Wednesday, 13 February 2019

WEDNESDAY, 13 FEBRUARY 2019

WEDNESDAY, 13 FEBRUARY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Overdue Replies

SPEAKER: Members, towards the end of last year, I ruled on overdue responses to written questions. I’m aware that some but not all Ministers are proactively releasing papers and diaries. Where they do so, a reference to material that is or will shortly be available would be a satisfactory reply to a written question. I repeat Speaker Carter’s ruling that such a reply must be given with some particularity to enable the member asking the question to directly locate the information—Speaker’s ruling 185/1. It may be that the proactive release of information reduces the number of written questions required. However, at present, there are 172 written questions that have not received a final reply. Many of the replies were due in December, but one was due in May last year. It appears that written questions are not working as they were supposed to as an accountability mechanism, so I intend to award the Opposition 10 additional supplementary questions each day until the end of this sitting block or until all the questions due last year have received their final replies—whichever comes first. I will review the situation again in the next sitting period.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Anticipating this issue would come up, my office contacted your office last week to find out how many questions you still had concerns about and was told by your office that you would not supply that information. It’s very difficult for me as the Leader of the House to follow up and ensure that those questions are answered if you will not supply me with that information.

SPEAKER: Just being very directly responsive to the member, I do not regard it as my responsibility to ensure that ministerial offices are well managed. I indicated through my office to the member’s office that there were many Ministers involved—very close to the majority of Ministers involved—and that the warning to get up to date should be a general one rather than directed at the specific individual Ministers. If Ministers’ record-keeping systems are not good enough to know that they have overdue questions, then I think the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services should do some sort of review of their offices to make them more efficient.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this case, many of those questions have actually been answered. The issue is that you do not believe they have been answered satisfactorily. Therefore, if you won’t indicate to me in any particularity which ones you don’t think have been answered satisfactorily, how is the Government supposed to follow that up?

SPEAKER: Ministers could go into their inboxes or their staff could go into their inboxes and review the questions in their names that are not shown as being answered.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. They are being shown as being answered. It’s that in many cases you have decided that they haven’t been answered sufficiently. The ruling that you gave before Christmas—in many of those cases, Ministers gave an answer that said the information would soon be available and Ministers have made additional information available. If you are deeming that the information they have subsequently made available is insufficient, I’m happy to follow that up and I’m sure the Government is happy to follow that up, but there are thousands of questions—written questions that were covered by the ruling you made before Christmas—and unless you tell us which ones of those you’re not happy with, how are we supposed to follow it up?

SPEAKER: As I’ve said before, you go into your inbox and see which of them have had a final reply. None of the 172 I’ve referred to have had a final reply—none of them.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making on implementing its economic plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government has a plan for a more resilient economy by transitioning to a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth path, and, as outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday, we are making excellent progress on implementing this plan across a number of fronts. We are modernising the New Zealand economy. We have introduced a research and development tax incentive that will come into effect this year. Tens of thousands of young people will benefit from fees-free. We will continue to invest in our regions through the Provincial Growth Fund and invest record levels in our infrastructure and continue our negotiations on important trade agreements. As I announced this morning, we will also deliver our first well-being Budget on 30 May, which will be a significant step in ensuring that the well-being of New Zealanders is at the heart of everything that we do.

Dr Deborah Russell: What factors has the Government taken into account in formulating its economic plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While the New Zealand economy is forecast to grow solidly over the next few years at around 3 percent and our strong economic fundamentals mean that we are in a position to deal with the emerging challenges we face from the downturn in the international economy, there is still a lot of work to do. We have developed a plan to adapt and modernise our economy to be more resilient, but we must be realistic that global growth is predicted to ease, largely because of rising trade tensions and political uncertainty. Advanced economies are forecast to grow at only 2 percent a year compared with our forecast growth of nearly 3 percent.

Dr Deborah Russell: What feedback has the Government received on its economic plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: From informed commentators, we’ve seen very positive feedback, particularly from international ratings agencies. Just a couple of weeks ago, Standard & Poor’s upgraded New Zealand’s credit outlook to positive. Standard & Poor’s specifically identified that the Government’s proactive policy-making supports sustainable public finances and economic growth. At the end of last year, Moody’s said that given our commitment to robust finances, the Government had the flexibility to fund the spending on families, infrastructure, affordable housing, and education while maintaining fiscal surpluses and debt reduction. We know that there is plenty to do, but it is pleasing that the vote of confidence is coming from these agencies in the Government’s management of our finances.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has New Zealand’s relationship with China deteriorated under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): No. There is no question that an economic and people-to-people relationship with China is incredibly important to New Zealand. Visitor numbers in the last year are up 8.4 percent. There’s also been an increase in goods exports by 20 percent in the year to September. That demonstrates the strength of our economic engagement and, I would also say, demonstrates the importance of a bipartisan approach to our relationship.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are five of her Ministers currently seeking visits to China, and are they currently waiting for agreement from China to visit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s fair to say that we have had a number of invitations over the last year. In fact, to be more explicit, the Minister of Foreign Affairs visited in May, the Minister for Climate Change visited in July, the Minister of Education visited in July, the Minister of Forestry visited in September, the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation visited in September, and the Minister for Trade and Export Growth visited in November.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are five of her Ministers currently seeking visits to China, and are they currently waiting for agreement from China to visit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As is demonstrated by the number of Ministers that have been, of course we have ongoing engagement, and at any given time there will be a number of Ministers working through their next visits.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know how long those five Ministers have been waiting for agreement to visit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve said, at any given time there may be a number who are working through the logistics of visits. We’ve had six that have been already, and we may well have five intending to visit in the near future.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the case that these Ministers have not yet been granted visas, and why is that?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have answered in previous questions, we have a number who have been, and there will no doubt be a number who intend to go in the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister elaborate on her comments yesterday about the collapse of New Zealand’s hitherto foreign policy consensus?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely happy to, because I do think this is an important point. New Zealand, for a number of years, has rightly had an independent foreign policy line that is in the best interests of New Zealand economically, in terms of national security, and in terms of its values. That has generally been followed by both the Government of the day and the Opposition. It’s disappointing that in recent times, we have seen the politicisation of our relationship, which sits directly in contradiction to our economic interests and our national security interests.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the last Government Minister to go to China, David Parker, visited last year, did he secure a meeting with his equivalent ministerial counterpart?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do not have in front of me the individual bilateral engagements of every Minister who has visited in recent times. But let us speak frankly in this House: there are challenges in our relationship. There are challenges in our relationships with a number of countries at any given time when you run an independent foreign policy. My question to the Opposition would be this: we stand by our decisions, particularly as they relate to the use of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act (TICSA) and the scrutiny of any telecommunications vendor in the national security interests of New Zealanders; would the Opposition do the same? That is my question to the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it the case, then, that things are getting better with the relationship with China, as the Prime Minister said in answer to the primary, or that there are significant challenges, as she just said? Which is true?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member chooses to look at foreign policy in such a simplistic way, then he’s going to run up against some challenges. I think the answer that I’ve given demonstrates that our economic relationship is both incredibly important to us but also very strong. That is not mutually exclusive from us having challenges from time to time, and that is the case with the likes of, for instance, our relationship with Australia.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it true that the Government’s position is to treat every nation and every people fairly, politely, equally, and respectfully, and would never say, for example, what a member of this House said—that “Two Chinese are better than two Indians.”?

SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister can answer the first part of the question; the second part is not her responsibility.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. Respect is an incredibly important part of our relationship. New Zealand has a long history of ensuring that we do speak directly with our counterparts where we have areas of concern, and we have continued that foreign policy position.

Hon David Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that when I visited China as Minister of Trade and Export Growth in November last year, I met with Vice Minister Wang from the Chinese administration, who is responsible for both the World Trade Organization negotiations on the part of China and for the bilateral trade relationship with New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with her Foreign Minister’s former comments that “Two Wongs don’t make a white.”?

SPEAKER: Order! There’s no part of that that the Prime Minister’s responsible for, and I am going to warn both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister that I consider they knew that both of their comments were outside the Standing Orders and, therefore, were deliberately disorderly. I will treat deliberate disorder of that sort more seriously going forward.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will her Foreign Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, next visit China?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I’ve already referenced the fact that he visited in May 2018. I haven’t asked him about his forward intentions for visits there, or, in fact, about any other of our engagements. But let us in this House speak frankly. I do not resile from the position that this Government has taken in support of our independent foreign policy, our economic interests, and our national security interests. My question for the Opposition is this: will they uphold the TICSA legislation they introduced, or are they willing to trade away our interests for the sake of the politicisation of our relationships?

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister, in that answer, tacitly acknowledging that her Ministers aren’t getting visits to China anymore?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. I am calling out the playing politics of our relationships.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have a date set yet for when she will visit China?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I have spoken openly about the fact that I have received an invitation, but it’s quite obvious that I have not yet visited. But, again, I stand by every decision that we have made and that the GCSB has independently made. It seems to me that the Opposition does not.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she have a date set yet for when she will next visit China?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already answered that question, but I will point out that I have met already with both the President and the Premier.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is any progress being made on her visit to China as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve already pointed out, I have already had high-level engagement at the highest level, where, in fact, the Premier, the last time we met, talked about his invitation to me to visit. But, again, I do not measure the strength of our relationship in such binary terms. We have—[Interruption] Our people-to-people exchanges have increased—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to interrupt the Prime Minister and ask people on both sides to settle down. I think all of us know that this is a very important issue, and I don’t want any confusion through people not being able to hear. So that includes people from not far away behind the Prime Minister. No, don’t look round, Mr Jones.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said, our people-to-people exchanges have increased, as have our exports. Those are equally incredibly important measures.

Hon Simon Bridges: When the Prime Minister, effectively, blames the TICSA and the Huawei decision for the complexity of the relationship, does she also have a view on whether the foreign Minister’s comments on the Belt and Road Initiative, the defence strategy paper of New Zealand, and his Georgetown speech have also contributed to the deterioration in relationships between New Zealand and China?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject that. But, again, if the Opposition is now taking a different view on some of those issues, like for instance the South China Sea, I’d be very interested to hear that.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the fact that she hadn’t read that Georgetown speech before it was delivered, does she confirm that she agrees with all of its contents today?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Deputy Prime Minister’s address acknowledged that the United States had taken a different foreign policy line in recent times and that it is in all of our interests if the United States continues to engage both at a regional level and with multilateral institutions. If the Opposition doesn’t agree with that, then that’s a matter for them.

Hon Simon Bridges: Just who is ultimately responsible for New Zealand’s foreign affairs: the foreign Minister or Jacinda Ardern?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As is, of course, convention, the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Simon Bridges: Then why didn’t she read the foreign Minister’s incredibly significant speech to Georgetown University before he gave it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We absolutely have agreeance on the principles of our position and our engagement both with the United States and with China, and in past Governments, there’s equally been general agreeance around New Zealand’s foreign policy interests between Government and Opposition as well. I was already aware of the principles contained in that speech.

Hon James Shaw: Does the Prime Minister think that the relationship with China might be improved by, say, gifting a sheep farm to a wealthy businessman from that country?

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Simon Bridges: When she said recently at a Chinese event that I also attended that she fully supported the Belt and Road Initiative, how is that consistent with comments her foreign Minister has made consistently bagging it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s absolutely consistent. What the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out is that the now Opposition signed an agreement without having put any infrastructure around it, and that’s a job that’s been left to us.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality that she’s, post the events, trying to cover up the mess he’s making in relation to our China relationship?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: What will the question be that the public will vote on in the binding referendum on legalising marijuana in 2020?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, what sits behind the question around the potential legalisation of cannabis is a level of detail that is still being worked on by the Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Join the cross-party group.

Hon Paula Bennett: What process is her Government going through to come up with the question?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, that’s detail that is being worked through, led by the Minister of Justice. Again, I hear that there is an invitation. Given this is a referendum being put to the people of New Zealand, we would welcome the engagement of the Opposition as we develop up the question and the work that sits behind it.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will the cross-party group on drugs be deciding what the question is?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You’ll appreciate that we have to add the rigour of advice from the Ministry of Justice but, no question, we welcome input.

Hon Paula Bennett: When will the public know what the question is?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, in good time. There needs to be relevant debate in the lead-up to the general election so that people are able to genuinely engage in the question. This is an issue that we want the public to give full consideration to, which is why it’s important we get both the question right and the detail that sits behind the question.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will there be a yes/no question as to whether or not marijuana should be legalised?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Even if you have a binary question like that, people need to understand, of course, how the law would change as well, alongside that. So even simple questions like that have to have a level of detail underneath it, and that’s what we’re working through now.

Hon Paula Bennett: In the context of that answer, then, when will the public know what the question is and have the level of detail, as the Prime Minister has just pointed out?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, well in advance. We need to give the preparatory time for the Electoral Commission, which is why we’ve flagged our intent this early out. Obviously, we are some way off a general election. We will, as a Government, be maximising every month we have between now and then. But we will ensure that there’s enough time for the public to properly engage. But, again, the detailed time line is something we’re working on presently.

Question No. 4—Internal Affairs

4, CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent reports has she received regarding Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s response to the Nelson Tasman fires?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I received a briefing yesterday evening outlining the state of the emergency. The fire perimeter is approximately 35.8 kilometres, and with favourable weather conditions yesterday significant progress has been made towards containing the fire. I was heartened to see that the safety, health, and well-being of everyone involved is of paramount consideration. I’ve been advised that while the hours are long and conditions are challenging, morale is high due to the support and well-wishers from around across the country. As Minister, I am proud of the outstanding work being done by firefighters who are working long hours in difficult, hazardous conditions to protect life, property, and livestock.

Clayton Mitchell: What information has she received regarding the support the New Zealand Defence Force has provided to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) in response to the Nelson-Tasman fires?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: One hundred and fifty-three New Zealand Defence Force personnel have been deployed, including 14 firefighters embedded with Fire and Emergency New Zealand, four New Zealand Defence Force fire appliances, 111 defence force personnel working on the cordons, and 20 personnel participating in the welfare of those on the front line by providing catering services. Other tasks since 6 February have included supporting evacuations, vehicle escorts, overnight patrols, and support to the police.

Clayton Mitchell: What advice has she received regarding the support the New Zealand Police has provided to FENZ in response to the Nelson-Tasman fires?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I have seen official reports and media reports, including a comment from the Tasman District councillor Dean McNamara, who says the presence of police and New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) patrols made it a lot easier to leave his home in Wakefield when he got the instructions to evacuate. Thanks to significant Government investment in police, we have been able to ensure a strong presence of personnel alongside fire and emergency teams. More than 100 dedicated police personnel were deployed as part of the response. This includes 37 brand-new recruits who completed their final exams at the Royal New Zealand Police College last week, took their oaths as constables, and travelled immediately to Nelson, with thanks to transport assistance from the NZDF Hercules and KiwiRail’s Interislander ferry. The Wakefield police station is able to be kept open 24 hours a day during the state of emergency. Police are assisting through a number of ways. Their function is to keep the community safe, such as assisting with evacuations and maintaining the cordons; to prevent crime such as looting and other property crime, or the unauthorised use of drones; and to investigate crimes such as two suspected arsons. Their visibility in the community is also a wonderful signal for the locals, who just want to get their lives back to normal.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will she consider providing funding to ensure volunteer firefighters or their employers are not financially disadvantaged for their tremendous effort over the past week, given that this is the largest fire New Zealand has had in 60 years and that the length of commitment by those volunteer firefighters has gone beyond the normal duties we would expect of those volunteers?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Can I thank the member for his question and for making sure that we recognise the businesses who allow the volunteers to go out and do this very important work. I have a meeting at 4 o’clock today with Fire and Emergency New Zealand. This is a topic that I will be discussing with them.

Clayton Mitchell: How many volunteer firefighters have actually been involved in the Tasman fires?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: There are up to 200 firefighters working at any one time and the majority of these are volunteers. As the honourable member from the Opposition side has already pointed out, each one of those volunteers is taking time out of their own lives, out of workplaces, out of businesses that they own, and we need to acknowledge that this is a vital service they do for their community and for their country—and just take the time to acknowledge those businesses that allow them to participate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she agree that the merged rural and urban fire service, now Fire and Emergency New Zealand, has resulted in a far better response to these Nelson fires than what occurred with the Port Hills fire in Christchurch; and, if so, has she changed the view where she vigorously opposed the merger and said in Opposition that we’d be better to have separate rural and urban fire services?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: First of all, to the first part of the question, I do. I think the work done by the Hon Peter Dunne to actually bring together the fire and emergency services, to recognise that we needed a better response after the Port Hills fire—and considering that they are only part-way through their amalgamation into integration and this is been the biggest test that they have had to face since they became FENZ, I agree. This is a much better response. With regard to the second part of the question, I’m actually going to have to go back and check the Hansard, because I’m not confident in the member’s basis of the question.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Is it his view that the current tax take in New Zealand is sufficient; if so, does he agree that income tax thresholds should be adjusted over time to keep up with inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The current tax take in New Zealand is sufficient to run the operating balance before gains and losses surplus, which the coalition Government delivered last year, is delivering this year, and is set to deliver over the forecast period. These surpluses are part of upholding a fiscal position that allows us to make investments in infrastructure and keep debt under control. In response to the second part of the question, the Government set up the Tax Working Group to look at the overall balance and fairness of the tax system. We will look at their recommendations in this regard and respond to them in due course.

Hon Amy Adams: How does he justify taking $17.7 billion more in tax over the next four years than was predicted at the election when economic growth is slowing, rents are up $40 a week, and middle New Zealanders are struggling to keep up with rising costs of living?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We covered some of this ground before Christmas, and, leaving aside the difference between forecasts and projections, that extra revenue is a result of Kiwis earning more, businesses doing better, and the economy growing. So it’s quite sad that the member opposite is not celebrating this kind of success in the economy.

Hon Amy Adams: Given that the Minister entirely failed to reference the impact of inflation on that number, how much of that extra tax take comes from the impact of inflation, as acknowledged by Treasury and the Reserve Bank?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that number with me, but what I can say is that in the period between 2013 and 2017, an additional $17 billion was collected above what was forecast when the previous Government was in office. This is part of a growing economy.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, will he commit to adjusting tax thresholds to keep pace with inflation to ensure that it’s workers, not the taxman, who get the full benefit of any wage increases?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in answer to the primary question, we set up the Tax Working Group to get experts to look at the balance and fairness of the tax system, and we will respond to their recommendations in due course.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with his associate finance Minister, who said yesterday that this Government doesn’t deserve to be re-elected if it doesn’t bring in a capital gains tax, or does he prefer the comments that Winston Peters has previously made that it’s very clear a capital gains tax is off the table?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member knows full well that she’s quoting from a time in my career when I was not a Minister, and therefore she cannot raise it in this House in the way she seeks to do now. She’s been around long enough to know those rules.

SPEAKER: No, I am going to allow the question. I think there’s a difference between asking a Minister directly about something they said in Opposition and just mentioning a statement quoting a member.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Minister is not responsible for a comment another member made when they were not a Minister. If that was the case, the Government would welcome that, because we could then be questioned on some of the comments being made by members opposite.

SPEAKER: Yes, and members have been asked on a number of occasions if they agree with comments in reports or comments made by people opposite, and that has not been ruled out.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve stated, the Government will look at the report of the Tax Working Group and make up our mind as a Government about what position we’ll be able to take. People take a number of positions on tax issues over the years. For example, members of the Opposition have called the policy that was announced just a few weeks ago by them “chewing gum tax cuts” in the past.

Hon Amy Adams: So is it his position, then, that he won’t make sure tax thresholds keep pace with inflation; he’s more than happy to take $17.7 billion more in tax from New Zealanders and leave them with the threat of a capital gains tax hanging over their heads?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Amy Adams: Which one of those statements does he not agree with?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I already have said the member is confused about the difference between our forecasts and projections around the $17 billion figure. What that is about is the fact that the economy is forecast to grow because people will earn higher wages and businesses will make more money. I just wish the member would celebrate New Zealand’s success.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What changes are being considered to the KiwiBuild programme to, in his words, “make KiwiBuild a stronger incentive for developers and how we can make it work better for first home buyers” and “provide a package of assistance to developers that will be enough of an incentive to get them to commit to serious volumes of affordable housing”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): We came into Government with a plan to tackle the national housing crisis. Part of that plan hasn’t worked as well as we expected in the early stages, and we haven’t built as many KiwiBuild homes as fast as we had planned. But, in spite of this, we’re making good progress to address the housing issues that we inherited. Consent numbers show that between KiwiBuild and other Government housebuilding, we’re building more homes than at any other stage in the last decade. I am currently preparing options for Cabinet to consider, and Cabinet will make decisions on specific changes in due course. However, I can confirm that we are considering how we can better support builders to build more KiwiBuild homes and accelerate large-scale projects and acquire land faster. Changes to the underlying system are also required to address the dysfunction in the housing market. That’s why we are moving faster to reform the planning rules, establish the urban development authority, and progress infrastructure funding and financing reforms.

Hon Judith Collins: Will either the purchase or construction of KiwiBuild houses be subsidised?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Hon Judith Collins: What kind of programmes is he envisioning putting in place that will incentivise developers without providing a subsidy?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I said, we’re considering a number of options to strengthen the Buying off the Plans part of KiwiBuild. I’ll be taking options to Cabinet shortly, and the member will find out shortly after that.

Hon Judith Collins: How can he assure New Zealanders that he will successfully redesign the KiwiBuild programme in the next few weeks, since he has stated that his initial design of KiwiBuild is in need of “recalibration” so soon into the Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we’re doing something that no Government has tried to do since the 1970s, and that is to work directly with builders to encourage the building of more affordable homes. We’re actually trying to do something about the housing crisis and build affordable homes, unlike the former Government, who, basically, did nothing of that kind for nine long years. We’re doing our best, and we will build more affordable homes.

Hon Judith Collins: How does he respond to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement that “there are many in this Government who are seriously going to be practically committed to ensure that we do meet our targets.” and that “I am going back to former Governments, where practical men who had never been to university, and women, decided they would get on with the job and get it done—and get it done we are.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement exactly reflects the spirit that we bring not only to KiwiBuild but to the entire housing and urban development programme.

Hon Judith Collins: When will he announce any KiwiBuild targets that will allow the public to hold the current Government to account on KiwiBuild progress before the next election?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’ve made it very clear that we are totally committed to the target of 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years. We will continue to be completely transparent—as we are, and as we have been—about the number of homes that are being built through KiwiBuild, through State housing, and all of the other things that we’re doing.

Question No. 7—Education

7. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Has he released any proposals to strengthen and grow trades training and other vocational education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government has released three proposals for consultation to transform trades training and other vocational education. Under these proposals, industry and employers will be given a much greater leadership role in setting skills standards and overseeing qualifications and programmes across the entire vocational education system, including off-job training. The New Zealand Institute of Skills & Technology will bring together 16 polytechs into a robust regional network to offer high-quality vocational education throughout New Zealand, and a new unified funding system will remove barriers to collaboration and flexibility.

Jan Tinetti: What are the problems with the current model of vocational education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are many, and I won’t go into all of them, but it’s clear that many learners are not getting the skills that they need. We have significant skills shortages, and we also know that the need for training and retraining is going to increase. We know that the system makes it hard for education providers and industry training organisations to work together, and clearly our polytech sector is unsustainable when the Government has to spend $100 million in one year alone simply to keep the lights on. We cannot continue to tweak the system when we know that the model is fundamentally broken and it isn’t delivering our workforce the skills they need to thrive.

Jan Tinetti: How would the proposals for reform support learners to get the in-demand skills that they need?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the biggest benefits for learners is that they will be able to move from campus to workplace and around the country without disrupting their studies. This is the step change that’s needed to shift from the idea that the ultimate goal of secondary school is to prepare young people for university. Large national employers will be able to deal with a single organisation to arrange consistent training and education across the country. We want industry to take a leadership role and to have a greater say in the provision of trades training and other vocational education so that learners are getting the skills that they need for the workforce.

Jan Tinetti: How would the proposals for reform support regions to play a leadership role in the delivery of trades training and other vocational education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, these proposals will increase the amount and the range of education and training available in regional New Zealand. Campuses will continue to offer a wide range of delivery. The courses on offer in each region won’t be limited to just what the local campus can provide on their own, because each campus will be able to draw on the resources of the whole nationwide network of polytechnic provisions, and their offerings will be able to be tailored to regional needs through the establishment of regional leadership groups.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Is he committed to building light rail from the city to the airport in Auckland and if so, when will work begin?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes. Light rail will be a game-changer for Auckland. It will be a magnet for private investment in urban renewal, and each line will be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour, the equivalent of four lanes of motorway. The light rail project will extend Auckland’s rapid transit network, a core part of our plan to build a modern transport system for the city. There is a procurement process under way now, so work has already started.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Government on track to have built light rail from Wynyard Quarter to Mount Roskill within four years of becoming Government, as promised by Jacinda Ardern in August 2017?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: At that point, Jacinda Ardern was not the Prime Minister.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not answering—

SPEAKER: Well, it answered as much as the Minister has any responsibility for it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, the core part of the question was—

SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask it again. Ask another question if he wants to.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Government on track to have built light rail from Wynyard Quarter to Mount Roskill within four years of becoming Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’ve expressed the view that we hope to have shovels in the ground in 2020. There’s a procurement process under way; that’s what we’re working towards.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is that another target he no longer intends to keep?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I reject the premise of the question.

SPEAKER: The Hon Jami-Lee Ross.

Jami-Lee Ross: Not honourable, Mr Speaker, but thank you. Is he, as part of the Government’s wider Auckland transport strategy, committed to also building an airport to Botany transport link as either light rail or a dedicated busway?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The south-east of Auckland is one of the most underserved areas of the region when it comes to public transport. I was happy the other day—with Mayor Phil Goff—to announce the new Pakuranga to Howick busway as part of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative project. Work is under way now looking at the possibility of extending a rapid transit service that would connect the Auckland Airport with Manukau, Puhinui, and up through Flat Bush to Botany. My hope is that that will be something we’ll be able to get up and running and make progress on in the coming years.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is he willing to work with me as a local MP to progress future plans for an airport to Botany transport link?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I would welcome the member’s cooperation in that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister agree with infrastructure Minister Shane Jones’ message to Phil Goff about the light rail project: “I would say before Phil Goff gets too enthusiastic about the Dominion Road idea he needs to sort out how he’s going to fund the CRL project. It hasn’t been completed yet and now he’s got to find $500 million to $1 billion for that.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I would point out that the light rail project is being pursued through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project and is expected to be funded and financed as part of that 30-year transport plan, and funded partly through the National Land Transport Programme. The member will know that the City Rail Link project that was entered into under the former National Government is funded through Crown contributions—completely separate from the National Land Transport Programme.

Question No. 9—Education

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Does the Minister stand by all his statements and actions around tertiary education and vocational education reforms?

SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member to ask the question again as it is on the sheet.

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions around tertiary education and vocational education reforms?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, and I particularly stand by my statement that those who’ve created the mess in vocational education continue to be in denial about it and don’t seem to have any plans of their own about how to fix it.

Simeon Brown: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Simeon Brown, sorry. It’s almost like the first time. Thank you.

Simeon Brown: Happy New Year, Mr Speaker. What are the implications of the announced reforms for wānanga and private training establishments?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the short term, there aren’t any. In the longer term, there are great opportunities for both wānanga and private training establishments. We’ve committed to meeting with—very quickly—the wānanga, in particular, to talk about the opportunities for them. I know that in the past they have expressed a desire to be more actively engaged in on-job training, and this does create the opportunity for them to do so, as it creates an opportunity for private training establishments.

Dr Shane Reti: Will jobs be lost in the announced vocational education reforms; and, if so, from what areas?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Jobs are already being lost in vocational education and training around the country, and doing nothing will result in even more jobs being lost. It is simply irresponsible to speculate at this point on, ultimately, how many jobs might be lost and how many people might need to be redeployed or retrained for different roles. That work will be done now that the proposals are public. It would not be possible to do the analysis around that work without making the proposals public, because we wanted to ensure that people knew what we’re planning, rather than think that we’re going around behind their backs, planning their futures without them.

Dr Shane Reti: How is the local decision-making and self-direction of well-performing Otago Polytechnic better off under these reforms?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s very clear that we need the system to operate as a whole. The whole system is not delivering, for businesses and for employers, the skills that they need. We have seen a 20,000-plus reduction in the number of people studying at polytechnics across the country. We need to do a much better job of providing a system that meets the needs of the whole country. In so far as those regions where they’ve got strongly performing institutions, those institutions will continue to perform strongly as part of a national network.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What reactions has the Minister seen to the release of the proposals on the reform of trades training and other vocational education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s been a lot of reaction so far, but I’ll just pick out three briefly. The Tertiary Education Union have welcomed the bold changes, particularly saying that they will provide more security and certainty for staff. Business New Zealand have welcomed the proposals. The Employers and Manufacturers Association have welcomed the proposals, saying, “We’re pleased to see that the imbalance that’s developed between the focus on tertiary and vocational education is being addressed.” Many, many other businesses have also been saying that this is what they’ve been waiting for for a very long time.

Question No. 10—Trade and Export Growth

10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How much money has been spent on the Saudi sheep farm in the desert also known as the Saudi agri-hub, and have any steps been taken to stop more money being spent?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Around $10 million had been spent on building a sheep farm in the Saudi Arabian desert before we took office, including taxpayer money spent flying ewes on Singapore Airlines and a $4 million cash payment to a Saudi business not owed any money. On 31 December, this Government terminated the remainder of the contract to ship and install an abattoir in Saudi Arabia. This has saved taxpayers almost $1 million. We don’t believe any more taxpayer money should be flushed down the drain on this shabby scheme.

Jamie Strange: What have been the benefits of building a sheep farm in the Saudi Arabian desert?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thus far, I’ve seen none. There was never any credible legal threat to New Zealand, so building a sheep farm didn’t resolve it. We still don’t have a trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council. New Zealand’s reputation for fair dealing was undermined by the so-called incentive payment of $4 million to a Saudi business not owed any money. The Auditor-General found the payment was “provided under the guise of a contract for services.” She was undoubtedly correct. This money was wasted.

Jamie Strange: Has he seen the report back required by the Auditor-General from the responsible department on the benefits of the sheep farm?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m advised that officials are still working on it, but I would opine that they would probably work for a decade and still not find any benefits to justify the scheme. There were no benefits from the $4 million cash payment to the Al-Khalaf business, no reputational benefits from the mass deaths of lambs, and there was no benefit for the terms of the deal allowing the media to be blocked from the showcase farm. I agree with the Auditor-General that the lack of transparency around this venture was appalling, and I will ensure that a fulsome report is provided.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the claim that there was a legal threat and therefore action had to be taken by the previous Government was simply not true?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I am. I am saying that. It’s clear that there was no legal threat and that the ban on the export of live sheep for slaughter was always legal. I have seen departmental reports from ministry officials that do record that the Saudis did take offence at expectations that were created by a former Minister for Primary Industries and also at the somewhat arrogant statements that were made by one of his staff members as he talked down to the Saudi officials. Perhaps those on the other side of the House who’ve been casting aspersions should look to their own house.

Hon James Shaw: Has anyone been or will anybody be held accountable for wasting taxpayer money on a sheep farm in the Saudi desert?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, sadly, no. The money’s been lost; we’ve got no right to recover it. But I suppose one form of accountability was the election result.

Hon James Shaw: Has the Minister seen any reports that corroborate former Minister McCully’s assertions about why the deal was needed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I haven’t, and I would also make the point that after the Auditor-General’s highly critical report, that Minister gave but one interview, held 20 minutes after the report had been released as he came into question time, before the media had even had the chance to read the report, and since that time he has not given one interview to the media during the year or so that followed prior to his leaving Parliament.

Hon James Shaw: Has the Minister seen any media reports that Murray McCully and Michelle Boag have moved on from the Saudi sheep scandal to establish a blue-green party in Auckland?

SPEAKER: Order! Even if he had, he wouldn’t have any responsibility.

Question No. 11—Social Development

11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Social Development: How much did the Government transfer in social security and welfare payments according to the Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ended 30 June 2018 on a per household basis?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The Crown spent $25.99 billion on social security and welfare in 2018, according to Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand, 30 June 2018. However, this includes spending on departmental expenses and so is not the amount provided for transfers on social security and welfare payments. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2018 records the amount provided for the benefit expenses, which was $24 billion in the fiscal year to 30 June 2018. The majority of that spending actually relates to New Zealand superannuation: 56 percent of that. According to Statistics New Zealand, the estimated households and private occupied dwellings on average over the year ended 30 June 2018 were 1,735,200. I’ve been provided with Treasury advice that, based on those two figures, the total spend is approximately $13,834 per household.

David Seymour: Given that the Government is spending $13,834 per household on cash transfers, why does the Salvation Army say this morning in its State of the Nation Report that “there are few signs that government policies are beginning to address seemingly entrenched aspects of poverty in New Zealand.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: With all due respect, I have received the Salvation Army’s report but I do not have responsibility for the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation Report.

David Seymour: If transferring $13,834 to the average household every year in social security and welfare payments is not enough to end poverty, how much does the Government plan to transfer each year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Can I just remind the member that 56 percent of the spend that we have just discussed is actually allocated to superannuation. I think it’s a really important point to make. Seventeen percent of the transfers with regards to the benefit amount is spent on main benefits. The information I have in front of me shows that for the last few years that’s been fairly static. I’m unsure of where the member is trying to take this House; however, I’ve laid out the information I have in front of him.

Question No. 12—Tourism

12. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Tourism: What was the date he first found out about the need to postpone the China - New Zealand Year of Tourism opening ceremony?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): The Chinese Embassy informed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on 28 January. I was informed by MBIE officials shortly after.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Why did he not make a public announcement on the postponement?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The event is being organised by the Chinese Government, and it would be silly for me to upstage them.

Hon Jacqui Dean: When did he inform the Prime Minister of the postponement, and what was her response?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I informed her immediately.

Hon Jacqui Dean: What actions has he now taken to secure a new date for the opening ceremony?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, this is down to the Chinese Government. It’s down to their scheduling and coordination, so I’ll leave it up to them and MBIE officials to organise this.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, in question time today, who said that there are “challenges in the relationship with China”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I agree with almost everything the Prime Minister says, especially when she says that the numbers of Chinese tourists continue to rise: 8.4 percent growth in the last year and we’re expecting those numbers to continue to rise.

Urgent Debates Declined

Housing and Urban Development, Ministry—Resignation of Stephen Barclay

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the resignation of Stephen Barclay from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Mr Barclay was an employee of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, which is a department of the Public Service.

A Government is not answerable to the House for the matters set out in section 33 of the State Sector Act 1988 in respect of individual employees—Speaker’s ruling 160/5. In those matters, which include the appointment, promotion, or cessation of employment of any employee, chief executives have a duty to act independently. In the case of an urgent debate where decision making has taken place independently of Ministers, there can be no ministerial responsibility. The application is, therefore, declined.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 12 February.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I want to start my contribution today, as we did yesterday in the House, by acknowledging what has been happening in the Nelson and Tasman region. It has obviously been an appalling situation for the people involved and a great deal of hardship has ensued, and there is more to come, unfortunately, as we continue to support the firefighters and those working in the area. But my fundamental emotion on this is pride: pride in New Zealanders coming together to support one another; pride in our volunteers, both within the fire service and the wider civil defence community, stepping up time and time again; and pride in the Government departments who have supported those volunteers and supported that community.

This is New Zealand at its best, coming together to help out one another—to put people first. That’s what New Zealanders believe in, and it’s something I think everyone in this House can be proud of.

It is also the fundamental thing that binds together the Government that I am proud of. The fact is that all three parties that make up this Government—coming, as we do, from different traditions—have something that binds us together: we believe that people come first. We believe that the environment that we live in needs to be protected and enhanced, we believe that we are stronger together as communities when we include people—not when we seek to divide people, but when we include people—and I am proud of a Government that is doing that.

I am proud of the leadership of this Government. As Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said yesterday, there are choices for Governments. They can govern and manage the shop—and we saw a lot of that in the last nine years—or Governments can take a choice to lead. That’s what this Government is doing, and I am proud of Jacinda Ardern’s leadership in that regard.

I’m proud of the year—or just over a year—that this Government has had. From the Families Package to record investment in health and education, funding for conservation, support for the regions—the list goes on. This is a Government that is not afraid to face up to the big issues. This is a Government that is not afraid to take some risks to make sure that we build a country for future generations, not only for them to be proud of it but for them to be able, themselves, to leave a legacy in the future.

I am proud of what this Government will do this year. We are building, from an economic perspective, on a strong base: solid GPD growth of around 3 percent a year; surpluses in our first year and forecast into the future; debt at the target levels that we are setting; unemployment hovering around 4 percent and, in the last two quarters, the lowest in a decade; and wages forecast to grow at around 3 percent. These are the fundamentals of a strong economy, and this Government is delivering on what we committed to the public in that regard. But we know that it is never enough. We know that there is always more to do, and we remain ambitious to do that.

In terms of the economy and the areas that I’m responsible for, our mission is to modernise our economy. We want to look forward to an era where we do pass a zero carbon bill, as we will this year, and have a low-carbon economy. That’s not just the right thing to do but it has opportunities for our entrepreneurs. There are abilities for businesses to make money from the fact that we can have a better planet and one that we look after for the future.

I want us to make sure that we’re adapting to the future of work. That’s why the announcement from the Minister of Education today about vocational education is so important, because we must be preparing our workforces for the economy of the future. The same applies to our well-being Budget, where we will finally look beyond just GDP—as important as that is—to success being about the health of our people, the protection of our environment, and the strength of our communities.

These are the things that New Zealanders care about. Time and time again, if members of this House asked the members of their families or people they know “What is it that you want for your children?”, the first thing they will say is that they want them to be healthy and to be happy. That’s the same thing that this Government should be saying. The first thing we should be saying is “How do we keep our people healthy and happy?” Yes, we need prosperity, but we need a Government that cares about who shares in that prosperity, and that is what this Government is focused on.

So we are looking at the economy of the 21st century: how do we set ourselves up for the middle of the 21st century? On the opposite side of the House, they’re firmly fixed in the rear-vision mirror. They rolled out the brand new, bright ideas of tax cuts and beneficiary bashing yesterday—an amazing step forward from the National Party!

But the truth is that things are not good across the aisle. The Titanic is relentlessly focused on the iceberg. They are indeed the angry dog barking at every car. And the real story of the poll this week has been lost: National’s eaten all of its friends—the ACT Party and United Future.

But they’ve devised a cunning plan. Now, when we were children, some of us had imaginary friends, but we grew out of it. Well, not National or Simon Bridges, because in the absence of any potential coalition partners, National’s found an imaginary blue-green friend—not so much an Avatar as a Tava, but we’ll come back to that. It’s like some fantasy of blue-green friends out there—they are not real.

So, in the absence of friends, they have started turning on each other, and yesterday—and I’ve seen this movie before—was a communications train wreck. It started with Matt King. Honest as the day is long, Matt could not bring himself to toe the party line about Simon Bridges. This is what he said: “I like Simon. I like Judith. I like a few of our leaders. Look, there’s a number of people in our caucus that can lead the party, and I’d be happy with any of them.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the leader, but Matt wasn’t finished. He said, “If Judith went for the job and had the support of the caucus, I’d support Judith as well.” Judith can mark him down.

Meanwhile, Nuk Korako had missed the memo completely. He said, “There’s a number of people who would make a great leader. We’ll just see.”—presumably not the leader that Nuk has got at the moment.

There were also a lot of ATMs among the National MPs yesterday—ATM being “at the moment”. Gerry Brownlee said, “The leadership was not up for consideration at the moment.” Tim van de Molen—or, as Simon Bridges knows him, Hamish; I’ll explain that joke later—said, “Simon is doing a good job at the moment.” So, ladies and gentlemen, we have a new nickname for Simon Bridges: ATM—the leader at the moment.

Meanwhile, the woman of the moment, Judith Collins, was keeping her powder dry—gunpowder, that is. She refused to rule out a leadership challenge, saying “I am very clearly not ruling out anything.”, and she was literally limbering up during Simon Bridges’ speech yesterday.

Now, Judith Collins has undertaken some academic study lately, and I want to congratulate her on that. The focus has been on a Bachelor of health and safety—that would be her health, and not Simon Bridges’ safety. My advice to Simon Bridges is not to accept an invitation from Judith Collins to visit a building site any time soon, because she knows what’s legal and what’s not.

But it appears that Judith has done a double major in psychology, or, more accurately, reverse psychology, because this is what she had to say yesterday: “My job is to do whatever the caucus needs me to do.” If that wasn’t a hint, I don’t know what was.

Meanwhile, Anne Tolley didn’t seem sure what she wanted Judith to do. When Anne Tolley was asked yesterday what she thought of Judith Collins as leader, she said, “You either love her or hate her.” Now, Anne didn’t leave us any the wiser as to what she thought about that question.

For Judith herself—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: For Judith Collins herself, she employed everything she had learnt in her psychology studies. She said, “Opposition leader is the toughest job in politics, and I’ve seen a few come and go.” When asked if it was a job for her, she said, “I’m a lovely, sweet person, not given to that sort of toughness at all.” Then, the final twist of the knife from Judith Collins: “The caucus has voted for the leader, and he’s doing the very best job he can.” An A plus for reverse psychology in her studies, from Judith Collins.

So while the knifing and the backbiting has only just begun across the aisle, we are a Government with a plan. We’ve got a leader who is not prepared to sit back and mind the shop, but who actually wants to lead our country forward. We know that there’s a lot to do and we know we have to take some risks, and we know everything won’t happen as fast as we would like. But above all, we know that we’ve got what it takes to give every New Zealander a share in prosperity, a place to call home, a community to be part of, and a country to be proud of. I am proud of this Government.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Speaker, before I make some remarks about the Prime Minister’s statement, can I first of all say happy New Year to you and to all of the parliamentarians back for 2019. On a more sombre note, can also acknowledge the passing of John Wilson, the former Fonterra chairman, who had a battle with cancer and, unfortunately, passed away last month. There was a massive send-off for him at Mystery Creek, and my heartfelt condolences, on behalf of the National Party, go to Belinda and his four daughters.

Can I now make some comments about the Prime Minister’s statement: 2019 is supposedly going to be the year of delivery. Well, we’ll wait and see on that one, because we know that 233 working groups and reviews are going to be reporting back, costing over $200 million to establish. We will wait and see what these reports come up with.

Now, Cabinet already has in their hot little hands the Tax Working Group final report. We surmise—and I bet we’re right—that a capital gains tax is going to be in there, and, of course, the reason they are going to propose this is that the economy has already started to slow.

If you talk to businesses that are out there trying to do their best with the New Zealand economy, they realise that the signs are already there. Just in this last quarter, we have started to see the economy slow, and, of course, what’s the Government’s reaction? What options do they have? Well, the first option is to rack up more debt. They’ve said that maybe they won’t do that, but let’s wait and see. The second option is, of course, more tax—to treat hard-working New Zealanders like an ATM machine. The third option—which they won’t do—is to cut services.

So 2019, I think, is going to be an underwhelming year of nonsense delivery from the Government. I think, really, they are going to struggle to keep this economy moving, because they have policies that are actually slowing down the economy.

Also, when we look at the unemployment in the last quarter, that’s up by 10,000. If we look at what’s happened with KiwiBuild, isn’t that an embarrassment? I look across the other side of the House now, and all of their heads are down. What have they built? Forty-seven homes, and they said that in their first year they were going to build 1,000, in their second year they were going to build something like 5,000, and in their third year, 10,000. Now, what’s happened? Well, Phil Twyford said, “Oh well, those targets are pretty movable. Yeah, we think that we might get that.” Winston Peters didn’t get the memo. He said that, yes, they were going to achieve it. So I don’t think they will, and now KiwiBuild is very much a “KiwiFlop”.

Also today, talking about flops, Government MPs couldn’t get out of bed on time to make the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What an absolute embarrassment it is that they couldn’t get out of bed and turn up and do their work.

Then we have the Salvation Army report out today. What a shocker that is. The Prime Minister’s Budget in 2019, focusing on well-being—well, they came in with all this rhetoric that they were going to do more to support the most vulnerable in our communities, and this is a shocking indictment on this Government. They’ve been all talk and all rhetoric, and they’ve failed to deliver anything that has turned the lives around of our most vulnerable. The number of kids in dependent households is up, child abuse and neglect is up, and the number of people on jobseeker benefit is up, so we will wait with bated breath and see what Budget 2019 actually delivers.

But it’s got to be more than just money; it’s got to be delivery, and that’s why I don’t think they’ll be able to deliver much in 2019, unlike our leader, Simon Bridges, who’s started the year fantastically well with his speech, talking about shifting the tax thresholds, or what’s commonly known as bracket creep. Those on the middle income at the moment, they will be paying the highest tax rate by 2022. Things need to change, and, under a National Government in 2020, it will.

Can I also talk about the primary sector, because that is a big part of this economic growth. We’re just seeing the cracks starting to appear. The Federated Farmers’ confidence survey—the mid-season one—says farmers’ confidence is at the lowest ebb since 2019. What happened in 2019?

Hon Member: No, 2009.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Sorry—2009. Well, it was the global financial crisis. That was biting hard then. So they’re already looking at the sentiments of this Government, wondering whether on earth the agricultural community and sectors could be the next oil and gas. They’re in trepidation, and we think now about the China relationship. That is a huge relationship for us as an exporting country. It’s our second-biggest exporting country. It’s worth about $28 billion in two-way trade.

Now, we’ve had a numerous amount of stuff-ups that have occurred under this Government, which is why we are now seeing, effectively, our relationship being in what I’m terming the chiller for the next six to 12 months. The first one is that New Zealand First Ministers waded into the South China Sea debate, which they shouldn’t have done. David Parker couldn’t get any meeting with his ministerial counterpart when he was up there last year. The Chinese Government have also noticed that the foreign investment changes by this Government have ricocheted all the way back up to Beijing. We then had the recent Huawei decision. That’s gone down like a cup of cold sick, and they’re all wondering what that means.

We now have the tourism conference that was due to be happening at Te Papa next week. All Ministers from both sides were going to be there. That has now been pulled. We heard this afternoon in the House that Minister Kelvin Davis heard on 28 January that it was scrapped, doomed—it will never happen again, in my opinion—and no date invitation has been sent to the Prime Minister.

So what should our farmers and growers think right now? The next Federated Farmers’ survey will be even more doomsday than this one. Also we have the EU. Shortly after the Prime Minister left the EU, with her meeting with the senior-ranked politicians over there, what happened? The EU’s out there, threatening to remove our preferential access for lamb and butter.

Then, of course, we have had numerous other things. We’ve got research and development that’s being halved by this Government for the primary sector, and water storage, which is a massive issue right now, particularly in Nelson and Tasman region, where actually all of those firefighters and emergency services are doing well to get on top of this fire. But one thing in how you can turn these regions around—particularly on the east coast of both islands and the Tasman region—is building water storage projects. That’s now pretty much—not the Waimea dam, but all the other proposals that we were working our way through are now doomed.

Of course, the Government also had deaf ears when people like the Mental Health Alliance and Rural Health Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand came to the Government and said “We need some more funding.”, and they said, “No way.” Also, we’ve got the looming aspect of more regulation from David Parker, already out there talking about environmental taxes. Whether it’s for hill-country farmers, whether it’s winter grazing, or whether it’s feedlots, you can bet your bottom dollar that more regulation’s coming. Then we had Damien O’Connor last year, out there arrogantly saying that farmers should get used to the fact that there will be more costs that are going to be incurred on them by this Government. There’s a hell of a lot of uncertainty under the dairy industry restructuring legislation. Submissions closed on that, so we’ll wait and see what happens as it works its way through the Parliament and what the Minister and his officials come up with.

Then, of course, we’ve got the tertiary review and reform that’s been talked about today, and it is now public for the next six weeks. I personally think that for such a big reform like this, six weeks is too tight. Then we have Taratahi, a private training establishment (PTE). Nowhere mentioned in this review—

Hon Ron Mark: Who’s to blame for that?

Hon NATHAN GUY: —are PTEs. Then, we have Ron Mark chipping in there. It surprised me that he wasn’t out with his Labour counterpart Kieran McAnulty, proposing a Givealittle page this summer to support all the staff. Well, the Government had the opportunity to give a little to Taratahi and that was to find some funding, but they slammed the door shut on them. Mark Patterson’s been running around with a Givealittle page to try and support Telford. Well, the Government’s done the right thing there and supported Telford, but now Taratahi is in limbo, and now I’m hearing that Landcorp is looking at picking it up.

The National Party has had a good start to 2019. It’s been underwhelming for the Government, and I’m going to finish where I started: 2019, in my view, will be a debate all about tax and it will be a year when the Government struggles to perform and deliver anything that’s going to help grow New Zealand and grow the economy. There’s grey clouds on the horizon, and we should all be very, very nervous.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s interesting. There’s so much that was either incorrect, manufactured, or something else in the contribution from Nathan Guy, the last speaker, that I could be completely diverted from what I want to say about the Prime Minister’s statement just by taking well over 10 minutes to try and correct most of the inaccuracies. But I think what’s most fascinating for me is the statement that he finished with, which was that the Opposition has had a good start to the year.

This morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the Opposition set the tone for the year by deciding to play politics with the select committee process. Three National Party MPs stood outside and refused to allow a quorum in a select committee, while submitters—New Zealanders who had paid their way to Wellington to see their elected officials—waited, and those members did so because they deliberately wanted to play politics with the select committee process. This is the party that seeks partisanship. This is the party that continually stands up and says “Please, Government, work with us.”, and then three National Party MPs, the Rt Hon David Carter, Andrew Bayly, and Andrew Falloon, stood outside deliberately to make a mockery of the select committee—and to make those New Zealanders waste their money and their time—by not coming into the select committee room. Unbelievable. I’ve never seen anything like it, and New Zealanders will judge that party on their behaviour around those submitters.

What did we do—what did we do? We brought those submitters into the select committee room, which was now empty, and we sat down with them and we spent the next hour making sure that they were heard and had a one-on-one conversation with the Labour Party MPs and myself, as a New Zealand First Minister. That is what we did, so that they didn’t waste their money and their time coming to this Parliament for a game—a game—that the National Party was making.

But to get to the Prime Minister’s statement—because that is what this Government is going to do—we’re not going to play games with New Zealanders. We’re not going to play games with the future of our nation. That’s not what we are paid by the taxpayers to do. I don’t know where those members find the time to think up these games, but it’s not what we’re doing on this side of the House.

So, with regard to the Prime Minister’s statement, one of the great privileges I have is I’m the Minister for Children and the Minister for Seniors. This Parliament will be judged, and this country will be judged, on how we treat our children and how we treat our senior citizens.

Madam Deputy Speaker, with your good self sitting in the Chair, it’s almost embarrassing for me to actually go through the changes that are taking place with Oranga Tamariki, because the work that set this in motion was yours, and, with as much honour as I can give it, we have continued down that pathway. So Oranga Tamariki had come into existence only in April 2017—under your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker—and in the last year, what we have done is we’ve recruited 150 extra social workers and created a number of new practitioner roles so that social workers can spend more time with children.

The average caseload in care and protection has reduced from 31 children to 25 children, and a new practice framework sets out front-line social work practice. There are now 250 more caregivers, so children can more likely get the right type of care placement, and we know that getting the right type of care placement to give them consistency so that those placements don’t break down is better for our children. The caregivers now have access to a 24/7 support line, and the country’s first ever care standards regulations have been set. The ministry has also established a new function to improve the safety of children in care. The ministry is strengthening its relationships with the NGO sector and with iwi organisations.

Under section 7(1)(a)—I’ve got to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the previous Minister in this role, the Minister who set up Oranga Tamariki, that it was enlightened to put section 7(1)(a) into legislation. No responsibility like that has ever been placed on a chief executive of an organisation before. It was enlightened by that Minister, and Oranga Tamariki is working hard to make sure that we build direct relationships, co-designed relationships, and flexible relationships with iwi organisations.

Around about 70 percent of the children in our care are Māori children. We must have Māori solutions and Māori delivering for Māori, well resourced and well-supported by the Government. The last thing a family needs is for Oranga Tamariki to show up at their door. What they need is somebody that they know from their community and they trust in their community, who comes well resourced and upskilled so that they can deal with the complexities of that family.

That leads me on to the operating model. At the end of last year, I took through Cabinet six Cabinet papers, so that we could set the new operating model in place and have it up and running by 1 July 2019. Some really important parts of that need to be articulated. We have too many children in care. We have too many children in the State’s care, and one of the reasons for that is because we do not have an intensive intervention service. So that is something that we will build. We will build it. We are working right now, actually, with some iwi organisations, and I spent a day up in Kaitāia, after being up at Waitangi, to sit alongside an iwi organisation, an NGO there that has been doing intensive intervention for 20-something years, but is not recognised by the State, not resourced appropriately, and not funded. That is what we must do, and that is what we will do.

The other thing we must do is we must build a transition service, and that is where young people who are care-experienced, and so they have been in care, or young people who have been inside the youth justice facilities—when they leave care or leave youth justice, they will be walked alongside of. I don’t know about my colleagues, but I was 29 the last time I ended up at my mum and dad’s place, on their sofa in their spare room—right? So how do we expect young people out of care or young people out of our youth justice facilities to just suddenly, at the age of 18, be able to be there on their own? They need people to walk alongside them, just like any other child or any other young person who has a family that can support them, and we will create that service.

I’m going to use the last of my few minutes to shift over to seniors. It’s a true privilege to be the Minister for Seniors. For the last year, the Office of Seniors and I travelled up and down the country, refreshing what is the Positive Ageing Strategy, which was actually created in 2001. All of its targets finished in 2010, and no work had been done to refresh or update or change any of those targets or to create any new targets. A lot has changed between 2001 and 2018-19 in this nation. The diversity of this nation is completely different. Levels of homeownership among those in their 40s and 50s and 60s have taken a plummet. Many other things have changed.

A million New Zealanders will be over the age of 65 in a decade. We cannot have a million New Zealanders, with the skills and the historical knowledge that they have, just drop out of the workforce. So we must work with, and we are working with, the Employers and Manufacturers Association and other businesses to give them a tool box to make sure that they understand how to have conversations early to transition workers, because there is no retirement age in this country. People are not required to retire—65 is the age that you get a universal basic income from your Government, and then you are not required to retire. People transition, and that was what we heard on the road. We must remove the word “retirement”. People transition from paid employment to unpaid employment, they transition from full time to part time, and they transition to the next stage of their lives, and we are going to work with our communities, with our businesses, to make sure that that transition is better.

So this is a big year—a big year—but the plan is there, and I just want to mention the relationship between the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It is such a tight relationship. They constantly communicate. They work well together. The mutual respect is brilliant to see, and the relationship between the Hon James Shaw and Winston Peters is also another tight relationship. We have worked together collegially. We’re building on the successes that we have. This is going to be an awesome year for a coalition Government that’s going to take this country to the place it needs to be and give the people of New Zealand what they need to be well.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to take some time to address the incredibly serious fires that have ravaged my home community over the last week, and the drought conditions that have become extreme in the Nelson and Tasman communities. The fire that got started last week is the largest fire in New Zealand for more than 60 years, and I do say it is something of a miracle that there has not been loss of life and that only two homes have been lost. That is a huge tribute to Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the hundreds of firefighters from not just my own community but all over New Zealand who have come to attack this fire.

I also want to pay tribute to literally thousands of people who have opened their homes to those who have been evacuated; those who have provided food for the firefighters, the army, and the police; and the huge effort that has gone into the response, whether it’s been civil defence, whether it’s been the army, or whether it has been our schools and others responding to this emergency. I would particularly say that Fire and Emergency New Zealand have learnt the lessons of the Port Hills, and when this Parliament made the decision to merge our rural and urban fire services, it resulted in a far more robust response, and I commend both the officials and the parliamentarians who supported that reform that is paying dividends in my community.

Myself and my colleague Maureen Pugh have been dealing with dozens of constituency cases, and it is a reminder for our officials to just be a little bit flexible in these circumstances. Can I give an example: I was confronted with a situation on Monday where a parent of a special needs student—where the family had been compulsorily evacuated from Wakefield to a home in Nelson—was told that the normal special needs transport for their child could not be provided, because it wasn’t their normal home. Now, when I spoke to the official responsible, they were so focused on the regulations that they had lost their humanity, and I thank the intervention of the director of the Ministry of Education for dealing with that.

Equally, there have been situations where I say the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) needs to be more responsive to farmers. It was insulting for MPI to tell farmers they didn’t know about the welfare of their animals and that only they were sufficiently expert to be able to go on to those properties, and can I thank the Ministry for Primary Industries for changing their approach after representations over the weekend. Let’s be practical: it’s the farmer who knows where the troughs are, it’s the farmer who knows where the feed is, it’s the farmer who knows where his animals are, and it is the farmers who need access to those properties to ensure animal welfare.

There are two important flow-on issues that I would like the Government to address. We’ve got hundreds of volunteer firefighters from Richmond, from Stoke, from Wakefield, from Māpua, from Golden Bay, and from Tākaka who have been working in this fire under trying conditions for a week. Some of them are self-employed, and their businesses have financially suffered. Some of them are with small employers, and their businesses have been in touch, and I would invite the Minister of Internal Affairs to give consideration to ensuring that every volunteer firefighter—they or their business—is not disadvantaged as a consequence of their tremendous efforts over the last week.

There is also a further issue that needs to be addressed. Fire and Emergency New Zealand have, quite appropriately, created firebreaks across private property—bulldozed through people’s fences, through their driveways, through their landscaping, and through their crops. The Minister and MPI and no one from the Government are able to answer those property owners as to whether that will be repaired or whether there’ll be any compensation. Let me make plain: Fire and Emergency New Zealand have been absolutely right to create those firebreaks, but if damage has been done in the course of that to people’s private property, it is the Government’s responsibility to put that right.

Yesterday, myself and Maureen Pugh asked the Government to consider, in the same way that National did for the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes, providing financial support for some of the businesses that are just bleeding right now. Civil defence have used their powers to ban any agricultural contracting, any forestry contracting, and any civil contracting in my community, because the district is a tinderbox, which is appropriate, but those businesses, involving hundreds of employees, are now in real difficulty. None of us know when the rain is coming. My plea to the Government for those businesses is to provide a similar block of support for those employers.

I now want to turn to the issue of the drought because, in financial terms, that has now become so severe in my district that we are looking at close to $100 million of impact on my community. The council has announced today that we will be moving to stage four rationing. That means, on the Waimea plains, a 65 percent cut in the amount of water that they are able to use for their apples, for the hops, for the boysenberries, and for other crops, as well as for major vegetable producers. I want to say to the House that these are the worst drought conditions on record in the Nelson community. We’ve got large businesses like MG Marketing that employ nearly 200 people, whose jobs are now at risk as a consequence of the economic impact of this severe drought.

The last time I gave a speech in this House was last year in securing the support of this Parliament for the Waimea Community Dam. I challenge the Greens to come to my community to see the scale of that drought and to see why that dam is absolutely essential to responding to this sort of issue. But my plea, again, to the Government is to consider the extent of that drought and the financial support. I note that the Prime Minister has announced a $20,000 contribution for the Rural Support Trust and $50,000 for the Mayoral Relief Fund. With due respect, those sums of $20,000 and $50,000 do not cut the mustard. This is a Government that has provided an extra $700 million in aid internationally. This is a Government that’s provided $10 million for Tonga last year, $1.5 million for Indonesia, and over $9 million for Papua New Guinea.

Charity begins at home. Businesses in my home community are bleeding. The Government needs to provide the support for my community to be able to get through the damage that is coming from the fire and the impact on those rural contracting businesses, as well as the impact that is coming from the drought. I would invite members of the Government in any of the parties to come to Nelson and to see first-hand the extent of the issues that our community is now facing. Whether it be Mayor Richard Kempthorne, our mayor in Nelson, Rachel Reese, or whether it’s our economic development agency or our chamber of commerce, there is a universal plea from our community for the Government to recognise the scale of the challenge that is facing our community.

I don’t know whether the rain is two weeks away, four weeks away, or six weeks away, but what I do know is that the level of stress and anxiety in my community has never been so high. We have never in our history had 3,000 people evacuated. We’ve never had the level of financial stress or the extent of the drought or the scale of this fire. Today is a day on which we, as a Parliament, need to back my Nelson-Tasman community and give it the support it needs to get through this environmental and climate crisis.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call—two five-minute calls.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I thought long and hard about the topic of this speech, and I thought about not addressing the subject which I’m about to address, but I thought that it was important, given that so much of this debate tends to operate in the abstract when we talk about numbers. I want to talk about something real, because last night I got a call about another young person in Auckland who had attempted to take their life. That’s not abstract. That’s very, very real, and what concerns me is that we so often talk about these things in the abstract. We talk about the numbers and we talk about the statistics.

I was having conversation with somebody close to me about this, and they shook their head and said that the mental health system is failing our young people. Yes, the mental health system is absolutely failing our young people, but far worse than that is that every single other piece of this system that this Parliament has built up, decade after decade, is failing our young people. Whether it’s the housing system, whether it’s employment, or whether it’s the debt that they take on to get an education, we are failing our young people.

I cannot drive it home anywhere near enough, because when people say to me that young people are lacking in resilience nowadays, our young people aren’t dying from diseases, but they are taking their own lives. There is something chronically wrong and chronically ill in the system, and we have to be bold enough to address that.

I can’t get this out clearly enough: if we cannot work together as a Parliament to solve this issue, we don’t deserve to be here—all 120 of us—we do not deserve to be representing the people of this country. I understand that what typically happens in this Chamber is the back and forth and the political point-scoring, and we all understand that that’s just the politics of it—that’s the theatre. We all go back to our communities and we have to face up to those people who are experiencing immense, immense struggle.

I have been up and down the country, as I’m sure many of us have, and I have spoken to those who are dealing with this mental health crisis—this epidemic. It didn’t happen overnight. I said in my maiden speech that I feel as though the mental health epidemic is the pointy end of decades and decades of what—for lack of a better term—is a kind of austerity. It’s the shredding of safety nets, it’s the shredding of care, and it’s the shredding of community.

We know there is surmounting evidence—contemporary evidence—on the mental health crisis that showcases that three of the major driving factors for mental illness are trauma, isolation, and poverty, and we have set up this system to perpetuate those things. So we need to be prepared to be bold, because in going around the country and talking to people about these issues, I have not once heard people ask for tax cuts. Instead, I have heard people ask for support, I’ve heard people ask for adequate housing, and I have heard people ask for opportunity, and that is what we have a responsibility to provide.

None of this is normal, and it should not be inevitable. We need to come together as a Parliament and invest in our future, and I believe that we are all, ultimately—if our words are to be believed and if our rhetoric is to be believed—committed to a paradigm shift, and that paradigm shift looks like being bold enough to look at the problems bald-faced and see them as they really are.

I am proud that we have started on the first step, with the investment in the pilot programme in Porirua that will impact the lives of 10,000 New Zealanders. But we need to see this rolled out throughout the country, and we need to see all of Parliament coming together to see that happen. Kia ora.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, in the commencement speeches on this side of the House, we heard it noted again and again that New Zealand voted for change last election. With that comes a responsibility to deliver real change. For me, carrying the kaupapa of the Green Party in foreign affairs and trade and in defence, that means holding an unwavering call for New Zealand to stand as an independent voice on the world stage. We have done it before, and we know that we’re good at it.

In trade, that means the call to divest from that archaic, so-called free-trade agreement that has led to the misery of the last global financial crisis and the values that underpin the misery of inequality at record rates here in New Zealand. The Green Party called for a new style of trade—one that puts people and planet before the profits of multinational corporations—and, eventually, the Government heard our call. I got to stand here proudly as the voice of thousands out there, and finally, this Government has committed to never again enter into that kind of trade agreement, because we know that there is no such thing as free trade. Someone is writing those thousands of pages’ worth of rules. Someone is paying and someone is profiting in the billions. We know that we can’t afford to deregulate our healthcare system, our education system, and our environmental protections so that they get to profit.

So we will stay vigilant but hopeful, because the Government has committed to put people and planet first now. In foreign affairs, that means carrying forward that call—that renewed call—and we need to have a new approach. Whether it’s in national security, or whether it’s in the way that we pick and the way that we follow our allies, it’s time—as Green Party MPs have called for many, many times before—for us to review the way we support the likes of Trump in spying on our Asia-Pacific neighbours through the Five Eyes network. If we’re going to stand up to perceived threats of spying by China through Huawei, we need to do that with integrity. We need to regulate our own spy agencies like the GCSB. In defence, it means spending less on billion-dollar war planes and focusing more on what our defence force does best, on environmental monitoring in the Pacific, on disaster relief, and on supporting scientific research to combat climate change in the Antarctic.

It’s time, at this moment in global history, for New Zealand to stand apart from the nations who happily put the profits of the war industry before the misery of actual people and our planet. There is no longer any doubt that war is an industry. Instead, we should stand as an independent voice; a voice for peace. It’s time we stopped hosting the war industry, as we did in Palmerston North last year.

As a mark of our commitment to peace, I’m calling on the Minister of Defence to end our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, where war began illegally and has now turned into a perpetual nightmare of violence. We need to be investing those millions of dollars in providing useful development and humanitarian aid and building pathways to peace, because we know that people trapped in perpetual military occupation are only going to watch their children be recruited into more and more violent militias. Instead, New Zealand needs to do things differently. Only through that independence will we be effective as brokers of peace, as we have been before.

So we need to stand as a counterpoint to the politics of hate and division and violence on the rise elsewhere in the world—supported for nine years on that side of the House. We need to do things differently because that’s what New Zealanders voted for. The rhetoric of change won’t do because, actually, lives are at stake. But I am hopeful because we have cooperation on this side of the House. The first true MMP Government is working together to change things, and we will be that independent voice on the global stage again.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take my first call in the House this sitting year, and might I wish you and your fellow presiding officers well for the work that you do on behalf of this Parliament.

It’s been a very good summer in the beautiful Coromandel electorate. We have been spared the extreme weather events that we witnessed and succumbed to back in January 2018, and we were not put to the test in the way that Nelson and Tasman have been put to in terms of fire. But our hearts and thoughts go out to those people.

But in the Coromandel, we’ve found that this Government is not being effective for the business people, for the families, for the individuals, and for the people—the hard-working taxpayers—of Coromandel. They’re feeling very let down by this Government. In a seat that was once held by a Green Party MP, there is a sense of utter frustration amongst Green Party supporters in particular that their Government has not been able to deliver for them in a way that they felt it would.

Actually, those two last speeches from Green Party members epitomise entirely the problem with the Green Party in Parliament these days—that is, notwithstanding that they spoke about important issues of defence and trade and, in Chlöe Swarbrick’s case, the very serious issue of suicide, there was nary a mention of the environment or of conservation. In fact, I don’t think conservation was mentioned once. Nary a mention of our marine environment and of the biodiversity threats that are so prevalent and that they are so weakly ignoring on behalf of all New Zealanders and future generations—nary a thought—and this is the problem. Now that they find themselves in Government, they find themselves impotent—impotent—to do what they thought they could do, because they’re being outmanoeuvred entirely by the other junior party in the coalition, the New Zealand First Party.

What we have seen is that in terms of the environment, almost nothing has occurred since this Government came to power nearly a year and a bit ago. So what have we seen? Well, we’ve seen plastic bags banned in supermarkets. Now, I’m not going to say that that’s not an important issue, because we have far too much plastic in our lives, but I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and members across the House, that plastic bags are the very least of our plastics issue. We’ve got far greater issues to come to terms with in terms of plastics than single-use plastic bags in supermarkets—particularly when, actually, under the last Government, a voluntary agreement had been agreed to and set in place by the two big supermarket chains to be rid of the supermarket plastic bags already. So it’s difficult for the Government in this space, where so many people had such high hopes.

But wait—help is on the way. This year, the National Party will be releasing eight discussion documents—eight fully investigated and well-thought-out discussion documents—and in the nine years of the Labour Opposition, how many were produced? Zero, zip, nada—none. So already, in the space of a short 18 months or less, the National Opposition has done more work in Opposition than the Labour Party did in their entire nine years in Opposition.

I’m delighted to let the House know that in Raglan, on 23 February, the Bluegreens of the National Party will be holding their 21st annual get-together. We’ve had a blue-green party in this House for 21 years—21 years—and I’m very pleased to be part of it. But at that meeting in Raglan on 23 February, we’ll be releasing the very first of those eight discussion papers, and it’s on the environment—our environment—because we are the party of practical, pragmatic, sensible environmentalists. In that discussion paper, we will be proposing a range of initiatives across climate change matters, across the conservation portfolio, across the environment portfolio, and, indeed, into a couple of others as well that touch on the matters that are so important to all New Zealanders in terms of our environmental assets, our environmental heritage, and our environmental future.

One of the things that I find most abhorrent about this current Government is that they actually have only three policy initiatives—only three—and they apply these three policy initiatives to every single thing they do. Those three policy initiatives are simply these: one, tax it; two, make it compulsory; or, three, make it free. Those are the only policy responses that this Government has to any single issue confronting New Zealand and New Zealanders.

Now, actually, New Zealanders want a far more sophisticated and nuanced approach to the challenges and issues that confront us as a nation, so that we can collectively, in this place, during our time here, add value for not only today’s citizens but those that will follow us tomorrow and in generations to come. So, wearing my hat as spokesperson for the National Party on workplace relations and safety—what we used to refer to as industrial relations or labour relations in the old days—what strikes me as strange is that a Government that is so wedded to the trade union movement would want to take us back to a time in our history that, actually, most New Zealanders think we have long since left.

I’m referring to the legislative initiatives, the plans, and the working groups that are all focused on taking us back to the 1970s. That was a time of aggression and adversarial angst between big trade unions and big business, when there was no ability for small-business people, individual businesses, and individual enterprises to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with individual staff members, and that seems to me to be something that is utterly wrong. When the rest of the world has been looking to New Zealand for guidance and saying “Well, how is it that a small country at the bottom of the South Pacific, under an administration led by John Key and Bill English, could be creating in their economy 10,000 jobs a month”—how could it be that a new Government, a socialist, left-leaning Government, would come into power and want to take us back to a time and a place that we all thought we’d left behind long ago?

All that will happen by giving big unions the opportunity to assert their power and influence in the way that they have been is that we’ll end up with more strikes—more strikes. Indeed, the trade union movement is already promising us more strikes this year than last year, and we know in 2018, we had more strikes, more industrial action, and more threats of strikes last year than we have had in any single year for the last 30 years. Now, at that point, the actual legislation that they pushed through the Parliament last year hadn’t even taken effect. So it wasn’t the legislative environment that had changed. The only thing that had changed was the Government—the only thing that had changed was the Government.

This is a Government that has emboldened and empowered the trade union movement, because now the trade union movement thinks that their mates are in the Beehive and they have almost tacit approval for industrial action and strikes. Earlier this week in Auckland, we had the first of what we haven’t seen for many a long year: a wildcat, no-notice strike by bus drivers on the North Shore of Auckland. Now, this is a very retrograde step in terms of the New Zealand economy, in terms of our industrial relations landscape, and in terms of opportunity for business and for business people. But in the National Party, we understand that going backwards—back to the 1970s—isn’t actually going to take us forward as a nation, and it seems strange that the Government wants us to go there.

In the National Party, we have a view that people should be accountable for their own actions and inactions, that they should have freedom to organise their lives and their businesses in ways to grow those businesses and to enrich their lives, and that there is little place for big government, big unions, or big, heavy-handed regulation or legislation in their lives. We like to think that New Zealanders are imaginative enough, witty enough, and nimble enough to get on with most things themselves and that, actually, having less government is probably a good thing.

So, Madam Assistant Speaker, as I draw to an end in my first contribution in the House this year, I just want to wish you and other members well, because this has been a start to the year that the Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I’m sorry, your time has expired.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I want to start today with some congratulations. I believe, from being an avid member of the Hansards, that it is the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s 26th wedding anniversary today. As he is my counterpart from Dunedin and also my counterpart as the Opposition health spokesperson, I want to wish him all the very best. From reading the Hansards, I also know that he begrudges spending too much money on flowers for these anniversaries because around Valentine’s Day, the price of flowers goes up. But I want to say to that member, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, congratulations—26 years is no small feat—but I also think he should buy his wife an extra large bunch of flowers this year to celebrate that anniversary. His wife—whom I’ve met—is a lovely person, and she will now be having to endure him being around the house a little more. So an extra big bunch is in order, and some congratulations at the same time.

This Government is motivated on ensuring that we are tackling growing inequalities and that we are improving incomes, housing, health, and education in this country. We know that one of the symptoms of a growing gap between rich and poor is an increasing number of children living in poverty. It doesn’t sit right with us as Kiwis to read reports from the OECD like the one that came out in 2014. There was a recent one that confirmed that growth in inequalities in New Zealand over recent decades has outstripped other Western countries. It’s something we can do something about. It’s why we’re so proud of the Families Package that we brought in as a coalition Government, because it’s at the heart of tackling inequality, which does not sit well with us as Kiwis. We are absolutely committed as a Government to building a fairer society, and we will lead because we are committed to making change that matters.

I want to speak a little bit, of course, about our healthcare system. I want to speak about primary care. I want to speak about critical facilities and mental health. These are the priorities that this Government is taking forward.

It is hard to understate the importance of primary care and early intervention for good health outcomes in our health system. We have as a Government already made doctors visits more affordable for around 540,000 community services card holders. We’ve made them more affordable by about $20 to $30, on average, because we know that in this situation, where we’ve had this growth and inequalities under the previous Government and where they haven’t looked to make sure that prosperity is shared, around 585,000 New Zealanders—according to the New Zealand Health Survey—can’t go to a doctor for reasons of cost, and that’s not right. That’s not right. We know that if people get to the doctor and intervene early with health conditions, they can get the help they need. It keeps them out of hospitals and it means that they can enjoy better health. So we are absolutely convinced that introducing that on 1 December will make a real difference for New Zealanders in terms of making sure they can access our health system and get the healthcare they need and deserve.

We’ve also advanced other initiatives, including making healthcare free for 13-year-olds—for 56,000 thirteen-year-olds. I want to thank New Zealand First for that, because that’s a part of our coalition agreement as a Government. New Zealand First and Labour—we have made free doctors visits for 13-year-olds. That is a step forward. So for around 600,000 New Zealanders last year, doctors visits got either significantly cheaper or were made free.

We’ve also put more nurses in schools because that makes sure that needs are met early, when we see the first signs of trouble. But we’ve got further ambition. New Zealand First, again, have put forward a free health check for seniors, so that’s something that we’re working on as well. We’re making primary care more accessible because we know it leads to better health outcomes for New Zealanders.

Hon Ron Mark: It’s for Nick Smith.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, I can’t comment on that one, Mr Mark.

Of course, when people do need hospital care, we need to have hospital facilities that are up to scratch, and, again, the underfunding under the previous Government’s watch means there is a big job to do right there. In our first Budget, we put forward $2.2 billion of new funding to make sure that those hospitals were able to operate better to actually meet the need that has been growing in that underfunded environment. But the buildings—the buildings—sadly, we know many of them have struggled. We’ve heard about the rot and the mould in the walls at Counties Manukau, and so we’ve allocated some money to address that issue. We’ve heard about leaks in operating theatres in Dunedin Hospital. When it rains, they’ve had to cancel surgery in the past. It is absolutely outrageous that we’ve come to this point in our health system, and we, as a Government, are determined to get on and fix the mess that we have inherited.

In our first Budget, we put aside $750 million worth of capital to start addressing those critical infrastructure needs in our hospital system, and so far we’ve spent money. There has been money allocated, including $275 million for Auckland District Health Board (DHB), to address significant infrastructure challenges; $200 million - plus for a new elective surgery unit at North Shore Hospital; $80 million for four projects at Counties Manukau DHB, including the one I mentioned to get the rot and mould out of the walls; $45 million for the new Wellington Children’s Hospital; $24 million for endoscopy and cardiac capacity at Whangarei Hospital; $20 million for the new Buller Hospital integrated family health centre; $8 million for a new secure mental health unit at Porirua for our most high-needs intellectual disability and mental health patients; and $7.1 million for the second phase of development at Bay of Islands Hospital.

One thing that we also need to do—and we are getting on with—is planning longer term. We are going to make sure that we don’t end up long term as a country where our infrastructure is run down every time we have a Government that takes its eye off the ball. We as a Government are committed to putting in place a national asset management plan—in fact, it’s outrageous that as a country, we haven’t had one for our health system—and while I’m not about to make any Budget announcements today, I can assure this House that this Government is committed to making sure our health system is funded better, that we’re addressing that historical underfunding that the previous Government brought in, and that we will address the mess we’ve inherited with our buildings that were neglected under their watch.

We also want to do some things in the area of mental health. We know that we need to. Every person in this House and all New Zealanders, I would hazard, know someone in their family or in their circle of friends who has wrestled with a mental health challenge. Demand is one measure of what’s been going on, and demand on our mental health services increased by 70 percent during the previous Government’s time, but funding went up by less than half of that amount. So we know that the demand is there and the pressure is on our system.

It is a personal priority for me—mental health—but it’s also one of the Government’s priorities for the upcoming well-being Budget, and, of course, we had started with this journey before we were even in Government. All of the parties now in Government campaigned on having an inquiry into mental health. This coalition Government has been concerned about mental health for some time, and the inquiry was launched in our first 100 days in office. It has made substantial and considered recommendations and our response will be substantial and considered, and I expect to make announcements about that next month.

But, in the meantime, we have got on with investing, because the need in mental health is so great. We’ve put an extra $200 million in our first Budget into DHB services. We launched the Mana Ake programme in Canterbury and Kaikōura to make sure we had mental health workers in primary schools and secondary schools there. We extended the nurses in schools programme to make sure that all schools up to decile 4 in New Zealand have a nurses in school programme, and we also have announced the construction of new drug and alcohol detoxification facilities in Auckland.

I’ve mentioned already the cheaper doctors visits, and we know that for many New Zealanders, their GP is the way into the mental health services they need. Making those doctors visits cheaper will mean that not only will those people have cheaper doctors visits drugs but they will actually be able to afford to go, to get the help that they need to intervene when they have challenges that are mild or moderate before they become more developed.

So we’re very proud of the progress we’ve made already, but there is so much more to do in mental health. Just this last week, Julie Anne Genter and I travelled to Porirua. The Greens have in their agreement with the Labour Party a new integrated therapies pilot, and so we launched a programme now known as Piki, which means to support another and to ascend, which will provide free mental health support to an estimated 10,000 eighteen- to 24-year-olds—10,000 with mild to moderate health needs—and we will be scaling that up, according to demand. We know that three-quarters of all lifetime mental health cases present by 24 years of age. We need to move earlier on the mild to moderate stuff.

This is a Government that is people-centred and determined to grow the economy and share the prosperity.

MELISSA LEE (National): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you so much, and I’d like to begin my contribution speaking against the Prime Minister’s statement by wishing everyone a happy New Year. As has almost become a bit of a tradition, I say that in my native tongue: se hae bok mani baduseyo, which actually means, “In the New Year may you receive lots and lots of luck.” So I hope you have a wonderful new year of the golden pig and I hope that everyone is well rested from our summer break and ready for a challenging year for our Government, because, apparently, it’s a year of delivery for the Government. I say “challenging” because I mean, oh my goodness, what a failure this Government has actually been in the last 15 months that they’ve been in Government.

In the contribution by the Minister who just sat down, Dr David Clark, he tried to actually say that their focus was on the inequality, the growth in poverty in terms of primary healthcare. You know, apparently they’re so focused and yet this Government has been an utter failure in the last 15 months of their Government, in their leadership of this nation, and yet they try and blame the former National Government. Do they not realise that they are, in fact, the Government? Fifteen months is a long time.

Hon Maggie Barry: Halfway through.

MELISSA LEE: It’s halfway through, until the next election, and to actually say that this Government is so focused—let me start with what the Minister said.

In terms of primary healthcare, does the Minister actually know—I guess he does because he is the Minister of Health. Apparently, I heard from someone who works in the Ministry of Health, we are short of 1,000 doctors in this country and one of the reasons why we are short of 1,000 doctors in this country is because of another policy of this particular Government, and that is in relation to foreigners being prevented from buying a home. “How is that in any way relevant?” you might ask. It is that foreign doctors are being recruited to come to this country to work, and the reason—

Kieran McAnulty: What’s wrong with foreigners?

MELISSA LEE: And we would love to have them, Mr McAnulty, but the issue is that these people are refusing to come to this country, because when foreign doctors want to come to New Zealand they want to be able to buy a property for their family and actually settle in this new country of theirs, but they are not allowed because they are foreigners.

And let’s actually get to the targets for this particular Minister who just spoke. Whatever happened to the health targets this Government is supposed to be meeting, or delivering for New Zealand? They’ve decided that they’re going to can the targets because they realise that they cannot meet the targets.

Shall we actually talk about some of the other targets? I mean, did anybody else actually read the Prime Minister’s statement? I tried to go through some of the statements that the Prime Minister actually made. You know, she talks about the intentions to make good policy and a good country. Intentions don’t actually make good policy. Nor do they equate to good outcomes for New Zealanders. Intentions don’t actually deliver for New Zealanders and the people that they apparently care most about—the vulnerable New Zealanders.

If anybody was there at this morning’s breakfast release of the State of the Nation Report by the Salvation Army—I mean, this Government hasn’t actually addressed the poverty issue or the social or economic inequality, because apparently we are at record levels of household debt. And this is talking not about the last nine years; this is actually talking about the last year. This is a report about this Labour-led Government’s performance.

Offender recidivism has gone up. Alcohol, drugs, and gambling have gone up. The number of children in benefit-dependent homes has gone up. Child abuse and neglect have gone up. Family violence referrals have gone up. The number of NEETs—those not in education, employment, or training—has gone up. The number of jobseeker benefits has actually gone up. Rents have gone up by $40 for average New Zealanders who are actually renting. That makes a huge impact on their budgets. The PM talked about the well-being - focused Government. It looks like they’re not so focused on the well-being of the most vulnerable people that apparently the PM and this Government care about.

Unemployment increased by 10,000 in the last three months—unemployment. That is ridiculous—and they’re talking about a growing economy. If it’s actually a growing economy and the economy is doing so much better than what they say they are, then people should be getting into jobs. People should be getting into jobs so that they can actually pay for things, but it seems like this Government is not telling the whole truth. They talk about wastage. Let’s talk about the wastage that this Government has actually produced: the $3 billion dollar slush fund of Shane Jones. How many jobs did that actually create?

Dan Bidois: 54.

MELISSA LEE: Fifty-four. Dan Bidois, thank you so much for reminding me of that. What about the wastage of $2 billion for free education for first-year university students? I’m sure that students who are going to university for the first time would appreciate it, but the focus was supposed to have increased the number of people attending university. Did it in fact deliver that? No it didn’t—no wonder. It actually delivered zero increase.

Talking specifically about my own portfolio area of broadcasting and communications and digital media, the Prime Minister didn’t even say anything about that. I guess she’s rather embarrassed about what that particular portfolio did not actually deliver. And we’ve had the shameful promise by the Labour Government to deliver RNZ+, actually a stand-alone TV channel for Radio New Zealand. That was going to be funded to the tune of $38 million a year. But what did we actually end up with last year? We ended up with a Minister having to resign as a result. Actually, it wasn’t even Radio New Zealand who got the $15 million funding; it was actually the public media. I guess Radio New Zealand plus New Zealand On Air have to split the $15 million funding that they actually got.

But what’s going to happen to the public media, a thing that Labour was so apparently focused on? They haven’t delivered. They got rid of a Minister. She didn’t perform. Now we have a Minister who is seen to be a little bit confused as to where the targets are. I think we were supposed to have a spectrum auction in October or sometime around October. We don’t know when that 5G spectrum auction is going to actually happen.

Let’s talk about the ethnic communities, as well—another one in my portfolio. The director of the Office of Ethnic Communities was actually gone for—it was a job that was missing for almost a year. Nobody actually replaced the former director. It took them nearly a year, and this morning at select committee I was told that they appointed someone in November—but they had a month off and, actually, literally just started—but that job is not a permanent appointment as a director. I mean, it was a job that was left vacant for one whole year, and they decide to find someone for only six months. This person’s job is only for six months.

They talk about the skilled migrant shortage. My goodness! It seems they are able to pay former MPs and former race relations conciliators, by the Office of Ethnic Communities, to go to a Safer Communities forum that the Minister for Ethnic Communities held and paid someone $5,000 to facilitate. I would have done it for free, but the National Party wasn’t invited; only the Labour Party was actually invited, it looks like. According to the minutes on one of the things that I received on our Official Information Act request, the attendance list for the forum includes two persons listed as “Labour Hunua”. I’m sure “National Hunua” would have wanted to attend as well. If it was specific to Hunua, I’m sure every party would have wanted to go. There was also a minute from one of the meetings on the Safer Communities forum session, and I quote, “This table then had a staff member from the Labour ethnic communities office plug their office and that they were there to contact and could help.” I think this person works for an MP’s office, wasn’t actually from the Minister’s office, and claimed that this is—

Kieran McAnulty: What’s this got to do with the Prime Minister’s statement?

MELISSA LEE: What I’m actually getting to, Mr McAnulty, is the lack of performance. The Office of Ethnic Affairs had no director for one year and decided to appoint someone, but it’s not even permanent. This is the lack of performance of this Government.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s an honour to speak for the first time in the House in 2019, but I have to say it’s a privilege that I’ve had for a number of years, every year that I come back. I do value the responsibility and, I guess, the honour of being able to be part of a democratic system that I think we should be very proud of. But it’s not perfect, and I acknowledge that: from time to time, we get National in charge. Those are the down times, I have to say. But I am proud to be part of a coalition Government, led by the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, that is inspiring the world—inspiring the world. What she has done on the international stage—and we will back up here in New Zealand—is believe in ourselves. There’s a saying: “Those who think they can and those who think they can’t are right.” Well, we think we can. We think that we can help people in poverty. We think we can help people who don’t have a home. We think we can help people who need more income. We think we can help New Zealand become a better place for every New Zealander, just not for the elite. That was the objective of the previous National Government.

I have to say, before going on, that I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge what has been happening in Tasman-Nelson. A fire has been down there. I’d like to acknowledge the efforts of an incredibly coordinated effort—people on the ground, in offices, in Wellington—ensuring that that fire, firstly, is put out and that people who are affected are assisted. Now, there will always be glitches, as there have been, but Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the Tasman District Council, civil defence, the helicopter pilots—all of these people have done an incredible job, and, assisted by my colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi, the Prime Minister has been down there, and my colleagues as well, ensuring the Government will support those people to recover and get on with their lives. That’s because this Government, indeed, focuses on the provinces.

There was criticism before from, I think, an Auckland MP about the Provincial Growth Fund. They don’t like the Provincial Growth Fund, because this Government is going out into what they considered Tory heartland, into the provinces, and saying, “We do appreciate what you do for our economy. We do appreciate the fact that you need good infrastructure and support, and we will support you and fund you.” My colleague the Hon Shane Jones is going and talking with those people and investing to provide the support for a better future in the provinces—not sitting around, supporting a real estate merry-go-round held up by immigration in Auckland, which was the measure of the National Party’s objectives. We are going to get out there and ensure that every New Zealander has a better future.

My responsibilities in the primary sector are absolutely crucial. We are still at the heart of economic wealth creation in this country, and we take that responsibility with great pride. The objective in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Biosecurity New Zealand, and the different agencies that we have set up is sustainable value growth. Some people challenged me the other day as to whether MPI was on the same path that it was sent down by the previous National Government: double exports. They thought that was the way to success. No, we have accepted that sustainable value growth must be the objective of our Government, and ensuring that that value flows right through our economy.

Can I say that we have a number of important challenges; water quality is one of them. Working with my colleague David Parker, we have taken that challenge on board, grasped it with both hands, and are going to go out to the farming sector and, with tools, provide them assistance to make the transitions that they need. Climate change is a reality. You don’t have to go too far to ask anyone whether that’s true or not. There are, I believe, a couple of people in the country and one, even, regional council that perhaps suggested that it wasn’t a reality. Can I say that, on behalf of the West Coast Regional Council, they accept that climate change is a reality. They have some questions over what it might mean for their local communities. But we are facing the reality of disruption on a regular basis, and this Government will help prepare the heart and soul of our economy—that is the rural sector—to address that.

We’ve had, down in my patch of Tasman, on top of the fires, a necessary requirement to cut water availability to intensive farming horticultural operations to 35 percent of the water they expected. That’s a tough challenge. We’re going to help them through that. We can’t create the rain, but it’s a warning to everyone in the primary sector, whether you have water or not: be prepared for some tough times on occasions.

Can I say that there are a number of challenges that we will address. We have, of course, a biosecurity system that was left in a little bit of disarray—an animal tracing system that was left in a bit of disarray—by the previous National Government and its kind of laissez-faire, hands-off, head in the sand approach to governance in this country. We are about leadership. We are going to create a better biosecurity system. We are going to get farmers to adhere to a proper animal tracing system, and we’ll pass legislation to ensure that happens.

We’re going to support organic growers in this country who have been focusing on value-added production but have not been able to underpin that with a certification system that is recognised internationally. We will pass legislation to ensure that they are supported for all their efforts. We are going to pass and support a farm-debt mediation bill because we know there are some challenges in the primary sector, and with our colleagues New Zealand First, who initiated this, we’ve worked to bring back to this House a bill that will be effective, that will provide some fairness when on occasions those people across the primary sector are forced to negotiate a way out.

We had the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, passed in 2001, up for renewal, and we’re working with the dairy industry to ensure that we get a better outcome and futureproof the dairy industry for the good of all New Zealand. We will overhaul the Biosecurity Act. Biosecurity has been seen as perhaps the responsibility of just our horticultural and primary sectors. It is not. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us as Kiwis because our lifestyle and our flora and fauna is quite unique, and if we allow some of these unwanted pests and organisms into this country, we will start to see that destroyed. One clear example: the brown marmorated stink bug. You might think them just little bugs, but go online and have a look at video clips as to what happens with an infestation to just a normal barbecue.

These are all challenges that we have. One area—and I’m very pleased to say that my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins announced today a total revamp of the occupational education and training system in this country. It has been broken. The National Government sat on their hands with their heads in the sand and failed to address the core problems, particularly in the area of agriculture. We’ve had to go through a difficult process with Taratahi and Telford and, effectively, close them down temporarily to revamp the whole system and give them a sustainable future. All the Tories did is throw a bit of money at them, revamp them, put Telford, firstly, under Lincoln and then under Taratahi, and say, “You’ll be right.” and walk away.

What the Hon Chris Hipkins is doing is bold, it’s brave, and it will ensure that we get the proper level of training and education for all those young New Zealanders across this economy. Too many times I’ve spoken to employers, over a number of years, who have said, “Look, the young people we’re getting out don’t have the skills that we need.” There’s been a mismatch between the billions of dollars, effectively, that have gone into occupational training and education over the last 10 years, literally to produce, I guess, young New Zealanders who still don’t have the skills needed by industry. We’re going to change that, and that revamp will achieve it.

I can’t finish a speech without mentioning, I guess, the big challenge that we have—and it’s being watched internationally—that is Mycoplasma bovis. Can I thank my colleagues once again? As I go around the country, farmers and observers who are informed appreciate the bold and brave move that we took to actually say we want to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. Anyone who looks at the disease and its potential effects on the New Zealand production systems and livestock knows that this would be a nightmare. It is managed in other countries—that is true—but we run unique farming systems here that would mean that for a disease like Mycoplasma bovis, which is hard to identify until you see the acute signs of it, we would have to change the farming systems in this country. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the honourable member; your time has expired.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to talk, I guess, with some bemusement about the Prime Minister’s statement. I listened to it pretty carefully yesterday, and then a wash of Groundhog Day dèjá vu came upon me, because I heard pretty much the same old, same old at Rātana, at Waitangi, in the state of the nation, and sundry other speeches. It’s words, words, high-sounding weasel words, and, apparently, this is the year of delivery. My question is how are they going to deliver?

Incidentally, it is the Year of the Pig and the Chinese New Year, so I should say kung hei fat choy. While the Chinese are looking at prosperity—and, in fact, it’s the Year of the Golden Pig, I’m reliably informed, and as someone who was born in the Year of the Pig, this is very encouraging news—for this Government it will be all about delivery. When I listened to the Prime Minister’s speech and didn’t hear very much of substance, I thought “Give her a fair show. Let’s have a look at the speech itself.” So I went through. I saw “new kind of leadership” mentioned at least six times, so I gave up counting after that. It’s not clear, of course, what on earth that means.

These people are halfway through their term—what have they been doing for the past 15 months? It is a shambles. The coalition is blaming everybody but themselves for their shambolic and incompetent performance.

We had the Minister of Health here, barrelling through his usual old lines. “Nine long years.”—we’ve been hearing that for rather a long time. The Minister doesn’t appear to understand that he’s in Government now. He’s in charge, and—about delivering—it needs to have much more than just rhetoric. It needs substance.

I’m usually quite a fan of recycling, but the amount of rhetoric and, really, waffle that we’ve been hearing from this Government—and, in particular with the Prime Minister’s statement—is more at the compostable end of recycling. I think we really do need to look at what’s fit for compost and what’s fit for modern purpose.

Hon Kris Faafoi: You’d know it.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Yes I would know that, and that’s exactly true, Minister. I know a lot more about recycling than you guys do—or, I thought I did—but now, of course, you’re taking over from that, because he’s dishing out a bit of manure.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Stop bringing the Speaker into the debate. Thank you, both sides.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: A fair bit of manure coming across from the Government benches, but nothing new from that member—class clown. Anyway—a lot of virtue signalling, a lot of words and not action, and a lot of rhetoric and empty promises, but, again, no delivery.

So I come back to the tedious, repetitive speech that we had to endure listening to yesterday in the House. I look through for a few things—what do I find? The well-being Budget. OK, what exactly is that?

Rt Hon David Carter: Very good question.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Yes indeed, the Rt Hon David Carter, it is a good question. We are told in the same breath that it is going to be the first well-being Budget in the world, and it will be delivered in May, but that it will not alone guarantee improvements to New Zealanders’ living standards. Oh dear—really? What is the purpose of a Budget? What is the purpose of voting for Labour if they are not going to improve New Zealanders’ living standards? Apparently, Ministers are going to have to change their thinking. They are going to have to think about outcomes for New Zealanders. It’s going to be a darn high threshold, to prove that you have to have intergenerational benefits.

I’ve been a Minister who has gone to some pretty stingy Ministers of Finance and asked for money for my Budget for my ministries. Bill English, God bless him, I love him to bits—very short arms, very long pockets, really hard to convince and prise money out of. If I had to prove to him intergenerational benefits for every bid I put up, I wouldn’t get very far with him. I doubt very much whether anyone across the House is going to get very much out of their finance Minister either, because he’s just talked himself into an excuse to not give money where it is needed, as opposed to this nebulous stuff around well-being and so forth.

So then we read on: “Creating opportunities for transitioning to a sustainable low emissions economy”—yep, good. How? I keep coming back to this word “How?”. Where is the detail? “Lifting Māori and Pacific incomes, skills and opportunities.”—I don’t think there’s been a Government in New Zealand for, probably, 40 years that hasn’t had that as its priority, but again, there is no detail. Virtue signalling on its own is not enough—15 months in and halfway through your term, we would expect a whole lot better. And “supporting mental well-being”—well, hold the front page. It’s a revelation, is it not?

I thought the educational stuff was really light: “An important focus will be [on] ensuring our education system is better prepared for the disruption we are facing [with] increasing technology and climate change.” Wow! It doesn’t get much broader than that. Instead, on our side of the House, we see the Hon Nikki Kaye running 41 education meetings on the future of education and actually engaging with communities. I’m holding one in my North Shore electorate on Friday 8 March. Members opposite are very welcome to come along and learn something of the misgivings and the concerns of teachers, boards of trustees, and parents, as well as children. We will be taking the temperature. We will be asking people in a genuine way to have input into the task force. Again, not high-sounding rhetoric that delivers nothing, but something that is a very important element that we are very keen on doing.

What’s missing in this statement? Lots, actually. Let me start with seniors, which I know a fair bit about, not only because I’m fast approaching the age—

Rt Hon David Carter: I don’t believe that.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —but also because I was the Minister for three years. Thanks very much, but there it is. Thanks David Carter there, interjecting.

It is fair to say that we are an ageing population, and it is at a great rate. Therefore, I would have expected, in a document and a speech of substance, that we would have heard what’s being done about elder abuse. What level of resourcing is being applied to this very important area? What I know for sure is that my office was contacted by somebody who rang an 0800 elder abuse line which I set up last July. They rang my office on the advice of the person who was on the other end of the line. They said, “Well, we don’t know what to do. You’d better ring Maggie Barry. She might be able to help.” This is a person on the other side of the country from my electorate, who rang an 0800 number expecting assistance. They were given none and, instead, given some pretty odd advice, I think.

This shows me a number of things. One of them is that the funding and the energy that was put into that 0800 number, which is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week—or should be—has now been downgraded. I think that’s deplorable. I think it’s regrettable. I think that anyone who’s ever listened to the aged care sector would know that what they’ve been after for a very long time is a helpline that is available for them when they need it, with some solid advice about how they can get out of an abusive—either physical, financial, or psychological—relationship. Often, unfortunately, it is from members of their own family. I was personally very disappointed to hear that that service has been run down, and also disappointed that there is nothing of substance for seniors in what this Government are talking about.

KiwiBuild, of course, has been mentioned endlessly—only 47 houses completed out of the 10,000 that were promised. The capital gains tax that’s coming up is going to be a tax on every small-business owner, every farmer, lifestyle block owner, KiwiSaver account, mum and dad investor, bach owner—you name it, it’s going to hit hard. I mean, tax and spend, tax and spend—nothing has changed with this Government.

So while it builds itself up with the idea that the Greens have somehow made them more green, they are not. Banning plastic bags is not going to save the world; that starts in your own backyard. It starts and is a very important thing to engage hearts and minds of people. I don’t believe that this Government has done this well with environmental and conservation issues. Predator Free 2050, which is a goal that many, many New Zealanders have bought into, again remains way below the radar. Why? Because of political pettiness? Because it was instigated under National? Do I see Ron Mark nod? No, but we see before us a Government that hasn’t delivered on its promises in this area.

On the other hand, in a couple of weekends’ time, the National Party, with its Bluegreens focus group—which has been around now for 21 years—will be getting together at Raglan on 23 February. [Interruption] Yeah, National have been doing blue-green for 21 years. We are across this, and we do what we do very well, and the very first of our nine discussion documents is going to be on the environment. That’s how important we think it is.

So we’ll put out, this year, nine discussion papers—eight discussion papers. The people across the House did nothing in nine years—not a single discussion paper. What on earth were they doing in Opposition? What on earth were they doing to formulate policy? There were 233 reviews, working groups, and inquiries. They’ve spent nearly $300 million on asking other people what they should think and what they should do while in Government. They were not prepared, but we are.

We have the kinds of policies and the kinds of plans that New Zealanders can rely on. We are a safe pair of hands. We will ensure that what New Zealanders earn through their hard-earned wages, they will be able to spend more of. We will look at adjusting the tax brackets, as our excellent leader, Simon Bridges, outlined a couple of weeks ago. We are a strong and united Opposition. We have ideas, we have stamina, and we will prevail. So I think the Prime Minister’s speech is a woeful example.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to follow that member, Maggie Barry, because on this side of the House, we like to call her “Teacher Only Day”—whenever she speaks, there’s no class.

I’d like to wish all the parliamentarians in this House a happy New Year, especially that member. But can I begin my contribution and spend quite a bit of time on thanking the effort of the many, many people who have been—for the last week and a bit—fighting the fire in the Tasman area. As the Minister of Civil Defence, I have visited the area numerous times and have been witness to a massive effort and spirit in and around that effort. I want to first of all acknowledge both mayors in the region: the Mayor of Tasman District, Richard Kempthorne, and the Mayor of Nelson—sorry; it’s coming—Rachel Reese. Rachel Reese—sorry, Rachel, if you’re watching.

Since the fire broke out on Tuesday afternoon last week, it grew to an epic proportion, similar to that of the Port Hills fire. The initial effort to control the fire was huge, so I also want to pay tribute to the men and women, both local and national, of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). I will point out a number of people: first of all, controllers John Sutton and Ian Reade, who have led the fire effort, but also Grant Haywood—who is the local manager of FENZ, I understand—who have been putting in a massive effort to lead the fire fight itself.

On Wednesday morning of last week, the local state of emergency was declared by the joint mayors of the area. Since then, the emergency operations centre has been standing out 24/7. I want to acknowledge the efforts of Roger Ball, who has been the main controller in the emergency operations centre, and the team that has been pulled from not just the Tasman and Nelson area but civil defence and emergency management teams around New Zealand to make sure that the communities that have been affected by that fire have been well looked after. There have been evacuations, obviously, in and around Pigeon Valley, Eves Valley and Teapot Valley, and some of those residents haven’t been able to return to their homes. We thank them for their patience. They have been out of their homes for over a week, and we are trying everything we can to make sure that they can have some limited access to their homes, but while the fire risk remains as it is, the civil defence controllers have seen fit to keep that evacuation in place.

To the Wakefield evacuation—not an easy feat around the logistics of moving 2,500 people out of that village. So, first of all, thanks for the cooperation of the people of Wakefield, who are, thankfully, now back in their homes, but also thanks to the authorities who made that happen in an orderly and safe fashion. So to the civil defence team, to the police team, to the defence force team who were leading that evacuation of Wakefield when the fire was becoming a risk to that village—thank you very much.

I spent yesterday in Wakefield. I dropped into the Four Square, where Phil, the manager, said that things are slowly returning to normal. I also had the pleasure of going to the Wakefield volunteer fire station, where one of the managers there, John, showed us around. The effort is still continuing to make sure that the fire can be fought. The fire is not as visible as it has been in the last week as of yesterday and, I understand, today, but to people who are watching that closely, and obviously to the residents, there is still a lot of hard work to be done to put that fire out. We can’t see it; a lot of it is underground because it is a vegetation fire, but there is still a hell of a lot of work that will need to go into that area to make sure that the fire is put out and the community continues to stay safe.

So, to wrap that part of the speech up, again, huge thanks to all those volunteers, all those professionals within the civil defence and emergency management sector, FENZ, other agencies, and the Ministry for Primary Industries—notably, because of the big animal welfare issues in the area—who have slugged their guts out and will continue to do so to make sure that that community is safe.

Back to politics. Can I acknowledge the speech that was made by the Prime Minister yesterday. While we have set out to make sure that we deliver this year, I’m actually very proud of the delivery that we made last year. In the important areas of health, housing, and education, we are making a massive improvement because of the massive need in those areas for the communities of New Zealand.

I want to talk a little bit about my own community because on Friday morning, I’m going to wake up very early and go to a piece of land on Castor Crescent that has been barren for the last nine years but, nine years ago, did have some Housing New Zealand properties on it. While the previous Government was in office, for about 7½ to 8 years, that land remained barren, but on Friday morning, we’re going to bless that land, because this Government is going to take an empty piece of land, which most locals in the Cannons Creek and Waitangirua area had given up for parkland and thought was going to remain parkland. The building is going to start, to make sure those families in that community can have warm, safe, and affordable housing.

If you’re talking about delivery over the last 18 months of this Government, I am extremely proud of that. That land, known as the Castor loop land, has remained barren and has been something that I have been fighting for for many years. I am very proud to say that our Government—this coalition Government of New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens—is going to get off their backsides and make sure that the people in my community are going to have homes to live in, and at an affordable rate. So that is delivery.

In the area of commerce and consumer affairs, last year we did deliver in market studies to make sure that New Zealand’s markets are operating effectively. Now, in English, that means consumers are getting a fair deal. At the moment, the Commerce Commission is looking into the issue of whether or not petrol prices are fair, because we understand that many New Zealanders are feeling the pinch that increased fuel prices can have on their day-to-day living. Now, to make the point again about the politics of that, the previous Government had nine years to do something about that. In fact, I think the previous Minister of Energy and Resources—Judith Collins—wanted the market study power, but the last Government didn’t deliver. Last year this Government did deliver so that the Commerce Commission will have the power to look into those markets, and if they’re not giving the average New Zealander a fair deal and making sure that they can have a cost of living that is affordable for them and their families, then we can take action. That is something that this Government has delivered.

Also, I want to talk about the delivery that we’ve got this year, and I’m focusing a bit on myself. We want to make sure that those consumers who are vulnerable consumers who are being preyed upon by third-tier lenders, or loan sharks, have protection. Again, it is something that the previous Government had nine years to do, but it didn’t go far enough. Well, I’m very proud that, hopefully, all going to plan—and I’m wondering what the National Opposition is going to do about this; whether they’re going to support it or not—we’re going to crack down and put limits on what those loan sharks can charge those vulnerable consumers. We don’t want those consumers to be trapped in debt spirals—something that continued to happen under the previous Government. It is something that we are extremely proud of—that we will bring it into legislation and give more protection to those vulnerable consumers.

So my challenge within this speech to the Opposition is: are you going to support those measures or not? Are you going to be on the side of consumers and giving them some protection from the likes of loan sharks and third-tier lenders, or are you going to be on the side of the loan sharks and the third-tier lenders—something you didn’t do a thing about in the previous Parliament?

So that’s my challenge. I’m going to be very interested when that piece of legislation comes to this House in whether you’re going to man up and support us in our effort to look after vulnerable New Zealanders, or whether you’re going to look after the loan sharks who have been ripping off New Zealanders for nine years under your Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you!

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —under that Government. That’s one of the big things that I’m looking forward to: seeing whether the National Party is actually going to support that piece of legislation, because if they do, it will be almost unanimous. I think our friend David Seymour probably won’t, but I’m looking at the likes of Alfred Ngaro and our list member from Māngere, who are in those communities where those consumers need that kind of protection. What are they going to do to make sure that those vulnerable consumers are given those protections? That’s something that I am going to deliver for the people—for those vulnerable consumers—of New Zealand.

In the areas of health, housing, and education, we are going to deliver in 2019. We’ve got those challenges and we are going to deliver. The National Party has some other challenges, which others have spoken about much more eloquently than me, but we are focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders: making sure we put more money in their pockets, and looking after health, housing, and education. Good luck to the National Party for the challenges over the next wee while.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Assistant Speaker, can I start by acknowledging you and welcoming you back to this House. I want to acknowledge all members as they return from a very long summer break—welcome back, to 2019.

Can I start by making a comment about the previous speaker, the Hon Kris Faafoi. I was very disappointed with his opening remarks, when he personally attacked the Hon Maggie Barry, who had just given a fine speech. That sort of politics is not necessary.

I was actually going to start my contribution by acknowledging the excellent job that the Hon Kris Faafoi has done as Minister of Civil Defence over the last couple of weeks in Nelson. I’ve watched with huge interest. Twelve months ago, where I live was under the same threat—on the Port Hills of Christchurch. I’ve got to say the response this time by Fire and Emergency New Zealand has been far superior, and the role that the Hon Kris Faafoi has played in being there as the Minister clearly supporting the community has been excellent. So I take this opportunity of acknowledging Mr Faafoi and thanking him for his contribution.

Those fires in Nelson will be frightening to the local community. We went through it last year on the Port Hills. Fire is completely unpredictable. The uncertainty that’s then imposed on the residents is something they just have to live through, and while the fires now may seem under control, the agony for many of those people will go on for a long time.

The second comment I wanted to make is that there was a relatively rough start to proceedings with a particular select committee this morning, and I remind the House that it’s the duty of all members of Parliament, if they’re on a select committee, to fulfil that responsibility. I was very annoyed, then, to see two Labour members scurrying around the press gallery actually telling mistruths about what had occurred. I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister, who has actually come out now and acknowledged and criticised her own Labour MPs for not being there on time. She said—and I quote—“They’ve made mistakes. We need to own that. My expectation is they do their jobs. There are no excuses. I’ve made it very clear this is not acceptable.” So thank you to the Prime Minister for reminding the Labour members of their responsibility.

We had the earlier response in this debate—which I listened to—from the Hon Tracey Martin, where she blamed National for the calamity of the select committee hearing today. She was one of the members that was meant to be there at 8 o’clock, and she waltzed in at eight minutes past 8 herself. She was part of the problem, and the Prime Minister—I thank her for acknowledging it.

The Prime Minister, though, has also I think already labelled this political year, and has put a target fairly on her forehead. It’s the year of delivery, and that’s something that applies to this National Opposition as well, because we are going to be well-prepared for the next election and, if successful, we will be ready to govern, unlike the last Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government, which was clearly caught by surprise and ill-prepared. So, from the National Party point of view, it will be a year of delivery. It will be a year of eight substantial discussion documents as we prepare policy to go to the electorate in 2020.

I’ve been thinking how you’d classify the last year, and I’m sure it would be the year of the working groups—233 working groups; estimated cost $290 million. There’s one that I read about recently: the working group into mental health chaired by Ron Paterson, whom I know well. I admire that man. He did a good job in preparing that report and presenting it to the Government late last year. Members won’t believe what the Government’s response to that report was. It was to form a further nine working groups to look at the report given by the first working group.

I say to the Government that if it’s the year of delivery, you won’t do it by forming working groups. It’s time to get on with the job and make some policy that will improve the opportunity for New Zealanders.

There are some strong challenges for our Government—there’s no doubt about that—with one of them being the slowing economy. The last quarter of GDP growth, at 0.3 percent, was the worst performance of this economy in five years, and the Government seems oblivious to the fact that the economy is slowing, and slowing dramatically. I say that they inherited a very strong economy—there is no doubt about that. They inherited an economy where job creation was flying, at the rate of 10,000 jobs a month. What’s the latest figure I’ve heard from the current job employment rate?

Alastair Scott: 600?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: 670 a month, compared with 10,000 a month under National. That is going to be a problem.

I see the Hon Willie Jackson in the House. I couldn’t stop laughing about his press release last week. Unemployment prior to Christmas: 3.9 percent. It’s up to 4.3 percent in the latest figures, and the Hon Willie Jackson spun that as good news—an increase in unemployment was good news. No one else in this House but the Hon Willie Jackson could do that. I don’t think the media bought it, but it was a gallant attempt, I’ve got to say. It was a very gallant attempt.

So we’ve got unemployment going up, we’ve got the number on the jobseeker benefit going up, and yet with the economy slowing, I predict these figures will get worse.

I listened to the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday and she listed—as I understood her speech—three priorities. The first priority: share the prosperity. Prime Minister, if you’ve got a declining economy, it’s going to be very hard to talk about prosperity. Why is the economy declining? It’s initiatives like the foreign investment ban that was placed on this country by the Government last year. It’s the lack of business confidence in this Government and its performance and its economic nous, and we saw that with the speech that the Prime Minister delivered to a business audience in Auckland last week. How would you describe it? Well, many of them have described it to me as absolutely underwhelming.

The second priority: she said we will pursue free-trade agreements. An EU photo opportunity, and the very next day, the EU announces they’re going to bash us around on our current tariff access to the EU. The photo opportunity did nothing.

The third focus: skills. I accept that we’ve got a lot of work to do there.

I just want to conclude very quickly on the “Provincial Slush Fund”. At the moment, Shane Jones is going around as the “first citizen of the provinces” and spraying money around. I remember questions in this House prior to the Christmas break, when he one day said that 7,000 new jobs had been created, and then it was 9,000. Congratulations to Paul Goldsmith, who’s done the work: 54 jobs have been created. And then—

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s better than none.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: “Better than none.”—54 jobs have been created, and then we learn that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has taken on 118 new staff to run the “Provincial Slush Fund”. It’s going to have to deliver, I say to the Hon Willie Jackson, because that money is taxpayers’ money. Those members can spray it around as liberally as they like, but New Zealanders at the election time will judge the efficiency of that fund. I say to the Government members opposite, if they think their money’s being wasted by Shane Jones in trying to buy electoral support so that he wins a seat at the next election in Northland or Whangarei, they won’t buy it.

The final comment I’ll say is that if there’s any attempt by New Zealand First to gerrymander the MMP 5 percent threshold in an attempt to survive, see if New Zealanders will buy into that, because I assure you, Dr Deborah Russell, they will not.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call—five minutes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Mr Assistant Speaker, I wish to begin my first contribution in this House this year on a sad note, and that is to ask the House to remember Daphne Collins, a lovely woman in my electorate, a singer of beautiful songs, who died just a few days ago. She was a constituent who I was able to help and she touched my heart, and she touched the hearts of my staff members and touched the hearts of many in my community. So I would ask you to remember and celebrate the life of Daphne Collins. She was a woman of great faith, and I trust that faith comforted her in her last days.

Moving on, Mr Assistant Speaker: happy New Year. We’re celebrating the Chinese New Year in Parliament today, so I’ll give it a go: gong xi fa cai.

Moving on from that happy note, what can we say about the Opposition? They carp, they crab, they cavil, they complain, they criticise—it’s a veritable cacophony of complaint from over that side of the House. Where is the vision? Where is the compassion? Where is the heart? Where is anything that isn’t to do with navel-gazing about their own affairs? The vision is on this side of the House—the vision of a fairer, kinder, better New Zealand—and the achievement is all on this side of the House, too.

This is a Government that in its first 15 months has delivered. We have lifted family incomes. We are backing the regions. We are rebuilding hospitals and schools. There was nine years of neglect from the other side. We are moving as fast as we can to fix the problems that were left to us. That is the kind of achievement that this Government is proud of.

We’re working on our tax system, working to make it a better and fairer system and a system that supports New Zealand enterprise. That’s what our research and development tax credit is about. And when the Tax Working Group report comes out, in just a few sleeps now—and I have to say I’m very excited about that—we will be working on a tax system that ensures that everyone pays their fair share of tax, their fair share.

We get plenty of complaint and cavilling and carping and crabbing from the Opposition about tax brackets and the like, demanding that they get a tax cut. But I say this to the Opposition: every time that the Opposition demands a tax cut, the Opposition must say what services they would cut too. Those taxes are the price of civilisation. They are what pays for our health system, our welfare, our education and every time we cut taxes, services must be cut too. Which services are to be cut? I challenge them to say that every time; they won’t. Not only is this a Government that has achieved, this is a Government that cares about New Zealanders.

I want to talk about one particular area where this Government is working hard for New Zealanders and will continue to work hard, and that is in housing. In my electorate, in the next 18 months to two years or so, about 350 brand new Housing New Zealand dwellings will come online. One-bedroom flats, two-bedroom flats, three-bedroom houses, four-bedroom houses—houses designed for New Zealand families who need a secure, warm, dry place to live. This Government is committed to ensuring that we make sure that New Zealanders are well housed.

It’s an incredibly important thing to do, because a person who is secure in their own home can be a full citizen, can be part of a community. This Government is working on housing, because it matters for the decent society that we want to build. It’s part of our commitment to caring for New Zealanders—caring for New Zealanders in a way that enables them to participate in our society. That’s the sort of Government we are aiming to be. Over there, the cacophony of complaint; over there, the caterwauling; over there, the cries of criticism; over here, hope, care, trust, kindness. I know which side I’m proud to be on.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call tonight—my first of the year. I extend my kind solicitations to everyone in this House, and I wish and hope that we will all be speaking with kindness and compassion throughout the year. I look forward to that.

So, today, I would like to have a simple chat with you all about leadership—leadership in this country. Now, I have a quote here, which I really like, and I think this is the kind of Government that our country deserves and the kind of Government that I think we have with our coalition Government: “True leaders understand that leadership is not about them but about those they serve. It is not about exalting themselves but about lifting others up.” Let me say, if ever there was a truer word spoken, it is that.

We are designing a well-being Budget that is all about lifting everyone up. We’re inclusive and we are trying our very best to do the right thing for this country. We know the problems and we’ve worked—as my colleague Dr Deb Russell has said—very hard delivering for the last 18 months, and we will continue to do so. We have, and are very lucky to have, an amazing leader in our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who leads with compassion, who leads with an entirely clear vision for us as a Government, and who at all times remembers who she serves and who the people are that we need to support—that is, all citizens of this country; all citizens.

Leadership is one of those things that is often lonely and, in fact, as a Government we know that we have a lot of things to do, and some of those things will take courage. Some of those things will take real leadership—for example, climate change. We must and we shall be a world leader, ensuring that our country and our commitment to global warming and change is not going to be as a fast follower. Oh no, we actually have to spend time and energy committing, and this coalition Government is doing so.

I’d also like to talk very briefly about one particular part of our well-being Budget that, for me, is a personal driver of being here in Parliament—that is, the work that we are doing in the family and sexual violence space. It is, as we all know, a huge issue in this country. I am absolutely delighted that our Minister for Social Development, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, has increased last year 30 percent of funding to our front-line services—delivering. Now, having worked in the front line, I know that we may have had all sorts of things happening in that space, but the front line didn’t get a cent for 10 years. That, in fact, says—when we look at all of the systems in place and everything that would support that—the Opposition members over there were more about thinktanks themselves than they were about actual delivery on the ground. So I’m absolutely delighted that we are working towards making a change in that space.

I would also, in my final statement, like to talk about the work that we will be doing in this space over the next year, and the working group—as you may call it, but we call it an actual organisation—that will work across Government departments to bring into this century the conversations that need to be had and to happen. Leadership will be hard in this space. One in four women are affected by violence in their lifetime, and one in seven men. We need to do better. It will be hard. We need to talk, we need to work together, and, in fact, I am so very, very proud of this coalition Government for putting family violence and sexual violence at the core of our well-being Budget. We will deliver.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and welcome to the new year. I just want to follow on from the Prime Minister’s speech, where the Prime Minister made it very clear to New Zealanders what they should expect over the next year. That was a clear expectation that by the end of the year, New Zealanders will be in a much worse position. By the end of the year, more New Zealanders will be out of work. By the end of the year, more New Zealand businesses will struggle to provide the base for this economy going forward. And, by the end of the year, this Government will not be delivering the services that New Zealanders expect. We know what is happening with this plan that we’re getting from the Government. New Zealanders will struggle, it will stifle our economy and that will stunt the growth that this country has had in the past, and the costs will be out of control and there will be no accountability for them.

Let’s take the sectors that are big parts of our community. Education—what’s it going to be like by the end of the year? Well, schools that currently have their own boards of trustees will be told that they can no longer have their own boards of trustees, but have to be managed by a central economy—basically, out of a central office. That means that schools like Hamilton Boys’ High in Hamilton that have done exceptionally well over many years will now have the rules and regulations of their school dictated to them by a central body set up by the Minister. That’s what it will mean for parents and students. There will be no accountability. By the end of the year, the parents won’t know how their children are achieving at school. They will be just left in the lurch of pretending that every school is perfect, every teacher is perfect, and there is no need for any accountability in our system. That is what is going to happen in education by the end of the year.

By the end of the year, in somewhere like Wintec in Hamilton, our polytechnic, it will now be run out of the central office, probably based in Wellington—as if we need more bureaucrats in Wellington—and by the end of the year that organisation will have lost control of its future as well and will be dictated to by some central body.

What will happen in health? By the end of the year, there will be fewer operations done. There will be fewer healthcare operations done in our major centres because all the money that goes into health will be spent on trying to keep alive the growing costs of wages that the Government will find it has to pay to fill in the bureaucracy that it will create within our health system.

What’s going to happen in our economy? By the end of the year, we will be less than a 2 percent growth economy. The last quarter put us at 0.3 percent. That is simply not good enough for New Zealand in the modern world. We’re not talking about a world where 3 percent is a great target that we should aspire to; we need to be pumping at 3 to 3.5 percent to deliver in this part of the world, like our neighbours Australia and America do, and in Asia, it’s 7 to 8 percent. By the end of the year, we will be under 2 percent, and that will have a direct impact on all New Zealanders’ lives.

By the end of the year, there will be more New Zealanders unemployed. At the end of last year, it was 3.9 percent, reflecting the good economic conditions that the previous Government had set up. It’s already at 4.3 percent now. It’ll be close to 5 percent by the end of the year. That’s what it means for New Zealanders who will be out of work because of the policies of the other side of the House.

By the end of year, house prices will be down in our major cities by 10 to 15 percent. In Auckland, you can guarantee that house prices will be down by 10 percent, and that will happen, under this Government, to New Zealand house owners who have spent their lives buying their homes, getting their mortgages—be prepared for a 10 percent reduction in the value of your house. And what does that mean if there is low equity in that property? It means that you are in a very vulnerable position, especially if there is higher unemployment and people lose jobs or lose the ability to have that employment. That, combined with lower house prices, puts the financial viability of more New Zealanders at risk.

But, by the end of the year, they will also know that if they ever did make any money on their house, or any other business asset, they’d have to pay it in a capital gains tax. OK, a capital gains tax probably will exempt the family home, but it’s definitely going to cover their assets, their businesses, and any investments that they make, and any second house they have or any investment they have. So, by the end of the year, New Zealanders will be under no doubt that they are going to be paying more tax. That is without doubt.

By the end of the year, migrants will know that they’re not welcome in this country. For all the rhetoric on the other side of House—and we’ve got the Chinese New Year celebration coming up in half an hour in this House, and all the Labour MPs will be there saying how welcoming they are—remember, in our migrant communities, that the other side of House has cut immigration in half. They want to cut it further. They don’t want to give people the ability—

Michael Wood: Not so good at maths, are we?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Is that wrong? No, it’s not. They have cut it, and they want to cut it further, and they are doing that through students who want to come to New Zealand. They are hurting people who want to have that long-term ability to come to New Zealand. I challenge the other side of House to show that the stats are different from that, because immigration has dropped.

By the end of the year, New Zealanders will know what it means to offend the Chinese Government. There are ways and means of proving that you have an external foreign policy, and it is not set by having some loose cannon that goes around the world and thinks that he is bigger than any country and bigger than any Government. We will see the impact of his arrogance in the effect that this economy will find from having poorer relations with China. There will be no advancement of our free-trade agreement, putting us behind our competitors. There will be cases where our exports are stopped at the border, and there will be instances where New Zealanders aren’t given the treatment and the respect they deserve because our Government hasn’t delivered on the international stage.

By the end of the year, you can guarantee that investor confidence will be the lowest in the last decade—not only the lowest in the last two years that we’ve seen recently but it will be lower than that. Talk to anybody that’s in the business community—they’re shutting up shop now. There’s no point in investing in New Zealand. They’re reducing their asset base, and they’re making sure that they’re ready to come back into the market in two or five years, or whenever they want to come back in.

By the end of the year, farmers will know what environmental taxes are. There will be such big taxes coming to farmers on their environment and especially in the dairy and the sheep and beef industries, that that will have long-term effects on the New Zealand economy. It will dictate the ability of investment of those farmers and will hurt New Zealand growth in the future.

But there may be some good points. By the end of the year, we will know that there are at least 47 KiwiBuild homes that will be built. We might get to 50, or we might even get to 60, but, as has been said today, they are consented, and we can all live in a consented house, can’t we?

By the end of the year, there may be more jobs in the Provincial Growth Fund than 54 jobs. There may even be three figures, and he may get to a hundred jobs by the end of the year in the Provincial Growth Fund. [Interruption] Well, I don’t know. Well, we’re certainly going to get over a hundred jobs in Wellington in bureaucracy, but whether we actually get that in real jobs—that’ll be another question.

By the end of the year, another $1 billion of land will be sold to overseas investors. The Green Party said they were going to stop those sales. They clocked up the $1 billion just before Christmas, and there’ll be another $1 billion this year as we wait for the Labour Party and the Greens to agree on what to do.

By the end of the year, another thousand prisoners will be on our streets. They will be released under the programmes that the Government’s doing now, where the Government is directly indicating to the courts and they are directly indicating to the Parole Board, what should be the number of prisoners. They are reducing the prison population through their actions.

By the end of the year, there may be some transport options that still are in progress. You know, we may still see work on the Waikato Expressway, but for the poor people of South Auckland, by the end of the year, the finish of the Southern Motorway will not be complete. They will have not completed the Southern Motorway extension by the end of this year, when it was supposed to be finished last year. But we do have hope of some glorious train that’s going to run underground, which now is at $6 billion, not $4 billion—$6 billion is the cost of the train from Auckland Central to Māngere.

By the end of the year, we can all stand up and say that that doesn’t matter. All those things don’t matter, because we live in a kind, caring, compassionate world; we don’t need to worry about these things. That is the year ahead for New Zealanders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Rino Tirikatene—five minutes.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very proud to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, but, again, before I do, I want to acknowledge the people in the communities of the Nelson-Tasman and the difficult times that they’re going through at the moment, and all who are involved in putting out the fires. I just want to acknowledge those communities—likewise, the maraes that have opened their doors—from Motueka to Whakatū, and everyone involved, as we all join with them to bring a speedy end to that situation there.

The top of the South—Nelson-Tasman—as legend has it, it’s called Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka. It’s the prow of the canoe, the great waka—Māui’s waka. I was privileged. Just two days before the actual fire broke out, I was at the unveiling of a magnificent taurapa, the stern of the canoe, to symbolise not only the iwi but the whole community of the Nelson-Whakatū area, including the Tasman. I believe the coming together of the community is symbolic of that magnificent taurapa, and once all of the issues have passed, I encourage people to reflect on and to visit this taurapa, which is six metres in height and a magnificent symbol of the unity and of purpose and of travel that the great people of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka, the Nelson-Tasman, will be undertaking as they move forward from this.

To adopt that nautical analogy, I couldn’t come up with a better metaphor than our coalition Government as being a great waka hourua, a great double-hulled canoe, with us and our coalition and confidence and supply partners—a magnificent waka hourua of epic Hekenukumai Busby proportions—because that is what our Government is doing. We are governing with a sense of purpose, unlike the other side, which had nine years of just governing for the sake of managing shop. We have a destination in mind. Our destination is the well-being of all of Aotearoa, and we are making magnificent strides in our glorious waka in achieving that goal. I’m very proud—very proud—to be supporting our Prime Minister and our Government Ministers in the work that is ahead.

There is so much I could talk about, but I just want to focus on Māori, because I represent the Māori of Te Tai Tonga. Māori are doing really well under this Government, and I cannot stress that enough. Māori unemployment is down at its lowest point in over 10 years. More Māori are in work—thanks to the good work of my ministerial colleague there, Willie Jackson, more Māori are in work. Less Māori are in prison, thanks to the good work of the Hon Kelvin Davis—and we all know that over 50 percent of that population are young, brown, Māori men.

So those are fantastic achievements that we are doing, but we’ve got so much that we’re doing in so many areas. We are a Government that is leading the way. We are leading the way in our waka hourua, because we know there are going to be choppy waters. We know there are headwinds. Goodness, Mr Bennett’s speech before—it was such doom and gloom. I really felt traumatised by him talking down everything as if everything was going to flip over. But they’re the only ones flipping over—they’re the only ones flipping over. We have our waka hourua steady as she goes—steady and straight is our travel, and that’s what we’re doing with our Ministers and in the work that we’re doing, not only in the economy but also right across building the social well-being of our whānau right across the motu.

So it’s a very, very exciting time. It’s an exciting time to be in this Government, to be under the leadership of our kaihautū, who is Jacinda Ardern, and all of those who are involved, and we’re just looking forward to the year ahead. We have a lot of mahi to do, but we know what that destination is. As I’ve said, it’s about well-being. It’s about well-being—well-being for all of Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Louisa Wall—five minutes.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi o Te Tau Hou, ngā whānau o Te Whare Pāremata. I hope everybody’s had a wonderful break and enjoyed the time with whānau and friends and are ready for this new year in this place that we spend as servants of the people.

I really want to emphasise and focus on leadership, and the leadership displayed by our leader and our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, a leader who absolutely cares and a leader who is kind and compassionate. And when was the last time I saw this kindness and compassionate side of her? Actually, it was at the Big Gay Out on Sunday in Tāmaki-makau-rau. How she shows and displays that kindness and compassion actually isn’t just about the hordes of people who want to have selfies with her—and, can I say, she made time for every single person who wanted to have a selfie with her—but, actually, it’s been demonstrated through her actions in this Whare Pāremata, in this House of Parliament, through being a champion for same-sex adoption and, actually, through being a champion in voting for marriage equality. I know other leaders have got issues about whether or not they support the LGBTI community. Well, can I say the Prime Minister is not one of them.

We also know that she’s a champion of young people, and through the work that she’s done through her colleagues—and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Willie Jackson, who’s here today, and also my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, because for us, employment is incredibly important. Making sure that our young people have opportunities is incredibly important, and, again, through her actions, what has been her priority as the leader of this Government? The Child Poverty Reduction Act, which will actually hold us accountable for the policies that we are instituting with the specific outcome of reducing poverty.

So I want to say that we will set targets and we will be transparent, and that takes leadership, and the leadership, I want to acknowledge, also of our community partners. Today, the Salvation Army released a report, and we have had commentary on that report from organisations like the Child Poverty Action Group. What have they said? They have said that there has been some reduction in income inequality, based on our policies for those on low incomes and in paid work.

How have we demonstrated that? Actually, through our commitment to lifting the minimum wage. So, on 1 April, the minimum wage will be $17.70, but through this Government, we’ve made a commitment to make that $20 by 2021. It has been through the winter energy payment and it has been through our Families Package that by 2021, 384,000 whānau are going to get an extra $75 per week. We’ve also demonstrated our commitment by instituting our Best Start, which is $60 per week for every child, which will extend to years two and three if a family are earning under $79,000.

Now, to say those are insignificant commitments from this Government actually downplays, again, the leadership that we are showing on this side of the House to address the issue of poverty and to address the issues of inequality. It’s been 12 months in the job and I think we’ve not done too badly, and we don’t mind being critiqued by the Salvation Army or by the Child Poverty Action Group, who say to us that we actually need to help our beneficiary families the most.

So what I want to finish on is an emphasis on how do we do that, and I’ve found a little bit of research from The Economist in 2013. It was an article entitled “Pennies from heaven: Cash to the poor”, and what they found was that cash transfers with no strings attached are the best way to help those people in poverty, because what do they do? They actually spend it on vaccinating their children. School attendance goes up. They have improved living conditions because people buy food to feed their families. They make sure that their homes are warm and dry. Their psychological well-being increases and, fundamentally, we actually help them to become more entrepreneurial, so they start having dreams and aspirations.

We’re on a pathway to supporting all New Zealanders, with a specific focus in the future of making sure that those who are most vulnerable and those who need the support of the Government to create a pathway for themselves and for the next generation are supported. Kia ora.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to stand and speak this afternoon on the Prime Minister’s statement. I would have to say—and I don’t want to be overtly critical—that I was not inspired by the Prime Minister’s statement. In fact, there were a number of comments that I would challenge in terms of the workability and the outcome of them.

Can I just say, in regard to the comments of the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, that I think it’s well and good to give people funds without any strings attached, but in order to do that, you’ve got to have a very strong economy that can afford to do that, and I think that that is something that we need to address in this Parliament and in this country—and it is sustainability. Yes, it’s one thing to have sympathy, but we must have sustainability. We must continue to encourage self-determination and we must continue to upskill and support people to become self-reliant. Otherwise, you will not have a country that can afford to do that, and hence some of the comments that have come through on our side regarding, for example, a capital gains tax, which depletes the resource base of people to continue to build that self-determining, sustaining, self-reliant economy.

So getting those balances at the right place is very, very important. Otherwise, what will happen is that this Government will bankrupt this country, as has happened in the past, and then the country will have to revert back to some very stringent measures. We all believe that there need to be safety nets for people, of course, but we must also ensure that we have a really strong, robust economy that is growing every year to be able to afford to do that.

I want to just come to some comments that the Prime Minister made in her statement, on page 5—and, yes, it’s relevant to my electorate and to the rohe, the families, and the friends that live in North Taranaki and around the coast, where I am their MP. She said, “The fourth priority underpinning our economic theme is the transition to a clean, green, and carbon-neutral New Zealand.” Well, we understand there is bipartisan work to come to an agreed place and process on how this can happen, and my colleague Todd Muller is leading that for the National Party. Then the Prime Minister went on to say, “A key policy priority will be to support a just transition for workers in industries that need to reduce emissions. Initiatives will continue to be developed to support the creation of jobs in sectors that are carbon-free or carbon sinks, such as forestry.”

As I said last night in my speech, right now, in North Taranaki, there’s a big jack-up rig that’s been deployed. It’s at the Pohokura platform, and it’s going to be working there for three months to enable a freer and more extensive flow of natural gas. Now, while this Government is looking at transitioning away from fossil fuels, the promises or the potential that has been put before us by the Government is that we will see the potential of hydrogen replacing natural gas, particularly around the areas of heavy transport—which I do support—but also around process heat. There are some companies that use natural gas because it is intense and it’s relatively inexpensive, and companies like Fonterra do that.

So, in the last week, there have been reports that have come out because, obviously, the Government is looking at the potential and the possibility of hydrogen replacing natural gas. Concept Consulting, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and many other organisations have collaborated to research and dig into this, and what these researchers and analysts have found is that it is highly unlikely—highly unlikely—that hydrogen can displace electricity and natural gas for process heat, especially in that high heat area of above 200 degrees or 300 degrees Celsius that’s needed.

Now, the issue about this is that those companies that rely on natural gas don’t have an alternative except to import gas, and in order to do that and to establish the infrastructure and to put all of that in play, it will take around about 10 years. It’s quite expensive and extensive, and there’s a lot of consenting and a lot of issues around all of that. But the problem is that New Zealand’s supply of gas—that supply of natural gas that we are around about 90 percent confident we can access—is available for six years, or maybe a bit less. So there is looming an energy gap that this country is going to face. So while this Government wants to be kind and they want to help people without any strings attached, they are using strings to tie up industries that will empower and enable our industrial and our agricultural sector to continue to prosper, and it doesn’t make sense.

I think the elephant in the room that the Prime Minister talked about a year ago and said was smaller this year is a lack of connectivity between the production of energy and the consumption of it. If you went to liberal urbanites and asked them where natural gas comes from, they’d point to a blimmin pipe in the wall. They might forget that it actually comes from 3,000 metres down, it’s piped to them on the Māui or the Vector pipeline from Taranaki, and it gets up there into Auckland.

Without that gas flowing, New Zealand is incredibly vulnerable. Back in 2011, when the Māui pipeline had a leak in it and it took 138 hours to repair that, the New Zealand economy lost $200 million, principally from the agricultural sector. So what the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) did was they were highly concerned about that and they asked WorleyParsons to go and do a study to find what would happen if there were gas disruption in New Zealand. So they, alongside of information from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, produced a report that was delivered to MBIE in about 2013, and they calculated that without a supply of gas to the northern part of the North Island only, the loss—the economic cost—would be in the vicinity of over $650 million per month.

Now, some people would say, “Well, we should not be reliant on gas. That proves that we are too dependent on a resource.” But what I would say is that if you look at the cost of gas to industry, whether that’s Fonterra, New Zealand Steel, New Zealand Refining, or Methanex, which produces low-emission methanol that’s going to be used more and more in ship transportation as a fuel—if you look at that and then you say “Well, move away from gas to electricity.”, then just that shift is three times the cost. Fonterra said they can’t afford that. If you were to shift from natural gas to hydrogen, it’s 10 times the cost.

So if you tell industries that their energy cost is going to increase 10 times, what they will say is “We can’t do business in New Zealand, so we will import our steel from Indonesia. It’s about four to five times the emission load than what New Zealand steel costs us in terms of greenhouse gases.” The fact is that over November and December, there were shortages of gas because of infrastructure challenges. What happened is that we had to depend on imported coal. In the quarter ending 30 September, New Zealand used 57,000 tonnes of coal for electricity generation, but in the quarter ending 31 December, that had gone to around about 260,000 tonnes. Because there was a lack of gas in New Zealand, our emissions exploded, and our costs of electricity tripled, and what we’re seeing is that there is no real opportunity to use hydrogen without seeing substantial increases in the costs of doing business in this country. This is why there is an elephant in the room.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call—five minutes.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak for the first time in this House in 2019 in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. I’d also like to acknowledge some of the challenges that are happening in the Nelson-Tasman area. I’ve got a lot of family members in that area. They’re certainly suffering, and I’d like to say big thankyou to all the volunteers, who are doing an excellent job down there around bringing those fires under control.

If you listen to the other side of the House, everything sounds like doom and gloom. I know there’s a game of cricket on the other channel, and people at home are probably tempted to change over to that channel. Well, don’t change the channel—don’t change the channel. I can tell you the score: 229 for 9. So don’t change your channel, because I’m going to talk in a positive manner about the exciting things that we’ve got in store for this year.

There’s an analogy that I think of, and it’s the analogy of an alarm clock. So, from time to time, we all need to get up early. We set the alarm clock and the alarm goes off. Under the previous Government, the alarm clock went off, they pressed the snooze button, and they went back to sleep. They woke up again, they pressed the snooze button, and they went back to sleep, and, after a while, the previous Government stopped even pressing that snooze button. They put their heads under the pillow while the alarm was going. They were not listening to the alarm bells around our regions, around housing, and around mental health.

The nation voted for change, and we are giving them change. I’ll start by talking about the regions. We have had years of underinvestment in our regions. In 2014, I stood in the Taupō electorate, in the south Waikato area, and there’s huge deprivation down there. There’s deprivation up in Northland, East Coast, and other areas of the country. I’d like to acknowledge New Zealand First for the Provincial Growth Fund and for their vision around the regions. It’s a game-changer. It’s a game-changer for the regions. For the first time in many years, people in the regions are lifting their heads up. They have hope. They’re lifting their eyes.

The Provincial Growth Fund has invested in 136 projects, which are estimated to create 1,200 jobs. The key thing though that the Provincial Growth Fund is doing—all that aside—is that it’s stimulating discussions in the regions. Business cases, collaboration, economic activity—people are once again dreaming of what could happen in their regions. They’re lifting the heads. Economic activity is beginning to start in our regions, and it’s only going to increase.

I’d like to acknowledge the honourable Minister Willie Jackson for the work he’s been doing around the NEETs—people not in employment, education, or training. Under this Minister, the number of our NEETs has dropped, from 80,000 to 70,000. That’s 10,000 people now in education, employment, or training—people who weren’t previously.

Just a final point on the regions there: I’d like to touch on the passenger rail between Hamilton and Auckland. So the New Zealand Transport Association have approved a business case, and, as a local member of Parliament, I’m certainly watching with interest as they engage with the local councils, because having diversity within our transport system is absolutely vital, and this will improve productivity. People who are travelling between Hamilton and Auckland, particularly for business, will be able to hop on the train and open their laptops, and they’ll be able to start working. A lot of productivity is lost by having people sitting in cars on clogged motorways.

In the last one minute, I’ll touch on housing and mental health. This Government inherited a crisis in housing. I know that the Opposition are giving us a hard time, but we are taking action. We are taking action. The previous Government had their heads under the pillow while the alarm clock went off around housing. People couldn’t get into their first homes. There wasn’t the safety net of social housing for them, but we are taking action.

The final point is mental health. I am delighted and I’m excited that mental health will be a key priority in the May Budget—finally, a Government that will take action on mental health. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o te Whare, otirā ki a koutou katoa ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata, koutou ngā kaimahi o te Whare Pāremata, ngā mihi o te tau hou tōrangapū me kī ki a tātou katoa.

He pai te hoki mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata ā muri mai i te tau hou Pākehā, ahakoa kua tīmata ngā mahi i Rātana, ā, tēnā koe, i roto i Waitangi anō hoki. Engari, ko tēnei te wiki tuatahi i roto i te Whare Pāremata.

I tīmata ngā mahi i te kōrero a te Pirimia a Jacinda Ardern. E tautoko ana ahau, pau te kaha wāna kōrero inanahirā, ā, inanahi. Poho kererū ia i ngā mahi kua tutuki i tēnei kāwanatanga i roto i te wā poto, i roto i te 15 marama noa iho. Poho kererū anō hoki ahau.

Kua kite ahau i ngā painga kua whiwhi i te takiwā o Te Tai Tokerau. I rongo koutou i ōna kōrero e pā ana ki te tohatoha i ngā moni ki ngā rohe, puta noa i Aotearoa, ki te tuawhenua. Ko Te Tai Tokerau tētahi o wēnā rohe. Kua kite ahau i ngā hua o tērā tautoko o te kāwanatanga. I tērā wiki i reira ngā Minita o tēnei kāwanatanga ki te whakarewa ake i ētahi atu kaupapa, ki te tohatoha atu i ētahi atu moni, ā, ki ngā takiwā o Te Kaipara, o Kaikohe, o Te Kerikeri anō hoki.

I tūtaki ahau i tētahi kotiro, he wahine ināianei, ko Whina Woods tōna ingoa. Ko ia tētahi o ngā taitamawahine, i mahi i te kaupapa o te Poutama Rangatahi, nā Willie, ā, ko Willie Jackson te Minita o tērā kaupapa. Kātahi anō ia ka whiwhi i tana raihana motokā. I tēnei wiki i tīmata ia i tana ako ki te whakaako i ngā tamariki. Koinā te pai, koinā te hua o te mahi o tēnei kāwanatanga.

I rongo anō hoki ahau i te kōrero o te tama, i mea atu ki te Pirimia, “Ko koe te take e haere ana ahau ki te whare wānanga i tēnei tau. Ko au te tama o tētahi matua whiwhi penihana. And, e kore rawa ahau e whakaaro ka haere ahau ki te whare wānanga. Engari nā te kore utu ki te haere ki te whare wānanga ka haere ahau i tēnei tau.” Nō reira e tino tautoko ana ahau te mahi hei tautoko i ngā taitamariki o Te Tai Tokerau.

Ka huri ahau ki te hanga whare. Kātahi anō ka puare i ngā whare i Whangārei. Ko te Minita ko Phil Twyford tēnā e whakapuare ana i wērā o ngā whare. E tautoko ana te hanga whare i Ōtangarei, Kaitāia, Whangārei, Kākau anō hoki, e mahi tahi ana me Te Rūnanga o Whāingaroa. E mihi ana, e mihi ana, e mihi ana ki a Nanaia Mahuta, te Minita mō te Māori e tautoko ana i tērā kaupapa. Me te papakāinga anō hoki.

Ko te tohatoha i ngā moni hei tautoko i ngā rohe, ā, ko Matua Shane Jones tērā. Te tau, ā, te kaupapa mō te ngahere, te whakatō i ngā rākau, ngā paina, ngā rākau māori anō hoki i roto i te takiwā o Ngāti Hine, i roto i te takiwā o Ngāti Rēhia, arā ko ngā kauri.

I whakatakoto te kōhatu mauri mō tētahi kaupapa, tētahi whare hou ki roto o Te Kawakawa i te Paraire i ngā wiki kua pahure ake nei. He kaupapa tēnā ko te hononga. Ā, atu i tērā ko te mahi i te papa waka rererangi ki Kerikeri, ā, ko ngā tauranga waka i Te Pēwhairangi, a Vinta Vasa i Whangārei, arā noa ngā kaupapa kua tutuki i a mātou i te 15 marama noa iho.

Ngā rori, ngā rori ruturutu o Te Tai Tokerau. I rongo koutou e hoatu pūtea ana ki Te Kaipara kia whakatikatika i te rori ki te, ki Poutū. Ki ngā rori matua anō hoki te nuinga o ngā aituā i runga i wērā o ngā rori. Nō reira e mihi ana ki tērā pūtea.

Engari i rongo i te kōrero o te Pirimia i Waitangi. He nui tonu ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro. Ahakoa kua tutuki wērā me te nuinga o aha atu o ngā kaupapa i te wā poto, he nui tonu ngā mahi kei mua i te aroaro. Ko tāna, kāhore te whakahaere noa, he ārahi kē, nō reira e te Pirimia, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawaroa. Tēnā koe.

[Thank you. Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, and indeed to all the members of Parliament, and to all of the staff of Parliament House. Greetings for the political new year, so to speak, to all of us.

It is good to return to Parliament House after the Pākehā new year, despite the work having begun at Rātana, thank you, and also at Waitangi. However, this is the first week in Parliament House.

The work began with the speech of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. I support her; such strength in her speech the day before yesterday—ah, yesterday. She is proud of the work which has been achieved by this Government within a short time, in only 15 months. I am also proud.

I have seen the benefits which have been received by the region of Te Tai Tokerau. You heard what she said about the distribution of money to the regions, throughout New Zealand, to the rural areas. Te Tai Tokerau is one of those areas. I have seen the fruits of that support of the Government. Last week, the Ministers of this Government were there to launch some other initiatives, to distribute other money to the regions of Te Kaipara, Kaikohe, and Te Kerikeri.

I met a girl, she’s a woman now; her name is Whina Woods. She is one of the young girls who did the initiative of Poutama Rangatahi. Willie Jackson is the Minister of that initiative. She has just received her car licence. This week she began to teach children. That is the benefit, that is the result of this Government’s work.

I also heard the story of the boy who said to the Prime Minister, “You are the reason I am going to university this year. I am the son of a parent who received the benefit. And I would never have thought that I would go to university. However, because of there being no fees to go to university, I am going this year.” Therefore, I strongly support the work to support the youth of Te Tai Tokerau.

I will turn to the building of houses. The houses of Whangārei have just been opened. It was the Minister Phil Twyford who opened those houses, supporting the building of houses in Ōtangarei, Kaitāia, Whangārei and also Kākau, working together with Te Rūnanga o Whāingaroa. I strongly acknowledge Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister for Māori Development, who is supporting that initiative, as well as communal Māori housing.

I acknowledge the distribution of money to support the regions—that is, Mr Shane Jones—and the year of the initiative for the forests, the planting of trees, pines, and also native trees in the regions of Ngāti Hine and Ngāti Rēhia, namely kauri.

The mauri stone for an initiative was laid down, a new building in Te Kawakawa on the Friday of the weeks recently gone. That initiative is about connection. And, beyond that, the work at the airport land in Kerikeri and the airports at Te Pēwhairangi, Vinta Vasa in Whangārei; there are many more initiatives that we have achieved in just 15 months.

The roads, the bumpy roads of Te Tai Tokerau. You heard that money is being given to Te Kaipara to repair the road to Poutū; to the main roads also because there are so many accidents on those roads. So I acknowledge that funding.

However, I heard the Prime Minister’s speech at Waitangi. There is still much work before us. However, those have been achieved and many other initiatives in a short time, but there is still much work in front of us. As she said, it is not just management, but leadership, and therefore to the Prime Minister: be strong, be brave, be resilient. Thank you.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement. I’d like to speak to several parts of her statement, starting with the reflection on vocational training and the tumultuous reforms that have been announced today. Now, I want to put on record that we were really hoping that we could scrutinise and support some of these reforms. We understand that there are challenges across the sector and, as the education cohort, if you like, we thought there actually could be some changes that we could get along with. Unfortunately, with six weeks’ notice, that’s a hugely short consultation period for a tumultuous and drastic reformation process like this, and that’s going to make that very unlikely, but we did come to the table willing to look and understand that some changes were necessary.

The theme through today’s vocational and education reforms, and vocational and training reforms, is the Government knows best—the Government knows better than industry what is best for industry, and the Government knows better than the regions what is best for the regions.

Barbara Kuriger: Just like oil and gas.

Dr SHANE RETI: It is like oil and gas. What’s happened today is the industry training organisations (ITOs) have been disestablished and their parts dispersed to the winds, and I’ll talk to that further.

But, just so that we understand, the industry training organisations are those organisations mandated by industry and confirmed in the 1992 legislation to do several things. First of all, they’re there to set standards; secondly, they’re there to provide apprenticeships and to organise apprenticeships; and, thirdly, they have a quality function.

Let’s be clear on those organisations that are being cast aside today: Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation—the building people—Careerforce, Competenz, Connexis, the Hairdressing Industry Training Organisation, MITO, the New Zealand Marine and Composites Industry Training Organisation, the Primary Industry Training Organisation, ServiceIQ, Skills Active Aotearoa, and the Skills Organisation. They have been cast aside today, and I’ll come to the alternative that they’ve been cast to.

It’s also understood that ITOs actually manage more trainees and have more people than all the collective polytechnics together and more than domestic university students—around about 150,000. They are substantive. They were formed by industry for industry, and they’ve been cast aside. Cast aside for what? They’ve been cast aside for this amorphous New Zealand polytech, the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, of which we know very little detail.

Let’s actually look at some of the parts of the ITOs and where they’ve gone. So the standard-setting function of ITOs is, purportedly, going to go to the industry skills bodies (ISBs). We don’t know if they’re going to go across services. We don’t quite know more about some of their components. We know that the ISBs, as they’re called, will be responsible for leadership, for standards, and for capstone and curriculum—a lot of what the ITOs were doing.

What we do know is that the part that the ITOs were doing will not completely move across. The bigger part of what ITOs were doing was going out to industries and saying, “Would you like an apprentice? Can you take on an apprentice?” They were organising apprenticeships, and that has moved completely to central functioning from Wellington—to the governance arm of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. A central bureaucracy in Wellington will tell industry what they need. Instead of industry telling industry, that has all moved to this national polytechnic, we can call it.

Now, let’s look back at that. So we’ve done this before: in 1992, trade training was done—in fact, in the 1970s and 1980s—through the polytechnics, and we moved away from that in the early 1990s, for a couple of reasons. One of them was that the polytechnics taught what they wanted, not what industry needed. The other reason we were actually looking to move from service-based training—it used to be that if you did just four years, you qualified as a trade certificate or advanced training—was that we actually wanted to move to competency-based training. So Lockwood Smith, through the early 1990s, led the reforms that put industry back in charge of industry, and the industry training Act of 1992 empowered ITOs to do what they’ve done over the last 27 years.

So the main functions of the industry training organisations are going to move to the national polytech. Polytechs will deliver trade training. Industry has not been interacting with polytechs. They’ve been interacting with industry training organisations, for a very simple reason: they best understand their industry.

Furthermore, there’s an obvious conflict of interest here. So if polytechs are going to do trade training—if they’re going to do the same role as the ITOs—they would then farm out some of that training to the specialists. But polytechs themselves actually train—they do a lot of the trade training. So they’re going to have two choices: they can look internally to fund their own courses in trade training, or they can look externally to the industrial sector for that training. Where do you think they’re going to look? They’re going to look inside the tent, to themselves. This is what we saw in the 1990s. This is what they’ll do here. This is a clear conflict of interest that the Minister is going to need to manage.

There are other interesting quirks in this proposal of having a national polytech that need a lot more scrutiny, particularly around the funding. So this national polytech will offer foundation learning, levels 1 and 2 sub-degree category training. Generally, those are diplomas and other sorts of business degrees—well, not degrees, but non-degrees, because then you move to the degree level. So that’s what the national polytechs are going to do.

Now, interestingly, the sub-degree level—the diplomas and certificates—are normally funded by what’s called student achievement component (SAC) funding, and SAC funding is consistent across the whole sector.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Good evening, members. The House has resumed. Before the dinner break, we were debating the Prime Minister’s statement, and Dr Shane Reti has four minutes and seven seconds remaining to speak, should he so wish to take it.

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to continue. Just to briefly summarise where we were, I was prosecuting the case that the disestablishment of the industry training organisations—fundamentally, this Government is saying that Government knows best. They know best what industry needs, rather than industry knowing what industry needs. If we look at the separation of the functions of the independent training organisations and how some of them will, wishfully, end up in the industry skills bodies, we don’t know how many of their main provider functions will end up with this national polytechnic—whatever that means. Fundamentally, all of trade training will go to this national polytechnic, which is the position we were in in the early 1990s, when all trade training came from polytechnics. The failure that that was—we have looked back and not looked forward.

So the ITOs are, clearly, hurting. They are finished under these reforms.

I wanted to talk, then, to job losses. Last week, I put out the statement—which I’ll stand by—that there are a thousand job losses in these reforms. Earlier today—just before the dinner hour, actually—we were meeting with some of the affected stakeholders, and just one small segment of this reform is accounting for 500 job losses. But then we heard the Minister. When we raised the question, the Minister said, “Well, look, we haven’t actually modelled that, so we can’t give you a number.” Now, there’s two points to that. If it wasn’t modelled, then it’s just, frankly, reckless and irresponsible to come to the House with major reforms—and they are tumultuous reforms—not having done the work. If you have got a number and are too scared, just bite the bullet here, now, and put it out, and we can see what it is. So job losses are a huge concern for the sector.

The tumultuous vocational education training reforms that were mentioned here today were also alluded to in the Prime Minister’s statement, and it’s a really important piece of work that we need to look at, although a full six weeks to do it—really? Tomorrow’s Schools are, roughly, three times that, and for something as big as this, we’re getting a third of the time—six weeks. That also speaks, as I said initially, to why it’s going to be a challenge for us to collaborate on some parts of this that we really did want to work together on.

The second area I wanted to focus on is the Prime Minister’s statement, at page 5, where she talks about “The second area of focus, of course, is in health.” She also gives a story a little bit earlier about the child of a beneficiary in Kaikohe, so let’s join those dots together. Let’s talk about children in Kaikohe and health. Let’s talk about whether that child is vaccinated for meningitis, or not. Are you one of the five- to 12-year-olds who—sorry—this Government does not choose to be safe? Are you part of that group who cannot guarantee that you’ll be safe this coming winter, or that you will have developed immunity this coming winter to meningitis?

If we look at that, let’s look at the reasoning the Government’s put forward as to why they will not vaccinate the 20,302 five- to 12-year-olds in Northland who are ineligible for the meningitis Menactra vaccine. Two arguments are put forward: first of all, that the technical advisory group on 8 November recommended to do only the two targeted groups that are currently receiving vaccine—wrong. Option three also said you could vaccinate everyone under 20. The second argument being made is that there are not enough vaccines—wrong again. Shall we dial up right now on my iPhone and I’ll order dozens of them, right here from the House? There are plenty of them.

The cost of this is $700,000. We can’t find $700,000 to vaccinate Northland children against meningitis—really? We’ve heard of the expense of the reforms here today and all the other options we have in front of us, and the Prime Minister has the audacity to say “The second area of focus, of course, is in health.” and to talk about Kaikohe children in her prime ministerial statement. But she will not, because the open letter we placed before her before Waitangi Day said, “Prime Minister, please will you consider vaccinating 5-12 year-olds in Northland for meningitis?”, and she said no.

So you saw the petition at the start of the House today, and we will lobby this through the select committee. Vaccinate Northland children.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 12 February.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to resume my contribution on this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, of course, which amends the Crown Minerals Act of 1991. I only got a minute or so into my stride last time, but I was actually responding to a previous contribution from Jonathan Young. I was reflecting on the irony that he referenced in his speech that there was an oil rig just turned up off the coast of Taranaki after months and months of dire warnings that we were banning oil and gas drilling. And lo and behold, here we were with an oil rig turning up right off the shores of the member’s own electorate, putting a lie to that particular premise.

I had been, in fact, so alarmed by the scaremongering of the National Party on that particular issue, I had been scared to get my car or to have my vehicle too far away from a petrol station just in case the country ran dry. But we are moving towards a just transition. Of course, in Mr Young’s electorate, the Provincial Growth Fund is investing in hydrogen. We know there’s a great deal of potential in that technology. In fact, I understand Budweiser are going to have all their trucks in the United States on hydrogen by 2020. So there are great strides being made in that alternative energy market and we are moving in that direction. As the Prime Minister referenced in her address, we are showing leadership in this regard.

Of course, that’s not to downgrade the importance of our oil and gas industry or minerals in general. Petroleum—we have $1.5 billion worth of petroleum exports, which generates $500 million annually for the Crown. The reason this bill is significant, even though it’s minor and technical changes, is the scale of this industry to New Zealand. The mining sector, for example, contributes $3 billion to New Zealand’s GDP or 1.3 percent, and we are a country that is rich in natural resources. I understand we are second only to the kingdom of Tonga in terms of natural resources per capita, and that’s why it’s important that we get the provisions within this Act right, because it is a significant part of our economy.

The petroleum—we’ve referenced. Gold, silver; coal is still a major mineral mined. There are, of course, massive phosphate deposits off the Chatham Rise, which are potentially brought into play at a future date. I was just in at Venture Southland the other day, actually, looking at their soil electromagnetic mapping, and there are deposits of uranium and thorium throughout Southland. Also, of course, more recently the Provincial Growth Fund has invested in facilitating a garnet mine just south of Hokitika in Westland. The Hon Paul Goldsmith in his contribution actually referenced the West Coast in regard to minerals and the Crown Minerals Act—and mining actually still contributes 40 percent of GDP. He was railing against the stewardship land issue in action on this side of the House.

Well, just the irony of that—after having had almost a decade to do something about it, the Opposition spokesman on regional development, based in that heartland of regional New Zealand, Epsom, has suddenly discovered the West Coast and the fact that 83 percent of their land is tied up in conservation department land. New Zealand First has been a firm advocate for looking at that land. There is some of it that is pristine conservation land, and we have to get that incorporated in our national parks, but there is also a considerable amount that is low-level scrub and very low-level conservation area at all. We need to be able to open that up for the likes of gold mining, etc., which this bill and the provisions in it will assist.

The bill itself gives the Minister new powers—powers to revoke permits. What we have in the oil and gas industry in particular is a system where when tier one companies get to a certain level with their wells, they onsell that permit to a second-tier explorer or company that then has specialists that have technology that can make more use of or optimise the resource that is left. Now, the danger, of course, in that is that if you get a cowboy operation that comes in that cannot fulfil its obligations, then that is a very bad space, indeed, to be in. We’ve seen the Rena—even though that was an oil spill off a ship, obviously, but we’ve seen the danger of having an environmental catastrophe like that if we do not get our regulations right and we do not have credible companies operating these permits. So these provisions within this bill give the Minister the power to revoke a permit if we believe that that company is not a credible custodian. Of course, it ups the fines to about $800,000 if those disclosure provisions are not met, which is, I think—given the potential for catastrophe—an appropriate level.

It also clarifies access to schedule 4 land—we know our pristine conservation land. Section 53(1) and section 53(3) actually directly contradict themselves, so this bill clarifies that issue. I’d just like to pay some tribute to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. During the process of that select committee, they did actually modify the bill somewhat. They came up with some good recommendations, and particularly around clarifying contracts around the existing settings for—so I’ve just lost my way there a little bit, sorry, with that provision. [Interruption] I only had one G and T at the British High Commission too, I might say. There was a certain—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

MARK PATTERSON: —provision in there around contracts that was clarified—and it has come back to me, Madam Assistant Speaker, which is good, and left me again as well. So I also just—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I certainly hope the member is not trying to tell me he’s somewhat impaired.

MARK PATTERSON: No, no, I’m certainly not. It was just the one, but my notes are a little bit incomplete. So the select committee did play its role, I guess is the greater point that I’m trying to make. They did make some clarifications around those contracts. To the submitters, obviously, thank you for participating, and the officials, as always—we are always well served by officials in this Parliament in tidying up a bill, which I believe has wide support from the Parliament, including from New Zealand First. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

MELISSA LEE (National): Madam Assistant Speaker—and I promise you I’m not impaired. I have not had a single drink. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this particular bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, in the third reading debate. I’d like to commend the member who just sat down, Mark Patterson. What an effort to actually break his speech up into two parts, one last night and one tonight, and to complete almost 10 minutes of a speech. I have to say that I wasn’t quite sure where he was actually sort of going with that.

Tim van de Molen: Neither was he.

MELISSA LEE: Yeah. He probably wasn’t very sure. You know, often one of the things that actually happens, before I get to the bill—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to answer a comment that Dr Shane Reti actually said in terms of the $700,000 that this Government cannot afford for Northland children’s vaccinations for meningitis. I would say maybe the Government could actually take it off one of the advisory boards. I know for a fact that the broadcasting ministerial advisory board got $1.5 million, and there are only four people—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): And back to the third reading, please.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you—and back to the third reading. I will. In the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Minister of Energy and Resources actually got up in her third reading speech and said this: “[The] 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.”—that sounds wonderful—“This bill seeks to clarify and update statutory provisions and [addresses] gaps, inconsistencies, and errors with the Act.”—that sounds very reasonable—“The changes in the bill will ensure that the identified regulatory gaps are closed, it will ensure that there is clarity for regulators and for the industry around permitting, and it will address inconsistencies in the Act.”

For that particular opening sentence that the Minister the Hon Dr Megan Woods said in the third reading, I completely agree, because National supports making minor changes to tidy up bits and pieces of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. We actually believe that these are, largely, small changes through the bill, although there is actually some financial beef to prosecute those who fail to notify the Minister of the change of control of a permit in the participant companies. For example, when a company has been given a licence to prospect and they decide that they’re going to sell their company, and they do not actually let the Minister know, and the licence goes to some unknown entity, for example—that is going to be a problem. I know for a fact that during the select committee process, there was actually a company that came into the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and submitted that there is a process of changeover happening, and we actually gave it an exemption. I think that was a good thing that the select committee did.

One of the things that I thought about when Mr Mark Patterson was talking in terms of the energy sector—I was reflecting back on my childhood in Korea. Korea was a very poor country and actually relied very heavily on coal. There were many instances where I remembered as a child a coal mine collapsing and people being trapped. But the other thing that is actually very significant and in my memory is that coal miners from Korea actually left Korean shores when Korea was recovering from the Korean War. They were very, very poor. Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world, and the president at the time decided that he needed financial aid from other countries, and by exporting the experts who were actually in the coal mining field, as well as Korean nurses, to overseas countries—and one of the countries that actually took Korean coal miners was the Germans. The German settlement of Korean people began with Korean coal miners.

The reason why coal miners actually came into my mind was this whole thing about exploration. One of the things that this Government did in terms of minerals and the Crown Minerals Act and the other bill that we debated, and this one is also related, is in relation to the stopping of exploration in this country. What that actually means is that it has a major impact on an economy, for example, in New Plymouth. I think the mayor actually said it was a kick in the guts. The announcement by this Government was a kick in the guts and a decimation of an industry where people rely on work to actually earn a living to support their family, where people are actually working to feed their families and support their families to move ahead in this country.

They said one of the reasons why they were actually collapsing and kicking them in the guts was to have clean energy. The ironic thing is that in the first year of this Labour-led Government, they talked a big game. There was big talk about climate change and how New Zealand should be clean and green, and yet the results speak louder than words. The rhetoric that they gave out is actually false. New Zealand burnt the most coal in five years to keep the lights on. That’s right. It was the worst result ever—the most coal burnt in five years—because they were trying to keep the lights on. When you’re in a very cold winter environment, you need people to actually have energy so they can keep themselves warm, and we had a shortage, and they actually burnt more coal.

The other thing is talking about “clean” and “greenness”. I mean, a lot of people have talked about wind power and renewable energies, and I’ve actually spoken about this before. Do members actually realise that it takes 230 tonnes of coal for the steel that is actually required to make the turbines for windmills? It is ridiculous that in Parliament—apparently it needs 4.5 new wind farms a year. That’s what Dr Woods actually said: in order for them to progress, we need to create 4.5 new wind farms. What does that actually mean in terms of the coal that is required to make the steel to make the wind turbines? That means we actually use more coal. It’s not as green as the Minister actually seems to think it is.

In terms of the Crown minerals bill—I notice Madam Assistant Speaker is actually looking at me—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill contains amendments, as I said, to the Crown Minerals Act 1991. It’s a technical bill. It’s not a major concern for the National Party, because we worked on it and we’re quite happy with it, and we support the bill. But one of the things that I’d like to remind this Government—this Labour Government fails to actually understand that every decision that they make has a major impact, perhaps on another industry as well. Earlier, I talked about a decision that the Government made in terms of foreign homeowners, preventing foreigners from buying a home. In this country, we have a shortage of 1,000 doctors. We can’t entice foreign doctors to come to this country because they are not allowed to buy homes. Somebody across the Chamber, over there, said that if they become residents, they can. Well, if they can’t work here and actually become residents, then they can’t. You know, they have to actually work here, and they can’t work here because they don’t want to work here when they can’t even buy a house.

This bill is technical. It’s a small amendment, and it actually makes a huge impact on the industry. I totally and utterly support this bill, but I give one warning to the members opposite: decimating Taranaki and decimating the oil and gas exploration industry is killing New Zealand families. It is actually provincial New Zealand. I mean, they say they care about the regions. They say they care about the regions, and Taranaki is one big region that earns a lot of money from oil and gas exploration—one of the richest regions in our country—and that Government, that party, destroyed it. I say go for it. You are making this country worse for the decisions you make—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker, but that Government.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. The last member talked about people wanting to move to New Zealand. I know exactly why so many people want to move to New Zealand to work. We’ve got record low unemployment. We’ve got a Prime Minister who’s a bastion of positivity on the world stage in the age of Trump and Brexit. This beautiful country, which has got this great direction, that’s embracing the future and embracing innovation—no wonder so many people want to come to New Zealand, despite the relentless negativity of the National Party and that last member.

I’m proud to be part of a Government which has had the courage, the integrity of its convictions, the ability to listen to the clear clarion call of science, and the courage to set a leadership direction when it comes to the oil and gas exploration end and the start of the just transitions away from fossil fuels. That’s in contrast to the intellectual dishonesty of the National Party: the party who finally stopped denying the science of climate change but then did everything possible to encourage more mining, more drilling, and more fracking across New Zealand; the party who said that we would have to start to transition away from oil and gas, but the party never had the intellectual honesty to actually say when that would start; the party who continue to prop it up with more subsidies, tax breaks, and other actions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): And back to the third reading, please. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES: So I’m proud to stand here as this Parliament tonight does a tune-up of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (CMA) that closes the loopholes. I raise these points because the last Government didn’t do this, didn’t do a tune up of the CMA to actually improve it, and didn’t close the loopholes that Parliament’s having to spend its time on now.

What we’re doing is two big things: a slight technical amendment and upgrading of the Crown Minerals Act—a bit of a spring clean, if you will. The big thing, though, is closing the loopholes. What we saw was that a change of permit operator needed ministerial consent under the existing regime, but that very same company could have its operations changed, could be bought out, could be sold, a foreign multinational could come in and purchase it, and that needed no ministerial control. It’s important that we close this loophole, because we’re at a time of considerable change in what I believe is a sunset industry—fossil fuels, oil, and gas. It’s a sector that’s seen huge change in New Zealand. Just in the last few years we’ve seen almost minuscule demand for oil block offers. We’ve seen Apache Corporation go, we’ve seen Petrobras go, we’ve seen the oddly named New Zealand Energy Corp—which is not New Zealand - owned—go, we’ve seen Shell go, and we see other operators come in and pick up the scraps left. What we’ve also seen as a trend as the fields are declining is a consolidation of ownership but also smaller companies coming in trying to tweak the last bit of oil out of it.

What we don’t want to see is cowboys operating in the New Zealand oil and gas sector. That’s why it’s important we close this loophole. But I do reiterate the point—it’s deeply disappointing that National, when they had the chance over nine years, didn’t close this loophole. In fact, what they did was throw tens of millions of dollars of tax breaks and subsidies to one of the wealthiest and most profitable industries in the world. They literally passed, under urgency, legislation to criminalise protest activity at sea. They hosted lavish conferences for oil executives. I remember when Phil Heatley spent $240,000 hosting just 10 executives for four days. It is a party that literally called out the navy on Te Whānau-a-Apanui as they tried to exercise their customary rights at sea. That was where National was focused on. What you’ve finally seen, I believe, is a separation of oil and State in New Zealand, which is great.

Now, for the submitters—there were only 11 submitters in the select committee process. It was a privilege to hear from them. Despite the technical amendments and the loopholes, there were some concerns from some submitters, particularly from the NGO and environmental sector, around some of the language in the legislation. I’m deeply proud that the bill has been clarified to assuage those concerns. The way the legislation was originally drafted legitimately could’ve given people the impression that existing permit activities could occur on adjacent land. I think that’s totally contrary to the principles of our Crown minerals regime, totally contrary to the issues of natural justice, that if someone has a permit on one farm, for example, they could apply the existing activities on the neighbouring farm. So what the committee has clarified is that that is not the case, despite the large number of submissions regarding that point. What it simply applies to is geophysical surveys. A point that I was deeply interested in picking up was, well, if we’re going to allow geophysical surveys on adjacent land, will this include seismic surveys, which have proved so controversial in Taranaki and so controversial overseas? These geophysical surveys will not apply in the adjacent land.

The second area it’s important to clarify for the submitters, which the committee dealt with and considered, was the issue of marine and coastal land. What could have been read by the initial drafting of the legislation was a legitimate concern that schedule 4 could be opened up. I remember marching—I was one of, I think, 50,000 people that marched down Queen Street in Auckland to protect our most precious conservation lands, the beautiful forests, the rivers that all Kiwis love, which was opened up for mining. The way the original bill in front of us could have been drafted could have opened up that prospect. What the legislation and the select committee made crystal clear, though, is that with new section 54A in clause 14, schedule 4 is only common marine and coastal area. We’re not opening up, and there’s no risk of opening up, this treasured conservation land; it’s simply only applying to activities at sea.

So we’re closing up some loopholes, we’re making some technical amendments, and there’s a bit of a tune-up. What’s the future? Now, I don’t believe mining is going to be New Zealand’s future. We’ve seen IT skyrocket into one of our top export industries. We’ve seen oil revenues slashed. We’ve seen oil companies leave New Zealand—hardly any interest in the oil blocks that the Government’s offered. What we’re seeing is a country and, I believe, a world that’s turning away from damaging and polluting fossil fuels.

I was heartened to read, just today, that every 25 minutes in New Zealand, a new solar system is installed on a Kiwi’s roof. Every month, a new megawatt of battery storage is added on to the New Zealand grid. Transpower, our national transmission provider, is forecasting 1.5 million Kiwi homes powered by the sun—the free energy. This is, I think, the important thing to put in context, right? All fossil fuels—the coal and the oil and the gas—are simply stored sunlight that fell on earth tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, in the age of the dinosaurs. Why on earth are we going through the middle man with these polluting fossil fuels when we could harness the power of the sun? In fact, one hour of sunlight that hits the world—one hour—would power all of the world’s economy for a year. That’s on a single hour of sunlight.

This is where we should be going, and, in fact, this is where international capital markets are going. This is where the investment community is going. The Bloomberg New Energy outlook says that we’re going to see $9.3 trillion spent on renewable energies in the coming year. We see internationally 100 gigawatts of solar installed last year—that’s 10 times the size of New Zealand, and this is just simply ramping up. I mean, just across my lifetime, the price of solar has dropped 99 percent, and it’s still going to drop by another quarter. So we don’t need to keep drilling for oil and gas or mining coal; the solutions are there.

There’s an old Chinese proverb, in fact, which is: when the wind blows, do you build walls or do you build windmills? This Government has set a clear direction, which is a just transition away from the old-fashioned sunset, polluting economy. We’re setting a new direction, towards the job-rich, the productive, the clean energy economy—a 100 percent renewable future. This is the clear direction, and I’m proud to be part of a Government which is promoting clean energy over polluting fossil fuels.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Happy New Year to you and your fellow presiding officers and, indeed, all members of the House and the countless thousands of New Zealanders, no doubt, tuning in to hear what will be a second-rate speech about my first look on this, the third reading. I’m not particularly familiar with this as a subject matter, and at this stage of the legislative process, I do feel obliged to point out that I will still be more familiar than Mark Patterson clearly was. I think that after his explanation of his impairment, we’re only just waiting to hear him say, “I’m not as think as you drunk I am.”

In any case, moving on to my own speech on the matter, I note that in the spirit of a third reading, I will traverse as best I can the legislative history: the fact that the bill has come to the House, with support across the House, through the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It was subject to a number of recommended changes from that committee at the second reading, and those were thrashed out in some detail at that time. Accordingly, I just wish to pass reasonably quickly over each of those proposals and mark those off against the changes that were duly made in the committee of the whole House and that, indeed, have made their way into this, the third and final reading of the bill.

Before I do so, however, I might just note some of the general comments and aims that have been made about the bill by its sponsor—in effect, the Government, via the Hon Dr Megan Woods—essentially, of course, amending the Crown Minerals Act 1991 “to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime”. “Effectiveness and efficiency” might sound a bit like a tautology, but I suppose we can say the effectiveness is that it works and the efficiency is how well it works. So, with that in mind, we can assess whether it’s done as it is claimed to be doing—and we think, on this side of the House, pretty well—in addressing duplication, gaps, errors, inconsistencies, and so forth. The aim, of course, is to ensure an appropriate permitting regime for the future, and that’s a relief, I suppose, to us all that an inappropriate permitting regime is not being proposed.

Kieran McAnulty: This speech is a waste of time. This is just terrible.

CHRIS PENK: So then, moving forward to the proposed amendments that came out of the select committee, there was an offence regarding change of control—“offence” having a technical term, and not meaning just that which Kieran McAnulty gives every time he opens his mouth. So it’s an offence as defined by the Act. That’s in the new section 41AB, as it will become, which is set out in clause 8. That’s talking about the way that the consent will be obtained for change of control, and, with your indulgence, Madam Assistant Speaker, I’ll take a bit of a closer look at that shortly.

But, maintaining a bit of a tiptoe through the tulips of the proposed amendments out of select committee, I note as well the specific way that late applications for a change of control would be considered. I think it’s helpful to think about not only the way that the Act, as it will be, once amended, should be complied with but also the consequences for non-compliance. If nothing else, that provides clarity in the event of non-compliance but also, I suppose, it sharpens the minds of those who might be careless as to their obligations so that they know that the legislators and the regulators and, indeed, the enforcers of those rules are serious about what it is that they are saying is required.

Next, we will look at the consent to change of control of permit operator, and exactly what that means for the Minister to be taking into account. It’s pretty prescriptive, but that’s in the name of clarity, and so we agree on this side of the House that that is a worthwhile thing.

Then the final one that I’ll note, leaving aside a number of minor and technical amendments, goes to clarification of the way that geophysical surveys would be authorised where adjacent land is concerned, because there is at least some potential for a lack of clarity in that and perhaps a gap that could be exploited if it were not addressed at this stage. So that’s talking about activity that would be authorised to occur on adjacent land, apart from a geophysical survey.

In my remaining time, I’ll just, as promised—or threatened—have a quick look at each of those various amendments that were proposed and that have found their way, more or less, into the final version of the legislation. First, we look at the meaning of “change of control of permit participant or guarantor”. So first, looking at the definition of “change of control”, there are a couple of different ways this can be achieved. One is by a person obtaining power, whether directly or indirectly, to control the exercise of, or to exercise themselves, 50 percent or more of voting rights in that corporate body. “Corporate body” is another little tautology there, but it is pretty good shorthand for any number of different types of entity that might be holding a permit or, indeed, guaranteeing its operation. A “specified person” is set out, and that’s significant because another part of what it might mean to have a change of control is that a person who is exercising voting rights in the corporate body might be involved and act jointly with them—so far, so good.

So what is the change of control itself? Well, that’s really where the power that’s being referred to—having just been defined and talked about as, essentially, a majority control—is made, and what’s needed, very clearly, in the Act is the prior consent of the Minister. So she or he, as the case may be, will be required to give consent—or, rather, not be required to give consent, but required to turn her or his mind to the question of consent—and we’ll come to the criteria that will be considered at that point. But set out very clearly, as I’ve advertised earlier, for the sake of clarity, and, again, no doubt to ensure compliance, are the various consequences that might come about if prior consent isn’t gained. One would be that the permit could be revoked, or, second, that an offence could be conducted under another existing section of the Act if the person knows or ought reasonably to have known—constructive knowledge, in other words—that the change of control would be effected.

So there’s a bit of technical detail around the way that a proposed change of control might be given. We’ll skip past that in the interests of time so that I can talk, really, before finishing up, about the application for a consent of change of control. So that will be made by a person in the way that’s set out there in some detail. Various key players would be a “director”, and the legislators—the drafters, probably; actually, more importantly—have in their wisdom relied on the definition of that term under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, and a couple of other definitions relate to that one as well. Similarly, “stock exchange” is as defined in the Companies Act. So that seems, to me, a good approach—a sensible approach—whereby we’re not reinventing the wheel by stating who these various key players might be.

So the Minister, naturally enough, has the ability to require certain information. It makes sense, really, if you think about the decision that she or he would be making. Then, we look at a number of criteria under new section 41AE—alfa echo—whereby the consents really would be given if financial capability was held, such as that obligations under the permit would likely be met, whether there would be likely compliance with the work programme set out in the permit, and that obligations under the Act and elsewhere would be met as well. So, really, it is establishing that the permit holder would continue to be an appropriate person or entity to be able to carry out those obligations.

Finally, then, what would be the result of non-compliance? Well, I’ve touched on that earlier, and there’s more detail at new section 41AF in terms of the way that the permit could be revoked.

So I think that’s enough from me, or perhaps almost too much, one might say—an embarrassment of riches—but here we are in the new year and we’re all excited, I can tell, even more so now than we were 9½ minutes ago. So it is that I conclude by saying that on this side of the House, we’re very happy to be part of supporting what we think’s a good bit of legislation to tidy, update, clarify, reduce the duplication, and so forth, and we look forward to the bill’s passage very shortly.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia ora. I understand this is a split call. Marja Lubeck, you have five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I would like to speak at this third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. I applaud the previous speaker because I too am not intimately familiar with the material of this third reading subject, but, actually, listening to the previous speaker, I learnt a few more new things, so that is really good.

It is important, though, that I very clearly state my support that I will add to this bill, because it’s important for a Government and for the citizens of a country and for businesses to actually completely understand the rights and regulations that are applicable to them. This Crown Minerals Amendment Bill will provide modern clarity to what is the 1991 Crown Minerals Act to enable continued and effective regulation of the right to prospect for, explore for, and mine Crown minerals.

I’d like to thank Minister Woods for bringing this bill to the House, and I’ll also extend my thanks to the Environment Committee and the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. They have recommended, by majority, that this bill should be passed with amendments, and these amendments have been carefully examined and presented in what the House feels is the most effective and clear way for this last reading. The support of those select committees—the Environment Committee and the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—is very important going forward, especially when it comes to this country’s minerals. It’s very clear that our approach to industry and economic development needs to be carefully balanced along strong environmental standards to ensure that we have sustainable prosperity in New Zealand.

This Government has previously announced an end to permits for offshore drilling and an end to permits as we move towards achieving a greener approach to business. What this bill does is close loopholes that have allowed the transfer of permits in the current Crown Minerals Act. So the closing of those loopholes is another step in that journey towards that greener approach. What this will do is ensure transparency in economic activity that has a very significant effect on our environment.

So, like I said, I wasn’t part of the select committee doing the work on this particular bill and doing the mahi, but I did look at some of the submissions that had come in, and one in particular struck me as really coming to the nub of what this is about. That actual submission stated, “We support these loopholes being closed; it is a great concern to a community when a large company that has demonstrable financial capability sells to a smaller, lesser known entity, particularly one with limited financial resources, further, it is our understanding that a permit for most exploration/mining can only be granted to an entity that has specific proven resources, so the same should apply for the sale of said permit.” That was a submission by Protect Karangahake Inc., and it really highlights the need for these particular amendments.

Now, our Government has committed to a net zero emissions economy, and what these amendments do is they approach that transition period responsibly and they offer a sustainable regulation of Crown minerals going forward. This will ensure New Zealand’s petroleum and minerals industries are sustained responsibly and will maximise the benefits for the people of New Zealand. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is a great pleasure for me to stand here tonight, too, in support of this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill at its third reading. We here in the National Party, as you’ve probably gathered, are supporting this bill, and I thought I’d take the time to note the timetable of the passage of this bill. It was introduced, of course, and then referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on 5 April last year. It was read for the first time on 3 May, and here we are at the third reading—all within 10 months. So I congratulate the select committee on its efficiency in getting this bill through the House in such a speedy way, because if there’s one thing I get great satisfaction from, it is making improvements to legislation that specifically supports mining exploration in New Zealand.

Why wouldn’t we want to support an industry that is so beneficial to this country, employing around 4,000 Kiwis directly in the minerals industry, without the indirect jobs? And these are high-paying jobs. They earn, on average, over $100,000—almost twice the national average wage. Many of these jobs, as we know, will be supporting families and communities and regions that often don’t have the same job opportunities as they do in the cities. In areas such as the West Coast, the Coromandel, and Taranaki, mining plays a major role in underpinning their economies, and so ensuring that this legislative framework that they all work within is fit for purpose and that it adapts as is needed in the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill that we are discussing tonight is, I think, a really important factor. This is particularly relevant to the very special and mighty West Coast, where one study calculated recently that 40 percent of the region’s GDP is derived indirectly and directly from mining—mainly gold and coal. This means that that region can have relatively high household incomes for a very small footprint. There is no other land in this country that earns the same as mining.

I’d just like to explain, if I can, the scale of the mining footprint. On the West Coast, it is 14 square kilometres compared to the region’s 23,000 square kilometres. That’s 0.061 percent—not 1 percent, not 0.5 percent; it is six 100ths of a percent. So in terms of its scale, the mining footprint, for what it returns to this country, is extremely efficient. An Infometrics report last year identified the significant contribution of mining to the New Zealand economy, and I can say that the labour productivity of mining is $543,000 per full-time equivalent—that’s five times the New Zealand average. It’s a very high-value sector for New Zealand workers and their families, and the great part about it is that most of the revenue stays right here in this country. One major gold company here in this country told us that 88 percent of the company’s expenditure remained domestically, in terms of the businesses and the people that it engages.

The other interesting stat that I’d like to quote is that in 2018, the largest goods export from New Zealand to Australia was from gold.

Dan Bidois: Get out of here!

MAUREEN PUGH: Correct. We’ve heard a lot about “just transition”, and I can tell you that when we on the West Coast hear “just transition”, it translates to us as “abolition”. And, with no inhibition nor inquisition, what will result there is a reposition. And with no acquisition of ammunition, we’ll condemn that apparition to decomposition.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She’s a rapper!

MAUREEN PUGH: Ha, ha! If I just had the beats, I’d be good—you could do that, Minister. That would be a nice accompaniment to see us working together in such a close way. I commend the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill to this House.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I spoke at the first reading of this bill, and now it is a pleasure to speak at the third reading of this bill. When I was speaking on the first version of this bill—no rapping here!—I characterised it as a “tidy-up” bill. It was a bill which tidied up the legislation, and the objective of the bill was to make sure that when oil fields and other mineral deposit fields were being tidied up at the end of their lives, it was being done in a responsible manner. In particular, there are firms that specialise in cleaning up the last of an oil field, but there are attendant risks in that activity, so we need to ensure that the firms that are doing it are actually capable of doing the work properly.

There was a loophole in the law that meant that if the shares in a firm changed hands, the Minister didn’t have anything to say about it and didn’t have any control over it. So what this particular piece of legislation does is ensure that if the control of a mining or drilling operation passes from one entity to another, then the Minister has oversight of it and the Minister can ensure that the job is done properly and responsibly, that any clean-up is properly allowed for, and that funds are available for the clean-up. It’s an important part of cleaning up after what is actually a mucky industry—a mucky industry that results in pollution; a mucky industry that results in slag, in oil spills, in leakage; a mucky industry that also results in greenhouse gases.

Now, it can be done—the mining can be done; the oil drilling can be done—in a responsible fashion. It can be done to ensure that there is very little environmental impact of the actual drilling, of the actual mining, and particularly if it is done where there are responsible operators. What cannot be done is getting rid of the climate change issues associated with the oil and gas industry and with mining for fossil fuels.

A large number of the speakers in the House this evening have talked about the changes to the oil and gas industry, and we’ve talked about the words being a “just transition”. I want to just talk a little bit more about what a just transition is. A just transition doesn’t mean carrying on with no change. A just transition doesn’t mean looking for new sources of greenhouse gases. A just transition doesn’t mean embracing every possible drop of oil there is. We actually need to make a start on exiting from the oil and gas industry. This is part of what this bill does. This bill helps in the tidy-up of fields, but let’s go a little bit further.

What I can tell the members of the Opposition is that not one single existing permit for oil exploration has been closed down. Not one single existing exploration programme has been stopped. In fact, exploration has continued in the area that is permitted for exploration, an area of sea that is the size of Te Ika-a-Māui—the size of Te Ika-a-Māui; the size of the North Island. That is the area that is still available for exploration, and this is exactly part of a just transition. There are decades for the existing industries to adapt. There are decades available for people to retrain. There are decades available for the new industries to arise. That is the transition that we are engaged in. It is a just and a fair transition, giving people time—time—to adapt and change, and it is very clearly signalled well in advance. That is what our just transition is about.

People need that time. They have it available to them. The scary thing is that our planet doesn’t have that time.

Hon Member: How many years?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: We’ve been told 12 years—12 years—if we are going to limit the increase in global temperatures to a mere 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial temperature. That’s a serious change. It’s a serious change in global temperatures that underpins many of the weather disasters we’ve seen lately. On that side of the House, they want to hide their heads in the sand and not even engage in starting the just transition. We need to start. That is exactly what this bill is about.

This bill helps us engage in a just transition. It is part of this Government’s serious approach to climate change and to making the steps towards keeping this world liveable for all of us. We are showing leadership on climate change. We are showing leadership, and we are giving people in the oil and gas industry plenty of time. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Do we have a member to take the next call?

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Yes, I am—my apologies. It’s my pleasure to rise and speak for the first time in 2019. It is a pleasure to see so many Ministers in the House this evening and a number of people, including the last speaker, who would like to be a Minister, I suspect. It’s a very warm welcome to you all.

Actually, this evening I was going to speak on what is a very technical bill that has cross-party support across this Parliament, and I’m still going to do that, but I can’t help but respond to some of the comments made by Deborah Russell just prior to me which are not really anything to do with this bill.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Dr Deborah Russell.

LAWRENCE YULE: She talks about—Dr Deborah Russell talks about transition and change. This bill is really around the regulatory processes, around the Crown Minerals Bill as was drafted in 1991. As my colleague Maureen Pugh has said, if you take aside oil and gas for a minute and just talk about minerals such as coal, gold, and the likes, then there are around 4,000 jobs—4,000 jobs—in this industry alone. What this bill and what this change does is to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory regime against the largest risk we pose in that space, and that is about the changes in permitting and the changes in company ownership over time.

Why is this House concerned about that? It’s concerned because there are obligations that go with those consents and those permits and the ministerial approval. We cannot have a situation where a corporate—large or small, international or Kiwi-owned—seeks to use a change in company ownership to somehow get them out of those obligations. I probably liken it to the most recent pretty significant failure, in a regulatory sense, and that was the leaky homes scenario. Effectively, what happened in the leaky homes scenario, everybody—builders went out of business deliberately to take themselves out of those obligations, insurance companies said they weren’t covered, and the agency that allowed a whole lot of those products on the market, the Government agency, said, “It’s not our fault.” And I remember at the time that local government ended up picking up a lot of that up.

In a simple sense, what this bill and this change seeks to do is to make sure that the obligations on those that get the permits, under the conditions they get, are carried through as was intended at the start. That’s really all this bill does. It provides that a person must get prior consent from the Minister before obtaining the power to exercise or control over 50 percent of that shareholding. Fundamentally, through the select committee process and through the submissions we’ve received, it was clear that there needed to be some stick in that equation. If you knowingly do something without ministerial consent, and you know you need ministerial consent under these clauses, then you create an offence—or even if you ought to reasonably know. That was a conversation that was held at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

So there are processes set out for the change of control, and a person is not liable to conviction for an offence that relates to obtaining 50 percent or more power without the Minister’s prior approval while the application is being considered by the Minister, or if the Minister consents to the application. In other words, in the global market we operate in and in the fast-moving part of business, you cannot wait on ministerial approval, often, for changes in shareholding or control or investment decisions. So all you have to do under this clause is notify and start the process, and as long as you’ve started it, then generally you are immune from subsequent claims that you have known, because you’ve advised the Minister up front.

We heard in the select committee—a number of significant entities came and talked about the practicalities involved in changing ownership in the middle of some of these consenting processes. The select committee wisely said that we need to understand those implications. It was universally supported in the select committee, and I think it’s reflected in this legislation.

I also want to talk about what was a little bit more of a controversial issue, and that was the authorisation for a geophysical survey on adjacent land. In other words, if you have a permit and you have authorisation to undertake geophysical surveys on land subject to a permit relating to extraction, a company is allowed to get a permit to do geophysical surveys on adjacent land, but only that. So, in other words, there is a permitting regime for the survey, but a whole new permit would need to be applied on land next door. So, in our view, this is quite a simple piece of legislation. It’s nothing to do with a transition, as Dr Deborah Russell has said. It is simply changing some legislation to provide the people of New Zealand with some certainty for changes in corporate ownership and to make sure that the responsibilities and obligations that have been put in place at the time of those permits being issued are actually carried on with.

Some of the commentary we’ve heard from the other side—Mr Mark Patterson; a little part of his that actually made some sense to me was around his criticism of oil and gas and transition. Some members on the other side have talked about that. I respectfully say to them that that might be all very interesting. We strongly agree on this side with the approach, but it’s nothing as part of this bill.

So in the short time I have left, I just want to say that I congratulate the select committee on the work that was done; as Maureen Pugh has said to me, or said to this House, 10 months to get this through. It’s the first piece of legislation that I’ve observed as a member of Parliament go through the system, and the members of the committee across the board worked well to get the result we have. It’s a relatively simple piece of legislation, but I think this type of approach and the decisions and this third reading show what can be done when you have a sensible piece of legislation that is transitioned over a parliamentary term and that we end up all supporting.

So it was a little bit of a shame for me to hear tonight references to oil and gas and what this side of the House might think about some of those decisions, because they’re nothing to do with this. This is a very specific piece of legislation that we received very specific and detailed advice on from a significant number of players who operate in this industry. It’s not an easy industry to operate in. There is a lot of risk. The consenting is done very thoroughly, which means that there are significant obligations placed on the consent holders, and it’s this Parliament’s role to make sure that those obligations are carried out.

In closing, I just wish to thank members of the select committee for the work that was done, for the fact that it has been finally reflected in this third reading, and that after some 10 months, we have a very sound, sensible set of changes to a piece of legislation that was brought in in 1991, which actually looks after the people of New Zealand and the obligations that are set at the time of consenting. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker, and indeed to all the members of this House, greetings to us all.]

Madam Assistant Speaker, happy New Year, and happy New Year to you all, colleagues in the House tonight. I’m very pleased to take a call on the third and final reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Can I say how proud I am to belong to a coalition Government that has a commitment to reducing to a net zero emissions economy. I see this particular bill very much as part of our commitment as a nation to be leaders; to not just govern. We heard that from the Prime Minister yesterday: we can govern or we can lead.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Megan Woods for bringing this bill in such a quick manner. I want to challenge the former speaker, the honourable member from Tukituki, around this being part of the just transition of this Government, because it very much is. Absolutely, it is around clarifying the statutory provisions within the Crown Minerals Act to give clarity, to ensure that it’s fit for purpose, and it’s actually up to date.

Previous speakers, including the Minister, have traversed the technicalities in the bill. I too want to acknowledge there are some changes in there that give rise to the Minister having oversight when permits may be changed between firms. But I too want to acknowledge the collegial way in which the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee both examined this bill, but also the change that they made to ensure that there is clarification in terms of the timing of when these provisions kick in and when they are going through the process of applying for permits themselves. So I want to acknowledge the work that the select committee did in bringing that change to the House during the committee stage.

The Minister did say, in the third and final reading, that this bill should be seen as a wider look at the Crown Minerals Act that she will be proposing later to ensure that it’s future-proofed going forward—and particularly her acknowledgment of engagement with iwi, which then reminds me of a story I just want to share with the House.

Prior to coming into Parliament, being the CEO of a large iwi group from the East Coast of the North Island, where we actually were asked to meet with a large oil company who came in to Hawke’s Bay, of course, our natural tikanga is to take these high-flying officials for kai. It was actually Statoil; 12 very senior executives flew in from Canada. We took them to a fine Hawke’s Bay restaurant called Vidal. We shouted them and showered them with the beautiful produce of Hawke’s Bay, not to mention the wine, and then we proceeded to have a discussion around their intention to come and explore for oil in the Hawke’s Bay area. Of course, while they were enjoying their fresh lunch and fine wine, we talked about the impact of things going wrong in this industry and the impact it would have in the region of Hawke’s Bay, given the value of both our horticulture and our wine. What we were doing with this particular oil company was to ensure that, yes, this Government wants to move this country to a net zero emissions economy, but it’s also about protecting what we already have.

We heard comments from that side of the House around Taranaki, for example, and the impact that Taranaki has on the local economy in Taranaki, but I was once in a meeting with the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright who actually said that the two coastal areas weren’t of the same geographical make up. And so it is really critical that when we are giving permits in a particular area, we actually do know the lay of the land, and so I am pleased that the Minister of Energy and Resources has the oversight in this bill to ensure not only that those that are receiving the permits but the environmental considerations are part of that decision-making process. That’s what I believe this bill will enable the Minister to do.

So it is important that we have a futureproofed piece of legislation that governs our Crown minerals. I am excited that the Minister is going to look at a wider review of this particular Act and the role that iwi play in it. There are certain iwi that have got Treaty claims around their own minerals within their own catchment and, hopefully, that will be, I guess, explored when the Minister looks further at this Act. But it is a simple piece of legislation that we are debating and passing in this House, and, like former speakers, the way in which the select committee but also the pace in which the Minister has brought it here absolutely shows how committed this side of the House is to moving us into an economy that is more sustainable—regionally, economically, socially, environmentally—for this nation. It is a piece of legislation I’m very proud to support, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Crimes Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments in my name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Social Workers Registration Act 2003

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I hesitated just for a moment because I was hoping that the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, would take the first call to explain in detail the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she has delivered to this House, SOP 187. It’s a fairly significant SOP, and so I know that this side of the House has a lot of questions about it. As I said, I was hesitating because I hoped the Minister might’ve, you know, kind of taken the charge to take us through it in detail.

So I’ll start from where we are. For those that’ve just tuned in, this is the committee of the whole House stage of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I want to make sure it’s very clear from the outset of my comments: this was a piece of legislation that was introduced when National was in Government, by the Hon Anne Tolley. She did a wonderful job in introducing the legislation to the House, so I want to start by putting my acknowledgments in front of the House.

I also want to note, at this point, that in the first reading, in August 2017, it was a piece of legislation that was unanimously supported by the House, and that’s not a particularly common occurrence in this House, which, hopefully, provides a bit of a context for some of the discussions and some of the questions that will follow for myself and also my colleagues.

In terms of the select committee process, one of the things that I think is important to note is that the departmental report was produced by officials, and there weren’t actually many recommendations for change, based on the many wide and various submissions that were made. I want to particularly thank the submitters, who, as all submitters do, put a lot of effort in to the comments they made to the select committee. They do that because they anticipate that those views will be taken into consideration seriously by the select committee to ensure that we have a better piece of legislation, and, fundamentally, that is the process of the select committee. So, in this Part 1 debate, I think it’s important just to kind of set a bit of a background of understanding so that those who are listening or watching this debate understand what’s occurred.

So the departmental report has some changes, but actually not anything too significant. One of the challenges was that there were a large number of issues that were raised by submitters, because their commitment was to ensure this was the best possible piece of legislation. Members all around the table—and I want to actually also put on record that the Social Services and Community Committee has a very constructive way of working together, and my belief was that it was also incredibly constructive on this particular piece of legislation.

There was only one issue, but it’s a fairly significant issue, and that was that there was a very short report back required for this piece of legislation. Again, you know, to be fair, some of that was around process of elections after the first reading, change of Government, and I accept that. So submissions were called for in December, and submitters had to provide their submissions by 31 January. The challenge is, and was, that the report back was in April, and that made the ability of the select committee to give its due work and scrutiny on this legislation, with the intention, given that everybody supported it in the first reading, to really listen to those that were using and served by this legislation to ensure that it was the best piece of legislation possible.

The Minister had indicated last night that there would be good opportunity in the committee stage. She expected full and detailed questions, particularly around an SOP, because the SOP and the changes there didn’t have the scrutiny of the select committee. So that’s why colleagues on this side of the Chamber will have a number of questions around that, and we want to ensure that this SOP is given due regard.

There were a number of submitters who raised significant concerns about the workability of the bill. So this debate is not about what the bill will do; it’s about how it will occur. So, yes, we all want mandatory registration for social workers. Yes, we want to ensure that the standards and professionalism of this sector is lifted. Yes, we want to ensure that anyone who works with a social worker is working with someone that has been police-vetted and is registered and that they can be assured of their quality. But where a lot of the discussion occurred in the select committee, and the concerns that were raised by multiple submitters—and I know some of my colleagues are going to use examples and consider individual submitters’ concerns that were raised. What was really unfortunate was that although the select committee was well aware of the concerns, the officials didn’t recommend significant changes, and they didn’t recommend changes to the scope of practice, which was an area that many submitters thought should be included in the legislation.

So the National Party members on the committee, in terms of the minority view—which I thought I would just make sure is on record—“were concerned that, given the restricted timeframe, the committee was unable to address fully submitters’ concerns and, had an extension of time been granted, we would have been able to fully consider submitters’ issues.” So that’s the context for this debate: a shortened report back, a request to extend it, and a request that was denied by Labour members. And so we weren’t able to fully and thoroughly tease out the issues that were raised, and so none of that was included in the select committee’s work.

At the end of the day, that is the job of a member of Parliament, and I have had some feedback from someone today, asking why National was being negative. Well—newsflash—the job of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account and to provide scrutiny of legislation, and when scrutiny of legislation and SOPs of this particular size—how many pages are we up to; 67 pages, and it’s not the first time it’s happened—then, absolutely, we must give it our thorough and diligent work. If we can’t do it in the select committee and we’re forced by the Government to do it on the floor of the House in the committee of the whole House, then that’s absolutely what we will do.

One of the issues, and this is just around Part 1, and I’ll come to it in the next debate, which will be a separate debate that will be on Part 1A—that’s a completely new part; so the focus of this is really just Part 1, and this Part 1 goes into the purpose and the interpretation of the Act, which, as I said, nobody disagrees with why this piece of legislation is important or that it must be passed. But there are some challenges around the process that’s been undertaken so far and the ability to incorporate some of the changes that submitters had said would improve the legislation. So, you know, our commitment in this committee of the whole House is to ensure that we do end up with a bill that we believe will deliver to the concerns of those submitters. So, in terms of asking questions about the changes in, for example, section 4 in clause 5 in Part 1, in the interpretation section around “scope of practice”, and, again, in new clause 5A, there’s further definitional issues there regarding the recognition of the New Zealand qualification.

So one of the primary questions that I do want the Minister for Social Development to answer is: given the officials and the departmental report did not recommend any changes and any incorporation of the scope of practice, what changed?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next speaker, can I just say to the member who’s resumed her seat that there is not a separate Part 1A. Supplementary Order Paper 187 inserts a new Part 1A into Part 1, so we have the debate on Part 1, the debate on Part 2, the debate on the Schedules, and then the debate on clauses 1 and 2. So Part 1A is not a separate part.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was going to stop to allow a few speeches before I got to my feet, but I thought, actually, I will respond to the Hon Louise Upston, just to provide the context that she’s asked for with regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 that is being introduced into Part 1 here today. Can I just say, before I go into the SOP—just to give it a little bit of context even further back—we need to keep in mind here that the original social workers registration legislation was introduced in 2003. At that time, it was a voluntary system, but with the intention that we would transition to a mandatory system. The intention, however, was not to wait 16 years. So this is a long time overdue and so, can I say, there is a sense of urgency with regards to the overall time frame, and I think it is, as I’ve said, way overdue and it is time that we moved on this.

To put it into context again, there was a member’s bill introduced to the House in 2015 by myself that didn’t have the support of the Government at the time, but then there was an inquiry that was instigated by the Government through the Social Services Committee in 2016. However, we still only got to the point where a bill was introduced to this House the day before the House rose prior to the election. So it has been a very slow process, I have to say.

Now, with respect to the SOP and the concerns that have been raised about whether or not we have a mandate or whether or not we’ve gone through correct process, it’s really important to note that something like 70 percent of the submitters asked that there be provisions in the legislation for scopes of practice. Seventy percent of the submissions that came through indicated that they wanted there to be provisions for scopes of practice.

Hon Louise Upston: So why didn’t the officials recommend it?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The question that’s coming from the member to my left, the Hon Louise Upston, is why the officials did not include it. The officials were really clear that they felt that the purpose of the bill that was introduced by the previous Government was much more narrow in that it was focused on protecting the title as opposed to the role that was being undertaken by a social worker. So, as a Government, and as a Minister, we had to make the decision whether we would extend out beyond what the original intent of the bill was. So that is the decision that I’ve made as the Minister, that, actually, I thought, yes, we should, because what I didn’t want was for us to end up waiting another 16 years before we consider the next part of this, which is exploring scopes of practice.

To be fair, I have to say I was nervous about the idea of trying to formulate scopes of practice in such a condensed period of time, but we managed to negotiate that position so that the SOP allows for the creation of those scopes of practice, but they are not included in the legislation. We haven’t rushed ahead with the creation of those, and so I think that it is actually a very well-thought-through process. I have to say that with regards to the SOP, the Ministry of Social Development has been working closely with social workers through the Social Work Alliance, which is a cross-sector representation body of social workers. It includes the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, it included the Social Workers Registration Board, it includes Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, and it includes—the member Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki read them all out last night, and now I can’t remember all of the organisations. But it basically includes all of the representative bodies and people that have a vested interest in ensuring that the profession is protected and those that they’re there to serve are protected. So this has been well-thought-through and hasn’t just been developed by the Ministry of Social Development. It has been done working closely with the Social Work Alliance and with social workers. We did that to ensure that we were reflecting the needs and best interests of the social worker sector and, as I said, the people that they work for.

Just to run through what the changes are, the following changes have been made to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill through this SOP, and here we go. The provisions that have been inserted for scopes of practice for social workers will be based on a longstanding approach in the health sector where each profession defines what its practitioners’ qualifications and skills are, including specialisations as needed. They provide a clear statement of what can be expected of a social worker, as well as a basis for professional accountability.

It also includes a new offence, which has been created to enforce existing confidentiality obligations about client information. I don’t think anyone would argue that that isn’t the right thing to do. Employers will be required to report concerns about a social worker’s competence to the board if the employee resigns or is dismissed for reasons relating to their competence.

A new power has been created that requires people to supply information needed to prove that someone is claiming to be, or is practising as, a social worker without being registered. It has been clarified that the Minister is able to issue a direction under section 103 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 concerning registration policy, but not relating to the registration of individual social workers, by inserting the word “individual” before “social workers” in section 102 of the Social Workers Registration Act 2003.

The requirement that non-practising social workers can be required to cancel their registration has been removed. The board is now mandated to recognise ways of undertaking professional development as a required function. The SOP also included a number of other administrative changes and improvements around the operation of the Social Workers Registration Act and to align it more closely to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

So I think we’ve been really clear, and I know that there are concerns from the Opposition about process, but, as I said, we’re looking at a process that’s gone back 16 years here, and we don’t want to wait another 16 years to amend the bill to actually put in there a provision around scopes of practice—it’s unnecessary. We know that this is what the sector overwhelmingly desires to happen here. We know that it’s not just in their best interests but it’s in the best interests of the people that they’re there to serve.

We know that the submissions reflect the need for this to happen, and those submissions, obviously, were given directly to the Social Services and Community Committee. So what I will say is that I would hope that we can get agreement in the committee today, because this has been one of those issues where we’ve had cross-Parliament support for this. We know why it’s important. Yes, there’s a minor change in that we have extended beyond what the original intent of the bill was, but I don’t think that that’s unreasonable, actually. We’re here to make changes that benefit New Zealanders, and, as I said, why would we wait any longer when we don’t need to?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an honour to speak in this stage. I want to take up the words that were spoken in the second reading of the bill last night by the Minister for Social Development, in which case she indicated that there would be a provision to allow for a robust process of debate in committee stage, also too confirmed by the other members of the Social Services and Community Committee as well; that’s what the committee stage is for. So I hope that because we didn’t have that during select committee, we will be able to have this during this process here.

The Minister talks about the 16 years. I too was the chairperson of the Social Services Committee in 2016 that commissioned the inquiry on behalf of the Government to look into managing registration around social workers, and also some of the other issues that were there as well. The Minister talks about 16 years and the process that it’s taken. We all agree; we’re here at this point in time. The issue of concern, though, that we raised last night also is around process, and I want to read from, for instance, one of the 70 percent of those submitters who also asked whether there would be a scope of practice included. This is from the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA), and it states this: “It is the view of the PSA that the lack of a scope of practice will contradict and actively work against the stated intentions of the bill in the following ways:”, and it begins to list what those ways are. Minister, you’ve talked about the fact that—let’s not wait for 16 years; let’s make sure that we are putting together a bill that will last for another 16 years and beyond. There was enough information here that would’ve allowed us to be able to have that process and have the information so we didn’t have to go through another Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Minister, we made a request to extend that time; that did not happen. I just want to put that on the record. I do not agree with that, but hence we’re here today.

So I’d like to pose a question, because that’s what the committee stage is about: posing some questions to the Minister in this regard. Now that we have, and are looking at having, a scope of practice that is included in the bill through this SOP 187, I want to ask this question: what is the process for someone challenging the scopes of practice? In other words, while we have it here, it will be generic. In other words, it’s stating the intent of the scope of practice, but I want to ask the Minister, then, what’s the process that she has in place so that, number one, what is the process for someone challenging the scopes of practice? Inside the submissions that were made in regards to this bill, there are varying views around what those scopes of practice would be. In fact, in one of the submissions around Aotearoa social workers was in regards to those who practise kaupapa Māori, for instance. They were asking about this, they were saying, “Who will define practices under the scope that deal with, for instance, kaupapa Māori, those who, for instance, are Whānau Ora social workers?”

So I genuinely want to ask the Minister to consider this, and I’m sure she has: what is the process for someone to challenge the scope of the practice? What will it include? We know that there are a range of complexities in regards to social work practice: issues around mental health, issues around different ethnic groups that are there. So what is the challenge to that?

The second question to that, then: who do they challenge to, and what parameters do they have to meet in order to properly challenge the scope? So it’s around a bit more of the process, a bit more around the aspect of how, who, and what is that. And the last part of that is: how is their challenge considered, and who considers it? Will it be the Social Workers Registration Board, as the regulator? Will it be the different associations? Will there be a collective advisory committee that will do that? I think that’s important because that’s the reason why—and, again, I don’t want to harp on too much—we wanted to have an extension of time that would allow for those who are making submissions, those who are the providers, those who are the associations to give them a chance to ask these very questions. We don’t have that, so hence the reasons why, in this committee stage, I’d like to put these questions to the Minister so that she can be able to answer them as well.

The second part of that is, having declined an extension to select committee in regards to this process over nine months, will the Minister then consider what the process is, after the bill has been enacted and has the Royal assent, around the fact of engaging into the wider associations in regards to the regulations of the scopes of practice as well? So there are a series of questions that are there. I’d like to put them to the Minister. It’s also post the bill being passed; then it’s around the operational side of that, in those scopes of practice. I know because these were some of the questions that were being asked by the submitters—I’d like to put them to the Minister, and I hope that she’ll be able to respond to them. Again, this is the committee stage. We want a robust conversation. I look forward to the responses by the Minister to these questions in the committee.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Good evening, tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege to contribute to tonight’s committee of the whole House on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill—anyway, I go on. Last night, I spoke about my experience as a registered social worker; so I think that tonight it’s only appropriate that I go through that process, because it then demonstrates why this makes sense, why the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 makes sense. Registration is only as good as the integrity of the process—only as good as the integrity of the process.

In 2007, I was a youth justice manager. I didn’t have social work on my title—job description—at Child, Youth and Family, but I wanted to be a good example as a leader, to go through the process so that I was able to show a good example to my staff. So, in 2007, I went through the robust process of becoming a registered social worker. What I like about Part 1 is that it actually says what a social worker is. A social worker is referred to here as a practising social worker, in new section 5A, in terms of scopes of practice.

So, in 2007, I received my registration. Five years later, I needed to renew my competency certificate. I’ve gone through managing a whole group of people who were practitioners, who were practice leaders, who were supervising social workers, and who were social workers. So I’ve gone through managing and leading that side, but what had happened was that five years later, in 2012, I needed to renew my competency certificate. So what that meant was that I had to demonstrate that I’d been practising as a social worker for the last five years and had gone through that process. I tried many times with the Social Workers Registration Board to say “I am now no longer practising as a social worker, and can I come off the registration list as a non-practising registered social worker?” That took two years of to-ing and fro-ing from the Social Workers Registration Board. Then, in 2014, I lost the battle. I went through the whole process just so I could get my competency certificate because the Social Workers Registration Board was going to take me to court because I wasn’t complying.

So, in allowing the board to set the scope of practice, actually, it takes—and my process, in terms of the two years it’s taken for me to say “I am a non-practising social worker” to actually having to sit my competency assessment again; a whole lot of people were involved in that process. It took up a lot of the time of the Social Workers Registration Board to come to-ing and fro-ing to me to make sure that I sat my competency certificate. All the managers on top of me said, “You need to do this, this, and that.”

So what this does is it actually takes that away—takes that away. It describes what a social worker is and what you need to do to become a social worker. As stated by the Minister Carmel Sepuloni last night and today, it allows the Social Workers Registration Board to set the scope of practice. That way, when you do say—I say to people that I’m a registered social worker, and some academics just roll their eyes. They just roll their eyes, because I go back to the integrity of the process. People didn’t believe that waiting five years to re-sit your competency was enough for you to say that you are fit and proper to practise.

This Part 1 actually gives the board the power to be able to move with the times, to be able to provide appropriate training, as time goes by, to social workers. And I’ve noticed that we’ve mentioned 16 years, 5 years—I’ve mentioned two years and whatnot. In 100 years’ time, when we’ve all gone and I’ll become compost somewhere, what would be the value of our social work practice? What would that look like in 100 years’ time? Let’s not talk 16 years; let’s talk 100 years because that is really what this is. It’s about setting standards, allowing the Social Workers Registration Board to set the scope of practice because, from my experience, it was two years of wasting people’s time. I think I’ll end it there in terms of my contribution to Part 1. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. [Interruption] I know; it’s a terrible disappointment. I know some good people who could help you work through this.

Can I acknowledge the member who’s just taken her seat, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. Be optimistic about those 100 years. Modern healthcare is incredible, so be optimistic. Secondly, thank you actually for sharing some of your story. I don’t think, from this side, there’s any concern about the “why” of this bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill; it’s more elements of the “how”. My honourable colleague, Louise Upston, had indicated earlier, as I had, and others yesterday, that there are questions around how this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has come about and why the rush. I do take on board that it’s been 16-or-so years but, that said, it still does not provide, if you will, an excuse to rush things forward.

I know that the Minister Carmel Sepuloni, when she touched on the SOP, said that 70 percent of 74 submitters spoke around scopes of practice, which is great. I’ve had the good fortune, even though I didn’t sit on the Social Services and Community Committee, to read through them. That’s still 70 percent, I would argue, that needs to be interrogated, in the best sense of the word, through select committee. The 30 percent that didn’t speak to scopes of practice or spoke against the concept need to be heard.

We are primarily on Part 1, and I know within that there’s a Part 1A. I’m going to, at this point, keep my discussion to the first clauses of Part 1. I suppose, fundamentally, this is about the concept of a scope of practice. Having chaired the Health Committee, scopes of practice are an incredibly important factor in the medical profession and, rightly understood, should be an important part of social workers as well. There are probably some questions—not now but for later—about whether or not we should have actually engaged the existing scopes of practice legislation and brought social workers into that. I suspect that could have been somewhat controversial. The Minister may be able to address that because other—well, the first debate becomes instantly whether social work is part of health. Arguably, I’d say, it is, but I could imagine, had we had a select committee process, that health practitioners—be they doctors, nurses, podiatrists, optometrists and others—may have wanted to have a say. But it probably is the initial question to the Minister of whether she considered having scopes of practice not within a separate bill—as it is at this stage, under the Social Workers Registration Act—but whether or not social work scopes of practice could have been included within the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act as it sits.

In new clause 4 of Part 1, the determining of a scope of practice is to be inserted. It’s one line; it’s a simple line. I think it just needs to be acknowledged once again, though, that this is a major, major step and change; and the member who has just resumed her seat began to indicate why.

In new clause 5—and it’s where I’ll spend, initially, most of my time—we have quite a change from what the select committee itself suggested to what has now appeared in the SOP. Because we have not had an opportunity in select committee to engage, I would welcome understanding this a little bit more. So, first and foremost, we now have two definitions being repealed. I do, I think, understand why “registered social worker” has been repealed, but the definition of “particular condition” raises a question for me of why that’s been removed. Is that absolutely necessary? I think some of the discussions we’ve had already tonight, but certainly yesterday, were about exploring the wide variety of activities that a social worker undertakes. Therefore, ipso facto, if they’re doing a wide range of work, there must be a wide range of particular conditions. So I’m curious to understand why that has been removed.

We’re also seeing, in new clause 5(2), actually, a whole array of new interpretations being put in. So the select committee removed the notion of “restricted work”. I assume, but I’m very happy to be corrected, the reason that was taken away is because, through the scopes of practice, it’s going to define what is within work—so, unrestricted—and what is to remain restricted. But, again, it would be interesting to understand from the Minister—again, seeing as we haven’t interrogated it further—why restricted work has now been removed from her SOP changes in Part 1, new clause 5.

We also have now the addition of a prescribed qualification brought in. It’s defined here. It means: “a qualification prescribed by the Board under section 5B”. Now, at one level, it makes perfect sense. The question, Minister, is: is this a qualification-setting ability or mandate or delegation of the board, or is there going to be a reliance on—as with just about every other qualification—the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA)? So it’s a simple question. I’m very happy to be told, at whatever point, that I’ve missed something significant, particularly in new section 5B, set out in new clause 6A in Supplementary Order Paper 187. But the long and short is most qualifications are, if you will, given, prescribed by the likes of the NZQA or a university or a polytech—I’d better use the singular seeing as it sounds like there’s a proposal to merge every polytechnic. But, at the moment, it reads as if a qualification can be prescribed by the board. Now, I assume they’ll be looking towards polytechs, universities, and others to do so, but are we opening up a possibility here that actually the board itself could decide to say “We’ve just created this qualification.” and that will be fine? I think that should be looked into.

We also have in the SOP for Part 1 clause 5 a new interpretation or definition of “scope of practice”, and there are actually a number of issues arising here mainly through the nomenclature. It talks about the social work “profession”. So it says here, “in relation to the social work profession, … 1 or more social work services performed by the social work profession …”. It’s unusual writing. A profession, if you will, does not provide the immediate service; a person does—an individual person. A profession, as a whole, oversees, if you will, the care, but in a lot of our legal texts we talk about a person. In other words, I’m surprised that it doesn’t read “in relation to the social worker or work services performed by a social worker as prescribed by legislation”. Instead, we are talking about a profession, and that’s slightly unusual. Again, it’s not necessarily wrong but a scope of practice is, if you will, Minister, put forward by a profession, but it is manifested and enacted by a person, and surely we are aiming at actually describing what a person does, in this case.

We then move on to the question of a difference between the word “performed” and “provided”. So, again, this is in Part 1 clause 5(2), where it talks about social work services being “performed”. It’s not to make light of it; performances aren’t something theatrical here. “Performed” implies it’s done around a person whereas “provided” is something which is given. And I’m very happy to be corrected by those who are far more expert than I or who are social workers, but, by and large, I would understand social work to be something that is “provided” to people. It’s something where a provider—a single person, an entity rather than a profession—is giving something, if you will, rather than “performing”, which is, I would like to stress, something which is done around a person. I suppose you could make an argument that it’s a wraparound service, but, primarily, we’re talking about the provision of a service.

So I suppose I would ask the Minister to explain “scope of practice” or the definition thereof, but I’d be suggesting to her and perhaps to the committee of the whole House tonight, that really we should be saying in relation to social workers it means “one or more social work providers who are providing the social workers that are”—actually, I can’t do it on the fly but I think you get the sense, Minister, of where I’m going; that, really, we do need to look to change the word “profession” to indicate that this is not about the whole profession and then divide down to individuals, but we start with individuals who then form a profession. I think it keeps their individuality respected, but also to talk about the work services as something that is provided, if you will—“gifted”. It’s not really the legal language but it’s gifted to the person rather than performed around them.

I’m probably going to run out of time but I will just indicate that I’d like to take some further calls around what a “social work service” means. I think “service” is well in keeping with something which is provided, but I’m a little concerned, Minister, that, actually, it’s not quite broad enough. I’ve had the good fortune of working alongside a number of social workers over the years and I just can’t help but feel that the wording here is just a little bit limiting. I’m always worried, in this House, about ill-considered consequences. One of the last things I’d like to see after 16 years is that we actually limit what’s happening, but I’ll come back to that in my final calls.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I look forward to contributing to this debate as part of one of the more enlightened parts of the O’Connor clan, which happens as you go further south. Saying that, I do acknowledge that, today, we were very fortunate at select committee, at the quite professional select committee, the Social Services and Community Committee, who behaved quite professionally today, I might say. I commend the members opposite who are members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their behaviour today. Other committees could learn from them.

However, I would like to point out, as we go to Part 1 of the Act, one of the important things here is that section 3(c) is going to be removed, as set out in clause 4 of the bill. One of the actions of the board has been to promote the benefits of registration of social workers, and now that is, obviously, going to be repealed because registration will now become mandatory. I think that’s quite an important clause in that because now we actually focus on what this bill is about. Part 1 is very much about summing up that if you want to call yourself a social worker, you have to be a social worker. Certainly in Part 1 it makes it quite clear.

And, of course, we’ve already heard much discussion about scope of practice. Well, scope of practice—there’s not really much point having a profession if anybody can go and do it, and that’s really what it comes down to. People come to this House from various paths: they come as lawyers, they come as accountants, and they come from a variety of professions, a variety of occupations. In their preliminary speeches here, they’ll stand up and announce and relate what their journey to this House was, and almost invariably they’ll talk about what they did, what their speciality was, and it has become quite clear. What this bill does is put social work really into that category, because up until now, really, there was no sanction for anyone calling themselves a social worker, and as I look, going back to Part 1 of this bill, it really does talk about this, especially new Part 1A with the scope of practice.

Now, “scope of practice”: if we don’t define what it is that a social worker does, then really we could have social workers—I wouldn’t go so far as to say they might be handing out the drugs in a hospital; however, if it suited an employer and there was no real restriction on it, it may well be that they could include that in the job description. This bill ensures that when someone does speak of—and I heard my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki speak of that very thing: her social work, as she went through the transitions she was making. So she now has, as a very proud social worker, left the profession to take on this profession, the scope of which, I might say, is very clearly defined. We know—anyone looking in this Chamber does know—who is a member of Parliament and who is not. We know there are a lot of people here who are far more important than us, do a lot more work, and are far more important for the running of this place. However, it doesn’t matter what they do, they will not be able to call themselves a member of Parliament.

So it goes back to Part 1 of this bill. It just really makes sure that we are now focusing on what a social worker does. That’s why the scope of practice becomes incredibly important in what we do, and so I commend the Minister for ensuring that we are now able to focus on this here. I sat through the select committee. This was brought up by most of the submitters, and, in fact, really the debate was around whether there should be a scope of practice or not. And I believe that, while the difficulties certainly of defining the work were apparent, there was a clear understanding, certainly by myself, that we do need a scope of practice because, as I’ve said before, otherwise anybody—in fact, one of the things mentioned was that there’s also about 8,000 people in the last census who called themselves social workers. Very quickly, if we aren’t careful, that might be down to about 2,000 because, while we will define the practice, what we could do is say, “Right, you are no longer a ‘social worker’.”—just simply change the title but expect people to do the same work, which, again, would be against not only the spirit of this bill but also the whole purpose of ensuring social work takes its rightful place as the profession that it deserves to be. So I certainly will be saying that this is something the Minister has clarified well.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I thought I would just take some time to respond to some of the questions that have been asked about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 in particular, and, hopefully, I can provide adequate answers to the questions that have been put to myself and to the committee.

We had questions from the Hon Alfred Ngaro with regards to the process for engaging people in formulating the scopes of practice and issues that may arise with challenging the scopes of practice. I think it’s really important to note that the SOP is proposing a period of time for these to be consulted on before they commence—that’s a two-year period of time. So what we’re doing is putting in legislation that they must be formulated, but we’re doing the responsible thing and having a period of time in which the Social Workers Registration Board will take the lead in working with the sector to actually develop the scopes of practice. In terms of what’s required and how they go about that consultation, that’s laid out in new section 5C, and it stipulates really clearly that the board must consult with persons representing views of social workers, with persons representing views of employers of social workers, and with organisations affected by the scopes of practice. So I think that answers some of what the Hon Alfred Ngaro was asking earlier. I think it’s really important to state, too, that the process is not set out in the SOP, because it will be operational and implemented after the bill is passed. So we made that really clear—I thought I made it really clear earlier, but perhaps I didn’t, so it’s important to just go over that again.

The member Simon O’Connor has asked about why the social workers’ scopes of practice couldn’t be included as part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCA). That was canvassed, particularly between the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and I have to say that the Ministry of Health didn’t think it was appropriate—they didn’t want social workers included. They had a really strong rationale, and MSD agreed, and that was because the vast majority of social workers are not in the health system; they’re operating outside. So that’s why the decision was made not to include it as part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

But the consultation on scopes of practice—it was always designed by the sector and also the ministries involved so that it could work in a similar way, and that similar models had worked for other professions. So that’s how we got to the point where it ended up being deemed best that it was done in this way. So MOH supported amending the Social Workers Registration Act using the HPCA Act as a model. Due to the scope and scale of legislative changes, amending the existing Act was agreed by all to be a more straightforward option than moving social work into the HPCA Act. So I think it’s important to note that I think that was a really good question, actually, because I’m sure there may be others that would have a similar question.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Oh, fantastic, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the committee stage. We have been waiting a long time to debate the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in question, and I know we’re going part by part, so we’ll narrow it to Part 1. As you’ll recall, in previous debates, the Chair didn’t allow us to—quite rightly—go into the SOP, so it’s a really good chance to go into it now. I want to thank Minister Carmel Sepuloni for fronting up and answering the questions around the SOP. I do want to go to something she said earlier on about the fact that we’ve been waiting 16 long years in order to get this change through. Of course, everybody in this Chamber tonight wants to see the professionalism and the standards of social workers improve, but our point on this side is: could the Minister not have given the select committee two or three more weeks to consider SOP 187, because, as we have pointed out, we do have some serious reservations with being dumped on at the last moment.

I do want to get stuck into, in particular, new Part 1A of the bill, which talks about the scopes of practices. I wasn’t on the Social Services and Community Committee at the time, but having read the commentary there were reservations with the scopes of practice. Yes, 70 percent of submitters said they wanted that included, but the report prepared by the select committee outlined the difficulties with defining the scopes of practice. Had we had the time to consider the Minister’s SOP, we would have been able to actually dive down deeper into that to exactly formulate what is a really important bill. We have all been waiting 16 years; I’m sure we could have waited another two or three weeks to get the process right.

So I want to just, again, go back to new Part 1A of the bill around the scopes of practice. I do have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair tonight. I do want to ask the Minister who exactly she’s consulted with, with respect to the scopes of practice. So she says that she’s taken on board some of the written submissions—did she follow those submissions up? Has she spoken to some of those organisations that spoke for and against the scopes of practice? That is something that I think needs to be heard, because as my colleague the honourable Simon O’Connor pointed out—

Simon O’Connor: Not honourable—tell me you’re a prophet!

DAN BIDOIS: —ha, ha!—30 percent of submitters did not want the scopes of practice. So I think it’s fair to ask the Minister in the chair to front up over who she has, in fact, consulted in terms of the groups. Has she been out into the sector to consult widely over the scopes of practice?

The second thing is around the use of the board to define the scopes of practice. If the Minister believes that this board can, in fact, define the scopes of practice for what is a social worker, why not put it in the legislation itself? Why is it that we need a board to define it? If we are setting the standards and we want to make sure that the 2,000 unregistered social workers become registered, why do we not clarify and use the resources from the select committee to, in fact, define what is a social worker and the scope of a social worker in the relevant legislation. Those are kind of the two broad areas that I would like, as the member for Northcote, feedback on from the Minister tonight.

I want to reiterate that this side of the Chamber is very supportive of the overall legislation. We want to see our social workers valued. We want to see the profession professionalised, standardised, so that it encourages far more people into the sector, because we know and we acknowledge the value that these social workers provide into our society. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The more I hear from this debate, the more confused I am from the Minister’s explanation about how we have arrived at this point. When we talk about the 16 years that we’ve been reviewing the Social Workers Registration Act and the processes and the scopes of practice, we as a select committee had to take a recommendation from the Ministry of Social Development that there was insufficient time for the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the scopes of practice. So as a select committee, and I refer to page 16 of the report from the select committee, we recommend no other change as the ministry considers the obligations align with the objective of the bill to protect the public from harm. So in order to extend the scope of the bill, the Minister would not allow the select committee to consider it but has then gone on to unilaterally decide, using the same ministry advice, to then consider Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187, that we’ve got in front of us tonight. So it confuses me that the Minister is accepting advice, conflicting advice, from different ministries about this SOP and the scopes of practice.

I want to turn the committee’s attention, to new Part 1A of Supplementary Order Paper 187, because we are talking about scopes of practice, and I’m left wondering how many of these scopes of practice will eventually end up on the table with the board. Are we going to have subsets of a main set or a main scope of practice? Will there be a specialist, perhaps, scopes of practice for specialist social workers, maybe for senior mental health, maybe youth, and maybe disability? Are we going to have more than one scope of practice, that is referred to in new Part 1A, new section 5A(1), where it does actually refer to the social work profession in one or more scopes of practice. So if we could just have some indication from the Minister about how many of these we may be anticipating.

I also now turn to new subsection (2) in new Part 1A, new section 5A. It says that the “scope of practice and the services described in it may be described as the Board thinks fit”. “May” is a very non-committal word, and I think, in the context in which we’re looking at it here in this bill, that perhaps the word needs to be “must”, that the “scope of practice and the services described in it must be described as the Board thinks fit”. That way, there is no discretion around how it eventually does get described.

While I have this opportunity, I would also like to turn to new section 5C(3). It talks about the proposal for consulting with the sector around the scopes of practice, who the board must give consideration to, and whose views must be represented when they are developing the scopes of practice. I believe that although these are the professional bodies that will be consulted and have input into it, there’s no provision in there for the users of the service to contribute or the public in general to have any contribution back there. I recall my colleague Chris Penk earlier tonight referring to a very old song by Tiny Tim where he’s talked about tiptoeing through the tulips. This one reminds me of an old song by Frank Sinatra, where he says, “I’ll do it my way.” I just wonder if we need to expand this interpretation so that the users of the service, perhaps, have some valuable contribution to make back to the board about the scopes of practice.

Also inside there, there is a reference in new paragraph (4) that the version must be given notice on an internet site. I just ask the Minister to consider whether the words “publicly accessible internet site” should be included in that as not all internet sites are publicly available. I just think that this will give—[Time expired]

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I thought I’d respond given that the member Maureen Pugh raised some similar issues or questions that were raised by the previous member that spoke as well, Dan Bidois.

Just to respond to the question that has been put to me about why we couldn’t take two to three more weeks to, perhaps, develop the scopes of practice, it wouldn’t have taken two to three more weeks to develop the scopes of practice; it would have taken a much more extensive period of time. The reason that this became achievable, in terms of looking at scopes of practice and including some provision in the legislation, is that we realised, not just myself but the sector and the ministry, that we didn’t actually have to develop them; we just needed to put the provision for the development of them in the legislation. So that became the answer, and so that is why we didn’t need to take two to three more weeks. It wouldn’t have been two to three more weeks if we were trying to develop the scopes of practice; it would’ve been much longer. We haven’t put them in the legislation. I just need to remind the member that brought that up. The provision to develop them is in the legislation. So I think that’s really important to note.

It was also asked who I consulted with, with respect to formulating the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we have in front of us. That is the main topic of debate this evening, and so, just to be very clear, the SOP was developed collaboratively by the Ministry of Social Development with the Social Work Alliance. The Social Work Alliance consists of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, Careerforce, the Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand, the district health board professional social worker leaders, Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, the Social Service Providers Aotearoa, Social Workers Registration Board, Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, and the New Zealand Public Service Association. The broad coverage of these groups across the social workers sector really did provide me and the ministry with the confidence to be able to go ahead and do this, and also provided me with the assurance that further public consultation on the SOP was not necessary.

That’s a pretty significant, substantial group that I have just spoken about. I know that the member Dan Bidois raised the issue that, well, if only 70 percent of the submitters said that they wanted scopes of practice, then that means that 30 percent didn’t. Well, actually, they didn’t explicitly state that. None of the 30 percent who aren’t in the 70 percent said they didn’t want scopes of practice. None of the written submissions did. The 70 percent who I speak about, who explicitly stated they wanted scopes of practice included—there’s that group, and then there’s another 30 percent that made submissions who were silent on the whole issue and didn’t bring up scopes of practice at all. So neither did they come to submit that we must do this, and neither did they come and say that this is something we shouldn’t do. So I think, to make it really clear, there wasn’t a huge chunk of submitters—in fact, there were none—that stipulated this is something that we should not do.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for Social Development for her contribution, but, unfortunately, the contributions have actually made it even more confusing because of the inconsistencies in her answers. There’s a couple of specific questions I want to ask, because in her first answers, she talked about the fact that with the original bill as introduced in the first reading, which Labour, in their time in Opposition, supported, the scope of the bill was too narrow. She said that, actually, the bill needed to be extended, the scope of the legislation needed to be extended, and the scopes of practice needed to be included, and that is allowing for the creation of it. Then, she’s also saying, in complete contrast to that, these are minor changes in Supplementary Order Paper 187.

So I do want to get real clarity from the Minister: is this a major change, in that we’re significantly changing the scope of the bill because the objectives required in the first bill were too narrow, or is this just a minor change? If it’s a major change, as you outlined when you first addressed this House in the committee of the whole House stage—sorry, Madam Chair; when the Minister addressed the House in this committee of the whole House. If it is that major, then the absolute overreach of ignoring the Social Services and Community Committee and not allowing the select committee to consider this is outrageous. So the Minister needs to make up her mind: is it a significant change, or is it a minor amendment? So that’s my first question. Again, if it is a major amendment and it’s a major scope to the legislation, there’s been plenty of time, since it was reported back in April, for this to come back to the select committee for consideration of that major scope change to the bill as introduced.

Now, I am going to labour the point, because I think it is incredibly important, and I also want to address a couple of the comments that have been made by Labour Party members of the select committee participating in this debate which, again, complicate the issue and create these inconsistencies. Greg O’Connor said, “Yes, the select committee determined that the scopes of practice were required.” So if they were required and the select committee wanted that, why was that not pushed for in the select committee stage? Why is it that the officials’ advice was accepted that scopes of practice didn’t need to be included? So I’m somewhat confused by your contribution, Mr O’Connor—Mr Greg O’Connor, not Mr Simon O’Connor—because you’ve made the point very clearly that you agreed with the submitters who were saying that the scopes of practice needed to be included.

I also want to reflect on another of our select committee members’ contributions and to say it was very useful to have the practical experience of a social worker brought into the House and of the process involved. I want to say to that point that the Social Workers Registration Board, as the regulator, have been incredibly committed to ensuring that the select committee got it right, and, unfortunately, the select committee didn’t have that opportunity. So in the seven months since the report back, why hasn’t this matter been brought back to the select committee for consideration?

One query I do just want to put—because, in a further contribution, I’ll refer to the regulatory impact statement—is that the regulatory impact statement that is on the Table is the one from 1 May 2017, but the most up-to-date one is 26 July 2018. So I’m not sure if the Minister is deliberately trying to exclude that regulatory impact statement from being considered as part of this debate. I do think that’s critical. I do want the Minister to answer the question. The Minister’s not listening right now, but I do want her to answer the question as to why the regulatory impact statement of July 2018 isn’t the one that’s being considered here today, because that has some critical discussion about the risks of the change, about the risks of the sector misinterpreting the inclusion of the scope of practice. So I do want a couple of answers to that.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was waiting with bated breath just so that you would call. You’ll be happy to know my contribution will not be talking about the scopes of practice, but they are in Part 1 and I will be talking about the definition of practising as a social worker.

I’d like to put this to the Minister: there were a number of submissions in regards to the definition of social work practice. This is, in particular, in addressing the issue for Māori—for tangata whenua—and I want to read from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, where it talks about the definition. In the reflection that you’ve had with the sector to talk about some issues around the scope, have you also considered these submissions, which were significant, along with 70 percent of the others, that talked about the importance of the definition? I want to read from this, the definition that came from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, where they state this on page 4 of their submission: “Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promote social change and development…”

The part that I want to move to, though, is where it talks about “Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge,”. Why that becomes important, Minister—through the Chair—is that last year we talked about the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and not only did we talk about it; we passed that bill with almost the unanimous part of this House. But we recognised the importance of Māori being included in there, and recognising their definition—their opportunity—through the Treaty of Waitangi to be included in that bill.

So has the Minister considered that, especially since the submission that was made by Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association clearly states this: “The workplace may not be the most appropriate determinent of competent social work practice to work with tangata whenua as the determinent(s) may be according to key performance indicators and contractual obligations rather than effective interventions based on rangatiratanga and working collaboratively with tangata whenua families”—whānau—“and young people instead of imposing solutions on [presenting a situation]. The Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association is concerned that the proposed amendments will ultimately: minimise the importance of [working with Māori in New Zealand.]”

Madam Chair, and also to the Minister: has she considered the fact—we put a weight of importance on ensuring that we included the provisions in the Child Poverty Reduction Bill so there’s an exemplar of including the importance of tangata whenua for Māori under the Treaty, a provision that allows for the importance of their roles of responsibility. In this case, with this submission from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, has the Minister considered that also as a potential amendment to the bill?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My apologies. The time has come for me to report this bill, and I do apologise to Denise Lee. I forgot I had to go back at five to 10. I thought there would be time.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill and no progress on the Crimes Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.