Tuesday, 27 November 2018

TUESDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2018

TUESDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Message from Governor-General

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

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

SPEAKER: I have a message from Her Excellency the Governor-General. It reads as follows: “Patsy Reddy, Governor-General. The Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty consents to the passage of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill to the extent that it affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown. Wellington, 12 November 2018.”

Obituaries

Gordon Copeland

SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 24 November 2018 of Gordon Frank Copeland, who was a list member for the United Future party from 2002 to 2007 and an Independent member from 2007 to 2008. During his membership of the House, he was deputy chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure and Commerce Committees. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

SPEAKER: Thank you, members.

Visitors

Parliament of South Australia, House of Assembly—Ms Frances Bedford

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Ms Frances Bedford, member of the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia, who is present in the gallery. [Applause]

Ministerial Statements

New Zealand Transport Agency—Regulatory Compliance Review

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I wish to make a ministerial statement on the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). On 15 October, the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency announced that external lawyers had been brought in to conduct a review of 850 open compliance files. The external review began in late September, and based on preliminary findings, the Transport Agency board decided to immediately strengthen its enforcement regime.

It’s clear that NZTA has failed in its duty to properly check the operators that certify vehicles or operators as safe for the road. When problems with these operators were identified, there was often no follow-up. There was a reduced focus on the agency’s regulatory role over the last decade. Staff were redeployed and there was an emphasis on education and encouragement rather than on enforcement, and this was exacerbated in 2014, when the Transport Agency lost staff from its heavy vehicle compliance team. These concerns had been reported in the media, and I must acknowledge the work of Phil Pennington and Radio New Zealand in ensuring that these issues have come to light.

I’m concerned about the scope and seriousness of the failures that have occurred. It is clear that there has been a systemic failure in one of our most important Government agencies over a number of years. The rules set to ensure a safe transport system have not been enforced in some cases. There were 850 cases of providers with potential issues identified in the stocktake by Meredith Connell, which were broken down by severity into 157 high-priority files, 370 files coded orange, and 345 files coded yellow. There has now been substantial progress on resolving these issues. I’m advised that all of the highest-priority matters have now been reviewed, and for most of those matters, formal compliance action either has been undertaken or is under way, but there are approximately 28 matters where further investigative work is being conducted as a matter of urgency.

I am disappointed that the New Zealand Transport Agency has failed to carry out its regulatory responsibilities to the standard that I expect as Minister. I am pleased that the agency’s board has taken swift remedial action. I’ve requested that the Ministry of Transport, as the New Zealand Transport Agency’s statutory monitor, review NZTA’s performance of their regulatory functions. Given the information that I and the public know about the agency’s performance, it’s appropriate to ask for external advice on NZTA’s regulatory performance.

This Government is committed to saving lives on our roads. Injuries on our roads are not the price that we pay to travel. They are unacceptable and preventable. I want to assure the Parliament and the public that the Transport Agency is moving quickly to identify and rectify instances where lapses in the system may have meant that safety standards were not met.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise in response to the Minister’s statement. New Zealanders have a clear expectation that key regulatory authorities are enforcing the law. It’s not acceptable for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to fail in its duty to properly check the operators that certify vehicles or operators as safe for the road. It’s not acceptable, as the Minister says, when problems are identified, for there often to be no follow-up.

The National Party supports the Minister’s decision to request the Ministry of Transport as the New Zealand Transport Agency’s monitor, to review NZTA’s performance of their regulatory functions. We expect that the NZTA’s board and its leadership be held to account for the decisions they made about priorities and their use of the substantial resources devoted to them.

The Minister made the point on radio yesterday that the vast majority of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are the result of driver error, fatigue, and speed, not because of regulatory issues, but that is no excuse for regulatory neglect. The Government needs to ensure that the public can have confidence in NZTA and the companies issuing warrants.

Finally, we do believe that the Minister should ensure that where there is any continued doubt about the integrity of warrants of fitness, the New Zealanders affected are contacted promptly before they and their families embark on long summer journeys over the festive season.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport): I stand to support the Minister’s ministerial statement and a small part of the member’s contribution from the other side of the House. The Minister is actually addressing nine years of political neglect. The Minister has moved in. He has brought a sharper level of focus to an area where there has been a continuous set of cases of egregious neglect. The Minister is absolutely correct that the board, who jealously defend their neutrality and their independence, are absolutely held to account for this awful news. And I’m sure, at an appropriate time, the level of accountability that belongs not only with the board but the CEO is brought home where it belongs.

But, of course, the Minister has to reassure garden-variety Kiwis that the regulatory framework, whilst it might be intact—that the people are not influenced by too much political negative tone, which has obviously been the case over the last nine years. The Minister has an extraordinarily big job to maintain not only confidence but to assure garden-variety Kiwis that those at the wheel are not asleep and that they are alert as to their full regulatory burdens, unlike over the last nine years.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In recent weeks, I have seen a number of reports which indicate that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong. We’ve got unemployment at a 10-year low of 3.9 percent, the manufacturing and services industries are expanding, and a number of economists have published new forecasts of strong economic growth. All of this good news, I think, was best summed up on Morning Report recently by a commentator who said, “I think we can all agree [that] there’s serious momentum there, whether it’s the high employment, the low unemployment, the GDP …”. On this matter, I can only agree with that commentator, the Hon Simon Bridges.

Dr Duncan Webb: Has he seen reports about which direction the economy is heading?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a report from Westpac economists where they upgraded their growth forecasts, which show the New Zealand economy growing by about 3 percent a year over the next three years. This shows that the economy is heading in a positive direction, a view endorsed by one commentator who said, “it’s not going to hell in a handbasket,” and “we’re not heading for a recession,”. If only that commentator, the Hon Simon Bridges, would pass that optimism on to Amy Adams.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen about the ability of New Zealanders to secure employment in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, we’ve recently seen those figures which show a 10 year - low unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. There are also more New Zealanders in work, with employment growing 2.8 percent from a year ago. When it comes to the ability of New Zealanders to secure employment, this situation is again summed up very well by a commentator who said, “we’re in a situation where almost anyone who wants a job today can get it,” I thank Simon Bridges for his acknowledgment of the strength of the New Zealand economy.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and, apparently, so does the member.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many dollars a week has the median rent increased under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve actually seen some of the statements from the member on rental increases, and what I wanted to point out was that the numbers that he’s used have been quite selectively chosen. When you look across the country at the—and I can give a percentage rather than a numerical figure to the member, but if he puts it on notice, I’ll bring a dollar figure for him—geometric mean growth, that’s remained relatively steady. So in September 2018, that was 4.8 percent; September 2017, it was also 4.8 percent; September 2016, it was 4.5 percent; September 2015, 5 percent—you get the picture. So it is fair to say rents have consistently increased over the years. Obviously, the member will know the most significant driver of that is supply, and this Government is focused on fixing that issue.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, is she aware that the median figure is some $30—2½ times higher than the year prior, and that, even using the mean, rents have gone up $26 a week under this Government compared to just $13 under the previous?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I know that that member chose one month and used figures which aren’t an accurate way of capturing what’s happening in our rental market. I absolutely accept that rents have increased—I accept that. What I do not accept is that somehow the last Government had nothing to do with the issue that we are now facing. There is a supply issue. That was a Government who got rid of State houses and that did not address the lack of supply. Unlike that Government, we are turning the ship around; it just takes a bit of time to build houses.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she seriously disputing the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment figures that show, on a median basis, rent has gone up 2½ times, and on a mean basis it’s doubled?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. What I am referring to, though, is the geometric mean growth, which is the most accurate average, because the arithmetic means are too sensitive to changes in the higher value. Again, I’m not arguing with the member over whether rents have gone up; what I am arguing over is whether or not we’ve got a solution that the last Government didn’t even try.

Hon Simon Bridges: How do we calculate geometric mean growth?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’ve argued here is that when taking into account spreading over that period of time, spreading over the increase is a much more accurate way of taking one month out of the year, when we know that a lot of people experience an annual increase, say, at the end of a calendar year. That is the most accurate way to reference the increase that people have experienced.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think that higher taxes, such as extending the brightline test to five years, ring-fencing losses on rental properties, and the prospect of a capital gains tax will have no effect on rents?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I saw the member being asked which exact precise tax he thought had made an in increase rent, and he couldn’t name one. That’s because most of what this Government has done already has been focused on tenants: looking at getting rid of letting fees, for instance, and making sure that there are healthy homes that our renters are in. We’re focused on not only building houses but making sure that those who are in the rental market are getting a better deal. And another thing that we’ve done is made sure that they will only experience annual increases in the future. That Government did almost nothing for tenants.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she saying that more taxes and higher costs will not reduce the supply of rental properties or be passed on to consumers in terms of higher costs?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Some would argue the biggest change that those in the rental market have seen in recent years has been the brightline test, and that was brought in by the last Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she seriously saying, in terms of her thesis about supply, that more taxes and higher costs won’t reduce the supply of rental properties or be passed on to consumers in terms of higher costs—straight question?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’m saying will make the biggest difference to supply is building houses.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, I do.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that “$2 billion is insufficient working capital to meet the target of 10,000 homes per annum (on an optimistic average three-year recycling of the capital, only 1000 homes could be built per year)”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, we’re talking about the supply issue, which is a good thing to be talking about. As a Government, we are actually doing something about the housing crisis. What the member is referencing was a strawman put up by MBIE in a paper which he then turned into—as I believe—a press release, and the New Zealand Herald later had to correct the story when we provided information to them that demonstrated that that member was patently incorrect.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she says the Government is working with the private sector, is that simply another way of saying that the Government is buying properties off developers that were being built anyway, thus not increasing supply at all?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government subsidising private developers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement in relation to KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka, “there is demand there” and that not selling houses through the ballot system is a “hypothetical”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I understand, we’ve sold, now, seven of the houses, out of 10—[Interruption] hold your horses—off the plan, so before they’ve even been built, we have sold those houses. There are a remaining—[Interruption] They’re getting very excited about three remaining houses over there. There are three remaining houses, which we remain confident, once built, will be sold.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that her houses in the New Plymouth KiwiBuild development are going to cost around $100,000 more than the median house price in the area?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If he’s talking about the area that was absolutely neglected, shamefully, by that last Government—shamefully—with State houses in a dire need, we need a rejuvenation in that community, and it has been widely welcomed by the New Plymouth community, because we not only need affordable houses; we also need more and better State houses.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm, then, that those KiwiBuild development houses are going to cost around 100 grand more than the median house price in the area?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Given that member’s issues with accuracy of information to the New Zealand Herald this week, I’m not going to confirm anything that he puts to me.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why are KiwiBuild houses in New Plymouth going to cost around $100,000 more than the median price in the area?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not going to answer a question based on assertions by that member. Again, if the member had a little bit of credibility in the way he’s used numbers in previous questions, perhaps I would, but he does have the option of putting a question on notice, if he chooses to.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to Gareth Kiernan, an economist at Infometrics, who, in relation to the KiwiBuild houses announced in New Plymouth, has said, “It almost seems like they’ve chosen it because it’s somewhere they can stick houses and meet their target price without giving it any thought.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would absolutely disagree with that assertion.

Question No. 4—Housing and Urban Development

4. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will the Housing and Urban Development Authority accelerate the pace of building of affordable homes; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The Housing and Urban Development Authority is a new agency with cut-through powers to partner with local government, iwi, and the private sector to build quality State and affordable and market homes and create thriving, master-planned communities. The authority will be a new Crown agency with two key roles: leading small- and large-scale urban development projects and being a world-class public landlord. It will consolidate all three essential centres of development capability within the public sector: Housing New Zealand, its subsidiary HLC—the people who did Hobsonville—and KiwiBuild.

Paul Eagle: How will the authority’s cut-through powers speed up the construction of affordable and public homes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The authority will undertake a range of large and small urban development projects throughout the country. For some large-scale, complex projects, it will have access to a range of statutory powers that will better enable development. These include streamlined resource management planning and consenting processes where project master plans replace local plans; the ability to build, change, and fund infrastructure; and the ability to purchase land.

Paul Eagle: What response was there to the announcement?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, there have been a range of very positive responses from across different sectors. For example, Stephen Selwood of Infrastructure New Zealand said the urban development authority (UDA) “will be in a better position to manage wider and more complex national challenges around growth management, homelessness and cumulative environmental impacts, to name but a few.” The Employers and Manufacturers Association was also supportive, saying that the approach was good to speed up the brownfields development in cities experiencing strong population growth.

Paul Eagle: What response was there to the announcement from potential partners of UDA developments?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, again, there are a range of positive responses. Local Government New Zealand president Dave Cull said “This is a huge opportunity to massively increase the supply of housing in our fastest-growing cities, that was not previously possible because of the regulatory logjam created by our planning laws.” The chairman of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, David Taipari, said “Through our ongoing discussion with the Government on this, we recognise considerable thought has gone into the UDA approach and how iwi aspirations will be respected, and this is a credit to the Government’s decision making and the work of agencies.”

Question No. 5—Education

5. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Education: Have student numbers for student achievement component enrolments and learner numbers for industry training enrolments decreased by a total of 2,402 in August 2018 compared to August 2017?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): From August 2017 to August 2018, the number of equivalent full-time students at universities increased by 970, while the actual number of students increased by 10, reflecting a shift in participation from part-time to full-time students. At polytechnics, the number of equivalent full-time students decreased by 724, while the number of students increased by 678, suggesting a reverse of the pattern in universities. In wānanga, the number of equivalent full-time students decreased by 498, while the number of students decreased by 1,188.

In private training establishments, the number of equivalent full-time students was up 310, while the number of students was down 674. In industry training, the standard training measure decreased by 947, while learner numbers decreased by 4,740. However, by contrast, the number of apprenticeship standard training measures increased by 1,065, while the apprenticeship learning numbers increased by 3,441. The numbers in the member’s question draw on aggregate student and trainee numbers rather than full-time equivalents, and therefore don’t reflect the shifting nature of participation.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that spending $236 million so far on free fees for students who would’ve studied anyway is good value for the taxpayer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think those students and their families will be grateful for the fact that their student loan debts are significantly lower than they otherwise would have been, bearing in mind that the Government would have largely covered that cost anyway, had it not been for the fees-free programme, because we would’ve had to outlay the money through the student loan scheme, where we only recoup 55c in the dollar anyway. So, yes, I do think it was a good investment.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe that that $236 million would have been better spent on teachers in the education system instead of on fees-free for students that would have gone and studied anyway?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has no intention of abolishing the student loan scheme, which is, effectively, what the member is asserting. In order to not put the money that went into fees-free into something else, we would have to first abolish the student loan scheme, because if we did away with fees-free, the students would borrow the money and the Government would have to lay it out anyway.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is he still committed to expanding fees-free to a second and third year, and, if so, will those commitments come through in 2021 and 2024, as he has previously announced?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As was clear in the Speech from the Throne, that’s a matter for future Budgets and for future Cabinet decisions.

Hon Paula Bennett: What would the cost be of expanding the fees-free, as he has previously promised would happen?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That would depend on participation levels.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider that ensuring the Government spends tax revenue wisely is part of his role as Minister of Finance; if so, what is the total projected cost of all working groups, advisory groups, reference groups, ministerial groups, governance groups, reviews, inquiries, ministries, commissions, units, tribunals, committees, summits, panels, forums, task forces, teams, investigations, think tanks, councils, studies, action plans, hui, boards, stocktakes, conferences, authorities, work programmes, agendas, schemes, and reports if any, announced by this Government’s Ministers to date?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I refer the member to my announcement of those projected costs of Government spending, otherwise known as the Budget.

Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister think it’s a good use of taxpayers’ money to spend—what has been costed so far—$262 million on 192 of those working and other such groups?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would contest that particular costing that the Minister has put forward for working groups, but even if it were true, it would equate to one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent of total Crown spending over the forecast period.

Hon Amy Adams: How, when New Zealand families are struggling with the increasing costs of living—like increasing rents and higher petrol taxes—can he justify spending $262 million on working groups because the Government failed to do their work in Opposition?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can justify the spending of money on a working group on mental health and addiction because it is one of the most serious issues facing New Zealand—tragically neglected by the last Government over the last nine years.

Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware that the $262 million the Government has spent on working groups so far is equivalent to the annual salary of more than 3,500 teachers, 4,300 nurses, or 3,200 police?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said earlier, I don’t necessarily accept the member’s costings. What I do know is that it is the equivalent of half of one-tenth of 1 percent of total Crown spending. I also note that included in that is the royal commission into the abuse of people in State care—something, again, the last Government avoided facing up to for nine years.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, does the Minister think it’s a good use of taxpayer money to have spent $4.7 million—which is the same as the annual tax of 414 middle-income earners—on a criminal justice summit and two education summits?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the member fails to understand is that, on this side of the House, we want to deal with some of the long-term, intractable problems that a Government faces. Putting your head in the sand, as the previous Government did, and ignoring the fact that our criminal justice system isn’t working properly isn’t good enough for members on this side of the House. It is going to cost a bit of money to tidy up the mess of the last nine years, but we’re getting on with doing it.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Which does he think is better value for money for the taxpayer: inviting them to have their say on justice and education matters, or spending $20 million on a flag referendum?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, I’m very, very clear on that. I do, however, want to correct the member: it was $26 million on the flag referendum, and I would stand up our working groups against that any day.

Hon Simon Bridges: How much will three referendums coming up some time around the next general election cost?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s very dependent on timing issues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister of Finance concerned about certain members of Parliament spending over $100,000 to go around the country and losing support?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m very concerned if that kind of expenditure leads to people’s poll ratings plummeting further and further.

SPEAKER: Any more?

Question No. 7—Regional Economic Development

7. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): During the first week of the recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the great province of Whanganui and Manawatū. Manawatū, for the edification of the other side of the House, means “a rousing heart”, and the hearts of the provinces were certainly roused in that part of the country when I announced a $48 million package which covered areas such as transport, food, beverage, digital connectivity, tourism, and the neglected area—unfortunately, attributed to the other side of the House—of training our people out in the provinces.

Darroch Ball: What are some of the key projects that were supported?

Hon SHANE JONES: I won’t list them all for fear of not using the time of the House efficiently, but the $40 million contribution to help KiwiRail build a new regional freight hub—and in fairness to members from the other side of the House, this is something that although they have had a historical level of animus to KiwiRail, they widely applauded it during the period of time I was up there. In addition to that, Minister Faafoi and I announced an additional $40 million from the Provincial Growth Fund to address digital connectivity in areas such as Tararua, and for dealing with historic problems. Mr Ken Shirley has congratulated me for turning my attention to a $2.8 million allocation for a national driver training centre so we don’t rely excessively on migrant labour to fill up our trucks and other excavators.

Darroch Ball: What further regional packages will the Provincial Growth Fund be supporting?

Hon SHANE JONES: On Thursday, we will be travelling to Te Tai Poutini—otherwise known as the West Coast—and this will be one of the most significant announcements to date. It deals with areas that have been neglected for a long period of time, but after only several visits there and a tremendous amount of work undertaken by the civic leaders and a very sensible meeting where everyone was sensibly behaved in the deputy leader’s office, we will be announcing substantial allocations to Te Tai Poutini as evidence that work’s happening on the ground—not only very popular rhetoric in the House.

David Seymour: Has the Minister had advice in any form that some of his Provincial Growth Fund expenditure may have to be reported to the World Trade Organization as it qualifies as agricultural subsidies—the first time New Zealand would have reported such subsidies in 25 years?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Naturally, advice has been sought from the foreign affairs department. However, given that the adjudication and the appeals of so-said international trade body are in a state of disarray, I’m not bothered by that at all.

Question No. 8—Housing and Urban Development

8. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement on Saturday that “many of the KiwiBuild houses that we’re building don’t require the Government to spend a dollar, and that’s why we’re doing it through a buy-off-the-plan scheme”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes, in the context it was made. All of the KiwiBuild channels leverage private sector investment—that’s the point of the programme.

Hon Judith Collins: What actions will the Crown need to take under its underwrite agreement if any of the 211 houses underwritten in Wānaka cannot be sold at the price points agreed with the developer?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Under the underwrite agreement, they’ll buy them.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the business case for KiwiBuild Buying off the Plans reasonable in assuming the Crown will face an average cost of between $20,000 and $50,000 per house delivered by the Buying off the Plans initiative related to unsold houses, a cost of up to $1.8 billion over the life of the programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s based on very conservative risk modelling.

Tamati Coffey: Why is the Government leveraging private sector investment through buying off the plans?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Buying off the Plans business case shows that between $3.7 billion and $4.7 billion worth of KiwiBuild homes will be built over the life of the programme, and because KiwiBuild is only part of any development, it will enable the construction of approximately $5.5 billion worth of additional homes. It also incentivises the construction of more affordable homes, rather than larger homes that earn the developers a bigger margin.

Tamati Coffey: What reports has he seen from developers about the benefits of KiwiBuild’s Buying off the Plans programme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, one developer, Shane Brealey from NZ Living, who is undertaking KiwiBuild apartment developments in Onehunga and Ōtāhuhu, said recently that KiwiBuild enabled him to get under way faster and with reduced costs. KiwiBuild has allowed him to go from the purchase of land to construction in just two months, when it would normally take around a year, with much more certainty as to whether those developments would even proceed.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he have confidence in the assumption made in the Buying off the Plans business case that the KiwiBuild capital fund could be depleted by up to $1.8 billion to cover the cost of underwriting?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, that’s a high-end risk scenario as part of a modelling; it’s not a projection that one could be confident in. It’s one part of a theoretical modelling exercise and it happens to be the high-risk, high-cost end of the modelling.

David Seymour: What advantage does the Government bring to the housing sector through KiwiBuild other than the sovereign right to tax about 5 million people?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Government brings to the housing affordability crisis the ability to use its balance sheet and its buying power to incentivise modest, affordable starter homes that the market has failed to build over the last 10 years.

Hon Judith Collins: How does he propose having the KiwiBuild capital fund deliver projects such as the one announced in Porirua recently if the fund is consumed covering the cost of the underwrite scheme?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it won’t be consumed by the cost of the underwrite scheme. The capital fund is there to sustain the delivery of KiwiBuild: first, through the buying off the plans and underwrite channel; and, secondly, through the land for housing programme within which the Crown makes available land to developers who agree to build KiwiBuild and public housing on it and then pay for that land at the end of the development project. The KiwiBuild fund will also be sustaining the building of new KiwiBuild homes for sale to first-home buyers in large-scale projects that the urban development authority will run in places like Porirua and at the Unitec development.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To proceed with Mr Seymour’s question in the interests of accuracy, are there 5 million New Zealanders paying tax in this country? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know, but if we required accuracy from all questions we’d be authenticating all day. I think everyone in the House knows that Mr Seymour was wrong. We don’t need to rub it in.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think if you review the Hansard you’d say the “right” to tax approximately 5 million people. I never implied that there were 5 million taxpayers and, frankly, I think it’s wrong for you to enter the debate and say that I was wrong.

SPEAKER: Well, I respect the member’s view.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions and the actions of the Northland DHB relating to the outbreak of the meningococcal disease in Northland?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister of Health, in particular I stand by the announcement yesterday of a targeted vaccination programme for the W strain of meningococcal disease in Northland. We know the vaccination campaigns work, and I want to thank the Ministry of Health and Pharmac for securing 20,000 doses of vaccine at a time when there is a shortage of supply of the vaccine due to international demand.

Matt King: Why did the Northland District Health Board deem it appropriate to send out an internal memo in May to advise staff to get their children vaccinated but not let the Northland public know?

Hon JENNY SALESA: In April of this year, there were two unrelated adult cases of meningococcal disease W (MenW). Dr Hammer’s memo in May encouraged clinicians to be alert to potential cases of meningococcal disease. That was appropriate at the time, given the information available. The definition of an outbreak is one where there are three unrelated cases over a period of three months or when there are 10 cases out of 10,000 people. The Ministry of Health and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research have been closely monitoring the rates of MenW across New Zealand since last year. In November of this year, the technical advisory group convened by the Ministry of Health decided that the number of cases in Northland met the criteria for a community outbreak, and it recommended that a vaccination programme be implemented. That programme will begin next week.

Dr Shane Reti: How soon after the internal memo did the district health board (DHB) speak with the Ministry of Health about the meningitis outbreak, given the Prime Minister’s comment “you would think that would be a trigger point at least for them to be talking to the Ministry of Health”?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I refer to my previous answer of the definition of a community outbreak of meningococcal disease, which is three or more confirmed cases of the same strain within the three-month period that are linked and are within a specific age group or community group, and the rate of the disease is at least 10 cases per 100,000 people. I do not know exactly when the DHB advised the Ministry of Health, but I can say that the expert group, the technical advisory group convened by the Ministry of the Health—8 November is when they actually then came to the conclusion that it is now an outbreak and that we should do as much as possible to make sure that we have a vaccination programme.

Dr Shane Reti: Why was the decision made not to go public about meningitis concerns in Northland until after the vaccine was on order and on its way?

Hon JENNY SALESA: As I said earlier on, the definition of an outbreak of meningococcal disease is when there are at least three unrelated cases—

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Dr Shane Reti, but I will warn the member that he might be being disorderly, because the Minister is nowhere near completing her answer yet.

Dr Shane Reti: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll let her complete her answer.

SPEAKER: Maybe the question could be repeated now it’s been interrupted.

Dr Shane Reti: Why was the decision made not to go public about the meningitis concerns in Northland until after the vaccine was on order and on its way?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Because the technical advisory group that was convened by the Ministry of Health, which then made the decision that this was an outbreak of meningococcal disease over in Northland, was in November, and as I said earlier on, the definition of an outbreak is three—

SPEAKER: OK, I think we’ve got that.

Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically crafted the questions in terms of meningitis concerns, not a meningitis outbreak. We had a delivery about the outbreak.

SPEAKER: I think that the Minister indicated that there was a responsibility for a response for an outbreak, not a general response.

Dr Shane Reti: Has he made any representations to Cabinet about increasing the $700,000 available for outbreak meningococcal immunisation in light of the foreign affairs Minister announcing a $10 million immunisation project in Papua New Guinea?

Hon JENNY SALESA: There is a shortage of this particular vaccine right now. The fact that the Ministry of Health and Pharmac have been able to obtain 20,000 doses is actually a good thing, which is why in my original answer I said that I would congratulate the Ministry of Health and Pharmac for getting these doses. We’re getting 10,000 of these doses from Australia. It takes about a week for them to come here. In order to ensure that we have this vaccine, it takes about 18 months. This particular strain is a really devastating strain, and there are other countries in the world that are experiencing MenW, and we’re doing as much as we can. This vaccination programme is going to be implemented next week, and the Minister of Health has already announced this just a day or two ago, and this is the vaccination programme that we’re doing. He has done it without even coming through Cabinet.

Question No. 10—Research, Science and Innovation

10. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made regarding kauri dieback and myrtle rust research?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Last week, I announced surge funding for critical research that will provide new knowledge to help manage the impacts of these diseases, protect our taonga species, and deliver on our coalition agreement: additional new funding of $13.75 million over three years for kauri dieback and myrtle rust research, and $8.75 million will be directed to kauri research, and $5 million for myrtle rust research.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is new research necessary?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The current knowledge and tools are not enough to manage kauri dieback and myrtle rust, and this Government is committed to an effective response to these diseases. Research is critical as it identifies and enables new ways of managing and controlling the pathogens. We need new knowledge and approaches if we are to slow the spread and protect our taonga species and ecosystems. The funding will go to the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge, working in partnership with—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member was well finished answering the question.

Angie Warren-Clark: What new areas of research will this funding support?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The funding will build our understanding of the pathogens that cause myrtle rust and kauri dieback and how they spread through New Zealand’s forest ecosystems. Results will be applied to breeding programmes to enable disease resistance.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: What progress, if any, has been made with the currently suspended parent category visa, which was temporarily closed to new applications in 2016?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): I am currently considering advice from officials on the timing and conditions under which the category may be reopened and queued applications selected for assessment.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was Mila Srobkova, a recent arrival from the Czech Republic and mother of Karel Sroubek, granted a parent category visa on arrival?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have absolutely no idea. If the member wants to put that down in writing, go ahead.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister been asked for a special direction to grant Ms Srobkova a parent category visa?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the Minister is required to consider a special direction for Ms Srobkova, will he ensure that the Court of Appeal judge’s description of her involvement in the importation of ecstasy with her son will be taken into account?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I’m not commenting on a hypothetical application. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! This is a serious matter and the member deserves the respect of being heard in asking the question rather than having laughter from his colleagues.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What assurance can he give to the thousands of parents of hard-working recent migrants that any application by Mr Sroubek’s mother to remain in New Zealand permanently would not be favoured over their own?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Oh, I would imagine that immigration officials would consider every application on its merits and it would be dealt with appropriately.

Question No. 12—Energy and Resources

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by all her statements regarding the potential importance of hydrogen technology for New Zealand’s energy system?

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

Jonathan Young: Will she support a proposed natural gas - fed plant in Taranaki that could produce high volumes of low-cost emission-free hydrogen?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what that member is referring to is a Provincial Growth Fund application for which I have no ministerial responsibility. But what I will also tell that member is: what this Government is committed to is developing a hydrogen strategy for New Zealand so we can realise all the exciting opportunities it presents to us as a country.

Jonathan Young: As the Minister of Energy and Resources, why wouldn’t she support a proposed natural gas - fed plant that could not only produce hydrogen but also replace over 600,000 tonnes of imported fertiliser with domestically produced fertiliser, reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by international shipping?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member is confused. I have never once said that I wouldn’t support such a project if it came to fruition. What this Government is very clear about is we have sent very clear long-term signals to the market around what the future of oil and gas is in this country. Any company that wants to make commercial decisions within those frameworks is more than welcome to make those commercial decisions. What I will note to that member is the company that is considering it has said that it has confidence in the gas supply situation in New Zealand and recognises the long-term transition this Government has put our country on, unlike that member who has been arguing in this House that the sky is going to fall in.

Jonathan Young: Therefore, would she support a proposed natural gas - fed plant that could contribute to security of supply for electricity demand that does not increase carbon dioxide emissions?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Minister of Energy and Resources, such a plant would not require my support. We have sent the long-term economic signals and, all around the country, commercial players will make decisions based on those long-term signals. I note that this Friday there is going to be a ground-turning from Tuarōpaki Trust with Obayashi with the commercial venture that they are starting in the central North Island. I have not had to give any kind of permission for that one, either.

Jonathan Young: Well if the Minister appears to support these outcomes, how is it appropriate then to ban the new exploration for natural gas, if the technology is emerging to use it with zero emissions?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: All the talk of the technology, I would remind me that member, is still about feasibility studies. People have been talking about carbon capture and storage for a very long period of time. It is something that requires a large amount of investment. What I can tell that member is what international commentators are showing. If we have look at what the World Economic Forum has been saying around hydrogen, in saying, “As green electricity gets cheaper every day, low cost green hydrogen is coming. In parallel, as with solar and wind, the cost of hydrogen production is falling exponentially, as system sizes and production volumes grow, while performance improves.” So, I think the answers are very clear.

Bills

Child Poverty Reduction Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Madam Chair, it’s my pleasure to kick off the committee stage of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and can I say that, from the outset, the work that the Social Services and Community Committee has done on this bill has been outstanding and very much appreciated. I think they’ve done a good job of incorporating elements of the bill that do indeed strengthen it, and I’m sure we’ll see some of those submissions factored into the debate. Equally, I’d like to acknowledge, as I have done already, the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were produced by the National Party, elements of which have equally been incorporated in this bill.

I understand we’ll be taking this debate part by part. My contribution on Part 1 is brief because Part 1 of the bill obviously sets out the preliminary provisions for the Act. It does note that the purpose of this bill is of course to encourage a focus by Government and society on child poverty reduction, it facilitates political accountability against published targets, and it requires transparent reporting. And you will see later on in the bill the Public Finance Act provisions that require that reporting to take place.

Just for context, when we discuss this part but also the bill more broadly, the bill in and of itself does not contain the measures that reduce child poverty. They do, however, create the impetus, the transparency, and the accountability mechanisms to make sure that successive Governments put this issue at the heart of their policy making. So I think that’s something that’s become clear as this bill has been debated. It’s a piece of infrastructure. Not unlike what we’ll see with our climate change legislation, it’s a way of transparently putting to the public where we currently sit on a critical issue, where we should be heading, and what Government is doing along the way. The purpose part of this bill and the overview of this part are all contained in Part 1. I look forward to hearing members’ contributions and am happy to make responses from the chair.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Chair, thank you. I stand to rise, and, as National has indicated in its first and second reading, we will be supporting throughout the committee stage this bill.

National has always supported the lifting of children out of poverty. It’s fair to say that in its own nine years previously of Government, it’s shown that in the last five years, it managed to reduce the number of children that were in material hardship by 85,000. In the previous six years, it also managed to reduce the number of children who were in benefit-dependent families by 80,000. That goes to prove that there were a number of policies and directions under the previous Government, and hence the reason why we support this bill and its direction as well. I know that the Prime Minister, the Minister, has put in two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). We want to indicate early on with those—I know that’s not part of this part, but we’re just indicating too in support of this.

Part 1 clearly indicates in clause 3, where in paragraph (b) it talks about to “facilitate political accountability” and “published targets”. Previously, under the National Government, we had Better Public Services (BPS), and I suppose that was part of our contribution to see how we could hold a level of accountability. So we agree with this clause. We think that clause is important. Obviously, we’re taking slightly different tacks as to how we do that, but we’re all trying to get there in the same direction and the same way. We felt that BPS targets were a way of holding those Government departments to account. We’re doing this differently. I think the reports that would come back in the Budget are important to that as well, and that’s going to be an indication around that.

I suppose the only part that I would start to comment on—when we are holding levels of accountability—is whether we can get to the drivers of deprivation. As the Minister has already alluded to, although the measures aren’t particularly in this part of the bill, in this Part 1, what will be important, while we have the measures of both income in and income out and also too around material hardship—the biggest challenge, I believe, to all of this will be around accountability of the drivers towards deprivation, and we think that will continue to be a challenge, even for this Government into the future as well. And so we believe that that’s really important.

We again support the fact—and thank the Minister for including two of our SOPs, which were around child poverty - related indicators. We think that they are really important, to have them. It is that level of accountability that we’ve indicated there. Obviously, we would have gone a little bit further, but that’s part of negotiating our way forward, and we’ll see. What I take heart in is that in this there is the opportunity at the discretion of the Minister, so I’m hopeful that, actually, if there’s a requirement that we actually extend the level of indicators that allow us to be able to ensure that we meet the target, then there’ll be flexibility to be able to do that as well. And I think, actually, in this part of the bill, it indicates that there’s an opportunity to be able to do that.

Also too, in the overview of this, it goes, and alludes, to the aspect of SOP 157, which is in regard to the bill being in two parts and especially in relation to the fact that one is on child poverty reduction and the other is on the Children’s Amendment Bill as well. We support that because, actually, as it says, in clause 4 of this Part 1 of the bill—it’s the overview of this part as well.

My comments will be brief at this stage because I will have some other comments I’d like to make in Part 2 to this bill, so I’m going to keep them brief now so that it gives me an opportunity to speak a little bit further on. But I support this Part 1 of the bill. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Marama Davidson. I’m sorry. I apologise to the member. I was a little confused earlier. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to be seeing this bill—the Child Poverty Reduction Bill—travel through the House.

A short contribution from me in this first up, Part 1, and—going back to the purpose of this part, and, particularly, picking up, as did the previous member, on clause 3(b) “facilitate political accountability against published targets” but actually picking up clause 3(c) “require transparent reporting on levels of child poverty.” They were, of course, measures that were long championed and supported by the Green Party, so I’m particularly pleased.

But in relation to Part 1 clause 3(b) and (c), in particular paragraph (c), can I go back to the select committee’s report, and it states there quite clearly—what came back was that children should be viewed in the context of their families, whānau, hapū, and iwi or other culturally recognised family groups and communities. I simply wanted to affirm and reiterate the stance that the select committee itself identified and, I think, acknowledged that it has been the political viability of talking beyond child poverty and seeing child poverty beyond just the children.

That is quite important, and I welcome this holistic approach that we are taking. I welcome that we are being upfront and stating—perhaps not in legislation. This is why I think through all the stages of this committee stage—through all of the readings of these parts—we are taking the opportunity to stand up and explicitly acknowledge the wider context that children are in. And we purposefully do so because the political viability of understanding that children are part of a whole—and that it has often been seen as easier to politically fight for the dignity of children as opposed to their families and parents and so on. I think that’s the first short contribution that I wanted to acknowledge in Part 1 of the reading of this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to clause 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question that the amendments be agreed to.

BARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could I please correct my vote while it’s still running?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, you may.

BARBARA KURIGER: Sorry—55 votes opposed.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’d like to change the Jami-Lee Ross vote, please, to one vote in favour. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Now, let’s take that again. Actually, could I just ask the indulgence of the committee? Could we take all of the votes again on this? Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to clause 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 1

ACT New Zealand 1

Noes 119

New Zealand National 55: New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Measures, targets, reports, indicators, and monitoring reports

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Madam Chair, thank you. It’s a pleasure to kick off the debate around Part 2 of this bill, which is the more substantive part, and, I imagine, the part where members will want to make a contribution, so mine will be brief.

Just to acknowledge the statements that were actually made both by the Hon Alfred Ngaro and also Marama Davison from the Green Party of Aotearoa, around the drivers of deprivation, I do think it’s absolutely fair to say that we do need to take into account the totality of the environment that children are coming from when we consider issues of deprivation, income deprivation, and material hardship. That is why the bill does include the well-being strategy. That is the place where we do look at some of those much wider issues: where we look at the impact of deprivation on things like access to education, the quality of housing, access to healthcare, and all of those additional issues. But, in terms of the drivers of deprivation, the measures themselves give us a little bit of an indicator, too.

Putting aside, of course, what we already know about inadequacy of income—what we should know as a Government—it tells us a little bit around the before and after. Housing costs give us an indication of whether or not, for instance, housing is driving some of the issues that we’re seeing within households. So, actually, the measures themselves help.

The persistence measure also tells us a message, particularly when you see some of the indicators telling us that children at a certain age—and, again, we know that we need to improve the data set around persistence. But when you see that children under a certain age—for instance, zero to, say, five—are experiencing that more persistent poverty, that tells us a little bit around the impact of the expense of childcare costs in early childhood education and the inability of caregivers to be able to balance those roles of work and care. It tells us something about the income adequacy of sole parents. So the measures themselves do give us a bit of an indication around the drivers of deprivation at one level. I accept that there are many levels to that, but the measures themselves are quite helpful tools to Government, and I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Of course, Part 2 of the bill establishes the measures, the targets, and the reporting. I want to acknowledge that the targets themselves—the reason that we have been very careful around giving some flexibility in that regard is, of course, if there is a change of Government, it will be their prerogative as to how they want to utilise those targets. So there’s a requirement over certain core primary measures having targets set out, and then others which remain an option for the Government of the day. That is because there’s an ultimate hope here that we will see this legislation, as a framework, endure—that it won’t just be the tool of one Government but the tool of many.

Members will know that outside of the four primary measures, which are made up of two income, one hardship, and one persistence measure, we also have the material hardship measure, which is made up of the more direct measures of actual living conditions for households, and the persistent poverty measure, which is where multiple years are spent in income poverty or hardship. There are also six supplementary measures in the bill. Those are included to allow further comparisons. It allows us to report on changes in the depth and severity of poverty. But, again, those are the areas where there’s a bit more flexibility.

Overall, though, our hope is that this suite, when taken as a whole, will enable Governments of every persuasion to be able to use evidence-based policy making and evidence-informed policy making, using these measures as an indicator of where the greatest need is and what will make the biggest difference. But I leave it to members now to make contributions and I’m happy to contribute from the chair.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to commend the Prime Minister—or at least, in this case, the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction—for bringing this bill to the House and making child poverty a priority in the way that she has. It is an enormous shame that we live in one of the wealthiest societies in human history, and yet we still find ourselves with stories, every day, of children brought into this world who do not have adequate clothing, housing, often dignity, access to education, shoes, and children who are admitted for dental surgery—not just a trip to the dental nurse we’re all used to, but surgery—to have the stumps of their rotten teeth removed because they have been subsisting on a diet of Coke and Sprite. That is one of the most extraordinary things about New Zealand in 2018.

I want to commend the Minister for bringing a bill that I’d describe as “measurement legislation”—legislation that measures how we’re doing. It doesn’t force Governments to do any particular thing; it just allows the public to see how the Government’s doing. We have great examples of that which passed through this House: the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Act almost completely put an end to deficits when Governments had to open the books before each election—funny that. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act has stopped Governments flooding the country with cheap money before each election, because it required Governments to put their inflation expectations in writing.

So child poverty is important, and putting in place infrastructure, as the Minister called it, or “measurement legislation”, as I would call it, is a powerful tool for changing the outcomes that New Zealanders get—so far, so good. But I thought, when I read through the bill, that it has within it the danger of being a monumental own goal because, with the exception of the hardship measures, it is overwhelmingly focused on income. It’s not a direct measure of all those questions that you might ask about shoes and food and clothes and physical safety and access to education and housing and the things that actually give kids a future. It is overwhelmingly focused on the questions of what proportion of kids live in a household that has more or less than 40 or 50 or 60 percent of the median household income. That’s a real problem for a couple of reasons. One is that it doesn’t actually capture the real question of how kids are being looked after. Are the kids all right—this is not captured by this particular bill, for the most part.

Secondly, it introduces perverse incentives. If we agree that this infrastructure or management legislation is designed to change the behaviour of Governments in the future—just like the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Act, just like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—then what’s going to be the effect of this legislation on future Governments? Let’s say that the Minister in the chair, Jacinda Ardern, gets her wish and it is taken seriously by Governments of all stripes well into the future. What will happen is this: for the most part, under this bill, future Governments will be able to absolve themselves of responsibility and claim to have solved all the problems of child poverty, if only they tax and spend more. If only they tax people at or above the median income and redistribute it to people in the lower half of the income distribution, the gap closes, the percentage of children in poverty under the measures in this bill reduces, and the Government can say that it’s substantially reduced the problem under the measures in this bill.

Of course, we know that there are households with very high incomes with very delinquent activity and behaviour, and we know that there are households with very low incomes and real thrift who manage to bring up kids who become world-beaters. There are exceptions at both ends. Income alone does not capture it. But there’s a second problem. Not only will this legislation, so focused on income distribution, be ineffective at capturing how kids are really looked after; secondary to that, it actually introduces perverse incentives for Governments, because if Government’s incentive is to tax and transfer more money, one of the effects of that for people who are near the poverty line, as defined by this bill, is that if they work and if they earn more and if they improve their lot, then they’re going to lose the redistribution that Governments put in place to get them above that line.

There is an unfortunate dynamic in this bill. I predict one of its likely effects is that it will encourage Governments to tax and transfer, it’ll make the poverty trap steeper to get out of, and, ironically, it will keep more children in poverty than would’ve happened had the bill not existed at all. That is the perversity of it, and, sadly, that is the logical conclusion of introducing a bill that says Governments can reduce poverty by reducing relative income gaps, because relative income gaps are reduced by Governments using tax and transfer, and tax and transfer increases the marginal tax rates and makes the poverty trap harder to get out of. So that’s the first problem with this bill: its overwhelming focus on income statistics and relative incomes is actually going to make poverty worse in the first instance, and fail to capture what it is in the second instance.

So, in the spirit of—nearly—Christmas, I thought I would help. I’ve brought and tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which substantially reforms the bill to focus it on what really matters. This Supplementary Order Paper does two things. Number one, it removes the part of this bill that is disagreeable: all of that focus on income distribution that has the risk—in fact, sadly, I predict, the reality—of increasing poverty and of allowing Governments to avoid the real issues. But, number two, it strengthens the part of the bill that’s actually very agreeable, and that’s the part of the bill that says the chief statistician should ask real questions about whether kids have a separate bed, whether children over 10 have a bedroom free of opposite-sex siblings. It tells you whether or not kids have access to two pairs of shoes, warm winter clothes, etc. That’s the admirable part of this bill, and what this Supplementary Order Paper 155 does is it codifies exactly what should be done and sets out how it should be done.

What should be done and how? It should instruct the chief statistician to borrow from the world-famous Dunedin study and actually interview kids between six and 17 and their families and actually ask the questions. Those questions come in three basic categories. Are the children provided with the essentials—all the things we’ve talked about that are sort of glanced on in the bill but not really defined. Do they have warm winter clothes and a house that’s safe, warm, and dry? Do they have the ability to have friends around for a birthday party, usually once a year? Do they have those basic essentials—material well-being.

But, secondly, are they accessing education? That’s the only way you really get out of poverty. So there’s a series of measures that 200 kids per cohort, per year, would have to be interviewed about—and it’s from six to 17, so you get about 2,200 kids in the study at any given time. Are they going to school regularly? Have they been attending co-curricular activities? These are the kinds of things that most people would want for New Zealand’s children. Those are the questions that the chief statistician would have to ask, by law, of a random sample of New Zealand kids—not “Where are you on the income distribution?” or “What do the relative statistics look like this year at a macro level?”, but what’s happening for actual kids. And that’s the second category, being education.

The third is safety. We need to know how many kids, for instance, referred to Oranga Tamariki have parents who are visited by the police, have been living in a place that is unsafe structurally in terms of housing. This bill would introduce another set of measures which are all about the child’s physical safety.

So I put it to the committee that this is a noble effort using good legislative technology, but it measures the wrong things and it gives Governments the wrong incentives. It’s going to make the problem worse. This SOP 155, on the other hand, would instruct the chief statistician to ask randomly selected kids—200 per cohort per year—the questions that most New Zealanders really want to know about when it comes to child poverty. If this amendment was to be adopted, then we would achieve so much more of what the intentions of this bill are. I hope that the Minister and my parliamentary colleagues will give it some serious thought. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m pleased to rise and speak in Part 2 of this Child Poverty Reduction Bill on behalf of the National Party, who, of course, will be supporting this legislation. One of the reasons that we are supporting this legislation is the fact that we’ve had the opportunity to improve the bill on its initial drafting.

The reality, though, in terms of the intention of this legislation, is that supporting any attempt to lift children out of poverty is, of course, important for any parliamentarian. If we look at what National achieved in our previous term, particularly highlighting the time coming out of the global financial crisis, we actually shifted and lifted 130,000 children out of poverty during that time. So we do recognise, as a Government, it’s important—as this part does—to measure, to have targets, and to have reports, and one of the areas that I want to come back to is the issue of indicators and, of course, monitoring.

We had a really interesting select committee process. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of submitters had lots to say—in particular, about the measures. Some agreed with all of them, but most of them agreed with some of them. There was quite a debate around whether the percentages were set at the right level, and I do want to say that in terms of the process in the Social Services and Community Committee, it was a thorough one, and I want to acknowledge the efforts of the officials during that process. There were a large number of submissions, and there were a number of suggestions that were incorporated into what is now the final bill.

Just coming back to some of the concerns that National originally had, though, with the bill as introduced—one was the concern about whether or not the targets set by the Government were actually ambitious enough. Part of that was based on the 10-year horizon and 70,000 children being lifted out of poverty, when, actually, in the last five years, National lifted 85,000 children out of poverty. So that was a concern that we expressed throughout this process. I think where we landed, though—and this is where I want to put some of my focus—is on the inclusion of the Supplementary Order Paper around child poverty - related indicators

Just as the speaker before me, David Seymour, spoke about, it is a lot more than income. We want to look at what some of the issues are that indicate to us that there’s a challenge for that child—and, coming back to another speaker, the child obviously doesn’t exist without a family. So it’s being able to look at what some of those other indicators are that tell us useful information and provide us the ability to intervene much earlier with that child or children and with that family. So I do want to thank the Prime Minister for working with leader Simon Bridges, and for the opportunity to meet in person and to work through these particular indicators.

Clause 36A includes child poverty - related indicators, which actually require the Minister to identify one or more indicators. They are not specified in legislation, so there is some flexibility for the Minister, but it’s in one or all of the following areas: income and employment, housing, education and development, health and disability, and any other areas. I would’ve thought that that inclusion of the child poverty - related indicators would have satisfied Mr Seymour in some of the concerns that he raised.

Part of that comes back to the area of focus in the National Government’s time around Better Public Services targets and being able to set targets and to measure, to report to the public on what the progress is, and then the ability for a whole-of-Government approach to intervene earlier to get and to change the trajectory of those outcomes. So I am pleased that we have managed to get the inclusion of those child poverty - related indicators.

This legislation has been a good example of cross-party work. At the heart of it is the commitment of both the Government and National, as the major Opposition, to lift more children out of poverty. It continues the track record that we were on. The baton has now been passed to the current Government, and I acknowledge you for your efforts.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Hon Louise Upston for her contribution, but I actually want to respond directly to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been put forward by the member David Seymour, SOP 155, not least because, of course, he remains the member of the House yet to be convinced of the wisdom of this legislation, so it might mean that I pay him a little more attention on this occasion.

He made some comments around the targets that are embedded in this bill, and he specifically talked about the relative measures. Look, those have been accepted broadly by the international community. Of course, the relative measures are used by UNICEF, by the OECD. They don’t give us a complete picture on their own, and I accept that, but I would be alarmed if the member is rejecting those measures altogether, because they are well entrenched within the international community as being a good indication of the general well-being of a society, based on those who are living with 50 percent of the median income.

But I just want to acknowledge what the member has said about his Supplementary Order Paper. He said that we might get a better picture if we break down some of the circumstances of individual children into questions, surveyed by the statistician, around things like whether a child lacks pairs of shoes, sets of warm clothes, a waterproof coat, access to meat, fish, or chicken, a separate bed, etc., etc. That is all incredibly important information to know, which is why the member might be interested to know what the definition of material hardship is.

Material hardship, of course, is measured by the number of individuals who identify with not having seven out of 17 particular forms of well-being, in the form of food, clothing, their accommodation, or their ability to pay bills. The list looks like this—you might recognise it, because it’s very similar to the member’s list: enforced lack of essentials, meal with meat, fish, or chicken at least every second day, two pairs of shoes, suitable clothing, home and contents insurance, whether you have borrowed money in the last 12 months, whether or not you could pay an unexpected or unavoidable bill of $500, whether or not you put up with feeling cold to save on heating costs, or whether you postpone visits to the doctor and visits to the dentist. I acknowledge most of these, as far as I can tell, are actually in your list, Mr Seymour.

Mr Seymour, so that is the definition of “material hardship”, and you’ll be very pleased to know that clause 12 in Part 2 of the bill includes material hardship as one of the things that the Government must measure and report on. So exactly what you’ve asked for is exactly here in this bill. We have not taken a singular view of what poverty issues are. We have included reference to material hardship. It is something that we are mindful of and we will be reporting on, and we will be driving activity as a result of reporting on that.

So I hope that the inclusion of the range of issues that you’ve highlighted, and I think you’re right to highlight—we haven’t put the expanded list in the bill. So look, there may be things where there are some minor differences. I think, for instance, you’ve said access to meat—“a meal with meat, fish, or chicken … each day:”. Look, the Minister of Health might have some questions to raise over whether that’s good for bowel health. Apart from that, there’s some slight differences there, but, by and large, many of the things that you’ve raised are included within those surveys that are undertaken around the 17 essential items and whether or not someone falls in the category of being in material hardship by being without a certain number of those. So I’m happy to discuss that further, but I’m hoping we may have convinced the member to support the bill.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. As I listened to Mr Seymour earlier, on hearing him, I think he was suggesting to the committee that to measure income was the wrong pathway to go forward on this. I could not help but think that in my engagement with the community over the last 12 months in talking about this particular issue, it is often people who have lots of money that tell the people that don’t have a lot of money that we shouldn’t be focusing on measuring income. That is sad, because if he’s the only one that feels that way, then nothing is going to improve in the lives of the people that we are targeting in terms of trying to lift their general well-being. I have not yet seen a shop that gives away bread, other than when the community themselves end up giving away food. But businesses do not, by their very nature, give away ingredients that families might need to feed themselves.

So I go back to the measures. I think it is important to measure income. It is one of the fundamental principles of this country and many democratic countries that the principle of solidarity requires that we all live up to the fact that we allow ourselves to be taxed so that through the collection of that taxation, we are able to provide sufficiently to make sure that every child on our streets gets an education, that every family who needs healthcare gets healthcare, and that everybody has something to be able to put bread on their table. So the measures are important.

In fact, as I sat in the select committee process, by far and large those who made submissions on it thought that this was landmark legislation, and I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister. They all acknowledged the Prime Minister and her leadership in regard to this legislation.

Alfred Ngaro and the colleagues—I think we need to acknowledge the fact that they’ve come on board. They acknowledge that they’ve made some achievements in moving children out of poverty. But I think that what they haven’t acknowledged is the complication of this issue, because the figures still say that 200,000 to 300,000 children are living in poverty, and 150,000 children are living in material hardship, where they are going without seven or more things they need for their general well-being. So it is important that we’re able to measure and track.

It’s important that this whole House gets on board if we are going to make a difference, and the reason why is because it is internationally known that it takes at least three or four generations to lift people who are living in poverty into at least a middle-income situation. I know that in the last year or so, our communities were measured in terms of our economic well-being. The net worth, from my recollection, for New Zealanders was $114,000 for ordinary New Zealanders, $24,000 net worth for Māori, and $12,000 net worth for Pacific families, and that’s just not good enough. It’s not good enough for a country that once upon a time was the leader in ensuring that everybody had something to be able to achieve an income for themselves and their families.

So just before I finish off my contribution, there is a song that comes to mind from many years back, I think in the 1980s:

We are the world

We are the children

We are the ones who make a brighter day

So let’s start giving

I make reference to that because I think the Prime Minister, through this legislation, has put a stake in the ground for every party in this House but also for every citizen and taxpayer of Aotearoa New Zealand. This is important. This is fundamental. If we’re going to lift the well-being of all of our families for the next generation or more, we need to start the work here, and starting the work means that we’ve got to have some benchmarks. We’ve got to measure ourselves and, hopefully, future Governments will follow suit and increase the measurements that are required.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I must add my thoughts to Part 2, picking up on the discussion in this part so far on the floor, and particularly the importance of the measures, and I absolutely tautoko Aupito William Sio’s emphasis on how important it absolutely is to measure income—absolutely important. I was reminded of speaking to a constituent food bank worker in Palmerston North just last night. They do offer—to illustrate the point of incomes—budgeting advice, but she said very, very clearly, “These families do not need budgeting advice. They need more income.”

So I was really wanting to pick up that, of course, Part 2, right from clause 9 through to, I think, at least clause 20, is very specific and takes a varied number of income measures, particularly around disposable household income and certain percentages that children and families may fall into at various parts of the year. I absolutely welcome that, because we know that income is important.

I wanted to move into—with Madam Chair’s permission—as other members have highlighted, some of the ideologies around those measures that I think are really important to debate, and say that those measures are in a context. No legislation in this House is in an isolated context. All the legislation that we debate, getting down into the parts of each bill, is within a context of the whole other work programme and other bills that we debate here in this House. We cannot talk about child well-being and about setting targets and measures of child well-being that pick up on income and disposable household levels without also understanding what are the systemic factors that bring groups and communities to certain income levels and picking up on exactly the systemic bias and discrimination that is inherent, and has long been for at least decades, particularly to Māori and Pacific children of their families.

We can take any number of examples, which is why, as David Seymour wanted to go further outside the measurement of the incomes in this part of the bill, he went to a different place. He went to getting into the agency of families inside the homes, actually. I’d prefer us to trust a little bit more the agency of families with incomes inside their own homes. I want us to step outside that, actually, and go to the systemic injustices that have an absolute impact on how child well-being manifests itself.

We can take any number—discrimination in who is targeted and charged with cannabis, for example. Some of those are young people and some of those are parents of these very children who we are trying to keep well. Automatically, you can think of the fact that non-Māori and Māori young men smoke cannabis at the same rate, but it is Māori young men who are more disproportionately apprehended and criminalised. I can see Madam Chair’s face—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —so, coming back to the bill, what that means then is that I also agree with David Seymour that we need to go wider than incomes, but let’s go to the systemic injustice causes of what brings children to well-being or not. I simply wanted to stand and make that point—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —very clear. Thank you, Madam Chair.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to take hopefully a short call and respond to a few things that have been said. Aupito William Sio—well, where to start? First of all, this is not about income as he said; it’s about relative income, and that’s one of the problems with the bill, and that’s one of the reasons why I have proposed to change it and remove those relative income measures, because knowing that a household is within a certain percentage of another household’s income doesn’t actually help. The whole society could get twice as wealthy and have the same people underneath half of the median income—it doesn’t make any difference at all as to what can be bought. And I’m not surprised that Aupito William Sio didn’t understand that because his argument was ad hominem—to attack me because I’m rich, I mustn’t understand what income is about. And I’ve got good news and bad news for Mr Sio. The bad news is I’m not rich; the good news is I do understand.

Now, of course, I can’t really blame him for his poor standards of argument, because he’s got a leader that does similar things. Jacinda Ardern, the Minister in the chair, stood up and said, “Well, I don’t have any answer to David Seymour’s criticism of these relative income measures. I can’t explain why they work or why they will make New Zealand a better place”—in fact, it almost sounded like she was accepting the criticisms. And then she said, “But the rest of the world does it, so it must be right.” Well, imagine if Kate Sheppard had used that logic.

The fact of the matter is that New Zealand, throughout its history, has not sought to be like the rest of the world. We’ve sought to lead the world. And I’d like the Prime Minister, or the Minister in the chair in this case, to stand up and explain not that UNICEF and the OECD have similar measures but, actually, why relative income measures are actually going to make New Zealand a better place and why they won’t be befallen by the criticisms that I raised. Because your saying “Everyone else has bad policy, as well” is not an argument for good policy.

The next thing I would say is that she is right in her attempt to win my last recalcitrant no vote on this bill to say that yes, some of the measures, but far from all of them that are laid out in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), this amendment to this bill, are in the current chief statistician’s definition of material hardship. That’s true. I’d be crazy not to have used some of the things that the chief statistician uses. But the bill as returned from the second reading doesn’t actually give those definitions; we just rely on the chief statistician to decide what the measures should be.

I put it to this committee that, actually, we’d better achieve the objectives of the bill if only we were prepared to put them out in writing. And I’d put it to the committee that, actually, the amendments proposed and the measures proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 155 that I’ve put forward are the right ones. They are the things that people want to know: are kids physically safe? Are they getting access to education? Are they getting access to essentials—food and so on? Those are the things, and if they’re the right things—and the Minister’s tried to say that they are—then let’s have an amendment that actually sets them out in the legislation, rather than having one line that says the chief statistician can decide what should be material hardship. That’s the next thing I’d say.

There was another problem with the bill as the Minister introduced it that she kind of let slip out as she was speaking. And it’s this: all of the measures currently in the bill are already being produced. Anybody can go to the website of the Ministry of Social Development or Statistics New Zealand and find out what income distributions are and find out what the material hardship measures are. And now the Minister’s turning around to ask the officials if that’s true. I love it. The Minister didn’t know. But the fact of the matter is that we actually have all of the measures that this bill brings about already available. What this amendment that I’ve proposed will do is stipulate that the Government will actually be reporting those statistics that matter.

And so I ask again, perhaps the Minister could be the first member to join me in supporting this SOP.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to speak to Part 2 of this bill, because I’d like to sum it up by saying that, really, no one wants to live in a rich country that’s full of poor people. And I think even the previous speaker, David Seymour, mentioned that before, about living in a very wealthy age, when we’ve never been better off. But there are many people in our society who are a lot worse off, and one of the problems with the gap is that those people are never seen. It’s so easy in the modern world to travel through and not actually have to see those nasty bits of society. We read about them in the paper, perhaps, and tut, tut as we read them. We may even like watching the television shows that focus on poverty, and we sit there and enjoy, somewhat perversely, those things.

What this bill does—and I see you, Madam Chair, looking at me, wanting to know where I’m going—and what is important about this, particularly in Part 2, is that it focuses on that moment each year when, statistically, we are the focus of the media, when we have people lined up in the gallery here, when we have people sitting watching televisions: Budget day. At the moment, Budget day is just about the money. It’s about how we’ve gone, and we have those little measures that go through—what gets measured gets done. We have all that tick-box legislation. We tick off what’s been done, but, really, those who are watching aren’t forced to look at things they don’t want to see.

What we all need to look at is the effect of inequality, and what this bill means is that for at least one day a year those who are focused on nothing else but the economy will be forced on Budget day to look at it. If you look at the clauses here, 29 through to 36—where we focus on how we’re actually going to bring our real performance as a society, our real performance as a Government—somewhere, one day this year, whether it be 3.30 in the afternoon, we’re going to look and see how we’ve done. We may go on with our business till next year, but at least next year, once again, we’ll be reminded as to how we’re doing as a society—that, rather than the devil take the hindmost, we will actually ensure that those hindmost are brought to our attention.

So I’d just like to take this brief offering to say that this is an excellent piece of legislation and that this particular section—Part 2 of the bill—ensures that, whatever we look at on that one day of the year, society is going to have to be forced to look at how we are treating those at the tail end. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): This being my first time in the chair, I’m learning some of the nuances of being in the chair, and one of them is the immense frustration one can feel at not being able to yell an interjection across the room during some of the more arrogant statements made by the last member, David Seymour. Of course, being the Minister for this bill, I couldn’t possibly know that there is currently no information for persistent poverty currently available as contained in the bill! If the member would like to know what I was turning around to officials to say, it was exactly that: there is no measure for persistent poverty, which is what this bill legislates. Through the legislation and through the independence of the Government Statistician, we have to develop up the persistent poverty measure and provide data for it. It is a primary measure, though, that we will have to wait a little bit of time to be able to develop and report on. But, of course, how could I possibly know that without relying on the officials behind me!

David Seymour: Well, why did the Minister turn around?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Secondly, I’d like to refer as well—because I’d like to turn around and have someone that I can bemoan the fact that you didn’t know that. Secondly, I’d like to point out that if the member needs another reason why we can’t support his Supplementary Order Paper 155, he, of course, is suggesting that we would survey 200 children. That would be statistically not a robust way to undertake any kind of survey work. The member would know that, of course, if he’d looked at the household income survey, which doesn’t give us enough robust data as it is now. That’s why we’ve funded Statistics New Zealand to be able to survey 20,000, in order to give us the kind of data that we can rely on to make significant decisions.

Finally, the debate around whether or not measures that capture relative incomes—most members of the House think inequality matters. Most members of this House do. Now, if that member wants to argue that inequality doesn’t matter and it doesn’t have an impact on society, then he is welcome to make that argument; he just won’t find any support from this quarter.

Finally, the idea that rebelling against the Child Poverty Reduction Bill means that he’s the same as Kate Sheppard—I don’t think I even need to speak to that, so I’ll just take my seat.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Um—I’ll call Marama Davidson.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you. I just think I might not be as fun as the member at my side here, but I did want to pick up—and it goes to my previous talk—clause 34A, which particularly picks up indicators. And I actually did want to mention that that goes to looking at all of the other related issues that absolutely impact on child well-being. It mentions here, for example, “(1) The Minister must identify, for monitoring reports, 1 or more child poverty related indicators related to all or any of the following areas;”. I want to go through them if Madam Chair would please: “(a) income and employment: (b) housing: (c) education and development: (d) health … and disability: (e) any other areas.” So of course that helps us to remain linked to the systemic causes and other factors and indicators of child well-being. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I just want to explain to the committee that I would never compare myself with Kate Sheppard, but I just wanted to make the point that this Prime Minister’s a wee way off, too, if she’s only going to use the justification of policy as “other people overseas do something similar”. That’s the fact.

I’d also just make the point that when I challenged the Prime Minister that the statistics of this bill are already available, she accepts that’s true with the exception of persistence. Well, she’s going to need a lot of persistence in a lot of things, but the fact of the matter is that persistence is simply concatenating multiple years together. So to say that somehow persistence is not measured—and look, if I’m being arrogant it’s OK turn around and ask the officials—is simply not true. Persistent poverty is simply poverty over several years and if poverty measures are being collected each year then I think we can work out what the persistence of it is without any great difficulty.

I want to correct the Minister in a massive misapprehension about the amendment that I’ve put forward. She thinks that 200 people will be surveyed every year. It’s only needed to read, as the Minister is doing now, the Supplementary Order Paper—it’s less than three pages—and find the bit where it says “200 per cohort from 6 to 17”. That’s actually 11 years, 11 cohorts, and 11 times 200 is 2,200. You can make arguments about sample sizes and accuracy, but the fact is that if you’ve got 2,200 people as a sample then you’ve got accuracy down to 1 and 2 percent on the measures at the top level, and between 3 and 4 percent even if you go two or three layers down—so you break people up into different groups.

To say that that’s not statistically significant shows that she’s not thinking about statistics. Actually, to say that a piece of paper that says clearly 2,200 people is actually only 200 is not giving the amendments put forward in this committee due respect. So with that in mind, I’ll give a going, going, gone one last time. If the Prime Minister wants me to be the last person to vote for her misguided bill, then I’m going to invite her to be the first person to join me—and, who knows, maybe we could join in with Kate as well—to actually support some world-leading common sense of legislating to measure child welfare in a practical way that tells the people of New Zealand if the kids are really all right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 119

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Vulnerable Children Act 2014

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members, we come to the debate on Part 3—clauses 40 to 47—and schedules 4 and 5.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on Part 3 of the bill. I do have some sympathy for David Seymour. I know what he’s trying to do—maybe not in quite the right way—but I think the important thing is that we need to be mindful, and I want it to be on the record, that some of the hesitation towards using the word “poverty”, when you classify it to an indicator, is the stigma that could relate to it. I think we need to be mindful of that fact, especially when you think that in Part 3 of the bill in particular, there’s a lot of focus on particular groups of our community and children within those groups. It’s in the bill; we won’t hide from it—in particular Māori, and then it’s also indicating other groups. So I just want to highlight and put on the record that we always need to be mindful. While, in a sense, our intent is to address the issue, the unintended consequence is that we could impose a stigma upon a group and upon a group of people, for instance, and in this case that’s what’s indicated here in the bill, in particular.

I do want to make just a brief comment to the Hon Aupito William Sio when he talked about the fact that we may not understand the complexity. I think we do. In fact, if I can remember rightly, all the things that we put in place when we were in Government for nine years, and, in particular, the first in 42 years to raise the base benefit level, weren’t supported across the House. So we are supporting this. We’re holding it to account. I want to go on the record with that. As the National Party, we’re supporting it because we support the aspect of reducing poverty for children. But, at the same time, too, we’ve contributed to this. We’ll be mindful also that we hold the Government to account and the departments as well—they’re just as important—in regards to achieving those results as well.

My contribution is to Part 3 in particular, which talks about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I just want to put on the record again that, in the initial draft, this was left out. So, if we’re talking about the fact of what should have been left in, Te Tiriti o Waitangi was left out. We had to actually request for it to be put back in, and now that it has been put back in, it’s actually then talking about what are the roles and responsibilities of the Government and those departments. It’s two things: it’s to consult and then to report.

Now, I want to indicate to the committee that, in a sense, if we’re going to do something different, if we’re going to be world leading, in actual fact let’s be careful that we don’t use the same tools that have been used previously before. We need to ensure that, and some of those tools that I think are really important are parts of what we supported on this side of the House, which is Whānau Ora. I know that the new Minister, who’s here, the Hon Tracey Martin, actually did indicate the fact that that’s part of their review. Well, I hope that it is, because the reality is that’s not what I’m hearing outside. I’ve been to the Whānau Ora conferences. That’s not what people are saying. Those providers are saying they’ve been sitting, they’ve been waiting, they were promised, and they weren’t delivered the $20 million that was meant to support them. So Whānau Ora is a critical tool in regards to helping achieve the results under this bill for Māori children. So I would say this again, and I’ve said this before in the second reading, I hope that Whānau Ora does not become a political football in regards to this bill, in regards to achieving the results for Māori.

I want to also indicate under this that we did also petition the fact that this Part 3 talks about our obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was a lot of focus on that. We wanted to make sure, first and foremost, that our constitutional partnership and roles and responsibilities are under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was left out; it was put back in. We’ve got two parts to it. We hope that they’ll be adhered to but, more importantly, we want to support the aspect of Whānau Ora having its full roles and responsibilities. We did when it came in. We see that it’s important to put power in the hands of Māori providers to deliver to Māori in a way that they know makes a difference. We’ve seen the results. I hope that the Government of the day, the Labour-led Government, the coalition Government—call it what you may—will also see fit that they too will support it in the appropriate way, because we believe that’s going to be important to this bill as well. Madam Chair, that’s just my brief contribution to this Part 3 of the bill.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too will make a small contribution to Part 3 of this bill. I think it’s completely agreed across this House that there’s nobody here that does not have a very strong interest in reducing child poverty in this country. I look forward to the day when we hold ourselves up against the likes of the Scandinavian countries, who have very low rates of child poverty. I think we’re taking a very good first step on our way to that in holding the Government to account for the measures that it will implement in terms of how we measure, year on year, the indicators that are being set down in this bill to measure the persistence of child poverty and therefore hold the Government to account on achieving those targets.

Part 3 of this bill makes several quite significant alterations to other Acts of Parliament. Consistently throughout the bill we have seen that the word “vulnerable” has been taken out of this piece of legislation and “Vulnerable Children’s Act” has simply been replaced with the “Children’s Act”. There are several other significant changes that have been made to definitions and new inclusions in this bill, and I speak specifically to clause 45, which, as my colleague Alfred Ngaro has alluded to, includes now the Treaty of Waitangi, which was not included in the original draft. That was an issue that was raised by National Party members on the Social Services and Community Committee and was successfully included. There was a very strong argument in support of having the Treaty of Waitangi included, and that is because we know that the stats indicate that that is a target group that we need to be continuing to focus on.

Other definitions that have been changed or included in this bill relate to the definition of “child”—and that is now being included as being consistent with other Acts—and the other children’s agencies that are included in here, and the departments of which are now responsible in terms of this particular bill. They include the Domestic Violence Act, the Education Act, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Policing Act, the Social Security Act, and any other Acts. So they are simply the providers who have an interest in delivering on this piece of legislation.

There are also other designations in here that I would like to refer to, and the Hon Alfred Ngaro has already referred to: our obligations as a global citizen to the conventions that we are connected with, which are the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. During the select committee stage we heard quite strong arguments and debates around the special interest that we need to take in children with disabilities. It is very much acknowledged that families who have children with disabilities do require special attention and may indeed need special assistance to ensure that if they are in a state of living in poverty, they are supported well to pull themselves out of that poverty spiral. So those obligations are now included in this bill, and again the National Party members on the select committee initiated that discussion, and we’re very pleased to have the support of the rest of the committee to have those included.

I also want to make note of some of the other indicators that have been discussed tonight. As other members of the select committee may well remember, on a trip to Australia we visited some social service providers and NGOs, and one in particular that stands out to me was a very broad survey that was done over there, and the results of that survey of children—of all of the aspects of their lives that they wished to have as a priority, to be loved and to feel safe were the two highest that were consistently brought up by children. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Just a really quick, genuine question, and particularly with the Minister in the chair, I was wanting to bring up Part 3, clause 45, which then goes into section 6AA(3) of the Act. Just asking a genuine question around a sort of conditional clause added in. So, firstly, you have, you know, subsections around New Zealand meeting its international obligations relating to children, and then it seems to put in “However, this Part does not, in and of itself, give domestic legal effect to, or implement in New Zealand law, any of those obligations.” So it seems like a weakening, and I just thought I’d genuinely put that question on the floor.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I thank the member Marama Davidson for the question. I wouldn’t categorise it as a weakness. What it is is that there are three particular areas that the United Nations—or United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)—has inside that they would like New Zealand to ratify. One of those, for example, is that there be no child labour. One of the reasons why New Zealand, for example, has chosen not to take on board that particular UNCROC suggestion is because of paper boys and paper girls. There has been a tradition in this country that school children have been able to do after-school work. So it’s things like that. There are a couple of others that we also, at this stage, don’t feel that New Zealand is able to move forward on. It’s a work in progress, I would suggest, but I certainly wouldn’t categorise the phrasing inside the piece of legislation now as a “weakening”. It identifies those three that we still have, that we still believe suit New Zealand’s purpose, or they are a work in progress for New Zealand, and as we move further down that pathway we’ll be able to address them. Kia ora.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 157 in the name of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern to clause 45 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The committee divided the bill into the Child Poverty Reduction Bill and the Children’s Amendment Bill, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 158.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I thank members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their hard work and consideration of the bill, and I’d also like to thank all of those who made submissions on the bill. I’d particularly like to thank our coalition, and confidence and supply partners for working with me since the select committee reported back.

I’ve said several times in the House that if we saw a chance to improve the bill, we would take it. Today, I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which does just that. I will return to the content of the SOP shortly, but it is appropriate at the outset to record my gratitude to the New Zealand First Party and Green Party for the constructive manner in which discussions were held. Concerns raised by both parties have influenced the final shape of the bill, with New Zealand First’s protection of small and medium sized enterprises and regional businesses, along with the Green Party’s advocacy for vulnerable workers at the forefront of our negotiations. Both coalition partners believe that a better balance has now been reached.

This Government is committed to building an economy that is growing and working for all of us. Changes made to the employment relations framework by the previous Government saw an erosion of working people’s rights and a weakening of their voice through attacks on unions. This Government believes that people should have a say in the running of their workplace and be able to bargain for a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We want to lift New Zealand into a high-wage, high-skill economy with thriving regions. This bill is one piece of our plan to do this.

There has been a significant amount of misinformation spread about the effect of this bill. I encourage everyone to focus on what the bill actually does. Substantially, the bill largely returns the law to something very close to the settings that existed when Labour was last in Government. Those settings resulted in decent wage growth, combined with low unemployment. It is encouraging to see that unemployment has fallen to rates not seen since that time, and that the economy is growing strongly. The Government is putting more money into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders through the Families Package and minimum wage increases, and by strengthening collective bargaining settings. This bill gives effect to our vision by strengthening the role of collective bargaining, worker voice, and union rights in the workplace to deliver fair wages and conditions. It lifts minimum standards and delivers much-needed protections for workers—especially vulnerable workers.

The select committee heard submissions from employers, employees, and unions. The committee has listened to those submitters and has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments, which I support. Cabinet has also agreed to three changes by way of Supplementary Order Paper 153. The first set of changes to the bill relates to submissions from employers, who wanted greater clarity about the effect of the changes. The bill introduces requirements for employers to pass on information about the role and function of the union to prospective employees to help employees decide whether or not they would like to join a union. The committee recommended some changes to ensure these requirements do not come as a cost to employers.

The committee has recommended clarification that the union is responsible for providing the information to the employer in the form in which they want it provided to prospective employees. This ensures that employers do not carry extra costs—for example, for printing or storage—and that this information can be passed on in the easiest possible way for employers. The committee also recommended giving employers more time to assess the union information to decide whether it meets the grounds to refuse to pass it on, extending this time frame from 10 working days to 15 working days. The grounds to refuse to pass on are confined to circumstances where the information either breaches confidentiality or the information may mislead or deceive the employee about the employer and would significantly undermine bargaining between them. The committee recommended clarifying that an employer representative may accept or refuse information from the union on behalf of the employer. Again, this ensures the process is made simple and straightforward for employers. These changes will ensure that employers have greater clarity and more time to meet their obligations.

Under the bill, employees are provided a form within 10 days of commencing employment that sets out a choice about whether the employee intends to join a union. Some concerns were raised about the existing time frames associated with providing this form and returning it. The committee has recommended changes to simplify this process and to align the employee’s choice to the 30-day rule. This means that the employee will have up until day 30 to return the form to the employer. This gives the employee time to talk to union delegates and understand the choice available to them while experiencing the terms and conditions of the collective under the 30-day rule.

The committee recommended sensible changes to clarify obligations around paid time for union delegates to undertake union activities. This included specifying when an employee is considered to be a union delegate. The committee also recommended clarifying that reasonable paid time is the equivalent rate they would receive while performing their normal employment duties. These clarifications ensure that rights and obligations for both employees and employers are clear under the provision.

The bill restores an employee’s right to a minimum number and duration of set rest and meal breaks. This will ensure employees have time to rest, refresh, and eat during working hours and to be able to continue to work safely. The committee recommended clarifying the bill to ensure that an employee with break requirements under the Act does not receive fewer breaks or breaks of lesser duration than under this bill. This ensures that, at a minimum, employees are entitled to prescribed breaks set out in the bill while allowing flexibility for other Acts to determine when and in what manner those breaks should be taken—for example, the prescribed breaks that commercial drivers are currently required to take.

The next recommendation relates to the vulnerable workers’ provisions. These rules provide critical protection for vulnerable employees such as cleaners and caterers by allowing them to transfer their employment to an incoming employer when a contract that affects the work they are doing changes hands. The committee has recommended that the categories of work as listed in the Act that provide protection in the event of restructuring should be able to be added, varied, or removed by Order in Council. Allowing additional categories of workers to be added or removed by Order in Council will mean the provisions are responsive to changing work practices and conditions over time. This will ensure that vulnerable employees continue to be protected.

By way of SOP, I have also introduced a clarification to the duty to conclude a collective agreement under section 33 of the Act. The bill restores the settings relating to the conclusion of bargaining that applied prior to the National Government’s changes in 2015. The challenge with these settings is that they do not make it sufficiently clear that employers are not required to settle a multi-employer collective agreement. With New Zealand First’s support, I propose an amendment to make it clear that an employer is not required to conclude a multi-employer collective agreement, provided that the opposition to concluding is on reasonable grounds.

Some submitters were concerned that the requirement to have pay ranges in collective agreements would not reflect what employees are actually paid. The committee has addressed this uncertainty, and has recommended amending the bill to remove references to pay ranges and require that collective agreements must include either minimum or actual rates of wages or salary, as well as an indication about how an employee’s rates of wages or salary may progress during the term of the collective. This ensures that the pay rates that are included in collective agreements reflect what employees are actually earning and provide employees with an indication of how their pay will progress.

I will now address the matter of union access. The most significant changes introduced by the SOP relate to this subject. The proposed changes create two categories of union access. For workplaces with a collective agreement in place or being negotiated where the coverage covers or would cover the work done by employees at the workplace, union officials need not seek employer consent to visit their members. This arrangement was the status quo prior to National’s 2010 changes. For workplaces without a collective agreement, a union official must seek employer consent before entering the workplace. For these workplaces, that is, effectively, the status quo under existing law.

I propose also that non-union members should be permitted to request union assistance with health and safety matters. Union representatives often have valuable health and safety knowledge and expertise, and it’s important that all workers are kept safe.

These changes negotiated with our coalition and confidence and supply partners strike a pragmatic balance between the rights of working people to freedom of association, and the rights of employers to control access to their workplaces. For all access types, the usual restrictions apply. A union representative must enter a workplace only at a reasonable time and in a reasonable way.

The committee also heard submissions about the use of trial periods for small and medium sized enterprises. There were concerns that businesses larger than 20 employees would be disadvantaged for not being able to use trial periods. The committee considers that the case for trial periods is more powerful for smaller businesses, as trial periods may reduce the risk taking when hiring. For larger employers, trial periods are used less frequently, and they have more sophisticated ways of managing the recruitment and performance of staff.

To summarise, this bill provides a minimum set of protections for all workers. These will deliver a better work-life balance and a healthier, more productive workforce. It also provides a fairer framework in which collective bargaining can occur and, finally, it enables workers to make meaningful and informed decisions about whether they wish to join a union. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The National Party opposes this piece of legislation, and we give clear, firm notice that, at the first possible opportunity, a new National-led Government will repeal this legislation and return the New Zealand workplace environment to one where jobs can grow and where there’s flexibility to grow an economy to ensure that businesses and employees can thrive and work together in a happy environment.

This is an ideological piece of legislation. The key to it is in the introduction to the bill, where it says that the objective is to strengthen union influence in the workplace and to strengthen union membership, and that’s exactly what this bill does.

It comes as no surprise that one of the first pieces of legislation that this Government introduced in January of this year, very quickly after they gained access to the Beehive thanks to the decision of Winston Peters and his party, was to introduce this piece of legislation, and it is payback. It is payback to the trade union movement for their historical political and financial connections to the parliamentary Labour Party. This is a bill—

Marja Lubeck: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member referred to financial connections from the trade unions. I don’t believe that that is in order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think it’s not even really marginal. I think it’s a debating point, so I’ll let the member continue.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. What actually happens is that the trade unions declare openly their financial connections. They are affiliated financial members, and they are involved also in the election of leaders of the Labour Party. So these are connections that are deep, long, historical, and financial, and it comes as no surprise.

But what’s happened today is Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has introduced a number of amendments, and so this piece of legislation, which is an exercise in ideological mediocrity, is now watered down, to a degree, thanks to what Winston Peters and his party have referred to as “a work in progress”. Now, what we’ve really found out is that it’s a humiliating backdown, but not for the Parliament of New Zealand. It’s a humiliating backdown for the coalition Government, because when Winston Peters said that it was a work in progress, everybody thought that what would happen was that his party would bring to influence some kind of a white knight protection for New Zealand businesses, small and large, against the worst aspects of this bill, and that hasn’t occurred.

What we’ve got, in fact, is a situation where no one, apart from trade unions, is better off from this bill and no one, apart from trade unions, is better off as a result of the amendments that the Minister has introduced today. It’s not the Labour Party that’s better off, it’s not the New Zealand First Party that’s better off, it’s definitely not New Zealand businesses that are better off, it’s not New Zealand employees or workers that are better off, and it’s absolutely not the New Zealand economy that is better off. It’s only trade unions that benefit from this bill.

The most important thing for New Zealand workers is that they have a job. We’re fortunate at the moment, thanks to very careful, prudent economic management over the last nine years, to have one of the lowest unemployment rates that we’ve had in our history and also one of the highest levels of workplace engagement in terms of the number of people employed, but this is a bill that will significantly increase costs to businesses and put at risk a wide range of New Zealand’s small businesses and enterprises. That, ultimately, puts jobs at risk and it puts the economy at risk. This bill is part of a suite of legislative changes that the Government wants to introduce, and it’s just really the beginning of paying their political debt back to the trade union movement.

What we have found today is that the changes that New Zealand First have agreed to amount to something akin to a professional boxer who’s maybe had one or two too many bouts, because when they say “It’s a work in progress.”, what we have found is, actually, there was very little work and almost no progress. They made big promises about listening to New Zealand business. They made big promises and big commitments about trying to be the supporters of small enterprises and businesses around New Zealand. What’s, in fact, happened is that as a result of pressure that’s been put on them by the National Party and our spokesperson and people around the country—our various party people—who have rallied in opposition to this piece of legislation, they have felt that they needed to make a few minor tweaks. But what’s happened is really just hollow promises. They promised in Opposition that if they came into Government, they’d keep the Government honest. Well, actually, it turns out not to be so, because the winners are actually just the trade unions.

The worst aspects of this bill are, of course, still there. Multi-employer collective agreements are still there. The 30-day rule is still there, which enables union recruitment to occur in a way that most New Zealanders really don’t want to have happen—83 percent of New Zealanders are not members of trade unions. They have voted with their feet over the years, and that’s because there actually is no value proposition that the unions can currently bring to bear. Why would someone want to join a union?

One of the aspects in this bill that still remains is, of course, the ability to deduct pay for a partial strike—that is still not in the bill. That ability has been removed and, of course, what have we seen in the last 12 months? We’ve seen more strikes and industrial action than we have in several decades, and there’s only one reason for that. That’s because the trade unions feel empowered, they feel emboldened, they are deciding it’s their turn, and they’re using their muscle to disrupt and make New Zealand workplaces aggressive and adversarial. In fact, it was only last night that I heard the Minister, at another function, referring to how adversarial and aggressive workplaces did nothing for anybody. I agree with him on that matter, but, of course, that is what this legislation does. It creates an adversarial, aggressive, them-versus-us environment in the industrial landscape of New Zealand.

The, essentially, any time union access is still very scary for the vast majority of New Zealand business operators and managers. Yes, Supplementary Order Paper 153 that the Minister has introduced provides for a small tweak, but still nothing that really puts an infringement upon the access of unions to those workplaces so that they can come and recruit, because that’s really what it’s all about. The simple way of thinking about this bill is really to say “Well, follow the money, honey.”, because that’s really what it’s all about. This is a bill that is designed to increase union membership, to increase union influence in the workplace, and, effectively, to grow the market share of the trade union movement—and haven’t we seen a lot of that lately? So where’s the value proposition? Well, simply, there is not a value proposition.

The bill still creates a greater liability in terms of workplace discrimination if the employee is a member of the union. Now, that’s not the case if the employee is not a member of the union. So that’s where they’re trying to create a legislative value proposition for joining a union.

This is a Government that still dislikes contractors. They still want to create opportunities to create collective bargaining for independent contractors.

Rest and meal breaks are going to be statutorily defined. Now, nobody is suggesting that people shouldn’t have rest and meal breaks during their work hours—that’s exactly not what has been the case in the legislation. But by having a statutory definition—which, by the way, runs to about three pages in the bill—removes flexibility from the workplace, it increases costs, and it decreases productivity, and nothing in this legislation goes to increasing productivity.

The 90-day trials for businesses with fewer than 20 employees are still there, and one has to ask, well, where’s the philosophical principle behind that? What makes a business that employs 19 people different from a business that employs 21 people? They’ve still got in this piece of legislation reinstatement as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal, and that’s simply a situation that just defies logic.

What we will see over the period of time that this piece of legislation is in force—and it won’t be very long because, as I said at the outset, we intend to repeal it at the first possible opportunity—is that businesses will pay more; productivity will be reduced; ultimately, job numbers will be reduced; and businesses will adapt and adopt to ensure that they remain competitive, profitable, and effective in their market sectors. That is a simple reality of business, and this is a bill that will encourage businesses to do a whole range of things to ensure that they are protected from militant trade unions in the way that they did when, in the 1970s, they used to bring this country to its economic knees. So we don’t want to return to the 1970s. We oppose this bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m ready pleased to stand and take call on what I think is a fantastic piece of legislation that we have before the House today. I just want to say that as a business owner and an employer, I am really, really, really comfortable with this piece of legislation and I can’t understand why many would not be comfortable with it.

What this bill does is it sets out a strong regulatory framework for minimum employment protections and employment relations that will deliver a vision of a modern, highly skilled, and innovative economy that delivers good jobs, decent work conditions, and fair wages. I think it goes a long way to fix what we saw happen under the previous Government, where workers’ rights were chipped away—chipped away to the point where they were stripped of any rights in the workplace by introducing the 90-day trial period and by getting rid of the rest and meal breaks that people are actually so entitled to.

We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric out there—a lot of scaremongering from the Opposition—that getting rid of trial periods is going to stop people taking on those that they might not have otherwise given the opportunity or given a chance to by employing. But I totally disagree with that. The fact that you’ve got the 90-day trial still in place for employers with 20 or less staff—we know that small businesses have the most to lose, perhaps, economically when staffing doesn’t work out. So that provision stays in place for them. With the larger employers, they still have the ability to have a probationary period. What that means is that there is the responsibility on the employer to show due diligence in supporting newly employed staff to fit into the business. So it just is about supporting them into that business—regular meetings and supporting them, pointing out where they may need to improve, and things like that. So it doesn’t stop businesses having the ability to use that probationary period; it just means that the employer has to show due diligence and has a responsibility to the employee. What we had previously, with the introduction of the 90-day trial, we found that it was a bit of a “fire at will”. We know that the majority of our employers and business owners are good employers and good business owners.

Hon Members: Scaremongering. What a scaremonger.

JO LUXTON: And I’m hearing that from across the House—“Scaremongering” or “Don’t scaremonger”. Well, actually, I would like to suggest that you perhaps take your own advice, because what I’ve been hearing as I travel around the country is there’s been an awful lot of scaremongering from members opposite as they take their tirade around the country.

I also want to talk about the rest and meal breaks and how they’ll be coming back in. I’ve heard the fact that people say that early childhood centres will struggle to meet this requirement. Well, my view on that is that if you are properly staffed, even to the minimum ratios, and you stagger your breaks—stagger your morning tea breaks, afternoon tea breaks, and your lunch breaks—you can easily meet the requirements to allow staff to have their rest and meal breaks.

I’ve heard about people talking about the fact that a union representative will be able to enter the farmhouse or people’s homes where employees work. Now, this is really relevant in the area that I live. That’s a predominately agricultural area where we have a lot of dairy farms and people live in houses on the dairy farm. There is nothing further from the truth than that a union rep can just barge on in to somebody’s home. It’s just absolute scaremongering, in my view. They cannot enter a home without prior and explicit permission from the owner. We’ve heard about union access—just being able to also walk into the workplace willy-nilly unannounced, and that again is simply not true. They must seek permission if there are employees there that are not part of a collective agreement or in the process of working towards a collective agreement.

So what this bill is actually doing is we’ve listened to submitters and listened to their concerns carefully, and there’s been changes made to this piece of legislation after listening to submitters. What we have is a coalition Government here that’s worked together really, really well to come up with this final piece of legislation, including the Supplementary Order Papers, and I think this piece of legislation is going to give clarity to employers and business owners and clarity to employees. And that, in my view, is really important and hugely beneficial, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I stand to oppose this legislation. I’m surprised—I suppose the starting point would be: is there a crisis in the employment scene in New Zealand? Most people would come to the conclusion that at record low unemployment and having seen a jobs boom in this country over the past few years—particularly the latter years of the National Government, with 245,000 new jobs created in the last two years of the National Government. With the economy having great momentum, even still, and with jobs being created and with opportunities for young people and old people and people of all ages and backgrounds to get work in this country, you would have to say “Well, the employment relation scene’s working pretty well.”, and it has been working pretty well in this country. It’s been based on predictability and flexibility so that the New Zealand workforce has been flexible and able to provide people with the opportunity to work, and that is the most precious thing.

So what have we got here? The Government comes along and says “Oh well, we’re creating more jobs than we have in a generation. More New Zealanders have the opportunity to work than ever before in recent memory. Well, why don’t we just foul it all up and change it?”, and that’s what this legislation is doing. It’s taking out those foundations of that successful, flexible working environment that we’ve had over the long period of time.

We’re left with what is the most muddled and confused Government that we’ve had for a long period of time. On the one hand, we see Mr Jones over there—Minister Jones—who is responsible for what is, in effect, a very expensive job creation scheme in terms of the Provincial Growth Fund. As I’m sure he’s aware, when he goes around the countryside, the most frequent thing that he’ll hear is “We can’t find any workers. We’re desperate for workers.”, and yet he’s going out and spending lots of money to create more jobs so that he’ll have to import people from Vanuatu and the other Islands to plant all these trees, because there are no workers available in so many parts.

But there are definitely still some people who remain unemployed, and there are still some of what we call young NEETs—people who are not in education, employment, or training—and how do we draw them into the workforce, those people who are the most marginalised? It is not easy. It’s difficult. As Willie Jackson will know, it’s difficult to deal with these sorts of issues. But what is this Government doing? Well, for a start, it’s spending all its money that could be focused on drawing more people into the trades and helping those NEETs into useful education and training—it’s spending all that money on middle-class welfare for free fees. Billions of dollars are going in and not creating any more students, so that that’s a strange kind of way of dealing with the issue.

Then, on the other side, in terms of trying to get the nephs off the couch—as Mr Jones talked about—well, what are they doing? Well, Carmel Sepuloni is working very hard to undermine any of the sanctions within the welfare area. So we’re not going to do anything to compel or encourage people who aren’t prepared to work to work, but, somehow, we’re going to talk about helping NEETs.

Then we get to this legislation. I mean, what is the group of people that are going to be most negatively affected by doing away with the 90-day work trials? What is it? What group is going to be most negatively affected by doing away with 90-day work trials? Well, it is the young, unemployed, inexperienced young Māori from Northland, for example, who haven’t had any experience in work, who come from a background of not having been through school, and who have been in a difficult environment. That group of people is most likely to benefit from an employer having the opportunity to take a chance of them—take a chance on them. Whether it’s planting some of those trees up in Northland that we’re spending all the money for—the ones that haven’t gone into the mulcher. But there are still a few trees that will be planted, and the ones that haven’t gone into the mulcher and that need to be planted will be planted by young men and women who somebody is taking a chance to employ. This legislation takes away that opportunity for most businesses. So there’s—

Hon Shane Jones: Wild country—wild pigs.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, he’s referring to pigs. Well, even the pig farmers are going to need to have the opportunity to employ young people, and most of them will have more than 20 workers, because we’re not just talking about full-time workers. It’s a small little business which might have 20 part-time workers on their books—well, they can no longer use the 90-day work trial.

Anybody who has spoken to business people around the countryside who are wanting to take a chance on employing somebody who has no background in work and who may have all sorts of personal issues, addictions and all those sorts of things, where we’re wanting to take a chance on that person—they are going to be less likely to do that because of this legislation that we’re talking about here today. It is a confused and muddled Government that spends half its time talking about how it wants to help these people, and then the other half of the time passing legislation that will make life more difficult for that very same group, and—

Hon Willie Jackson: Give us an example.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Mr Jackson—I’d be very keen to hear from him how he can possibly justify this piece of legislation which is going to hurt the very group that he says he’s working to try and help.

Now, we heard this huge, big claim from New Zealand First about how they were going to tough it out—they were going to straighten out this legislation and help the regional businesses to deal with it. They’re going to push back against the “Great Bearded Wonder” Lees-Galloway and toughen up this legislation. Well, what a wet blanket that turned out to be. They haven’t made any changes whatsoever, hardly. I mean, it’s a little tweak here and a little tweak there, but, essentially, this juggernaut still carries on, and it’s going to undermine the confidence that New Zealand businesses have and it is the primary reason why business confidence is at low levels.

Now, of course, we’ll hear from Government Ministers that all these references to poor business confidence is just rubbish, it’s mumbo jumbo, it’s confusion, and it doesn’t link with reality. Well, I tell you what: when business confidence is low, that leads, ultimately, to fewer investments being made, and the only way that we continue to create new jobs is through somebody making an investment, deciding to invest in a new business, buying new plant, and hiring a new worker, and those investment decisions are less likely to happen in an environment of poor confidence.

Now, it’s absolutely the case that this economy still continues to have momentum over a decade of good governance and very high terms of trade for our export prices. So, yep, we’ve got a good, strong economy with good momentum, but this Government takes that for granted and just assumes that it will carry on for ever. If they continue to chip away at the foundations of that success, we might wake up one morning and find that, actually, unemployment starts to increase and fewer people have opportunities. So that 90-day work trial, to me, is one of the saddest things that I’ve heard in recent times—depriving young people of the opportunity to have a chance taken on them by employers up and down this countryside. I think that the members on the other side need to take a long, hard, deep look at themselves and ask themselves whether they’ve got that one right, and I don’t think they have.

Just some of the other things that people will be shocked to discover about this legislation which hasn’t been changed: one is the idea that businesses have to, essentially, help unions recruit new members—because that’s what this is all about—and how employers should have to pay full salary and wages to someone even if they’re on a partial strike. Well, I mean, just imagine how that works in practice. You’ve got a group of people who are wanting to go and work only half-days or work to rule, work slowly—not do what they are supposed to be doing—and they expect to be paid full-time by their employers. Well, how do they think that sort of works? It doesn’t work very well—that’s how that’s how businesses go to the wall.

So this legislation is about helping unions strengthen their grip on the New Zealand economy. There are 82 percent of workers who aren’t—

Tim van de Molen: 83 percent.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —83 percent—members of unions at the moment, but this legislation is designed to increase that over time, and I don’t think that’s going to be a helpful thing for our opportunities. It won’t be an environment that will create the kind of jobs growth and jobs boom that we have seen over the past decade.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That was the most befuddled contribution I think I’ve ever heard from the member “Goldstein”. He’s been pushing his bagel franchise for some time. In fact, the member should be probably more likely referred to as a member from the “Neo-liberal Free-market Trickle-down Party”, as opposed to a National Party, which it was once set up to be.

Now, I have to look around proudly at our coalition partners and our members from New Zealand First here today, who can say we are actually landing in a far better position than this country has seen for a balance between the workers and the employers for some nine years—in fact, 10 years. It was actually around about 50 weeks ago that I had the pleasure to sit down with the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to initiate discussions around the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which was part of our 100-day plan for the coalition Government, to come out with some meaningful changes where we can bring back the balance between the employer and the employee. Now, I believe we have absolutely achieved that, and we have seen some moderation and some implementation of positive changes that are going to get that balance about right.

In fact, I want to read out our 2014 manifesto in which we, as New Zealand First, clearly articulated that “New Zealand First is committed to promoting an industrial relations environment based on fairness, flexibility, and neutrality between parties.” Now, this is something that the Opposition members failed to deliver on for nine years because of their neo-liberal, free-market, trickle-down ideology that has given us this theory that if the wealthy are being looked after at the top, somehow that wealth will be distributed by trickling down to the people at the bottom. But it is like molasses in a refrigerator—and that’s exactly what Fletcher Tabuteau said in his speech, and I actually want to pick up on that. It does trickle down, but it is like molasses in the refrigerator. The wealth never reaches to the bottom, which is why this side of the House, under this coalition agreement and this coalition Government, is talking about building our country from the bottom up. Introducing things—the living wage is not part of this bill, but it is certainly part of some of the things we are doing.

Now, the 90-day work trials which “Goldstein”—I mean Goldsmith, Mr Assistant Speaker—started to talk about is an area of concern. Well, 97 percent of the businesses in this country are actually small and medium sized businesses. So 97 percent of the companies in New Zealand are actually going to be looked after under this provision, which we have kept in there to keep those 90-day work trials continuing. Now, when we look at international examples around what a small to medium sized enterprise looks like, they vary quite widely and greatly from Europe to Australia, Canada, and the EU, and we maybe need to look at what constitutes a small to medium sized business as we move forward. But, today, businesses are invariably happy with what we have come up with to ensure that we actually look after the small and medium sized businesses that don’t have the resources of the larger businesses to actually spend time in the industrial relations area and in human resources specifically.

So I’m very pleased to announce that the 90-day work trials will be remaining. It certainly won’t have an impact on people being employed in Northland, as that member was articulating earlier. It is a pragmatic solution to a long-term problem—that’s what we want to see.

Furthermore, the ability for businesses to opt out of a multi-employer collective agreement (MECA) is, I think, a very important part. Now, this is where the parliamentary process has worked exceptionally well. We, at the end of the first reading, sent this bill off to the Education and Workforce Committee to hear from submitters. We have had hundreds of submissions from workers, from employers and employees, and from unions, etc., and I have to say that it was a concern raised by a number of people that those MECAs without an opt-out clause were going to be problematic. What it was going to do was actually tie up the provincial and regional parts of New Zealand with the cost structures of our larger areas and cities—something that the Hon Shane Jones mentioned early on in the piece. Now, what we’ve got is a position where those businesses, after engaging in serious negotiations, have the ability to now opt out of those multi-employer collective agreements, which, if not done properly, can be potentially problematic.

So well done to this coalition Government for sitting down, for listening to those submitters, and for getting back around the Cabinet table to discuss this at great length. It just shows you how a genuine mixed-member proportional Government can actually work when we listen to all sides of the House, all corners of the community and our sectors, businesses, and others to actually make sure that we get the right decision.

Now, when we enter into—I’m just looking at my time. The other part where I think we’ve found a balance is around the unions accessing workplaces. Where the union member wants to access a workplace, then the existing rules and regulations still apply to them. They have to give the right amount of notice, and it’s the status quo—business-as-usual. Where there are some changes is where a collective employment agreement has been reached and they are actually working under a collective employment agreement, then those union workers do have access, and that is making sure that we look after the safety and well-being of those employees under those MECAs.

Now, just remember too—for those people back home listening today—it’s the public sector that actually has over 50 percent of people employed under a collective employment agreement. It’s the public sector that actually is going to benefit the most from this, and a very, very small percent—less than 10 percent—of the private sector that is going to be affected. I think, again, this is where Governments—successive, previous, and existing Governments—need to look at ourselves to say “How can we improve the workers’ rights and the safety of our employees? How can we pay them better? How do we get better productivity? How can we ensure that businesses work sustainably for the long term for this Government?”, and this is exactly the outcome and the solution that we are trying to get to.

Business confidence, we hear from the other side, is waning. Well, we were at question time today. We read the Westpac report, and ANZ are coming out and saying the same thing. In actual fact, business confidence is growing. Business confidence—the fear that was fearmongered by the National Party in the early stages of this Government has turned out to be nothing but erroneous fears driven out of your discontent at been forced to the other side by New Zealanders. Now we see business confidence growing, we see the GDP per capita growing, and we’re seeing the lives of New Zealanders being more positively affected under this coalition Government than what we’ve seen for nine long years.

This is a very balanced, common-sense approach to ensuring that we get the balance right between the employers and the employees of this country—something that we haven’t had for a long time. In fact, my grandfather, if he was still alive today, would be very proud to see us moving in this direction. He was the head of the miners’ union on the West Coast of the South Island, but I’m telling you right now, this is something that we should all be proud of, because it’s about responsible capitalism. It’s about making money, but not at the expense of the workers of this country, and I for one, as a responsible capitalist, absolutely endorse that we treat our workers with the dignity and respect that we should all be putting forward—not what we’ve seen over nine years of neglect in the past.

I’d like to finish my contribution, on behalf of New Zealand First, by saying that it’s great to see this piece of legislation being tidied up and being fixed up collegially, collectively, together. It is no surprise that the Opposition—the neo-liberal, free-market, ideologically driven National Party—is opposing it, because they want to be seen to be strong. But, in actual fact, if you start reading what businesses are already saying about it, they are very pleased about it. I think you’re on the wrong side of the argument, and maybe you need to stop being so politically driven and actually get out and do the right thing for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Throughout that contribution, the member referred to the Hon Paul Goldsmith as “Goldstein”. I don’t want to suppose that that was a slur, potentially an ethnic slur to those of the Jewish faith who share the name Goldstein. I will not suppose that, but it is a—

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s OK—it’s all right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.

NICOLA WILLIS: —breach of the Standing Orders to not refer to members by their proper names.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I absolutely agree. That is correct. I wondered about interrupting the member. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was a slip of the tongue—I hope it was. If it happens again, he might find himself apologising for that, at the very least.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I was quite sure I saw a discernible shudder from Willie Jackson at the revelation that he was sitting beside a capitalist—albeit a responsible capitalist, as Mr Clayton Mitchell claimed himself. He then went on to decry the neo-liberal experiment of the last 30 years.

One of the things about going in this order, in this slot, is that I don’t get the opportunity to hear from the Hon Willie Jackson before I retort, because I know exactly what he’s going to say. He’s going to portray employers as villains and employees as victims, and there’ll be some tub-thumping 10 minutes about how this is the right thing to do and how bad employers are, because we’ve heard it before. What he’s really saying, actually, the really sad part of that—and I predict we will hear this—is that what I hear in that message is that employees are too weak and too stupid to actually negotiate with their employers in a mature and respectful manner. That’s what I think we have at the moment in the employment relations landscape in this country. Not all employers do the right thing by their employees, but that’s the exception, not the rule.

What we see in this bill is an underlying philosophy that employers are the villains, and that being the rule. I’m very, very disappointed to note that, because the overwhelming number of employers do the right thing, and that inference is a stain on them and their efforts in being the backbone of this economy.

In my three years as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I did at least the two things that Mr Mitchell mentioned, fairness and flexibility—and I want to give examples of that—but also safety. I think the passage of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 was a really important milestone that the previous Government saw as very important in our employment relations landscape, but it wasn’t just that. In fairness, it was increasing the penalties for non-compliance by employers to make very clear that that sort of behaviour wasn’t acceptable. It was suspending their access to the international labour market if they breached employment law, and it was, of course, the reality that if they themselves were recent migrants, they could be liable for deportation.

The zero-hour legislation was passed with the unanimous support of every single member of this House. That was a very important—

Marja Lubeck: But it’s still happening—it’s still happening under this legislation.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Well, you’ve been the Government for a year or more.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —National-led amendment to protect employees from poor practice. That’s a very good point, Mrs Dean—not a single word about that in the 12 months that they have been in Government.

Flexibility, though—I think that’s where the saddest part of this bill comes in, because it reflects a completely jaundiced view of why certain things are necessary. I want to start with the 90-day trial, because not a single Labour-led Government member has actually explained why, prior to the sensible changes the Key-English Government made, New Zealand was the only one, if I recall rightly—there might’ve been two, but no more than two countries in the OECD that did not have a 90-day trial. Some of those countries were some of the most socialist, leftist Governments in the OECD, and they saw the 90-day trial as fair and flexible.

Marja Lubeck: Where’s the evidence? No evidence.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So if they do, if Turkey does, if Australia does, if the United States does, if most of the Eastern bloc countries—all of the Eastern bloc countries that are members of the OECD—think that’s a very good idea, why was it such a terrible thing for New Zealand to have it? The answer, of course, is that it wasn’t. We started with small business, we extended it to all business, and I defy anybody to put substance behind the interjections of Ms Lubeck that, somehow, that was bad for employees. The marginalised, those returning to the workforce, and the recent migrants have all benefited from that. They will talk about the number of people for whom the 90-day trial didn’t work out. They don’t talk about the overwhelming tens if not hundreds of thousands of employees that were given a go coming out of the global financial crisis when they otherwise might not have had that opportunity.

I do credit New Zealand First with at least putting back the small business exemption to the removal of the 90-day trial. I say that if it’s good for those businesses, it’s good for all businesses.

Now, the other one that really upsets me, that disappoints me more than anything, is the rest and meal breaks one, and I’ve used these examples in the House.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: See, they laugh—they think it’s funny. They think it’s funny that we don’t think employees are too stupid to negotiate for themselves flexibility in their shifts, and I’ll give you an example of that.

As some members know, I used to run a surgical hospital, and at certain times of the week, the ward at night was not busy enough to justify more than two registered nurses. In fact, sometimes it didn’t justify even that, but for clinical safety reasons it’s necessary to have two registered nurses on a night shift. Now, the definition of a “rest or meal break” is one where a staff member is able to leave the ward. That is not possible under those clinical conditions, and therefore I paid a generous allowance and gave them a meal so that they were compensated.

Marja Lubeck: They can still do that.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, they can’t—that’s the point. They simply cannot. They can negotiate the timing of their rest and meal breaks, but they cannot negotiate it away.

Indeed, shifts in hospitals traditionally—and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation still haven’t been able to negotiate this away; I hope they do redouble their efforts—are actually very, very bad for working parents. Most of them are women. The morning shift starts at 6.45 and it ends at 3.15. Now, I had arrangements with some of my staff to enable them to leave early. As long as the handover of patients was done, they could leave, if they didn’t take a lunch break, at 2.45 instead of 3.15 and be ready and available to pick their children up from school. That’s unlawful, and actually, rather, on one point, it may be possible to schedule the lunch break for 2.45, but technically, again, they can’t leave the ward.

The point is: why did we need this? When it was unacceptable, when it was inflexible, when the employers were not doing the right thing, there were already provisions to protect employees from that, and, frankly, the unions would and should and were doing their job of that. But the problem is we have an attitude of villainous employers, none of whom can be trusted, and therefore that kind of flexibility has to be rooted out with the bill. It’s a crying shame.

Now, I want to go on to access to the workplace. In fact, I was fascinated to hear Mr Mitchell say that this was some kind of watering down of this, because section 20A now, as a consequence of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 153 that the Minister has introduced, suggests that the union representative must obtain consent to enter the workplace. Indeed, that’s what it says, but the exceptions to that are not just if there is a collective employment agreement in place; it’s also “(b) at the time of the representative’s entry into the workplace,—(i) the union or employer has initiated bargaining … and; (ii) the intended coverage of the collective agreement, as set out in the notice given in accordance with section 42, covers the work done by employees at the workplace.” It doesn’t say that the workplace is going to be covered by the collective agreement, and, indeed, this could well be a place where the unions want to extend the coverage.

But we now have a provision that says there is an opt-out provision in the multi-employer collective agreement, and it’s far from clear to me whether or not this change is completely obsolete, in the sense that if the union intends and hopes and is trying to get an extension of the coverage to that workplace where one presently doesn’t exist, they nevertheless don’t have to seek permission to enter the workplace. So I see this as Clayton’s watering down. It is actually a stalking horse, with a lack of permission that I think a respectful union will continue to do even though this law has passed. I would like to think that they were overwhelmingly in that space, but members of the House should not think for a moment that this amendment in the SOP is something like akin to a watering down back to what the present Employment Relations Act says.

Now, the last thing I want to touch on is the issue of partial strikes, because I don’t believe there’s been any change to that. I wasn’t on the committee at the end of the process, but we have partial strikes going on in hospitals right now, with midwives. They are taking two hours off per shift between 22 November and early December. Now, when the Minister was confronted on this in January when the framework was announced, he talked about partial strikes as some kind of protest thing, and he used the Wellington Free Ambulance workers wearing red shirts at work and somehow being at risk of punishment, and that was a bad thing. Well, of course, that’s not any sort of definition of a partial strike. What is a definition is these two-hour breaks, and the employer will have to pay for that every single time they do it. It will become the norm. We’ll speak more about this in the committee of the whole House, but there is very, very little redeeming about this legislation.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s with pleasure that I rise and offer the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand’s support for the Employment Relations Amendment Bill this evening, in its second reading.

We’ve been hearing a lot from that side of the House about how terrible this is. We’ve heard about these terrible, militant trade unions who are just trying to bring business to their knees, and we’ve heard about, really, that we’re patronising workers and just think that they’re too weak to be able to defend themselves. We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about just how the sky is going to fall because of this legislation, and I really do just need to reference back to—we survived the 2000s. We did, and, actually, I think we’re just getting unemployment back to the levels that we had it in the 2000s.

This bill doesn’t even quite bring us back to the employment relations conditions of the 2000s—not quite—but it’s a very good first step, moving in a direction of restoring some balance. But the hyperbole from that side of the House really has reminded me of the 1920s, of this kind of sense that, you know, the unions and these people joining together are out to destroy the foundations of our society. It’s quite—you know, I’m seeing people with top hats, and it feels very Great Gatsby to me, and not really grounded in the experience of individual New Zealanders’ lives.

Certainly, I’ve been hearing a lot from people around the country, and certainly the working people who submitted on this legislation told us a very, very different story. They told us about the value of these changes, and I do want to just pick up on one of the points that was made by the last speaker, Michael Woodhouse, which was inconsistent with the other speakers, talking about villainising employers. This legislation really just doesn’t do that at all, from my perspective. It just doesn’t even come close. But what we get from the other side is a denial of the imbalance of power, and also the added point to that: that New Zealand, from academic surveys, has found that we have the second highest rate of workplace bullying in the developed world, and that 70 percent of that bullying is from seniors down to juniors.

We’re told that enabling somebody to have a right to a rest and meal break is treating people as weak. I think the problem is actually in the other side’s denial of reality. I think that I do want to point out, as well, that I’ve been hearing quite a bit from that side that feeds what Helen Kelly used to talk about as a narrative that working people should be grateful for their jobs. For the last decade or so, that’s what we’ve been hearing, that people should be grateful for whatever they get paid and they should be grateful for a job in the first place, and that to ask for more was really just stepping outside of what you could expect. We’ve seen the impact of that kind of thinking by an absolute entrenchment in inequality.

Even the International Monetary Fund, quite a conservative global force, has now recognised that the rates of unionisation, of workers being able to join together, is one of the most effective measures that we have to address inequality, because an individual worker up against that boss—and many of those relationships will not be positive experiences. It’s just, actually, too big an imbalance. The way that you address that is by joining together with other working people who have a shared interest in the workplace and by working with your employer, having rebalanced that relationship through the strengthened numbers.

That’s not villainising employers; that’s actually making sure that good information can come through from the staff in the workplace to make a better workplace for everyone and a better society for all of us. What we’ve seen is that since the 1980s is that the top 1 percent—their incomes are now eight times what they are for low-income New Zealanders. It used to be only five times, which is bad enough, but that has been directly linked to the number of people in unions, so we have to do something about it.

This is only the first step, from the Greens’ perspective. You know, we would like to see 90-day rules gone entirely. I’m not entirely convinced that they play a positive role at all. When we heard, through the submissions on the bill, really terrible stories from people who told the select committee about how that rule had been played out for them, we heard the characterisation that it was, you know, possibly young Māori up in Northland who should be grateful that they had this opportunity to get a job, somebody who would take a chance on them—because “Otherwise, why would you?” was the inference—but this rule affects all workers.

We heard in the select committee from professional people who were saying that they hadn’t been particularly—who were National voters, might I also say. Professional people who never thought that that rule would be applied against them found themselves out of a job just the day before the 90-day trial ended, with no excuse given. They were lucky enough that they could walk into another job pretty much straight away because they were in a profession that was in demand, which is not the same for many other people. But they were very clear that there was no justification for this rule and that it was, in some cases, being misused and should not be supported—and that was from a National Party member. We heard of people with mental health difficulties struggling and being kicked out in that 90-day trial period and not getting the support from the employers.

You hear from the Opposition that this bill is ideological. It’s not ideological. This is based on the experiences of working people and the things that they told us—and are repeatedly telling us—would help them be able to keep a job and get decent conditions and have a safe workplace.

One of the other points I want to acknowledge around the 90-day trial is that New Zealand has one of the highest turnovers in the developed world between people in and out of work—of employment churn. There are only two countries in the world where people move in and out of employment more often—

Dan Bidois: That’s called flexibility.

JAN LOGIE: —than they do in this country. It is not flexibility, and when we have a social welfare system that punishes people for losing their job, we have to start looking at these policies in conjunction with our social security system and provide some security for people in our community. What is a job worth if you’re not able to keep a roof over your head, support yourself, sustain your family, participate in your community, and have a sense of stability? I would argue that if those things are not in place, your job is a force that is undermining you and your community. In this House, we have a responsibility to think about how we can actually provide a really secure platform for everybody in this country to be able to live their best possible life and be recognised appropriately for the contribution that they make through their paid employment.

The whole attitude of “People should be grateful for their job and grateful for what they get.” and the sense that businesses are the backbone of this society just ignores the fact that these businesses have people who are doing the work that produces the value that is the backbone of our society. If we ignore their contribution, then we all lose. This bill is not perfect, but it is a blimmin good start.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Meanwhile, back in the 21st century, I’d like to pick up on the debate on the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and just say to the House that we have been treated this afternoon in the second reading of this bill to a degree of hysteria that is seldom seen in this House. I want to thank the Green member Jan Logie sincerely for reminding us what life was like back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

Well, I’m going to tell you a small anecdote of a story. It was last Friday night. I’d been to a function. I was in Alexandra, which is about as New Zealand as you can get. There are small businesses from one corner to the next of Alexandra. It is a very, very, very quintessentially New Zealand town. So the sun was shining—unusually—for the moment. I’d been to a function, and I returned to my motel to kick my shoes off, make a cup of tea, and bask in the window seat, as I did, at 7 o’clock at night. Across the road there was—because I was in town—a motorcycle shop and right next door to that was a light engineering business, and sitting out in the sunshine at 7 o’clock at night were a couple of bosses having a beer. Guess what? They had beers for their workers—yes.

Hon Member: Seriously?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes. The workers and the bosses—except they don’t call themselves that; what they do is they call themselves the team—were sitting out in the sunshine at the back of work, enjoying a beer and a yarn after work on a Friday. How can this happen under current employment legislation? How can this even be that there is a trusting, warm relationship?

There was a young fellow there, who must have been an apprentice. How can that even be under the current legislation, which is so very bad, so very awful, and so oppressive—so oppressive? If you listen to the words of the Green members, who dwell in the 1970s, how can they even take part, because workers are the downtrodden? Well, that is not what I saw, and that is not what I see in the 21st century New Zealand that I know very well. All of this was happening, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Government, the Greens, New Zealand First, and Labour, under current legislation.

So that leads me to the next logical question about this piece of legislation, which is: if it is the case—and they really want to hear what I have to say now, so they’ve gone “Shush!” They’ve gone “Shush!” because, actually, they’re waiting to hear what I have to say. So what I have to say is that the New Zealand economy is doing very well, and they don’t ever shy away from taking credit for that, but why is the New Zealand economy doing so very well? Largely, because we have got flexible labour laws, which is giving business the confidence to hire, to invest, and to expand their business, to the point where we now have a—what? What is the unemployment rate in New Zealand? I know the Government members know what it is. What is the rate of unemployment in New Zealand? Oh, I’ll tell them what it is. It’s down to 3.7 percent—

Hon Members: Nine.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —3.9 percent, which is the lowest unemployment in New Zealand for a number of years. OK, take the credit—you normally do in question time. So then, when you get up in this House, get up and tell us what is the problem the Government is trying to fix? What is the problem that this Government is trying to fix? I’ll tell you what it is—I’ll tell you what it is: it’s to keep their coalition members happy. That’s the problem that this bill is legislating for. That is all about Labour needing to keep its union mates happy. It’s in the bill. It’s in the purpose of the bill, right up front. Labour needs to keep its donors, its associate member affiliates—they need to keep them happy. But better than that, they need to keep their New Zealand First mates happy, and that is why we have got the amendments which have been brought to the House. Labour has been forced to back down to its union members and say, “Sorry, sorry. We wanted to get it over the line, comrades, but we couldn’t because New Zealand First would not buy it.” So that is why we have got the 90-day trial back in for businesses under 20 employees, and bring it on, I say, because that has been a really successful initiative.

And over the other side of the House where the Green member today, amongst all the weeping and wailing that was going on, gave us a very instructive quote where she was able to say that if she had her way—or they as a party had their way—the 90-day trial would have remained out. So here we have the internal struggle, the internal fights, and the long discussions in Cabinet—which we were helpfully told about today by New Zealand First, who, sort of, open their mouths and think a little bit later than that. So now we have revealed that there is a lot of internal strife as these parties seeks to pay their masters. That’s what this bill is about.

This bill is not about fixing a problem, because we have a strong economy still—say thank you. Say thank you to National for that strong economy. Thank you. We have an engaged workforce with flexible conditions thanks to National. Say thank you, National. Thank you, National. Yes. For a whole year, under this Government, who have hated the legislation and the oppressed workers and all that kind of hyperbole we’ve been hearing all afternoon, which has not been instructive—underneath that all we’ve had a whole year more—14 months, nearly—of industrial relations legislation as it stands.

So I want the Minister, in due course, in the next reading, and I want members to get in there and identify what is the problem they are trying to fix, except for—

Hon Scott Simpson: Low union membership.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you—low union membership.

So I just want to traverse very briefly some of the language that we’ve heard in this House today, because it’s been quite good. So a very new and, arguably, naïve Labour member stood up this afternoon and said, “This is the best piece of legislation we’ve brought to the House.” She went on to say, “I cannot understand why any business would not be happy.” That’s what a Labour member said. Well, I would suggest that that Labour member take a look at business confidence in New Zealand. The Government can argue the contrary all they like, but business confidence is being impacted. Hiring intentions are being impacted.

I get out there. My colleagues get out there. We talk to small business. We talk to medium business. We talk to large business. Hiring intentions are being impacted. People are not taking on apprentices, because they simply do not know what the future holds for them as an employer, and so it is easier in that vacuum of information and uncertainty just not to take on an apprentice just for now. They’re going to hold off. Now, tell me that’s good for productivity. Tell me that’s good for our economy.

And what about the 90-day trial and the impact that has had on young people’s lives? I’m sure the Green Party—if the Green Party were speaking, they would be eloquent on young people and employment. The 90-day trial was the best thing for business. And I know it gripes them to have it back in, but, my goodness, it gives a chance to young people, and somebody out there tell me that’s a bad thing. It is not a bad thing. So I challenge this Government, as they traverse their pay back to their union mates and union funders—I challenge them to truly justify in the economic conditions we have now and the rate of unemployment we have now just why this legislation is even necessary.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I think that was such a sad contribution that I’m almost feeling sorry for that member, Jacqui Dean—almost, not quite. I will give this piece of advice, though, for the people that were interjecting during Jan Logie’s contribution and on the previous member, just in case anyone else thinks that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand made some big revelation about their stance over 90-day trials today. I’ll just give the piece of advice to the other side to read the bill, because it’s in the commentary what the Green Party’s stance is on it and what they’ve said. So instead of reading your speech notes from their advisers, perhaps they should take some time to read the actual bill.

We’ve heard here today that there is no crisis in employment. We’ve heard a whole lot of things. Perhaps, again, I should say to those people: go and read the submissions—or listen to the submissions, because they were videoed, most of them. Listen to the workers who told us—

Dan Bidois: How many were against?

JAN TINETTI: —about how bad the 90-day trial was for them. I will tell you how many submitters were opposed to this bill. There were actually 249 submitters opposed, Mr Bidois. When National had their bill in 2014, which sort of put this legislation into place in the first place that we’re actually reversing again, there were 16,500 submitters opposed to their bill—16,500 to 249. There’s not much of a crisis in employment, is there.

I’m really disappointed that they are creating or trying to create some sort of pretence around this massive opposition to this bill. This bill restores workers’ rights. It is fantastic for our workers out there. We heard from those workers. We heard how disempowered they feel. Anything that makes our workers feel more empowered and starts to restore that balance in that workplace is a good thing.

We did hear from employers, and we heard from employers that they are good employers. In fact, it was amazing how many good employers we heard in front of the Education and Workforce Committee—that’s fantastic. This bill will not hurt those employers. This bill will help bring those people up who are not the good employers, and we will restore workers’ rights to the workplace. That is a good thing, and so I commend this bill to the House.

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

NICOLA WILLIS (National): The reason that business confidence is at an all-time low with this Government is because of speeches like that—speeches that send a very clear message that this Government does not trust small business. This Government does not trust business. This Government believes that businesses don’t want to do right by their staff; that businesses are all there to crush workers. And I would encourage the members opposite to spend some time visiting the real businesses of New Zealand, because the business people I sit down with—and I’ve sat down with more than 50 businesses over the past six months—say to me that what they want to do is do right by their staff, they want to ensure that staff want to stay working for them and that they want to progress within the business, and they say that this bill does not help them do better by the workers. They don’t see the reason for change, all they see is problems.

The members opposite think that this is some sort of amorphous thing. Business is actually the IT businesses growing in Wellington. It is bars. It is early childhood centres. It is the organisations that are at the heart of our community. And when I’ve talked to these businesses—

Hon Andrew Little: It’s way more than that.

NICOLA WILLIS: —about what these changes would mean for them—let me tell you a story, Mr Little, about the bar in Wellington I sat down with. I said, “Are you aware of these changes?” They said, “Yes, we are aware of these changes, and here is our plan to deal with them, Nicola. Because it’s going to be much harder to hire people in future without a 90-day trial period, we’ve thought up a really great scheme. Our scheme is that we going to institute buzzers in our bar.” So what the bar said was, “We realise that now bringing on lots of people is going to be difficult. So what we’re going to do is have a buzzer system so that customers who are wanting orders taken to their table will take the buzzer with them and when it buzzes they can get the food.” And that’s an ingenious and innovative response but it doesn’t mean more jobs for New Zealanders; it means fewer jobs for New Zealanders. It means fewer jobs in the hospitality industry; fewer jobs for young people, maybe, who need a second chance because things haven’t gone so well for them; fewer jobs for students who might actually want to earn some money in the summer break, fewer jobs for people who are wanting a second part-time job to get ahead. So, actually, these changes matter. They insult businesses, they reduce their confidence, and they will reduce the health of many businesses across the country.

These changes are also Draconian. They take us back in time, and if there’s one person who articulated that well, it was the Privacy Commissioner. What the Privacy Commissioner took particular issue with—and I think New Zealanders would take particular issue with—is the idea that it’s OK to give employees’ details out to unions so that they can recruit them. That is an appalling breach of privacy and in the words of the Privacy Commissioner he said, this “is poor privacy practice … [It] is against”—

Kiritapu Allan: It’s a fantastic idea. The workers can be protected.

NICOLA WILLIS: I want to talk to you about individual rights, Kiri Allan, because I think you studied them at university. This is what the Privacy Commissioner said. He said it “is against an individual’s right to exercise some autonomy over their personal information.” But the members opposite don’t care about an individual’s right to privacy; they care about the union’s right to recruit individuals in a workplace. They care about unions having businesses being forced to help them recruit. So this is a Draconian bill. It’s a bill that damages business confidence.

It’s also a bill that doesn’t take into account the realities of our changing and evolving workplaces—workplaces where there are factories like the one we heard about in Canterbury that has a continuous operation system, so it operates for three days in a row. And so, pragmatically, the good employer has said, “OK, so what we’re going to do, is we’re going to pay you for the breaks that you miss. We’ll pay you additional and we’ll make sure you have a meal the end of your shift because what we don’t want to ever have to do is down tools and stop our continuous manufacturing process, because that will be inefficient for our business. But we are really concerned”—they said—“about this bill, because it would make sure that we have to have meal breaks that are prescribed by law and alter the efficiency of our business.” And what’s the solution for them? Automation—so, yet again, bad for jobs; bad for the realities of businesses.

I want to just finish by talking about early childhood services, because early childhood services up and down this country have raised concerns with me about this bill and what it means not only for them but for the quality and viability of their services for children and parents. What they have said to me is that they think it’s wrong that they would be forced by this bill, in some circumstances, to reinstate an educator that they have dismissed. They think it is wrong that they would potentially be required to put children at risk in that way. They think it is wrong to take away the flexibility to say to a working mother, “You can work through your lunch break and go home early to pick your kids up from school.” They think it is wrong to make sure that trial periods are removed.

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

NICOLA WILLIS: This bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I just want to remind members that when I stand, the member’s speech is over.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I don’t know where to start. First of all, I would like to say on the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that Jacqui Dean thanked the National Party, I think, two or three times for this what she called wonderful economy. I’d like to say, “Thank you, working people of New Zealand. Thank you for this economy.” It’s not one party that makes an economy great. It’s the working people and that is despite the employment legislation they have had to work under for years.

Now this this bill actually tackles many of the undermining changes made by previous National Governments that made it much harder for working people to get ahead. And I know that the member for the Coromandel called this a 1970s piece of legislation. Other members have said “Get into the 21st century.” and then they’ve described a very adversarial environment of companies and workers and unions, and that just shows how out of touch they are with modern workplaces. They don’t realise that in many instances the very well-performing companies of New Zealand, like Fonterra, Air New Zealand, KiwiRail—they all work collaboratively with unions and, in fact, they promote and they encourage their workers to join the unions when they first start working for them.

No mention has been made by the other party of the object of the Employment Relations Act, which is to address and acknowledge the inherent imbalance in the power in the working relationship, and over the years it has completely gone out of whack. This is what this bill is doing: it is the first step in righting a lot of these wrongs. Now the National Party has been going on about these earth-shattering changes to this bill, but let’s look at what they actually do. We are reinstalling the duty to conclude bargaining; that was removed in 2015. We are reintroducing the fact that employers cannot make pay deductions for a partial strike—2015. We are reinstating, God forbid, the requirements around rest breaks and meal breaks—2015. The 90-day trial was only instated in 2009 to 2010.

Mr Goldsmith had something to say about the right to strike, but the right to strike is actually an internationally recognised right. That is not just something that people want to do because they feel like it. This bill is about workplaces that will provide good jobs, decent working conditions, and fair pay, and it’s restoring some of the basic human rights of workers to be treated with fairness and dignity.

The changes that I just referred to from 2015—many of the changes only go back a couple of years. They were actually made against the advice of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; against advice from industrial relations practitioners and unions; and, also, they were contrary to New Zealand’s international commitments. One of them, for example, is the removal of rights of new workers to be covered by the terms and conditions of an existing collective agreement for the first 30 days of membership.

If I look at the then comment from the Minister of Labour, he actually said that the changes will enable employers to offer individual terms and conditions that are less than those in collective agreements. So that was what all of those changes were meant to do: they were trying to prey on the more vulnerable, drive down terms and conditions—all that for more flexibility or, like we call it, exploitation. There was another one: the 30-day rule. Advice was that it would disadvantage young people, those exiting benefits for employment, and also it would disadvantage other vulnerable workers, but National—at the time, the National Government—chose to ignore that advice, and we know the effects of it.

The member for the Coromandel says that under this bill nobody will be better off. Yet we’ve heard real stories, as our member Jan Tinetti spoke about earlier, from people that have been hurt by the last Government’s attacks on their working rights, on their lives and incomes. All that—what we heard from the other side—is to create record amounts of jobs. But what kind of jobs are they: insecure, part-time. The member for Northcote said it: “Flexibility. You know, who wants to be in a job for such a long time?” Well, actually a lot of these people hold two or three jobs to make ends meet and that’s pretty tough when you want to make sure that you provide for your family and perhaps also have a little bit of time to spend with them. It just shows us that the National Government at the time was absolutely out of touch with what working people needed and what collective bargaining does, because collective bargaining lifts wages and conditions and it does so not just for union members; it actually does it across the board.

So when people are saying, “Those bad unions and there’s only so few union members”—I think the member for Coromandel mentioned 18 percent. Well, actually, it’s the people not the unions that are missing out. If you look at the collective agreements that are negotiated by unions, there’s only 1 percent of all those members that missed out on a pay increase. But if you look at people on an individual agreement, 45 percent missed out on a pay increase. So it’s sad for those not with unions because they are the ones that actually are missing out more than the others. We know it pays to be with a union because the collective bargaining strengthening of union rights in the workplace will ultimately benefit most workers. So fairness and balance in the workplace is what it seems the National Party is not agreeing on.

Jan Tinetti mentioned the fact that a lot of good employers are not afraid of these changes because not only do they already respect and value the workforce they also know that what the current legislation enables bad employers to do is undermine them. When you are a good employer and you’re trying to make a fair and decent work environment for your workers, and there’s someone around the corner who doesn’t respect those rights for the same workers, you’re actually up against a very unfair competitive environment. Good businesses will also treat their employees right, their union delegates right, and they recognise that union delegates actually fulfil a really important role in the workplace. They help resolve workplace issues before they become larger problems, and I guess the constant narrative from the other side about how bad unions or union delegates are shows that they actually have no idea about modern workplaces and how everybody can win when people work together. The unions, in fact, warned the National Government at the time, back in 2010 and 2015, that those bills would be bad for workers as well as for employers, and it is exactly what has happened.

Someone mentioned the reinstatement—I think it was Nicola Willis. Now, I have also spoken to early childhood places that had some issues with that, because they had the completely wrong idea about reinstatement as the primary remedy. It is for an unjustifiable dismissal, so if somebody should not have lost their job in the first place, they get reinstated to the place they were in before. Now, there are a lot of hurdles still to consider. If, for example, a workplace cannot practically have that person back, then that person does not get their job back, but at the end of the day, if you’re dismissed and it wasn’t your fault, then you should get your job back. I don’t understand why that is such a big thing to consider for the other side.

The other one is the multi-employer collective agreements (MECAs). Now, there seems to be a really unclear message about MECAs—MECAs are not one size fits all. If you look at MECAs that are used by big businesses—for example, we had Chris Flatt from the Dairy Workers Union explain to us how it works at Fonterra and Jill Ovens from E tū about the district health board (DHB) workers. They actually explained to us about the schedules in the MECAs, and sometimes those schedules are larger than the MECAs themselves. So, once again, the narrative about it being one size fits all is not right.

There’s also insufficient understanding about the access provisions. Now, it’s not unfettered access, and we had an organiser from Together, actually, make that point really well. She said, “Think of me as an organiser, as a contractor. If there is a health and safety induction requirement, then as a union official, as a contractor, that’s what we do. We report in, we sign in.” So that’s exactly what it is. There’s no just walking in and doing whatever you like. But once again, this access is just going back to the way things were previously.

On the 90 days, there has been no evidence at all—because we’ve asked the officials—of extra job creation for the 90 days, but when it comes to flexibility in the smaller businesses, that has remained. But when it comes to young people, someone from Stand Up told us, actually, “The 90-day trials teach us as young people that we are disposable”, and someone said, “The 90-day trial caused an endless sense of anxiety”. That’s the sort of comment that we’ve heard from working people and how this old law has affected them.

So for all those reasons, I applaud this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): This bill is payback for Labour’s union mates. They waited nine long years, grinding their teeth, and now that Labour is back in, here it is, they’re back, and they want Labour to scratch their backs. The unions have certainly scratched the Labour Party’s backs plenty, through donations, through campaign volunteers, and they even helped pick the former leader of the Labour Party, the Hon Andrew Little.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We’re on dangerous ground here. When the member sits down, I want him to turn to page 49 of the Speaker’s Rulings and read 1 through to 7. I just want to give him a gentle warning around making accusations of the nature that he’s just said.

DAN BIDOIS: OK, understood, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will continue. This bill does nothing more than appease the unions. It’s a bill that does everything to empower the unions and nothing to empower the workers of New Zealand.

Now, let me walk through the purpose of this bill, which states very clearly that this bill aims to “restore minimum standards and protection for employees” and there are a suite of changes to promote and strengthen “collective bargaining and union rights in the workplace”. Now, what I have as a question is: what is it in our system that makes them think that they need to change such a great system? We rank fifth in the world for labour market efficiency, according to the World Economic Forum. We rank sixth in the world for the cooperation in labour and employment relations. We rank about 16th in the world for the flexibility of wage determination. Does that sound like we need a change? Absolutely not.

What about the minimum standards for employees that are actually listed in the bill? I see a lot of new rules for unions, but very few minimum standards and better conditions for workers. Workers have voted overwhelmingly against this bill. As my colleagues have mentioned, 83 percent of the New Zealand workforce is not in a union. In 2017, we had about 350,000 people in a union, and that’s down by 500,000 since 1991. I’ve spoken to businesses like McDonald’s—large, hardworking businesses that employ close to 10,000 workers—and only 10 percent of them are in a union. Nothing that even the previous Labour Government did has changed the trend towards declining membership, and nothing that this Government will do will, in fact, reverse that trend even further.

What about protection for employees, and rest and meal breaks, and conditions? The question that I have is what is the best mechanism to improve conditions for workers? Is it to empower the unions or is it to, in fact, empower employees? The feedback that I’ve had from the business community is loud and clear. They are worried. They’re worried about the uncertainty, and small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are worried, in particular, about the extra costs that this adds on to their businesses and the risks that we face because we’re putting our gold-standard labour market at risk. They’re being told what to do by the bureaucrats in Wellington, and these bureaucrats don’t even understand their industry. They don’t understand that most SMEs are very hardworking and good employers who take care of their employees. It’s going to be harder to remain profitable with this legislation and remain competitive.

Now, we in the National Party did a survey of businesses—several thousand, in fact—and 70 percent of the businesses that we surveyed said employment law changes are going to be most concerning. The feedback that I’ve had from businesses in my electorate is that these changes are simply not necessary. They’re taking us backwards—

Kiritapu Allan: You don’t need to read your speech. Just give your speech—tell us what you think.

DAN BIDOIS: —and not forward. All right, let me tell you what I think about some of the provisions in this bill—firstly, the 90-day trial. I just got back from my electorate and talked to a big company named Thermosash. It’s a big employer—it’s 600 workers that work there—and they’re one of the largest subcontractors in New Zealand. You know what they said to me? They said that they use the 90-day rule to hire youth workers, and with that, they will no longer be able to do so under this provision.

What about rest and meal breaks? Well, I’ve spoken, again, to McDonald’s, and no one disagrees that people and workers need rest breaks. What we disagree with is the flexibility in which they occur, particular to different industries. For example, in the fast-food industry, sometimes customers come in and you’re busy and you can’t take a break. Now, under the rules of this new law, workers are able to go off site without any notice.

What about the horticulture businesses, I hear you ask? Well, again, the horticulture season goes up and down and they need a degree of flexibility in their workforce for rest and meal breaks. Again, the risk with these rest and meal breaks is that it doesn’t have a degree of flexibility. What about this compulsory multi-employer collective agreement (MECA)—

Kiritapu Allan: You’ve got no bloody clue.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry. Can we calm down? I’d really like to hear this speech.

Kiritapu Allan: Oh God, really?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I’m on my feet. No good calling out to God to help you.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me get back to the important aspects of this bill. So we are talking about this compulsory MECA opt-out provision. Yes, there’s been a Supplementary Order Paper that’s been tabled today by the Minister, but, again, if your employment is signed up to a collective agreement, then that gives union representatives unfettered access to the workplace. Again, businesses that I’ve talked to in Auckland, in Northcote, and Porirua are upset about these changes. What about time off for union activities? Again, this is going to add extra compliance costs to businesses in the area.

So National, in this part of the House, is opposed to this bill. We don’t think that these changes are needed. We already have one of the most flexible, efficient, and desired labour markets in the developed world. The New Zealand that I want to live in, in the future, is one where our labour markets are indeed flexible, where we give Kiwis the opportunity to work when they want and how they want, where our employment framework is fit for New Zealand and fit for the future of this country in terms of rapid change in technology and development.

We have to understand that 90 percent of the businesses in New Zealand are small and medium sized enterprises—

Hon Andrew Little: No it’s not. Fifty percent of them don’t employ anybody.

DAN BIDOIS: —and 10 percent—well, that’s a small and medium sized enterprise, sir. Ten percent of those are in fact what we define as large businesses. I also want an employment framework that is simple and worker-centric, not union-centric. There needs to be an empowerment of our workers, and this bill does nothing to empower workers. All I see is a bill that empowers unions. Now, these MECAs are a silly idea and the New Zealand that I want to live in is one where we don’t have these MECAs, where businesses in the area of Northcote don’t dictate the living wage for businesses in the Coromandel or Porirua or the Hawke’s Bay. We need a flexible employment framework for New Zealand’s future. We need unions that really—quite frankly, the New Zealand public have voted with their feet overwhelmingly in favour of no unions, and the employment framework that we want to see, on this side of the House, is a place where no unions are around; where, in fact, the power is given to the workers of New Zealand rather than to the unions. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): That was, sadly, one of the most confused speeches and contributions on a piece of legislation I’ve heard in a long time. The idea that you empower workers by making them isolated and standing by themselves and giving all the power to the employer—that apparently constitutes empowering, in the minds of the National Party! But that explains where the National Party is at. You see, the National Party has never understood about the dignity of labour. They’ve never understood about the dignity of workers. They do not understand that the dignity of labour is not just about having a job. It is about having a job, but it’s about more than that as well. The National Party has never understood that the dignity of labour is about having a rewarding job, a satisfying job, a job that is challenging, a job that is well rewarded.

But here’s the most important thing that the National Party has never got. They’ve never got the idea that the dignity of labour is about a worker having the right to have a say: having the right to have a say with their employer about their wages and conditions; having the right to associate with their workmates, to organise together, to work on issues of common interest—common interest to them as workers and a common interest between them and their employers. The National Party has never understood that. Sid Holland never understood it and he was good mates with Fintan Patrick Walsh, but ever since then the National Party has been steeped in the industrial politics of the 1950s, and they’ve never got out of it.

There’ve been one or two exceptions, I have to say. Jim Bolger did once and then he lurched off to the far right with the Employment Contracts Act, but even then he’s come back and apologised for it—and Peter Gordon, who I think was probably one of the greatest industrial mediators from the National Party we ever had. But the modern National Party has never got that. The modern National Party, actually, has signed up to the far right view that workers should be crushed and it is OK to exploit workers and it’s OK to take away the basic protections of fairness. That’s the reality of the National Party in the 21st century.

The reason they like the 90-day trial stuff is that it means that their employer mates—and there’s only a few of them anyway. Some of their employer mates know that they can get away with sacking somebody with no good reason at all, because that’s what the 90-day thing does. Many employers, certainly medium sized and larger employers, who employ the bulk of the nation’s workforce, don’t use the 90-day trial thing. They don’t like it and they don’t need it, because they are good managers. They know how to manage performance and that’s what they focus on.

The one thing that the last speaker never spoke about was actually about the experience of working people. What do working people want, apart from the good dignity of labour—a part of which is actually having a respectful relationship, mutually respectful relationship, with their managers? That’s what you want to achieve and that’s what this bill will do. It will start to restore mutually respectful relationships in the workplace once again—the right for workers to choose to belong to a union, the right for workers to choose to bargain collectively, and to have that choice respected. The National Party doesn’t want to do that because they don’t respect workers—have not for decades, and do not now. This is a question of respect, respect for workers, and the environment and the climate that this Government is about is about making sure that productivity in the workplace, which we all know we have to do a lot better at, is built on mutually respectful employment relationships.

This is a great bill, and it will go a long way not only to remedying the big problem we have of a huge gap in incomes and wages—starting to lift wages at the bottom—but creating those great employment relationships, workplace climate and workplace relationships, that’s going to lift productivity, create wealth, and benefit everybody.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

Second Reading

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends eight conservation statutes that manage Aotearoa New Zealand’s network of protected areas, protected species, and some other natural resources, including—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying before the dinner break, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill amends eight conservation statutes: the Conservation Act 1987, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, and the Wildlife Act 1953.

Although most people visit parks and our protected areas to enjoy nature, and they do so in a sensitive and respectful way, a minority don’t behave appropriately. All of those eight statutes contain offences and penalties. Action to enforce compliance with the law is an important part of conservation work. Offending ranges from minor issues such as littering in a national park to more serious issues such as poaching endangered species like some of our skinks and geckos, and when that happens, the public expects the Department of Conservation to take action and ensure that wildlife and habitats aren’t put at risk. Enforcement can, obviously, discourage repeat offending and it may deter others, but, at the moment, the current law only provides two possible responses to offending: either to provide a warning to the offender or for the department to pursue a prosecution in the courts. Other similar statutes, like the Fisheries Act, provide a third option: an infringement system for low-level offending. That involves issuing an infringement notice—what the public would describe as a ticket—to the offender, and then if the offender pays the relevant infringement fee, that’s the end of the matter. If they dispute the notice or refuse to pay then the matter can go to the courts.

Being able to respond to a minor offence with an infringement notice has significant benefits to the offender, to the Department of Conservation, and to the court system. For the offender it means that he or she won’t face a criminal conviction. I think that anyone, on a first offence, perhaps for fishing in a marine reserve or fishing without a licence, wouldn’t expect to end up in the courts with a criminal conviction, potentially, if they were caught. But that’s what potentially happens under the current law. Having access to infringement notices will reduce the resources required for prosecuting minor offences for the department and it can avoid clogging up the court system. In Greymouth, for example, the District Court there has a significant caseload of prosecutions in relation to whitebaiting, which would potentially be better dealt with through infringement notices. This access to infringement notices is long overdue given the importance of effective enforcement.

The Conservation (Infringement System) Bill was introduced by my predecessor, the Hon Maggie Barry, on 22 of February last year, but it wasn’t progressed further. The Government ensured that the bill had its first reading on 14 February this year, and it was referred to the Environment Committee. That committee reported back on 23 August, having considered 56 submissions.

The only matter on which the select committee recommended substantive changes to the bill, and the only measure on which the committee was not unanimous in its views, related to whether New Zealand’s Fish & Game councils—which, of course, are responsible for the management of sports fish and game-bird hunting—should be able to access the infringement notice system. The bill, as introduced, only enabled the Department of Conservation and local councils, where councils are administering reserves, to do this, and that was despite the fact that Fish & Game councils have significant enforcement systems and powers under the Conservation Act. They have paid enforcement officers, and they undertake a large number of prosecutions. With that in mind I asked the Environment Committee to examine whether Fish & Game councils should be able to issue infringement notices, and, if so, what safeguards should be applied. I thank all of the submitters who gave serious consideration to this issue and to the select committee, under the excellent chairing of Deborah Russell, for its very useful report and recommendations which improve the bill.

All but one of those more than 50 submissions supported Fish & Game councils having access to infringement notices. So amending the bill, as the majority of the select committee recommend, to enable them to do this would help ensure a consistent enforcement regime across New Zealand. That is because the Taupō sports fishery, the trout fishery—which, of course, is internationally important—is managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) as part of an agreement with Ngāti Tūwharetoa. There, because DOC has access to infringement notices under the bill, they could apply. Yet elsewhere, unless we proceed with the amendments as recommended by the select committee, Fish & Game councils in relation to trout fishing elsewhere in New Zealand would not have access to infringement notices, so you’d get an inconsistent regime for managing trout and other sport fisheries.

The select committee’s recommended amendments in relation to Fish & Game councils being able to use infringement notices included a number of important safeguards. They could only use the system if the Minister of Conservation is satisfied that the arrangements for doing this were satisfactory as part of a national compliance enforcement policy. That power to issue them would only be available to permanent fish and game staff or rangers who are specifically warranted by the director or CEO of Fish & Game. It wouldn’t be available to honorary rangers. Infringement fees would be paid to the Crown, so there is no risk of councils using the system as a revenue generation mechanism. Councils would have to report on the use of the infringement system as part of their annual reports to the Minister of Conservation, including identifying any complaints with the system and how those have been dealt with.

I’ve read the select committee’s report closely, including the minority view, and I’m satisfied that the proposed provisions would allow a system to be appropriately used by Fish & Game councils as statutory but non-government bodies. I’d note that Parliament has already entrusted Fish & Game councils with extensive enforcement powers, and some of those powers have immediate effect on anglers. They include the power to stop and search vehicles, to confiscate property, to cross private non-residential land, and to search buildings other than dwellings. Another safeguard is the fact that the bill wouldn’t immediately give Fish & Game councils access to the infringement system. They’ve got to develop a suitable compliance and enforcement policy and associated systems. In my view, the low-level offending that could be dealt with in relation to sports fisheries and game birds would be dealt with much better by having this option of having infringement notices, subject to those safeguards.

There’s one final issue: I want to signal my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to correct an omission in the bill in relation to the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Recent work by officials on regulations under the Marine Mammals Protection Act has revealed that some of the controls on marine mammal watching and interaction with marine mammals that sit in the regulations wouldn’t be covered by the infringement system in the bill. Those controls include a requirement that marine mammal operations comply with any permit conditions, that boats remain at a safe distance from dolphins or whales, and that individuals don’t harass marine mammals if they’re on a beach, like seals, for example. Prosecutions for a breach of those regulations are not uncommon, but many of the offences, like getting too close to marine mammals on the beach, would be better dealt with, potentially, through access to infringement notices. The bill omitted that, and the SOP would simply ensure that the Department of Conservation could issue infringement notices for existing offences—not new ones; existing offences—under the Marine Mammals Protection Act.

Finally, can I thank submitters for their considered submissions and the committee for its excellent work. I commend the bill to the House.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill because, of course, we have very serious concerns regarding the integrity of the infringement system extending those powers to a non-governmental agency. I should preface this statement first: the decision to oppose this bill was not taken lightly. I reiterate what the Minister has just said, that this was a National Party bill introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry, Minister of Conservation at the time, and that the National Party does support the Department of Conservation as one of the largest enforcement and compliance agencies that we have in our governmental system.

I, again, support that with the fact that in the last Government, we amended the Wildlife Act to extend the powers given to the departmental rangers with regards to collecting information of those, where there was suspected to be an offence occurring—because, of course, when you have departmental rangers out in the field dealing with some of these complex offences relating to wildlife and issues that can occur on the conservation estate, they do need the ability to take action swiftly. They do need the ability to take steps to understand what is going on, to secure the identity of people that may be carrying out an offence, and, as such, we did support the Department of Conservation with respect to extending the powers under the Wildlife Act to give them that ability to get on top of those offences.

Again, I acknowledge that given the nature of offences that occur on the conservation estate and given the logistics of departmental rangers being in remote areas and the wide-ranging nature of the offences—and the Minister alluded to this; it can range from things such as littering and unwittingly fishing in a marine reserve to more serious offences like spotlighting and using firearms in a dangerous manner—the department does actually need a midway point. We have prosecutions, of course, with respect to the more serious offending, and departmental rangers use warnings when the offence is less serious. So we do support the Department of Conservation in their compliance. We do understand that they need a robust system and that this system, with regards to infringements, is a sort of ticket system and penalties would range from $100 to $500, in line with Ministry of Justice guidelines.

However, the big issue where this bill departed from where the National Party was taking it is with respect to extending those powers to Fish & Game, a non-governmental organisation. It’s not about Fish & Game per se. Fish & Game are very good lobbyists. They represent a number of different fishers, with respect to their views. They run good systems with regards to managing sports fish and support, obviously, recreation on the conservation estate. But there are 12 regional offices that loosely report to a national head office—and I say loosely report. That is where some of the issue with respect to the integrity of any infringement system that is extended to an organisation that is not State. So we have questions about where the infringement system would end up, about how credible it would be, about how objective it would be, and as to the accountability and administration of that system when it is unabated by the State.

Full-time rangers with Fish & Game are not subject to the same codes of conduct that departmental rangers are subject to. They’re not subject to the same level of training, and they’re not subject to the same level of accountability when they come back into the office and have that line delegation, as the Department of Conservation has, to check and double-check their work with regards to dealing with offences.

I note that the Minister of Conservation says that she would be responsible for designing and overseeing a system that she believes would put in place those accountabilities. But, when you’re talking about 12 regional offices that are based out in the field that loosely report to a head office, it seems, at this point, very challenging as to how they would report to the head office and how they would maintain that level of objectivity with respect to dealing with offences. And we certainly don’t want that abused in any way.

The other thing is that the Minister mentioned safeguards in this bill, and we simply don’t believe that not allowing a delegation from the director of Fish & Game is enough. Again, with the Minister overseeing some of the system as to accountability, it’s just not enough when you are dealing with people in remote places looking at certain alleged offences in isolation and making judgment calls without that level of training and without that level of oversight and safeguard with respect to codes of conduct and with respect to line management and accountability moving forward.

We believe that there really are too many variables to keep a hold of this system and to make sure that an infringement system is dealt with in a fair manner, that it’s primarily secured objectively, and that there is a level, a standard, that is adhered to across the country so that New Zealanders and visitors know that when they go out onto the conservation estate, they will be treated the same as their counterpart, ranging from those that complete an offence or undertake an offence in Southland to those where it occurs in Northland.

So, again, I say that there are far too many variables. For that reason we cannot support the infringement regime moving forward, because this bill has, simply, departed from the intent as to where it started when the Hon Maggie Barry brought this bill into the House. I end with the fact that we are supportive of conservation and the department moving forward. We want to see, whatever happens moving forward, that an infringement system implemented is fair and objective. We want to see the Department of Conservation succeed, and, as such, that’s why you have seen our support of initiatives such as Predator Free 2050 and us investing in conservation, including our partnership model that we brought in and heavily pushed to involve community at the coalface, involving them in conservation efforts to get them involved in recreation and preserving and protecting our nature, as is our birthright in New Zealand. But, with respect to this bill, there are not enough safeguards to maintain an objectivity with Fish & Game, and we believe that this will undermine the integrity of the infringement system that is mooted in this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The National Party—we should call them “the Statists”—the Statists. The only party in the Parliament here who thinks the only person who should be trusted to issue an infringement notice, which will probably be about 100 bucks a week, are the Statist party—the National Party—the party who denies representative democracy through Fish & Game councils. Fish & Game councils are mass-membership democratic organisations. They are a statutory authority. In some ways they’re like councils. Their jurisdiction is more limited than a council, but they have a statutory jurisdiction in respect of sports fish and habitat protection in our rivers and lakes around New Zealand.

Hon Member: The Law Society for trout.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Law Society for trout? No, they’re even more than that, actually. They’re the council for river protection and lakes and sports fish.

Now, we’re told that they’re not to be trusted issuing an infringement notice of about 100 bucks, but they can take a court prosecution. They can take a court prosecution which would often be an overreaction in respect of low-level offending, which ends up in a criminal conviction for the person who is prosecuted in the courts. So it’s not really in the interests of the prosecuted person to go through the courts, at great stress and expense, when, actually, they would more often prefer just to get an infringement notice that more reflects the seriousness of their offending, a bit like a traffic fine.

What’s the next bit of information about Fish & Game councils? Well, in addition to having many tens of thousands of members who elect the council who control the actions of the executive—so there is a control on the actions of the executive through a democratically elected body that’s got tens of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders making the election decision that the statist National Party does not trust. In addition to that what’s been the record? Well, their record has been that they are the only ones in New Zealand that prosecute for sports fish infringements, and more often than the Department of Conservation, by many multiples, they’re the people who’ve been bringing prosecutions against farmers who are breaching water rights. They’ve done more than the Department of Conservation. So they’re trustworthy enough to do that, but they’re not trustworthy enough to actually be able to issue an infringement notice.

What about habitat protection more generally? How many water conservation orders are there in New Zealand? I don’t know. The Minister of Conservation will know—probably about 20. How many of them have been done by Fish & Game councils and how many of them have been done by other arms of the statist Government that the National Party supports? Actually, more than 90 percent, I would say, of the water conservation orders in New Zealand have been started by applications by the old acclimatisation societies or the modern Fish & Game councils—not the State; it’s actually been Fishing & Game councils that have done that. But, oh no, we can’t trust them to actually issue an infringement notice instead of a prosecution through the courts.

What happens if you get an infringement notice that you don’t think’s fair? You appeal to the courts and the courts act as oversight in respect of whether the infringement notice is a fair thing to do. So there’s court oversight. What other oversight? Well, Parliament could revisit this if somehow we had this rash of rabid Fish & Game councils going out there willy-nilly enforcing the law. We could actually take the powers of enforcement off them. This is just barking mad of the National Party to be opposing this.

And no wonder they’re plummeting in the polls. They’re falling out not just with their normal backers but just about everyone in the Fish & Game councils—these tens of thousands of members—no doubt will get a message in their magazine that the National Party, the party of statists, opposed the Fish & Game Council being able to issue an infringement notice instead of a criminal prosecution.

What other things can we say in respect of this? Well, in addition to them being elected, habitat protection, all of these things—they do already have a right of prosecution in a more serious form directly through the courts. They can bring a criminal prosecution. But do you know what the last Government wouldn’t fix for them in respect of that? In order to bring a prosecution in the courts, you’ve got to have the date of birth of the person that you’re prosecuting. That’s pretty sensible because sometimes, if you just have the name and address of someone, if someone’s got the same name as their parent—John Smith or John Smith—you don’t know whether it’s John Smith the senior or John Smith Jnr unless you get their date of birth.

Do you know what the last Government said? They said “Oh. It would be a breach of people’s civil liberties if we give the right to the Fish & Game councils to ask people their date of birth.” I’m not kidding you. The last Government would not give the Fish & Game councils the right to get the date of birth, even though the prosecution guidelines that the Crown impose on Fish & Game, in respect of the prosecutions, requires them to give the date of birth of the offender when they file the prosecution. The statists on the other side are so impractical that it’s no wonder they think some of our environmental laws—and this is, actually, an environmental law for the protection of fisheries—shouldn’t be extended to Fish & Game councils.

I’m really bemused at the National Party choosing to vote against this bill that they said otherwise they like—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Who introduced?

Hon DAVID PARKER: —that they introduced. They’re now opposing this whole bill on that spurious ground. That party, they have so lost their way. I’m aghast that they think that this is a matter of civil liberties that an infringement power shouldn’t be—oh, they’re somehow more trustworthy than, I don’t know, customs officers, dog control offices at a council level, and all the other agencies of State or local government who can give infringement notices. But no, no, it’s a terrible infringement on civil liberties.

Wind back a bit. When they came to originally allowing them to file criminal prosecutions: where did the National Party stand there? I bet you if you go through Hansards of yesteryear the forebears of the National Party, who were not the statist party of the current National Party—I reckon they would have voted in favour of those powers of Fish & Game councils to bring actual, more serious criminal prosecutions through the courts. And yet they can’t agree on a right to issue an infringement notice.

So what would be the outcome if the National Party had their way? Well, there are more costs for everyone. There are more costs to the Fish & Game Council of bringing a prosecution through the courts—it’ll cost them some thousands of dollars instead of the cost of writing out a ticket—and the poor old offender has costs of probably $1,000 as well, has to go to a lawyer, and they have the stress, and they have a criminal record. Now, that would be expunged eventually under the legislation that wipes minor convictions after a period of time, but, in the meantime, they’d go along for a job and they’d say “Have you got any convictions?” and they’d have to write them on their form that yes, the Fish & Game Council prosecuted them for doing something illegal. Whereas if they get an infringement notice, they don’t have to do that; they just have to pay their fine, which is appropriate, and if they don’t think the fine’s right because they haven’t done anything wrong, well they can go to the court anyway to defend their reputation.

So I look forward to the contribution of the next statist to defend the position that the National Party is taking that is so impractical that it beggars belief. And I look forward to the reporting of this by the Fish & Game Council to their tens of thousands of members throughout the country, telling their members that the National Party is out of touch with their interests and their members.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It’s approaching the festive season, and so it’s always interesting to hear the Hon David Parker in a speech just after the dinner break, and never more so than as we approach the festive season because, literally, we don’t know what he’s going to say. We have no idea what he’s going to say, and it’s always a delight to hear him when he confesses to being bemused and aghast, because that’s a condition that he finds himself in quite regularly these days.

And I didn’t know tonight whether he was speaking as the Minister for the Environment or whether he had his Attorney-General’s hat on. If he had his Attorney-General’s hat on, then surely he could not, under any good conscience, be supporting this piece of constitutional abuse of the rules and prerogatives of State agencies and State officers in terms of extending a very dangerous precedent which is actually not at all about the good folk at Fish & Game. This is about a matter of principle, about a matter of constitutional appropriateness, and rule of law, to be honest. These are quite important matters. But as my colleague Sarah Dowie mentioned during her speech, this is a bill that was originally introduced by the National Party. My friend and colleague Maggie Barry did it in February 2017. At that time, the piece of legislation was designed—I think appropriately and rightly and correctly—to simply extend an infringement notice regime to Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers.

Now, I have the privilege in this House of representing the good people of Coromandel, the most beautiful electorate in the country. About a third of the Coromandel electorate is administered by the very dedicated and professional officers of the Department of Conservation, and I’m enormously grateful for the good work that they do on behalf of the natural environment in the Coromandel, but not just in the Coromandel, of course; all around New Zealand, and, indeed, covering the entire landmass of New Zealand. About a third of the entire landmass of New Zealand is administered by the conservation estate and, therefore, the good officers of the Department of Conservation. I think they do a very good job, but they haven’t until now been able to operate a simple non - court-based process for issuing infringement notices for relatively low-level offending that often occurs, sadly, in our natural environment and in the DOC estate.

So this bill, when originally introduced by Maggie Barry, alleviated that, changed that, corrected that situation. It was a bill that we supported in Government because that was an appropriate and sensible thing to do. Infringement arrangements, infringement regimes, actually are very effective. We have many of them in our statutes: parking tickets, minor speeding offences, traffic offences. Litter offences, for instance, can be handled by councils by infringement—

Simon O’Connor: There must be a member’s bill on that.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: And there’s a good member’s bill on that before the House at the moment, but that’s not what we’re speaking about today. So infringement notice arrangements work really well. For the relatively small but persistent number of offenders in the conservation estate who do abuse their privileges of sharing and enjoying the estate by maybe stealing wildlife, by upsetting and destroying—maybe vandalising—flora and fauna, these infringement notices will work very well for the DOC rangers, but the original scope of the bill was very narrow in its confines, in its definition. From memory—and I’d have to go back and check, but I think that the number of Department of Conservation rangers who would be able to use the infringement notice scheme that’s set up under this legislation is actually a relatively small number. I think it’s something less than 200. It’s a very small number of DOC rangers that will be able to issue the infringement notices, and, of course, because they are employees of the Department of Conservation, they are privy to the rules and regulations and boundaries and training and structure that is set in place under the State Sector Act, where clear rules and guidelines about authority and behaviour are set out in a way that provides certainty, provides judicial clarity, and also provides a degree of discipline and structure that is appropriate for agents of the State.

In a previous lifetime or state, to extend those powers to non - agents of the State would have been something that the Green Party would have railed against as being an abhorrent breach of constitutional appropriateness. They would have waxed lyrical, long and hard, about breach of process, breach of principle, bad constitutional practice, extending rules of legal enforcement to agents who were not agents of the State, who didn’t come under the State Sector Act rules and regulations. They would have argued against that most vigorously. So to hear a Green Minister in the House introducing the second reading of this piece of legislation after it being considered by the Environment Committee I find, frankly, bizarre, because they’ve done a complete turnaround, a complete change of what they once held as matters of absolute principle to now being something that is akin to just mere pragmatism—political pragmatism. If the Green Party and the Government and the coalition parties of the Government were really keen on setting up an infringement notice structure that involved Fish & Game, then bring an appropriate piece of legislation to the House that does that. Don’t just tack it on as an afterthought to an otherwise separate piece of legislation which was designed, initially, entirely just to fill a gap that was obvious and clear and needed to be corrected in terms of the role and obligation of the Department of Conservation rangers. Don’t just then tack on Fish & Game.

Now I’m not getting at Fish & Game; I think they do a very good job. I sometimes raise my eyebrows at some of their methods of advocacy, but by and large I think they do a very good job. This is not about the efficacy or the responsibility or the honesty or the integrity of Fish & Game personnel; this is about a constitutional, legal, significant matter about who amongst us can go out into the wild blue yonder, which happens to be the DOC estate, and start issuing infringement notices. I would say, and we say on this side of the House, that, actually, those people, that protocol, that regime of infringement notice issuing should be limited to agents of the State, employees of the Department of Conservation. Trained, appropriately credentialed rangers from the Department of Conservation are the appropriate people to do it.

So we come to a situation where a very good piece of legislation has now been amended in a way that we find we can’t any longer support, and I think that’s a shame. I think it’s a real shame, because this is something that we do want to support on this side of the House in terms of the good work that is done by staff and personnel of the Department of Conservation. Lou Sanson and his team do an admirable job on behalf of all New Zealanders, and they do it sometimes under trying and difficult circumstances. Just look at the nonsense that they have to put up with in terms of dealing with people who are opposed to the use of 1080. So they work under difficult circumstances. We now have a situation where a good, well-intentioned, appropriate piece of legislation has been amended in a way that we can no longer support, and I do think that’s a shame.

As I said earlier, this is not a criticism of the good folk at Fish & Game; this goes to the very core principles of our parliamentary democracy, of our judicial system. This is an important matter of principle, and when the Attorney-General stands in this House and says that he’s bemused and aghast, well, I’m very confused about which hat he was wearing and which role he was being responsible to tonight, because I think it was uncertain and unclear. I’m sure that his advisers, in his capacity as Attorney-General, would be not supporting this piece of legislation, so he’s conflicted.

So it’s with some regret that on this side of the House we’re not able to support the original intention of this bill, which was to give DOC rangers the ability to set up an infringement notice regime for the benefit of our natural environment and our flora and fauna. I for one am disappointed that this bill has been amended in a way that we can’t support.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill, the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, making note that this infringement system bill breaks into eight core Department of Corrections (DOC) statutes, as outlined by the Minister of Conservation earlier, including the Conservation Act as well as the National Parks Act and the Reserves Act.

We had a number of submissions come through the Environment Committee, and it’s a pleasure to serve on that committee with a fantastic group of colleagues. Generally, we worked pretty well together. We had 56 submissions, seven supplementary submissions, and we had those submissions come through us in about May of this year. I note, as the Minister pointed out, that this bill was presented by the previous Minister, the Hon Maggie Barry, back in February 2017, and it didn’t come through again until February of this year.

Mark Patterson: And they used to support it.

JENNY MARCROFT: And they did used to support it, but they have changed.

One of the things that I do note about the DOC focus, really—the Department of Conservation; their focus—is the protection and conservation of our natural taonga. That’s a really important role that they play, the responsibility of the Department of Conservation to carry out in the best way possible, and they really have a duty to ensure this. However, they absolutely need the proper tools to carry out this work, and the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill will give the department another tool to do that work.

Human activities are among the contributing factors that lead to the degradation of our natural spaces, our natural environment, our natural heritage, and often our ngahere, so it is really up to us to protect it. Where there is an infringement, that needs to be taken care of so we can return our ngahere, return our natural spaces, to the proper and right place that it should be. It is our duty to do that. So the bill will tidy up the law so that those who do commit any kinds of offences—whether they are minor or major, but it’s the minor end of the scale this bill is addressing—will face real consequences by way of an instant fine, and there is that in place when this bill passes through the final stages of the House.

I just note, in my brief submission today here in the House, that the Minister said that the public can expect DOC to take appropriate actions when breaches of the law occur. Enforcement not only discourages the offender from repeating the offence but also acts as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to do the same thing, and currently we have a situation where a lot of people who do have these minor-end breaches actually get a bit of a slap over the wrist with a damp bus ticket. So this will finally see the infringement notice instead of a prosecution.

Some of those sorts of offending, that low-level offending, would be along the lines of minor breaches of the whitebait fishing rules; fishing in a marine reserve, where the boat has maybe drifted across the boundary; getting too close to a marine mammal, but not injuring it, obviously; fishing for trout in the Taupō fishery with a licence that has expired; and also taking a dog into an area where dogs are not allowed, and there are many breaches in that particular area.

I will note that one submission that came through from a warranted honorary ranger with the North Canterbury region Fish & Game council actually supported Fish & Game staff and councils having the power to issue infringements. So that body, members inside that body—Fish & Game—actually support that they have the power to issue infringement notices.

So really, this was just a short contribution. We really must ensure that the taonga that exist inside our nature stores are protected. This will enable the Department of Conservation to have another tool to protect it, and so, personally, I’m very pleased to see the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading here in the House today. Kia ora.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Every now and again, the mask slips, does it not? We saw it before when David Parker gave his contribution on this piece of legislation. We were reflecting on the appropriateness of expanding Department of Conservation (DOC) powers to issue infringement notices—and, obviously, that was the genesis of the bill—and then, of course, the far more controversial view, from our perspective, that that power should be expanded to Fish & Game rangers.

The Attorney-General or Minister for the Environment stands up, and he’s all but frothing at the mouth, calling us statists, suggesting that Fish & Game should be seen as—and I will quote him: that “They are the Law Society for the protection of trout. They’re the council for ecological protection.” But, more critically, as his mask slowly slipped because he got all excited, was that he started almost salivating at the thought of the power of these Fish & Game rangers to—and, again, I quote—sheet back some accountability for the farmers, particularly those farmers who have broken the law.

You see, under the thin veneer of an environment Minister who is seeking to support this piece of legislation is an inherent dislike—in fact, in my opinion it’s more than dislike—of the agriculture sector and of the farmers and the contribution they make to the community. He looks to every single opportunity to stick it to them; to say, “Look, the way you have operated in the last 20 years is going to finish under my watch, because me, David Parker—I’ve got a vision for you, and it’s all going backwards, and it’s all hell in a handbasket.” He couldn’t help it. He then realised that he was actually on national television and had to wind back the face, but the mask slipped and we saw the true intent: that he wants to take it to the farmers.

Any farmer out there listening to this at the moment, you rewind and listen to David Parker’s speech, and you will see his true intent lurking not too below the surface when we are talking about extending the powers beyond the DOC rangers—which, of course, as we’ve signalled, the idea of including an infringement regime for the Department of Conservation makes sense. Indeed, it was our idea. Indeed, we put it in the original legislation. But, of course, as you’ve heard tonight, this Government did not see that as suitable ring-fencing of and a solution to the problem, but actually saw a need, in their view, to expand those powers to Fish & Game, to enable them to be a further arm of the State with respect to prosecuting those people who break the law.

As I said, you could see the glint in David Parker’s eyes, because it’s yet another twist against the sector he’s been hunting for a long time, and it’s one day closer. We can see that this legislation, at its core, had some value. This Government has taken it in a direction we can’t support, and that’s why, on balance, we think it deserves to be rejected, and I very much look forward to the contributions from our side on this debate. Thank you very much.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I’m puzzled—really puzzled—by what’s gone on with this bill. As we’ve heard tonight, it was, in origin, a bill that was introduced to the House by the former Minister of Conservation Maggie Barry, so it was something that the now Opposition actually believed in. That was really apparent when this bill first arrived in the Environment Committee, which I am honoured to chair.

We worked hard on the bill in the committee, and very cooperatively. The committee is largely collegial and largely does work together extraordinarily well, and it’s a pleasure to work with all the members on that committee. For a while, there was some hard work going on with respect to the particular issue that we’re talking about mostly tonight—that’s the Fish & Game councils. It did seem that this particular change—introducing powers to the Fish & Game councils—would, in fact, be accepted by the select committee and then, in due course, the Parliament. But then there was a change. The National Party changed their mind, and it seemed to coincide with a change in the personnel on the select committee. They decided, for some reason that I don’t really understand, to oppose this particular bit of the legislation. I’ve been puzzled as to why that happened.

It’s led me to reflect on the nature of the bill and what’s going on with these Fish & Game regulations that we’re hoping to introduce. I’ve had a quick word to my colleague the Hon David Parker. David Parker is, of course, a man of experience; a man who is wise in the ways of the world; a man who actually, as a lawyer before he entered this Parliament, took many of the prosecutions for Fish & Game; a man who acted for Fish & Game on many of the water conservation orders; a man who knows that taking something to court is often a sledgehammer—a sledgehammer—to solve a minor problem. That’s exactly why we need an infringement regime in respect of some of the minor misdeeds that creep in under the various Acts that are looked after by the Department of Conservation (DOC). We do actually need a mid-point.

Let me give you an example of what the real problem is here, and why, in fact, the National Party—the now Opposition—were keen to work on this. Look, imagine the roads, and imagine if you were heading to your own home one night and perhaps went over the speed limit, because it’s easy for it to happen, and then an officer of the law saw what was going on—any of us might end up breaking the law and speeding. It’s a shame; it does happen. But imagine if the choices were just between a warning and a court prosecution—a warning or a sledgehammer. It’s not appropriate. We’re really comfortable with the idea of having infringements as a mid-point between a warning—a stern talking-to by an officer of the law—and the sledgehammer of a prosecution.

I think that across the House we are agreed on that concept—that there is a completely appropriate role for infringement notices—so the issue then is who is the appropriate person to issue infringement notices? This is where we are breaking a little bit of new-ish ground with this legislation.

Now, as the Opposition have correctly pointed out, most of the time, the people who are issuing infringement notices are, in fact, civil servants of one variety or another: police officers, DOC rangers, or people who are in fact directly employed by the State. But there are some circumstances where people who are not employees of the State are able to issue infringement notices and the like—the SPCA is notable in this regard. That’s quite important, because what we’re trying to do here is to find a way of enabling there to be an appropriate regime with respect to sports fish and with respect to hunting, shooting, and fishing, which is very dear to a lot of New Zealanders’ hearts. We want an appropriate regime. There is not one at the moment. There is a warning or a sledgehammer, and nothing in between.

So we are looking for that appropriate regime, and we have been given a solution. The solution is to allow Fish & Game officers to be able to issue infringement notices, and there is a series of protections around that. Now, let’s start with the most obvious thing: infringement notices are small beer. It’s a jolly nuisance to get one, and for some people, actually, it can be quite expensive, depending on their own level of wealth, but it’s not a prosecution. It’s actually a small-ish, low-ish level offence, so it does not have the seriousness of prosecutions. So that’s the first protection: this is low-level stuff that it’s being applied to.

The second protection is that even if someone is issued with an infringement notice and they disagree with it, then it’s kind of a hard way to go, but you can resort to the law to sort it out, if that’s absolutely needed. That’s always a safeguard. It’s an expensive one to use, but it is there.

Even so, there are safeguards built into this bill for what Fish & Game will actually be able to do, but it’s worth actually understanding what is sitting in the proposed bill. So in clauses 4A to 4D of this particular bill, we’ve actually got some ideas, and some pretty sensible ideas. The Fish & Game Council—it’s a statutory body—has to develop a national policy in the first place. Then, following on from that, it has to be approved by the Minister, and if the Minister does not approve it, then Fish & Game cannot enforce any regulations and it cannot issue infringement notices. Carrying on from that, the Fish & Game Council must report every year as to what infringement notices they have issued. These are all important protections to make sure that they exercise these powers and that these are reasonable.

In terms of who can issue an infringement notice, it turns out that it’s only Fish & Game rangers. It’s not honorary Fish & Game rangers; it’s only people who have already got the standing of being a Fish & Game ranger—in other words, people who already have a responsible role within the Fish & Game organisation.

One of the really important things to remember here is that Fish & Game is a largely democratic body. It is populated by people who have a deep interest in sports fishing and hunting and who actually want to ensure that people who engage in hunting, shooting, and fishing do so fairly and reasonably with respect for the environment and with respect for the rules so that everyone has an opportunity to engage in those activities, if they want. Fish & Game rangers help to protect that for everyone who is engaged in hunting, shooting, and fishing. So Fish & Game rangers, by their nature, already take a responsible attitude to their work, and what we are offering them is a simple opportunity to do more than warn someone and to do less than threaten them with prosecution and to prosecute them. We are offering them the middle path of an infringement system—an infringement system that must go through several steps before it’s put in place.

I propose that this is an extraordinarily sensible solution. It’s a sensible solution to finding the right place between a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and a sledgehammer, and for those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on this Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading. I want to make it very clear that National opposes this bill, which is really rather unfortunate and even a little bit sad, because the original bill was introduced in February 2017 by the then Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry. I remember the work on this bill because I was her Associate Minister at the time, and we worked hard to find a way that was balanced and that would give a tool to Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers with conservation offences.

The purpose, of course, was to create an infringement and fine system, and it was to enable Department of Conservation rangers to deal with the less serious conservation offences efficiently and effectively. It’s a worthy purpose, and National supported it because we are committed to supporting the protection of our nature but we also identified the need for Department of Conservation rangers to have those further powers so that they could carry out their jobs better. DOC rangers, of course, are part of the Department of Conservation, and that is a well-established, well-respected, experienced compliance and enforcement agency. National believes that the department has the credibility and the accountability and the administration systems to operate a fair and objective infringement system for New Zealanders. We supported the original bill because it really would have helped the Department of Conservation protect and conserve our nature.

The bill was designed as an alternative mechanism to address the offences that fell between a very wide gap of a warning, which was a light sort of touch, and a court action, which sometimes was appropriate for more serious offences, but was overkill for some of the lesser ones. In the past, incidents have required more than just a warning but were not serious enough to require court action, leaving rangers in a real state of limbo without any effective tools to respond, and that weakened the department’s response. Warnings can be an adequate response to some offences, but sometimes they’re inadequate, and prosecutions can be too severe for others. This infringement and fine system would provide that flexibility of response to give rangers more teeth, where necessary, and to enforce rules without giving people a criminal record. Overall, it would allow a much more nuanced response to conservation offences and would, I think, improve outcomes in terms of protection and conservation. But the use of this infringement regime will be the most appropriate response to a wide range of minor conservation offences.

National believed that the powers in the original bill were appropriate, they were useful, and they would have allowed experienced, qualified, and accountable Department of Conservation rangers to do their jobs better. So far, so good. However, during the select committee process, an amendment to clause 9 introduced a clause that empowers the director of New Zealand Fish & Game Council, a non-Government agency, to warrant Fish & Game employees to use the system and to issue these infringement notices, and this sets a dangerous precedent as it extends significant powers to an organisation outside the State sector.

National does not support an organisation that is not directly accountable to the public of New Zealand to have these powers. We believe that extending the powers beyond DOC rangers, who are State sector employees, has serious ramifications to the credibility, accountability, and administration of the system, and we believe that it would ultimately undermine the Department of Conservation’s ability to operate what they need—a fair and objective system. And with that, the confidence of New Zealanders, the confidence they have in the department, and the work that the ranges do to protect and conserve our environment, would be undermined. Whereas the original bill would have been of benefit to the Department of Conservation and our nature, National believes that this bill will absolutely undermine DOC and their work. The amended bill is not good for nature, it’s not good for our environment, and it’s not good for the DOC rangers who do such good work to protect it. So National opposes this bill. Kia ora.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill. I commend the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, for her shepherding of this bill through the House, the submitters for their robust submissions, and our officials for honing and crafting this bill to its current form.

The bill amends eight conservation statutes—we’ve heard this—which manages New Zealand’s protected species, areas, and natural resources. It’s a great thing to do, and we’ve heard what those Acts are, so I’m not going to go into that.

Essentially, this bill allows for the extension of options when people fail to comply with the law. Previously, as we’ve heard, there were two outcomes: one, a warning and, two, a prosecution in court. This bill provides a well-needed—as we’ve heard—third option: an infringement notice, which is similar to a parking ticket, and we all agree that a parking ticket shouldn’t go straight to prosecution or have a warning. We are talking about infringements of, say, a maximum of up to $500 for what has occurred, and once that’s paid, that’s the end of the matter. We have also heard that if this infringement is disputed, prosecution is available, so the right to attend the day in court to defend yourself is available. Therefore, this bill provides for the proportionate response to low-level offending.

I’m just going to say a low-level offence could include—and we’ve heard a couple of these, but my personal favourite, having been situated in the Bay of Plenty, is getting too close to a whale, a dolphin, or a sea mammal but not injuring it. I’ve seen some really amazing footage of brief encounters where whales have popped up under paddleboards and things like that, and people—because they’re excited, they follow these creatures. Now, who knew that that was an offence? I certainly learnt something. So, without harming them, we know that that can cause the animal distress and, therefore, a warning may not be appropriate. Perhaps the third option of an infringement might be an appropriate. It’s certainly not worthy of a full prosecution.

So how does this infringement system work and who can issue a notice? Firstly, the Fish & Game Council—which I’m very pleased about—will be given the power to issue infringements. They’re a statutory body. They currently have these powers in other areas. The Government side on the Environment Committee recommended inserting some protections around that. Clauses 4A to 4D set out minimum requirements for New Zealand Fish & Game Council. We were really careful that there needed to be some planning to go in place around this. The Conservation Act must create and maintain a natural enforcement and compliance policy—so that’s 12 of them creating this. Then that goes to the Minister of Conservation, and they cannot issue anything until that is signed off by the Minister. No notices can be issued, so we take care of that matter around the process of how it will happen.

We also included who could issue notices. Quite simply, it’s only some Fish & Game rangers who are authorised by the director of New Zealand Fish & Game Council. It’s not automatic—it’s not everyone. It’s not people who are attending as honorary members.

My time is up—I’ve talked way too long. This is an opportunity. I think Fish & Game are a reputable, resourced, and competent bunch of people. I think they’ll do the job well, and I support our environment to thrive. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill in its second reading, which was a National Party bill introduced by the Hon Maggie Barry until the other side decided to try and mess with this excellent piece of legislation, which was progressing through the Parliament and going to make a really important change.

We’ve heard the arguments put forward as to why the infringement system needed to be put in place, and I endorse the statements which have been made. But the worrying thing which I just heard from Angie Warren-Clark, the member who just sat down, was that she thinks that these Fish & Game Council members will do a good job. She thinks they’ll do a good job. So we’re really hope—and this is the problem with the current Government. They think things, they hope things, and they’re feeling things, but the problem with what we’re doing here in Parliament is we’re legislating.

We are actually making the law for the land, and I think it’s important that when we make the law for the land, we actually take into account the important constitutional principles in terms of how we actually make law, who is actually delegated with responsibilities to do certain things, and how that interacts with other pieces of legislation. I think this is an example of a piece of legislation where the good intentions and the hopes and dreams and kindness, and all the rest of those flowery terms that have come from the other Government—they’ve put their fingers all over this piece of legislation and they’ve, unfortunately, put us in a position where this Parliament is legislating something which wasn’t the original intent of what the Hon Maggie Barry was trying to put forward.

So the key issue here is that this bill will give a non-governmental agency the power to issue infringement notices, unabated by the State. Fish & Game staff are not State sector employees and, therefore, are not subject to the same codes of conduct and minimum criteria or minimum standards as to the integrity of departmental rangers. This is the key issue here: who should be entitled to be able to issue an infringement notice in the conservation estate, in the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate. On this side of the House, we firmly believe that it should be the DOC officers who are doing that, and not then delegating their role off to other people in other organisations which don’t meet the same important standards which the DOC rangers are expected to. They also have legal obligations and responsibility under the State Sector Act, as well.

So we will be opposing this piece of legislation. It’s a shame that the Government got its tentacles all over this one, but we’ll be back in Government soon and we’ll have to fix up all this mess. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I’m delighted to be speaking to the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill’s second reading. The current legislation allows only two possible responses to any offending. The first is that they provide a warning—so just “That wasn’t the right thing to do. You’re warned. Don’t do it again.”, and the second option is prosecution in the court. So there’s a big gap in our system, and that’s what this legislation is intended to fix. And I want to just acknowledge a member who hasn’t yet been able to take a call and that is the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, who introduced this legislation to the House. It’s clear now, though, if you look at the passage—or, actually, lack of passage—of the bill, that the Hon Maggie Barry has never had the support of her caucus and tonight they’re pretty well relishing in the ability to say that to the House.

If you compare the conservation infringement system regime to other legislation, for example, the Fisheries Act, they do have a ticket-issuing system—you know, an infringement system—and it works very well. So for low-level offending under the fisheries legislation you get a ticket. If you pay a fine, then that’s the end of the matter. There’s no court process. There’s no conviction. There’s no extraordinary amount of time and money spent on that. So for that system there’s major benefits for the Department of Conservation (DOC), there’s major benefits for the offender, and there’s certainly major benefits for our court system.

The original bill, as I said, introduced by the then Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, just got nowhere with the Government, so I was really pleased to see the current Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage—I’m always actually very pleased to see her because she’s got such knowledge in these areas—take a really high level of interest in what submitters were saying. She listened to people who knew what they were talking about and had bothered making a contribution to the bill, considered it, listened to the select committee responses, and has backed the changes that are made as we see them now.

I was stunned to hear Sarah Dowie say that we can’t have Fish & Game issue the equivalent of parking tickets because they’re not trustworthy. Fish & Game currently have significant prosecution powers under the Conservation Act. They have paid enforcement officers and they take a large number of prosecutions. So I look forward to seeing Sarah Dowie’s member’s bill, which strips away those enforcement provisions, which are in the current Conservation Act, from Fish & Game. Cards on the table, National Party: if Fish & Game are not to be trusted, then I think that should be a National Party slogan. Bring it on. I think Fish & Game have proven themselves to be people of integrity who work for the good of the environment, and they should be supported to work alongside DOC, keep people out of court who shouldn’t be clogging up our court systems, but making sure they have appropriate penalties attracted to the offences they have caused.

I found the criticisms from Sarah Dowie and others of Fish & Game offensive, and I want to put that on the record. My colleague Dr Duncan said, “Shameful.”; I agree with that. I am delighted that we now have a Minister of Conservation who knows her stuff, is passionate and pragmatic, listens to people, and gets solutions that will deliver real time and benefit to conservation, and I’m very pleased to support the bill.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, Ruth Dyson really was very effusive in her praise for Minister Sage tonight—that she listened to submitters, she took into account the changes that were suggested, and that’s exactly how it was, and she made those changes accordingly. And that’s actually quite laughable, because if we go back and listen to the first reading speeches in this debate from the Government members, they called for an extension to Fish & Game. This was predetermined. It’s not like Minister Sage turned up and read all the submissions and consulted widely and thought about it and made the changes accordingly. This was predetermined. This was something that they called for and they wanted. So for Ruth Dyson to get up here and rewrite history is quite laughable.

And poor, poor Deborah Russell. She’s confused. Dr Deborah Russell’s not often confused because let’s all not forget—she’s a doctor. But today she had a furrowed brow. She was very confused as to why we weren’t supporting this bill. It’s almost like she hadn’t been listening to any of the debate prior to her own speech and she gave us an example of police officers stopping people—her or anyone who accidently happened to be speeding. She said, “Imagine if you’re accidentally speeding, a police officer pulls you over and the only two options they have are a warning or a caution”—“Hey, don’t do that.”—“or a prosecution.” Imagine what that would be like. She said it would be like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. She couldn’t understand how we are not supporting a bill that would give a midway point like an infringement notice. And I’d like to help Dr Deborah Russell with her confusion by using her own example of the police and the speeder.

Why we don’t support this bill is because we don’t want a volunteer organisation, no matter how good we perceive them to be, to be issuing infringement notices. If you take the example of the speeding motorist and the police officer, if you could imagine you are in that position and you’re stopped—you’re pulled over by community patrol, for example, or some other volunteer organisation. How would you feel if they issued you a speeding ticket? And that is where the crux of the debate lies.

We did support this bill at first reading. Maggie’s bill—sorry; Maggie Barry’s—

Hon Members: Honourable!

ERICA STANFORD: The Hon Maggie Barry did a lot of good work in this area, and so did the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is a good midway point for Department of Conservation (DOC) officers to have an infringement notice system. We’ve long agreed with that and I think in all of our reading speeches we agreed that that would be a good idea. It saves court time, it saves court costs, there’s no stigma associated with a criminal record, and it improves conservation outcomes. And we don’t want DOC officers being caught up in court; we want them out on the estate improving conservation outcomes. But at the select committee, this bill got widened. The bill as introduced departed very much from its original intent and made numerous changes allowing Fish & Game officers to have the infringement powers, and we cannot support this.

The issue for us under this bill, as altered by the select committee Government members, is that they gave Fish & Game, a non-governmental agency, the power to issue infringement notices—something that we don’t see almost anywhere else to the same extent in legislation. We don’t see it anywhere else, to this extent. And we are concerned that Fish & Game staff are non-State sector employees. They’re not subject to the same codes of conduct, the minimum standards, when it comes to integrity, like the DOC rangers are. It was not made clear at select committee to our satisfaction how training and control of warranted Fish & Game officers on the ground would be monitored to ensure consistency across the country. Implementing a fine system for DOC rangers was the original intent; it made sense. But the widening of these powers to a non-governmental agency creates far too many problems that are not adequately addressed in this bill. And for those reasons we will not be supporting the legislation.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well, you know, it’s somewhat perplexing to listen to the other side say that non-government agencies should not be given the power to fine. I heard that with some surprise, and on my laptop I had a bit of a look. So here’s some non-government agencies that do have the power to fine already, set out in legislation: the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, the Institute of Chartered Professional Engineers, the Registered Architects Board, the New Zealand Law Society’s standards committee, the Veterinarian Council, the real estate agents conduct committee, the Judicial Control Authority of the Racing Board—

Hon Phil Twyford: Racing Board.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —the valuers institute. The Racing Board, Mr Twyford—I know. And look, that was five minutes on my laptop. The list goes on and on.

Here we have numerous authorities whom we trust to use quasi-judicial powers to impose sanctions on various members of the public for breaching rules of conduct—entirely appropriate. What’s more, every single one of them has an appeal procedure to some further tribunal, authority, or court.

Hon David Parker: Like a court.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Exactly, Mr. Parker, Mr Attorney-General. This is no more, and I find it astounding that the National Party doesn’t trust some of their best friends, the Fish & Game Council—

Hon David Parker: Former.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Former best friends—absolutely right. Here we have nothing more than people who are embedded in the community they are policing, imposing sanctions for breach. It is absolutely wrong that they should suggest that the Fish & Game Council should have to prosecute, not only because it’s an utter waste of prosecutorial resources but also because it’s entirely disproportionate to the wrong. Getting some trout without a licence doesn’t require dragging someone before the courts. All it requires is an infringement offence if education isn’t enough.

So I am absolutely astounded at the Opposition, by those lot over there, especially because it’s a bill that came from them when they were in Government. It has been improved, and here we have an Opposition who is opposing for the sake of it. Let’s get on with this. Let’s make life workable. Let’s ensure that we can protect our conservation estate at the same time as giving the people who need it the powers to look after what’s going on there. I don’t think I need to say any more than I have already to show the utter incoherence of the position of the other side. I commend this bill to the House.

Amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this, the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill, a bill that the Health Committee worked very collaboratively and diligently on and reached some good conclusions. We come to this bill with two previous reviews over the past 10 years, and these recommendations are included in the bill, both from the first review and this, the second. We had 49 written submissions and 24 oral submissions from a wide range of submitters, which is always good and, as always, improves the bill. We had 16 responsible authorities, 10 medical professional bodies, 17 other professional groups, two individual health practitioners, one provider of health services, two interested organisations, and two Government agencies.

The committee reported back on 13 aspects of the bill. I’m not going to outline them all—it’s in the committee’s report—but the first two I will offer brief comment to. They were the ones revoking the accreditation of an educational institution, and this was previously under the Nurses Act as a provision, and the committee agreed that it should be amended to the bill so that the responsible authorities could have that jurisdiction. The second of the 13 points I wanted to talk to is electronic communications. There was almost unanimous support for responsible authorities being able to send and receive their annual practising certificates in an electronic fashion.

I think, really, the only other thing that I wanted to add to this short call tonight was to speak to the submission from the occupational therapists, which was very thoughtful and proposed a different mechanism. Rather than going straight to a professional conduct committee—that adversarial approach—what the occupational therapist said to us was this: they quite liked the idea and wanted to propose the concept of facilitated resolution. Rather than setting up a formal professional conduct committee, maybe we could have facilitated resolution. Both the officials and the committee thought that this was a very good idea and that some further work could be done on that, and that it was likely to receive the consent and approval from everyone around the table.

So, again, just concluding this short call—unanimous support from the committee, a review that had been in progress over 10 years, 13 recommendations coming back from the select committee, and all of them will help strengthen up the professional responsibilities that the medical practitioners have. I commend this bill. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge, as I begin this short call on this, all the members of the Health Committee. I have just joined the Health Committee. I was sad to leave the Māori Affairs Committee because they have the best kai, but I’m looking forward to ensuring that the standard of the food in the Health Committee suddenly rises.

Hon Member: It’ll be nutritious.

JENNY MARCROFT: It surely will be. [Interruption] Yes, that’s right—I’ll put my pinny on.

So yes, I look forward to the next period of time with the Health Committee. To all who have submitted and the diligent work of the committee, unfortunately, I wasn’t there through the process of this bill going through the select committee—

Angie Warren-Clark: We were diligent.

JENNY MARCROFT: —but I do know that they worked very hard on it, so I’m looking forward to continuing their good work, as well.

The original Act, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, was a bit of a groundbreaking piece of legislation—in fact, it even had some sort of international acclaim. But it has spent a long time—two reviews. In 2007, it went under review for a couple of years, and then in 2012 through to 2014, there was another set of reviews, but, finally, it has made its way all the way now through to this second reading.

Now, it’s really vital that we have mechanisms to ensure that we protect every member of the public, and we can do this by ensuring that the health practitioners are competent and are fit to practise their professions. Now, that’s absolutely vital. To claim professional status—to be a member of their profession—every health professional must actually have the appropriate qualification and, on top of that, they must also be registered with the responsible authority. Public safety, as I have mentioned, is critical and is the right of every member of our community. So this bill is important to make sure that we have safe practice amongst our medical fraternity.

Forty-nine submissions were made to the select committee, 23 were heard, and a great variety of those were in support—as Dr Shane Reti, the member before me, spoke about—in terms of bringing it into the technological age by allowing emails to be used as a form of communication in sending information. So that’s a good thing to know that, finally, they’ve become part of the electronic age.

The performance reviews are to be carried out by independent reviewers, set against some indicators that will be developed by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the responsible authorities. Just making note of the Hon Dr David Clark in his speech, when it came to the second reading earlier—one important change that the bill will make is the introduction of these performance reviews for the responsible authorities. They will be five-yearly reviews, which will ensure public confidence in those responsible authorities, so that’s really important to note.

So, really just touching very briefly on three areas where there will be changes after consideration of the submissions that came to the select committee, the bill now allows responsible authorities, as regulators, to act immediately to suspend a practitioner’s practising certificate, if that’s required. Obviously, I mentioned the updating into the electronic age that we live in—email will now be an acceptable thing, so that’s finally got there—and making note that cultural competence provisions are also made note of as well, in respect to all things Māori, and there is a respect for interaction and so on as the health professionals conduct their work. So on that short contribution this evening, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise and speak to this bill at its second reading. The select committee has worked hard at it, and I think we’ve got a good outcome. The bill is significant because it does provide a mechanism for ensuring that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions, which, of course, is relevant to everybody who wants to have confidence in our health system. It also provides for appointed authorities to be responsible for the registration and the oversight of health practitioners. This is to give confidence to New Zealanders that if something goes wrong in a medical treatment, there is an authority that can be approached that can look into the incident and can take action, if appropriate.

The original Act, the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, came in in 2003, and there have been a couple of reviews since that time, and it’s from those reviews that the changes have been made. But most of the changes really are procedural. There have been 14 different parts of the Act that have been changed, but otherwise the Act has worked pretty well. I think one of the most important changes has been an increase of accountability of health practitioners to patients, to their families, and to the public.

It’s something that has been actively sought by a recent petition that the Health Committee has been working on. So it’s particularly relevant. In clause 27(1) of the bill, it widens the opportunities for concerns about competence of a practitioner to be taken to the responsible authorities. In the past, only health practitioners, employers, or the Health and Disability Commissioner could take a complaint. Now anybody—a patient, a patient’s family, a member of the public—can take a complaint to the relevant authority. I think this is a huge improvement. It will give the public more confidence in the process and it will allow them to take direct action to have their concerns heard if they feel that a health practitioner has not delivered appropriate services or appropriate care. I think this is a timely and significant amendment to the legislation, and it does reflect on the petition that we were looking at. So I thank the petitioner for her comments that reinforced the need for this amendment.

So, overall, the bill is designed to ensure a sustainable, integrated, more convenient, and people-centred health system, and that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for all New Zealanders, whether they work in the system or whether they’re patients or they’re families of patients that use the system. So National supports this bill. It believes that the amendments will improve the processes of registration of practitioners and the oversight of this work. I commend the bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a little bit earlier than I expected, but I am nevertheless pleased to rise and take a call on the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill, which the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is supporting.

This is a bill that has arisen out of two previous reviews of this legislation that arose from the Greens’ intervention in the drafting of the initial legislation, where we called for there to be a review built into the Act because we believe that oversight of our quality assurance mechanisms for health practitioners should be, I guess, a process of regular reflection and ongoing learning. So it’s good to see that now, in 2018, we’re finally getting an update to that legislation. It may seem a little bit mean-spirited of me to reflect on the fact that the first review was started in 2007 and finished in 2009, and then we had a change of Government and there was just nothing done with that review until another review was initiated in 2012, and that took three years, and then I can only assume that the work started in terms of the policy thinking towards the development of this piece of legislation that this Government introduced quite early on.

I do reference that because I think I’m just calling back to some of the comments that I’d heard previously from the Opposition that, you know, this is a technical bill and why is this Government not doing more substantive work. Well, it’s a really important piece of legislation, but, also, after nine years of stalling on a really important piece of work, it’s a little bit rich to be having a go at this Government for not getting on with the business.

Also, I’ll just clarify for people—because I think most New Zealanders might hear “health practitioner” and not really know who we’re talking about—some of the of the professions that are covered by this. So chiropractors, dentists, dietitians, doctors and other medical professionals, radiologists, midwives, nurses, occupational therapists, optometrists, osteopaths, pharmacists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists, and psychotherapists are just some of the examples. So this really covers the large majority of our health and helping services—not all of them, but a very large number of them.

It is about the quality assurance for them. So it will bring the operation of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act into the electronic age, which is good progress, and should reduce the costs in the running of the authorities and improve the speed with which communications occur, and when there are complaints being dealt with, that’s actually quite important, and not insignificant.

Very pleasingly, it brings in performance reviews of the boards that oversee the practitioners and their practice. So these performance reviews are now to be carried out by independent reviewers against a set of indicators that will be developed jointly by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the responsible authorities, and the resulting reports will be published. And there’s an expectation, I guess, from the independent reviews that there will be areas where those authorities can improve their practice and oversight and that they will then report back to the Minister on which of those recommendations they’re picking up, or, if they’re not picking up any, why. So the public as well as the Minister will have oversight of this continual learning and quality improvement process over our health services. This will assure the public, hopefully, that the regulatory framework for health professions is operating as it should—surely something we all want.

Currently, there is limited information available to the public about responsible authority decisions in relation to complaints about registered health practitioners and the processes that they may use for making those decisions. Over the years, we have seen stories coming into the media where people have found out through a concern and then investigative reporting that complaints and actions have been taken against health practitioners for practice that was unethical and unsafe but that the conditions that had been put in place by the oversight board were not being monitored. So actually enabling some of that information for the person who’s laid the complaint in the first place to be able to get access to the decision builds in a new level of oversight and a safety protection that we haven’t had before, which I think is very important. And I hope that in terms of that quality assurance model, we will be keeping a good eye around the safety of practitioners once conditions have been put in place, so that we can be sure that those conditions are being met and the public is aware of those conditions where appropriate.

So it enables the responsible authorities to release information about decisions they’ve made on a practitioner’s practice to the person who notified them, as I said, around that practitioner’s competence. And the responsible authorities will now have to develop policies that set out how they make decisions about releasing the names and the fitness to practice or conduct that’s being reviewed or investigated. And health practitioners whose conduct has failed to meet expected standards may be named when it’s in the public’s interests, and it’s really important to enable that power. But, of course, it will be balanced with the practitioner’s rights to privacy and natural justice. But there are some conditions and issues that arise where, actually, the evidence is that public awareness will help ensure the safety of that practitioner in the future—to have that oversight.

The bill also supports teamwork amongst health practitioners, and this is now recognised in this legislation, which seems good progress, in that we want to move to multi-disciplinary teams, and for our quality assurance mechanisms to support that. Many complaints, unfortunately, to the Health and Disability Commissioner arise from failures in teamwork and professional communications. So a cohesive team approach across the health and disability system is integral to public safety and achieving better health outcomes for New Zealanders.

Another change in the legislation is to support better workforce information for health workforce planning and forecasting. Responsible authorities will now have a legal mandate to collect data, such as the date of birth, the place of employment, and gender, to be able to help make sure that we have enough people providing these essential services.

I do note that one of our concerns when the bill was first introduced was that there was no acknowledgement around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the obligations for people to consider Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I understand that was considered by the select committee and that the cultural competence enables practitioners to build in that competence in their assessments. But that’s because it is not a relationship between hapū and iwi and the Crown but medical practitioners, and actually putting it into the legislation wasn’t deemed to be appropriate.

So all in all it seems like the committee did some good work, and this is a good step towards continual quality improvement within our health system.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir. I’m not a member of the Health Committee. I am, by virtue of the fact I’m National’s ACC spokesperson, a member of our health caucus committee, and in that capacity I’ve had the chance to sit on the Health Committee a couple of times in recent months, but I wasn’t party to the discussion of this particular bill.

It would appear that there is unanimity in the House in support of its passage, so I won’t take long to delay its progress. But I do just want to acknowledge the work that the Health Committee is doing under the leadership of the chair, Louisa Wall. It appears to me when I’ve sat on that committee that it’s a very collegial approach.

This is, nevertheless, a very important bill. I won’t repeat a whole lot of things that have already been said, but in studying it, just for the benefit of those who may be listening, as the previous speaker and others have noted, it does essentially arise out of two reviews that were undertaken in 2009 and again in 2012, so during the time of the previous National-led administration. It is a procedural bill tidying up 14 provisions in an Act that appears to be working well.

I’ve just noted, looking through the report of the committee, that there are some significant recommendations that come from it that I think would be of interest to the public, such as clarifying the power for the revocation of the accreditation of an educational institution. I’m sure that everybody in the public who might from time to time need to make use of our public health system would want to know that responsible authorities could revoke the accreditation of an educational institution if in some way it was failing to meet the requirements of a first-world health service. Authorities, I note, could revoke accreditation when concerns about the quality of education are not being addressed, and the committee expected that authorities would consult appropriately before deciding to revoke an accreditation. It almost sounds too obvious for words, but it’s good that it has come through as a clear recommendation of the committee, and I certainly endorse that.

There’s also a recommendation about essentially ensuring that the most modern forms of communications are available. We live in an increasingly digital electronic age and the committee is recommending amending the bill to reflect the common use of electronic communications, such as respectively providing for practising certificates to be issued electronically.

There are other provisions in there—the options for dealing with practitioners who’ve been found guilty of an offence. That would certainly be something that I would think that any member of the public would want to ensure was adequately provided for in the legislation. There’s a provision for the temporary suspension of practising certificates, and so on.

I can see that these are all very sound, common-sense initiatives coming out of two thorough reviews, and a committee that has clearly done its job, and I’m very happy to support its progress at this stage through the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. I have to first note that it was a very collegial process. Our team worked together really well, and I mean that across the House. We had some very quality submissions, 49 in total and 23 came to submit to us. I learnt a lot from that process as well. So I’d like to thank the select committee members and the excellent and professional work of the officials to craft and hone this bill. We’ve heard that there were two reviews in 2009 and 2012. So I’d also like to commend the Minister the Hon Dr David Clark for actually bringing this bill to the House.

Time is short, so I propose to speak very briefly to three sections of this bill—first and foremost, the modernising of the practising certificate process. I bring this up, and others have as well: it’s changing section 29 and section 31 respectively of the principal Act. It’s important because the thing that I learnt was that there are over 130,000 health practitioners out there, each and every one of them receiving their health practising certificate of whatever nature in paper. It is very cumbersome, not so good for the environment, but also quite easy to store somewhere and lose. So it’s really good that these practising certificates can be online, can come by email, and also that they will be searchable online, which is awesome. It means that we can be assured, if we need to look for a practising certificate, that we can see that that person is, in fact, there.

The second aspect of this bill that I’m delighted about is the option for dealing with practitioners who have been found guilty of an offence. A new clause 13B in 67A has been inserted to allow the authorities discretion in deciding how to deal with a practitioner who has been found guilty of an offence. The professional conduct committee, or with the consent of the practitioner, can order that practitioner to undergo examination, treatment, counselling, or therapy. Now, that is in line, absolutely, with what we believe here in the Labour Party and our Government—that treatment is often a better and more appropriate response than the removal, for example, of someone who might have studied for 12 years or 15 years to get where they are, and for one small incident they may lose their practising certificate.

I think the community also, finally, would be particularly interested and pleased with the ability of the responsible authority to issue an interim suspension if a health practitioner has engaged in conduct that is being investigated or prosecuted, if that authority—and it’s quite a high threshold—believes that that conduct poses a risk of serious harm to the public. So this may be an allegation of sexual misconduct, for example. We’ve also changed—under clause 69A there needs to be no prior notice given to the suspension for that practitioner. So they get issued this immediately. However, due to the nature of this, and natural justice, this matter must be heard within 20 working days, which provides for natural justice for the practitioner but it also supports the public safety.

There’s so much more that I want to note about this bill; however, I’ve taken up all my time. I absolutely commend this bill to the House, and I thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill.

I must confess I wasn’t on the select committee, so I wasn’t privy to the discussions that went on, or the deliberations. But I do want to certainly acknowledge the work that the Health Committee has been doing in this area. In particular, I acknowledge the chair, Louisa Wall, and the Hon Dr David Clark for bringing this bill back to the House. Just having read the bill, I must say it’s a very good bill. It seems to make a lot of sense—common sense is a word that I’ve heard several times tonight. So I will not take too much time, but I do want to just go through.

Of course, it’s good to see this Government continue the work of the previous Government. We’ve had a number of reviews in this area—one in 2009 and then again in 2012. The 2012 review was very interesting. It looked at incentives in creating centres for health practitioners to maintain safe clinical practice. I think the purpose of this bill we’ve got unanimous agreement of—essentially, ensuring that we maintain integrity of the system and that we hold our health practitioners to a high standard, because that’s certainly what the public of New Zealand deserve.

So, just going through the purpose of the bill, it’s certainly to make sure the health practitioners are competent and fit for purpose in their professions and in our modern healthcare system. Many of the amendments that we looked at in the previous two reviews come to the fore in this amendment bill—certainly, around the concerns with practitioners and how to deal with concerns if the public have a concern about a health practitioner. There’s now a process in place for them to raise that concern. There’s certainly a sense of desire about improving collaboration and cooperation in the delivery of healthcare services and in terms of that as well.

Thirdly, that brings in the idea of independent reviews—so ensuring that health practitioners and any authority will be subject to independent reviews. Another thing that I think is really important is around data collection and sharing, and this bill enables that as well.

There are a couple of areas where in the previous reviews the general intent from the previous reviews has come through. Firstly, on a number of issues—the first is around the responsibility for authorities’ performance. So that comes through in this bill as well. There’s far better visibility of decisions about the practitioners’ practice, and that can only be a good thing, I think.

The third is around the greater recognition of the importance of the interdisciplinary nature and collaboration of the health practitioner space, and the other and final thing is around the information to the workforce as well.

So I think it’s a really good bill, and, just to kind of wrap up things, it focuses on efficiency. There’s a process for disciplining now, in this bill, health practitioners who aren’t adhering to best practice. There’s a process in place for suspending health practitioners and examining health practitioners that aren’t living up to standard. And also, finally, it is around performance reviews of authorities and ensuring they are done in an independent manner as well.

So, once again, I would like to say that this is a good bill. It makes a lot of sense. It’s something that we’re very proud to support on the side of the House. Thank you.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill. While it’s important that we’ve discussed tonight around having reviews and having a greater process in place, the underlying benefit is for the public of New Zealand to have greater confidence in the health services that they’re receiving. That can be delivered through this bill by having transparency and increased access to information about the services that they’re receiving, and that gives us a health system that’s more robust, and it gives us a public that’s more likely to benefit from the health services that are on offer.

The key area which looks into it at the beginning of the bill is the performance reviews that can be carried out as a result—five-yearly performance reviews—and carried out by an independent reviewer with criteria and oversight by the Ministry of Health. The importance of performance monitoring is it provides ongoing improvement of the health system. So if there are issues that are going on that are not right, then that’s able to be picked up, reviewed, and rectified in order to give that greater public confidence in our health system. Performance monitoring through the reviews will help that, and it will also help greater consistency across responsible authorities.

Part of what I already mentioned is information transparency related to competence and discipline. This is where the Health Committee received several submissions in this place. Some of the submitters recommended enabling responsible authorities to act immediately to suspend a practitioner’s practising certificate without notice or to alter the scope of their practice where there is risk of serious harm to the public. But it’s important to balance that up, and, after consideration of the submissions, the bill now allows responsible authorities as regulators to act immediately to suspend a practitioner’s practising certificate in instances only where there is a risk of serious harm to the public or pending prosecution or investigation.

This change will help ensure increased public safety when practitioners may pose serious harm to patients, and it also gives increased public confidence to those who want to utilise those services. The bill takes into account also the electronic age we live in, with all the responsible authorities submitting that electronic communication should be allowed within the Act, and it’s good to see that increased access being available through alternative means of communication. The committee considered that issuing documents such as annual practising certificates electronically and serving notices electronically would improve the operation and also the efficiency of responsible authorities.

So it’s with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. It is one that has taken two reviews and a significant amount of time and work by officials and by Ministers concerned across two Governments to be able to bring this together in a way that brings increased confidence from the general public and increased transparency into the health services provided to New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to speak on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill, speaking particularly on the changes that have been made as reported back to this House. I join with colleagues, it seems, from across the House in agreeing that the bill is a very worthwhile endeavour, and I’d like to focus in particular on the aspects that have been suggested for change as they relate to making a system more responsive, more effective, and more efficient for the people of New Zealand.

My litmus test in examining these various proposed changes is whether they would improve the lives and the health outcomes of the patients within the system but, of course, in a way that is not unfair to practitioners when it comes to disciplinary proceedings and the like. I think it’s interesting that the name of the Act that’s being amended includes the word “assurance”. So we’re not just ensuring that the system is a good one but also assuring the public that it is good and that they can have confidence in the competence accordingly.

For the first of those changes, I look to the amendments proposed by the Health Committee regarding the ability for concerns about a practitioner to be brought by any person, essentially—so not only health practitioners, employers, and the Health and Disability Commissioner, as is already the case, but also patients and members of the public—recognising that the system does belong to us all and so it is appropriate that anyone with a genuine concern should be able to raise that in good faith and have that processed in a way that takes that concern seriously.

So, too, we think about the effect on the public of having a system that encourages collaboration and cooperation in the delivery of the health services. It probably goes without saying that if we have a system that’s efficient in terms of its design and structure, then the benefits will flow not only to those who are involved in operating the system and delivering the services but to those who receive the services as well. So that also meets that standard, it seems to me, of improving outcomes for those who are most affected by the system.

I’ll just take a step back and consider the regulatory impact statement which was put together in recognition of the fact, initially, of a couple of different reviews flowing through, obviously, to this piece of legislation, and pick out a couple of areas in particular where it was recommended that the bill could be enhanced. One was to provide an assurance to the public and the Crown that the responsible authorities are carrying out their functions as intended, and also to improve transparency about disciplinary proceedings. So, again, those are really consistent with the interest that I have in considering the way that the ordinary public will be affected.

I’ll take a moment, if I may, as a footnote, to reference that great resource on Westminster democracy, namely Yes Minister, and the particular episode that featured a hospital that had no patients. It was to the delight of the bureaucracy, of course, and the horror of the Minister, which the news that there were no patients in this hospital was received. Of course, that rather dystopian satirical warning, I think, is obviously an extreme example of how we should not view our Government services in this country. In the case of our health system, considering the way that it will deliver the services to the people of New Zealand, it is, of course, the patients whom we must always bear in mind.

That said, it is also worth considering, in my remaining time, the fact that the practitioners themselves very much have an interest and a stake in the way that the system operates. I’ll just pick out by way of example the procedure for considering a complaint against a practitioner, whereby it’s been investigated that he or she might have engaged in certain conduct that’s potentially posing a risk of serious harm. Well, there’s an opportunity for suspension without prior notice. So that would be an immediate action to protect patients and would-be patients of that person, but at the same time to then allow the practitioner himself or herself to make submissions and to give their side of the story, presumably without prejudice—or, rather, the original suspension would not be a matter of record if that person were found not to have engaged in the harm. So that seems to me a balance that’s being struck, as I started my remarks, by acknowledging the interest of the people of New Zealand to have a system that is responsive and has competent professionals within it, but, at the same time, not unduly disadvantaging those who operate the system and deliver the services.

So, with that, I join colleagues on both sides of the House, it seems, in commending and wishing well the continued passage of this legislation through the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I just thank that last speaker, Chris Penk, and his reference to Yes Minister. It’s good to see that the Opposition are doing their homework there. I think Jim Hacker was a very unlikely leader that got a very circuitous route to leadership and didn’t have much success, so I just had that vision. So it’s good to see your in-service training being carried out on the opposite beaches.

But I think I should put my attention to the bill to a certain extent. What I would say this bill is about, if I were to sum it up—particularly for those watching at home—is that it’s really about who guards the guards. As much as it’s about the actions of the medical authorities, it’s really about the actions of those who oversee them, and so often we come to the case where there has been some sort of failure, particularly systemic failure.

Often, we have had faith in the system that there was someone actually keeping an eye on what was happening and that there was some authority, the “them” that we often talk about—why did they do this and what the heck happened there—and this is the “they”. It’s the regulatory authority, the responsible authorities, that we really rely on to be overseeing a profession that has changed considerably, certainly in my very short lifetime, and probably close to your own, Mr Speaker, and others. But it’s from a time when, really, our medical authorities occupied a different status in society, and what they said went. The old saying is that “Often they buried their mistakes”, but I suppose the status they occupied in our society meant that, really, they were their own regulatory authority.

That was at a time when perhaps the actions of those at that status of society weren’t really questioned. Well, really that has changed in so many ways, as has so much about that profession. We watch the television at night and we’ll see drug companies advertising miracle cures for everything from impotence through to acne, through to everything in between, and you can imagine the pressure that’s putting on the medical authorities and those that have the ability to make decisions. We have practice nurses. We have practices where the chances of seeing your own doctor when you go—if you can get an appointment—may be some days or weeks away, and often you’re offered the services of a doctor who you may not have met and are unlikely to meet again. These are the sorts of changes that those who only periodically—or some maybe never use medical services. So it is important that any oversight body, or any oversight at all into such professions, is kept modern, that it is kept effective, that it is kept relevant, and that it is reassuring to those who need that reassurance.

When I read this legislation, I see that it makes a lot of sense as we go through the various parts, with one of them being—I sort of focus here on the ability to name a medical practitioner who has perhaps run foul of best practice. I do like to see that it’s very strong and is ensuring we don’t disregard the human rights aspect of it. We ensure that any doctor who is likely to be named will, in fact, receive a fair play, and that the natural rights and natural justice will not be denied to such a person. However, there is the ability that those who are likely to come under the ministrations of that person in the future will actually know that there has been an issue, and that is extremely important.

So, without any further ado, I’ll just sum up by saying that this really is about making sure that the guardians of the profession—a changing profession; a profession that I think New Zealanders are generally very well served by—who are those we put our faith in and those that are overseeing it and ensuring that the changes in practice are relevant and are giving us reassurance and are providing a better service, are overseen. So for that I’ll commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991. The purpose of the Crown Minerals Act is to provide for the efficient allocation of rights to prospect for, explore for, and mine Crown-owned minerals, and the effective management and regulation of those rights. It also provides for the carrying out of activities in respect of those rights in accordance with good industry practice and a fair financial return to the Crown for the development of its minerals. This Government is committed to ensuring that the regulatory system that manages New Zealand’s Crown-owned minerals and the permitting regime that underpins these sectors is robust and fit for purpose.

This bill seeks to clarify and update statutory provisions and addresses gaps, inconsistencies, and errors with the Act. The changes in the bill will ensure that the identified regulatory gaps are closed, it will ensure there is a clarity for regulators and for industry around permitting, and it will address inconsistencies in the Act.

The nature of the petroleum industry is changing. There has been an increasing amount of acquisition and divestment activity across the sector. These transactions reflect a global trend of consolidation and rationalisation by large companies and smaller companies buying mature oil fields with the extension of extending end-of-life fields using specialist expertise. These are existing permits, and these will stretch for decades into the future. It is important that we make the most of these as we ensure a managed just transition to a net zero emissions economy.

It is therefore important that the Crown manages the risks that changes within the petroleum sector can bring by retaining appropriate oversight of acquisition and divestment activity in the sector. Under the Act, any change of permit operator requires the prior consent of the Minister of Energy and Resources or a delegated authority. A change of permit operator occurs when the day-to-day management of a permit changes from one permit participant to another. However, under the current legislation, a change of control of permit operator does not require prior ministerial consent. A change of control of a permit operator occurs when the majority voting rights for a corporate body are transferred. This is not in line with the intent of the Act as it allows companies to transfer operator responsibilities with reduced Crown oversight.

This bill closes this gap in the legislation. The amendment ensures that the Minister of Energy and Resources has oversight over appropriate transactions in the sector. It also ensures that the Minister must be satisfied that a change of control of an operator will not affect the permit holder’s ability to comply with the agreed work programme.

The bill also provides clarity around clauses in the Act which could be interpreted in multiple ways or where the meaning of the clause is unclear. Legislation that is unclear may lead to confusion and unnecessary administrative burden for those regulating the sector and the sectors themselves. The clear regulatory system provides a stable base for the Government and industry to work together in a cohesive manner and will ensure New Zealand’s regulatory system works effectively.

Finally, the bill addresses provisions in the Act where the wording is inconsistent with either another Act or where it is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision. Inconsistencies can create an unnecessary administrative burden for those reliant on this framework, and they can decrease the efficiency of the system.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee have examined the bill and have unanimously recommended that it be passed with amendments, and I’d like to acknowledge and thank the members of that committee and the chair, Jonathan Young, for their hard work and consideration of the bill. I’d also like to thank all those who made a submission on the bill. I support all the changes recommended by the committee, and I would like to briefly comment on some of the more significant changes.

The bill as introduced did not expressly provide for a situation where a change of control of a permit operator was commenced but not completed prior to the new provisions in the bill coming into effect. This could result in an unintentional breach of the new provisions of the Act. The committee has recommended inserting a new clause into the bill which would confirm that the current law will continue to apply to transactions entered into before the new provisions commence. This will give certainty and clarity to commercial transactions currently being undertaken.

The bill sets out how consents should be obtained for a change of control of a permit holder holding a tier one permit and what would constitute a contravention of a consent process. The bill currently states that if a person “knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they have obtained the power to exercise, or control the exercise of, 50% or more of voting rights of a permit operator without the prior consent of the Minister, they can be convicted of an offence under [the Act].” The committee has recommended that it be made clear that “a person can only be convicted of an offence if they knew, or should have reasonably known prior to the change in control, that they will obtain [that] power.”

There was concern raised in submissions that a person might be unduly penalised if a late application was properly made but the Minister has not made the decision before the change of control takes place. The committee recommended clarifying that a person cannot be charged with an offence while their application is still under consideration and will only be in contravention if their application is denied.

This is a Government that is committed to a just transition to a net zero emissions economy. The recent changes that we have made to the Act to halt future offshore oil and gas exploration permits are a signal from this Government so the industry and New Zealand can begin that transaction. We acknowledge there is a need to look at the wider Crown Minerals Act and ensure that it is futureproofed to meet the needs of all New Zealanders. That is why we will shortly be undertaking a wider review of the Act, which will involve engaging with iwi and other key stakeholders on how New Zealand can sustainably derive value from its resources. As I have said publicly, a just transaction means that the existing work programme of permit holders won’t be affected, regardless of the decisions that’ve been made on the future of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. This means that our current regulatory system must continue to effectively manage permits that are currently in place. To do this, the legislation must be robust and up to date.

This bill will ensure that the regulatory regime that governs our Crown-owned minerals is fit for purpose. The bill will close gaps, clarify unclear provisions, and address inconsistencies currently in the Crown Minerals Act. This will ensure that we do have a regulatory system that remains effective and efficient while at the same time providing clear and transparent expectations to the industry. Our goal is to have minerals and petroleum industries that responsibly deliver value to New Zealand, and the amendments to this bill will help us to achieve that. I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee did spend considerable time going through the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and we received 11 submissions to it. It may not sound to be a large number, but, in fact, there are a very small number of participants in this industry in New Zealand, and that number is reducing because of this Government. However, can I say that this piece of legislation is an important piece of legislation. It actually addresses, as the Minister Megan Woods said, some gaps. That gap is when there is a change of operator control around an activity.

In this case, the situation which brought this to bear was the change of ownership regarding an offshore exploration and production operation. In fact, a couple of years ago, I was notified by concerned members of the industry that a change of operator had taken place, and they were concerned that this happened without information and notification to the Minister of Energy and Resources. They felt that that should happen simply because, yes, there are high risks in this industry, but I’d have to say this industry set the standard, set the mark, and set the benchmark when it comes to health and safety and environmental concerns, because they know that their social licence is tenuous, and so they work very, very hard.

So when one company was going to exit New Zealand and sold their interests through a share sale for the amount of around about US$1 million—and that could exclude them from decommissioning costs of US$90 million—there was concern in the industry that this could be perceived as exiting without responsibility, and that this was not a good thing for the reputation of the industry, and also the concerns about any expenses that would have to be picked up by the taxpayer. So I’d have to say that the person who approached me, who was an industry leader in the country at that particular point in time, was concerned genuinely about this matter and wanted to see that there would be a more robust process by which change of control took place.

Bernie Napp wrote about this. He has given information. He has named companies. I know the company who have bought this interest. I won’t name them, but I want to assure the people of New Zealand that this company has been purviewed by New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals and has been deemed to be effective, responsible, and capable in actually taking over control of a field in offshore Taranaki, and they do, as the Minister said, have expertise in the end-of-life production of an oil and gas field. There are companies around the world who have this specialist skill and activity. They understand what technologies are available and how to deploy those technologies in order to be able to achieve those sorts of results.

But can I say that it was the concern of the industry that raised this matter, and so there are responsible people who feel that there just needed to be a next step. There needed to be information that was proffered to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals and to the Minister of Energy and Resources so that when there is a change of control, they don’t learn about it after the fact but they actually go through a process as if they were the original company asking for and applying for a permit. So they have to go through the rigours of being able to prove that they have financial capability and that, if they need to come to a decommissioning at the end of life of a field, they have the capability and the financial resources to do that, and they can also ensure they have full health and safety compliance issues regarding the safety of their employees.

This is the intent of this industry, and I think we could, in New Zealand, be proud of this industry in terms of its health and safety record. In fact, it was Rob Jager, who was the head of Shell, who had nothing to do with this particular situation, but who headed up the task force looking at what sort of response the Government should have regarding the Pike River tragedy. He was the head of Shell New Zealand, and has a reputation around the world—as Shell does—of having the highest standards possible regarding health and safety.

So there was this level of commitment that was strong enough to raise it with the local member of Parliament for New Plymouth, who then took it to the then Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Judith Collins, who then spoke to her ministry and sent a team offshore to meet and discuss with this company who wanted to acquire this resource and this operator control to ensure that they had the capability in order to satisfy the concerns of New Zealanders. It is from this actual event—this actual transaction that took place—that we see this bill come to the House in its substantive matters regarding it. I’m pleased that the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Megan Woods, has continued to process and enhance and continue on with this piece of legislation, because it’s very important for New Zealand.

What it does is it gives confidence to New Zealanders that this industry which operates offshore and onshore in New Zealand operates to the highest of standards—the highest of international best practice—and I think New Zealanders can be assured and ought to be proud that this Government does hold this industry to account and that this industry does, willingly and with great commitment, commit themselves to continue with best practice when it comes to care for the environment and also care for their employees. It’s great to see that whenever I visit different installations—particularly around Taranaki—offshore and onshore in terms of the high level of compliance to health and safety and environmental concerns, I can attest that this industry applies those. What this bill does is close that gap—that a company cannot come in through a share acquisition process, become a controlling interest, and become an operator in a field without the prior approval of the Minister of Energy and Resources, and that is an appropriate level of regulatory oversight that any Government ought to exact in this industry.

So the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee looked at this case and looked at this bill with a very, I would say, responsible attitude, and worked together to continue to support this bill and it brought some—as the Minister spoke of—improvements to it. One of the improvements—well, one of the, I guess, conditions that we looked at, or one of the situations that we reviewed, was what if a company had applied for or had entered into a transaction to change the control of an operating field prior to this bill going through?

And we have had that happen here in New Zealand in this very year. We know that Shell New Zealand Ltd have sold their fields, their assets, to OMV, an Austrian company who have been operating here since the year 2000, who invested $2 billion in their work in New Zealand and are now the largest holders of permits in this country. And they have had a transition process that takes many, many months, and if they were to have to wait until this bill passes and then go through the process of seeking permission from the Minister of Energy and Resources, then that would create incredible costs and delays to that process. This bill gives them an exemption.

But what I can say in these final few seconds is that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals have said OMV are an exemplary company—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

JONATHAN YOUNG: —and they have agreed to that exemption. Thank you, sir.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I rise to make a small contribution to the second reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and acknowledge the opening statements to this debate by the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Megan Woods, clarifying the intent of the bill but also pointing to the need to ensure that the policy intent was also a key consideration within the context of further work that would be done to look at the Crown Minerals Act.

I also want to acknowledge the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It is evident that in undertaking their role to listen, albeit to the 11 submissions, the key submissions of the stakeholders who have interests in this industry, to ensure that the range of further amendments that were agreed to—and by my understanding, by majority—were ones that would add greater clarity to the way in which the bill is intended to operate.

Just by summary—because I know that there are members of the select committee who do want to make a contribution to the detail of the bill—if we take the way in which the select committee has outlined the themes of the further improvements to the bill, they include matters relating to offences regarding the change of control, much of which has been commented on by the chair of the select committee; the issue of late applications for consent to change of control; consent to change of control of the permit operator; clarification of authorisation of geophysical surveys on adjacent lands; access to schedule 4 land: limit to common marine and coastal areas; and some transitional provisions.

It’s important to note that in considering the submitters’ views—as I read the detail of the way in which the amendments were proposed—this could only have been done with industry experience, and I believe it adds greatly to the way in which the bill is intended to help improve the operational aspects of its policy intent.

I want to pick up on a comment that was raised by Jonathan Young, the speaker before me, around the way in which industry themselves are seeking to assure best practice in their operations during a very difficult period of transition and with a significant emphasis on the health and safety components but also assuring that best practice ultimately is at the forefront of their minds in the way that they undertake their role.

I also want to draw on the reflection of the Minister, who indicated that it was important to have a broader piece of work in relation to the Crown Minerals Act and as it relates to iwi interests in these areas. I come from the Waikato, and there is a view in the West Coast—certainly in Taharoa, and it’s not petroleum but is the mining of black sand—that there is a further need to improve the way in which the Act can operate to enable development opportunities in this area. I welcome the next phase of work in relation to the Crown Minerals Act.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It’s an honour to stand tonight to talk to the Crown Minerals Act 1991, which aims to maintain—

SPEAKER: I regret I must interrupt the member in full flow. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.