAMIE STRANGE: “Gorre”—“Gorre”.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, the member’s had a reasonable period of time to do introductory comments, so I’m now going to require him to speak to the bill.
JAMIE STRANGE: The select committee meeting was about water, Mr Speaker.
The bill stems from the Havelock North inquiry, which began in 2016. Previous speakers have spoken about it. As we know, 5,000 people fell ill following the presence of E. coli in the water, and so the findings of that report have led to this piece of legislation.
Now, this legislation is in line with the World Health Organization which says that safe and readily available water is important for public health, whether it’s used for drinking, domestic use, food production, or recreational purposes. In 2010, the UN General Assembly explicitly recognised the human right to water and sanitation, and this bill ensures that that right is in place. It will help give effect to some of the recommendations from the Government inquiry into the Havelock North outbreak.
The amendments to the Health Act included in this bill are mainly of a technical nature. They represent interim steps, and will be followed in due course by further reforms as part of the wider and much larger Three Waters Review, and I’d like to acknowledge the Ministers who are involved in that review. The main change is removing the requirement to have specified periods of consultation for three years and to have an advance notice published in the Gazette for two years prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards, which will allow for amendments to these standards to progress more quickly, where this is appropriate. This will allow, for example, improved recognition of new technologies.
It’s important for the public to see that the Government builds on what other Governments have done. The previous Government undertook the inquiry, and this Government is taking action on that. This is an important piece of legislation, as I’ve outlined before—the importance of healthy water to our society—and we need to make sure that the accessibility is there.
Minister David Clark has done an excellent job on this bill. I commend this bill to the House, and I’m very pleased that we’ve got support right across the House for this important aspect of our society. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Bills
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)
Second Reading
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.
This bill was originally introduced to Parliament by the former Minister, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, in April 2017, and it was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee for consideration when Parliament resumed after the general election last year. Labour supported this bill at first reading because we believed that it had enough in it to make it worthy of consideration. But, as I said at that time, so much more needed to be done in the housing and rental market to address the housing crisis. The current Government has a comprehensive reform programme to address the rental crisis. We’ve set up the new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to give Government, in one ministry, an end-to-end grip on the complexities and the full extent of the housing market.
We’re on track to deliver 100,000 homes for first-home buyers over the next decade under the multibillion-dollar KiwiBuild programme by supporting developers to build more quality and affordable homes, and connecting them with eligible KiwiBuild buyers. We’re reforming the Residential Tenancies Act to modernise tenancy laws so that tenants can feel secure and at home in rental properties while protecting the rights and interests of landlords, and we’re consulting on the healthy homes standards to ensure that all rental properties are warm and dry. The coalition Government is focused on ensuring that residential tenancy rules are fair and clear and flexible. They need to allow landlords to protect their assets, and tenants to live in safe environments, and it’s in this context that I turn now to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2).
The main aims of the bill are, first, to clarify the law in respect of tenant liability for damage. Secondly, it’s to make sure that the Act applies to all premises that are intended for residential use, even if they are unlawful for residential purposes. Third, the bill sets out the rights and responsibilities that parties—both landlords and tenants—have in relation to contaminants and contamination. And this has special resonance at the moment because of all of the public interest in methamphetamine contamination.
The bill was reported back in April this year, and I want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill. I think they’ve set a great example of what can be achieved through a collaborative and consensus-based approach, and I thank them for this. I also want to thank those who have made oral and written submissions on the bill. Those submitters represented a very good cross-section of groups and individuals with an interest in the tenancy sector, including tenants’ rights groups, landlords, property investors, property managers, students’ associations, charities, community groups, and many individuals, and the committee’s report includes a number of very sensible recommendations that improve the bill.
The biggest changes to the bill are in the contamination provisions. The bill’s been amended to remove most references to methamphetamine, and instead refers generically to contaminants. Broadening out the bill in this way, I believe, will still achieve the original intentions of the bill—to address the harm caused by methamphetamine as a contaminant—but it provides for a more practical and future-focused regime which contemplates the possibility of other toxic substances posing a problem for landlords and tenants.
Any contaminant which is identified as a risk to health will be able to be dealt with by regulations made under the bill. Regulations will be able to set maximum acceptable levels for those contaminants and provide consistent and reliable testing and decontamination practices, and they will ensure that testers and decontaminators are competent.
The bill recognises that methamphetamine is a contaminant of particular seriousness. This means that once the bill is passed and the relevant provisions are commenced, landlords will be able to exercise a right of entry for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine, and specific methamphetamine regulations can be made.
I’ve made no secret of my concerns about the unregulated nature of the meth testing and decontamination industry. Proper regulation is desperately needed to ensure that the cost and energy spent on testing and remediation in rental housing is proportionate to the actual risks. I do not condone methamphetamine use. It is an illegal and highly addictive drug, it’s causing massive social, economic, and health harm for individuals and communities, and if a landlord suspects that there is a meth lab in a property they own, she or he should approach the police. But for people living in rental houses in which methamphetamine has previously been used, it’s imperative that the regulations take into account actual health risks based on scientific analysis and ensure that testing and decontamination is only taking place where necessary and appropriate. Methamphetamine regulations will be made that will be legally binding, and officials are working on this issue right now. I applaud the bill changes. They are practical and fair and allow for dealing with other harmful substances in rental properties which may be a concern in the future.
I want to turn now to the tenant liability provisions. Under the bill, a tenant is liable for damage caused by a careless act or omission, up to the lesser of the insurance excess in relation to the rental property, if the property is insured, or four weeks’ rent. For a tenant receiving an income-related rent subsidy—so that’s 60,000-odd Housing New Zealand tenants and several thousand other tenants in properties that are owned or managed by community housing providers—he or she will be liable for damage caused by a careless act or omission up to the lesser of the insurance excess in relation to the rental property, if it is insured, or four weeks’ market rent applicable to the tenancy.
During the select committee process, some changes were recommended by the committee in response to submissions. Firstly, submitters pointed out that tenants have a right to know the level of their liability for careless damage. They should not have to request this information. The bill will make it a requirement that if the property is insured, new tenancy agreements must state this—the obligation of landlords to make transparent and inform the tenants about the insurance policy—and that must include insurance information such as the amount of the excess. If the property is not insured, the landlord must include a statement to that effect. For tenancies existing at the time the bill comes into force, landlords must disclose insurance information to tenants who request it. Where there are changes to an insurance policy which affects a tenant’s liability, a landlord must then inform the tenant of such changes. Failure to comply with these requirements will be an unlawful act, with a maximum penalty of $500, and that is aligned with the penalty for non-compliance with the requirement to include an insulation statement in a rental agreement.
So I think these changes have improved the bill. Knowledge about the liability will empower tenants to make appropriate decisions regarding their own circumstances and insurance, and it will, hopefully, encourage them to exercise a high degree of care of their rental homes. Landlords should, as a result of this provision, be put in a cost-neutral position, claiming the insurance excess from the tenant and the remainder of the costs of repair from the insurer. Tenants will remain fully liable for intentional damage or damage caused by an act or omission, which is an impressionable offense, or if their actions have made insurance money irrecoverable. These exceptions have not changed.
Lastly, the words “for each incident” have been removed from new section 49B(3). These words were superfluous and confusing. The fact of the matter is that a tenant will be liable for each lot of damage caused by a careless act or omission or that of their guests, and that is already clear in new section 49B(2).
The final set of amendments relate to unlawful residential premises. No changes have been made through the committee process to these provisions, which the submitters generally supported. The bill, however, amends the definition of residential premises to ensure that all premises which are used or intended to be used for residential occupation are covered by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act regardless of whether they can be lawfully occupied for residential purposes. This confirms once and for all that the Tenancy Tribunal has full jurisdiction over all rental premises, lawful or otherwise.
The bill then sets out the orders the tribunal may make if premises are found to be unlawful for residential use. These are important amendments. They will ensure that the tenants are accorded the full suite of rights and protections of the Residential Tenancies Act and that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can take appropriate compliance action against landlords who rent out unlawful rental properties.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate my thanks to members of the committee and submitters for their contribution to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill is stronger for their work. I commend this bill as reported back by the Governance and Administration Committee to the House.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s good that we seem to be heading in the same direction on this bill. Essentially, a large amount of this work was undertaken by the Hon Nick Smith in bringing this bill to the House, as the Minister just noted, back in April 2017. I’d also like to commend the work of the Governance and Administration Committee for the amendments they have made, which have sought to improve it and clarify elements of this bill.
This bill is about striking a balance between protecting the rights of landlords and also the position of tenants. Therefore, it’s interesting because, on some occasions, it strengthens the rights of landlords but, on the other side, it strengthens the rights of tenants. That is the right thing we should be doing, making sure that we do get that right balance. It has three parts, as has been noted: liability for damage to rental properties caused by a tenant, the issue of unlawful use of residential properties, and the third one is around the contamination of properties. I really want to just talk to the first and the third element of what the bill strikes at.
The first one is around the liability. Of course, what this has done and what the committee has done in terms of the landlord’s obligation is make sure that if they have insurance on a property they’re tenanting, that insurance information is made available to the tenant. That is an important disclosure in terms of trying to assess, from the perspective of the tenant, what his or her potential liability may be if damage is caused. Of course, there’s an issue of who caused that damage—whether it was caused by the tenant or someone they have responsibility for—and I think being clear about the element of who causes the damage is important, but also the extent of the liability of the tenant in that situation. As we’ve heard, it’s limited to the lower of the excess or four weeks’ worth of rent.
The other one, I think, is the issue around when damage has occurred, how you actually prove who’s done it. The bill seeks to address this through an amendment outlined in clause 7, inserting new section 49B, to clarify those provisions as to who should be incurring the loss. The second bit of this bill is about methamphetamine contamination—now referred to as “contaminated properties”. This part of the bill was largely driven by a member’s bill in my name, matters around methamphetamine contamination of rental properties, and the issue that real estate agents were having in dealing with it.
There was a strong recognition some years ago that the industry needed to be further regulated, and so the work that was commissioned a couple of years ago looked at three things. First of all: what was the threshold at which contamination was deemed to be of such a significant scale that it would affect the health of New Zealanders? The second bit of the work that the committee did was to look at how to standardise the testing regime, because if you apply a different approach to the testing of houses, you would come up with a different result. So the need to standardise the testing regime was an important second element of the work. The third bit was to look at, if you have remediated a house, how you know that it’s been remediated. The committee was also asked to address that particular issue so that we could have conformity amongst all the various testing companies. That extensive piece of work now helps in terms of making sure that we’ve got a much more professionally operated sector that tenants and landlords can rely on. That has gone a long way and, hopefully, many of those recommendations will be picked up in the regulation component part of this bill.
The issue around the level of contamination is obviously a contentious one, but that is something that will be set by regulation. I think where we’ve ended up is with a much better outcome to protect the safety of New Zealanders when they’re living in their homes, and for landlords who have a big investment in those properties. Thank you very much.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). I’d like to acknowledge the Minister Phil Twyford for the excellent work that he continues to do in the housing space. I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith, who originally introduced this bill to Parliament. I agree with the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, that the balance is important between landlords and tenants. Having been both a landlord and a tenant myself, I feel like I’ve got the ability to view both points of view, and I believe that this bill strikes a good balance, as the previous speaker mentioned.
The main aims of this bill are, firstly, to clarify the law in respect of tenant liability for damage, and particularly around contamination, as we’ve heard. In terms of contamination, if we have a look at methamphetamine—which has already been raised and which is a key challenge that we’re facing as a society. In fact, it’s a blight on our society. I was recently speaking to someone who works in this industry, who goes into houses and does testing, and he’s come across many cases where methamphetamine—or P—had been present while children were in the house, and the effects on these children are very damaging. So it’s absolutely important and absolutely vital that we, as a House, address this in the best way that we possibly can.
It’s important that there is some regulation around the meth test. I recently purchased a house, and a meth test was done. The report was that there were traces of P in the bathroom, which seemed a little bit strange. Then a second test—
SPEAKER: That’s probably a better place for it to be, really.
JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah. I won’t tell you who the previous owner was, Mr Speaker. But there were traces of P in the bathroom, and then a second test was done and there were no traces. The point here is that—
SPEAKER: What, the member had flushed?
JAMIE STRANGE: Ha, ha! The point here is that it’s important we have clear regulation around P testing, and this bill begins to start to address some of those key aspects. As we know, this is the second reading of the bill, and the Governance and Administration Committee considered this. There were a number of submitters, and it’s always important to hear from submitters. We appreciate people spending the time. The submitters represented a good cross-section of groups and individuals.
Some of the changes that have taken place under that, since the submissions, are that—under the bill that was previously introduced, landlords would have been able to evict tenants from meth-contaminated premises, even when the contamination was not the tenant’s fault. Now, the Government believes that that was not fair, and so the changes have been made to ensure that it is actually the tenant who has undertaken—I guess, in this case, it would be smoking P. That’s about fairness. So the changes mean that landlords would not be able to evict tenants with seven days’ notice unless proven the tenants caused the contamination. That’s just common sense.
Once the bill is passed, landlords will be able to exercise a right of entry for the purpose of testing for meth without having to wait for the regulations to be made. So, as I said at the start, it does strike a good balance. It ensures that it must be the tenant who is smoking P, but the second time, it ensures that the landlord can quite freely check.
This piece of legislation is part of a wider agenda around housing. I appreciate the work that the Minister’s doing around housing, and this is part of that puzzle. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I’m happy to speak in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) at its second reading, and just note that there are three aspects to this bill. First of all, tenants being liable for the cost of their landlord’s insurance excess, up to a maximum of four weeks if there is intentional damage to a rental property, but also on the other side of that ledger, there is a requirement for landlords to include, within their tenancy agreement, a written statement as to whether or not the premises are insured. That’s a very fair positon to land at. It strengthens the law around prosecuting landlords who tenant unsuitable properties. Garages are seldom suitable properties for housing tenants of any nature.
Most of all, though, I want to spend a wee bit of time—not too much—on the issue of meth contamination and to say that when National were the Government, meth contamination was largely an unknown threat, far more so than it is now, and the Government of the day made decisions on the best advice that was available to them. And if you think about the Crown having to make decisions, it’s always got to be on the best advice available to them. They then consider that advice and make their decision, but when it is scientific-based advice, it leaves the Crown very little room to ignore that advice, particularly when the Minister making those sorts of decisions is not an expert in things like methamphetamine danger to public health.
So I do commend the Minister for continuing with this bill. It is a good bill and we do support it in its second reading.
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): It’s one of those occasions where, again, it seems to be a continuum this afternoon where there is a high degree of unanimity in the House, and it is comforting to know that in this particular instance, when we’re talking about residential tenancies—and I know that in the past, there’s been quite a difference of opinion between the National Party, now in Opposition, and other parties in the House as to what the responsibilities of a good landlord should be.
I know that in the past the National Party and others have been concerned about the impact on landlords and their willingness to stay in what can be quite a vexed market, given some of the things that happen to properties. Of course, as shown in the bill, one of the issues that the bill deals with is the question of methamphetamine contamination. That became, obviously, a massive issue and there was a degree of, I think, justifiable panic in the communities when people found that houses that they were renting or houses that they had rented out were contaminated with P. And I guess it’s the fact that there were no clear regulatory lines or known standards that gave people a benchmark as to what was dangerous and what was not, which only added to the problem. I know, over time, it’s cost not only the Crown but individual landlords and mum and dad investors a lot of money and, it would now appear, unnecessarily so.
I would just like to compliment the committee, led by Brett Hudson as the chair, for coming to the position that they have on this piece of legislation; the fact that they made constructive and useful changes that the Minister has accepted and which have now been incorporated into the bill. The fact that on an issue where we can so often be at loggerheads—where one party would seek to err in favour of landlords in protecting their business investments whilst others would seek to err in favour of tenants and take a more social view of the tenant’s rights—and that here in this piece of legislation the select committee has found common ground and found unanimity, I think gives me confidence that we have hit the right place.
Again, this is about the safety and security of people—people who rent houses and landlords themselves. So I commend the bill. I commend Minister for bringing legislation through. I thank the committee for their diligence and the constructive way in which they went about processing this bill through the committee, and for the very good amendments that they made along the way.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill originally, as mentioned, was introduced by the Hon Nick Smith and it makes some amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act.
The bill was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee, where we had 35 submissions in total, out of which 15 were heard in Wellington and Auckland. Some amendments were proposed by the select committee. I would like to refer to one of those; it was a very important one. It was where the insurance issue was raised by many submitters. It was mentioned that tenants will be liable for the cost of landlords’ insurance excess up to the maximum of four weeks of rent for each incident of damage caused by carelessness.
It was also recommended that tenants remain fully liable where the damage is deliberate or results from a criminal act, and that the landlord be liable for fair wear and tear and damage beyond the control of the tenant, like natural disasters. Madam Assistant Speaker—there has been a change from Mr Speaker to Madam Assistant Speaker—it’s really good to see you in the Chair. I would like to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. That was a little sooner than I anticipated, but it is with pleasure that I rise now to offer the Green Party’s support for the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2), which we opposed at first reading out of concern for the provisions in this legislation that would have enabled the eviction of tenants on the basis of pretty unsound science around meth testing. I would just like to, in specifically referencing some of the speeches I’ve heard this evening about the best science available, reference some of the points that were made in the Green Party’s speeches at first reading on this point, which will then link to the changes made in select committee.
So we noted that this meth testing—this was Marama Davidson saying that “This meth testing has an underlying problem. The advice from the Drug Foundation is that representatives of the meth-testing industry”—hello—“are overrepresented on the panel developing this standard. The Drug Foundation worries that the bill will legalise those silly standards and will result in a whole lot of harm. Bottom line: there is no science for setting a contamination level for meth use.” That was further emphasised by Metiria Turei stating that “We know that as a result of a poor standard and poor testing quality, Housing New Zealand has spent millions of dollars using shoddy tests and making unnecessarily harmful decisions that have led to families having to leave their homes for no good reason.” At that stage, that policy was being soundly defended by the then Government, and our concern at that time was that this legislation was reinforcing that shoddy science to enable good families to be evicted from their homes and, at times, lose their children because of the consequences of industry interests leading Government decision-making.
So it is with a huge sense of relief, post change of Government, to see some actual rigorous science in this area and some legislation that is sensible and that enables some science-based regulation of this issue, rather than a hysterical, industry-driven response that hurts our communities and families. So—tick—it’s good to see that change, Minister Twyford.
Also, one of the other points of this bill, which we are happy to support and were happy about in the first instance, is about ensuring that illegal dwellings—we’re trying to change the behaviour, where some unscrupulous people are renting out spaces that are completely inappropriate for people to live in. If I think back to some of the stories that we’d been hearing in 2016 and 2017, there was a case of a property manager commandeering a garage, converting it, and renting it to separate tenants, although it was only consented as a garage, for around $400 a week. We were seeing property managers renting out garages for $400 a week. That was a factor of our housing market at that time. Auckland Council, in 2017, reported an increase in complaints around substandard so-called housing, and noted that just within one six-month period alone and just in central Auckland, they had had over 750 complaints of substandard and inappropriate housing.
We’ve heard stories coming out—if anyone thinks this is an Auckland-only issue, I certainly have been on drives around my community and have seen people living in garages, and there is a chance that they are being charged rent for that. We have heard stories coming out of Queenstown of rooms being divided into smaller units, just separated by sheets hanging from the ceiling, and of people being rented beds for 12 hours while they’re hot-bedding, because the landowners can, and they are making a buck off it at the moment.
So what this legislation will do now is give the Tenancy Tribunal full jurisdiction over cases concerning premises unlawful for residential purposes, and it will enable the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to take action against landlords in those cases. Some of the examples that were given around unlawful residential premises are commercial buildings being used for residential purposes, existing dwellings being used for more than one household group, garages being rented out for residential use, and premises which don’t have the appropriate resource consent. Going through the Tenancy Tribunal, they will then have the power for those specific remedies, which may be a full or a partial return of rent to the tenants, or an order for the landlord to make alterations to make the dwelling lawful.
I think it’s sending a really clear message to landlords that the exploitation needs to stop. We need our people to be in warm, safe housing, because we all pay when people aren’t. We know that there were significant hospital admissions being driven by the poor standard of housing in this country, and unlawful housing is part of that picture. And while we’ve got other legislation that’s addressing the warrant of fitness on housing and improving the quality of housing more generally, this is a really important part of the puzzle that we need to address, and it’s great to see that happening now.
And finally, the third part of this is what I consider a smaller point, and it is around where there have been careless actions by tenants resulting in damage to a house. There was a High Court decision in 2016 Holler v Osaki, where the result was landlords bearing most of the costs of careless damage caused by tenants. The previous Government and the Governance and Administration Committee decided there needed to be in legislation an incentive for tenants to care for the properties that they’re in, and to put, if possible, landlords in a cost-neutral position in relation to damage through a lack of care. And when I’m saying a lack of care, that is not intentional damage—that’s something separate.
So in this situation if it’s been careless, then tenants will now be liable for the insurance excess that their landlord covers, and so up to four weeks’ rent that was regardless of whether you’ve got income-related rent subsidy—it’s four weeks’ market rent, but that is the limit on that. And if it was intentional damage, then the tenant remains liable with no cap on that. The select committee through their process strengthened—as an incentive for tenants taking care—provisions for landowners to be required to provide the tenants with that information so that they can see what they would be liable for in the event of careless damage that the landlord needs to pick up.
So it is very good to have seen a change of Government and some evidence-based policy making rather than—
Hon Phil Twyford: Policy-based evidence making.
JAN LOGIE: —yeah, policy-based evidence making, indeed, or self-interest makes policy making, and seeing this jigsaw puzzle, where we know we’ve got a housing crisis that’s not going to be solved overnight. We need to build more houses, we need to improve the quality of our housing, we need to be supporting people who are homeless, and we need to be doing this work, as well. It’s a much improved situation, and it’s great to see the work happening.
BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and I’d like to thank the member Jan Logie, who has just resumed her seat, for lauding the previous Government. I take even greater satisfaction from the fact that she did so without realising that she had done that. This bill was introduced by the previous Government and has been returned from the Governance and Administration Committee with no changes as a result of policy shifts from the new Government. This bill is very much still the bill that was introduced by the previous National-led Government. So thank you. Thank you very much to the previous speaker for lauding it, because it is a very worthy bill.
One point I would make for members of this House is that we treasure the privileges we get as members of Parliament, particularly the power and protection of parliamentary privilege. Yet I would urge members that we have a duty of care to each other, to the House, to our constitutional arrangements, and to the public to make sure that we do not overuse or abuse the privileges that are granted us. We heard in the select committee a number of people make claims as to the influence of certain groups and individuals in the setting of the standard as related to methamphetamine testing. And in this House just a few minutes ago, we had a Green MP once again charge that certain industry elements were exercising undue influence on that setting.
Well, I draw members’ attention to a public document on 20 September of this year where the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment confirmed that they had undertaken a review of that process and it was not improperly influenced by any particular interests or views on the Standards Development Committee. So it is quite improper for a member in this House to make a claim, which, potentially, may be seen by the people subject to those remarks as defamatory—that somehow individuals or businesses or an industry had an undue influence—when it has been reviewed and it has publicly been stated by officials of the Government that such influence did not exist. So I do caution members in these areas.
But, ultimately, the bill that we are now bringing back to the House for further consideration remains a good bill. It is, I think, particularly worthy in its approach to balancing obligations of both tenants and landlords, particularly as relates to damage to tenanted properties, whether that damage is the result of carelessness or is wilful. It also strengthens understandings and both opens and has appropriate limitations on the sorts of redress around the occupancy of illegal dwellings.
I acknowledge my colleague Andrew Bayly and the provisions from his member’s bill around methamphetamine contamination, which have been brought into this bill and broadened to be “contamination” rather than specifically methamphetamine only. I think we have brought back a very strong and worthy bill for the House’s consideration. And I’m particularly pleased to see that the bill, particularly around contamination, ensures that decisions that will be made by Order in Council will comply with other legislation, other rules, and particularly in line with the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015. That is enormously important with regard to contamination of rental properties. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Ginny Andersen—five minutes.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on a bill that I was able to be party to at the select committee, as part of the Governance and Administration Committee, and to listen to the submitters who came forth.
So the bill covers three main areas. The first is to clarify the law with regard to tenant liability for damage. It is incredibly important to get that balance right between tenants and landlords and where those powers lie. Secondly, this bill clarifies to make sure that the Residential Tenancies Act applies to all premises intended for residential use, even if they are, in fact, unlawful. So that is an important area as well. And, thirdly, and most controversially and, I think, most importantly as well, this bill sets out the rights and responsibilities that parties have in relation to contaminants and contamination, specifically to methamphetamine.
The submitters that we heard at the select committee were a really good cross-section of people who were touched by this issue. They included individuals that were from the tenancy sector. There were tenancy advocacy groups, landlords, property managers, student associations, charities, community groups, and particular individuals that were influenced. One of the ones that really springs to mind as being clear was from the Drug Foundation, which presented—Ross Bell came forward. One of the big issues that it really brought forward to the committee at that time was this issue between use and manufacture. It was at that time that the committee really turned their minds to the difference between the use of methamphetamine in a property and the manufacture. It was that that began the real questioning of the current meth-testing standard, to see whether or not that was an effective tool for identifying what had been happening in relation to meth use or, in fact, meth manufacturing.
What the difficulty is, and which was presented, is proving the use, and this is where some of the injustices occurred. Just because traces of methamphetamine are potentially found in a house does not demonstrate that it was, in fact, those tenants residing in the house at that present time who were responsible for that. So it is important to know where the harm levels lie.
I realise that the previous speaker mentioned that there was concern around how that meth-testing standard was developed, and there were accusations in terms of the quality of those who were on the board who came forward to make those decisions, and where that standard lies. Well, I guess the way you can point that out is that it wasn’t right—it wasn’t right—in terms of people being victimised for methamphetamine use when there was no clear way of proving that there was harm associated. The subsequent scientific reports from Chief Science Advisor Gluckman have indicated that it is, in fact, manufacture that has harm to people and children using houses, while the use of methamphetamine residue does not have ongoing harmful conditions to people living in those areas.
It’s really promising to see that the Government is doing more work in this space. The fact that this legislation enables, through Order in Council, further amendments to be made, enables the Government to work on developing methamphetamine regulations so that landlords, tenants, and the meth industry have a clear and comprehensive way of looking at those rules so that we know what, actually, contamination is, and that there is agreement on that; how testing should actually be undertaken; and what decontamination actions are required when we are clear that the contamination has, in fact, actually occurred.
I think also what it will stop doing is the springing up of this industry that has come about, where you do have cavalier tests of people wiping a wall, testing positive for meth, and then holding tenants responsible. The bill is sent to the landlord, and a small side business has been established. I think it’s important that if people are going to be held liable for damage, there is a clear, fair, understood way of ensuring we know we are all talking about the same thing.
I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. I’m proud to be one of the members of the committee who enabled this legislation to be strengthened, and I’m pleased to see that the rights of tenants have been upheld in an area which is so important. I commend this bill to the House.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is just so wonderful to hear members of the Government—Labour and Greens—celebrating this National Party bill. So, look, thank you to the Government for continuing—as they have done, actually, with quite a bit of legislation—National Party work and its agenda. So thank you, guys. Very much appreciated.
Look, it’s obviously a very good bill. The area that is constantly being referred to is around the meth testing. I echo Brett Hudson’s advice, if you will—particularly to the Green Party—that impugning those who were involved with setting up the standards through the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) is incorrect and inappropriate. To then continue on, as the Green Party member did, to speak about the Drug Foundation as some easy, evidence-based, reliable—they are not. They do important work, but, simply, their approach is one that I disagree with, which is, basically, to say that all drugs are fine and should be available. Yes, they will put caveats around that, but it’s not a surprise that the Greens pick up on that and say that there should be no testing, because, fundamentally, there’s a belief that, actually, the drugs are around there, they’ll be used, and we just have to accept it. I don’t, and this side of the House does not agree with that.
So, actually, having tests is important. Where the conundrum is going to come for the Government and the Minister is that ESR toxicologists and others did set a standard, and then after that a report by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor contradicted that and came up with a whole new level of standard. What we have here, for better or worse—and I think it is for worse—is contradicting evidence. I think it’s going to take the experts, including those from industry, time to work it through so that we do have an appropriate standard.
So I won’t add much further, but, again, I do want to highlight that there are contradictions in the evidence. There are agendas, particularly when it comes to drugs, between those who obviously want them banned completely through to those—some mentioned, like the Drug Foundation—who are very happy for them to be here. We have to navigate our way through that. But in terms of tenancies—agreeing, actually, with the member who just sat down—there is benefit in trying to balance the rights of landlords and tenants. As a National Party member, for this National Party bill, I’m pleased to support it.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s certainly a pleasure to be talking on housing again. The last time I was in here it was to talk about letting fees, but today it’s another really important part of the coalition Government’s business—
Hon Phil Twyford: Hard-working Government.
PAUL EAGLE: —the hard-working coalition Government’s business—to fix the national housing crisis. I was going to say “National’s housing crisis”, but that would be completely unfair of me. But I do want to thank the Minister of Housing and Urban Development for this comprehensive suite of housing initiatives to fix the housing crisis. This is one small but very, very important part of that. This one is focusing on rental housing. Sometimes we get confused between public housing and KiwiBuild, but this is rental housing; so it’s good to get some focus on the many thousands of Kiwis who are now renting. They can’t afford to purchase a home in New Zealand—maybe Gore. I was in Gore yesterday.
Hamish Walker: You looked at home, Paul!
PAUL EAGLE: I looked right at home, as the member said. So did my colleague next to me. Housing affordability in Gore is fine, but in the city of Wellington, in the electorate of Rongotai, you need $1 million to buy a house, and if you want to rent one, I would say you’d be looking at just under $1,000 for a three-bedroom home. But certainly with a wonderful MP like myself and part of a wonderful coalition Government—
Greg O'Connor: One of the best.
PAUL EAGLE: Thank you, colleague. How humble and modest of me.
Hon Member: Good looking.
PAUL EAGLE: Good looking? This is getting better.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! This is a lovely valedictory speech, but it is not a second reading debate speech. So if you could come back to it.
PAUL EAGLE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m constantly distracted by all sides of the House. But can I just go back to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). I am part of the Governance and Administration Committee. It’s a good committee. I do want to thank the submitters on this bill. My colleague talked about who came in. Just for me personally, I ran a couple of public meetings on this, as a hard-working electorate member of Parliament does.
Greg O'Connor: Hardest-working.
PAUL EAGLE: Hardest-working, sorry. But the best thing about that is we got a good balance of people. I’m all about the grassroots, the retail and person on the ground, and got good feedback from tenants, from individuals, from their advocacy group, Renters United, and also from property managers on what the impacts were. I’m not going to embark on a finger-pointing exercise like the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, but what I think this brings is a balance between tenants and landlords. There were good stories about why there needs to be some clarity for certainty on both sides for the tenants and the landlords.
There are three main aims that I’ve managed to summarise. One is that clarity around the law with respect to the tenants’ liability for damage. Secondly, to make sure that the Act applies to all premises and sites for residential use, even if they are unlawful—and we saw that in Wellington City high-rises when we had a wee earthquake issue and they had some illegal tenants there. Third is that contamination issue around meth, and several of you who have spoken on this have spoken about that already. If you were to look at one aspect of it and say “What is the biggest change?”, it is, in fact, around those contamination provisions.
Just some of the detail around the bill: it’s been amended to remove references to “methamphetamine” and instead refer generically to “contaminants”. There was absolutely a lot of debate and discussion around that in the committee, to say “How do we ensure that we use a term that’s appropriate, relevant, but also recognisable both practically and legally?” Some of the submitters said the level of risk from exposure to meth which has been smoked in a home may be less serious than the health risks from other toxic and infectious substances such as asbestos toxins and lead paint.
We also have several other parts of the bill which I could talk to, but I’m just going to leave it there. I think I’ve made my points. I commend this bill to the House.
HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Madam Assistant Speaker, I just want to start by thanking the previous member who spoke, Paul Eagle, for coming down to Gore yesterday with the Governance and Administration Committee, and Ginny over there. You did yourselves proud—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Use the member’s full name, thanks.
HAMISH WALKER: Sorry, Ginny Andersen.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.
HAMISH WALKER: I just thank them for coming down, trekking all the way down to Gore to hear from the local submitters. They really appreciated it, and they saw firsthand the hard work that you both do as local members of Parliament.
He also mentioned the comprehensive package of reforms here, and the great thing about this is the politics have been taken out of it, because most of this work was started under the previous housing Minister, the Hon Nick Smith. He did a fantastic job. He did put a stake in the ground and he did say, “We’re going to insulate every possible State house that we possibly can.” So I just want to thank the previous Minister for his work.
I just want to talk about some problems that often appear in rental tenancies. Often, actually, when the tenant moves out, there’s a problem with either damage or contamination with the property. When the tenant moves out, there’s an end-of-tenancy checklist that the tenant and the landlord go through. Often there may be some not quite agreement on who caused the damage, and this could simply be solved by, at the start of the tenancy, both parties going through and taking a few photos—there’s wonderful technology available now that can take every photo or a video of the entire house that both parties can look at. In worst case scenarios, these sometimes go to the Tenancy Tribunal, which takes months. It costs a lot of money, and, ultimately, if the landlord doesn’t get the money back, he or she has to charge higher rents going forward to get the money back.
So the three practical changes to the Residential Tenancies Act are to help ensure our tenancy laws better manage properties contaminated by P or other drugs, liability for careless damage, and the tenancy of unsuitable properties. Anything that makes renting easier for tenants and helps beef up protection for responsible tenants and landlords is a good thing, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to be able to contribute, in this second reading speech, on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). Can I begin by acknowledging the Minister who introduced the bill, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and say that this was one of the very few things that he did that was a move in the right direction, but it still should be acknowledged that it was. Unlike the members of the National Party, who weren’t aware of the submissions and the changes—
Hon Dr David Clark: Even the clocks are right twice a day!
Hon RUTH DYSON: —that’s right—that were made at the select committee as a result of the submissions, I’m going to explain those to the House, because they were really fundamental to the point of the bill, to the rights of tenancies, and to the use of evidence in determining outcomes. Those two points were missing from the work that the Hon Dr Nick Smith did; so I want to acknowledge the current Minister, the Hon Phil Twyford, and thank him for being prepared to stand up and say, “We’re not going to do things on a whim or because we’ve heard a rumour or because some people are scared about things; we’re going to do things that are principled, that protect the investment of landlords but give rights to tenants and use science and evidence as the basis of decision making.”
I think that is great, and I want to congratulate the Hon Phil Twyford for moving this bill in that direction.
Dan Bidois: Tell us about your science and innovation around oil and gas!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Not my science.
Hon RUTH DYSON: I also want to acknowledge and congratulate the members of the Governance and Administration Committee. I was previously a member of that committee, which has been renamed, but I want to particularly commend the style of chairing by Brett Hudson, because he does chair those meetings—I’ve attended many in the last 12 months—in a collaborative, inclusive way which is respectful of submitters and respectful of the members of the committee and, as a result, gets a better outcome. The process is important to getting a better outcome, and you can see that from the bill that’s been returned to the House.
We know the main point of the bill was to look at the liability for damage to rental premises that was caused by a tenant, the issue of the contamination of rental premises, and tenancies in rental premises that are unlawful for residential use. So those were the three points of the bill as it was introduced, and they remain—those three points remain the same. But, as I mentioned earlier, there were some substantial changes made, and I just want to mention them now, in contradiction to the members of the National Party who incorrectly said it was returned in the same state.
The biggest changes to the bill are in the contamination provisions. The bill’s been amended so that the word “methamphetamine” is actually removed—most references to the word “methamphetamine” have been removed—and instead that word has been replaced by the more generic “contaminants”. Now, that’s a sensible approach. Although every single member in this House totally rejects the use of methamphetamine—there wouldn’t be any debate about that; there’s debate about how to solve the scourge that we’ve got in our communities, but nobody would be inclined to support the use—I’m sure that members of the House also agree that the more generic, broader word “contaminants” is more appropriate in this situation.
The second change, which I also alluded to briefly in my introduction, was the fact that our Government prefers using evidence and science as the basis of decisions. So when Sir Peter Gluckman, the previous prime ministerial science adviser, issued a report on contamination, the three parties on this side of the House read it and took notice of it, and it has been really used as the basis for the new procedure for dealing with contaminants. So instead of the tens of millions of dollars that were wasted by testing which didn’t prove anything, instead of the testing that ended up with families being evicted from their homes and often having nowhere to go—and, again, tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being used to clean houses in a way that may have been unnecessary—we now have a process. We’re using science as the base, and I should acknowledge Sir Peter Gluckman, who drove this thinking. There will now be a regulatory regime which will ensure that that science is put to best use. Better use of taxpayers’ money, fair treatment of tenants and landlords, and science as the basis of decisions—I like that approach, and, again, I want to commend the Minister.
The second change that is substantial in the bill as reported back from the committee is ensuring that tenants have a right to know the level of their liability for careless damage. The legislation as introduced by the Hon Dr Nick Smith did not have that as an entitlement and, in the view of the parties on this side of the House, it should be. So the change has been made so that the bill now has a requirement that if the property is insured, the new tenancy agreements must state it and include insurance information such as the insurance excess. If the property is not insured, the landlord must include a statement to that effect so that the tenants are aware of their liability: whether the property they’re renting is insured or not—what they will be up for, basically, under the other provisions of this legislation. I think those two changes are an improvement on the original legislation. They shift the balance of entitlement for the tenants, in terms of having factual information about their liability, and they use science as the basis of a regulatory regime in dealing with contamination. So I think they’re thoughtful. I think they’re fair. They’re just. They enhance the bill. They do genuinely improve it.
The third provision that I mentioned in the bill as it was introduced has had no substantial changes. Neither the submitters nor the select committee nor, I assume, the Minister—because there has been no indication of a Supplementary Order Paper to be tabled in respect of that. They seem to support it as it was introduced.
I want to, again, acknowledge the work of the Hon Dr Nick Smith and thank him for that one small but at least positive contribution that he made in his time as Minister of housing. I acknowledge the work that the Hon Phil Twyford is doing, not just in this space but in so many areas, to address the housing crisis that we inherited from the previous National Government. We will again have a country where young people will be able to aspire to buy a home, where people who are in rental properties will have security and will be in a warm and dry home. That’s the sort of country that we will again be proud of in terms of the housing situation of our citizens. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, taking into consideration two reviews of the Act, one beginning in 2007 and one that began in 2012. The purpose of the Act, fundamentally, is public safety. It’s an important bill for ensuring that we do have safe practice amongst our medical professions, our health practitioners.
I want to at the outset thank those who made submissions during the select committee process and, in particular, those who appeared in person in front of the Health Committee. I understand there was very good and fruitful interaction, and I want to thank the members of the select committee, who made some suggestions about improvements to the bill through their process. So I do want to put that acknowledgment up front.
The key provisions in the bill remain the same—well, the same in that they were the ones that were referred to the select committee. I want to cover those off, and then I want to go on to discover—discover?—to describe a few of the changes that the select committee made.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Discover and describe.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The House will discover, if they haven’t been actively engaged in the select committee process.
One important change that the bill makes is the introduction of performance reviews for responsible authorities. They’ll be five-yearly performance reviews, which will ensure public confidence in the responsible authorities, and also will be carried out by independent reviewers against a set of indicators that will be developed by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the responsible authorities.
Performance monitoring through these reviews will help with ongoing improvement to the regulatory system, and it’s easy to imagine just how that happens, because when you actually start to consciously go through and check the performance of a regulatory system, suggestions come up for further improvements to the regulatory system. Likewise, it’s a promotion of good practice, because as you consider what things are coming through as you’re doing a performance review, “What is good practice?” is a question that’s, naturally, raised. Of course, also it will lead to greater consistency across regulatory authorities as those reviews are made public. As responsible health authorities learn from the way that they’re implementing the changes that this bill suggests, they will share them with other responsible health authorities, and we’ll all be better off.
Currently, there is limited information available to the public about responsible authority decisions, so this bill increases transparency, gives better information for the public, and therewith will increase the confidence of the public in the professional competence and conduct of health practitioners. It requires also the release of decisions and judgments about a practitioner’s practice and competence that’s been examined to the person who has notified the authority about their concerns.
The bill also requires responsible authorities to develop policies and procedures around the release of names of health practitioners whose competence, fitness to practise, or conduct has been reviewed and investigated. Of course, there’s a balance here between the public interest and the privacy of the health practitioner. It’s simply required that they have a policy around the release of those names that protects natural justice but also ensures that we have better practice over time. The other thing that’s major that the bill does is it clarifies that responsible authorities can receive and act on information from members of the public about the practice of health practitioners.
One more change is that it better supports teamwork amongst health practitioners by actually requiring them to work together and promote and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration. Better workforce planning information is a requirement that’s laid out in the Act, and that helps with projecting future workforce needs, because across many areas of our health system the workforce mix is changing. We also notice, you know, patterns of immigration and other things that affect workforce, and we do need to have good data about who is in the workforce and do the modelling based on good data. So that requirement sits in the bill. It’s clear also from the bill that wherever workforce information is published, it will be required to be anonymised—certainly, where it could reveal the identity of individual health practitioners.
There are 16 responsible authorities appointed by the Minister of Health under the Act who will be required to implement the provisions in this bill. I want to acknowledge that a lot of the work for this bill was done under the previous Government’s watch. There were two reviews of the Act. Those who were critical of the previous Government in the health professions are somewhat mystified why it took so long to actually work through these things, but one who was being kind would say they were very thorough. They had a review from 2007-09, they had a second review from 2012-15, and then the select committee also did a thorough process during this Government, from May to September. I’ve already thanked the select committee for the work that they’ve done.
If we go back to the 2012-15 review of the Act, which considered the underlying purpose of the Act, it received 145 submissions, and I’ve certainly received a few submissions privately from health practitioners frustrated that that wasn’t progressed earlier, but here we are. We’re progressing it now, and I would welcome support across the House for changes which will improve transparency, which will tighten up how responsible authorities discipline their members.
As a result of the contributions to the Health Committee, a number of changes have been made to improve the bill, and I’ll whistle through a few of them within the time available to me. After consideration of submissions, the bill now allows responsible authorities, as regulators, to act immediately to suspend a practitioner’s practising certificate. I know this has been a matter of some conversation—certainly, I’ve picked up on conversation around this—because the responsible authorities feel a burden to protect the public, rightly, and want to act to protect the public and to protect their professional reputations, and they’ve felt that they haven’t had the powers and that the balance of the previous law was wrong. So, as a result of the changes suggested by the select committee, there is a change in that regard that we’ve made.
It also takes account of the electronic age we live in and email will now be an acceptable thing, and the electronic communication of practising certificates and notices and so on will certainly improve the efficiency of the responsible authorities. The greater transparency I’ve touched on is consistent with overseas jurisdictions and with many other practices and protocols in New Zealand, including those of the Health and Disability Commissioner, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, and, as I mentioned, some overseas jurisdictions. The requirement to inform complainants, as I understand it, has been improved by the select committee, and the Act’s cultural competence provisions have received further wording changes, to be explicit about the fact that cultural competence with respect to things Māori, respectful interaction, and so on will be a feature, so that we can have that explicitly mentioned and have a contribution with that, in part, to address Māori health disparities to improve outcomes in the health sector.
The bill also improves the operation of the Act by giving tangible evidence of responsible authorities’ performance better visibility—so making that public, too. It also gives them discretion around the way that they handle concerns around people with drink-driving and so on, so that instead of referring them to a professional conduct committee, a responsible authority can refer their members for treatment.
One other thing that should be mentioned is that the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal will now be funded by the responsible authorities. It’s a very necessary part of the system to ensure a safe system. I’m advised that the costs of that will be about $1 per practitioner per year—modest for the confidence that that tribunal gives to the whole health system with the way it works through issues.
The bill strengthens the framework and ensures the public can have even greater confidence in the practice of regulated health practitioners. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to reassure the Minister of Health in the House that the National Party will continue to support the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill, despite being mortally wounded by the Minister’s comments that perhaps we took too long in reviewing this Act. I would suggest to the Minister that, actually, as he now knows, legislation is given certain priority, and I think it’s pertinent that the previous Government was so busy—so busy—with so many things on the Order Paper that it just didn’t have room for this noble but, some would argue, dull piece of legislation to get up before the House. I might also note that this Government has no such problem. Indeed, not only is it now up but we are here considering it at second reading, just a year into their short tenure on the Treasury benches.
Hon Dr David Clark: We’re getting through the work. No mucking around.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah, well, no mucking around with the things that don’t matter.
The 14 amendments in this bill are necessary and appropriate and have been thoroughly examined, and I must say I was something of a tail-end Charlie into this select committee, because I didn’t arrive there until after this bill had had its first reading and, indeed, the initial submissions by officials—
Hon Dr David Clark: The member’s contributions were still appreciated.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It was quality, not quantity, Minister, indeed. But I did enjoy actually getting to know the members through the submissions on this bill and was encouraged, though not surprised, because the Health Committee, of which I was a member in the 49th Parliament, has that reputation for working quite collegially through these important pieces of legislation.
Now, Madam Assistant Speaker, I hope you’ll indulge me while I segue slightly into another matter of business that the select committee had at the same time because it’s very pertinent to our examination of this bill and the reasons why it was quite important, and that was a petition of Margaret Dynes, which has now been reported back to the House—a tragic case, where her daughter was diagnosed with cancer and passed away, I think, in 2013 or 2014. Her petition, among other things, called on the House to ensure a more robust method for members of the public and consumers of our health services to be able to make complaints through to a body that is governed by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. We listened to a heartbreaking description of the journey that her daughter went on, and her whole family and friends, and nobody who listened to her submissions and saw her photos could fail to be moved by that tragic circumstance. While we carefully considered those things, and we haven’t been able to do all of the things that she wanted to do, we were able to reassure her that through this bill, there was going to be a mechanism for lay members of the public to be able to make complaints directly to the regulatory authority. I think that represents a significant improvement and one that we were certainly given a very real-world reason why that was necessary and appropriate.
The Minister mentions the collection of workforce data, and I was struck by two things. One was, actually, the lack of energy around an understanding that some of the regulatory authorities had to the view that they had a responsibility to make a meaningful contribution to our understanding of our health workforce—so I think this is a really important development—but also, quite how complex that is. We heard from the Midwifery Council of New Zealand, I think, that the number of people registered on their database is not actually a very good proxy of the number of people actively in the profession at any one time. So it may well be necessary to continue to refine the categories of membership of a health profession in order that we can have a better handle on who is active, who is retired, and who has changed professions but could still, with a bridging programme, come back into nursing or midwifery or anaesthetic technicians, or whatever the profession might be. I think this is an ongoing challenge for the sector and the Government, to ensure that we actually get a better handle on who is in the workforce, how old they are, and what their intentions might be, because otherwise we are flying a bit blind. What we understand, and grappled with the Government on, is that it is a very, very important issue facing us going forward.
I’ll touch on just a couple of the other things that I thought were very important in our considerations. I do want to acknowledge the Minister’s very careful consideration, with the select committee, of the importance of making sure that the suspension of someone’s practising certificate balanced the rights of that person to natural justice, I suppose—if one wants—but also the right to protect the public from a prima facie case where there is a significant material risk of harm. I know the select committee members were pleased at the level of engagement we had on that important issue.
I guess the last thing I would mention is the silence in the bill on a practical matter around what would happen if two responsible authorities merged. Indeed, one reading of the bill as it was first introduced was that, actually, there would need to be a reregistration process that we felt was unnecessary in the circumstances where this was a structural, technical merger, and we are pleased to recommend a change to the bill to ensure that if two authorities amalgamate, then the registration that exists of a member of either of those two continues until the renewal requirement of their practising certificate.
There are a few others—I’ll leave that to other members of the House to discuss—but I think it was a very good example of a collegial select committee. A dull but worthy piece of legislation—congratulations to the Labour-led Government. We continue to support it.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on this bill. As a select committee, we, the Health Committee, heard a lot of really substantive and useful submissions, and many of the changes recommended have been incorporated into this bill and, I think, make it a lot better. As the previous member also indicated, the petition of Margaret Dynes was very much before us as we considered this bill, in terms of the need to make sure that our health practitioners are competent. So what I want to do is just briefly recap on this bill before then moving forward to a couple of its major substantive amendments.
As you’ll remember, the principal Act was passed in 2003, and it now covers 23 different health professions—that’s including the medical profession under the Medical Council of New Zealand, the Nursing Council of New Zealand, the Midwifery Council of New Zealand, the Dental Council of New Zealand, and the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand. There have been two reviews of this legislation, and the first one was completed in 2009. What that just considered was whether the Act was actually being operationalised as mandated in legislation. But then they did another one in 2012, and that looked at whether the Act could actually manage the future changes within the health system. Both of those reviews, basically, said the Act was essentially functioning as intended, but it made a number of recommendations in terms of change. I just want to go through some of those ones.
Under the original Act, only health practitioners, employers, or the Health and Disability Commissioner can actually inform the responsible authorities if they’ve got concerns about a practitioner’s performance. But under this new bill, what it means is members of the public or patients, if they’ve got substantive concerns about how a health practitioner is practising, can actually go to the responsible authority and talk to them about that. So that’s quite a substantial change.
The other thing is that at the moment it’s quite hard to tell whether responsible authorities are actually doing what they say they’re doing, and so what this bill introduces is a requirement for five-yearly performance reviews of responsible authorities. What has to happen with those reviews is the Ministry of Health discusses with the responsible authorities what the terms of reference for those reviews are. We got some feedback that you actually need to consult a bit wider on that, so we actually also recommended, as a select committee, that the ministry consults with other groups, as relevant, to see what those terms of reference are. Then, once those reviews are undertaken, the responsible authorities have to put them up on their websites—publish the findings.
As a result of some of the feedback that we got as a select committee, we’ve also suggested further changes whereby, as a responsible authority, they have to report—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Mr Eagle, could you sit down, please. Thank you. I apologise.
Dr LIZ CRAIG: They have to report to the ministry each year on what they’re doing to implement the recommendations of those reviews and what the time line for that is, but also, if they decide that they’re not going to implement those reviews, they have to explain why they’re not going to. I think that will mean that there’s a lot more scrutiny about the performance and what’s happening with responsible authorities.
There are also some other elements in the bill that look at creating greater transparency. So what the responsible authorities have to do is make public their naming policies in terms of when they’re reviewing a practitioner. There’s always the balance of needing justice in terms of that practitioner versus the public good—so having those policies about when to name or when not to name a health practitioner—and also how they’re going to report their findings.
The other thing the bill does which is new is to look at the interdisciplinary collaboration between different groups, because in the health sector a lot of the issues that come to responsible authorities are often where the ball’s been dropped between different practitioners or different types of practitioners, or something’s fallen through the cracks and gone wrong. So it’s thinking about how we do that streamlined inter-agency and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure the best outcomes for patients.
The other thing that the bill does is ensure that responsible authorities have to provide information on workforce, and there’s a list of things under the bill that they need to provide, including the health practitioner’s name, date of birth, who their employer is and where they work, and their average hours worked. I mean, we’ve done that as medical practitioners for a number of years now, but not all of the different health practitioners groups are doing that. So it creates greater standardisation.
The other thing, though, when we’re looking at workforce planning and thinking about culturally appropriate services and also looking at the gender balance, is that the Health Committee recommended that we also include ethnicity and gender data in that collection, because it’s really important that we’re aware, as a sector, of what our workforce is doing.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.